diff options
| author | nfenwick <nfenwick@pglaf.org> | 2025-02-06 03:27:50 -0800 |
|---|---|---|
| committer | nfenwick <nfenwick@pglaf.org> | 2025-02-06 03:27:50 -0800 |
| commit | 1cd6af678c71f15967083587cc26c099a80b07e2 (patch) | |
| tree | 4196bbacb6b29ddcfb7e0d71b7267607b59ce9c0 | |
| parent | 9a36737af4ea21a3b95a9209f7914c26099ed788 (diff) | |
| -rw-r--r-- | .gitattributes | 4 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | LICENSE.txt | 11 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | README.md | 2 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | old/52680-0.txt | 7001 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | old/52680-0.zip | bin | 141050 -> 0 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | old/52680-h.zip | bin | 2013821 -> 0 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | old/52680-h/52680-h.htm | 7520 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | old/52680-h/images/cover.jpg | bin | 84240 -> 0 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | old/52680-h/images/frontis.jpg | bin | 82821 -> 0 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | old/52680-h/images/p_02.jpg | bin | 98239 -> 0 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | old/52680-h/images/p_04.jpg | bin | 54569 -> 0 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | old/52680-h/images/p_08.jpg | bin | 50581 -> 0 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | old/52680-h/images/p_127.jpg | bin | 69148 -> 0 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | old/52680-h/images/p_144.jpg | bin | 99895 -> 0 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | old/52680-h/images/p_186.jpg | bin | 81894 -> 0 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | old/52680-h/images/p_242.jpg | bin | 77005 -> 0 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | old/52680-h/images/p_279.jpg | bin | 75848 -> 0 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | old/52680-h/images/p_288.jpg | bin | 85398 -> 0 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | old/52680-h/images/p_36.jpg | bin | 60267 -> 0 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | old/52680-h/images/p_40.jpg | bin | 69033 -> 0 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | old/52680-h/images/p_42.jpg | bin | 56904 -> 0 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | old/52680-h/images/p_44.jpg | bin | 61728 -> 0 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | old/52680-h/images/p_47.jpg | bin | 77634 -> 0 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | old/52680-h/images/p_49.jpg | bin | 94226 -> 0 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | old/52680-h/images/p_51.jpg | bin | 87209 -> 0 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | old/52680-h/images/p_54.jpg | bin | 65194 -> 0 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | old/52680-h/images/p_55.jpg | bin | 95821 -> 0 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | old/52680-h/images/p_62.jpg | bin | 96483 -> 0 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | old/52680-h/images/p_68.jpg | bin | 59821 -> 0 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | old/52680-h/images/p_80.jpg | bin | 101435 -> 0 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | old/52680-h/images/p_86.jpg | bin | 68200 -> 0 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | old/52680-h/images/p_92.jpg | bin | 83714 -> 0 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | old/52680-h/images/p_99.jpg | bin | 66745 -> 0 bytes |
33 files changed, 17 insertions, 14521 deletions
diff --git a/.gitattributes b/.gitattributes new file mode 100644 index 0000000..d7b82bc --- /dev/null +++ b/.gitattributes @@ -0,0 +1,4 @@ +*.txt text eol=lf +*.htm text eol=lf +*.html text eol=lf +*.md text eol=lf diff --git a/LICENSE.txt b/LICENSE.txt new file mode 100644 index 0000000..6312041 --- /dev/null +++ b/LICENSE.txt @@ -0,0 +1,11 @@ +This eBook, including all associated images, markup, improvements, +metadata, and any other content or labor, has been confirmed to be +in the PUBLIC DOMAIN IN THE UNITED STATES. + +Procedures for determining public domain status are described in +the "Copyright How-To" at https://www.gutenberg.org. + +No investigation has been made concerning possible copyrights in +jurisdictions other than the United States. Anyone seeking to utilize +this eBook outside of the United States should confirm copyright +status under the laws that apply to them. diff --git a/README.md b/README.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..e2619c3 --- /dev/null +++ b/README.md @@ -0,0 +1,2 @@ +Project Gutenberg (https://www.gutenberg.org) public repository for +eBook #52680 (https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/52680) diff --git a/old/52680-0.txt b/old/52680-0.txt deleted file mode 100644 index 37d92f8..0000000 --- a/old/52680-0.txt +++ /dev/null @@ -1,7001 +0,0 @@ -The Project Gutenberg eBook, The Caillaux Drama, by John N. (John Nathan) -Raphael - - -This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and most -other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions -whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms of -the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online at -www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States, you'll have -to check the laws of the country where you are located before using this ebook. - - - - -Title: The Caillaux Drama - - -Author: John N. (John Nathan) Raphael - - - -Release Date: July 30, 2016 [eBook #52680] - -Language: English - -Character set encoding: UTF-8 - - -***START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE CAILLAUX DRAMA*** - - -E-text prepared by Clarity, Paul Marshall, and the Online Distributed -Proofreading Team (http://www.pgdp.net) from page images generously made -available by Internet Archive/American Libraries -(https://archive.org/details/americana) - - - -Note: Project Gutenberg also has an HTML version of this - file which includes the original illustrations. - See 52680-h.htm or 52680-h.zip: - (http://www.gutenberg.org/files/52680/52680-h/52680-h.htm) - or - (http://www.gutenberg.org/files/52680/52680-h.zip) - - - Images of the original pages are available through - Internet Archive/American Libraries. See - https://archive.org/details/caillauxdrama00raphiala - - -Transcriber's note: - - Text enclosed by underscores is in italics (_italics_). - - Text enclosed by equal signs was underlined in the - original text (=underlined=). - - A carat character is used to denote superscription. A - single character following the carat is superscripted - (example: M^e). - - Small capitals have been converted to SOLID capitals. - - - - - -THE CAILLAUX DRAMA - - -[Illustration: _Waiting._] - - -THE CAILLAUX DRAMA - -by - -JOHN N. RAPHAEL - - - - - - - -London: Max Goschen Ltd -20 Great Russell Street W.C. -MCMXIV - - - -TO MY MOTHER - - - - -CONTENTS - - CHAP. PAGE - - I THE STORY OF THE DRAMA 1 - II CELL NO. 12 44 - III THE CRIME AND THE PUBLIC 64 - IV MONSIEUR CAILLAUX’S EXAMINATION 87 - V THE CAMPAIGN OF THE “FIGARO” 102 - VI CALMETTE _v._ CAILLAUX 114 - VII THE “TON JO” LETTER 143 - VIII AGADIR 150 - IX L’AFFAIRE ROCHETTE 179 - X “THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH ...” 230 - XI ABOUT FRENCH POLITICS 251 - XII BEFORE THE LAST ACT OF THE DRAMA 267 - INDEX 307 - - - - - ILLUSTRATIONS - - - “WAITING” _Frontispiece_ - - OFFICES OF “LE FIGARO” ON THE EVENING OF THE MURDER 20 - - GASTON CALMETTE IN HIS OFFICE AT THE “FIGARO” 20 - - M. BOUCARD (THE EXAMINING MAGISTRATE) AND THE DOCTORS - LEAVING THE PRIVATE HOSPITAL WHERE M. CALMETTE DIED 26 - - M. VICTOR FABRE, THE PROCUREUR GÉNÉRAL 57 - - THE FUNERAL OF M. CALMETTE 63 - - THE BROTHERS, SONS AND RELATIVES OF M. CALMETTE AT THE - FUNERAL 67 - - MME. CAILLAUX (AND DETECTIVE) ON HER WAY TO THE LAW COURTS - TO BE EXAMINED 71 - - SŒUR LEONIDE 77 - - THE CORRIDOR OUTSIDE THE PISTOLES 81 - - “JEANNE,” THE “SOUBRETTE” OF PISTOLE NO. 12 85 - - THE LORRY WHICH PARIS JOURNALISTS THOUGHT WAS FULL OF - MME. CAILLAUX’S FURNITURE 90 - - LA COUR DES FILLES IN SAINT LAZARE 90 - - MADAME CAILLAUX’S CELL EXACTLY AS IT IS 102 - - MONSIEUR CAILLAUX IN HIS OFFICE AT THE MINISTÈRE DES - FINANCES 108 - - PRESIDENT POINCARÉ GIVES EVIDENCE ON OATH IN THE CAILLAUX - DRAMA BEFORE THE PRESIDENT OF THE APPEAL COURT, WHO - WAITED ON HIM FOR THIS PURPOSE AT THE ELYSÉE 122 - - MONSIEUR CAILLAUX LEAVING THE LAW COURTS 131 - - M. PRIVAT-DESCHANEL WHO WITNESSED THE DESTRUCTION OF - THE LETTERS BY MME. GUEYDAN-CAILLAUX 140 - - M. BARTHOU MOUNTING THE STAIRS OF THE LAW COURTS ON HIS - WAY TO GIVE EVIDENCE IN THE CAILLAUX CASE 149 - - MONSIEUR CAILLAUX’S FRIEND, M. CECCALDI 179 - - THE “TON JO” LETTER FROM THE “FIGARO” 197 - - ROCHETTE IN COURT 241 - - MONSIEUR BARTHOU 300 - - MME. CAILLAUX IN THE DRESS SHE WAS TO WEAR AT THE - ITALIAN EMBASSY ON THE EVENING OF THE MURDER 339 - - M. JOSEPH CAILLAUX 350 - - - - -I - -THE STORY OF THE DRAMA - - -Late on Monday afternoon, March 16, 1914, a rumour fired imaginations, -like a train of gunpowder, all over Paris. In newspaper offices, in -cafés, in clubs, people asked one another whether they had heard the -news and whether the news were true. It seemed incredible. The wife of -the Minister of Finance, said rumour, Madame Joseph Caillaux, one of -the spoiled children of Paris society, had gone to the office of the -_Figaro_, had waited there an hour or more for the managing editor, -Monsieur Gaston Calmette, had been received by him, and had shot him -dead in his own office. Nobody believed the story at first. Nobody -could believe it. The very possibility of such a happening made it -appear impossible. It was known, of course, that for some weeks before -the _Figaro_ had been waging an unsparing campaign against the Minister -of Finance. It was known that Monsieur Caillaux had been and was -infuriated at this campaign, but nobody believed that tragedy had -followed. There was a rush to the _Figaro_ office. Paris is a small -town compared with London, and the _Figaro_ building in the Rue -Drouot is in a more central position in the throbbing news and -sensation-loving heart of Paris than is either Piccadilly or Fleet -Street in London. Within ten minutes of the first news of the tragedy -there was a large crowd gathered in the Rue Drouot, and even those who -could not get into the _Figaro_ building soon received confirmation -that the drama really had occurred. People had seen a large and -luxurious motor-car stationed outside the building. There was nothing -at all unusual in this, for the offices of the _Figaro_ are the resort -in the afternoon of many people with big motor-cars. What was unusual, -and had attracted notice, was the fact that the driver of the car had -worn the tricolour cockade which in Paris is worn only by the drivers -of cars or carriages belonging to the Ministers. Even this evidence was -in no way conclusive, for courtesy permits Ambassadors and Ministers -accredited to the French Government by foreign countries to give their -servants the red white and blue cockade, and it was thought by many -that the car had not belonged to a French Minister at all, but was the -property of an Ambassador. Then the story gained precision. A woman, it -was said, escorted by police, had come out of the _Figaro_ office and -seated herself in the car. The driver, as she entered, had removed his -tricolour cockade and driven round the corner to the police-station. -The doors of the _Figaro_ office were closed and guarded. A few minutes -later all Paris knew the story. In the big grey motor-car in which -she had driven to the Rue Drouot that afternoon, Madame Caillaux had -been taken in custody to the police-station in the Rue du Faubourg -Montmartre. Monsieur Gaston Calmette, the editor of the _Figaro_, -lay dying in his office. His friend, Doctor Reymond, who was with -him, gave little hope that his life could be saved, and those of the -members of the staff of the paper who could be approached could only -murmur confirmation of the same sad news. Later in the evening Monsieur -Calmette was taken out to Neuilly to the private hospital of another -friend, Professor Hartmann. He died there just before midnight. -Madame Caillaux had arrived in her motor-car at No. 26 Rue Drouot at -about five o’clock, and had asked for Monsieur Calmette. She was told -that Monsieur Calmette was out, but that he would certainly arrive -before long. “Then I will wait,” she said. - -[Illustration: _Agence Nouvelle—Photo, Paris_ -OFFICES OF _LE FIGARO_ ON THE EVENING OF THE MURDER] - -[Illustration: _Agence Nouvelle—Photo, Paris_ -GASTON CALMETTE IN HIS OFFICE AT THE _FIGARO_] - -The customs of a Paris newspaper differ considerably from those of -newspapers in London. They are, if I may put it so, more social. In a -London newspaper office nearly all the business of the day with the -outside world is transacted by express letter, by telegram, or over the -telephone. The editor and his collaborators see fewer members of the -public in a week in the offices of a London newspaper than the editor -and collaborators of a Paris newspaper of the same importance see in an -afternoon. The difference in the hours of newspaper work in Paris and -in London, the difference in the characteristics of Frenchmen and of -Englishmen have a great deal to do with this difference in newspaper -methods. To begin with, the London newspaper goes to press much earlier -than does the newspaper in Paris, for Paris papers have fewer and later -trains to catch, and “copy” is therefore finished much later in Paris. -The principal London editors are invariably in their offices at latest -at noon every day, and prefer to see their visitors between the hours -of twelve and four o’clock. In Paris practically every newspaper editor -receives between five and seven in the evening, and it is very rare -to find heads of newspaper departments (the business side of course -excepted) in their offices before five P.M. In other words the -business of the day begins at about five o’clock in a Paris newspaper -office, when the business of the evening begins in London and the -business of the day is finished, and the real hard work of the night -staff hardly begins until ten. The hour at which Madame Caillaux called -therefore, to see Monsieur Calmette, was a perfectly normal one. She -was told that he would certainly come in before long, and was asked -for her name. She did not give it, said that she would wait, and was -shown into a waiting-room where curiously enough she sat down directly -beneath a large framed portrait of the King of Greece, who met his -death at the hands of a murderer not very long ago. Madame Caillaux -waited over an hour. We learned, afterwards, that in her muff, during -this long period of waiting, she carried the little revolver which she -had bought that day, and with which she was presently to shoot Monsieur -Calmette to death. She grew impatient at length, made inquiries of -one of the men in uniform whose duty it is to announce visitors, and -learned that Monsieur Calmette, who had just arrived, was now in his -office with his friend Monsieur Paul Bourget, the well-known novelist. -“If Madame will give me her card,” said the man. Madame Caillaux took a -card from her case, slipped it into an envelope which was on the table -by her side, and gave it to the man in uniform, who took it to Monsieur -Calmette’s office. Monsieur Calmette and Monsieur Bourget were on the -point of leaving the _Figaro_ office together for dinner. Monsieur -Calmette showed his friend the visiting card which had just been handed -to him. “Surely you will not see her?” Monsieur Bourget said. “Oh yes,” -said Monsieur Calmette, “she is a woman, and I must receive her.” -Monsieur Bourget left his friend as Madame Caillaux was shown into the -room. A few moments afterwards the crack of a revolver startled everybody -in the building. The interview had been a very short and tragic one. -Madame Caillaux, drawing her revolver from her muff, had emptied all -six chambers of it. Gaston Calmette fell up against a bookcase in the -room. He was mortally wounded. There was a rush from all the other -offices of members of the _Figaro_ staff, the revolver was snatched -from the woman’s hand, a member of the staff who happened to be a -doctor made a hasty examination, and a friend of M. Calmette’s, Dr. -Reymond, was telephoned for immediately. Somebody ran or telephoned for -the police, but for a long time Madame Caillaux remained in a passage -near the room where her victim lay dying. Before the ambulance was -brought on which Monsieur Calmette was carried out into the street he -had time to give his keys and pocket-book to one of his collaborators, -and to say farewell to them. Madame Caillaux had said very little -before she was taken away. When the revolver was snatched from her hand -she had said, “There is no more justice in France.” She had also said: -“There was no other way of putting a stop to it,” alluding, no doubt, to -the campaign in the _Figaro_ against her husband. Then she had given -herself into the hands of the police, and the curtain had fallen on -this first act of the drama. - -[Illustration: _Agence Nouvelle—Photo, Paris_ - -M. BOUCARD (THE EXAMINING MAGISTRATE) AND THE DOCTORS LEAVING -THE PRIVATE HOSPITAL WHERE M. CALMETTE DIED. - -M. Boucard is in front] - -The first feeling in Paris when the crime became generally known -was one of stupefaction. The special editions of the evening papers -appeared while Paris was at dinner, were snatched with wild eagerness -from the hands of the hawkers, and nothing else was talked of all -that evening. Gradually, as details became known, a popular wave of -indignation against the murderess became so fierce that the police, -informed of it, took special measures to preserve order, and numbers -of police with revolvers in the great leather cases which are worn in -emergencies appeared in the streets. As a proof of the hold which the -drama took immediately on the imagination of the public, it may be -mentioned that the theatres were almost empty that evening and that in -each entr’acte the audience rushed out of the theatre altogether to -get further news, or if a few remained, they waited in the auditorium -for news to appear on the screens usually devoted to advertisements, -instead of strolling about the theatre corridors as they usually do. An -immense crowd gathered round the police-station in the Rue du Faubourg -Montmartre, where Madame Caillaux had been taken. The crowd, composed -for the most part of riffraff—for the Rue du Faubourg Montmartre is a -favourite haunt of the very worst kind of criminals—formed a surging -mass in front of the police-station with which the strong force of -police found it difficult to cope. Barely a quarter of an hour after -the police commissioner, Monsieur Carpin, had begun to question Madame -Caillaux, her husband arrived at the police-station in a taxicab. He -was recognized and hooted by the crowd, but though his usually ruddy -face was deadly pale he gave no other sign that he had noticed this -hostility. The only man who did not recognize Monsieur Caillaux was the -policeman on duty at the door. He had orders to allow no one to pass, -and barred his passage. “I am the Minister of Finance,” said Monsieur -Caillaux, and pushing past the man, who stood and stared at him, he -added, “You might as well salute me.” Other Ministers and politicians -of note had forced their way into the police-station, and a number of -journalists were among them. Stories of all sorts circulated, one to -the effect that Monsieur and Madame Caillaux had had a stormy scene, -and that the Minister had reproached his wife bitterly for what she had -done; another, which proved to be true later on, that he had telephoned -to the Prime Minister, and resigned his portfolio and his seat in the -Cabinet. Monsieur Carpin, the police commissioner, received some of the -journalists in his office, and gave them a short report of what had -occurred. “I saw Madame Caillaux at once when she came,” he said. “She -was perfectly self-possessed, but complained of feeling cold.” “You are -aware,” she said, “of the campaign which Monsieur Gaston Calmette was -waging against my husband. I went to some one, whose name I prefer not -to mention, for advice how to put a stop to this campaign. He told me -that it could not be stopped. A letter was published. I knew that other -letters were to be published too. This morning I bought a revolver, and -this afternoon I went to the office of the _Figaro_. I had no intention -of killing Monsieur Calmette. This I affirm, and I regret my act -deeply.” I quote this first statement of Madame Caillaux as Monsieur -Carpin repeated it to the journalists in his office on the evening -on which the crime was committed, and as the _Figaro_ and other -newspapers reproduced it word for word next morning. As will be seen -later, these first statements which the prisoner made are of vital -importance. It was now nine o’clock. The journalists were told that -Monsieur Boucard, the examining magistrate, had given orders for Madame -Caillaux to be locked up in St. Lazare prison, and were asked to leave -the police-station. The crowd outside in the streets had in some way -learned that Madame Caillaux was going, and became denser and more -menacing. The officials inside the police-station realized that there -was danger to the safety of their prisoner, and heard the cries from -the mob in the street below against the Minister of Finance. These -were if anything more threatening than those which Madame Caillaux’s -name provoked. All of a sudden a yell rose from below. “He’s getting -out by the back way! Down with the murderer! Death to Caillaux!” The -police-station has two entrances, one, the main one, in the Rue -du Faubourg Montmartre, the other leading through a passage and a -grocer’s shop out into a little side street, the Rue de la Grange -Batelière. There was a wild stampede round to this little -shop, and the first of the crowd to arrive there were in time to see -Monsieur Caillaux and the Minister of Commerce, Monsieur Malvy, jump -into a taxicab at the door. The cab got away amid a storm of shouts -and imprecations. “Death to Caillaux! Murderer! Démission!—Resign! -Resign!” Madame Caillaux, under the escort of two high police -officials, had been smuggled out of the police-station through the -grocery shop and taken away in another cab a few moments before her -husband left, but the crowd had missed her. She was taken directly to -St. Lazare prison, where she has been since, and locked into _pistole_, -or cell No. 12, where Madame Steinheil, Madame Humbert, and other -prisoners of notoriety awaited trial in their day. - -On the morning of Monday, March 16, Madame Caillaux had held a -conference at her house in the Rue Alphonse de Neuville with the -President of the Civil Court, Monsieur Monier. It was to Monsieur -Monier she referred when she told Monsieur Carpin and Monsieur Boucard, -the examining magistrate, that she had been informed by a person, whom -she preferred not to mention, that there was no means of putting a -stop to the _Figaro_ campaign against her husband. A few moments after -Monsieur Monier had left the Rue Alphonse de Neuville Madame Caillaux -was called up on the telephone by Monsieur Pierre de Fouquières of the -Protocol. There was to be a dinner-party, in honour of the President -of the Republic, at the Italian Embassy in Paris that evening, and -Monsieur de Fouquières rang Madame Caillaux up on the telephone to know -at what time exactly she and her husband would arrive at the Embassy. -She told him that they would be there punctually at a quarter-past -eight, and reminded Monsieur de Fouquières, at the same time, that she -was counting on his help to place her guests at an important dinner -which was to be given at the Ministry of Finance on March 23. This -dinner of course never took place. After her conversation with Monsieur -de Fouquières, Madame Caillaux telephoned to her hairdresser, whom she -ordered to call and do her hair at seven o’clock for the dinner at the -Italian Embassy. At eleven o’clock that morning, her manicure called, -and Madame Caillaux then drove to her dentist, Dr. Gaillard, whom, -on leaving, she arranged to see again on the Wednesday at half-past -two. From the dentist’s Madame Caillaux drove to the Ministry of -Finance, to fetch her husband. On her way back in the car with him to -the Rue Alphonse de Neuville, Madame Caillaux told her husband of her -conference with the President of the Civil Tribunal, Monsieur Monier, -that morning, and of his declaration that there was no legal means -to put an end to the campaign in the _Figaro_ against the Minister -of Finance. Monsieur Caillaux is a hot-tempered man. He flew into a -violent rage, and declared to his wife “Very well then! If there’s -nothing to be done I’ll go and smash his face.” From my personal -knowledge of Monsieur Joseph Caillaux, from my personal experience of -his attitude when anything annoys him, I consider it quite probable -that his rage would cause him to lose quite sufficient control of -himself to speak in this manner under the circumstances. On one -occasion, not very long ago, Monsieur Caillaux received me in his -office at the Ministry of Finance and spoke of his causes of complaint -against the British Ambassador, Sir Francis Bertie. Although he was -talking to an English journalist about the Ambassador of his king -his language on that occasion was so unmeasured, and his anger was -expressed with such freedom, that in the interview I published after -our conversation I was obliged to suppress many of the things he said. -In fact when he read some of them in the interview which I took to the -Ministry to show him before I had it telephoned to London, Monsieur -Caillaux himself suggested their suppression. Madame Caillaux knew, she -has said afterwards, that her husband’s anger and violence of temper -were such that his threat was by no means a vague one. She has declared -that it was this threat of Monsieur Caillaux’s which gave her the first -idea of taking her husband’s place, and going to inflict personal -chastisement on the editor of the _Figaro_. It is a truism that small -occurrences often have results out of all proportion to their own -importance. That morning Monsieur and Madame Caillaux made a very bad -luncheon. Madame Caillaux, who has been under medical treatment for -some time, ate nothing at all, and the bad luncheon threw her husband -into another rage. He was so angry that they almost quarrelled, and -Madame Caillaux, to pacify him, promised that she would dismiss the -cook there and then, go to a registry office that afternoon, and secure -another cook for the next day. Monsieur Caillaux went back to the -Ministry of Finance immediately after luncheon, and his wife, who had -an engagement for tea at the Hôtel Ritz in the afternoon, rang for her -maid to put her into an afternoon dress. She says that she felt very -ill while she was dressing, and very worried by her husband’s outburst -with regard to the _Figaro_ campaign against him. She felt that she -must do all she could, she has declared, to prevent the publication of -certain letters which she believed, rightly or wrongly, that it was -Monsieur Calmette’s intention to publish in the _Figaro_. At half-past -two that afternoon, before going out, Madame Caillaux was, she has told -the examining magistrate, taken ill in her room and obliged to lie -down, and she described with great vividness a sort of vision which she -declares passed like a picture on the cinematograph before her eyes. “I -knew my husband to be a good swordsman, and a good pistol shot,” she -said. “I saw him killing Monsieur Calmette, I saw his arrest, I saw him -in the Assize Court standing in the dock. All the terrible consequences -of the ghastly drama which I foresaw passed before my eyes, and little -by little I made up my mind to take my husband’s place, and I decided -to go and see Monsieur Calmette that same evening.” - -As I have already explained, Madame Caillaux knew, as every Parisian -knows, that the most likely time to find a newspaper editor in his -office was after five o’clock, and, as we know, she had promised to be -at the Italian Embassy at a quarter-past eight and had telephoned to -her hairdresser to go to her and dress her hair in the Rue Alphonse de -Neuville at seven. It is fairly clear therefore, that when she left -her house at three she had no very definite idea of what she was going -to do. At three o’clock Madame Caillaux left home—the home to which -neither she nor her husband has returned since—and drove in her grey -motor-car to a registry office, where she engaged a new cook for the -next day. She then drove to the sale-rooms of the armourer Monsieur -Gastinne-Renette in the Avenue d’Antin. Even then, she declares, she -had no intention of killing the editor of the _Figaro_, but intended -to ask him to cease his campaign against her husband, to refrain from -publishing letters which she was convinced he intended to publish, and -in the event of his refusal, to “show him of what she was capable” -(these words are a quotation from her statement to the examining -magistrate, Monsieur Boucard), and fire her revolver not to kill, but -to wound him. I wish it to be understood, clearly, that I am quoting -the foregoing from the evidence of Madame Caillaux herself. I do not -wish in any way to comment on this evidence. It is my object merely -to try, to the best of my endeavour, to place before the public the -state of this wretched woman’s mind immediately before the crime which -she committed, and by so doing to allow my readers to form their own -judgment of her motives. Madame Caillaux was well known to Monsieur -Gastinne-Renette, who for that matter knows everybody in Paris society. -She told the armourer that she would be motoring a good deal, by -herself, between Paris and her husband’s constituency of Mamers, during -Monsieur Caillaux’s coming electoral campaign, and that she wanted -a revolver for her own protection. The first weapon which was shown -her did not satisfy her. It was expensive, costing £3 19_s._ 6_d._, -and she hurt her finger, she says, when she pulled the trigger. She -was then shown a Browning which cost only £2 4_s._, and worked more -easily. She went downstairs to the shooting-gallery below Monsieur -Gastinne-Renette’s sale-rooms, and tried her new acquisition, firing -six shots from it. By a tragic coincidence her shots struck the metal -figure in almost exactly the same places as the bullets she fired -afterwards struck her victim. She then put six bullets into the loader, -and she told the examining magistrate that her first intention was to -put only two cartridges in, but that the salesman was watching her and -she thought he might think it strange if she only loaded her revolver -partially. At this point in Madame Caillaux’s examination, Monsieur -Boucard interrupted her. “If you did this,” said the magistrate, “you -must surely have made your mind up to murder Monsieur Calmette?” “Not -at all,” said Madame Caillaux. “The thought in my mind was that if he -refused to stop his campaign I would wound him.” From the armourer’s, -Madame Caillaux drove home again to the Rue Alphonse de Neuville, where -she wrote a note to her husband. In this note, which is now in the -hands of the lawyers, she wrote, “You said that you would smash his -face, and I will not let you sacrifice yourself for me. France and the -Republic need you. I will do it for you.” I have not seen this letter -myself. My quotation from it is taken from the report in the French -papers of March 25 of the examination of Madame Caillaux by Monsieur -Boucard. She gave this letter to her daughter’s English governess Miss -Baxter, telling her that she was to give it to Monsieur Caillaux at -seven o’clock if she had not returned home by then. It seems only fair -to believe that Madame Caillaux at that time, while she foresaw the -likelihood of a stormy interview with the editor of the _Figaro_, did -not intend committing murder. Madame Caillaux’s engagement for tea with -friends was at the Hôtel Ritz, but she did not go there to keep it. She -arrived at the _Figaro_ office exactly at a quarter-past five, and she -waited until a little after six o’clock for Monsieur Calmette to come -in. When she heard that he had arrived, she asked one of the men in -uniform to tell him that a lady whom he knew, but who did not wish to -give her name, wanted to speak to him. “He will only receive you,” said -the man, “if you let him know your name.” Madame Caillaux then, as I -have already said, put her visiting card in an envelope, and sent it -in to Monsieur Calmette. In her evidence to the examining magistrate -Madame Caillaux stated that she heard Monsieur Calmette a few moments -afterwards say aloud, “Let Madame Caillaux come in.” This statement of -the prisoner is flatly contradicted by the man who took her card in to -the editor of the _Figaro_, and by Monsieur Paul Bourget, who was with -Monsieur Calmette when Madame Caillaux’s card was brought to him. It -is contradicted also by a gentleman, who was in the waiting-room with -Madame Caillaux, waiting to see another member of the _Figaro_ staff, -and by a friend who was there with him. Madame Caillaux, however, -declared in her evidence to Monsieur Boucard that she heard Monsieur -Calmette speak her name aloud, and that she was furiously angry -because her identity had been made known. This is Madame Caillaux’s -own account of the crime itself. “The man opened the door to usher me -into Monsieur Calmette’s office, and as I walked to his room from the -visiting-room, I had slipped my revolver, which was in my muff, out of -its case. I held the weapon in my right hand, inside the muff, when -I entered Monsieur Calmette’s private office. He was putting his hat -on an armchair and said to me, ‘Bonjour madame.’ I replied, ‘Bonjour -Monsieur,’ and added, ‘No doubt you can guess the object of my visit.’ -‘Please sit down,’ he said.” Madame Caillaux declares that she lost her -head entirely when she found herself facing her husband’s mortal enemy. -“I did not think of asking him anything,” she said. “I fired, and fired -again. The mouth of my revolver pointed downwards.” This statement is -undoubtedly true, for the first two bullets fired were found in the -bookcase quite near the ground. Madame Caillaux says that she went -on firing without knowing what she did. Two of her bullets inflicted -mortal wounds, and though everything was done that science could do, -her victim died a few hours later. - -Monsieur Caillaux had spent the greater part of the afternoon in the -Chamber of Deputies, and his first news of the crime, which his wife -had committed, reached him at the Ministry of Finance. He had returned -to his office there to sign some necessary papers before returning -home to dress for the dinner at the Italian Embassy, and he did not -therefore receive his wife’s note until much later in the evening, -after the commission of the crime. Monsieur Caillaux, whatever his -faults may be, is a strong man and a plucky one. He turned ashy pale -when he heard what had happened, but said nothing further than to ask -for a cab, and without a moment’s loss of time he went as fast as -the cab could take him to the police-station in the Rue du Faubourg -Montmartre. There he was at once allowed to see his wife. Before -leaving the police-station Monsieur Caillaux telephoned to his chief, -Monsieur Doumergue, the Prime Minister, resigning his position in the -Cabinet as Minister of Finance. He told the Prime Minister then, that -nothing would induce him to reconsider his resignation, and that he -would devote himself exclusively to his wife’s defence, and take no -further part in the political life of the country. The news of the -murder was not definitely known at the Italian Embassy until fairly -late in the evening, although all the guests were surprised at the -absence of Monsieur Caillaux and his wife. Monsieur Poincaré was the -first to be told the news, and left the Embassy immediately, followed -by all the other guests. A little later in the evening, at about ten -o’clock, Monsieur Doumergue summoned his colleagues to a Cabinet -Council which was held at the Ministry for Foreign Affairs. The Council -lasted from ten o’clock till after midnight. Just before the Ministers -separated the news of Monsieur Gaston Calmette’s death reached them -over the telephone wire. The Ministers’ first thought was to save the -political situation. They realized the grave dangers of a Cabinet -crisis at this moment, and dispatched Monsieur Malvy, the Minister of -Commerce, to Monsieur Caillaux to endeavour to induce him to reconsider -his decision to resign. Monsieur Caillaux refused to reconsider it, and -Monsieur Doumergue himself failed, though he tried hard, to get him -to withdraw his resignation and to remain in office. Even then the -colleagues in the Cabinet of Monsieur Caillaux refused to accept his -resignation definitely, and the Council adjourned until the Tuesday -without coming to any definite decision. On Tuesday, realizing the -political impossibility of his retaining his portfolio, even if he -could have been persuaded to retain it, the Government decided that -the Minister for Home Affairs, Monsieur René Renoult, should become -Minister of Finance in Monsieur Caillaux’s stead, that the Minister -of Commerce, Monsieur Malvy, should succeed him at the Home Office, -and that the Under Secretary of State for Home Affairs, Monsieur Raoul -Péret, should take the portfolio of Commerce. These decisions were made -known on the morning following the murder, the morning of Tuesday March -17, and the necessary decrees were signed before luncheon by President -Poincaré, enabling a full Cabinet to meet the Chamber of Deputies that -same afternoon. But that same afternoon a storm burst in the Chamber -with a violence which shook France as she has not been shaken by a -political upheaval for many years. - -In the course of his campaign against Monsieur Caillaux in the -_Figaro_, Monsieur Gaston Calmette had, on several occasions, spoken -of undue interference by members of the Government with the course of -justice in the Rochette affair. I shall endeavour later in this book to -attempt to give my readers some explanation of the broad lines of the -“Affaire Rochette,” though it is so complicated, and the intricacy of -its details such, that very few Parisians, even, understand them, and -even the parliamentary commission which has sat on the case has never -been able to unravel it to the satisfaction and comprehension of the -man in the street. Monsieur Calmette spoke in these articles of his of -a letter written and signed by Monsieur Victor Fabre, the Procureur -Général, or Public Prosecutor, in which Monsieur Fabre was said to have -accused members of the Government of interference with the course of -justice, and to have stated that influence had been brought to bear on -him to postpone the Rochette trial. This story had always been denied -hotly by the parties most interested. At five o’clock in the afternoon -of March 17, the day after the murder of Monsieur Calmette by Madame -Caillaux, Monsieur Delahaye, a member of the Opposition, climbed the -steps of the rostrum and placed this motion before the House: _The -Chamber, deeply moved by the crime which was committed yesterday, and -which apparently was committed in order to prevent divulgations of a -nature likely to cast a slur on a magistrate who was acting by order, -invites the Government either to dismiss this magistrate from his post -or to give him the permission necessary to enable him to take legal -action against those who accuse him_. - -The Chamber had been half empty when Monsieur Delahaye rose. It filled -in a moment with excited members who poured into their seats from the -lobbies. Monsieur Gaston Doumergue, and nearly all the members of the -Cabinet, took their places on the Government bench, and when Monsieur -Delahaye began his speech the House was in that tremor of excitement -which is the invariable prelude to a big sensation. Nobody knew, -however, with one or two exceptions, what the sensation was going to -be, and probably the members of the Government knew least of all. In an -excited speech Monsieur Delahaye referred first of all to an open -letter which had been written by a member of the Chamber, Monsieur -Thalamas, to Madame Caillaux immediately after her arrest. Monsieur -Thalamas, whose letter I subjoin in a footnote,[1] had written as no -decent man had any right to express himself on the commission of the -murder, and those members of the Chamber who remained unblinded by -political prejudice were fully aware of this. After reading the letter, -the reading of which was interrupted constantly, Monsieur Delahaye -declared that Monsieur Calmette had had the much-talked-about letter, -written three years ago, by the Public Prosecutor in his possession, -that he had intended to publish it in the _Figaro_, and that it made -a direct accusation against Monsieur Monis who had been Prime Minister -at the time that it was written and who was now, on March 17, Minister -of Marine. Monsieur Delahaye addressed a question directly to Monsieur -Monis. “Permit me to ask you,” he said, “whether this letter exists -or not, whether you knew it, and whether or not it states that you -gave orders to Judge Bidault de L’Isle, through the Public Prosecutor, -Monsieur Fabre, to order the postponement of the Rochette affair?” -There was a tumult of excitement in the House. The excitement centred -of course round Monsieur Monis, who had risen to reply, but who was -prevented by his friends from speaking. Altercations arose on all -sides, and in the midst of the tumult Monsieur Monis rose in his seat -and made signs that he insisted on being heard. A deadly silence -succeeded the uproar. “The first question you asked me,” said Monsieur -Monis in a loud and clear voice, “is whether I knew of the document to -which you have alluded, or whether I knew what was contained in it. My -answer is No. You asked me whether I gave orders, or caused orders to -be given, for the adjournment of the Rochette trial. My answer to that -question is emphatically No. And I do more than deny these statements: -I call on the President of the Parliamentary Commission of Inquiry into -the Rochette case, to read to the Chamber the evidence given before the -commission by Judge Bidault de L’Isle. That evidence is in complete -conformity with what I have just said.” There was a roar of applause -from the Left, and Monsieur Jaurès, the President of the Parliamentary -Commission of Inquiry into the Rochette case, rose in his seat, and -made this important declaration: “Judge Bidault de L’Isle affirmed on -his honour, as a man and as a magistrate, that he had never received -any order of the kind. But it appears impossible to me that, if it is -in existence, we should not be informed about the existence of this -document. Does it exist, or does it not exist? If it has disappeared -let us be told so.” The declaration of Monsieur Jaurès was responsible -for more uproar in the House, in the middle of which Monsieur Delahaye -was heard to declare that the declaration of Monsieur Fabre had -existed, and that Monsieur Calmette, who had obtained possession of it, -always carried it about with him. Monsieur Delahaye declared further -that he had seen it, that Monsieur Briand, who was Minister of Justice -in the Monis Cabinet, had received it when he became Minister of -Justice, and that the document confirmed the accusation of Ministerial -intervention, which Monsieur Calmette had published in the _Figaro_. -Monsieur Doumergue followed Monsieur Delahaye in the rostrum. The Prime -Minister, who was evidently much affected, declared his horror of these -accusations against members of the Cabinet. “I have read the official -summary of the work of the Commission of Inquiry,” he said, “and it -states that Monsieur Bidault de L’Isle declared that he had been under -no pressure whatever, and that he had adjourned the Rochette trial of -his own free will. Monsieur Delahaye has declared,” said the Prime -Minister, “that the letter he saw was a copy of the original. What is -the value of this copy? The Government is perfectly prepared to favour -a fresh Inquiry, perfectly ready to bring a clear light to bear on -this question, but we want proof. Where is the proof?” And the Prime -Minister sat down amid a yell of applause from his political friends. -Then the bombshell fell. Monsieur Barthou stepped into the rostrum, -declared that the declaration of the Public Prosecutor Monsieur Fabre -was in his possession, and with one of those dramatic gestures of which -Frenchmen have the secret, produced a faded sheet of paper from his -pocket, unfolded it, slapped it on the desk in front of him, and cried -“And here it is!” (“Ce document, le voici!”) “This statement,” he said, -written by Monsieur Victor Fabre, “was handed to Monsieur Briand when -he was Minister of Justice. When I succeeded Monsieur Briand he handed -it over to me. I refused to allow it to become known, but I consider -that the time has come for its production in this house.” And in a -clear voice Monsieur Barthou read the following aloud: - - Le mercredi 2 mars 1911, j’ai été mandé par M. Monis, - Président du Conseil. - - Il voulait me parler de l’affaire Rochette. - - Il me dit que le gouvernement tenait à ce qu’elle ne - vînt pas devant la Cour le 27 avril, date fixée depuis - longtemps; qu’elle pouvait créer des embarras au ministre - des finances, au moment où celui-ci avait déjà les - affaires des liquidations des congrégations religieuses, - celles du Crédit Foncier et autres du même genre. - - Le président du Conseil me donna l’ordre d’obtenir - du président de la Chambre correctionnelle la remise - de cette affaire après les vacances judiciaires - d’août-septembre. - - J’ai protesté avec énergie. J’ai indiqué combien il - m’était pénible de remplir une pareille mission. - - J’ai supplié qu’on laissât l’affaire Rochette suivre son - cours normal. Le président du Conseil maintint ses ordres - et m’invita à aller le revoir pour lui rendre compte. - - J’étais indigné. Je sentais bien que c’était les amis de - Rochette qui avaient monté ce coup invraisemblable. - - Le vendredi 24 mars Monsieur M.B. ... vint au Parquet. - Il me déclara que, cédant aux sollicitations de son ami - le ministre des finances, il allait se porter malade et - demander la remise après les grandes vacances de son ami - Rochette. - - Je lui répondis qu’il avait l’air fort bien portant, mais - qu’il ne m’appartenait pas de discuter les raisons de - santé personnelle invoquées par un avocat, et que je ne - pouvais, le cas échéant, que m’en rapporter à la sagesse - du Président. - - Il écrivit au magistrat. - - Celui-ci, que je n’avais pas vu et que je ne voulais pas - voir, lui répondit par un refus. - - M^e Maurice Bernard s’en montra fort irrité. Il vint récriminer - auprès de moi et me fit comprendre, par des allusions à peine - voilées, qu’il était au courant de tout. - - Que devais-je faire? - - Après un violent combat intérieur, après une véritable - crise dont fut témoin, seul témoin d’ailleurs, mon ami et - substitut Bloch-Laroque, je me suis décidé, contraint par - la violence morale exercée sur moi, à obéir. - - J’ai fait venir Monsieur le président Bidault de L’Isle. - - Je lui ai exposé avec émotion la situation où je me - trouvais. Finalement, M. Bidault de L’Isle consentit, par - affection pour moi, à la remise demandée. - - Le soir même, c’est-à-dire le jeudi 30 mars, je suis allé - chez M. le président du Conseil et lui ai dit ce que - j’avais fait. - - Il a paru fort content. - - Je l’étais beaucoup moins. - - Dans l’antichambre j’avais vu M. du Mesnil, - directeur du _Rappel_, journal favorable à Rochette et - m’outrageant fréquemment. Il venait, sans doute, demander - si je m’étais soumis. - - Jamais je n’ai subi une telle humiliation. - - Ce 31 mars 1911. - V. FABRE. - - - _Annexe._ [This was not read in the Chamber.] - - Le jour même de la réunion, pendant la suspension - d’audience, des conseillers qui siégeaient à côté de M. - Bidault de L’Isle se sont élevés en termes véhéments - contre la forfaiture qu’on venait de lui imposer. - - Pourquoi ne les a-t-on pas entendus à la commission - d’enquête? - - On aurait pu, par exemple, interroger M. Francois-Poncet - qui n’a dissimulé à personne, ni son indignation ni son - dégoût pour les manœuvres inqualifiables imposées par le - président du Conseil au Procureur Général. - -[Illustration: _Agence Nouvelle—Photo, Paris_ -M. VICTOR FABRE, THE PROCUREUR GÉNÉRAL] - -For English readers to realize the full importance of this document -I must explain that the Public Prosecutor or Procureur Général ranks -as a Government official, and holds almost the same position as a -judge holds in England, with the difference that he does not judge but -prosecutes. For influence to be brought to bear on such an official -by members of the Government is much the same thing as though Cabinet -Ministers in England had ordered the Director of Public Prosecutions -and the judge who was to try Mr. Jabez Balfour to adjourn the trial for -six or seven months for political reasons. Supposing such a thing to -have been possible, and Jabez Balfour to have disappeared from England -so that he never came up for trial at all, one can imagine the outcry -which would have been raised. Here in plain English, as plain and -as simple English as I can summon to my help, is the translation of -Monsieur Fabre’s accusing document: - - On Wednesday March 2, 1911, I was summoned by Monsieur - Monis, the Prime Minister. He wished to talk to me about - the Rochette affair. He told me that the Government did - not wish the case to come before the courts on April 27, - which date had been fixed a long time ago. He told me - that it might create trouble for the Minister of Finance - at a moment when he had already on hand the liquidation - of the religious congregations, the Crédit Foncier case, - and others of the same kind. The Prime Minister ordered - me to induce the President of the Correctional Court - (Judge Bidault de L’Isle) to adjourn this affair till the - end of the legal vacation August-September. I protested - with energy. I pointed out how painful it was for me - to carry out such a mission. I begged (the Premier) to - allow the Rochette case to follow its normal course. The - Premier adhered to his order, and told me to see him - again and give him news of my mission. I was deeply hurt - and indignant. I had no doubt that Rochette’s friends - had organized this incredible _coup_. On Friday March - 24 Mr. M. B. ... (Rochette’s lawyer, Maître Maurice - Bernard) came to my office. He stated that, yielding to - the solicitations of his friend the Minister of Finance, - (Monsieur Caillaux) he was going to plead illness and - asked for the adjournment of his friend Rochette’s trial. - I replied to that, that he looked perfectly well, but - that it was no part of my duty to question a plea of - personal ill-health made by a lawyer, and that I should - simply refer the matter to the wisdom of the judge. He - wrote to the judge. Judge Bidault de L’Isle, whom I - had not seen and did not want to see, met his request - with a refusal. Maître Maurice Bernard showed great - irritation at this refusal. He called on me again, - used recriminatory language, and made me understand by - means of thinly veiled allusions that he was perfectly - informed of everything. What could I do? After much - self-communion, after a veritable crisis of mental agony - of which the witness, in fact the only witness, was my - friend and deputy, Bloch-Laroque, I decided that I must - obey the moral pressure which had been brought to bear - on me. I sent for Judge Bidault de L’Isle. I laid before - him, with emotion, the situation in which I had been - placed. Eventually Judge Bidault de L’Isle consented - from affection for me to the adjournment which had been - demanded. That same evening, that is to say, Thursday, - March 30, I went to the Prime Minister and told him what - I had done. He appeared very pleased. I was much less - pleased. In the ante-chamber I had seen Monsieur Du - Mesnil, the managing editor of the _Rappel_, a newspaper - which was favourable to Rochette and was in the habit of - attacking me frequently. He had come, no doubt, to ask - the Prime Minister whether I had allowed myself to be - coerced. I have never undergone such humiliation before. - - _March 31, 1911._ V. FABRE. - - - _Annexe._ - - On the day of the meeting during a suspension the - councillors (that is to say the two judges) who sat - on the bench with Judge Bidault de L’Isle expressed - themselves very vehemently against the pressure which had - been brought to bear on them. Why were they not heard by - the Commission of Inquiry? For instance it would have - been easy to question Monsieur François-Poncet, who had - taken no pains to conceal either his indignation or his - disgust at the unqualifiable manœuvres which the Prime - Minister had forced on the Public Prosecutor. - -[Illustration: -_Agence Nouvelle—Photo, Paris_ -THE FUNERAL OF M. CALMETTE] - -The reading of this statement from the rostrum of the Chamber was -followed within forty-eight hours by the resignation of Monsieur Monis -from the Cabinet, and its immediate result was the resumption of the -work of the Parliamentary Commission of Inquiry which had sat on the -Rochette case. This commission (over which of course Monsieur Jaurès -presided, as he had presided over the others) conducted the inquiry, -as all such inquiries invariably are conducted in France, on political -lines. The sessions of the commission did not pass off without the -resignation of some of its members, the public was inclined to shrug -its shoulders at the leniency of its examination of past Ministers -of the State, and the wording of its verdict when delivered was a -farce, not altogether unworthy of the date on which the Paris morning -papers published it, the first of April. The Parliamentary Commission -could find no stronger words to stigmatize the situation described in -Monsieur Fabre’s statement, which description the inquiry proved to be -true, than “a deplorable abuse of influence.” The phrase has become a -joke in Paris now, and is in popular use on the boulevards. The Chamber -of Deputies, however, before the close of the Parliamentary session, -found other words to express the nation’s displeasure, and after a -session which lasted from two o’clock in the afternoon of April 3 till -two o’clock in the morning of April 4, the Chamber of Deputies -adjourned for the Easter holidays, having voted the following order -of the day: - - The Chamber, - - Takes note of the statements and findings of the - Parliamentary Commission of Inquiry. - - _Disapproves and reprehends the abusive intervention of - financial interests in politics, and of politics in the - administration of justice._ - - Affirms the necessity of a law on parliamentary - incompatibility, - - And with the resolution to assure, more efficaciously, - the separation of political and judicial power, - - Passes to the order of the day. - -[Illustration: _Agence Nouvelle—Photo, Paris_ -THE BROTHERS, SONS AND RELATIVES OF M. CALMETTE AT THE FUNERAL] - -The debate, of which this significant order of the day was the -corollary, was not only an extremely interesting, but a very stormy -one. In the course of it, a member of the Chamber challenged Monsieur -Doumergue, the Prime Minister, to fight him, but the quarrel was -smoothed over. Monsieur Briand, Monsieur Barthou, Monsieur Barrès, -Monsieur Doumergue, and Monsieur Jaurès all took a very active part in -the debate, and when the Chamber finally adjourned till June, in other -words till after the general elections, the general impression was that -the Doumergue Ministry would not return to power. - -With this historic debate ends the first chapter of the Caillaux drama. -The vibrations of a revolver shot in a newspaper office in the Rue -Drouot have eddied and spread till France was set aquiver. The woman -who fired the shot, the wife of the man who an hour before the shot was -fired was the most powerful man in France, knew before she was taken -to her cell in Saint Lazare that the first consequence of her act had -been the headlong downfall of her husband. She must feel now like a -child who has pulled up a little stone and caused an avalanche, and not -only France but Europe and the whole world are wondering what may go to -pieces in the wreckage. - -[1] Copy of open letter sent by Monsieur Thalamas to Madame Caillaux: - -MADAME, - -Je n’ai pas l’honneur de vous connaître, mais je sais par expérience -quelle est l’infamie de la presse immonde envers les sentiments les -plus intimes et les plus sacrés, quelle guerre elle mène contre la -famille, les choses privées les plus respectables, et ceux qui luttent -contre les privilèges des riches et contre les menées cléricales. Vous -en avez tué un. Bravo! Lorsqu’un homme en vient à se mettre ainsi -en dehors de la loi morale, il n’est plus qu’un bandit. Et quand la -Société ne vous fait pas justice, il n’y a plus qu’à se faire justice -soi-même! - -Faites de ma lettre l’usage que vous voudrez. Trouvez-y le cri de la -conscience d’un honnête homme révolté, et d’un journaliste-député -écœuré des procédés de ceux qui déshonorent la presse et le Parlement. - -THALAMAS - -P.S. Ma femme me prie de vous adresser l’expression de sa sympathie. -Elle vient de faire sur votre acte un article pour la _Dépêche de -Versailles_. Elle vous l’enverra demain. - -_Translation_: - -MADAME, - -I have not the honour of your acquaintance, but I know by experience -the infamy of the unclean Press towards the most intimate and most -sacred sentiments, I know the war which it wages against home and -family, against the intimacies of life most worthy of respect, against -those who oppose the privileges of the rich, and the influence of -the priests. You have killed one of them. Well done! When a man puts -himself in this way outside all moral laws he is nothing but an outlaw, -and when society does not do justice to him the only thing to be done -is to take the law into one’s own hands. - -Make whatever use you like of my letter. It is the genuine expression -of the feelings of revolt of an honourable man’s conscience, the -expression of the conscience of a journalist who is a member of the -Chamber, and who is disgusted by the methods of those who dishonour -both Press and Parliament. - -THALAMAS - -P.S. My wife begs me to assure you of her sympathy. She has written an -article on your act for the _Dépêche de Versailles_. She will send it -you to-morrow. - - - - -II - -CELL NO. 12 - - -[Illustration: _Agence Nouvelle—Photo, Paris_ -MME. CAILLAUX (AND DETECTIVE) ON HER WAY TO THE -LAW COURTS TO BE EXAMINED] - -It is a very short drive from the Rue du Faubourg Montmartre to the -prison of Saint Lazare, where Madame Caillaux was taken from the -police-station. She had been taken from the office of the _Figaro_ -to the police-station in her own luxurious car. She drove to Saint -Lazare in one of the horrible red taxicabs which have rattled for too -many years about the streets of Paris, with a member of the police -force in plain clothes seated beside her, another on the uncomfortable -little seat opposite, and a third on the box by the driver. The prison -authorities had been advised by telephone of her arrival at the prison, -and arrangements had been made to put her into _pistole_ No. 12, the -cell in which Louise Michel, Valentine Merelli, Madame Humbert, Madame -Steinheil and many other Parisian celebrities awaited their trials. The -cab drove into the courtyard of the prison and the gates closed behind -it. The police handed their prisoner over, with the usual formalities, -to the prison authorities, she was kept waiting while she was inscribed -on the prison books, she was searched—for no prisoner escapes this -formality—and was told to walk forward to a large open space between -two staircases. The house of correction of Saint Lazare is a very old -building, which dates from the beginning of the twelfth century. It -was a hospital for lepers in 1110, and remained one till 1515, when -the monks of the Order of Saint Victor took it over, and abolished the -lepers’ hospital. In 1632 Saint Vincent de Paul and the priests of the -order became the inmates of Saint Lazare, and in 1779 it became a house -of correction and provisional and permanent detention for men. On July -13, 1789, when famine raged in Paris, the mob broke into Saint Lazare, -and looted the enormous stock of food which the Lazarists were known -to be keeping there. The monks were driven out, the building sacked -and the store houses gutted by fire. The convent of Saint Lazare then -became a State prison in which suspects were kept. It is now a prison -for women. There is room for about twelve hundred prisoners, but at a -pinch the old building would hold 1600. The prisoners are divided into -three categories. The first consists of women who are awaiting trial, -or who have been sentenced to less than a year’s imprisonment. The -second division consists of girls under age who have been sentenced -to confinement in a house of correction till they are twenty-one, the -third division is that of unfortunates whose sentences of imprisonment -are short ones. Saint Lazare prison, though of course under State -control, is in practice ruled by a body of nuns who, while responsible -to the authorities, have really the entire management of the enormous -prison in their hands and hold the real power. It is a huge bleak -wilderness of stone with echoing corridors and haunting silences, and -has been sentenced to demolition for sanitary reasons for many years. -But threatened buildings live long in France when they belong to the -State. A modern prison, such as Fresnes in France or any of the English -prisons, is a pleasure resort compared with Saint Lazare, and there is -less difference between Fresnes and a cheap hydropathic than there is -between the prison of Saint Lazare and the prison of Fresnes. The -silence, the darkness, the cold, damp, and dirt are perhaps the worst -of its discomforts, but I have been told by women who have been -imprisoned there that the mental and physical torture of the months -in which they waited trial surpassed anything that could be imagined. -Within an hour after her arrival Madame Caillaux ceased to wear her -name and became a number—No. 12. The number she received is considered -a favour, for cell No. 12 is the most spacious of all the cells in -Saint Lazare. - -[Illustration: SŒUR LEONIDE -The chief superintendent of the prison nuns -_Specially drawn by M. Albert Morand_] - -In the large open space between the two stairways is a high chair, -almost a throne, on which sits Sister Léonide, the chief superintendent -of the prison nuns. She is a woman of about forty. A handsome woman -with a stern set face. The drawing of her in this volume was done -specially for me by the well-known artist of St. Lazare, Monsieur -Albert Morand. Monsieur Morand is one of the few men who have been -authorized to make drawings of St. Lazare, and his work has the honour -of a special place in the Carnavalet Museum. His drawings which are -reproduced in this volume are probably unique. The nickname which -the prisoners give Sœur Léonide is “Bostock,” after the famous -American lion tamer, who, in his day, was a celebrity in Paris. Her -severity is not more remarkable than is her power of quelling the -first signs of mutiny among the prisoners by a mere glance, and it -was the quick-witted appreciation of this power of the eye which gave -her her name. Sister Léonide made a sign to one of the two women who -stood by her. The woman, a prison attendant who goes by the ironically -prison-given name of a _soubrette_, opened a door and motioned to No. -12 to walk straight on down a half-lighted misty corridor, painted a -muddy brown. This corridor seems endless. It is like a street in a -nightmare. There are doors on either side which seem to leap out of the -half darkness, and at long, long intervals a little flame of gas. It is -only quite recently that there is any incandescent gas in St. Lazare -and what there is, even now, is quite inadequate, merely serving, as -a former prisoner expressed it, “to show us the darkness around.” -The anticipatory mental torture of this first long journey down the -interminable corridor must be terrific to a woman whose life, before -her imprisonment, has run on easy lines. The doors are named and -numbered. Cell No. 8, Cell No. 9, Workshop No. 2, Library, and so -forth. All of them have huge and heavy locks, and bolts and bars. -“Here,” said the _soubrette_. She produced a huge key which she fitted -into the lock of a door on which in big white letters were painted the -words “Pistole No. 12.” She had to use both hands to turn the key. The -door creaked and opened inwards. Cell No. 12 is fairly large. As a rule -there are six little beds in it, and it has held as many as eight beds. -The walls are painted black, from the floor up to three quarters of -the distance to the ceiling. The top quarter is white-washed, but the -whitewash is grey, from age and want of care. They use extraordinarily -little soap and water in the prison of Saint Lazare. The heavy beams -across the ceiling have been decorated for many years by a network of -spiders’ webs, and though there was a rumour in the Paris Press at the -time of her imprisonment that Cell No. 12 had been cleaned for Madame -Caillaux’s reception, I am told that the webs and the spiders are there -still. - -[Illustration: THE CORRIDOR OUTSIDE THE PISTOLES -Madame Caillaux’s cell, No. 12, is the door on the right by the table -_Drawn specially in St. Lazare Prison by M. Albert Morand_] - -There were so many absurd stories in the Paris Press about the comforts -which had been provided in Saint Lazare for Madame Caillaux that an -impression became prevalent that she must be having rather a good -time in prison. I need hardly say that there was very little, if any, -foundation in fact for these stories. Monsieur Morand’s drawing of the -“soubrette” does away with the mind-picture which newspaper readers may -have formed of a smart maid waiting on this favoured prisoner, getting -her bath for her, and bringing her a breakfast tray each morning. -The _soubrette_ of _pistole_ No. 12, who looks after the _pistole_ -next door as well, where there are seven prisoners, and who therefore -can have little time to devote to the prisoner in No. 12, is a woman -called Jeanne (I do not know her surname), who murdered her husband -with a penknife some months ago. She is a quiet, somewhat surly woman, -and good conduct has obtained for her the privilege of acting as -_soubrette_ in two of the _pistoles_, for enforced idleness is one of -the prison’s worst punishments. One of the favourite newspaper stories -which were in circulation soon after Madame Caillaux’s imprisonment was -one which told of the furnishing of the _pistole_ in which she had -been put. Journalists had seen a big motor lorry arrive with her -furniture, we were told, and the cell had been made as comfortable as -a room in her own house. This story gained a semblance of truth from -the reproduction in the papers of the arrival of a big motor lorry at -Saint Lazare. I reproduce this picture here. It looks conclusive, and -convincing at first sight, for the group of journalists who saw the -van drive in can, one might think, surely not have all been mistaken. -However, I took the trouble to make some inquiries while my Paris -colleagues, I fear, jumped to conclusions. I learned that the van -which figures in the picture comes quite regularly to Saint Lazare. -It contains linen in the rough sent by a contracting firm, for whom -the prisoners turn the rough linen into sheets and pillow-cases. The -contractors, the prison authorities, and the prisoners, all find their -advantage in this arrangement—and the van did not contain even a chair -for Madame Caillaux’s cell. - -[Illustration: “JEANNE,” THE _SOUBRETTE_ OF PISTOLE NO. 12 -_Specially drawn by M. Albert Morand_] - -The cell has now two beds in it, one for the prisoner, one for Jeanne -the _soubrette_. A great deal of nonsense has been written in the -newspapers about “the maid” whom Madame Caillaux was allowed in prison. -The simple fact, of course, is that the authorities consider it -necessary that watch should be kept on her, and the “maid,” Jeanne the -prison _soubrette_, is by no means a pleasant companion. The furniture -is very primitive, though better than that of some of the other cells. -There are a mattress on the bed of cast iron, a pillow but no bolster, -two straw-bottomed chairs, a little white deal table, a jug and a -basin which were once enamelled yellow but through which the rusty -metal shows. On the bed is a brown rug with the word “Prison” written -on it. Madame Caillaux has been allowed to cover this rug with an old -quilt which Madame Steinheil brought into the prison. Above the bed -is a shelf on which the prisoner’s linen can be put, behind the bed a -little trap through which the wardresses can peep into the cell at any -moment. The floor of No. 12 is tiled with rough red tiles, much worn, -and broken. There is a stove, but it has never warmed the cell, and in -cold weather the damp and cold are very bitter. No. 12 has three -windows, strongly barred, and in addition to the bars there is wire -netting. This wire netting has its reason. The windows of No. 12 look -out on the courtyard in which, twice a day, the prisoners are allowed -for exercise. This courtyard is quite pleasant in the summer, for -there are several trees in it, but the prisoners have an unpleasant -habit of attracting the attention of the inmates of _pistole_ No. 12 -by throwing stones at the windows, as a sign that chocolate or cakes -would be acceptable. In this courtyard inside the old convent of Saint -Lazare, which has the picturesque charm of great age, some of the most -sensational scenes of the days of the Terror took place, for it was -from that courtyard that the tumbrils left for the guillotine. The -chapel opens into this courtyard too, and Madame Caillaux from the -windows of her cell enjoys a very pretty view when the courtyard is -empty. In the exercise hours the view is less pleasing. There is always -war between the women prisoners of the other classes and those of the -_pistole_ class, and until the new inmate of No. 12 learned how to slip -bits of chocolate, biscuit, or sugar out across the window-sill so that -they fell into the courtyard she dared hardly show herself at the -window. It is a peculiarity that, in the house of silence, everything -of interest is known to all the prisoners immediately. Madame Caillaux -had not been twelve hours in No. 12 before all her fellow prisoners -knew all about the drama which had brought her there, and were curious -to see her. - -[Illustration: _Agence Nouvelle—Photo, Paris_ -THE LORRY WHICH PARIS JOURNALISTS THOUGHT WAS FULL OF -MME. CAILLAUX’S FURNITURE. -Most of the men in the crowd are either journalists or -police in plain clothes] - -[Illustration: LA COUR DES FILLES IN SAINT LAZARE -It is here that Madame Caillaux is allowed to take daily exercise -for three-quarters of an hour. -_Drawn specially in St. Lazare Prison by M. Albert Morand_] - -Curiously little is known by the outside world, though Paris is a -gossip-loving and gossipy city, of the real facts of the life inside -the house of correction of Saint Lazare. I never realized myself until -quite recently the horrors of incarceration there. Chance then threw me -into communication with a woman who had shot another woman dead, had -spent some months in Saint Lazare, had been acquitted by the jury and -is a free woman now. Her crime had been a crime of jealousy. The jury -had refused to punish her more than she had been punished, and she got -a verdict of “not guilty,” though she shot and killed her rival in the -affections of her husband and pleaded guilty to so doing. This woman is -a woman with literary tastes, a woman who is in the habit of observing, -and who has the gift of describing what she sees. She has told me -a great deal about the life in Saint Lazare, but far more eloquent -than anything which she has told me is the present condition of the -woman herself. We talk about “the prison taint” with very little real -knowledge of what it means. Imagine a woman of your own world, a lady -of refinement and of education, who waits to be spoken to before she -opens her lips, who stands aside to let you pass if you open a door, -who, if you beg her to take precedence, walks before you with bowed -head and folded hands as though you were her gaoler. Her voice is -always subdued, she never contradicts, she gives her opinion only when -asked for it, and even then it is an opinion without emphasis. She has -forgotten how to hurry. She has forgotten how to lie in bed late in the -mornings. She never gives an order. When she wants something from a -servant her tone and manner in asking for it are those of supplication. -She is resigned—terribly resigned. Her whole attitude is one of -resignation so pitiful that, unattractive woman though she is, a man’s -heart fairly bleeds for her, and one feels a longing to try and comfort -and console her as one would console a child who has been beaten. -Morally and mentally the prisoner in Saint Lazare is being beaten all -the time that she is in prison. There is no physical punishment, there -is no active cruelty, there is only the terrible deadweight of the -prison system; but this is quite enough to unsettle and to dull the -most active brain. There is no doubt that the active brains suffer -the most. The whole atmosphere of the place, as this woman told me, -is the atmosphere of a convent from which all love and sympathy are -banished. Imagine, if you can, a hospital in which, while everything -is done to ease the physical distress of the patients, their moral -distress is ignored. Imagine a hospital in which the nurses are stern -and unsmiling, in which complaint of mental distress is met with -silence, in which no unnecessary word is ever spoken, in which no woman -ever puts her cool hand on another woman’s forehead because she has a -headache, or kisses her because she is unhappy. Imagine long dreary -days with no brightness in them. Imagine the horrid rattle of big keys -in heavy locks. Form your own mind-picture of Cell No. 12, with its -broken red-tiled floor, its bare black walls topped with dirty grey -whitewash, its furniture of a straw-bottomed chair, a plain white -deal table, a battered metal basin and water jug, its windows with -their bars and wire netting, the cruel silence and soul-deadening -simplicity. No flowers, no ribbons, no armchair, no cushions, very -little light after sundown, none of the thousand and one trifles which -brighten the poorest room of the poorest woman. No conversation, no -letters which have not been read first by strangers, visits hedged -in with the severest of formality, no name, a number—in a word no -life, merely existence, and existence without the sympathy which makes -existence lovable. This is the mind-picture I have formed, and this -is a true picture of Madame Caillaux’s daily life in _pistole_ No. -12. Her principal distraction is her occasional drive with two plain -clothes policemen to the Palace of Justice, and her examination there -by the magistrate. And yesterday this woman was fêted and cherished by -society, had a large circle of friends, was busy every moment of the -day. Now she has nothing to do but to think. She may write, she may -read, but she may only exist. Her existence has become a backwater -without a ripple in it, a dark cul-de-sac into which no sunshine -penetrates. Is it surprising that the constant presence of a -_soubrette_ of the prison should be considered necessary? A man smashed -a water-bottle and cut his throat in Paris the other day to avoid six -months imprisonment. He had been in prison before, awaiting trial, and -he knew what it meant. And he was a rough man with no refined tastes, -and no need of refinement. In Italy the other day a brigand went mad -after solitary confinement. The prisoner in Saint Lazare is not even -allowed to go mad. A great deal of nonsense has appeared in the English -newspapers about Madame Caillaux’s life in Saint Lazare. Paris papers -have printed stories (the authorities have always contradicted them) -drawing a picture of a comfortable room with carpet on the floor and -curtains to the windows. The woman who described to me the real life in -Saint Lazare assures me that the “carpet” is merely a strip of rug to -keep the tiled floor, with the dangers of the broken tiles, from the -prisoner’s bare feet when she steps out of bed, and that it is a -physical impossibility that any curtains should be hung. Madame -Steinheil was allowed to hang sheets in front of the windows. Perhaps -Madame Caillaux has obtained this permission too. The prisoner is -allowed to get her food from outside, but this food is of the plainest -and simplest. She is allowed to receive visits, but the visits are rare -ones, and she is never alone with her visitor. She may write, but what -she writes is always read. She may receive letters but she knows that -all her letters pass through other hands and are subject to careful -scrutiny before she gets them. She has no privacy at all and knows -that she is always under watch and that even when she is alone in her -cell there is an eye at the little trapdoor which peeps into it over -her bed. The prisoner in the _pistole_ has not even the consolation of -company during exercise hours, and she must sometimes envy the women -whom she can see from her windows. She can talk to the nuns, but they -answer as little as possible. She lives out her life in a whisper. The -_soubrette_ is a prisoner. She talks a little sometimes—prison talk. -She brings the _pistolière_ her cup of soup at seven in the morning, -and tells her all the prison news, but she is not allowed to remain -long, for she has other work to do and it is the hour of the canteen. -If the _pistolière_ wants coffee she must go to the canteen and buy -it. She is allowed a large mugful every morning, for which she pays -twopence. She walks down the long dreary corridor with her mug in her -hand, and waits in a large hall where the _pistolières_ stand in a row -against the wall. Numbers are called in turn, and each woman is given -her coffee and the permitted trifles she has ordered the day before, -such as butter, milk, white bread (the prison bread is grey), herrings, -dried figs or letter paper. Then the long morning drags on until post -time. The letters are distributed by Sister Léonide herself, and the -letters are always open. The _pistolière_ does not take her exercise -in the large courtyard with the trees in it. The yard in which she is -allowed to walk, and which Monsieur Moran has drawn for me, is small -and has a high wall round it. The windows of cells look down on it, and -as the prisoner walks up and down she knows that she is being watched -and feels that there are eyes behind the bars of every window. Every -now and again a big rat runs across her path. These rats of Saint -Lazare are fat and of huge size. They run about quite freely and are -almost tame, for no one ever interferes with them. The nuns of Saint -Lazare keep cats, but they and the rats made friends long ago, and the -cats and rats feed amicably together. At least a hundred rats a day -are killed in the kitchens and corridors, but there are so many rats -that the others hardly miss them. You hear them at night scampering -over the beams of the ceilings, you see them in the corridors, the -kitchens, the cells, everywhere. For some reason they are most playful -about dusk, and there are stories in the prison of women who have had -fits of hysteria and have even gone out of their minds because of -sudden fear of these rats of the prison. There is a sickness common -to all prisoners in Saint Lazare which is known there as “the six -o’clock sickness” (_le mal de six heures_). It attacks all newcomers, -and none escape it. It comes on after the walk in the courtyard, when -night begins to close in, and the prison settles into silence till the -morning. It is an attack of a kind of malarial fever, a shivering -fit and a violent headache with a feeling of lassitude and nausea -afterwards. When it comes on, the prisoners are given a cachet of -quinine from the prison pharmacy. It does very little good. After dark -the _pistolière_ is allowed two candles which she fixes in a piece of -bread or fastens by means of their own wax to her wooden table. No -lamps are allowed. I have seen it stated in the newspapers that Madame -Caillaux is allowed a lamp, but I do not know whether the statement -is true. The last ceremony of the day is “the roll call.” This, like -most of the other ceremonies in Saint Lazare, is conducted in absolute -silence. The door of the _pistole_ is opened, and Sœur Léonide -appears with the big Book of Hours which she carries in her two hands. -On either side of her is a _soubrette_, one of whom carries a big bunch -of keys. Sister Léonide stands in the doorway of the _pistole_ for a -moment, looks at the prisoner to make certain that she is there, bends -her head, turns and goes. Not a word is spoken. And then comes the -night. - -[Illustration: MADAME CAILLAUX’S CELL EXACTLY AS IT IS -_Drawn by M. Albert Morand who received special permission from the -prison authorities to make this sketch_] - -The one bright spot in this terrible life of monotony in the prison of -Saint Lazare, the one relief from these never-ending days of the same -food, the same walk, the same rats, the same silence, is Mass in the -chapel. Here the _pistolière_ sits, silent, it is true, but with other -women near her and round her. But even here she sits apart, and Madame -Caillaux, I am told, has not attended mass. “There is only one hope -in Saint Lazare,” said the former prisoner who gave me most of this -information, “we all hope for our day of trial.” “All of you?” I asked. -“Oh, yes,” she said. “No matter what we fear, nothing can be worse than -the terrible monotony of life in the _pistole_. Our lives are those of -prisoners in a dark gallery. The trial and the open law courts are the -one glimpse of light and life at the end of the passage.” - - - - -III - -THE CRIME AND THE PUBLIC - - -Whenever anything sensational occurs to disturb the serenity of daily -life in Paris, the vortex of politics promptly sucks it in. The -Parisians—Frenchmen in general, in fact—are insatiable politicians, -and no matter what the happening, discussion of it becomes immediately -a party matter. It is of little consequence whether the item which is -talked about in clubs, in cafés, in the newspapers, in the theatre -lobbies, at dinner-parties, and at supper after the theatre is green -hair, the Caillaux Drama, or a new play, the people who discuss it -usually take sides in accordance with their political views. You may -laugh at the idea that green hair or a non-political play has any -bearing on politics, but in Paris this is curiously true. Green hair, -for instance, became a dogma of the Opposition. It was adopted by -ladies of the aristocracy, therefore Socialists and Radicals jeered -at it. The sensible man who ventured to laugh at green hair was -immediately stigmatized by those who upheld the new fashion as a -supporter of the parliamentary system and the _bloc_, not because -parliamentary Radicals and green hair have any real connexion, not -because Monsieur Jaurès prevents the ladies of his family from wearing -it, but because the Duchesse de Y. and the Comtesse de Z., who are -“_bien pensants_,” have become votaries of the fashion. A new play -is judged not so much on its merits as on political grounds. If the -author be of aristocratic sympathies, Monsieur Lavedan, for instance, -the anti-aristocrats promptly run down his play, and if he be one of -the class from which Dreyfusards were drawn during the Dreyfus case -and afterwards, the reactionaries have no good word to say for his -work. How curiously true this is in Paris, and how difficult it is for -any foreigner who has not lived many years in Paris to understand it, -was proved by the tumult and bloodshed over a play of Monsieur Henry -Bernstein’s which was produced some years ago at the Comédie Française. -The reactionary party actually contrived to wreck the play because they -disliked Monsieur Bernstein, because he was a Jew, and because his play -was produced in the national theatre. The principal difficulty for a -foreigner in understanding the extraordinary hold of politics in France -on matters which appear and which are really entirely outside the scope -of politics is increased by the Frenchman’s attitude in argument. When -a foreigner disagrees with a Frenchman on any question whatsoever, the -Frenchman, should he happen to be getting the worse of the discussion, -puts an end to it by remarking, smilingly and politely, “But you are -a foreigner, my friend, and therefore cannot possibly understand this -matter, which is essentially French.” There is no answer to such a -statement. Frenchmen believe, quaintly enough, that the hand of every -foreigner is always against them. The national conceit in France, an -excellent asset, of course, for the nation, but singularly aggravating -sometimes, is enormous, unfathomable, and entirely impervious to -argument or logic. The greatest praise for anything in France is that -it is French. The greatest praise for anything in Paris is that it -is very Parisian, and so peculiar is this national conceit that it -finds an outlet in the inevitable claim which is invariably made for -French initiative in any invention, scientific or otherwise, which -has made its mark in the world, for any novelty of medical science, -for anything inspired at all. The origin of anything worth having -in the world is French. This is dogma, and quite indisputable. Your -Frenchman will admit the marvels of Marconi, but he will always add -that Branly, a Frenchman, was the real inventor of wireless telegraphy, -and will ignore Hertz as far as he dares. There was an argument in the -French Press, not long ago, for instance, to prove that Columbus was a -Frenchman. I do not know whether his famous egg was also a French egg, -and I do not remember exactly how Columbus was proved to be French. I -do know, however, that Frenchmen are quite sure that, although Edison -and Bell had something to do with the invention of the telephone, a -Frenchman was the real inventor of it, and quite recently, when Mr. -Westinghouse died, the newspapers proved, to their own satisfaction, -that a Frenchman was the inventor of the Westinghouse brake. - -[Illustration: _Agence Nouvelle—Photo, Paris_ -MONSIEUR CAILLAUX IN HIS OFFICE AT THE MINISTÈRE DES FINANCES] - -Now the reactionary nationalist party in France makes more noise than -all the others put together. The reactionary newspapers are more -violent in tone than any of the others, and have a knack of making a -statement on Monday, reaffirming it on Tuesday, and alluding to it as -an absolute and admitted fact on Wednesday. They have therefore the -grip on public opinion which noise and reiteration always secure, and -it is very natural that public opinion abroad, which has necessarily -less opportunity for discrimination, should finish by accepting the -reiterated outcry of the noisiest portion of the French Press as the -real French opinion. In a drama like the Caillaux drama, in a case -where a respected man, the editor of a flourishing Paris newspaper, -has been done to death, it is obvious that those who feel that the -woman who has killed him has any claim to sympathy at all will find -themselves in the minority. It is no less a fact that unfair methods -have been in use ever since the death of Monsieur Calmette to rouse the -opinion of the world against the wretched woman who is in prison -for killing him. The law courts will decide how much or how little -sympathy is due to her. In the meanwhile the French Press is pursuing -its inevitable method of judging the case in advance, and everything -is being done for political reasons to increase the public feeling of -natural horror for the deed which resulted in the death of the editor -of the _Figaro_. It is difficult to exaggerate the bitter tone of the -daily howl for punishment: Already the _Action Française_ has begun to -throw mud at Monsieur Boucard, the examining magistrate, in case his -report on the case should be too lenient, and to suggest that he has -been bought over. I have not seen in any French paper a suggestion that -Madame Caillaux is already being punished by the political downfall of -her husband and her own incarceration. There is no sign anywhere in the -French newspapers of an attempt to be fair, and the very worst side of -the French character has come to the surface in this chorus of bitter -cruelty to a woman who is down, on the one side, and libels on the dead -man on the other. As much harm is being done to Madame Caillaux’s case -by her friends as by her enemies. While her enemies are clamouring -against her, her friends are losing any public sympathy which might -have arisen, by attacking the memory of Gaston Calmette. It is quite -obvious to any reasonable person who considers the drama calmly and -without prejudice that Madame Caillaux did not kill Monsieur Gaston -Calmette for the mere pleasure of killing. It is equally obvious that -Monsieur Calmette waged his campaign in the _Figaro_ against Monsieur -Caillaux because he thought it was the right thing to do, and that -he thought the political downfall of Monsieur Caillaux, which he was -attempting to bring about, would be a good thing for France. Nothing -is to be gained, however, on either side by an attempt to vilify the -other. The facts speak for themselves, and can be chronicled in a very -few lines. Monsieur Calmette considered the political downfall of -Joseph Caillaux a necessity for his country. Monsieur Caillaux, rightly -or wrongly, feared that to procure his downfall Monsieur Calmette -intended to publish certain private letters. Monsieur Calmette’s daily -attacks on Monsieur Caillaux naturally enraged both Monsieur Caillaux -and his wife. The fear of an attack in print on their private lives may -or may not have been justified, but it certainly was the direct cause -of the murder. This murder is deplored by everybody. Nobody will deny -that Madame Caillaux deserves punishment, but if those who are working -every day to embitter public feeling against her would only pause to -think, and would leave political considerations on one side for a -moment, they would realize that their campaign is an insult to their -own judges, their own juries, and their own legal system. France boasts -of its liberty. Whenever a sensational case occurs, and public feelings -are stirred, that liberty is allowed to degenerate into licence, and -to disagree with the howl of the reactionary Press is to ask for -abuse. Everybody who says a word of pity for Madame Caillaux in France -nowadays is accused of trying to make the course of justice deviate. -The examining magistrate whose duty it is to try and find the truth out -and report on it is insulted if he dares to be impartial. Everybody who -dares to suggest that the very bitterness of the Caillaux campaign was -largely responsible for its deplorable climax is held up to obloquy as -an enemy of France. I hold no brief either for Madame Caillaux and -her husband or for the campaign in the _Figaro_. Both the murder and -the bitterness of the campaign of which it was the climax are to be -deplored. The campaign, as I shall show in this book, was a necessary -evil. The bitterness and insistency with which it was conducted were -perhaps unnecessary evils. The woman has killed, and will undoubtedly -be punished. She is being punished already. The man who conducted the -bitter campaign has been shot dead. Surely there is nothing to be -gained by attempting to sully the dead man’s memory, or by attempting -to overwhelm the woman whose victim he was. Madame Caillaux in prison -is a victim of the political campaign of the _Figaro_ in exactly the -same degree as the editor of the _Figaro_ is the victim of Madame -Caillaux. The two will be judged. The wrong of one neither minimises -nor magnifies the action of the other. I am as certain that Madame -Caillaux believed, she had a right to shoot as I am certain that she -was wrong to kill. I am as certain that Monsieur Calmette believed in -the justice of his campaign as I am certain that Monsieur and Madame -Caillaux believed that it was being conducted unjustly. - -What neither of them or Monsieur Calmette realized was the harm that -all three would do to the country which I am certain all three loved. - -The terrible, the brutal fact remains that Gaston Calmette is in his -coffin and that Madame Caillaux killed him. Unhappily, there is no -doubt that if Monsieur Calmette had been wounded merely, the outcry of -the anti-Caillaux party would have been nearly as loud, and the dignity -of French justice would have been considered as little or less than -it is to-day by Monsieur Caillaux and his friends on the one side and -Monsieur Calmette and his on the other. If the Caillaux drama had not -a death in it the disinclination to allow the courts to judge without -interference would have been as great as it is now, in spite of the -lesson which the Fabre incident should teach. To the observer, to the -lover of France the most deplorable, the most unhappy result of the -Caillaux drama is the belittling of France in the eyes of the whole -world by the inability of the French nation to put simple faith in its -own administrators of the justice of the country. And most unhappily of -all, this want of faith is justified. The story of the Rochette case, -like the story of the Dreyfus case, is undoubtedly a blot on France’s -fair name, and every man or woman who loves France sincerely must -deplore it. - -It is a regrettable thing that Frenchmen find it so difficult, find -it, indeed, well nigh impossible to fight fairly. The case of Madame -Caillaux is surely bad enough as it stands without the need for unfair -comment before it comes on for trial. If you say this to a Frenchman he -will probably answer that there is very little hope of a fair trial. -This I do not believe, and if I did believe it and were a Frenchman I -should hate to say it. I could fill this volume with extracts from the -Paris newspapers, of almost any day since Gaston Calmette was killed in -his office, to prove how unfair comments have been on the case while it -is still _sub judice_. I will not weary my readers with long extracts, -however. They would be unpleasant reading, and they would answer no -more purpose than this little but characteristic extract from the -_Patrie_ of the 8th of April. When Madame Caillaux was first put in -prison there was, as I have said, an outcry in the Opposition Press -against the “undue favours which were being shown to her in Saint -Lazare.” The reports of these undue favours were flatly contradicted by -the prison authorities, but the lawyers of another prisoner, a Madame -Vitz, were clever enough to take advantage of the outcry to secure the -comparative comforts of the _pistole_ for their client. Madame Vitz was -already in a weak state of health when she was moved, and she has now -gone mad. This is what the _Patrie_ (a reactionary paper) has to say -about her case: “Madame Caillaux, who enjoys the little and the great -favours of the prison administration, must be satisfied to-day. Another -wish which she recently expressed has just been carried out. Calmette’s -murderess had a neighbour in the cell next to hers, Madame Vitz. Her -counsel, Maître Desbons, obtained, with a great deal of trouble, some -alleviation of her fate, and she was put in the _pistole_ class in -the cell next door to the one occupied by Madame Caillaux. Owing to -her constant annoyance at the extraordinary favours with which Madame -Caillaux was treated Madame Vitz has gone mad. In her cell she was -always calling out ‘Madame Caillaux! Madame Caillaux!’ and screaming. -The wife of the ex-Minister of Finance complained of her neighbourhood. -The director of the prison bowed to her wishes, and had Madame Vitz -removed to the prison infirmary.” Can anything be more grossly, more -stupidly, and childishly unfair than this attempt to alienate sympathy -from Madame Vitz’s neighbour? I have quoted it because it is short, -but any Paris paper of the _Patrie_ type unfortunately provides more -material of the same kind daily than I should care to translate or my -readers would care to read. I should not be surprised if many of the -comments in the London newspapers suffered considerably and indirectly -from the unfairness of many of the newspapers in Paris while the case -has been _sub judice_. The reason for this is very simple. In Paris -there are six evening papers of any importance. These are the _Patrie_, -which appears early in the afternoon, the _Temps_, the _Liberté_, and -the _Journal des Débâts_, which appear at about five o’clock, the -_Intransigeant_ and the _Presse_, which appear just about dinner -time. Of these six papers five are Opposition papers, and only one of -these five, the _Journal des Débâts_, makes the slightest attempt to -be impartial. The only really impartial evening paper is the _Temps_, -which gives the news of the day and comments on it, but comments -without bias. The _Patrie_ and the _Presse_ are under the same -directorate, the _Intransigeant_, while perhaps not quite so rabid as -the _Presse_ and the _Patrie_, is openly unfair whenever politics call -for unfairness, as they usually do, and the _Liberté_, while it prints -the news, is always invariably and openly in such frank opposition to -the Government that nothing done by any member of the Government is -ever anything but wrong, and news which has the slightest reference -to politics of any kind is invariably coloured. It follows that the -local correspondent without a very wide knowledge and experience of -French peculiarities and French methods must find it very difficult to -form an opinion (in time for transmission to London the same evening) -sufficiently without bias to be really valuable. Every journalist in -Paris is obliged to read the evening papers; the evening papers, with -two honourable exceptions above mentioned, always present the news -of the day with the colouring of their political convictions, and -the correspondent of an English paper may therefore frequently have -found it impossible during the Caillaux drama, as he often found it -impossible during the Panama scandal, the Dreyfus case, and other of -the periodic convulsions of modern France, to separate the wheat of -fact from the chaff of political colouring. In saying this I intend no -reflection whatever on the honesty, the brilliance, or the intelligence -of the Paris correspondents of the London Press, all of whom are my -acquaintances, and most of whom I am proud to number among my personal -friends. I feel sure that if any of them happen to read what I have -just written they will not only admit its truth, but be inclined to -think that I have spoken with even less emphasis than I might. - -Whatever may be the result of the trial of Madame Caillaux there is no -question of the immediate result of the murder of Monsieur Calmette, on -public opinion in France. Men and women alike, all consider that Madame -Caillaux should be treated with the utmost severity, and men and women -alike, all are anxious to see whatever punishment is possible meted out -to her husband. So real is this feeling—and I am talking now of the -general public and not of journalists or politicians—that Monsieur -Caillaux has found it necessary to go about, when it has been needful -for him to show himself in public, with a strong bodyguard of police -in plain clothes. He has allowed himself to be persuaded, contrary -to his first intention, to remain a candidate for re-election in -his constituency, but he is so well aware of the feeling against him -everywhere that, although lack of personal courage is certainly not -one of the faults of the ex-Minister of Finance, he is conducting his -canvass by deputy, and remains in Paris under constant guard. - -[Illustration: _Le Miroir, Dessin de F. Auer._ -PRESIDENT POINCARÉ GIVES EVIDENCE ON OATH IN THE CAILLAUX DRAMA BEFORE -THE PRESIDENT OF THE APPEAL COURT, WHO WAITED ON HIM FOR THIS PURPOSE -AT THE ELYSÉE.] - -I have spoken of the unfair manner in which the Opposition Press -of France have fallen on everybody who has ventured to express the -opinion that there was any motive at all for Madame Caillaux’s crime -except an inhuman lust for murder. And yet not only the evidence of -Monsieur Caillaux himself but the evidence on oath of the President of -the French Republic, Monsieur Raymond Poincaré, and the evidence of -other independent and unbiased witnesses, shows that there is reason -to believe that the immediate motive of the crime was a hysterical -fear of disclosures which Madame Caillaux believed would be made in -the _Figaro_. Of course this hysterical fear does not excuse the crime -of Madame Caillaux, but it certainly goes very far towards explaining -it, and the existence of the belief that there was danger of the -publication of letters which contained intimate allusion to her private -life cannot be doubted by anybody, no matter what their political -convictions may be after reading the evidence which President Poincaré -felt called on to give, creating by the giving of it a precedent which -emphasizes the doctrine that the President of the Republic has, with -the rights, the liabilities and the responsibilities of every private -citizen of France. President Poincaré did not go to the Palace of -Justice to give his evidence. Monsieur Caillaux, on Thursday, April -2, informed the examining magistrate, Monsieur Boucard, that certain -persons had evidence of importance to give which bore on his wife’s -case. Among the names which he mentioned was that of Monsieur Raymond -Poincaré, the President of the French Republic, and Monsieur Caillaux -stated that the evidence for which he asked the examining magistrate -to seek would prove conclusively that on the morning of the crime -both he and his wife were, rightly or wrongly, convinced that the -_Figaro_ might publish certain letters of a private nature referring -to themselves. An official letter was sent by the examining magistrate -to the Parquet de la Seine, with reference to the course that should -be followed in this matter of Monsieur Poincaré’s evidence, and after -some hesitation as to ways and means of enabling the President of the -Republic to give evidence on oath, Monsieur Forichon, the presiding -judge of the Court of Appeal, was sent to the Elysée, and to him after -swearing to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, -Monsieur Raymond Poincaré described the interview which Monsieur -Caillaux had with him at ten o’clock on the morning of Monday, March -16. We know that on that morning Monsieur Monier, the President of the -Civil Court of the Seine department, called, at her request, on Madame -Caillaux, and was consulted by her as to means and ways of putting a -stop to the campaign against her husband in the _Figaro_. Monsieur -Caillaux had intended to be present at this consultation, but a Cabinet -council had been called at the Elysée at ten o’clock, and he was of -course obliged to attend it. The Ministers were nearly all assembled, -and were chatting with the President of the Republic in a room leading -into the Council Chamber, when, just as the doors of the Council -Chamber were opened and the Ministers passed through, Monsieur Caillaux -asked the President of the Republic for a few moments’ conversation -in private. Monsieur Poincaré, with the unfailing courtesy which -distinguishes him, acquiesced immediately, and allowing the other -Ministers to pass into the Council Chamber, the President of the -Republic remained alone with Monsieur Caillaux in the room they had -left, and closed the door. “I have just learned from a sure source,” -said Monsieur Caillaux to Monsieur Poincaré, “that private letters -written by me to the lady who is now my wife have been handed to the -_Figaro_ and that Gaston Calmette intends publishing them.” “Monsieur -Caillaux was under the stress of great emotion,” said the President of -the Republic in his evidence. “He told me that he feared that Monsieur -Calmette was about to publish in the _Figaro_ private letters, the -divulgation of which would be extremely painful to him and Madame -Caillaux. I replied that I considered Monsieur Calmette an honourable -gentleman (_un galant homme_) altogether incapable of publishing -letters which would bring up Madame Caillaux’s name in the polemics -between them. But my efforts to convince him that this was so were in -vain, and he replied to me that he considered divers articles of the -_Figaro_ were written with the object of preparing (the public mind) -for this publication. I was unable to undeceive Monsieur Caillaux or -to calm him. At one moment he sprang from his seat and exclaimed, ‘If -Calmette publishes these letters I will kill him.’ He then declared to -me that he was going to consult his lawyers, notably Maître Thorel, -the solicitor, on the means to be taken and the procedure necessary to -prevent the _Figaro_ from publishing these letters. I advised him to -see, as well, the barrister who had taken his interests in hand in his -divorce case, Maître Maurice Bernard. Maître Maurice Bernard, I said to -Monsieur Caillaux, knows Monsieur Calmette. It will be easy for him -to get the assurance from Monsieur Calmette that no letter will be -published, and if needs be—if, contrary to my own belief, your -suspicions are founded—he would have the authority necessary to -prevent the publication of the letters. Monsieur Caillaux thanked me, -but declared to me that as he would be occupied at the Senate the whole -afternoon he would not be able to see Maître Bernard. In reply to that, -I told him that Maître Bernard was a friend of my own who often came to -see me, and that he had let me know that not having seen me for some -time owing to a journey to Algiers, he would come, either that day -or the next, to shake me by the hand. I added that if he came to see -me I would make a point of repeating our conversation to him. Maître -Bernard did come early in the afternoon. I told him what Monsieur -Caillaux feared, and asked him to make a point of seeing him. Maître -Bernard replied that he considered Monsieur Calmette quite incapable of -publishing letters which referred to Madame Caillaux, but that for all -that he would make a point of seeing Monsieur Caillaux the same day, -and if need be Monsieur Calmette as well. I heard afterwards that -Maître Bernard had seen Monsieur Caillaux at the end of the afternoon, -but too late. I was much impressed by the state in which Monsieur -Caillaux was, so much so that when the Prime Minister came to see me on -business during the afternoon I thought it my duty to tell him of the -conversation I had had with Monsieur Caillaux and with Maître Maurice -Bernard.” - -Monsieur Caillaux’s own evidence was equally assertive on the question -of the letters. I may say here that it is common talk in Paris that -these letters, one a short one, and the other sixteen pages long, -contained passages which well explained Monsieur and Madame Caillaux’s -fears for their publication. Monsieur Caillaux is said to have written -to the lady who is Madame Caillaux now, with the utmost freedom and -disrespect of the Republic to which he gives the nickname “Marianne,” -and the intimacy of portions of the letters is generally believed to -be such that no paper as respectable as the _Figaro_ could possibly -affront its readers by putting them in cold print. - -The letters, or copies of them, exist, or were in existence just before -the crime. They are popularly believed to be highly scandalous in -content and in tone. It is, however, only fair to Monsieur Calmette’s -memory and to the writer of the letters, Monsieur Caillaux, and his -unhappy wife to whom he wrote them, to put on record the protest -of Madame Madeleine Guillemard, who wrote on April 8, 1914, to the -examining magistrate declaring that she knew the whole text of the -letters, that they were intimate and tender, but that “their tone was -that of letters written by a gentleman to a lady whom he respects.” - -President Poincaré’s evidence, however, shows that Monsieur and Madame -Caillaux feared that the letters would be printed, and this fear is -made more emphatic by Monsieur Caillaux’s own evidence before Monsieur -Boucard, which, with the curious habit which is prevalent in France, -the examining magistrate summarized and communicated immediately to -the Press. - -[Illustration: _Miroir Photo, Paris_ -MONSIEUR CAILLAUX LEAVING THE LAW COURTS -(The man on the right is a detective)] - - - - -IV - -MONSIEUR CAILLAUX’S EXAMINATION - - -The principal witness for the defence of Madame Caillaux will be her -husband, and as is usual in France where every witness is allowed and -is expected to tell the examining magistrate who collects evidence -before the trial everything he knows which bears in any way upon the -case, Monsieur Caillaux has gone at length into his wife’s motives -for the crime, and has described very fully the happenings on March -16, 1914, when the murder was committed. He was examined by Monsieur -Boucard in his room at the Palace of Justice on April 7 and 8, -immediately after the evidence of the President of the Republic had -been taken. Monsieur Joseph Caillaux is the son of Monsieur Eugène -Alexandre Caillaux, who was Inspector of Finance and Minister of State. -He has been married twice. - -His first wife was Madame Gueydan, who was the divorced wife of a -Monsieur Jules Dupré. Monsieur Caillaux married her in 1906. Monsieur -Caillaux and his first wife did not live very happily, and their -relations became more than strained in July 1909, after the fall of -the Clemenceau Cabinet, in which Monsieur Caillaux was Minister of -Finance. In September of that year Monsieur Caillaux and his wife were -at Mamers. One night, Monsieur Caillaux declared to the examining -magistrate, a packet of letters disappeared from a drawer in his -writing-table. Two of these letters were letters written by Monsieur -Caillaux to Madame Léo Claretie (_née_ Raynouard). Madame Claretie was -at that time (September 1909) already divorced from her husband. As we -know, she became Monsieur Caillaux’s wife in 1911. These two letters, -which disappeared from Monsieur Caillaux’s writing-table are the two -letters to which reference is made at the end of the last chapter, -letters which Monsieur and Madame Caillaux believed to be in the -possession of Monsieur Calmette. The letters were of a most intimate -character. One, a very short one, was written on letter paper with the -heading of the Conseil Général de la Sarthe. The second, written on -paper of the Chamber of Deputies, was a long sixteen-page letter -containing, Monsieur Caillaux said, the story for the last few years -of all the intimacies of his life. “In this letter,” Monsieur Caillaux -said, “I told my future wife, at length, of the reasons, many of which -were based on political grounds, which prevented me from freeing -myself immediately from my wife (Madame Gueydan) and from marrying -her.” Monsieur Caillaux was much upset at the discovery that Madame -Gueydan-Caillaux had possession of these letters, and for their -restitution he offered his wife either a complete reconciliation or a -divorce. Madame Gueydan-Caillaux accepted the reconciliation with her -husband, and on November 5, 1909, the parties met in the presence of -Monsieur Privat-Deschanel, the secretary of the Ministry of Finance, -and an intimate friend of Monsieur Caillaux’s, at Monsieur Caillaux’s -house, 12 Rue Pierre Charron. In Monsieur Privat-Deschanel’s presence -the letters were solemnly burned, together with others bearing on the -disagreement between husband and wife. Before they were burned Madame -Gueydan-Caillaux gave her word of honour to her husband and to Monsieur -Privat-Deschanel that she had kept no photograph and no copy of the -letters. Their destruction was followed by a complete reconciliation. -Monsieur Caillaux declared that as far as he was concerned the -reconciliation was sincere, that he gave up all thought of Madame -Raynouard-Claretie, his present wife, and he asked Monsieur Boucard to -call on Monsieur Privat-Deschanel to bear witness to this. Some months -later Monsieur Caillaux found, he says, that it was quite impossible -for him to remain friends with his wife, and at the beginning of July -1910 he instituted divorce proceedings. The divorce was pronounced on -March 9, 1911 by agreement between the two parties. Very soon after, -in November of the same year, Monsieur Caillaux was married in Paris -to the divorced wife of Monsieur Léo Claretie, who is now in prison -for the murder of Monsieur Gaston Calmette. As a curious sidelight on -the mixture of intimate home details and of politics in the Caillaux -drama it is worth while remembering here, that in her evidence to the -examining magistrate Madame Gueydan, Monsieur Caillaux’s first wife, -stated the reasons, as she understood them, for this change of mind -on the part of Monsieur Caillaux. She declared that in November 1909 -Monsieur Caillaux, being a candidate for re-election in the Sarthe -District feared that her possession of the letters and her antagonism -to himself might make trouble for him during the electoral campaign. -In April 1910 the election was over and he was elected, he feared her -no longer, wanted to marry his present wife, and instituted divorce -proceedings in consequence in July, forcing her to allow herself to be -divorced by the sheer deadweight of his influence, which if exercised -against her would, she knew, have prohibited her from obtaining the -services of the best counsel and have reduced her to absolute penury. -In October 1911 when Monsieur Caillaux was Prime Minister, his _chef -de cabinet_, Monsieur Desclaux, told him one day that a journalist, -Monsieur Vervoort, who was on the _Gil Blas_, had been offered by -Madame Gueydan, his former wife, the right to publish certain letters. -The details which Monsieur Vervoort gave about these letters, referred -exactly, Monsieur Caillaux said, to the two letters which his former -wife had burned in his presence, and to a letter which appeared in -the _Figaro_ of March 13, 1914, in facsimile. This letter was written -by Monsieur Caillaux to his first wife, Madame Gueydan, before he -married her. Like the others it was a love letter with long passages -about politics in it. It was written thirteen years ago, but it -contained Monsieur Caillaux’s statement: “I have crushed the income-tax -while appearing to defend it.” (J’ai écrasé l’impôt sur le revenu en -ayant l’air de le défendre.) It is this letter portions of which the -_Figaro_ published in facsimile. It was written in Monsieur Caillaux’s -well-known handwriting, and he had signed it “Ton Jo”. The intimacy -of the “Ton” was of course in itself something of an outrage when it -appeared in a newspaper, for the letter was written to another man’s -wife. - -[Illustration: _Miroir, Photo, Paris_ -M. PRIVAT-DESCHANEL WHO WITNESSED THE DESTRUCTION OF THE LETTERS -BY MME. GUEYDAN-CAILLAUX] - -Monsieur Caillaux considered, he said, that the letters (the “Ton -Jo” letter and the other two) formed a trilogy, so that if one were -published, publication of the two others was likely. When Monsieur -Desclaux told him what Monsieur Vervoort had said, Monsieur Caillaux -answered, “These letters have been stolen from me. Their publication -would cause me pain because of their intimate bearing on my private -life. I cannot believe that any journalist could have so little -respect for himself or his profession as to make use of such weapons.” -Monsieur Desclaux replied that neither Monsieur Vervoort nor his -editor, Monsieur Pierre Mortier, were going to use the letters. Some -weeks after this Monsieur Caillaux married his present wife. Monsieur -Caillaux at this point in his evidence broke off to declare to Monsieur -Boucard that his second marriage was a very happy one. This declaration -was not as unnecessary as it sounds at first sight, for long before the -actual drama, during the weeks of the bitter campaign in the _Figaro_ -against the Minister of Finance, from January’s beginning till the day -of M. Calmette’s death, and afterwards, Paris gossip had been very -busy with the names of both men. They were said to be rivals in their -private lives. I do not care to go into the details of the gossip which -associated their names in rivalry, for this gossip, in which another -woman’s name was mentioned, is decidedly unpleasant. Monsieur Calmette’s -married life would have been cut short by the law courts if death had -not intervened, and if Monsieur Calmette had been killed on March 17, -instead of on the 16th, his wife would no longer have been Madame -Calmette. Divorce proceedings between the two had culminated, and the -divorce would have been made absolute on that day. As it was Madame -Calmette, whose father, Monsieur Prestat, is the chairman of the -_Figaro_ Company, learned the news of her husband’s murder only the -day after it occurred. She had been away from Paris, and returned in -the evening of March 16. As she left the railway station she heard -the newspaper hawkers shouting the news, but believing that they were -announcing the fall of the Cabinet did not take sufficient interest -in the details to buy a paper. Next morning telegrams of condolence -from her friends, and perusal of the morning papers told her what had -happened, and incidentally apprised her that she inherited as his widow -a much larger share of Monsieur Calmette’s large fortune than would -otherwise have been hers. Gaston Calmette was of course a very rich -man, for some years ago Monsieur Chauchard, the founder and principal -shareholder of the _Magasins du Louvre_ had left him a large slice of -his great wealth. Paris gossip had, as I have said, been busy linking -the names of Messieurs Calmette and Caillaux, and this is not to be -wondered at when it is remembered that Monsieur Calmette was on the -point of being divorced, that Monsieur Caillaux had been divorced once -from Madame Gueydan-Caillaux, the divorced wife of Monsieur Dupré, and -that his present wife was the divorced wife of another man. Monsieur -Caillaux in his evidence to Monsieur Boucard declared, however, that -the stories of a disunion in his married life were absolute nonsense, -and that it was so absurd to say that there was any disunion between -him and his present wife that the two of them used to laugh at the -gossip to which I have referred. He added that there was no reason for -any personal animosity towards himself on Monsieur Calmette’s part, and -that he had never given him any reason for such animosity. “On several -occasions,” he said, “during the last few months I was asked to start a -campaign against Monsieur Calmette personally, and papers to support it -were brought to me. I always refused these offers.” Monsieur Caillaux -then spoke of the other documents in Monsieur Calmette’s possession. -These were of course the letter written by the Procureur Général, -Monsieur Victor Fabre, which Monsieur Barthou read in the Chamber of -Deputies on March 17, and other documents which are known as “the green -papers.” These were telegrams and copies of telegrams referring to -the incident of Agadir. They were of so grave a nature that Monsieur -Calmette had been asked not to publish them for diplomatic reasons. “I -should like to point out” (said Monsieur Caillaux), “that I could have -no possible fear personally of the publication of these documents. On -the contrary I should as far as I am myself concerned have been glad -to see them published. A day will come when time has smoothed over -old sores, and I shall be able to speak freely. I have written a book -on Agadir, and it will be seen when that can be published that the -documents, the letters, and the telegrams in this book will convince -all Frenchmen, not only of my patriotism, but of my political clearness -of vision.” Monsieur Caillaux declared that he knew exactly what was -going on in the _Figaro_ office, and that he knew that Monsieur -Calmette would make use of any weapons in his power to cause his -overthrow. He then referred to a conversation in the street under a -gas lamp between Monsieur Barthou and Madame Gueydan, his, Monsieur -Caillaux’s, former wife. During this conversation, he said, Madame -Gueydan had read extracts from letters to Monsieur Barthou, and -Monsieur Caillaux declared that he had understood from Monsieur Barthou -that these letters were the two private letters which had been stolen -from him. The examining magistrate confronted Monsieur Barthou and -Monsieur Caillaux at this point, and Monsieur Barthou stated that -Monsieur Caillaux must have been mistaken. It was true that he had -had a conversation with Madame Gueydan, but the letters she read to -him were the Fabre letter and the “Ton Jo” letter, and it was to them -that Monsieur Barthou had alluded afterwards in his conversation with -Monsieur Caillaux. When the “Ton Jo” letter appeared in the _Figaro_ -on March 13 Monsieur Caillaux was greatly upset, although the more -personal portions of the letter had been cut. On the next day, Saturday -the 14th, he stated, he received an anonymous letter saying that the -_Figaro_ was going to publish the other two letters, and the same -day he received from other sources confirmation of this. “I had told -my wife all about these things,” he said. “She was entirely in my -confidence, and she expected these stolen letters to be published. -Their publication would have affected me comparatively little, but -would have wounded my wife in her dignity as a woman, and distressed -her more than I can say.” Monsieur Caillaux then told the examining -magistrate the events of the day of the murder as he knew them, -beginning with the statement that his wife’s nerves were shattered, and -that she was and had been for some time, in a state of considerable -over-excitement. She read the _Figaro_ every morning, her general -health was bad, and the campaign had overpowered her. “At nine o’clock -on the morning of March 16 my wife walked into my dressing-room with -the _Figaro_ in her hand,” said Monsieur Caillaux. “She showed me -the paper with a headline ‘Intermède Comique—Ton Jo.’ ‘Presently,’ -she said, ‘we shall see your pet name for _me_ in the public Press -like this,’ and she threw the paper angrily on a chair. ‘Can’t you -put a stop to this campaign?’ she asked me. And we decided to consult -Monsieur Monier the President of the Civil Tribunal of the Seine.” - -[Illustration: _Miroir, Photo, Paris_ -M. BARTHOU MOUNTING THE STAIRS OF THE LAW COURTS ON HIS WAY -TO GIVE EVIDENCE IN THE CAILLAUX CASE] - -“It was my intention to go and see him that day at half-past one, but -I forgot that he would be busy at the Palace of Justice at that time. -I had to go to the meeting of the Cabinet at the Elysée, and when -Monsieur Monier called at half-past ten my wife received him alone.” -Monsieur Caillaux then repeated his conversation with his wife when -she called for him before luncheon at the Ministère de Finances. -His evidence on this point and the evidence of Madame Caillaux are -identical. From the examining magistrate’s report of the evidence given -by Monsieur Caillaux he appears to have said nothing to his wife of his -own conversation with the President of the Republic. Monsieur Caillaux -confirms his wife’s statement that he said to her, “I shall go and -smash Calmette’s face.” Their car was in the Rue Royale when Madame -Caillaux asked him whether he intended to do so that day. “I answered,” -Monsieur Caillaux said, “No, not to-day. I shall choose my own time, -but the time is not far off.” - -After luncheon, as Monsieur Caillaux was leaving the house, Madame -Caillaux told him that she was afraid she would not be able to dine at -the Italian Embassy. “She certainly looked ill and worn out,” Monsieur -Caillaux said, “and I asked her to send my servant to the Ministry -of Finance with my evening clothes. I understand that my wife sent a -telephone message to the Italian Embassy a little later to say that I -should go to the dinner without her. This, I would like to point out, -shows that she had no idea at that time of what was going to happen, -for if she had made up her mind then, she would either have said that -neither of us was going to the Italian Embassy or she would have said -nothing. I left my wife without any apprehensions, except that I was -uneasy at her weakness and the condition of her nerves. At about three -o’clock that afternoon I met Monsieur Ceccaldi at the Senate, and told -him how uneasy I felt. When I returned to the Ministry of Finance I -learned what had happened, and went to the police-station at once. My -wife’s first words to me when I got there and saw her were, ‘I _do_ -hope that I haven’t killed him. I merely wanted to give him a lesson.’” - -This was the end of Monsieur Caillaux’s evidence in the examining -magistrate’s room at the Palace of Justice on April 8, 1914. -Monsieur Privat-Deschanel was called and confirmed that portion of -it which referred to the burning of the Gueydan-Caillaux letters, -and the declaration by Monsieur Caillaux’s first wife that she had -kept no copies or photographs of them. “The scene,” said Monsieur -Privat-Deschanel, “was such a moving one, and impressed me so deeply, -that though it happened four years ago everything that was done and -every word that was spoken have remained graven on my memory.” - - - - -V - -THE CAMPAIGN OF THE “FIGARO” - - -In order to understand the details of the Caillaux drama, it is -necessary to search for the reasons which contributed to the bitter -campaign in the _Figaro_ against Madame Caillaux’s husband, the -Minister of Finance. In order to understand these reasons fully it will -be necessary to go some way back into the history of French politics, -when some insight will be possible into the inner meaning of the -campaign, into the interests which lay behind it, and the reason of its -bitterness. When Monsieur Raymond Poincaré was elected President of the -French Republic, his election gave great offence to that breaker of -Cabinets, the veteran statesman Georges Clemenceau. Monsieur Clemenceau -had been a supporter of Monsieur Poincaré’s rival, Monsieur Pams, and -resented deeply the election of the man whom he had not backed. Soon -after the presidential election the new President of the Republic gave -another cause for offence to Monsieur Clemenceau by choosing Monsieur -Louis Barthou as Prime Minister. - -Monsieur Clemenceau vowed revenge, and true to his invariable system -of playing the Eminence Grise in French politics, he buried the -hatchet with Monsieur Caillaux, whom during the Agadir crisis he had -openly declared to be liable to a trial before the high court for high -treason, and with Monsieur Briand’s help did everything possible to -make matters uncomfortable for Monsieur Barthou and his Cabinet, and -for the man whose policy that Cabinet represented, the new President of -the French Republic, Monsieur Raymond Poincaré. - -The campaign was almost a French War of the Roses. It was conducted -with bitterness on either side, and the Clemenceau faction won the -first battle, overthrowing the Barthou Cabinet, and securing the return -to power of Monsieur Caillaux, while Monsieur Briand, by his own choice -stood aside. Nominally the new Cabinet was under the leadership of the -Prime Minister, Monsieur Gaston Doumergue. - -Actually Monsieur Caillaux as Minister of Finance and Monsieur Monis as -Minister of Marine were the two twin rulers in the new Government of -France with Monsieur Clemenceau behind them as general adviser. - -Now Monsieur Briand, though Monsieur Clemenceau’s sworn friend, -politically, was no real friend politically of Monsieur Caillaux. -The two men represented different factions, for in the neighbourhood -of 1913 Monsieur Caillaux had founded the radical unified party, the -programme of which he announced in a great meeting at Pau that year, -and Monsieur Briand very shortly afterwards founded the Federation -of the Left, a form of moderate Socialism which combated the extreme -radicalism of Monsieur Caillaux’s party on many points. Then Monsieur -Caillaux began to make mistakes, most of which were largely due to his -impulsiveness, his ill-temper in the wrong places, and his natural gift -for making enemies. Monsieur Barthou set to work to fight Monsieur -Caillaux and called Monsieur Calmette to help him. Public rumour added -that there was personal animosity and personal rivalry between these -two men, but whether this be true or not their political rivalry was -undoubted, and the reasons for such political rivalry are plain. Both -were rich men, but while Monsieur Caillaux represented reforms for -the lower middle class at the expense of the rich, Monsieur Calmette -representing the party of property, the party which we in England -should describe as that of men having a stake in the country, fought -these reforms with all the influence at his command as editor and -director of a great newspaper. He set out to pull Caillaux down from -his position, and his task was a comparatively easy one owing to the -unreasoned outbursts of temper with which Monsieur Caillaux exposed -the weak points in his armour on many occasions, the number of -mistakes impulse had caused him to make in the past, and his growing -unpopularity. From the beginning of January 1914 until his death on -March 16, hardly a day passed without an article of a column or more, -and sometimes much more, by Monsieur Calmette in the _Figaro_ attacking -Monsieur Caillaux, Monsieur Caillaux’s past, and Monsieur Caillaux’s -policy. He was attacked as a politician, as a man, and as a financier, -and his silence under attack made the attacks which followed more -bitter instead of putting an end to them. Six years ago the Rochette -affair had, directly and indirectly, been the cause of more than one -storm in the French political tea-cup. It had brought the fierce -light of publicity to bear on many public men, and politicians feared -publication of the details of the case as much, almost, as the side -issues of the Dreyfus case were feared some years before, and as, -before that, the Panama and other scandals had been feared. During -the Agadir trouble Monsieur Caillaux had laid himself open to a great -deal of criticism, and the _Figaro_ did not hesitate to disinter both -these affairs and use them as a weapon against Monsieur Caillaux. -Another affair of lesser importance in which Monsieur Caillaux’s name -was mentioned in the _Figaro_ campaign was the affair of the Prieu -inheritance. In this connexion the _Figaro_ did not hesitate to accuse -Monsieur Caillaux of dishonourable conduct, and to base on it his -unfitness for the post of a Minister of France. It is almost impossible -in the space at my command to give all the details of a newspaper -campaign such as this against a Minister in power. The campaign lasted -nearly three months, and it was so many-sided that I should need -another volume if I were to attempt to set down its details fully. But -I may resume the broad lines of the _Figaro_ campaign against Monsieur -Caillaux and the reason which the _Figaro_ itself gave to its readers -for that campaign. Monsieur Calmette from the first declared that he -considered the return to power of Monsieur Joseph Caillaux after his -downfall in 1911 as a veritable misfortune to France. He considered -that the presence of Monsieur Caillaux in the Cabinet was of real peril -to French interests, and, as I have explained, it was undoubtedly a -peril to the interests of the rich men’s party which the _Figaro_ -represented, for Monsieur Caillaux was determined to carry through -his tax on accumulated property, and the general idea of this tax was -decidedly popular. There is nothing Frenchmen love so much as making -a rich man pay. Monsieur Caillaux with political astuteness saw the -vote-catching possibilities of his measure, was doing everything in his -power to maintain the Doumergue Ministry, of which he was the leading -member, at the helm of public affairs until this year’s elections, and -would undoubtedly have succeeded. - -Monsieur Calmette, with the help of Monsieur Caillaux’s political -enemies, was working hard for the overthrow of the Cabinet, or rather -for the overthrow of Monsieur Caillaux, for, as the _Figaro_ wrote, it -was Caillaux alone, Caillaux the Minister, Caillaux the politician, -whom Calmette the politician wished to pull headlong. Day by day in -the _Figaro_ he put his adversary in the pillory. He stigmatized his -conduct of the Franco-German negotiations in 1911, he recalled in -stinging terms the general indignation which had wrecked the Caillaux -Ministry after the resignation of Monsieur De Selves, the Minister for -Foreign Affairs. He recalled the work and the report of the Commission -of Inquiry, over which Monsieur Raymond Poincaré (who was of course -not President of the Republic then) presided, and wrote scathingly, -fiercely almost, of Monsieur Caillaux’s difficulties and quarrels with -the Spanish Ambassador and with his Majesty’s Ambassador Sir Francis -Bertie. He recalled words used by Monsieur Caillaux which almost -suggested that France under a Caillaux régime cared very little for the -entente cordiale, and reproduced a threat, which rumour had reported, -of undiplomatic reprisals towards Spain. Some months ago, to be precise -on December 18, 1913, Monsieur Caillaux made a counter declaration to -me personally in reply to the rumours that he had spoken against the -entente cordiale. This declaration was made three weeks before the -beginning of the daily campaign in the _Figaro_, and Monsieur Caillaux -said for publication in the _Daily Express_, of which paper I was at -that time the Paris correspondent, “I defy anyone to find in any word -that I have spoken publicly, to find in any act of my public life, -any ground for an assertion that I am not a whole-hearted partisan of -the entente cordiale.” Monsieur Caillaux added that he had relatives -in England, that he was a great admirer of England and of Englishmen, -and said: “I am convinced that the entente cordiale is an asset for -the peace of Europe, and while as a Frenchman and a servant of France, -I point out that France expects to reap equally with her partner -the benefits of the entente cordiale, I am sure that England in her -inherent fairness understands this, and is as anxious both to give and -to take as France can be. I wish to express my amazement and my sorrow -that even for a moment Englishmen should have thought me anything but -their friend.” - -On the occasion of this interview, which was a long one, lasting a -full hour at the beginning of the afternoon, and another half-hour -later the same day when I submitted what I had written to Monsieur -Caillaux before sending it to London, in order that there should be no -discussion possible afterwards as to what he had really said, a good -deal passed which I did not put into print. - -In the interview as printed appeared an allusion by Monsieur Caillaux -to the undue interference by Englishmen in France’s home affairs. -Monsieur Caillaux spoke that afternoon with ebullient freedom of -expression about the British Ambassador in Paris, Sir Francis Bertie. -He declared that Sir Francis went out of his way to make trouble and -that he had worked against him (Monsieur Caillaux) in London for the -sheer pleasure of stirring up strife. - -I thought it quite unnecessary to say these things aloud in an English -newspaper, especially as, after saying them, Monsieur Caillaux asked me -not to include them in the interview as he had no wish for a newspaper -discussion with the British Ambassador. I quote them now merely for the -purpose of showing the peculiar and unstatesmanlike quarrelsomeness of -Monsieur Caillaux’s temper. The man has very little self-restraint, -and while many of his public acts and public sayings prove this, few -of them prove it so conclusively as his outburst in his room at the -Ministry of Finance, in the presence of the representative of an -English newspaper, against the British Ambassador in Paris. - -Following up these attacks on his personality the _Figaro_ impugned -Monsieur Caillaux’s honour. It did this with the outspokenness which is -a peculiarity of French newspaperdom, and which would be magnificent -if it were not so frequently misused. Monsieur Caillaux was accused -of changing his policy half a dozen times with the one pre-occupation -of retaining his portfolio, was twitted with self-contradiction with -regard to the income-tax law, and the immunity from taxation of French -Rentes, and was openly taxed with encouraging dishonourable and -dishonest speculation, if not of indulging in it himself. According to -the _Figaro_ Monsieur Caillaux made deliberate arrangements to allow -friends of his to speculate and make large sums of money on the Paris -Bourse, tuning his public statements to time with the deals of the -speculators, and in answer to these accusations Monsieur Caillaux said -nothing. - -“The income-tax was Monsieur Caillaux’s hobby horse. He has stated -frequently that he has always been in favour of it,” wrote the _Figaro_ -one day. “For many years the income-tax was the principal item of -Monsieur Caillaux’s political programme, and he told his constituents -at Mamers that his political programme had never changed in its main -lines.” Then the _Figaro_ reproduced in facsimile Monsieur Caillaux’s -letter to the first Madame Caillaux in which the words occurred: “I -crushed the income-tax while pretending to defend it.” - -But these attacks on Monsieur Caillaux were by no means the only ones, -and Monsieur Calmette also accused Monsieur Caillaux of favouring -Rochette’s escape and interfering with the course of justice. These are -the broad lines of the _Figaro_ campaign against Monsieur Caillaux. - -That some of the attacks were justifiable is undoubtedly the fact. -That the manner of them was a worthy one is more open to discussion. -Politicians must of course expect to be attacked by newspapers which -oppose them, but there is little doubt that the bitterness and the -persistence of this newspaper campaign worked its victim up to a state -of frenzy, and the calm observer knows what effect daily attacks on -a public man are likely to have on that public man’s life within the -four walls of his home. Monsieur Caillaux’s excited declaration to -the President of the Republic, his excitement in the motor car, when, -driving with Madame Caillaux he declared that he would go down to the -_Figaro_ and chastise Monsieur Calmette, show the man’s state of mind, -and show us very clearly how that state of mind is likely to have -reacted on his wife. I repeat that this book is in no sense an apology -for Madame Caillaux’s act of murder. I repeat that I do not wish to -defend either Monsieur Caillaux or his wife. But in common fairness I -cannot do otherwise than present as faithfully as possible the effect -of the _Figaro_ campaign against him, on Monsieur Caillaux and on his -constant companion. Nor do I hesitate to say that while the bitterness -of the _Figaro_ campaign in no way excuses the murder of its editor by -Madame Caillaux, no one can deny, I think, that it explains it. - - - - -VI - -CALMETTE V. CAILLAUX - - -Whenever an official in the French Colonial Office had to refuse the -application of a subordinate for leave, he would tone down his refusal -with the metaphor, “We’ll try and give you leave at all events before -the _affaire_ Prieu is decided finally.” For many years _l’affaire_ -Prieu had been the Jarndyce _v._ Jarndyce case of the French Colonial -Office, and it was almost forgotten when Monsieur Caillaux and the -_Figaro_ brought it back at a bound into the domain of actuality. The -case was forgotten so thoroughly that when the _Figaro_ mentioned it -under the title of “Monsieur Caillaux’s Secret Combinations” in an -article signed by Monsieur Gaston Calmette on January 8, 1914, the name -Prieu was misspelled “Priou”. - -The case in itself was one of concessions in Brazil. In the early years -of the Third Republic a French merchant named Prieu died in France -after a long life spent in Brazil. He had been a rich man and with -the help of the French Consul in Rio de Janeiro had secured certain -profitable concessions. At his death the French Government considered -that these concessions lapsed to the State, and sold them. Monsieur -Prieu’s heirs claimed from the State a considerable sum, something -between £120,000 and £160,000, of which their lawyers contended that -the Government of France had frustrated them. The case dragged on for -many years, and in 1909, when Monsieur Cochery was Finance Minister and -Monsieur Renoult Under Secretary of State for Finance (Monsieur Renoult -is Minister of the Interior in the Doumergue Cabinet), the case was -practically shelved. - -At that time the heirs of Monsieur Prieu, after getting a refusal to -their offer to abandon their entire claim against the French Government -in return for a cash payment of £20,000, were inclined to drop the -whole case, the legal expenses of which were becoming embarrassing. -They had put matters in the hands of a man of affairs, but he and -they had little hope of any result, when, according to the _Figaro_, -Monsieur Caillaux, on January 5, 1914, sent for their representative. -The _Figaro_ declared on the 8th, over the signature of Monsieur Gaston -Calmette, that Monsieur Caillaux had stated to this gentleman that the -claim of the Prieu family appeared to him to be justified, that the -French Government would probably have to pay from £200,000 to £240,000 -including compound interest on the debt, and that a transaction -might be possible if the Prieu heirs were inclined to hand over a -considerable percentage on the money paid them to the French Government -for political needs. Obviously if Monsieur Caillaux really did make -such an offer, did really offer to settle a case which had been in -litigation for years and was about to lapse, provided the claimants -would agree to pay a large percentage of the money back for party -needs, he made an offer which he would find it difficult to defend in -Parliament or elsewhere. - -The _Figaro_ was most assertive. Monsieur Calmette declared that -Monsieur Caillaux had said: “If you get this money we must get some of -it. The Government has its duties, and its needs.” Monsieur Calmette -went on to declare that a second interview had taken place at the -Ministry of Finance the next day, the Tuesday, when Monsieur Caillaux -had demanded 80 per cent. of the debt for the party coffers, and that -on the Wednesday, the day before the _Figaro_ article appeared, the -representative of Monsieur Prieu’s heirs and the Finance Minister had -come to an agreement on terms somewhat less onerous than the 80 per -cent. mentioned at first. - -The disclosure of these curious proceedings created a storm in the -political world of Paris, and although Monsieur Caillaux published a -denial, in general terms his contradictions were not considered very -satisfactory. The article in the _Figaro_ had of course one result. Any -settlement of the Prieu case on the lines above mentioned became quite -impossible. One is inclined to wonder, now, whether the claimants will -proceed against the French Government, prosecute their claim again, -and call Monsieur Caillaux as a witness to declare in court that he -considers the claim justifiable. It was rumoured at the time that -Monsieur Calmette had offered to compensate the Prieu claimants for the -loss which the publication in the _Figaro_ of their dealings or attempt -at dealing with Monsieur Caillaux would entail. - -Whether this offer was actually made or not will probably be shown at -the trial of Madame Caillaux, for the examining magistrate, Monsieur -Boucard, has questioned the parties concerned. As I have said, the -Prieu case is an old one. It has been discussed in the Chamber of -Deputies at intervals during the last thirty years, and the first -interpellation on it goes back thirty-three years to July 8, 1881. -Pierre Marcel Prieu was a candidate for Parliament in 1876 and in -1877. He died in 1899, in France, in poverty. To his last day he had -protested against what he called “the theft” of his concessions by the -French Government, and he had protested with such violence that he had -been imprisoned for some months because of his protests. His claim was -that the Brazilian Government had on August 30, and on September 6, -1879, paid the French Minister for Foreign Affairs in two cheques, one -for £200,000 and one for £400,000, as a settlement of his concessions. -These cheques were, he declared, made payable to the firm of Baring -Brothers in London, and on January 4, 1880, the money—£600,000—was -paid over by the Baring firm to the Paris bankers Hottinguer and -Co. Pierre Marcel Prieu declared that the payment of this money was -compensation by the Brazilian Government due to him personally for the -unjustifiable seizure of thirteen merchant ships with merchandise by -the Brazilian Customs. After Prieu’s death his heir, Monsieur D’Ariste, -did not care to fight the case and made over his rights in it—whether -with or without a quid pro quo does not appear—to relatives and -friends of Prieu, who formed a syndicate for the purpose of recovering -the debt or part of it from the French Government. The principal -members of the little syndicate were Monsieur A. Boileau and Monsieur -Prosper Sauvage. Their lawyer is Monsieur Antoine De Fonvielle, and -they put their claims in the hands of a man of affairs, Monsieur -Auguste Schneider. It is this gentleman who, according to the _Figaro_ -and Monsieur Gaston Calmette, called by appointment on Monday January -5, Tuesday the 6th, and Wednesday the 7th, 1914, at the Ministry of -Finance, and agreed with Monsieur Caillaux to a settlement on the terms -already stated. - -According to Monsieur Calmette, Monsieur Caillaux bound himself to -see that the full amount of the claim should be paid, and Monsieur -Schneider was to sign an agreement on Saturday, January 10, by which he -handed a large proportion of the money over to the party funds. Whether -such an agreement was ever come to or not is the affair of the law -courts. It must resolve itself into a case of hard swearing, for the -contradictory assertions of both parties will be, in all probability, -somewhat difficult of proof. The disclosures of these matters in the -_Figaro_ naturally enough put an end to all negotiations if such -negotiations really took place. - -On January 10 Monsieur Antoine de Fonvielle wrote a letter to Monsieur -Calmette which I subjoin in full. It was printed in the _Figaro_ on -January 12. It is dated from Paris, where Monsieur de Fonvielle has a -flat at 77 Rue du Rocher. “Monsieur le Directeur,” he writes, “I was -informed at about twelve o’clock on Friday last, January 8, of the -campaign in the _Figaro_ on the Prieu affair, of which I knew all the -details. There are certain mistakes in the _Figaro_ article, and it -struck me as advisable to put the people interested in direct touch -with the _Figaro_. I went therefore, on the evening of January 8, -at about half-past ten, to see Monsieur Schneider, who lives at 57 -Boulevard Beauséjour at Auteuil. Two people went with me and waited -for me in a taxicab at the door of the house. I went to see Monsieur -Schneider because he has for several years been the mandatory of the -claimants in the Prieu affair. Monsieur Schneider has taken all the -necessary steps to press the claims of the Prieu heirs with the French -Foreign Office both in France and abroad, in England, and in Brazil. - -“Monsieur Schneider, who was very surprised at my visit, introduced me -to a journalist, Monsieur Vidal, who was with him. I asked Monsieur -Schneider to go with me and see Monsieur Calmette at the _Figaro_ -office. Monsieur Schneider replied, ‘There is no reason why I should -put myself out for Monsieur Calmette. He has interfered quite enough -already (_Il m’a assez mis des bâtons dans les roues_). If it had not -been for his interference, the affair would have been settled by now.’ -I then told Monsieur Schneider that Monsieur Calmette had not sent me -to ask him to come, but that I thought that in his own interests and -in those of the heirs, he would do well to go to the _Figaro_ office -without delay, and tell the truth and all that he knew about this -business. Monsieur Vidal got up from his seat, and said to Monsieur -Schneider, ‘Sir, I do not advise you to go. You must know what has been -agreed.’ I insisted, and Madame Schneider, who was putting her baby to -bed in a room next door, came brusquely into the room and said to her -husband, ‘Do what Monsieur Vidal tells you, and do not go with Monsieur -de Fonvielle.’ I insisted again that he ought to go to the Rue Drouot -with me, and Madame Schneider, who showed some excitement, told her -husband to do what she suggested, adding, ‘You can’t do any good by -going. Besides, you know what you promised Monsieur Caillaux.’ I then -thought it best to go. When I got downstairs I told the two people with -me what had happened. One of them has material interests in the affair. -(Signed) Antoine de Fonvielle.” - -Immediately under Monsieur de Fonvielle’s letter, Monsieur Calmette -published in the _Figaro_ of January 12 letters from two members of -the Prieu syndicate, Monsieur Boileau and Monsieur Prosper Sauvage. -Monsieur Boileau made the following declaration: “As the papers had -spoken of the Prieu affair, a meeting was called to hear what Monsieur -Schneider had to say. Monsieur Schneider declared: ‘I was very much -surprised at the fuss made in the papers. The affair was going to be -settled, and I had an appointment to-morrow, Saturday, January 10 -(the meeting was at half-past eleven on the evening of the Friday), -to receive a definite proposal.’ I left the meeting with Monsieur -Schneider, and as we went away together he made this remark to me: ‘If -the affair succeeds we shall have to leave a good many feathers behind -us.’” - -The third letter published by the _Figaro_ was from another member -of the Prieu syndicate, Monsieur Prosper Sauvage: “I was present at -the meeting which was called to discuss the situation created by -the articles in the _Figaro_,” he wrote. “I was one of the first to -arrive, and met Messieurs Monniot, Mazars, and Boileau. Naturally the -conversation bore on the incidents of the day, and when I expressed my -astonishment and my indignation at the proposal that the Government -should take 80 per cent. for its electoral needs while the heirs -received only 20 per cent. of the money, Monsieur Monniot declared -that Monsieur Schneider had told him about the interview which he had -had, and had confirmed these figures. He added that Monsieur Schneider -had found the rate excessively high, and quite unacceptable. (Signed) -Prosper Sauvage.” - -These letters appeared in the _Figaro_ on January 12. The same day -Monsieur Calmette accused Monsieur Caillaux of having extorted £16,000 -from the Comptoir d’Escompte for the party funds. Monsieur Calmette -wrote that Monsieur Ulmann, of the Comptoir d’Escompte, had been -received at five o’clock one afternoon by Monsieur Caillaux, and that -some days afterwards the £16,000 had been placed at the disposition -of the Minister of Finance. Everybody concerned contradicted these -statements very flatly, and as they have no bearing on the Caillaux -drama other than to show the bitterness and personal nature of the -attacks in the _Figaro_ against Monsieur Caillaux we may leave them on -one side. - -Three days later, on January 15, Monsieur Francois Lebon published in -_L’Œuvre_, a little weekly paper which has been in bitter opposition -to the present Government, an article on the scandals of the week, -in which he referred to the Prieu affair, and to the affair of -the Comptoir d’Escompte. In this article, which is the more worth -quoting because it attacks not only Monsieur Caillaux but the present -parliamentary régime in France as well, Monsieur Lebon exclaims against -the outcry which many people raise against such revelations as those -made by the _Figaro_, that “they tarnish the good name of the Republic.” - -“The republican régime,” writes Monsieur Lebon, “is settling down in -the mud. We may consider it permissible to think that a few more stains -will not be much more visible. When a man is drowning it is perhaps -an excess of precaution to refrain from throwing him a rope for fear -of splashing him with a few drops of water. One of these days it will -become perceptible that if the Third Republic fell so low, it was -because the Third Republic was ‘la République des camarades.’” - -This is severe language from a Frenchman about France, but -unfortunately there is much in the political history of recent years to -support this charge of graft and of corruption. Charges of corruption -in the N’Goko Tanga affair, charges which were not altogether denied -satisfactorily, were brought by Monsieur Ceccaldi when the colonial -Budget came up for discussion, and the fact that Monsieur Ceccaldi has -since become a close friend and supporter of the Caillaux Government -makes these charges all the more significant now. Each Government in -France has a secret fund of £44,000; £24,000 of this fund are used -comparatively openly. The little balance of £20,000 is not nearly -enough for the funds needed by the Government at the general elections, -and it is a well-known fact that a great deal more is spent. - -The question as to where this money comes from is hardly a mystery. The -Mascuraud committee, an association of parliamentarians and commercial -men, has been generous with money in the past. This year it is said to -have withheld a large proportion of its usual subsidy, and the _Figaro_ -and other Opposition papers declare that Monsieur Caillaux did what he -did for the purpose of ensuring at the coming elections the election of -Government candidates for the Chamber of Deputies. - -[Illustration: _Agence Nouvelle—Photo, Paris_ -MONSIEUR CAILLAUX’S FRIEND, M. CECCALDI] - -On January 15 another long article over Monsieur Calmette’s signature -in the _Figaro_ dealt severely with Monsieur Caillaux’s relations with -financial men in Paris. The suggestion made was that Monsieur Caillaux, -who was a member of the board of the Argentine Crédit Foncier, the -Egyptian Crédit Foncier and other enterprises of international finance, -was for personal and pecuniary reasons unable to resist the pressure -brought to bear on him by his colleagues among the directors of -these financial boards, and was obliged to do what they told him to -do, irrespective of his own political convictions or of the higher -interests of the country, which interests he as a Minister of the State -should have considered first. - -According to the _Figaro_, a Monsieur Arthur Spitzer, an Austrian by -birth, a Frenchman by naturalization, and one of the most influential -directors of the big French bank, the Société Générale, had gained his -position there owing to the influence and recommendation of Sir Ernest -Cassel. - -“Since 1911,” said the _Figaro_, “the French Prime Ministers and -Finance Ministers had successively expressed their opinions that -Monsieur Spitzer took too large a share in every sense of the word of -the big loans which were launched on the Paris market. In consequence -Monsieur Spitzer’s re-election to the board of the Société Générale -in 1913 was indirectly opposed by the Government. Monsieur Spitzer, -in deference to the expression of this opinion which was conveyed -to the Société Générale by a permanent official of the Ministry of -Finance, resigned his position on the board of the Société Générale, -but he remained on the board of the Crédit Foncier Argentin and on the -board of the Crédit Foncier Egyptien, of which two boards of directors -Monsieur Caillaux was a member. The intermediary between the Government -and the Société Générale in the secret and delicate negotiations which -resulted in the resignation of Monsieur Spitzer had been Monsieur -Luquet, one of the principal permanent officials in the Ministry of -Finance. Shortly after Monsieur Caillaux’s return to power an intimate -friend of Monsieur Spitzer, Monsieur André Homberg, a director of -the Société Générale, and another financial magnate whose name the -_Figaro_ does not mention, called on Monsieur Caillaux at the Ministry -of Finance, and shortly afterwards Monsieur Luquet was superseded and -was succeeded in his post by Monsieur Privat-Deschanel, the general -secretary of the Financial office, the man in whose presence Madame -Gueydan had burned her husband’s, Monsieur Caillaux, letters. In other -words, Monsieur Calmette accused Monsieur Caillaux of allowing himself -to be influenced by his financial friends to serve their financial -needs by the removal of a useful servant of the country. On the -following day, January 16, the _Figaro_ launched another accusation -against Monsieur Caillaux, that of interfering between two big shipping -companies in order to please his financial friends.” - -There is no need to go into the details of the quarrel between the -South Atlantic Company and the Compagnie Transatlantique. Suffice it to -say that the _Figaro_ accused Monsieur Caillaux of acting in an -arbitrary fashion and taking orders for his conduct from certain -financial magnates, among whom was Monsieur André Homberg of the -Société Générale. On January 19, Monsieur Gaston Calmette announced for -the following day a series of articles describing “the nefarious part -played by Monsieur Caillaux in the events which preceded the sending of -a German gunboat to Agadir.” On the 20th this series of articles began. -They continued without intermission till January 24. I shall refer to -them more fully in another chapter of this book. - -On January 26, Monsieur Gaston Calmette called Monsieur Caillaux to -account in the _Figaro_ on the question of a heavy fine of £325,000 -which had been inflicted on a Paris bank (the Banque Perrier) for the -non-observance of certain formalities in connexion with an emission of -two million pounds sterling of Ottoman bonds. Monsieur Gaston Calmette -returned the next day to the question, twitting Monsieur Caillaux -somewhat cruelly with his inability to give a satisfactory reply. On -Wednesday, January 28, he returned to the charge again and at some -length on the front page of the _Figaro_, dropping it on the 29th for -an article of two columns and a half on Monsieur Caillaux’s connexion -with the Crédit Foncier Egyptien and the Crédit Foncier Argentin. - -In this article Monsieur Calmette deliberately accused Monsieur -Caillaux of allowing quantities of South American bonds and shares -an official quotation on the Paris Bourse because Monsieur Spitzer, -Monsieur Ullmann and others of his financial friends were interested -in placing these bonds in France. Monsieur Calmette declared that -during the six months of Monsieur Caillaux’s tenure of office as -Finance Minister in 1911, that is to say from February to June of that -year, South American bonds and shares to the amount of forty million -pounds sterling received an official quotation on the Paris Bourse, -and he drew up and published a Table showing the prices at which the -quotations had been given, and the depreciation of these stocks and -shares during the three years which followed. The depreciation is -about twenty-five per cent. In other words, according to the _Figaro_, -Monsieur Caillaux’s admission of these enormous blocks of South -American bonds on the Paris Bourse resulted in a loss to French -investors of ten millions sterling. - -Naturally enough Monsieur Caillaux replied through the official Havas -agency, and in reply to his _communiqué_ Monsieur Calmette on January -30 returned to the charge, emphasising his original accusations. - -On the first of February Monsieur Caillaux visited his constituency of -Mamers. The _Figaro_ on that day published a long and bitter article -describing the misdeeds of the Minister of Finance since his entry -into politics. On the 2nd it published two columns more containing -a sarcastic appreciation of Monsieur Caillaux’s visit to Mamers. -On February 5, Monsieur Caillaux was accused in the _Figaro_ of -postponing the French loan and so inducing French investors to place -their money elsewhere, notably in Italy. On February 7 the _Figaro_ -accuses Monsieur Caillaux, of “continuing to earn the gratitude of the -Triple Alliance.” After adjourning the French loan and so facilitating -the success of one Prussian loan, and the preparation of a second, -“Monsieur Caillaux,” he is told by the _Figaro_, “has enabled -the Hungarian Government to contract a loan of twenty millions -sterling.” “When all our enemies have filled their Treasuries,” says -the _Figaro_ of February 7, “perhaps Monsieur Caillaux will make -up his mind to reveal the great plans and schemes to which he has -subordinated the eventual issue of a French loan.“ On Sunday February 8 -the _Figaro_ contented itself with publishing a photograph of Monsieur -Caillaux, and making fun of it, but day by day no number of the paper -appeared without an attack on him of one kind or another. On February -11, announcing the Finance Minister’s resignation from the board of -the Crédit Foncier Argentin, Monsieur Calmette comments on it in these -words: “Monsieur Henri Poirier, an intimate friend of Monsieur Spitzer, -has taken his, Monsieur Caillaux’s, place provisionally. When Monsieur -Caillaux wishes to return to the board there is no doubt that Monsieur -Poirier will make way for him.” On February 19, commenting on the -statement in the Senate of Monsieur Caillaux, two days before, that he -had never said in 1901 that a Minister of Finance would never consent -to interfere with all the taxes, the _Figaro_ gives him the lie direct, -quotes the speech he made on July 4, 1901, and declares that it is a -complete condemnation of his whole fiscal policy at the present time. -On the 20th Monsieur Calmette returns to the charge, compares several -speeches of Monsieur Caillaux made at different dates, and comments on -them in these words: “Monsieur Caillaux modifies his declarations and -his financial programme according to whether he is a Minister in power -or anxious to become one, according to whether he is speaking so as to -remain in office or speaking against the Ministry so as to overthrow -it.” On February 25 Monsieur Gaston Calmette returns to “the secret -combinations of Monsieur Caillaux,” and the big fine of £325,000, -“which was imposed but never collected,” and ends his article by the -accusation that Monsieur Caillaux, for private reasons, authorized a -loan issued by a South American bank after the authorization had been -refused three times by his predecessor Monsieur Pichon. On Thursday, -February 26, the _Figaro_ returns to the attack on the same subject. -On March 2, 1914, Monsieur Calmette published a letter written on -December 19, 1908, by Monsieur Caillaux, who was then Minister of -Finance, to Monsieur Clemenceau, who was then Prime Minister and -Minister of the Interior. In this letter Monsieur Caillaux protests -against the publication in the _Journal Officiel_ of advertisements of -foreign lottery bonds. “Six months after the date of this letter,” says -Monsieur Calmette, “the Clemenceau Cabinet fell, and Monsieur Caillaux -in the following autumn became President of the board of the Crédit -Foncier Egyptien. He remained President of that board till January -1914, even while he was a member of the Cabinet again from March 2, -1911, till January 10, 1912. In December 1908 while Monsieur Caillaux -was Minister of Finance and was not yet on the board of the Crédit -Foncier Egyptien he had refused the introduction on the Paris market of -800,000 lottery bonds. In 1912 he authorized their introduction.” “Our -plutocratic demagogue,” writes Monsieur Calmette, “had found in the -interval between 1908 and 1912, 100,000 good reasons for suppressing -his refusal of 1908 to give these bonds a market.” - -This article is of course a deliberate accusation of financial and -political dishonesty. On March 3, Monsieur Calmette returns to the -question of the South Atlantic Shipping Company. On the 4th, Monsieur -Calmette warns the public against a loan which is to be issued by this -company, and suggests that Monsieur Caillaux’s reasons for encouraging -it are reasons of party policy, and anything but straightforward. On -March 5 the _Figaro_, over the signature of Monsieur Gaston Calmette, -accuses Monsieur Caillaux publicly of facilitating a Stock Exchange -_coup_ by enabling his friends to gamble, with a certainty of success, -in the price of French Rentes on the Paris Bourse. - -This accusation needs a few words of explanation. The budget proposals -contained one item of supreme interest to French investors. This was -the taxation of stocks. On March 4 at five o’clock it became “known” -in the lobbies of the Chamber and in the newspaper offices of Paris -that Monsieur Caillaux intended to omit French Rentes from his scheme -of taxation. Naturally this expected immunity of French Rentes from -taxation was the reason of a rise of French Rentes. On the Thursday, -March 5, Monsieur Caillaux contradicted the rumour of the afternoon -before, and declared that he intended to propose the taxation of French -Rentes. At twenty minutes to twelve on that morning, when the sworn -brokers of the Paris Bourse fixed the opening price, the official -contradiction had not reached them. At twelve o’clock, when the opening -price was published on the Bourse, Rentes were up to 88.80, the highest -price which had been reached since the declaration of war in the -Balkans. A large amount of stock changed hands at this high price. -Seven minutes later Monsieur Caillaux’s _communiqué_ was generally -known, and Rentes fell forty centimes in a few minutes, entailing heavy -losses. - -Monsieur Barthou made a cynical and characteristic comment on this -Bourse operation. “The money was not lost to everybody,” he said. -On March 8 Monsieur Gaston Calmette stigmatizes Monsieur Caillaux’s -behaviour with reference to the immunity and taxation of French Rentes -as “a double pirouette, a looping-the-loop act which allowed certain -friends of the Minister of Finance, of whom he was very fond and whom -he kept very well informed, to execute a most audacious Stock Exchange -_coup_.” - -Monsieur Calmette follows this up by a personal attack on Monsieur -Caillaux, who, he declared, stated through the Agence Havas on December -28 that he had resigned his position on the board of the Crédit Foncier -Egyptien and the Crédit Foncier Argentin, that Monsieur Caillaux had -mis-stated the truth, and that he was still a member of these boards -and drawing a large sum for his services. On March 10 Monsieur Calmette -attacked Monsieur Caillaux in an article which occupied nearly three -columns of the front page of the _Figaro_, on his behaviour in the -Rochette case. - -This article was of course written with the knowledge that the letter -of Monsieur Victor Fabre, the Procureur Général, which appears earlier -in this volume, would, if published, support the charges made by -Monsieur Gaston Calmette against Monsieur Caillaux, and Monsieur Monis. -It marks the last stage of this long series of personal attacks in the -_Figaro_, far too many of which attacks appear to be only too well -deserved. - -“For Rochette to escape from legal punishment for his crime against the -investing public it was necessary that his case should not come on for -trial on April 27, 1911,” wrote Monsieur Calmette in the _Figaro_ on -March 10, 1914. The meaning of this is that by French law a prosecution -which has not been followed by execution within three years falls to -the ground and becomes null and void. Rochette would be a free man if -he remained unsentenced three years after his first prosecution in -1908. On March 2, 1911, wrote Monsieur Calmette, “Monsieur Caillaux -became Minister of Finance in the Cabinet of which Monsieur Monis was -Prime Minister, and Monsieur Perrier Minister of Justice. Rochette -had been arrested on March 20, 1908. On May 8 he was released -provisionally. He was tried on July 27, 1910, sentenced to prison, -appealed, and was able to continue his inroads on the private fortunes -of France in all tranquillity. Rochette in 1908 continued to speculate -and continued to empty France’s woollen stocking. He got seventy-two -million francs of small investors’ money before his arrest, he got -sixty-eight million francs more out of it afterwards. If his case did -not come on before the three years were up he would be a free man.” - -Monsieur Calmette then tells the story of the pressure which was -brought to bear by Monsieur Monis and Monsieur Caillaux on Monsieur -Fabre and on Judge Bidault de L’Isle, which story we know in all its -details now, and he comments on it in these words: “Rochette was -saved. All he had to do was to wait for the previous procedure to -be proclaimed null and void, and this was done on February 2, 1912. -When, to his amazement, a new suit was commenced under the Cabinet of -which Monsieur Poincaré was Prime Minister, Rochette took flight. He -is a free man to-day, freer and better protected than all of us. He -will smile as he reads this indiscreet account of his troubles which -are over, and in his gratitude he will send from overseas a gracious -greeting to the Minister of Finance, his saviour and his friend. -Monsieur Caillaux it was who demanded, who obtained, who insisted -on, the various postponements which allowed Rochette to thieve with -impunity. Monsieur Caillaux it was who allowed Rochette to proceed -during the long legal procedure with the systematic spoliation of the -public purse for which he had been arrested, tried, and sentenced once. -The protector, the accomplice, of this shady financier is Monsieur -Caillaux. Monsieur Caillaux it was who _in exchange for subventions -of money to the newspapers which supported him and his policy_ -facilitated, prolonged, and increased the strength of the influence of -this Stock Exchange adventurer on the public whom he was ruining. - -“There you have the plutocratic demagogue! There you have the man of -the Congo, the man who nearly made us quarrel with England and with -Spain, the man of the Crédit Foncier Egyptien lottery bonds, the -man who drew money for serving on financial boards and for services -rendered, the man who indulged in secret machinations and criminal -intervention, the Finance Minister of the Doumergue Cabinet! Neither -the Commission of Inquiry nor Monsieur Jaurès ever really understood -the Rochette affair. They guessed something about it, they felt what it -meant, instinctively, and they stopped their inquiry, frightened by so -much illegality, disgusted at so many crimes. Now you know the truth of -it all. Here it stands revealed in all its nakedness to the public whose -savings have been stolen. It can be resumed in one word—infamy! It can -be resumed in one name—Caillaux!” - -On March 11, Monsieur Calmette pointed out that Monsieur Caillaux had -issued no official contradiction to the terrible accusations in the -_Figaro_ of the day before. On Thursday, March 12, he called public -attention again to Monsieur Caillaux’s silence, and in heavy black type -in the very centre of the front page of his paper appeared these three -lines, which were, so soon, to be fraught with tragic consequence. - - “WE SHALL PUBLISH TO-MORROW A CURIOUS - AUTOGRAPH DEDICATED BY MONSIEUR - JOSEPH CAILLAUX TO HIS ELECTORS.” - -On Friday, March 13, 1914—those of my readers who are superstitious -will take note that it was a Friday and a thirteenth of the month—the -“Ton Jo” letter appeared on the front page of the _Figaro_. - - - - -VII - -THE “TON JO” LETTER - - - SENAT. - - With the best will in the world it was impossible - for me to write to you yesterday. I had to take - my part in two terribly tiring sessions of the - Chamber, one in the morning at nine o’clock, - which finished at midday, the other at two - o’clock, from which I only got away at eight - o’clock in the evening, dead beat. - - However, I secured a magnificent success. I - =crushed=[2] the income-tax while appearing to - defend it, I received an ovation from the Centre - and from the Right, and I managed not to make the - Left too discontented. I succeeded in giving the - wheel a turn towards the Right which was quite - indispensable. - - To-day I had another morning session at the - Chamber which only finished at a quarter to one. - - I am now at the Senate where I am going to have - the law on the contributions directes voted, and - this evening, no doubt, the session will be over. - I shall be dead tired, stupid, ill almost, but I - shall have done a real service to my country. - - Ton Jo. - -[2] The word crushed is underlined in the original text. - -That is the “Ton Jo” letter. That is the document which, printed in -big black type in the centre of the front page of the _Figaro_ on -Friday, March 13, 1914, and re-printed in facsimile lower down on -the same page, was followed on the 16th by the revolver shots which -killed Monsieur Gaston Calmette. The letter was written by Monsieur -Caillaux on July 5, 1901—thirteen years before it was published in -the _Figaro_. When he wrote it Monsieur Caillaux was Minister of -Finance in the Waldeck-Rousseau Cabinet, and apart from the tragic -event which followed close on its publication, the letter is a curious -and upsetting confession of political duplicity. The income-tax has -been Monsieur Joseph Caillaux’s hobby horse for many years. It is -an uncomfortable sensation to read, over his own signature, this -confession, in his own handwriting, that while appearing to fight for -the tax he was really doing his best to crush it out of sight. The -natural deduction was of course that Monsieur Caillaux was now, in -1914, pursuing the same tactics which he pursued thirteen years ago. - -[Illustration: -La véritable déclaration de M. Caillaux relative à l’impôt sur le revenu -THE “TON JO” LETTER FROM THE _FIGARO_ -Friday, March 13, 1914] - -Once again his speeches have shown him as a partisan of the income-tax, -and a partisan of the taxation of French Rentes. The “Ton Jo” letter -leaves us uncertain whether this partisanship is not merely a political -move, and whether Monsieur Caillaux may not again be “crushing the -income-tax while appearing to defend it.” His own letter is a terrible -comment on his policy, and it is difficult to exaggerate the shock -which the publication of this letter caused in Parliament and among the -supporters of the Minister of Finance and of the present Government. - -Needless to say, Monsieur Gaston Calmette made the most of it. He -embodied the letter in a long article in which he repeated his former -accusations against Monsieur Caillaux, accused him of conniving at -the escape of Rochette from justice because Rochette’s money was -useful to his personal policy, accused him of deliberate lying in the -announcement he made of his resignation from the board of the Crédit -Foncier Egyptien, accused him openly of felony in connexion with the -Bourse _coup_ and the tax. - -The “Ton Jo” letter was not published in its entirety. Monsieur -Calmette wrote that he suppressed the end of it because that referred -to a subject which had nothing to do with fiscal questions. The name -of the person to whom it was written was also suppressed, but every -one in Paris knew very soon that the letter had been written to Madame -Gueydan-Dupré, who afterwards—five years after the letter’s date, -when she was divorced—became the wife of Monsieur Caillaux. When -the letter was written in these intimate terms Madame Gueydan-Dupré, -whom Monsieur Caillaux addressed with the familiar “tu” which means -so much in French, his note to whom he signed “Ton Jo,” was the wife -of another man. When that letter was published, the woman, to whom it -had been written thirteen years before, had been the wife of Monsieur -Joseph Caillaux for five years and had ceased to be his wife, had been -divorced from him for two years. - -It is easy to imagine the feelings of the present Madame Caillaux, of -the successor of Madame Gueydan in Monsieur Caillaux’s affections, when -she saw this letter reproduced in facsimile on the front page of the -_Figaro_, and realized that all France was reading between the lines. -It can have mattered very little to her that Monsieur Calmette had -suppressed the last few lines of this letter. The mere fact that the -first part of it was published, that in his article he made it clear -that he knew how it had begun and ended, and made clear to others to -whom it had been written, was all-sufficient for the woman who now -bears Monsieur Caillaux’s name. That woman knew that there had been -other letters in existence. She knew that Monsieur Caillaux had written -letters to her which had been at one time in the possession of the -woman to whom this “Ton Jo” letter was addressed, and these letters -contained, as she well knew, the same mixture of love and politics as -the document published on that Friday, March 14. - -Her own married life before she became Monsieur Caillaux’s wife had -not been happy. She knew and dreaded the power and the will to injure -of a woman scorned. She knew of course of the dramatic scene which had -occurred before she married Monsieur Caillaux, between her husband and -his first wife, Madame Gueydan. She knew that the letters which she -dreaded had been destroyed on that occasion, but she knew, too, that -their destruction had been obtained at the price of a reconciliation -between Monsieur Caillaux and his first wife, and she knew, no woman -better, that Monsieur Caillaux had not kept to the spirit of the -bargain, had obtained a divorce from his first wife, shortly after the -destruction of these letters, and immediately after his divorce had -become her own husband. She was not sure that there were no copies of -the letters in existence. - -One shudders to visualize that interview between husband and wife on -the morning of Friday, March 13. One can realize the fears which were -expressed, the mud of past years which was stirred. And that morning, -we may be fairly certain, the first thought of desperation was born -in Madame Caillaux’s brain. Can you not see this woman thinking, -pondering, murmuring to herself, “This must be stopped”? Can you not -see her snatching at her copy of the _Figaro_ next morning, skipping -with an impatient shrug of the shoulders her husband’s _communiqué_ to -the Agence Havas, and reading down the page with anxious eyes to see -whether the revelation of the letters which she feared would follow? -One shudders at the mental picture of the lives of Monsieur and of -Madame Caillaux, of this man and this woman, during the days which -followed the publication of the “Ton Jo” letter. And when she saw, on -Monday, March 16, that Monsieur Calmette had not stopped his campaign -against her husband although three days before, on the 13th, he had -said “My task is finished” one can realize her anguish—the anguish of -fear. - - - - -VIII - -AGADIR - - -In almost every newspaper article which I have read on the Caillaux -drama one sentence has invariably amused me. “The question of Agadir,” -we read, in French and English papers both, “is too fresh in the -reader’s mind for any exhaustive reference to it here to be necessary.” -But memories are short in these fast-living days, and though the -history of Agadir is recent history, no story of the Caillaux drama can -be complete without recalling it at length. For one of the accusations -against Monsieur Caillaux as a politician which the _Figaro_ made -constantly is that Monsieur Caillaux made mistake on mistake, and was -misled by his hatred of the Ministers who had been instrumental in the -original and comparative settlement of the Moroccan difficulties, to do -grave wrong to France over the Agadir matter. - -His hatred of his parliamentary opponents, it was said at the time, -was very nearly instrumental in creating serious international -complications. Further imprudence was shown by his endeavour to -palliate the effect of his first ill-considered act, and he was finally -forced to consent to concessions on behalf of France which France need -not have made at all if Monsieur Caillaux had been more prudent from -the beginning. - -This, stripped of all vituperation, is the accusation which Monsieur -Caillaux has to answer before the tribunal of history. Let us look -into it. In order to do so we must go back to the Act of Algeciras. -It will be remembered that the Act of Algeciras gave France the right -of policing Morocco because of its neighbourhood to Algiers. Three -years after the Act of Algeciras French troops were in occupation -of certain portions of Moroccan territory, and the jingo party, the -Pan-Germanists, in Germany were protesting with heat against this -military occupation. - -The peace party in Germany, however, had other views. There was a -feeling that an understanding on the basis of the act of Algeciras -between France and Germany might lead to a weakening of the Entente -between France and Great Britain, and be useful economically to German -enterprise. - -On February 8, 1909, when Monsieur Clemenceau was at the head of the -French Government with Monsieur Stephen Pichon as his Foreign Minister, -Germany recognized, more freely than it had recognized before, the -interests of France in Morocco for the maintenance of order, and -promised collaboration economically. A secret letter changed hands, -confirming this agreement, and admitting that Germany should remain -disinterested in the politics of Morocco. In this same letter it was -admitted also that the economic interests of France in Morocco were -more important than the economic interests of Germany. The importance -of this letter rested of course on the fact that it practically -entailed the suppression of immediate friction between the two -countries. - -The Clemenceau Cabinet worked hard to carry the good work further -still, so that the spirit of this Franco-German understanding should be -extended to the Congo. The French representative of the bondholders of -the Moroccan debt, Monsieur Guiot, who had been in the French Foreign -Office, paid a visit to Berlin, and the result of his negotiations with -the German Foreign Office in the Wilhelmstrasse was a memorandum dated -June 2, 1909, by which it was decided to create a Franco-German Company -for the purpose of exploiting certain concessions. On June 5 the French -Minister for Foreign Affairs, Monsieur Pichon, took counsel with the -French Colonial Minister, Monsieur Milliés-Lacroix, on the advantages -and disadvantages of this Franco-German collaboration. - -At the end of July 1909, the Clemenceau Cabinet fell. Monsieur Briand -became Prime Minister and retained Monsieur Pichon at the Quai d’Orsay, -but Monsieur Clemenceau dropped out of the Cabinet and Monsieur -Caillaux was no longer Minister of Finance. - -It is not too much to say that the Clemenceau-Caillaux alliance dates -from this little upheaval in French internal politics, and it was at -this point that Monsieur Caillaux’s enmity to Monsieur Briand and -Monsieur Pichon first led him astray. - -On August 2, 1909, the N’Goko Sanga Company, in reply to a letter -from the Minister for Foreign Affairs offered to give up, against a -substantial indemnity, a portion of the territory for which it held -concessions. A commission was formed to discuss terms, but it was not -till April 29, 1910, that the amount of the indemnity was definitely -stated. The indemnity was to be F2,393,000 or £95,720. - -On February 17, 1910, after the French and German Governments had -signified in October of the year before their approval of the -provisional agreement between Monsieur Guiot and the Wilhelmstrasse, -the Moroccan Company of Public Works was formed. It had a capital of -F2,000,000, fifty per cent. of which was in French hands, twenty-six -per cent. in German hands, and the remaining twenty-four per cent. in -the hands of the other Powers who had signed the Act of Algeciras. Then -parliamentary politics in France had their say in the matter, and the -Radicals, Socialists and Radical-Socialists in France, with Monsieur -Caillaux in the foreground of debate, made use of the question of the -N’Goko Sanga indemnity as a weapon in Parliament against Monsieur -Briand. - -In consequence of this, the summer of 1910 did not bring with it any -definite advance in the Franco-German understanding which had appeared -to be so full of promise. In November 1910, after the strike of railway -men had weakened the authority of the French Government somewhat, -the N’Goko Sanga question came up in Parliament once more, and the -Franco-German understanding on Moroccan affairs and the affairs of the -Congo became enveloped in an immense haze of words. By February 1911 -the German negotiators began to show impatience, although on or about -the 15th of the month the Imperial Government had, to all practical -intent, agreed to allow, to a Franco-German company, concessions in -the German Cameroons. A fortnight after that, on February 28, 1911, -Monsieur Briand and his Cabinet were forced to resign. On March 3, -Monsieur Monis became Prime Minister of France, and Monsieur Caillaux -was his Minister of Finance. The Monis Cabinet found itself weighted -with immense responsibility. The situation in Morocco was extremely -difficult, and the French Government found itself on the horns of a -dilemma. On the one side were the promises made and the engagements -formed by the Governments in France which had preceded Monsieur Monis, -owing to which the Monis Cabinet was obliged, if it wished to remain -true to the policy on which it had gained power, to break with the line -of conduct followed by former French Cabinets in relation to Germany -for two years. On the other side was the very real danger of breaking, -without any other reason than that of internal politics, with the -pacific policy of the last twenty-four months. - -The internal troubles in Morocco, making French military action a -necessity, put the French Government in the awkward position of giving -Germany the appearance of a real grievance by the military steps which -had to be taken, and the Pan-Germanists of course jumped at the pretext -for accusing France of laying forcible hands, or attempting to lay -forcible hands on Morocco in spite of all past treaties and agreements -and without ensuring to Germany the share which had been promised her -in 1909. - -I would ask the reader of this book who has had the strength of will to -struggle with the tortuous paths of Franco-German difficulties which -led to the Agadir climax, to memorize this situation for the sake of -a clearer comprehension of what follows. On the one side two years of -Anglo-French negotiations which promised comparative peace for the -future; on the other, the sudden breaking off of all negotiations -and apparent disregard on the part of France for everything which -had smoothed over the situation before. The fact that the change of -policy had become a necessity owing to Cabinet changes in France and -the promises made by members of the new Cabinet to their constituents -could not be offered as a reason. At the best they could be offered as -an excuse, and it was this necessity of making excuses which enabled -the German Government to voice the claim for compensation which was -to result in a territorial loss which France will never forgive the -Ministers who were responsible, and which will make it difficult for -either of them to take leading parts in France’s government again for -many years to come. - -The first thing which the Monis Cabinet did was to bulldose (it seems -the only word to use) the question of the Franco-German understandings -in Congo and Cameroon. This measure was taken in spite of warnings in -high quarters in France. President Fallières is known to have been -against the measure and to have expressed his views as forcibly as the -French Constitution allowed him to express them, and Monsieur Conty, -the director of political affairs in the French Foreign Office, was -distinctly adverse to the measure as well. Monsieur Conty knew that -for twenty years past, one of the principal pre-occupations of the -German Government was the African question, and he knew that the German -colonial party was very warmly supported by the Pan-Germanists, and had -considerable influence with the Kaiser himself. - -On these grounds in a note which he handed to Monsieur Cruppi, Monsieur -Conty (who is now in 1914 the French Minister at Pekin) pointed out the -wire-pulling powers of the German interests in the Cameroon and Congo -companies, and warned the French Government that there was grave danger -to peace in ignoring their claims. He pointed out that while the -Kaiser was known to be pacific and conciliatory at the time, he might -be forced by the Pan-German and colonial interests to demonstrate again -as he had demonstrated once before at Tangier, and that the result was -almost bound to be France’s abandonment to Germany of advantages which -she might, by a show of generosity now, keep secure. - -How right Monsieur Conty was Monsieur Caillaux himself was obliged to -admit nearly a year later when in the Senate he said: “I do not deny -that the rupture of the Franco-German partnership in Cameroon and the -Congo had diplomatic consequences.” Unfortunately at this time (March -1911) the principal pre-occupation of the Monis Cabinet was its desire -to break away from the policy of the Cabinet of Monsieur Briand to -which, logically, it should have adhered. - -Monsieur Caillaux was credited at the time with one of those famous -epigrammatic outbursts of his which have done him harm on various -occasions, when, as this one must be, they are quoted against him. “We -really can’t have Briand’s policy mounted in diamonds and wear it as a -scarfpin,” Monsieur Caillaux is reported to have said. The epigram, -whether he made it or not—and I believe that he did make it—expresses -very neatly—far too neatly—the chief motive which underlay the policy -of the Monis Cabinet at that time, and which was the main cause of that -Cabinet’s stubborn opposition to the advice of Monsieur Conty and the -advice of the President of the Republic himself. - -On March 29, in spite of an eloquent and perfectly constitutional -warning from Monsieur Fallières at a Cabinet Council, the Colonial -Minister in the Monis Cabinet, Monsieur Messimy, was instructed -to declare the consortium in Cameroon and the Congo arrangement -impossible. He made this declaration before the Budget committee at the -end of March and to the Chamber of Deputies on April 4. On April 3, -the French Government learned of serious trouble in Morocco. Several -tribes were rising, and military intervention became inevitable. German -irritation was growing. The German object, or at all events one of -Germany’s main objects, in the discussions and negotiations which began -in 1909 and broke off so suddenly and so dangerously in 1911 had been -to ensure a German share in the public works which were becoming -needful in Morocco. Germany had received as the price of a concession -to France an assurance that this share would be granted. In the -secret letter, which I have mentioned already, Germany admitted -the pre-eminence of French interests in Morocco, and approved the -constitution of a society of public works in which the German share of -capital was to be much smaller than the French share. - -When the Monis-Caillaux-Cruppi Cabinet took the reins in France, -the German Government asked the French Government to intervene -semi-officially so that the promised interests of the German -shareholders should be properly protected. The French Government -refused. Such intervention would be equivalent, it was explained, to -admitting privilege or monopoly, and such an admission was against all -Radical principles. - -The German Government, with great patience, pointed out that what was -really required was some sort of a guarantee that a French tender -should not be accepted to the prejudice of the German share of the -concessions. The question was one which lent itself to much discussion, -many words, long correspondence and wearisome delays, and presently -the question of the railways complicated it still further. In the -secret letter of 1909 it had been stipulated that the directors of the -Moroccan railways should be French. The German Government now claimed -that this clause should be taken to mean that _only the directors_ of -the railway lines should be Frenchmen and that a large proportion of -the subordinate railway servants should be German. Here again Monsieur -Caillaux’s unfortunate propensity for epigram did not forsake him. -“We can’t have German stationmasters in spiked helmets in the railway -stations of Morocco,” he said. - -The French Government made no counter-proposal with regard to the -management of the Moroccan railways, and the Berlin Government remained -silent on the question. This silence gave all thinking men considerable -grounds for uneasiness. It was felt that a very thinly veiled -antagonism on all questions of detail was making itself very apparent -at the Wilhelmstrasse. There was no definite decision made with regard -to Moroccan mining rights either, and it was just about this time that -the claims and concessions of the Mannesmann Brothers began to be -spoken of. - -The situation became quite critical, and there is no doubt that -the critical trend of the situation was due very largely to the -determination of the Monis Government not to “have Monsieur Briand’s -policy mounted as a scarfpin.” If Monsieur Cruppi and his colleagues -had been able to approve the convention with Germany for N’Goko Sanga -and the Congo which Monsieur Pichon had prepared, there would have been -no excuse for the remark which was made soon afterwards to the French -Ambassador in Berlin by Herr von Kiderlen Waechter. “When the railway -question fell through I saw that you had made your minds up not to work -in concert with us in any matter whatsoever.” - -Things were going from bad to worse in Morocco itself, and French -troops had to be sent on the road to Fez. On April 3, 1911, the French -Government ordered French troops to co-operate with the Sultan in the -chastisement of rebel bands. On April 17 (President Fallières had left -for Tunis on the 15th), the French Government placed 2400 men at the -disposal of General Moinier. On April 23, a column was sent to the -suburbs of Fez and on May 21 the French tricolour floated beneath the -walls of the Moroccan capital. - -The German Government said nothing, but a rumble of popular displeasure -was heard all over Germany. Herr von Kiderlen Waechter and the German -Chancellor received in stony silence the communication made by the -French Ambassador in Berlin, Monsieur Jules Cambon, that it had been -necessary to send French troops to Fez to protect French subjects and -to preserve order. German official newspapers announced, unofficially -but obviously on official inspiration, that Germany was about to resume -her freedom of action. - -At this time there was question (it was about the end of April) of a -railway from the German Cameroons to the Belgian Congo. The line would -of course, as a glance at the map shows, have to run through the French -Congo. For the moment it looked as though there was a loophole for -agreement which might lead to others, in this German line across French -territory. This hope disappeared however, and in May 1911 the Agadir -_coup_ was decided on. Germany realized that the only way of obtaining -“compensation” was a threat. The _Panther_ went to Agadir. The French -Ambassador had a conversation with the German Secretary of State at -Kissingen. The German Press was howling. Herr von Kiderlen Waechter -answered Monsieur Jules Cambon’s question as to what Germany wanted, -in these words: “See what you can give us in the Congo.” A few days -later the Monis Cabinet fell, the Caillaux Cabinet came into power, -and the _Panther_ and the _Berlin_ arrived off Agadir. The question of -compensation had become acute. - -At the beginning of July 1911, English opinion was favourable to -Germany’s desires. The Potsdam agreement had soothed Russian fears in -the East, France’s march on Fez had excited Spain and made her uneasy, -and Italy was beginning to cast greedy eyes on Tripoli. There was -very little protest internationally, at first at all events, when the -_Panther_ and the _Berlin_ went to Agadir. Monsieur de Selves, the -French Foreign Minister, left Paris for Holland on July 3. On July 4, -Monsieur Caillaux, who as Prime Minister took over the Foreign Office -while Monsieur de Selves was away, instructed Monsieur Paul Cambon -to advise the British Government that France would make no immediate -retort to the threat of Germany off Agadir. Monsieur Caillaux gave -these instructions in direct opposition to the opinion of Monsieur de -Selves which he expressed very clearly in a long telegram from Holland -to Paris. - -In spite of this telegram from the Minister for Foreign Affairs -Monsieur Caillaux telegraphed to Monsieur Paul Cambon as follows: -“The German Government has invited us to enter into conversation with -regard to Moroccan affairs. We must therefore ask the German Government -first of all to explain the object of this conversation. According to -the reply of the German Government it will be time, after it has been -made, for us to decide whether we should make a naval demonstration in -the southern waters of Morocco. I beg you therefore to avoid advising -the British Government of any intention for the moment on our part of -sending warships either to Agadir or to Mogador.” - -The British Cabinet had been asked by Monsieur Paul Cambon, on the -instructions of Monsieur de Selves, as to England’s intentions, but -before a reply was given Monsieur Caillaux’s telegram had arrived. -The Russian Government remained passive. Germany realized that her -bluff would not be called. On July 7 Monsieur de Selves returned from -Holland, and Herr von Schoen, the German Ambassador in Paris made the -first suggestion of “compensation.” France, in principle, was not -averse to compensation of a kind. If it was to be a question of the -Congo she asked Germany to explain what she wanted. - -There was no objection in Paris to a rectification of the Cameroon -frontier line, but France wanted to know what Germany was prepared -to do in exchange in Morocco. Herr von Kiderlen Waechter on July 30 -suggested that an agreement which should follow the lines of the 1909 -understanding might be possible. Monsieur de Selves immediately asked, -through Monsieur Jules Cambon, for a written note explaining and -setting forth this suggestion. It was not till July 15 that the French -Government knew what the German demands really were, and decided that -on such lines as the cession of all Gabon and all the Congo between the -ocean and the Sanga it was quite useless to continue talking. English -opinion became uneasy at Germany’s demands. - -Lord Morley wrote in the _Times_ on July 19, “If we do not learn by -other means what is going on at Agadir, public opinion may be that we -ought to go and see for ourselves.” - -Belgian opinion became alarmed at the menace to the Belgian Congo. -On July 21, Sir Edward Grey spoke very clearly and Mr. Lloyd George -declared the same evening that war was better than peace with -humiliation. He added that the safety of Great Britain’s commerce -overseas was no question of party, and that the national honour was -at stake. England to a man showed that it was prepared to back France -against the German demands. The Franco-British Entente Cordiale, which -had been asleep for a fortnight, became more wideawake than ever. Mr. -Asquith described the situation as “extremely difficult.” - -The situation of the German Government in view of this awakening of -public opinion seemed to have two issues only. Either an ultimatum in -reply to the French Government’s refusal to submit, or the acceptance -in principle of a rectification of the Congo-Cameroon frontier and the -granting to France of sufficient authority to cope with the threat of -anarchy in Morocco. An ultimatum would have meant war, and Germany -would have appeared to be the aggressor. The abandonment of her claims -was an awkward step to take. - -It seems, however, likely that Germany would have taken it, if she had -not believed that secret negotiations with prominent men in France -were possible. The conduct of these secret negotiations without the -knowledge of Monsieur de Selves is the reason which induced Monsieur -Clemenceau to say later that Monsieur Caillaux ought to be impeached -by the high court for high treason. It is very difficult to state with -absolute precision exactly what these negotiations were. According to -Monsieur Caillaux the first mention of the Belgian Congo was made by -Monsieur von Lancken, but there seems to be every reason to believe -that Monsieur Caillaux lost his head a little and introduced the -question himself. If this be so Monsieur Caillaux committed a grave -fault in tactics, and it appears certain that the German Government -considered Monsieur Caillaux an easier person to deal with in these -matters than his Foreign Minister. Monsieur Caillaux’s opinions on the -value to France of British help were certainly very well known—too -well known in fact—in the German Embassy in Paris. Monsieur Caillaux -was believed by the German Foreign Office to put no faith in eventual -help in France’s need from the British army. This anxiety on the part -Monsieur Caillaux, and the knowledge of this anxiety in German official -quarters, enabled the Wilhelmstrasse to exercise indirect pressure. - -It is not known exactly, and I do not suppose ever will be known -exactly, what negotiations were carried on with Herr von Gwinner of the -Deutsche Bank and with or through Sir Ernest Cassel. But on July 28, -the German Government was convinced that Monsieur Caillaux was ready -to treat. On that date, when Monsieur Jules Cambon asked the German -Foreign Minister whether Germany were not ready to find some means of -transaction other than the mutilation of the French Congo, Herr von -Kiderlen Waechter replied: “No, the question is no longer what it was.” -This reply is noted in the French Yellow Book. - -Monsieur Caillaux’s personal interference in the negotiations -undoubtedly allowed the German Foreign Office time to breathe, and the -Cabinet of Berlin took care to fix her claims on the Congo in such a -way as not to justify British alarm, and to offer with one hand what it -withdrew with the other, in Morocco. These negotiations lasted fully -three months, during which time it is not too much to say that France -and Germany, or better still France, Germany and Europe generally, were -on the very verge of war more than once. - -Rumour has been busy with sidelights on the negotiations which took -place, and not the least interesting of these sidelights is afforded -by the telegram which is said to have passed between Berlin and Paris, -between the Wilhelmstrasse and the German Embassy: “Do not waste -time in discussion with De Selves or Cambon. We can get more out of -Caillaux.” I do not know whether these are the exact words of the -famous telegram, but they are certainly the gist of its meaning. It -may be taken as certain that the telegram was sent and received, -that Monsieur de Selves obtained possession of it, and that Monsieur -Calmette would have published it in the _Figaro_ in the course of -his campaign against Monsieur Caillaux if he had not been induced to -refrain from so doing on patriotic grounds. Several people have seen -and read this telegram. After the death of Gaston Calmette it was found -in his pocket book with a bullet-hole through it, and handed over, by -the brothers of the dead man, to Monsieur Raymond Poincaré in person, -for safe keeping. It is the telegram which is currently known as “the -green document” because of the paper on which it was transcribed. The -French Foreign Office was in possession at this time of the cipher -which was used for telegraphic communications between Paris and Berlin -by the Wilhelmstrasse and the German Embassy in Paris. Monsieur de -Selves knew therefore that “the green document” had been sent, knew its -contents, and had a very stormy interview with Monsieur Caillaux, his -Prime Minister, in consequence. - -The interview was a dramatic one. Monsieur de Selves when he learned of -“the green document” consulted Monsieur Clemenceau and Monsieur Briand. -He spoke of it, I believe, in other quarters also, and eventually -he asked President Fallières to confront him with Monsieur Caillaux -so that the discussion on Monsieur Caillaux’s interference with the -negotiations between the French and German Foreign Offices should -take place in the presence of the President of the Republic. Monsieur -Caillaux, in a fury of indignation, declared to Monsieur Fallières -that there was no truth in the insinuation contained in the message, -and went straight to the German Embassy to ask what they meant there -by the assertion made in “the green document.” The obvious answer to -this ill-considered step was an immediate change in the Wilhelmstrasse -cipher. Monsieur Caillaux, by his fit of anger and his imprudence, had -lost to his Government a valuable source of information. - -There is no need here to give the details of the agreement with Germany -which was concluded not very long after the events just mentioned. -There can be little doubt, I think, that France might have made a much -better bargain if Monsieur Caillaux had been a little cooler and shown -less unwisdom. On November 6 Monsieur Caillaux in a speech to his -constituents at Saint Calais defended his policy. A week after this -speech the German treaty was discussed for a full week in the Chamber, -and accepted on November 21. During this week’s debate Monsieur -Caillaux was attacked with some vivacity, and Monsieur de Selves’ -attitude gave cause for much excitement. On January 9, 1912, the Senate -sitting in committee discussed the Franco-German treaty. In the course -of this discussion Monsieur Caillaux, the Prime Minister, explained the -conditions under which the negotiations for Franco-German collaboration -in the N’Goko Sanga Company and the Congo Cameroon Railway had fallen -through, and made this declaration: “An attempt has been made in the -Press and elsewhere to establish the story that negotiations with -Germany were carried on outside the negotiations of the Ministry for -Foreign Affairs. _I give my word of honour that there were never any -such negotiations beyond those carried on through diplomatic channels._” - -This declaration was listened to in deep silence, which Monsieur -Clemenceau broke. “Will the Minister for Foreign Affairs,” said -Monsieur Clemenceau, “state whether documents are in existence showing -that our Ambassador in Berlin complained of the intrusion of certain -people into the diplomatic negotiations between France and Germany?” - -The members of the senatorial commission all turned to Monsieur de -Selves, but Monsieur de Selves remained silent. Monsieur Caillaux, -who had sat down, jumped up again, but Monsieur Clemenceau prevented -him from speaking. “I am not addressing myself to you, Monsieur le -President du Conseil,” he said. “I put this question to the Minister -for Foreign Affairs.” - -Monsieur de Selves, who showed considerable emotion and some -hesitation, rose from his seat and said, “Gentlemen, I am divided -between the wish to speak the truth and the responsibilities of my -situation as Minister for Foreign Affairs. I ask the permission of -the commission to remain silent and to give no answer to the question -Monsieur Clemenceau has just asked.” “Your reply,” said Monsieur -Clemenceau, “may be perfectly satisfactory to my colleagues, but it -cannot be satisfactory to me. I maintain that your reply cannot and -does not give satisfaction to the man to whom you have already given -your confidence. I am that man, and I will add that you gave me your -confidence unsolicited.” - -There was a moment of extreme tension, of extreme uneasiness, almost -of stupor. Monsieur Clemenceau had spoken with great emphasis. His -meaning was self-evident. The situation was a painfully dramatic one, -for the statement of Monsieur Caillaux, the Prime Minister, that there -had been no negotiations carried on without the knowledge of the -Minister for Foreign Affairs appeared to be in flagrant contradiction -with Monsieur de Selves’ reticence, and the statement was given the lie -direct by Monsieur Clemenceau. The emotion was such that the session -of the senatorial commission broke up there and then, and the senators -dispersed after adjourning to another day. - -That afternoon there was a confidential interview between Messrs. -Caillaux, Clemenceau and De Selves, and the same evening the Minister -for Foreign Affairs, Monsieur de Selves, handed in his resignation to -the President of the Republic in the following letter, dated Paris -January 9. “Monsieur le Président,” he wrote, “After the painful -incident which occurred to-day at the session of the senatorial -commission, I have the honour to ask you to accept my resignation -as Minister for Foreign Affairs. It would be impossible for me to -undertake any longer the responsibility of a foreign policy for which -unity of views and unity of action are withheld from me in the Cabinet. -My anxiety to obtain a satisfactory result in official negotiations -of difficulty and to obtain the approval of Parliament on my efforts -has been responsible for my remaining in office so long. But the -double anxiety I have endured neither to withhold the truth, nor to -fail in my duty to my colleagues, makes it impossible for me to remain -in the Cabinet. I shall always remember the forbearance and kindness -with which you have honoured me in delicate circumstances which it -is impossible for me to forget. I beg you to receive, Monsieur le -Président, the assurance of my profound respect.” - -We know now that Monsieur Clemenceau alluded to the “document vert” -when he made the accusation against Monsieur Caillaux to which I -have already referred. The President of the Republic accepted the -resignation of Monsieur de Selves on the evening of January 9, and on -January 10, 1912, the Caillaux Cabinet was forced to resign office. - - - - -IX - -L’AFFAIRE ROCHETTE - - -In the first chapter of this book is reproduced _in extenso_ the -statement of Monsieur Victor Fabre, Procureur Général, a legal official -of judge’s rank, whose position somewhat resembles that of the Public -Prosecutor in England. Monsieur Fabre, the gravity of whose statement -caused the downfall of the Monis-Caillaux Cabinet, declared that -pressure had been brought to bear on him to postpone or adjourn the -trial of a financier named Rochette, who, since the postponement of his -trial has escaped abroad, and is abroad still. - -The bearing of this statement on the Caillaux drama will be seen in -a moment by the perusal of the examination on March 20, 1914, of -Monsieur Monis and of Monsieur Caillaux by the parliamentary commission -appointed after the storm caused by Monsieur Barthou’s reading of -Monsieur Fabre’s statement to inquire again into the facts of the -postponement of Rochette’s trial. I quote the details from the official -records transcribed from the shorthand notes of the parliamentary -inquiry which are in my possession. The inquiry was voted by the -Chamber of Deputies on March 17. I may add here that Monsieur Fabre, -whose written statement made it necessary, was punished for making -that statement, or, rather, for allowing himself to be coerced by the -Prime Minister and Monsieur Caillaux, and now occupies a position -of lower rank with a smaller salary, at Aix instead of Paris. His -successor as Procureur Général, Monsieur Herbaux, will probably act as -public prosecutor when Madame Caillaux is tried. On March 20, 1914, -at half-past nine in the morning, Monsieur Monis, who was by then no -longer Prime Minister, was introduced before the Commission of Inquiry, -consisting of Monsieur Jaurès, who presided, and thirty-two other -deputies. “Early in the month of March 1911,” said Monsieur Monis, -“when my Cabinet was barely a fortnight old, I received the visit of -the Minister of Finance, Monsieur Caillaux. Monsieur Caillaux told me -that he was anxious to oblige the lawyer, Maître Maurice Bernard, -who had represented him in his divorce proceedings against his first -wife (Madame Gueydan Dupré), and that Maître Bernard had asked for a -postponement of the Rochette affair.” - -“Monsieur Caillaux,” Monsieur Monis said, “pointed out that apart -from his own wish to oblige Maître Bernard it might be dangerous, for -political reasons, to refuse his request for the postponement of the -Rochette trial.” “Maître Bernard,” he said, “is a very vehement man, and -a lawyer of great gifts. If the trial takes place now he is certain to -point out the number of issues of bonds and shares which have been made -in recent years on the Bourse, and authorized by the Government, which -have dwindled in value, which have caused heavy loss to investors, -which issues of stock have never, for all that, resulted in the taking -of legal proceedings. An outcry is sure to be raised round a speech of -this kind in the Law Courts, and the outcry is sure to have political -results. One of the first of these will surely be a number of questions -in the Chamber of Deputies. The Government has troubles enough of its -own just now without adding to them in this way. It will be much wiser -to grant Maître Bernard’s request and postpone the trial.” - -It was as a result of this conversation between Monsieur Monis, the -Prime Minister, and his colleague the Minister of Finance, Monsieur -Caillaux, that the trial of Rochette was postponed. Even without going -into any details now, though I am afraid that it will be necessary -to go into a good many details presently, the verbatim report of -this interview throws a curious light on the close connexion in -France between the Government of the country and the country’s legal -procedure. Monsieur Caillaux’s reference to Rochette’s power, or rather -the power of Rochette’s lawyer, of causing the Government serious -inconvenience by an exposure of the number of losses to which French -investors have been subjected recently, points very clearly to a none -too heavily veiled attempt on the part of Rochette to blackmail the -Minister of Finance, and not only points to such an attempt, but looks -very much as though it had succeeded, for the blackmailer’s object in -this case was not money but time, and he was given time to escape doing -it. But perhaps the best way to realize what this man Rochette was and -is, and how he obtained the power of forcing the French Government to -take so strange a step as to order a judge and the Public Prosecutor to -postpone his trial and so secure his impunity and his escape from all -further worry, is to look into the history of Monsieur Rochette himself -from the beginning. - -Rochette was the son of country farmers, or field labourers—people -at all events in poor circumstances. His early years are wrapped in -mystery, for although it is currently believed that he was an errand -boy and afterwards a waiter in a small café in a little town near -Fontainebleau, Rochette himself has always denied this. What is certain -about him is that in 1903 or 1904, nine or ten years ago, Rochette, -who had just finished his military service and who was therefore -twenty-three or twenty-four years old at the most, came to Paris and -became a bank clerk. He had a little money even then, which he himself -says he inherited and which was £2000 or £2500 at the most. He used -this money to launch several financial enterprises, and succeeded in -obtaining an incredible amount of credit for them with incredible -rapidity. - -This young man, whether he be a swindler or not, and even now that is -an open question, is undoubtedly a financial genius with a wonderful -charm of manner. He made use of these two assets to start several -companies, the first of which were the Banque Franco-Espagnole, the -Crédit Minier, the Société des Mines de la Nerva, the Laviana, the Val -d’Aran, the Paral Mexico, the Union Franco-Belge, the Syndicat Minier, -the Mines de Liat, the Buisson Hella and the Manchon Hella. - -The flotation of nearly all these companies of different kinds, for -the exploitation of banks, mines, electric lamps and incandescent gas -mantles, was an immediate success, and hundreds of thousands of pounds -flowed into the coffers of this young financier. The Crédit Minier -in Paris, which was his headquarters, employed an enormous staff of -clerks, had gorgeous offices, and very shortly after its foundation -bore the appearance of a prosperous bank doing an enormous business. As -a matter of fact the Crédit Minier and Rochette really did an enormous -business, for not only from Paris, but from the provinces, where he had -branches everywhere, Rochette reaped a harvest of gold which flowed in -like Pactolus from the pockets of small investors who believed in him. -At the very beginning their belief was well justified, for everything -Rochette touched turned to gold. - -Very soon after his establishment in Paris Rochette was said to be -worth somewhere between three and four million pounds sterling. Of -course most of this money was employed in his financial enterprises, -but these were successful beyond the dreams of avarice, and the prices -of shares in the Rochette flotations rose and rose continuously. To -mention one only among the number, shares of the Hella Gas Mantle -Company which had been issued at £4 a share ran up in the course of a -very few months to nearly £21 (518 frcs. was the exact figure) a share. -Some idea may be formed of the confidence inspired by Rochette from the -fact that when, in 1908, five years after his first appearance on the -Paris market, the financier was arrested, ten thousand shareholders of -his companies signed a petition for his immediate release, and sent it -to the Chamber of Deputies. - -At the time of his arrest there were many more people than these ten -thousand shareholders who pinned their faith to Rochette and his -enterprises, and who maintain even now that his downfall was due to a -conspiracy against him by financiers who were interested in the fall -of his shares. To a certain extent this contention was true, as we -shall see later on by some of the evidence given on oath before the -Commission of Inquiry. A number of charges were formally made against -Rochette by a number of people who had lost money and considered him -responsible for the loss. These charges became so many that the Public -Prosecutor, after consulting the Minister of Justice sent for Monsieur -Rochette one day, and asked him, in view of the fact that a number of -the actions brought against him had been amicably arranged between the -parties while others of a graver nature charging him with fraud had -resulted in acquittal, whether he would consent to a friendly though -judicial examination of his books. This examination took place, took -place it may be remarked at the expense of Rochette himself, who was -perfectly willing to pay for it, and the accountants’ verdict was by no -means altogether unfavourable to the young financier. Rochette, having -triumphed, continued his issues of companies, and general opinion -began to rank him with the Rothschilds and the other overlords of high -finance. - -[Illustration: _Agence Nouvelle—Photo, Paris_ ROCHETTE IN COURT - -(Rochette is the central figure with the black beard)] - -France rejoices, however, in the possession of a succession of more -or less avowedly Socialist Governments which govern or try to govern -the country on fatherly lines, and the French Government on the one -hand, and the judicial authorities on the other, began to look with -suspicion and alarm on Rochette’s increasing prosperity. The Bourse, -too, began to become suspicious of Rochette’s success, and an opinion -began to gain ground that sooner or later his rocket-like flight into -the regions of high finance would be followed by one of those crashing -stick-like falls, by one of those disastrous _krachs_ of which so many -have been chronicled during the last century in all great capitals. It -was towards the end of February or the beginning of March 1908, that -Rochette made his big mistake. He attacked the _Petit Journal_, one -of the biggest and most influential newspapers in France. Rochette -made this attack on the _Petit Journal_ and on its managing director -Monsieur Prevet, a member of the Senate, because he had a very definite -object in view. Rochette’s companies appealed to the imagination and to -the pockets of the small investor, and the small investor in France is -not a regular reader of financial newspapers, which he neither trusts -nor understands. - -These small financial newspapers are legion, but although Rochette -undoubtedly had numbers of them at his disposal he realized that a -paper more generally read and appealing more directly to the people he -wanted to touch was necessary to his ambitions, and to the greater and -wider success for which he was working. He made up his mind, therefore, -to obtain control of the _Petit Journal_, a newspaper which is sold -all over France in every town, in every village, and in every hamlet, -and which, though it no longer enjoys the largest circulation of any -newspaper in France, was one of the two newspapers most suitable for -his purpose and the only one of the two which he had any chance at all -of getting. In order to obtain control of the _Petit Journal_, Rochette -set to work with tactics which were characteristic of the astuteness -and the utter lack of scruple of the man. He issued circulars which he -had printed in enormous quantities, forwarded them to every shareholder -of the _Petit Journal_, and scattered them broadcast, elsewhere. In -this circular, which was issued in view of the next general meeting of -the shareholders of the paper, a meeting which was to be held on April -5, 1908, Rochette painted the financial position of the _Petit Journal_ -in the blackest possible colours, stating without the slightest -reference to truth, that the paper as a property was in a very bad way, -and advising shareholders to sell their shares. - -The managing director of the _Petit Journal_, the powerful member -of the Senate, Monsieur Prevet, was naturally very much annoyed and -somewhat alarmed by these manœuvres, and took legal action to put a -stop to them. He commenced a prosecution against a “person or persons -unknown,” by which euphemism of course Rochette was indicated, for -the purpose of putting a stop to the disloyal manœuvres by which -Monsieur Rochette was rapidly obtaining a large number of shares and -powers of attorney from discontented shareholders. - -Monsieur Prevet realized that unless some such immediate action were -taken it was more than possible that at the general meeting of the -_Petit Journal_ Company on April 5, 1908, the discontented shareholders -either in person or by proxy would oust him, Monsieur Prevet, from his -position as managing director of the _Petit Journal_, and would hand -over the control of this newspaper with its enormous influence and -immense phalanx of readers to the financier Rochette. Monsieur Prevet -occupied a very high position. He was not only the managing director of -the _Petit Journal_, he was not only a member of the Senate, but he was -actually, at that time, the “rapporteur” or advisory summariser for the -Senate on the big question of the purchase by the State of the Western -Railway. - -It is a curious sidelight on the Rochette affair that this financier -who had begun his career five years before with a capital of £2000 was -the principal mover in the immense agitation against the acquisition -by the State of the Western Railway of France. That he moved in this -matter on purely personal grounds is of far less importance than the -fact that if he had succeeded in overthrowing Senator Prevet the French -nation would undoubtedly have been spared a very heavy money loss, -for the acquisition by the State of the Western Railway has been a -disastrous undertaking from a money point of view, and has cost and -will continue to cost French taxpayers a large sum of money every year -till the railway begins, if it ever does begin, to pay. Rochette’s -attacks on Monsieur Prevet, and his obvious intentions on the _Petit -Journal_ created a storm of antagonism against him in the French Press. - -In spite of the persistent and unfailing confidence of his shareholders -public opinion began to make itself felt, and as always happens in -France when public opinion is roused, a great deal of mud began to -be flung and accusations of corruption became very frequent and were -directed against the highest in the land. The Government was hotly -accused of laxity, and Monsieur Georges Clemenceau, who was Prime -Minister in 1908, was accused of moral complicity with the financier -Rochette. It is a curious proof of the poetical justice, which comes -to its own even in financial questions, that these accusations against -Monsieur Clemenceau did more to cause the eventual downfall of Rochette -than anything which had happened before. They made “the tiger” angry, -and when Monsieur Clemenceau grew angry with Rochette, the day of -Rochette’s wane had dawned. Accusations were launched against the high -magistrates, who were accused of weakness and of being afraid to take -action. Members of Parliament were directly accused in the public -Press of protecting Rochette and his enterprises, and of taking money -for so doing. No day passed without the launching of an accusation -against some member of the Chamber or the Senate of having accepted -heavy bribes to cover Monsieur Rochette, or to back him up, and the -names of numbers of well-known men who are now more or less indirectly -connected with the Caillaux drama were constantly mentioned at the time -in connexion with Rochette, the financier. - -The connexion between the two cases, the case of Rochette and the -Caillaux drama which followed the attack in the _Figaro_ on Monsieur -Caillaux’s conduct in connexion with it, is curiously close. There have -been two Parliamentary inquiries into the Rochette affair. In the -first one in 1911, among the members of the Parliamentary Commission -we find the names of Monsieur Caillaux himself (he very nearly, in -fact, was the president) and of Monsieur Ceccaldi, who was approached -by Monsieur Caillaux on the afternoon of the crime, and to whom the -Minister of Finance confided his uneasiness with regard to his wife. In -the list of the second Commission Monsieur Ceccaldi’s name and others -closely connected with the Caillaux drama appear once more. But there -was no question, yet, in 1908, of a Rochette inquiry, for the _affaire -Rochette_ was only just beginning. Monsieur Clemenceau fired the first -shot, as Monsieur Clemenceau was bound to do. There had been talk on -the Bourse, there had been talk in the newspapers, Monsieur Clemenceau -had been accused of slackness, and he had made up his mind that he -would not justify the accusation. - -On Friday (it is quite a curious coincidence that so many important -dates of the Caillaux, Agadir, and Rochette affairs should have fallen -on a Friday)—on Friday, March 20, 1908, at exactly twenty minutes to -twelve in the forenoon, Monsieur Clemenceau, the Prime Minister, sent -for Monsieur Lépine, who was then Prefect of Police, and ordered him -to take measures for a judicial inquiry into Rochette’s financial -transactions. Monsieur Lépine spent exactly a quarter of an hour -with Monsieur Clemenceau in his room at the Home Office in the Place -Beauvau, and at five minutes to twelve he returned to the Police -Prefecture, sent for Monsieur Mouquin, the head of the Research -Department of the Paris police, and for Monsieur Yves Durand, his chef -de Cabinet, and told them what Monsieur Clemenceau had said to him. - -Now the French have a way of their own of conducting these matters. -The State does not prosecute for fraud. Monsieur Lépine’s orders were -to find a plaintiff who would bring a charge against Rochette, who -would show proof that Rochette had damaged his pocket, and who would be -willing to pay the caution which the French courts require from such a -plaintiff before legal action begins. Monsieur Yves Durand was ordered -by Monsieur Lépine to go out and find such a plaintiff. Monsieur -Lépine, in his examination by the Parliamentary Commission on July 26, -1911, was very explicit with regard to his own opinion and the opinions -he had heard expressed on Rochette’s financial undertakings. He alluded -to them as “a house of cards built on puffs of hot air, kept afloat by -public credulity and bound to fall to pieces at the first breath of -suspicion.” - -Monsieur Lépine had urged the judicial authorities to take action in -the Rochette case long before action was taken, and he alluded with -some bitterness to the difficulty in getting a serious charge brought -against any financier suspected of fraud who was rich enough to make it -worth the while of his creditors to withdraw such charges. There had -been several charges made against Rochette, and they had all fallen -through because the plaintiffs got their money or got money enough to -induce them to withdraw. - -When, therefore, Monsieur Lépine told Monsieur Yves Durand, his chef de -Cabinet, that he must go out and find him a plaintiff, he added that he -himself knew of nobody who was likely to assume the rôle. The French -law gives no greater claim on the assets in such a case to the man who -goes to the expense of prosecuting than it affords to all the other -creditors, and as he has to put up funds for the prosecution, it is -often, as Monsieur Lépine explained, more than difficult to find a -victim ready to fleece himself after he has been fleeced. But Monsieur -Yves Durand happened to have heard that Monsieur Prevet was a likely -man to undertake the prosecution, and he called on him immediately. -He went first to his private house, failed to find him there, and -found him eventually at his office in the _Petit Journal_ building in -the Rue Lafayette. Monsieur Prevet told Monsieur Yves Durand that a -banker named Gaudrion was perfectly ready to prosecute Rochette, and -that he had mentioned his willingness to him. Monsieur Yves Durand and -Monsieur Prevet drove together immediately to the Rue de la Chaussée -d’Antin, where Monsieur Gaudrion had his office. They found Monsieur -Gaudrion there and he told them that although he was not ready to -prosecute Rochette himself, a friend of his, Monsieur Pichereau, -whom he described as a man of property living at Corbeil, was ready -to prosecute and would do so. Monsieur Pichereau, Monsieur Gaudrion -declared, had put £6000 into some of Rochette’s financial enterprises, -the Nerva Mines and Hella Gas Mantle Co. among others, had lost a good -deal of his money, and was ready to do everything possible to get some -of it back again. - -At a quarter past two that afternoon, the afternoon of Friday, March -20, 1908, Monsieur Yves Durand returned to the Police Prefecture -and told Monsieur Lépine what he had done. Monsieur Lépine sent -Monsieur Yves Durand to the Procureur de la République, Monsieur -Monier (Monsieur Monier has been promoted since and is the high legal -authority whom Madame Caillaux consulted on the morning of the day -she shot Monsieur Calmette, as to the means of putting a stop to his -campaign against her husband), whom he was to advise of the existence -of a plaintiff ready to prosecute Rochette. - -Monsieur Lépine, in his evidence before the Parliamentary Commission of -Inquiry, explained that he had hoped to get the whole matter settled -that same day, or at all events between the closing of one Bourse and -the opening of the next, so as to avoid news of the prosecution being -allowed to leak out and to be used as a basis for speculation. However, -Monsieur Monier told Monsieur Yves Durand that he would see Monsieur -Pichereau on the next day, Saturday, at two o’clock, and he informed -the Procureur Général and the Minister of Justice that a charge in due -form was to be laid against Rochette on the morrow. At ten o’clock the -next morning, Saturday, March 21, Monsieur Yves Durand went to Monsieur -Gaudrion at his office and told him that the Procureur de la République -would receive Monsieur Pichereau’s charge at two o’clock that afternoon -at the Palace of Justice. Monsieur Pichereau was in Monsieur Gaudrion’s -office, and had drawn up and signed his accusation against Rochette. -Monsieur Gaudrion read it through to Monsieur Yves Durand, who was not -in the least aware that Monsieur Pichereau was not the proprietor of -Nerva shares and Hella Gas Mantle shares as he stated himself to be in -his accusation, but that Monsieur Gaudrion was really the shareholder, -and that Pichereau was only a man of straw. Gaudrion was a speculator. -He had sold shares “short” in the Rochette enterprises, and seeing his -way to a Bourse _coup_ he had coached Pichereau in the part he was to -play, given him a few shares of his own with which to play it, and paid -him a thousand pounds so that he should be able to make the necessary -guarantee on bringing his action and have something over for himself. - -Monsieur Yves Durand, who got himself into terribly hot water over -these preliminaries when the whole matter came to light, and who was -openly accused of speculating himself on the fall of Rochette shares, -declared that he was quite unaware of this dishonest combination, and -that he had been misled by Monsieur Prevet, who had told him that he -knew all about Gaudrion and about Pichereau as well. At a quarter-past -two that afternoon Pichereau laid his formal charge against Rochette -at the Palace of Justice, deposited £80 by way of guarantee for costs, -and signed a request to be a civil party to the action. The matter was -placed in the hands of the examining magistrate, Monsieur Berr, for -his immediate attention, and poor Monsieur Berr sat up all Saturday -night and all Sunday night, and worked through all day on Sunday at the -Rochette _dossier_. At ten o’clock on Monday morning, March 23, 1908, -Rochette was arrested. - -Of course the arrest of Rochette created an immense sensation, and -equally of course it occasioned the downfall of the shares of the -companies in which he was interested. But while these shares tumbled -headlong, an immense wave of public indignation swelled against the -financier’s arrest, for so far from finding empty coffers at the -offices of the Crédit Minier, the authorities admitted that there were, -in cash, £240,000 at this office, and £160,000 more at the Banque -Franco-Espagnole, a sister enterprise of Rochette’s. Rochette had -been arrested and sent to the Santé prison on Monday, March 23, 1908. -On Wednesday he wrote a letter to the examining magistrate, Monsieur -Berr, in which he protested with some appearance of justice against -his arrest and the situation created by it for the shareholders of his -companies. “It is my duty,” wrote Monsieur Rochette, “to declare that -on the day of my arrest I left the industrial and financial companies -under my control in an excellent situation. There were about £240,000 -in cash in the safe of the Crédit Minier, and £160,000 in the safe of -the Banque Franco-Espagnole. This makes a total of £400,000. If I were -a malefactor, as attempts are being made to prove me, it would have -been easy for me to get out of my difficulties. I was advised from -all sides of the intrigues which were in course against me under the -leadership of a few men who considered that the growing prosperity of -my companies threatened the enterprises of which they were at the head. -It was these men who put up the plaintiff Pichereau. It was these men -who managed to get you to take action, and who are really responsible -for the exceptional measures which have been taken against me and the -establishments which I control. You have put me in prison, sir, and you -have refused to allow me to communicate with anybody except yourself -outside the prison. You have given orders for the dismissal of all the -clerks of the Crédit Minier and the Banque Franco-Espagnole. You have -closed these establishments. You have given orders for the closing of -all the provincial branches. You have struck a terrible blow at these -companies, without having heard what I have to say, without having -questioned me, without any preliminary examination by accountants of -the financial condition of my banks, without the slightest concern -for the shareholders or the other people interested. Do you know of -any bank, of any financial institution however powerful that would -be capable of withstanding such a blow? And for whom, why, on whose -account, have you done all this? For Pichereau! On account of one -single plaintiff at whose request a judicial examination was ordered, -and of whom after four days imprisonment I know nothing at all, for I -know neither the man himself nor the charge he has made against me.” - -The examining magistrate, on receipt of this letter, confronted -Monsieur Rochette with Monsieur Pichereau, and told the financier the -exact terms of Monsieur Pichereau’s claim. Monsieur Pichereau claimed -to have bought Nerva Copper Mines of the B series, which proved to -be unnegotiable, and he put in nine documents to prove it. Rochette -declared that the nine documents proved nothing, that before his arrest -an attempt had been made to blackmail him, that these same documents -had been offered him on that occasion for £3200, and that he had -refused the offer. In proof of this, he stated that copies of Monsieur -Pichereau’s nine documents would be found among his (Rochette’s) papers -in the private desk in his office. - -In connexion with these statements, it was proved that a number of -attempts _had_ been made to blackmail Rochette, and that he had always -refused any advances of the kind. It is needless to say that the arrest -of this man and the closing of the banks and shutting down of mines and -other enterprises in which he was interested had a disastrous effect -on the market. All the money, and there was a great deal of money in -Rochette’s safes, had been sequestrated by the legal authorities, and -therefore of course no payments could be made. To put one case only, -eighteen hundred men and women in the employ of the Syndicat Minier -were clamouring for wages which could not be given them. - -Eventually the court decided that liquidators should be appointed who -should pay out money from a reserve fund of £110,000 which the Crédit -Minier placed in the liquidator’s hands for this purpose. In July 1908, -Rochette was declared a bankrupt. He resisted vigorously, and even -now many people are inclined to doubt whether the declaration of -his bankruptcy was legally justifiable. But the whole matter of -Rochette’s financial position soon became involved in such a tangle of -legal procedure that it is quite impossible to say whether Rochette -could have got out of his difficulties if he had been left alone, -or whether he could not. It is noteworthy at all events that a very -large percentage was paid to his creditors. On the other hand, the -Rochette enterprises were wildly speculative, and new flotations were -frequently used to fill up financial gaps in former enterprises which -were unsuccessful. One thing is very certain, and was proved during the -parliamentary inquiry into the beginnings of the Rochette affair. A -large number of people, Monsieur Gaudrion among them, had been keenly -interested in the downfall of Rochette and had sold quantities of the -shares in his companies for a fall some time before it came. Most of -them had lost money. Gaudrion, on March 16, that is to say a week -before Rochette’s arrest, had been severely bitten by a sudden upward -jump, or “‘bear’ squeeze,” as it is called, on the Bourse, and was -forced by the rapid rise of Rochette’s shares to buy back with a loss -of nearly £5000. - -Rochette was tried, and the case went against him, but again there -were illegalities in the trial. Information was communicated to the -court which was not, as the French law insists that it should be, -communicated first of all to the defendant or his lawyer. In the -course of the trial the liquidator, who had been officially appointed, -announced that he had distributed 50 per cent. to the creditors of -Rochette, and that he would be able to pay the 50 per cent. balance -integrally. Rochette lodged an appeal against the verdict, and at -the same time took legal action against Pichereau for making a false -declaration. His appeal was heard, dismissed, and judgment rendered, -by the Tenth Correctional Chamber of the Seine Tribunal on July 27, -1910—two years after his original arrest. The case was a long one, -very complicated, and proceedings had been obstructed legally, whenever -and wherever Rochette and his lawyers could obstruct them. The case, -however, provoked considerable scandal. Charges of illegality were made -by Rochette and his lawyer, Maître Maurice Bernard, in court and before -the case came to court, the Press took hold of the matter, and on July -10 Monsieur Yves Durand resigned and left the employ of the Prefecture -of Police. It was proved that this chef de Cabinet of Monsieur Lépine -was a sleeping partner in a stock-broking firm which had made a lot -of money by dealing in the shares of Rochette companies at the time -of his arrest, and though Monsieur Durand was not actually proved to -have profited by these transactions, grave suspicion rested on him -and made his official position untenable. On July 11, 1910, Monsieur -Jaurès brought the question of Rochette’s arrest before the Chamber, -and accused Monsieur Clemenceau in clear terms of having proceeded -illegally against the man, irrespective of his guilt or innocence. - -It is worth noticing that the Rochette question had now become, as -almost everything becomes in France, a political matter, and that the -Socialists, with Monsieur Jaurès at their head, affected to consider -Rochette a victim of arbitrary treatment by vested authority. A -Parliamentary Commission of Inquiry was appointed on July 12 to examine -the question. Monsieur Caillaux was a member of this Commission, -and if he had not just at that time taken Ministerial rank he would -very probably have been its president. The first meeting of the -Parliamentary Commission was held on July 15. The first witness called -was Monsieur Yves Durand, who had been Monsieur Lépine’s chef de -Cabinet. His evidence has already been summarized in the last chapter, -and need not therefore be repeated. Monsieur Monier, who was at that -time Procureur de la République (a position which is more or less -equivalent to that of Deputy Public Prosecutor), produced an immense -budget of documents, all of which accused Rochette of fraud. These -accusations stated that the Nerva Mines Company, the Syndicat Minier, -the Banque Franco-Espagnole, the Crédit Minier, Franco-Belgian Union, -the Laviana Coal Company, the Liat and Val d’Aran Mines, the Hella -Incandescent Mantle Company, and the Buisson Hella, nine companies -in all, which Rochette had launched by public subscription, had been -floated fraudulently and irregularly. The charge was that these -companies had no reasonable prospect whatever of earning money by -honourable means, and that there were no real commercial assets for -exploitation behind them. - -On July 26 Monsieur Lépine was examined by the Commission. He began by -affirming that the arrest of Rochette had been perfectly justified, and -while admitting that Monsieur Yves Durand had perhaps not been prudent -enough in arranging the preliminaries and checking the information he -received, he acquitted him of all personal action of a dishonourable -nature. He defended the arrest of Rochette, and declared that its -consequence had been to put a brake on the wild speculation which -Rochette’s issues had created. “I consider,” said Monsieur Lépine, -“that the arrest of Rochette turned off the tap and prevented him from -making new issues of shares. This preventive measure was a public -benefit. Some people lost money undoubtedly, but they deserved to lose -it. The speculation mania had been enormous and widely spread. It had -been crazy. There were shares which were worth £4 one morning and which -were run up to £22 before the same evening. If matters had been allowed -to go on like this, financial catastrophe would surely have followed.” - -In the deposition on November 16 made before the Commission d’Enquête -by Monsieur Georges Clemenceau, the ex-Premier, after declaring that -he himself had no personal knowledge of Rochette, described with -characteristic brevity the conversation which he had with Monsieur -Lépine just before Rochette’s arrest. “This has got to be finished -off promptly,” I told him. “Do you believe Rochette to be an innocent -man against whom calumniators are at work?” Monsieur Lépine replied: -“Rochette is a scoundrel. He is a serious danger to the small -investor, and if he is allowed to go on as he has begun we shall have -a catastrophe one of these days.” “I told Monsieur Lépine to go and -see the magistrates and make arrangements,” said Monsieur Clemenceau. -“If I had to begin it all over again I would do again exactly what I -did before, and I am quite certain that if I had allowed Rochette to -get clear away with his millions out of private people’s pockets then, -there would be a Commission of Inquiry at work now asking me to explain -my complicity with the man.” - -Monsieur Lépine was called before the Commission of Inquiry again on -November 18, and once more affirmed his conviction that Rochette’s -arrest had been necessary. He gave a few significant details of -Rochette’s methods. Rochette had bought properties for £8000 and -floated them as a company for £32,000. He had bought the Aratra Mines -for £9000, and floated them with a capital of £200,000. Patents for -which Rochette had paid £1200, and which, Monsieur Lépine declared, -were really not worth four shillings, were valued in the prospectus of -the company, which asked for, and obtained, subscriptions, at £480,000. -There were fictitious dividends declared, fraudulent balance sheets -concocted, prices inflated to figures which had no real existence -except by Rochette’s will. Rochette paid enormous sums for advertising. -One newspaper alone cost him £14,000. His advertising adviser drew -a salary of nearly £2000 a year. On one deal he spent £52,000, for -advertisement alone, in twelve months, and he spent £24,000 on -advertisement in the ten weeks before he was arrested. In three years -he created fifteen companies, issued £4,800,000 worth of shares, and -bought over £3,000,000 worth of his own shares at prices above the -price of issue to inflate and to keep prices up. He had then about a -million and a half sterling in cash to play with. - -On July 27, 1910, Rochette was sentenced to two years’ imprisonment -and a fine of £120, by the Tenth Correctional Tribunal of the Seine -Department. The verdict, with its “attendu,” or reasons, took two and -a half hours to read aloud, though it was read with the extraordinary -volubility of which only a French clerk of the court possesses the -secret. I have this verdict before me in its printed form. It is -printed in very small print by the official printing works of the -Chamber of Deputies, for the copy I possess was printed for the use -of the Commission of Inquiry. The verdict, which is, as I have said, -very closely printed, fills forty large quarto sheets of paper. Against -this verdict Monsieur Rochette appealed again, and in the meanwhile the -Commission of Inquiry spent many full days discussing the questions as -to whether Monsieur Clemenceau had really ordered Monsieur Lépine to -find a prosecutor against Rochette, whether Monsieur Lépine had really -said that Monsieur Clemenceau had given him these orders, whether -orders had been given or whether suggestions had been made—the usual -waste of time and the usual mass of irrelevant detail which appears -to be inseparable from the work of a parliamentary inquiry into any -question in any country. - -Ultimately, after long, long days of verbiage which appear curiously -useless now, Rochette himself was asked to give evidence before the -Parliamentary Commission of Inquiry. He was delighted to attend, for he -had nothing to lose and he had everything to gain by his attendance. He -also had a great deal to say, and said it very well, for Rochette is a -born orator. Naturally enough, he took the opportunity of pleading his -own case from A to Z once more, and of denouncing the illegality of his -arrest in March 1908. He launched accusations against the police, he -launched accusations against members of Parliament, he was very rude -indeed to financiers of repute. Above all, he was always interesting, -and often amusing, and he certainly made his case appear clearer than -it had ever appeared before. - -His evidence is well worthy of consideration in detail, for it must not -be forgotten that one of the men before whom he gave it was Monsieur -Joseph Caillaux, and that he gave this evidence on November 25, 1910. -A few months later, in March 1911, Monsieur Caillaux, who no doubt had -been impressed by Rochette’s powers of oratory, advised his colleague, -Monsieur Monis, of the dangers that might be incurred, politically -speaking, if pressure were not brought to bear on the legal authorities -for the postponement of Rochette’s trial, in accordance with the wishes -of this extraordinary expert in legal obstruction. It is fair to infer, -I think, that Rochette’s attitude before the Commission of Inquiry -had impressed Monsieur Caillaux considerably, but Monsieur Caillaux’s -political enemies ascribed his attitude to motives of another kind. -Rochette’s evidence, if evidence it can be called, occupies twenty-five -closely printed pages in quarto in the transcription printed for the -Commission of Inquiry of the shorthand notes which were taken. One of -the first points Rochette made was on the question of the money which -he spent on advertising his various enterprises. He admitted that -the figures quoted against him were very largely correct, that for -instance, he really had spent as much as £2500 a week for ten weeks on -advertising, “but,” he said, “it is only a question of proportion after -all. The Bon Marché, the Louvre, or the Printemps can spend thousands -on advertising where it would be criminally foolish of a small grocer -to spend hundreds. I am not a small grocer. During the period from -January 1 to March 23, 1908, in which my publicity bill was £24,000,1 -did nearly half a million sterling of business.” - -Rochette then made a vicious attack on Monsieur Prevet and the _Petit -Journal_, but vicious though his attack was, it was distinctly -plausible. “A shareholder of the _Petit Journal_ called on me,” he -said. “He brought some very interesting figures with him. These figures -showed that in 1901 the shareholders of the _Petit Journal_ got £2 -dividend and the shares were worth £44 to £48. In 1902,” he said -“Monsieur Prevet became director and six years afterwards, at the -beginning of 1908, the shares were worth from £10 to £12 and the -dividend was only sixteen shillings! This drop in value was not due to -a general slump in the newspaper industry, for the _Petit Parisien_, -the _Journal_, and the _Matin_, all of them halfpenny morning papers, -had increased the value of their respective properties enormously.” -Rochette’s visitor maintained, Rochette declared to the Commission, -that if Monsieur Prevet’s management was disastrous to the _Petit -Journal_ shareholders, the fact was largely due to Monsieur Prevet’s -need of money, which was notorious. Rochette went, he said, into the -question of the _Petit Journal’s_ next dividend. He saw, he declared, -that it was problematical, and he therefore “inspired,” though he did -not write, the circular which had been sent to the _Petit Journal_’s -shareholders. “With regard to Monsieur Prevet’s action at this time,” -says Rochette, “if he really wanted to protect the interests of his -shareholders and not his own, all he had to do would have been to send -out a private circular of his own to the shareholders, a list of whose -names was in his possession, and convince them that my statements were -wrong. He couldn’t, of course, do this, because my statements were -right, and that is why he was afraid that I should take his position -on the paper from him at the next general meeting. That is also why I -was arrested just before that general meeting. The shares had to be -deposited at the office of the _Petit Journal_ for voting purposes -about March 19. Monsieur Prevet was able to convince himself that his -authority with the shareholders had dwindled, and he thought it safer -for himself to get rid of me.” - -Several attempts were made, according to Rochette, during the month of -March 1908, to induce him to fall into cleverly laid traps which would -make his arrest easy. “These traps were laid cleverly, but not cleverly -enough,” Rochette declared, “and I was too astute to allow myself to be -caught in them. That was why,” he added, “I was arrested on Pichereau’s -disgracefully vamped-up charge.” Rochette was convinced, he told the -members of the Parliamentary Commission of Inquiry, that the anonymous -letters and anonymous telephone calls warning him that his arrest -was imminent with which he was bombarded between March 8 and 21 were -police tactics for the purpose of persuading him to take flight and -so to make matters easy for everybody. “I did not take flight,” said -Rochette proudly, “and when I was arrested there were £440,000 in my -safe. I could have taken this money out at any time. I did not take -it.” Rochette declared that the examining magistrate, Monsieur Berr, -had shown unfair prejudice against him from the moment of his arrest, -and that this was so apparent that his lawyer, Maître Maurice Bernard, -had made this accusation to the examining magistrate’s face: “I know -that my client’s arrest was arranged, ‘worked’ if you will, by three -men, Monsieur Lépine, Monsieur Prevet, and yourself!” And the examining -magistrate made no reply. “Ten thousand shareholders in my companies -signed a petition against my arrest and forwarded it to the Chamber of -Deputies,” was one of Rochette’s points. “In this petition they stated -that my arrest had been caused by Monsieur Prevet with the complicity -of Monsieur Gaudrion and Monsieur Pichereau. In February 1909,” -Rochette declared, “one of the experts who was examining my books -walked into Monsieur Berr’s room in the Palace of Justice. I was in -the little room next door, and I heard Monsieur Blanc, the expert in -question, who had not seen me, ask the examining magistrate whether -my case would come on for trial before the Correctional Court before -Easter or not. This was proof that the experts and everybody else knew -at this time that I was to be sent for trial, and that the pretence of -examining my books was only a pretence and nothing more. The examining -magistrate had made his mind up to send me for trial directly he had me -under arrest. The Crédit Minier,” Rochette declared, “ought never to -have been put into bankruptcy. None of my societies ought to have been -declared bankrupt, for every creditor was paid 100 per cent. The only -money that was lost was about £160,000, and that loss was due to the -disgraceful “bearing” of my shares by speculators. It is not fair to -say that I caused this loss of £160,000 to investors. The truth is that -people who were too well informed were allowed to make £160,000 at the -expense of the public. I have done nothing to be ashamed of. I have -committed no fault. Surely the success of the Crédit Minier is not a -fault. It had twenty-five customers when I started it, and five years -later there were fifty thousand of them. I wish to point out,” said -Rochette, “that my enterprises existed and did well before my arrest, -and continue to exist after it and in spite of it. I venture to state -positively that very few financiers who suffered as I have could make -the same statement. The net result of my arrest was the heavy drop of -the shares of my enterprises, a loss of £240,000 by the Crédit Minier, -and the ruin of shareholders whom the _krach_ caught unawares. Of -the £240,000 which the Crédit Minier lost, certain speculators made -£160,000, and £80,000 went to the expenses of the bankruptcy. The -liquidator alone was paid between £12,000 and £16,000.” - -Rochette told the Commission of Inquiry that he had intended taking -charge of the _Petit Journal_, as he had taken control in the _krach_ -of the Say sugar refinery. He was, at that time, endeavouring to get -hold of the concession of the Paris Omnibus Company and was backing up -the Darracq group with money so that Monsieur Darracq could obtain the -concession from the Municipal Council. Monsieur Rochette, questioned -very closely by the members of the Commission, was forced to admit -that one of his lawyers, Monsieur Rabier (one of the stalwarts of the -Caillaux party in Parliament), drew about £500 a year for legal advice, -and on other occasions received sums varying from £2800 to £3200. The -members of the Commission expressed doubt about these figures, and a -curious story was told by a former clerk of Rochette’s with regard to -his book-keeping methods. - -From this story it appeared that efforts were usually made by Rochette -to conceal the real amounts which were paid for their services to -newspapers and to those lawyers in the employ of the financier who -happened to be members of Parliament or political personages. Curiously -enough most of Rochette’s lawyers happened to be political personages, -and one of the lawyers of the Crédit Minier was Monsieur René Renoult, -who is a member of the present Cabinet. In many ways the examination -of Rochette by the Parliamentary Commission was an eye-opener to the -public. Accusations of venality on the part of public men are so common -in France, owing to the licence allowed in the Press, that such words -as “corruption,” “theft,” “lying” and the like have almost lost their -force when applied to men in the van of politics. But the details of -the manner in which Rochette conducted his business impressed and -alarmed the public by their unpleasant likeness to the unsavoury -details of the Panama case. - -One of the members of the Commission, Monsieur Jules Delahaye, -who throughout the inquiry acted very much like a counsel for the -prosecution of every political man who was mixed up in the Rochette -affair, pointed out this unsavoury resemblance. “I consider Monsieur -Rochette to be a great corrupter of public morals,” he said. “I am not -at all content with his explanations. They do not satisfy me. There are -matters of far greater gravity behind his methods than he would have us -suppose, and I would ask my colleagues to concentrate their attention -on the items of Rochette’s expenditure for publicity with the same -intensity as the attention of the Parliamentary Commission had at the -time to be concentrated, with the results which you remember, on the -publicity accounts of the Panama Canal. In this case, as in the case -of Panama, public morals have been corrupted. Millions (“of francs” -is meant, of course) have been employed, not only to buy publicity in -the newspapers, but, as the Prefect of Police has told us, to corrupt -the moral and financial rectitude of people of all ranks and all -stations in Paris, in the provinces, all over France. I will go so -far as to say that the taint actually extended to the Church. That is -a characteristic of the affair.” (Page 547 of the official shorthand -reports of the Parliamentary Commission.) - -Rochette paid, in many ways, on the plea of publicity. He was in the -habit, when he wanted to pay and to preserve secrecy for the payment, -of sending a note down to the cashier of the Crédit Minier with his -initials “H.R.” and a little cross marked on it next to the amount. -These little crosses were used in the books, it is suggested, to -signify that the amounts entered against certain names were not the -real amounts paid, which were much larger. The payments were made -directly from hand to hand by Monsieur Rochette to his political -friends and helpers, and no receipts passed. I do not propose to go -very much into detail on this uncomfortable question. The evidence -of Monsieur Duret, who acted as Rochette’s private secretary, and -that of Monsieur Yenck, a clerk in the Crédit Minier, leaves a very -uncomfortable taste in the mouth. Monsieur Yenck declared that Monsieur -Duret’s sole business was to act as intermediary between political -men and Rochette. He used to speak in very familiar terms of many -well-known politicians, and was on the friendliest terms with Rochette -himself. He always called Rochette by his first name, “Henri,” and was -in the habit of alluding to Monsieur Rabier as “Rab.” It was Duret who, -according to Yenck, secured, by political influence, the decoration -of the Legion of Honour for Henri Rochette. Yenck declared that Duret -had on one occasion made erasures in the private books of the Crédit -Minier, so as to avoid scandal. He told the Commission that Duret, whom -he had seen with a scratcher in his hand, and one of the Crédit -Minier’s private books in front of him, had explained what he was -doing by the remark: “I am very much afraid that Henri is going to be -arrested, and I don’t want the name of ‘Rab’ to be found in the books.” -(Page 566 of the official shorthand reports of the Parliamentary -Commission.) - -On February 1, 1912, the judgment against Rochette was annulled on -grounds of technical irregularity, by the Court of Correctional Appeal, -and the conclusions of the Parliamentary Inquiry Commission were laid -on the table of the Chamber of Deputies. It will be remembered that -according to the statement made by the Procureur Général, Monsieur -Victor Fabre, the Prime Minister, Monsieur Monis, had brought influence -to bear on him for the postponement of the Rochette trial on appeal -from the judgment of July 1910. Monsieur Jaurès, the President of the -Committee of Inquiry, on March 20, 1912, told the Chamber the history -of the Rochette case as he knew it, and he knows it perhaps better than -any other Frenchman living except Rochette himself. He told the story -of the strangely illegal manner in which the police had had Rochette -arrested. He pointed out that the police and the lawyers had been at -loggerheads as to the procedure to be employed. The police acted in -one way, the Parquet (that is to say the legal authorities) acted in -another, and by their ill-considered lack of unity of action with the -Parquet, the police had undoubtedly served the interests of a number of -men who had speculated and had made money on the downfall of Rochette. -It was, said Monsieur Jaurès, a curious fact that while the arrest of -Rochette could not be effected for the mere purpose of protecting the -small investor, it was effected by means of a conspiracy between a -banker, Monsieur Gaudrion, who had sold Rochette shares for the fall, -and Monsieur Prevet, the director of a newspaper, who was anxious to -throttle a competitor. - -In this conspiracy Monsieur Gaudrion furnished the prosecutor and -Monsieur Prevet supplied the influence. Monsieur Gaudrion did not, -himself, prosecute. He could not do so because he had been in trouble -with the laws of his country. He found a man of straw to act as -prosecutor in his stead, a man named Pichereau, and gave him shares and -money to act against Rochette. “When we examined Monsieur Gaudrion -before the Commission of Inquiry, I said to him,” said Monsieur -Jaurès, “I can understand that you, who were gambling for the fall -of Rochette shares should be anxious for the arrest of Rochette, but -why did Pichereau ruin himself by bringing an action which made the -shares in which he had invested his whole fortune perfectly valueless?” -“Gaudrion answered,” said Monsieur Jaurès, “‘The shares did not belong -to Pichereau’,” and this was the truth. Monsieur Jaurès suggested that -the conspiracy had gone even further. Monsieur Clemenceau, who was -Prime Minister, told us that he intervened because he was anxious to -scotch the legend that the Government were protecting Rochette. “I told -him to be careful,” said Monsieur Jaurès. Monsieur Prevet had told the -Commission that Gaudrion had advised him on March 19 or early on the -morning of the 20th, of the readiness of Pichereau to prosecute. - -At half-past eleven on the morning of March 20, Monsieur Clemenceau -telephoned for Monsieur Lépine and told him to find a prosecutor. -Monsieur Lépine spoke to Monsieur Yves Durand, and Monsieur Yves -Durand went straight to Monsieur Prevet. “When I pointed out,” said -Monsieur Jaurès, “the significance of these dates, Monsieur Clemenceau -exclaimed. ‘It is a coincidence.’ Monsieur Lépine also said, ‘It is a -coincidence,’ and I can say no more than ‘It is a coincidence’ to the -Chamber to-day.” - -Here in a few words we have the real origin of the _affaire Rochette_, -and the “coincidence” which Monsieur Jaurès pointed out to the Chamber -is a painfully suggestive one. Rochette, after his first sentence, was -allowed to drag proceedings out for many months, from July 27 of one -year to April 29 of the next, though the courts always found against -him except in very minor subsidiary actions. He then secured a further -postponement from April 29, 1911, till January 12, 1912. During all -this time Rochette had been a free man, and he was able to continue his -financial operations. His reasons for spending immense sums of money on -securing these postponements of his trial were self-evident. Monsieur -Jaurès pointed out these reasons to the Chamber. Rochette said to -himself, Monsieur Jaurès explained, that the more business he did, the -more chance he had of ultimate escape. If during these months of delay -he succeeded in bringing off one substantial _coup_ he would cease to -be the adventurer who was a danger to the small investor, and would be -considered as the clever and successful financier who had triumphed -over the illegality of his arrest in the first place. - -In this speech before the Chamber, Monsieur Jaurès referred to the -contradictions in the evidence of the Procureur Général Monsieur Fabre, -the Prime Minister Monsieur Monis, and Judge Bidault de L’Isle, with -reference to the last and longest postponement of the Rochette trial -from April 29, 1911, to January 12, 1912. He alluded to the rumour -which was gaining ground that political influence had been brought to -bear on the judicial authorities for the postponement of the trial. He -expressed the regret that these rumours had not been probed until after -the truth was made clear and he declared that Monsieur Fabre had said -either too much or too little before the Parliamentary Commission. We -know the truth now. We know that political influence was brought to -bear for the postponement of the Rochette trial, we know who brought -that influence to bear, and the truckling with the truth on the part -of those concerned in the postponement must be the subject of the next -chapter of this book, for this one is, I fear, too long already. - - - - -X - -“THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH ...” - - -The first Commission of Inquiry closed its labours on March 20, -1912, with the hearing of three witnesses of importance. These three -witnesses were the Procureur Général, Monsieur Victor Fabre, the -ex-Prime Minister, Monsieur Monis, and the presiding judge of the -Chamber of Correctional Appeal, Monsieur Bidault de L’Isle. All three -men were questioned on the rumours of the bringing of political -influence to bear in March 1911 for the postponement of the Rochette -trial. Two years later day for day, on March 20, 1914, these three men -and Monsieur Joseph Caillaux were heard again by the Parliamentary -Commission of Inquiry. A comparison of what they said in 1912 and -what they were obliged to say in 1914 is enough to move any lover of -France to tears. I am anxious to comment on what happened as little as -possible. I am anxious to let these men exhibit their own shame in -their own words. I shall therefore resume their evidence from the -official shorthand notes which remain as its record, and the public and -their own consciences may be their judges. - -“On July 27, 1910,” said Monsieur Victor Fabre, “the Correctional Court -rendered judgment in the Rochette case and Rochette appealed. Rochette -from the very beginning of his case did everything in his power, and -his power was enormous, to hamper the course of legal proceedings, and -to drag them out. Unfortunately the French criminal code plays into -the hands of a man like this,” said Monsieur Fabre, “and it is not too -much to say that when a rich man—for he must be rich—is accused and -wishes to drag out legal proceedings so as not to be judged, it is -perfectly possible for him to effect his object. He has the right to -make proceedings drag and drag, and to obstruct them, and his judges -can do nothing to prevent him, for it is his right—if he can pay the -cost—by the French legal code. Rochette abused this right. He hampered -the course of justice with immense skill, and even before the final -postponement he had succeeded in making the courts play into his -hands. Even on July 27, 1910, you may say,” said Monsieur Fabre to -the Commission, “the affair might have been called on appeal sooner -than April 29, 1911. But there were several reasons against this. The -first, the primary reason, was the long vacation. The courts were not -to meet again until October 15, and before the trial could take place -the President of the Correctional Chamber, the Conseiller Rapporteur, -and the Avocat Général, had to be given an opportunity of absorbing the -facts of the case. This meant several long weeks’ study.” - -“Another reason for the postponement of the trial till April, was the -inquiry which had been ordered into the speculation on the Bourse and -elsewhere in connexion with the Rochette affair. On April 29, 1911, the -trial was postponed till January 11, 1912,” said Monsieur Victor Fabre. -“_The postponement was granted at the request of Monsieur Maurice -Bernard. Monsieur Bernard invoked reasons of health. He wrote to the -presiding judge of the Chamber of Correctional Appeal a letter which I -have seen, in which he declares that his state of health will not allow -him to plead the Rochette case before the holidays, and asks for a -postponement. Astonishing as this may seem at first I could not oppose -this request. I assure you that it was most disagreeable to me not to -refuse it, that I was much annoyed at not being able to oppose Maître -Bernard’s request. My wish in this affair was to arrive at a solution -as promptly as possible. But I was unable to make any opposition to -Maître Maurice Bernard’s request, much as I should have liked to do -so. Maître Bernard said that he was ill, and worn out. In consequence, -following the traditions which have always prevailed in the relations -between the court and the Bar I could not oppose a refusal to such a -request._ CERTAIN NEWSPAPERS HAVE STATED THAT POWERFUL INTERVENTION -INFLUENCED MY DECISION, AND THAT MORAL PRESSURE WAS BROUGHT TO BEAR ON -ME. I HAVE NO EXPLANATION TO GIVE ON THIS POINT. IF I HAD ANY INTERVIEW -ON THE ROCHETTE AFFAIR WITH A FORMER PRIME MINISTER I CONSIDER THAT I -SHOULD BE FAILING IN ALL MY DUTY IF I WERE TO TELL YOU WHAT TOOK PLACE -AT SUCH AN INTERVIEW.” Monsieur Fabre was questioned and -cross-questioned on this statement. He declared that the last part -of it, the part in which he refers to Monsieur Monis, was purely -hypothetical. The President of the Commission of Inquiry pointed -out to him that everybody would take it to be a statement of fact. -Monsieur Fabre refused to say anything more, but maintained, under -cross-examination, his original statement that Maître Bernard’s -plea of ill-health, and nothing else, had been responsible for the -postponement, for seven long months, of the trial of Rochette. - -And then occurred one of those delightful little interludes which have -a way of lightening the most serious and solemn of France’s bitter -moments. The Parliamentary Commission had called Monsieur Monis to -appear before it. Everybody knew, Monsieur Monis as well as everybody -else, the reason of the summons. Everybody knew the seriousness of the -accusation, implied if unformulated, which lay behind it. Everybody -knew, Monsieur Jaurès as well as Monsieur Monis, that the ex-Prime -Minister would be asked whether or not it were true that he had brought -undue pressure to bear on Monsieur Victor Fabre, in order to secure, -for political and not altogether avowable reasons, a postponement of -the Rochette case. - -In spite of this knowledge, here is the letter in which the President -of the Commission of Inquiry summoned Monsieur Monis. It reads like an -invitation to lunch. - - - - MONSIEUR LE PRÉSIDENT, - - A la suite des déclarations faites par le - Procureur Général, Monsieur Fabre, la commission - de l’affaire Rochette m’a chargé de vous prier - de vouloir bien vous entretenir avec elle demain - matin, mercredi, a dix heures et demie. - - Veuillez agréer mes sentiments respectueusement - dévoués. - - (Signed) JEAN JAURÈS. - -Monsieur Monis in acknowledging receipt of this invitation when he -appeared before the Parliamentary Commission, described it as “an -exquisite little note.” “I wanted to be polite,” he said, “in return -for your politeness, and here I am.” Monsieur Monis then went on to say -that politeness was the only reason for his presence, politeness, and -the wish to protest. “I wish to protest energetically, with all my -energy,” said Monsieur Monis. “If you wish to cover this country with -a fresh crop of scandal you really must not count on my help. I will -be the victim if you like of your injustice, but I will be a proud and -silent victim.” And Monsieur Monis carried impudence to the extent of -forcing the Commission, out of sheer politeness, to admit that he had -been summoned without the least tinge of suspicion that he had done -anything to be ashamed of, and his last words to the Commission as he -left them were, “Respect and confidence.” - -There was not quite so much politeness on either side, when, two years -later, Monsieur Monis gave evidence a second time before the Commission -of Inquiry. It was a Friday, of course, Friday, March 20, 1914. This -time he was forced to admit the truth of the facts he had denied so -lightly and so comfortably two years before. This time he was forced to -admit that for political reasons and on the advice of Monsieur Caillaux -he had brought pressure to bear on Monsieur Victor Fabre to postpone -the Rochette trial. In other words Monsieur Monis, who had been Prime -Minister of France in 1911, who had been forced to resign his position -in the Cabinet now in 1914 because of the revelations contained in -the Fabre statement which Monsieur Barthou had read in the Chamber of -Deputies, was forced to stand before the Parliamentary Commission which -he had hoodwinked with such extraordinary cynicism in 1912, admit that -he had hoodwinked them, admit that he had lied. - -The next witness after the Monis interlude, in March 1912, was the -presiding judge of the Chamber of Correctional Appeal, Monsieur Bidault -de L’Isle. He too declared that he was “rather surprised” at having -been called before the Commission of Inquiry, he too explained that -deference for the Commission had been the sole reason of his coming. He -had received a letter from Maître Maurice Bernard, he said, in which -Rochette’s defending lawyer asked him to have the case postponed. -Maître Bernard said he was very busy, that he had several important -cases coming on, that his doctor told him that he would be ill if he -went on working so hard, and that he really couldn’t plead the Rochette -case for some months. “We never refuse an appeal of this kind from a -member of the Bar,” said Judge Bidault de L’Isle, “so I wrote to Maître -Maurice Bernard that the postponement would be granted. _I wish to -affirm in the most formal way_,” said Judge Bidault de L’Isle, “_that -the question of politics played no part whatever in the decision of -postponement._” Monsieur Jaurès tried very hard, and other members of -the Commission helped as best they could to get the truth from Judge -Bidault de L’Isle, but he repeated the statement quoted above “on his -soul and on his conscience.” On March 20, 1914, exactly two years after -this statement, Monsieur Bidault de L’Isle, who had denied two years -before that Monsieur Fabre, the Procureur Général, had told him that -the Rochette case must be postponed for political reasons, who in March -1912 had declared that the only reason for the adjournment was that -Maître Bernard had asked for it, ate his words without enjoyment, as -Monsieur Monis and Monsieur Fabre had eaten theirs. Three men, a -Prime Minister of France, the judge of one of the highest courts in -the country, and the Public Prosecutor, lied, and admitted under -pressure, when further denial was impossible, that they had trifled, -deliberately, with the truth. - -Of these three men who lied and were forced to admit it, the most -pitiful figure is that of the Procureur Général, Monsieur Victor Fabre, -for he was the victim of a system. Professional secrecy in France has -become such a fetish that it has developed, from a means of preventing -doctors, lawyers, and professional men generally from revealing -unduly the secrets of those who have confided in them, into a kind of -Mumbo-Jumbo idol which protects and cloaks untruth. Now that we know -that Monsieur Victor Fabre told a deliberate lie and made a misleading -half-disclosure of the truth to the Parliamentary Commission which -examined him in 1912, we can only be sorry for the man and amazed at -the system which made such juggling with the truth seem justifiable -to him. In March 1911 Monsieur Fabre, under pressure from the Prime -Minister, Monsieur Monis, had ordered Judge Bidault de L’Isle to -postpone the trial of Rochette. In 1912 either just before or just -after his examination by the Parliamentary Commission, Monsieur Victor -Fabre had handed to the Minister of Justice, who was then Monsieur -Aristide Briand, the written statement which Monsieur Barthou read in -the Chamber of Deputies immediately after the murder of Monsieur Gaston -Calmette in 1914. This statement told the truth which he concealed from -the Commission of Inquiry two years before. Monsieur Fabre had written -his statement immediately after political pressure was brought to bear -on him; he knew, of course, of its existence when he was examined in -1912. And this is how he spoke of it when he was re-examined in 1914. -“I was surprised and afflicted when I learned that a journalist, two -years after I had handed my statement to Monsieur Briand, had boasted -of its possession and proposed to publish it. I didn’t believe this. I -thought that it was quite impossible that he should be in possession -of my statement, that he could publish it, because I did not even know -Monsieur Calmette by sight, because I had not given it to him, because -I considered the fact that the Minister of Justice had this statement -in his possession rendered it inviolable. MY CONVICTION ON THIS POINT -WAS SO STRONG THAT WHENEVER THIS DOCUMENT WAS MENTIONED TO ME I -INVARIABLY STATED THAT IT DID NOT EXIST, AND THAT THERE WAS NO FEAR OF -ITS PUBLICATION.” In plain English, Monsieur Victor Fabre admitted that -he had suppressed the truth, because he was convinced that the truth -would not be known. “I made this declaration to Monsieur Caillaux, -who appeared very uneasy at the thought that this document might be -published. I consider that I HAVE THE RIGHT AND THAT IT WAS MY DUTY TO -SAY WHAT I DID. I CONSIDER THAT I HAD NO RIGHT TO GIVE UP MY SECRET, -FOR THIS DOCUMENT WAS MINE, I COULD DO WHAT I LIKED WITH IT, I COULD -SUPPRESS IT OR TEAR IT UP. TO EVERYBODY BUT MYSELF THE DOCUMENT WAS -NONEXISTENT.” - -[Illustration: _Agence Nouvelle—Photo, Paris_ -MONSIEUR BARTHOU] - -After this pitiful confession Monsieur Fabre, as a weak man will, -accused everybody he could think of of breaking faith with him. -“Unfortunately,” he said, “everybody had not the same reserve (this -is an exquisite word to have chosen) that I had. I do not know how my -statement passed from Monsieur Briand’s hands into other hands. I do -know that the use which was made of it was a deplorable abuse.” It was -indeed. - -We know now how Monsieur Fabre’s written statement came to be read in -the Chamber of Deputies, and we can guess how Monsieur Calmette and -other journalists knew of its existence, and of its contents. Monsieur -Briand had kept the damning document while he was Minister of Justice. -When he resigned, Monsieur Briand, as his duty was, passed the document -on to the new Minister of Justice, Monsieur Barthou. Monsieur Barthou, -realizing what a political weapon the statement might become, kept it -and used it. Whether he showed it to journalists, I do not know, but we -know from the evidence of Monsieur Fabre as far as faith can be placed -in this evidence after his own confession, that only two copies of the -document were in existence. The one Monsieur Fabre kept in his own -possession until he handed it over on March 20, 1914, to the President -of the Commission of Inquiry, the other, on which he wrote “Copy for -the Minister of Justice,” he copied out in his own handwriting and -handed over to Monsieur Briand. With regard to the contents of the -document nobody now denies that they were true. - -On March 20, 1914, Monsieur Fabre no longer pleaded professional -secrecy, no longer hesitated, but made this direct statement: “It is -perfectly correct that I received an order from the Prime Minister, -Monsieur Monis, to secure the postponement of the Rochette case until -after the holidays. It is perfectly true that I insisted on Judge -Bidault de L’Isle postponing the case. It is perfectly true that I told -him why. If I had gone to Judge Bidault de L’Isle and said, ‘Maître -Maurice Bernard is not very well. Put the case off for a year,’ Judge -Bidault de L’Isle would have told me that there was insufficient reason -for the postponement. I sent for Judge Bidault de L’Isle, I told him of -the interview which I had had with the Prime Minister, and of the order -which had been given me. I explained the situation to him, I adjured -him if he had any affection for me to grant what I asked. He ended by -giving way.” Then this unfortunate man, whose chief fault is weakness, -who trembled for his position, and who allowed the Prime Minister to -dictate to him in consequence, attempted to explain his act away. He -said that even if the case were postponed, even if, as duly happened, -all legal procedure against Rochette were cancelled, Rochette would -not enjoy impunity. At present he is certainly enjoying it, and he -has answered this statement of poor Monsieur Fabre more simply and -conclusively than anybody else can do. Monsieur Fabre had instructions -and carried them out against his own wish, he said. He believed, and -he believes now, that he was obliged to obey them. Under examination -he was asked why he took the Prime Minister’s orders, why he did not -go to his direct superior, the Minister of Justice, Monsieur Perrier. -His answer shows the curiously direct influence of personality in the -government of France. It shows that Monsieur Fabre considered that the -Prime Minister’s order overrode anything that the Minister of Justice -might or might not find to say. And as we know now that Monsieur Monis -gave this order for the postponement of the Rochette trial because -Monsieur Caillaux told him to, as we know that Monsieur Caillaux told -him to give it because Rochette’s lawyer, Maître Bernard, might say -things in court which would be disagreeable to the Government, might -make disclosures which would get the Government, and more especially -Monsieur Caillaux himself, into trouble, we realize that the real ruler -of France on March 2, 1911, was Henri Rochette, who fled the country -under sentence for fraud. - -Monsieur Caillaux himself had an interview, or rather two interviews, -with Monsieur Fabre, who called on him on January 14, 1914, at seven -o’clock in the evening. They spoke of the Rochette affair, and (this -was the second interview) Monsieur Caillaux mentioned the order which -Monsieur Fabre had received. “He asked me,” Monsieur Fabre said to the -Commission of Inquiry (and he had asked me the same question on the -occasion of my former visit), “whether it were true that a copy of my -statement of my interview with Monsieur Monis existed and could be -published. _I replied in the negative._ He insisted. He told me that he -had information that a journalist was in possession of this document, -and that he was afraid that it would be published. I told him that this -was not possible, _that he need not be afraid of the publication of a -document which did not exist_. I said this because I was convinced, as -I was convinced up to the last minute, that this document would never -be published and could not be published. I preferred not to reveal -my secret so as not to upset Monsieur Caillaux (‘_ne pas attrister -d’avantage_ Monsieur Caillaux’), who was quite upset enough by the -campaign against him. I had the right to speak as I did because this -document was my property, and because it was useless for me to reveal -its existence as it was not to be published.” - -But the further evidence of Monsieur Victor Fabre, when, in March 1914, -he told the whole truth at last, shows that the orders he received -really did come from Rochette and came almost directly from him. After -his interview with Monsieur Monis, the Procureur-Général had a -conversation with his assistant, Monsieur Bloch-Laroque, whose title -(Substitut) does not exist in England. Monsieur Bloch-Laroque and -Monsieur Fabre talked over the fact that Monsieur Maurice Bernard -had deliberately threatened Monsieur Fabre, that he had said, before -leaving the room and banging the door behind him, that “if Monsieur -Fabre did not obey, it would be the worse for him.” It is surely -unheard of, that Rochette’s lawyer should be able to have terrorized -the French Procureur-Général with such language, but Monsieur le -Procureur-Général Victor Fabre told the Commission of Inquiry, “I was -well aware of the influence and knew the friends of Maître Maurice -Bernard, and I knew that he did not say what he said without knowing -that his words would receive sanction in high places.” Maître Maurice -Bernard is an intimate friend of Monsieur Caillaux, and was his lawyer -in his divorce case. - -We may resume this inner history of a series of disgraceful happenings -in the history of France in comparatively few words. Rochette has made -enormous sums of money in a very few years, and the French authorities -believe that he has swindled and is swindling the public. There are -difficulties in the way of proving this immediately. The authorities -connive at the substitution of a man of straw for a proper prosecutor -so as not to allow Rochette to slip through their fingers, and he is -arrested. By every means in his power, and the French legal code gives -him many opportunities, Rochette drags the case against him from court -to court, and succeeds in avoiding final judgment for over two years -and six months. Then, when a definite trial appears inevitable, the -Prime Minister, acting under advice from the Minister of Finance, who -has allowed himself to be terrorized by Rochette—to put the mildest -possible construction on the reason for his conduct—brings influence -to bear on the magistrature, and postpones the trial again. Rochette -in the meanwhile has left France, and has continued to prosecute his -financial schemes. There we have the Rochette case in a nutshell. There -also we have its intimate connexion with the Caillaux drama, for the -Minister of Finance who, for more or less personal reasons, persuaded -the Prime Minister to order the postponement of the trial, was Monsieur -Joseph Caillaux. - -How personal were Monsieur Caillaux’s reasons for advising Monsieur -Monis to secure the postponement of the Rochette trial were shown in -a letter from Rochette himself, which he sent to the President of the -Commission of Inquiry on March 27, 1914. The letter was a very long -one. In it Monsieur Rochette told the story of how he had terrorized -the Minister of Finance, Monsieur Caillaux, into working for him. -Rochette had compiled a volume of 120 pages on the history of financial -issues made in France and floated on the market from 1890 to 1910. In -these tables it was shown that French investors had had heavy losses -amounting in all to four hundred million pounds sterling. The book was -likely to create very serious difficulties for Monsieur Caillaux, the -Finance Minister, who had been responsible for permitting many of these -issues of stock, and it was Rochette’s determination that his lawyer -should read these figures in court on the plea of showing that if some -of his issues had brought losses to the French investor other issues -under higher authority than his own had done the same thing on a larger -scale. The importance which Monsieur Caillaux attributed to this book -is proved by the fact that he spoke of it to Monsieur Monis as a -political reason for doing what Rochette wished, and postponing the -trial. It is interesting to note that there are actually thirty-eight -prosecutions waiting Rochette’s return to France. - -The history of the Rochette case shows unfortunately that Madame -Caillaux’s revolver shot was not the only crime in the full story of -the Caillaux drama. There is another criminal whom a higher court must -try than the Paris Court of Assizes, there is another victim besides -Gaston Calmette. The criminal is expediency, expediency which allows -men in the positions of Prime Minister, of judge, of Public Prosecutor -to tamper with fact, to mislead and to lie in the belief that they -“have the right” to do so. The victim whom they murdered is The Truth. - - - - -XI - -ABOUT FRENCH POLITICS - - -Perhaps the most difficult part of the life of France for an Englishman -to understand is her politics. To give with any thoroughness at all -even a slight idea of the French political parties and the opinions -for which these parties fight, would require another volume quite as -big as this one. But the object of this chapter is not an essay on the -intricacies of party politics in France, nor do I propose to attempt -a detailed explanation of the differences of opinion which divide the -parties. My object is rather to give the reader some insight into the -clockwork as it were of the inner political life of France, so as to -throw more light, within the measure of my power with the lamp, on the -Caillaux drama, which is such a salad of passion, politics, and finance. - -It is, as I have said, extremely difficult for an English reader -to realize what French political life really is, for it is so very -different from political life at home, and though it might more easily -be compared perhaps to the political life of the United States it -differs in many ways and in many essentials from that also. But French -political life does resemble the political life of America in one way, -in contrast to the political life of England. Its very foundation is -familiarity, and the French politician is not generally respected by -his compatriots as one who knows more than themselves. He is admired -as one who has more cunning. The French used to take pride in the -familiarity with which they treat their politicians, for familiarity -such as is the mainspring of France’s politics used to be called -_Egalité_, and is still one of the words, in this disguise, with which -the French politician loves to conjure, and succeeds in conjuring, -votes out of an empty hat. - -If I were asked to name the most powerful political class in modern -France I should plump for the _marchand de vin_. The _marchand de vin_, -the keeper of the little wineshop, with the zinc counter and the little -tables with their stone tops beyond it, which is the equivalent of the -English public house, is quite the most powerful electoral agent -existing in France, and he is recognized as such by every French -politician. At election times, or for that matter, at any time, no -French politician can afford to neglect him, and he controls votes -without number in every town, every village, and every district -throughout the length and breadth of the country. - -So true is this that every Government is obliged to recognize the fact -of the _marchand de vin’s_ importance, and each succeeding Government -is put in the curious position, as it succeeds the Government before -it, of being obliged, on the score of public morality, public health, -and public well-being to discourage the consumption of strong drink -in words, and to encourage it in act. There are laws in France which -permit certain people to make and to sell alcohol. Governments from -time to time have endeavoured to remove or to restrict the privileges -which these manufacturers of alcohol enjoy, but they have never -succeeded because the _bouilleurs du cru_ as they are called, are much -too strong for them and much too strongly backed. Each succeeding -Government knows, or if it does not recognize the fact at first, the -fact is very soon made clear, that everybody connected with the wine -and spirit industry must be conciliated if votes are to be obtained, -and retained, and although France has for a good many years now called -herself a republic she is really a monarchy under the thumb of a -despot, whose name is King Marchand de Vin, and who is only nominally -under the control of Parliament. Parliament controls the _marchand de -vin_ nominally, perhaps, in France, but as the _marchand de vin_ elects -the members who form Parliament, as the _marchand de vin_ controls and -regulates the votes of the many-headed, the _marchand de vin_ reigns, -and will continue to reign supreme, for France will not stop drinking -wine till England abjures beer. - -To the observer who has the advantage of aloofness as his point -of view, the thing which impresses more than anything else as the -principal characteristic of French politics is their selfishness. This -peculiarity is almost as remarkable, perhaps even more remarkable, than -the curious complications of the many political parties. To begin with, -in studying the parties the first thing which strikes one in addition -to their number is the fact that they are all, with the exception of -the Royalists and Imperialists who call themselves Conservatives, as -advanced or more advanced than any party at all in either England or in -Germany. The German Socialist, for instance, of the reddest type, has -tenets which, if he were a Frenchman, would probably make him vote with -the very moderate Left, and Monsieur Millerand, who used to be looked -upon as such a dangerous Socialist not very long ago is now considered -by the Socialists themselves old-fashioned and reactionary, while -Monsieur Briand is in French eyes a very moderate reformer, if he be -considered a reformer at all. - -But here I am beginning the impossible task of attempting to divide -French politicians into parties, and explaining the views of these -parties in plain language. I must not allow myself to be led away, -by the Chinese puzzle fascination French party politics invariably -exercise, to attempt this task. I could not succeed, for by the time -this book is on the market French parties will no doubt have changed -and shaken down again into other and different shapes, for French -political combinations hold together as cohesive forces with little -more certainty than the bits of coloured glass in the kaleidoscope. -Every time a question of the least importance gives a turn to the -handle, the parties of the day, the week, or the month before -disintegrate and fall into other combinations of infinite shades of -colour. - -But we may talk of the selfishness of French politics, for this, -unfortunately, does not change. In a country where politics are so -mixed that the elector understands very little about them, it is not -difficult to catch votes by arguments of another kind. Our business -just now being with the Caillaux drama, it may not be a bad method of -explaining how French politicians gain the authority to govern, by -some sidelights on the election at Mamers of Monsieur Joseph Caillaux. -Immediately after Madame Caillaux had shot the editor of the _Figaro_ -dead her husband resigned office. He was of course obliged to do this. -Immediately after his resignation he announced that he intended to -retire from public life entirely, and would take no part in politics -in the immediate future. He had hardly made this announcement, which I -mentioned on page 79, before he changed his mind, and announced that -owing to the insistence of his constituents he would be a candidate for -re-election when the general election took place, but that he would -not canvass, and that his friend Monsieur D’Estournelles de Constant -would canvass for him, while he himself would remain in the retirement -demanded by the situation of his wife. A very few days after this -second change of plans Monsieur Caillaux changed his mind once more -and determined to canvass Mamers. He has been re-elected. It is not -uninteresting to glance at the reason why. - -Any foreigner might have imagined that there was no possible chance -for any body of electors to re-elect Monsieur Joseph Caillaux as -their representative. The fierce light which played so recently and -so unsparingly on his political career had scarcely shown him to be -a desirable member of Parliament. It would be difficult, one would -think, for Frenchmen to vote for the man who had made such a number -of mistakes, and who had been connected, as Monsieur Caillaux was -connected, with the negotiations disclosed in the chapters in this -volume on Agadir and the _affaire_ Rochette. But the foreigner would -not realize, and Monsieur Caillaux realized, very conclusively, that -the peasants of the Sarthe district cared little or nothing for the -revelations in the Paris Press, and cared a great deal for Monsieur -Caillaux’s personality. - -To anybody who has not lived among them, the ignorance of the French -peasant in the country districts on the affairs of his country must be -incredible. How crass this ignorance can be may be imagined from the -absolute fact that in many parts of Monsieur Caillaux’s constituency -the electors, who have returned him to the Chamber of Deputies again, -are absolutely convinced that Monsieur Calmette is not dead at all, -and that the story of his murder by Madame Caillaux has been put about -by Paris journalists merely to do Monsieur Caillaux harm. The peasants -of the Sarthe believe, in many cases, that Monsieur Calmette is still -alive, and is keeping out of the way, in hiding somewhere. “Tout ça, -c’est des histoires de Parisiens” is the popular view. The distrust -of the townsman in general, and of the Parisian in particular, which -prevails in many French country districts and in Normandy and Brittany -even more than elsewhere, was a remarkable asset for Monsieur Caillaux -when he asked for the suffrage of the Sarthe peasantry. - -Some idea of this asset and the way in which he used it can be obtained -from his letter to his constituents in which he thanks them for -electing him. The letter, which is dated “Mamers, May the 1st,” has -been posted on the walls all over the constituency. “My dear friends,” -writes Monsieur Caillaux, “How can I express my gratitude, and my -emotion? In spite of the pressure exerted by the whole strength of the -reactionary parties, in spite of the money which flowed like water, -in spite of an unqualifiable campaign of calumny and of lying, the -constituency of Mamers has given me a majority of nearly 1500 votes -over my opponent.” - - “You have avenged your deputy for the odious - attacks and the defamation of which he has been - the object. You know that their origin was his - love of peace, which was made clear in the treaty - of November 4, 1911 (this is the Agadir treaty), - and his wish to make rich men contribute more - freely to the expenses of the country. - - “Once more I thank you from my whole heart. More - than ever I will be the untiring defender of your - rights and of your interests. More than ever I - will do my utmost to ensure to France and the - Republic order, stability, and reform. Believe, - my dear friends, in my affectionate devotion to - your interests. - - “J. CAILLAUX.” - -Does not this letter breathe with surprising clarity humbug of the -broadest? Whatever one may think of Monsieur Caillaux, no one has yet -accused him of poverty, and his opponent in the Sarthe was quixotic -enough to refrain from much mention of the Caillaux drama at election -time, so that the campaign of calumny was purely imaginary. And, to top -everything, when he did mention it and the Rochette case in a final -poster, Monsieur Caillaux challenged him to a duel, for “maligning -the electors of Mamers!” The duel was “fought” before journalists, -photographers and the cinematograph. The snapshots show that Monsieur -Caillaux fired in the air, and his opponent fired into the ground. So -everybody laughed, and “honour was satisfied.” But Monsieur Joseph -Caillaux is looked upon _as a victim_ in the Sarthe! The peasants there -understand nothing and care less about foreign politics. They approve -Monsieur Caillaux’s opposition to three years’ military service, -because Germany is far away and is only a name to them, and they prefer -their sons to be called away from the land for two years instead of -three. They approve Monsieur Caillaux’s suggestion of taxing the rich, -because they have never troubled to understand it, and it sounds good -to them, and most of all, and above all, they approve of Monsieur -Caillaux because he is rich, powerful, and generous in his constituency. - -It must be understood that I am using Monsieur Caillaux and the Sarthe -as an example of the conditions which prevail in many parts of France. -The French elector in many of the country districts is decidedly more -ignorant than one could believe possible, and in almost all parts of -the country he is selfish. Here, again, I may be allowed to quote some -of the electioneering literature of the Sarthe to show the kind of -benefits which appeal to French electors. Political considerations, -benefits to the nation, national defence, big projects—“Tout ça c’est -des balivernes”—is the French peasant’s verdict. A candidate who is -wise will, if he wants to gain favour in a constituency, tell his -constituents as little as possible about political measures and as much -as possible of the things concerning them directly which he has done -in the past, and which he hopes to do in the future. The drainage of -a village will gain more votes than the most important law imaginable -for the benefit of France. Monsieur Caillaux, or rather his friends, -reminded the people of the Sarthe that Monsieur Caillaux had obtained -for them heavy subventions from the Pari-Mutuel for the support of -a hospital, that in the last few years he had secured over £4000 -for them from the Government for local interests, that all kinds of -institutions had been helped, that the nuns had been well treated (oh! -Monsieur Caillaux!), that this village had a new pump, and that one -a new road, in a word, that owing to the power of Monsieur Caillaux, -and the cleverness of Monsieur Caillaux, and the influence of Monsieur -Caillaux, the peasants of La Sarthe had obtained, and were likely to -obtain, greater advantages than the peasantry of any other part of -France as long as he remained their member. - -These were the reasons which caused Monsieur Caillaux’s re-election, -and these are the reasons which militate above all others in France -at election times. The natural result of elections conducted on the -narrow-minded basis of selfish advantage is that the deputies, when -they are elected, are as selfish as their constituents’ reasons for -electing them have been. I suppose every country has the government -which it deserves. The French are very certainly governed by a body -of men who do not neglect their own interests. I do not mean to imply -that they do neglect those of their country, but I do say that the -conservation of power and their own welfare take the first place in -their minds, and that is so certain that “L’Assiette au Beurre,” which -expression we may translate “The Cream Jug” is dipped into very freely -by members of all parties who have access to it, in every French -Parliament. The principal vice of the government of France, to my mind, -is the payment of deputies. The class of man is growing in France who -serves his country because his country pays him six hundred pounds a -year to do so, and because there are plenty of pickings over and above -the annual stipend of £600. A French deputy makes very free use of -his right of free travel on all the railways, supplies his family and -friends with free stationery, economizes, through his influence, in -countless little ways, money which the ordinary citizen has to spend -from the fruits of his labours. The French politician is essentially -a professional of politics, places party considerations above all -others, because these keep him in power and allow him access to the -“cream jug,” and is not in the least ashamed of using his influence for -personal benefit either directly or indirectly. - -I do not think it unfair criticism to point out that it is this -mentality which makes for such corruption in French politics as we had -to deplore at the time of the Panama scandal, for such corruption as -was seriously suspected during the progress of the Rochette case, and -for the undue use of influence which is considered quite natural on the -part of individual members of the governing bodies of France, by which -I mean not the Government alone, but also the Chamber and the Senate, -which undue use of influence culminated in the shameful apotheosis -of the scene in the room of the Prime Minister which resulted in the -postponement, with its consequences, of the trial of the financier -Rochette. The inner history of the Caillaux drama differs in details -from the inner history of other French scandals, but it differs very -little from them in essentials. In every case when one of these -unsavoury ulcers on France’s fair name festers and bursts we find the -same pus in it. The root of all the evil is the inherent selfishness of -the French character, and I am not disinclined to believe that there -is a great deal of inherent dishonesty too at the root of the evil. A -Frenchman will often refuse to keep a promise in commercial matters -because the man to whom he made it can produce no _written_ proof that -the promise was given. Business men will refuse business interviews -without the presence of a witness. There are severe laws in France -compelling, under severe penalties, the restoration to the unknown -owner through the police authorities of anything of value found lying -about. But ask anybody who has picked up money in the street what he -would do with it if nobody saw him pick it up. The Frenchman is frank. -He will laugh and will maintain his right to pocket this find, because -if _he_ loses anything he knows that the person who finds it will -pocket it if he dare. I have seen respectable Frenchmen swindle other -respectable Frenchmen out of a halfpenny in a Paris omnibus. It is not -the halfpenny that is important, it is the mentality which underlies -the theft. It may seem a far cry from the theft of a halfpenny to the -Rochette scandal, but you can trace the connexion very easily if you -care to think the matter out. And if you think it out with care, you -cannot fail to see that this basis of selfishness, permeating upwards -through every vein of French private, public, and political life, has -been directly responsible for the Caillaux drama and for the results -which that drama has had and will have on the life of France in the -future. - - - - -XII - -BEFORE THE LAST ACT OF THE DRAMA - - -A French criminal trial is in every respect as unlike a criminal trial -in England as can well be imagined. To begin with, if the Caillaux -drama had been English, if the wife of an English Cabinet Minister -were at the present moment in Brixton gaol awaiting her trial because -she had walked into Printing House Square and shot the editor of the -_Times_, this book, by the mere fact of its appearance, would send me -and the publisher to prison for contempt of court. In France, not only -is there no contempt of court in comment on a case sub judice, but the -preliminaries of a great criminal trial are conducted in the open. Ever -since the murder of Monsieur Gaston Calmette the Paris papers have -contained long daily digests of the evidence collected on the details -of the murder, and this evidence has been commented on every day, and -with the utmost freedom, by the Paris newspapers. There is a special -magistrate known as the _juge d’instruction_, whose duty it is, if I -may put it so, to try the case before it comes into court, and to hand -to the judge who presides over the trial his opinion on the prisoner’s -innocence or guilt, his full reasons for that opinion, and the evidence -in résumé which he has collected to enable him to form it. In other -words, directly a crime has been committed, whether the supposed -criminal be arrested or not, a _juge d’instruction_ or examining -magistrate is appointed, and from the moment of his appointment he -takes entire charge of the case. The prisoner is entirely in his hands. -That is to say, he disposes of her while she is awaiting trial, under -certain rules and regulations of course, as he thinks fit. He may -question her as often or as seldom as he wishes, either in his room at -the Palace of Justice or in her cell, the only proviso being that he -is not allowed to question her without the presence of her lawyer, and -that at each interrogatory his sworn clerk, known as the _greffier_, -must be present to take down his questions, and the prisoner’s answers, -and at the end of each interrogatory to obtain the prisoner’s signature -at their foot. The examining magistrate’s work is of course by no means -confined to his examination of the prisoner. As soon as he has digested -the first details and circumstances of the crime he has full power to -summon and to examine anybody and everybody whom he considers likely -to have any evidence to give which may help him in his judgment on the -case. - -So wide are the powers of an examining magistrate, that he may if -he wishes arrest not only presumable accomplices but any unwilling -witness. It has happened before now that a witness has preferred to -remain away from the room of a French examining magistrate and has -been sent for by him and brought under arrest to him to give evidence, -and a witness who has signed an untrue statement in the examining -magistrate’s office is not unfrequently, when convicted of perjury at -the trial, where he has repeated this evidence on oath, arrested in -court. It sometimes happens, too, that witnesses contradict in court -the evidence which they have given to the examining magistrate. If they -do so they enjoy impunity, unless, they are proved to commit perjury in -their contradiction, for evidence to a _juge d’instruction_ is not -given on oath. It happens very frequently too, in fact it almost always -happens, that numbers of people for whom the examining magistrate -has never thought of sending write to him that they have evidence to -give, and desire to be heard. The prisoner and the prisoner’s lawyer, -even the prisoner’s friends, are encouraged also to give the names of -any people from whom they wish the examining magistrate to collect -evidence. Practically therefore in a French criminal case the criminal -is tried twice over, once by the examining magistrate, and a second -time in the court of assizes before a jury. And the first trial is the -more important of the two, because of the influence of the examining -magistrate’s report on the minds of the judge and of the jury, at the -assize court trial. The examining magistrate has the right to acquit a -prisoner without sending him or her for trial at all if he finds that -there is no case. - -It happens, however, comparatively rarely in practice, that a -_non-lieu_, as it is called, is pronounced by the examining magistrate, -as it is a very bad mark against the name of any _juge d’instruction_ -to allow a prisoner to be set at liberty without very conclusive proof -of innocence. If there be the slightest doubt the prisoner is always -sent for trial. The benefit of the doubt is practically non-existent in -the conduct of a French criminal case in its preliminary stages, and it -may be taken as a fact that whereas a prisoner in England is considered -to be innocent until guilt has been proved, the reverse is the French -method, and a prisoner in France is considered to be guilty until -conclusive proof of innocence has been given and accepted. - -Another feature of the preliminary stages of a French criminal trial -is the manner in which the evidence which the examining magistrate -collects is made public as he collects it. The examining magistrate -receives members of the Press during the days, weeks, and often months -of his preliminary examination of the evidence, and to all intents and -purposes the evidence which has been laid before him is put at their -disposal for publication. It is very rarely indeed that an examining -magistrate in France withholds any of the evidence he collects from the -newspapers, and as each item is usually laid before the public, -commented on at length, and frequently distorted in accordance with the -views of the staff of the newspaper which reproduces it, the public try -a case while it is in process of trial, and the newspapers criticise -the examining magistrate’s conduct of the long examination and deliver -a verdict of their own before the jury have an opportunity of doing -so. These methods form part of the legal code of France, and as such, -open to criticism though they may be, are never criticised. The methods -of preliminary trial of a French criminal case present of course this -grave disadvantage, that every one of the twelve jurymen and the two -supplementary jurymen before whom the case is tried, practically hear -or read all the evidence before they see the witnesses and hear them -in court, and practically have tried and have judged the case in their -own minds, however impartial they may try to be, before they come into -court to try and to judge it. - -I have already mentioned the freedom of action which the examining -magistrate enjoys in France. This is unlimited. An examining magistrate -is hampered by nothing at all in his examination of the prisoner, -or of witnesses for and against, except by the dictates of his own -conscience. As it is human nature for a man to shrink from the -acknowledgment that he has been mistaken, it is obvious that a French -examining magistrate who starts with the idea that his prisoner is a -guilty man or woman will do everything in his power, and his power -has no limit except his own conscience, to prove the guilt of his -prisoner. He may, and often does, use dramatic methods to force a -confession. He may, and often does, lie to the prisoner for the purpose -of extracting a confession. He may, and often does, misreport to the -prisoner evidence which has been given him so as to entrap a guilty -prisoner, whom he can manage to convince that the game is up, into a -full confession of guilt. There have been many cases known of abuse of -this power. It has happened before now that a prisoner, accused of a -crime of which he or she is perfectly innocent, has actually confessed -to the crime rather than endure the mental torture of the examining -magistrate’s persistent cross-examination. - -And in the hands of an unscrupulous man, even when that man honestly -believes in the guilt of the prisoner he is examining, mental torture -is not the only form of torture which may be inflicted. Of course there -are no thumbscrews, rack, or water torture in existence in France -nowadays, but there are other and more refined methods of coercion -which an examining magistrate may use, and often does use, against the -prisoner whose case is under consideration. Pathetic mention of these -methods was made, I remember, during the trial of the motor bandits by -one of the prisoners whom the court afterwards acquitted. All the small -comforts which a prisoner (a _prévenu_ is the French expression) may -enjoy while awaiting trial rest entirely on the good or ill will of the -examining magistrate, and he is paramount to permit them or to remove -them, as his will or his fancy dictates. During these preliminary -stages of the trial nobody has any right to interfere with an examining -magistrate or to question his decision on any matter whatsoever. The -prisoner’s lawyer or the prisoner may of course protest, and the -protest must be registered by the clerk, who is always present. But it -rests entirely with the examining magistrate how much severity and how -much leniency are shown to the _prévenu_ while the preliminary trial -proceeds. - -Another thing which remains entirely at the examining magistrate’s -discretion is the length of this preliminary trial. He is free to -conclude his examination when he wills. As soon as he considers that -the evidence he has collected is sufficient to allow him to send the -case for trial, and to hand his opinion on it, with the reasons for his -opinion, to the judges, the date of trial is fixed. He may send in this -opinion in a few days, he may take many months over it if he wishes, -and though the imprisonment of a prisoner before trial ranks as part of -the sentence after conviction, an examining magistrate who has taken -a very long time over his preliminary examination may inflict very -serious hardship on a prisoner whom the assize court acquits at the end. - -In the case of Madame Caillaux it is probable that the trial will come -on in July or possibly even after the holidays, in September. It is in -everybody’s interest that the trial should not be heard too soon. The -judges need time to probe every tittle of the evidence, the -Government—though the Government will hardly dare to interfere, I -think—will prefer the case to be heard when Paris is comparatively -empty, and the defence will find in a long detention in Saint Lazare -pending her trial a useful argument for mercy to the prisoner. - -The work of an examining magistrate in France is conducted with a -curious absence of formality. The prisoner or the witnesses come to his -room in the Palace of Justice, and in the case of a prisoner the guards -withdraw. The magistrate collects his evidence in a very conversational -way. He chats with the prisoner and with the witnesses whom he calls, -he interrupts them, he bullies them if he thinks fit, he allows them -to speak or he reads them a lecture, exactly as he likes, he makes -statements, and takes note of contradictions, and he frequently calls -three or four witnesses together and allows them to discuss points in -the case while he listens to the discussion. - -This method, I may remark, is often a very fruitful means of getting at -the truth. The absence of formality has often proved to be a great help -to the course of French justice. The French law and English laws have -very different ideas on the subject of evidence. To give an idea of -what is considered perfectly relevant and perfectly admissible evidence -in France, Madame Caillaux, during the course of her preliminary -examination by Monsieur Boucard, the examining magistrate in charge -of her case, made the following extraordinary request to him. “I am -informed,” she said, “that, in the opinion of the great surgeon Dr. -Doyen, the life of Monsieur Calmette might have been saved after I shot -him if he had been treated differently.” Madame Caillaux’s contention -was that the doctors who attended Monsieur Calmette after she had shot -him might have treated him in such a way as to ensure his recovery, and -she asked the examining magistrate to call Doctor Doyen, who, after -reading the report of the autopsy made by the sworn medical experts -after Monsieur Calmette’s death, was of the opinion that the surgeons -who attended him might have saved his life. Evidence of an equally -irrelevant nature is considered perfectly admissible in any French -criminal trial, and evidence as to character and motive very frequently -admits in France of an immense abuse of the examining magistrate’s -time. In the Caillaux case, for instance, friends of the murdered -man have been prolific with evidence to the effect that from their -knowledge of Monsieur Calmette they consider it most unlikely that he -would ever have printed the letters which play so large a part in the -evidence for the defence, and the publication of which Madame Caillaux -feared and anticipated. - -An immense amount of time has been taken up already with the hearing -of witnesses who had nothing to say except to report that somebody had -told them something of which knowledge had come to him from the report -of somebody else, and friends of Monsieur and Madame Caillaux as well -as friends of Madame Caillaux’s victim have been allowed to spend hours -in the examining magistrate’s office at the Palace of Justice making -speeches on behalf of the prisoner or against her which were sometimes -interesting, which were more or less convincing, but which very rarely -formed any real evidence such as evidence is understood in England. And -all the while the collection of evidence goes on it is published in the -newspapers day by day and commented on at will. More than this, -witnesses, after their examination by the examining magistrate, are -interviewed in the newspapers, and columns of what they have said, -often with very little bearing on the case at all, often the mere -expression of opinion, are published. Sometimes the publication of -these interviews gives curious results. There have been cases where -a witness has said little of interest in the examining magistrate’s -room, and has been so effusive to a journalist afterwards that another -visit to the examining magistrate has become necessary, and has secured -evidence of value. - -[Illustration: _Agence Nouvelle—Photo, Paris_ -MME. CAILLAUX IN THE DRESS SHE WAS TO WEAR AT THE ITALIAN EMBASSY -ON THE EVENING OF THE MURDER] - -The mass of work which the preliminary examination in a big criminal -trial entails may be gathered from the fact that the examining -magistrate’s opinion on the case when written out and handed into court -to be read at the beginning of the trial is frequently of such length -that it forms a volume by itself and takes many hours in the reading. -The judge who presides over the case has of course read the examining -magistrate’s opinion, and digested it very carefully before the case -comes into court, and in France it is the judge who conducts a trial -rather than counsel for the defence and for the prosecution. - -During the preliminary examination of the Caillaux case, which finished -just before this volume went to press, several unanticipated points -arose. The reader, who has studied with any care the employment, -given in the first chapter of this book, of Madame Caillaux’s time on -March 16, 1914, will have noticed that some hours of the afternoon -were unaccounted for. A very bitter discussion on the employment of -those hours, a discussion in which Monsieur Caillaux, Madame Caillaux, -Monsieur Caillaux’s friends, the _Figaro_, the public bank clerks, the -keeper of the registry office where Madame Caillaux engaged a cook, the -cook herself, Madame Caillaux’s servants, her English governess Miss -Baxter—in which all kinds of people were allowed to take a hand, raged -for several days. It came about in the simplest manner. Madame Caillaux -said that she went to the registry office and engaged a cook early -in the afternoon. The keeper of the registry office said that Madame -Caillaux had engaged a cook late in the afternoon. The cook herself -didn’t remember exactly at what time she was engaged. Madame Caillaux’s -chauffeur remembered when he drove her to the registry office, but his -evidence is not considered incontrovertible because he is in Madame -Caillaux’s employ. Matters were complicated by the fact that Madame -Caillaux had been to the Crédit Lyonnais and to her safe there. The -strong room of the Crédit Lyonnais is officered by certain clerks who -hand each person who goes down to the strong boxes a ticket, duly -numbered, which is stamped with a mechanical dating stamp marking the -hour and minutes at which it is issued. Madame Caillaux’s ticket was -marked five o’clock. She maintained that she had been to the Crédit -Lyonnais an hour earlier, between four and five minutes past, and that -she had been home before she went there. For several days, argument -went on in the papers, in which all sorts of people took part, to -show that Madame Caillaux had told the truth or had lied about the -employment of her afternoon before the murder. This argument was -mainly for the purpose of proving or of disproving premeditation or -its absence. After several days’ newspaper discussion, an examination -of the mechanical stamp at the Crédit Lyonnais proved that it was very -unreliable and its use has now been discontinued by the bank. - -One of the great difficulties in the task of the examining magistrate -in securing really relevant and really useful evidence in a crime -of this kind, is the French insistence on the need of and the right -to professional secrecy. As I have pointed out in another chapter, -while professional secrecy is in some cases a necessity, it is often -distinctly antagonistic to the search for the truth. It is not -unlikely that there might never have been any Caillaux drama at all -if professional secrecy had not been invoked on another occasion. -During Monsieur Boucard’s examination he was informed by two members -of Parliament that each of them had been told that Monsieur Calmette -had been in possession of the letters, the publication of which Madame -Caillaux feared so much. The examining magistrate very naturally wanted -to know who had supplied this information, and very naturally wanted to -question the informant. One of the two honourable deputies had given -his word of honour as a lawyer, the other had given his word of honour -pure and simple not to disclose the source of his information, with the -result that their evidence is no evidence at all, and that on the -other hand even if it be valueless the public and everybody interested -has been led to believe that there may be a good deal in it. But what -impresses the impartial observer more than anything else in connexion -with the preliminaries for a criminal trial in France is their -unfairness—the unfairness of the system—to the person who is to be -tried. For instance, after Monsieur Calmette’s death, the report of the -autopsy made by the two medical officers of health usually charged with -this duty, Doctor Socquet and Doctor Charles Paul, was handed by them -to the examining magistrate and was, immediately afterwards, published -_in extenso_ in the public press. The examining magistrate had also -received the evidence of the armourer, Monsieur Gastinne-Renette, and -his employees on Madame Caillaux’s visit to the shooting gallery, and -her trial of the revolver she bought there. An enterprising newspaper -secured a figure from the shooting gallery, marked it with the trial -shots as Madame Caillaux had shot them, and published this picture -opposite another one representing Monsieur Calmette, which was marked -with the wounds inflicted according to the autopsy. Does it not -seem an unheard of and unallowable crime against common sense and -common decency that the public should be offered such evidence of -premeditation by a newspaper while the case is still unheard? - -Some idea of the evidence which is inflicted on the examining -magistrate in a case of this kind may be formed from that given -voluntarily by a young man named Robert Philippeau. Monsieur Philippeau -stated with some solemnity that he knew nothing about the drama, that -he did not know Monsieur Caillaux and that he had not known Monsieur -Calmette. He had been in the Nord Sud (a branch of the Paris Tube) in a -first-class carriage, one afternoon in the course of last winter. Two -ladies sat on the seat immediately behind him. One of them said in his -hearing, “She browbeat me, she laughed at me, she took him from me, but -I have four of his letters, and one of them is one which he does not -know I possess. I have shown these letters to Barthou, I have told him -that I am going to use them. He neither advised me to do so, nor -advised me not to. I will wait till they get to the top of the tree and -then I will pull them down headlong.” Monsieur Philippeau said that -he looked at the lady who had spoken. He did not know her by sight, -but when he saw the picture of Madame Gueydan-Dupré in the newspapers -he had no further doubt that it was she who had spoken, and that she -alluded to the letters of which we have heard so much. - -To anyone who has ever seen in a Paris daily newspaper the reproduction -of the photograph of anyone he knows, the value of this “evidence” -is obvious. Madame Gueydan had no difficulty whatever in proving by -the evidence of several intimate friends that she had never been in -the Nord Sud in her life. And even if Madame Gueydan had travelled -every afternoon all through the winter in the first-class carriages -of the Nord Sud she would hardly have been likely to talk to a friend -in a loud voice of private affairs of such importance, or to mention -Monsieur Barthou’s name in connexion with them. - -With regard to these letters, it is not yet certain that they will be -read in court, but it is to be hoped that the examining magistrate -may succeed in obtaining possession of them for this purpose, for on -the probability of their publication in the _Figaro_, and on Madame -Caillaux’s belief that their publication might occur, rests one of -the principal pleas for the defence. In her examination on the motive -for her crime before the examining magistrate, Monsieur Boucard, the -prisoner was asked why she was so afraid at the idea of the publication -of the two letters which Monsieur Caillaux had written to her in 1909 -when he was still the husband of Madame Gueydan, as Madame Caillaux -at that time was already divorced from her first husband, Monsieur -Léo Claretie. “These letters,” said the prisoner, “were intimate in -nature, and I resented and feared the possibility of their publication. -My situation and my reputation could be attacked by the help of these -letters.” “That being so,” said Monsieur Boucard, “why did you give -them back to Monsieur Caillaux?” “When he wrote them to me,” said -the prisoner, “I was staying in the country with friends. So that I -shouldn’t lose them, Monsieur Caillaux asked me to send them back to -him, addressed to him ‘Poste Restante’ at Le Mans. I did this, and -that is how Madame Gueydan was able to steal them from the drawer of -his writing-table. Now that the scandal has burst,” she added, “I -should wish these two letters to be put in with the other evidence on -my case.” Monsieur Boucard told her (it should be understood that the -whole of this conversation in the magistrate’s private room at the -Palais of Justice was reproduced in full, immediately after it took -place, in the Paris newspapers of April 22) that he had asked Madame -Gueydan on three separate occasions to give him the photographs of -these letters—which photographs had been taken and which she had, -she admitted, deposited in a safe place—and that she had refused to -let him have them. “I hope you will be able to get them,” said Madame -Caillaux to Monsieur Boucard. “Their publication will show that they -are not the improper letters they have been described to be, and I wish -to renew my statement that in going to the _Figaro_ office I had no -intention of killing Monsieur Calmette. My object was to obtain from -him the promise that he would not make use of the letters which -Monsieur Caillaux had written to me, and I had intended making a -scandal in case Monsieur Calmette refused.” The magistrate’s answer to -this statement was published, with the statement itself, by the Paris -newspapers of April 22. - -[Illustration: _Agence Nouvelle—Photo, Paris_ -M. JOSEPH CAILLAUX] - -I quote his answer from the _Petit Parisien_, a paper which has made -every effort to try the case in its columns with impartiality, and -without political bias. I quote it as a sidelight on the inherent -peculiarities of the conduct of a criminal trial in France, quite -irrespective of the impropriety of its being published at all. “Do not -let us go back to a discussion on this point,” answered the magistrate. -“You will make nobody believe that when you went to get your letters -back or to obtain a promise that they should not be published you lost -all power of speech, and lost your head at the same time, to the extent -of saying nothing and using your revolver.” “Madame Caillaux had been -in the magistrate’s office for six hours,” says the _Petit Parisien_. -“She appeared very tired.” - -Some weeks before this extract from the examination of Madame Caillaux -had appeared _Excelsior_ published (on March 25, 1914) an extract from -the letter Madame Caillaux had written to her husband and left with -Miss Baxter, her daughter’s English governess, to be given to her -husband on the evening of March 16 in case she did not return home -before him. In this letter Madame Caillaux is said to have written, in -reference to her conversation with her husband that same morning, “you -told me that you were going to smash his face. I do not want you to -sacrifice yourself. France and the Republic need you. I will do it for -you.” - -The mere fact that such details of the examination of a prisoner by the -magistrate appointed to instruct the court which is to try her should -be made known in the public Press and should be free for comment weeks -before, and even months before the trial of her case in the assize -court, calls for no remark. It speaks for itself. A prisoner in France -who has been accused of any crime is tried by the public before the -trial of the case begins. The jury cannot possibly come into court with -impartial minds owing to this system, they cannot listen with open -minds to the evidence which is laid before them in the court room, for -they have read it all before, they have thought over it, they have -discussed it with their families and with their friends, and with the -best will in the world they have been unable to help forming an opinion -of one kind or another. And there is another vice of French procedure -which is well worthy of note. In a sensational case such as the trial -of Madame Caillaux, the jury is subjected to direct influence. After it -has been empanelled at the beginning of the trial the members of the -jury return to their homes every evening. They are therefore, during -the actual hearing of the case, liable to outside influence. Even more -than this, the names of the twelve jurymen and of the two supplementary -jurymen will certainly be published in the French newspapers with -details about the men themselves and their professions, before the -trial begins, and this of itself forms an abuse which must inevitably -react on the absolute impartiality of a jury, which should be a -first necessity of any criminal trial in any country, for numbers of -newspapers will tell them what they ought to do and what their verdict -ought to be. - -The procedure of a French criminal trial in the court of assizes in -Paris is attended with considerable pomp. In the Caillaux case as in -the cases of a sensational nature which have preceded it, the rush for -tickets of admission to the trial will be enormous. Response to this -demand for tickets to hear and to witness the trial rests entirely -in the hands of the judge who presides over the proceedings. He is -able to admit, to standing room behind the bench, such friends of his -own as he cares to admit, and he decides on the number of tickets -of admission to the body of the court, which are distributed to the -Press. The body of the court is supposed to be reserved for the Press -and for the witnesses. In actual fact, as every barrister in robes -is by reason of his profession entitled to admission to the court, -barristers overflow from the seats reserved for the Bar and crowd the -Press benches and the witnesses terribly, and far too many tickets -are invariably distributed to members of the detective force in plain -clothes who become “journalists” for the occasion. The public who have -no particular privileges are admitted to a small space at the back of -the court, through a small door in the Palace of Justice which is set -apart for the purpose. - -In the trial of Madame Steinheil long queues waited all night for -admission to this small enclosure, although the hundreds who waited -knew beforehand that very few of them would get in, and in the Caillaux -case we are likely to see similar strings of well dressed society folk -subjecting themselves to the hardships of waiting all night in the -streets for a few hours’ sensation. The assize court is presided over -by the President and two assistant judges. These three men in all the -mediæval glories of their red robes and quaint brimless caps, trimmed -with ermine, sit at a long table on a platform at the upper end. The -court-room is a long parallelogram with beautiful dark oak panelling -and ugly green paper above it. The top half of the room, which is -reserved for the court, the table with the _pièces à conviction_ -(Madame Caillaux’s revolver, for instance), the jury, and the Bar, -behind which is the dock, is divided from the lower half of the room -where the witnesses, the Press, and the public sit or stand, by an -oaken barrier with a gate in the middle of it. Immediately in front of -this gate, plumb in the centre and facing the table at which the judges -sit, is the bar to which witnesses are called. Witnesses, after they -have given evidence, go and sit on the seats beyond the barrier till -the end of the trial. A witness stands facing the judge, and has on his -immediate right the prisoner’s lawyers and above them the dock in which -the prisoner stands. This dock has no door leading into the body of the -court. The only entrance to it or exit from it is a door leading out -to a room and the passage which conducts to the stairway leading down -to the depôt or prison in the Palace of Justice. To the witness’s left -is the box with the jury, and on a level with the judge’s bench and -with the jury’s box is the desk occupied by the Public Prosecutor, who -wears the same imposing red, ermine-trimmed robes as those worn by the -judges, and who prosecutes on behalf of the Government of France. As a -matter of fact, however, in every French criminal trial there are two -prosecutors. The French criminal system considers this right, but to -any foreigner who has been present at a trial in France it must appear -anything but that. For the presiding judge in a French trial is really -a prosecutor as well. Before the case comes into court he has spent -many hours over the opinion provided for him, in a lengthy document -with countless appendices of evidence, by the examining magistrate, and -from the very start of the trial the presiding judge takes the lead in -the examination of the prisoner. - -I was present in the Paris Court of Assizes throughout the Steinheil -trial, and I shall always remember the painful impression which was -made on me then by the judge’s methods. I remember now the picture I -saw of the eager little woman, dressed in black, pleading, protesting, -discussing, admitting and contradicting by turn, and of the man in -his judge’s robes who argued hotly with her, told her, downright, -time after time that she was guilty of the crime for which she was on -trial, thundered out accusations, tried to wheedle her into damaging -admissions, and thundered out the statement that she was not telling -the truth. The judge in a French trial is not only a prosecuting -counsel—he is rather a brutal one at that. Any impartial onlooker, if -he be not a Frenchman, and be not therefore accustomed to the methods -of the French court, cannot help realizing that the judge uses his -power and his prestige as Brennus used his sword, and frequently hurls -it into the scales of justice to the detriment of the prisoner. On the -other hand, a French judge, who is enjoined by law on his honour and -his conscience to use his best efforts to bring out truth at the trial, -undoubtedly does so within the limits of human possibility. - -But the work which a French judge has to do at a criminal trial is more -than any one man should be allowed to do, for no man can both judge -and prosecute. To begin with, his own opinion has been prejudiced, -must have been prejudiced, by the opinion of the examining magistrate, -which, whether he will or not, has influenced him. He examines all the -witnesses, he examines the prisoner, and he cross-examines them. On the -other hand he is forbidden to discuss the arguments after the counsel’s -speeches, either for the prosecution or for the defence (if he did so -the whole proceedings would be void), and he does not sum up as an -English judge is allowed to sum up. But the French judge in a criminal -trial sums up at the beginning of the trial instead of after it. He -has made a complete study of the _dossier_, which is to all intents -and purposes a complete study of the brief for the prosecution and of -the brief for the defence, he tells the jury the whole story of the -crime with which the prisoner is charged, and tells them the facts on -which the prosecution and the defence rely. The judge tells the jury, -before it is given, of the evidence which will be called in support -of the prosecution, and of the evidence which will be called by the -defence in answer to it. He goes the length of explaining why the -prosecution believes the prisoner to be guilty, and explains the facts -and deductions on which prisoner’s counsel base their defence. - -The amount of apparently irrelevant argument which is permitted in a -French criminal trial is enormous. The code does not allow it, for by -Article 270 the presiding judge is ordered to exclude from the hearing -anything that will prolong the trial without adding to the certainty -of the result. In any trial which has aroused general interest this -article of the code usually becomes a dead letter. The judge himself, -the Public Prosecutor, the prisoner’s counsel, the prisoner and the -witnesses are all allowed immense latitude, are all encouraged to -say all that they care to say at enormous length. The only people in -court who do not talk are the members of the jury, and from the very -beginning of the trial these men go to their homes every night, discuss -the case with their friends and their wives, and read the newspapers -daily, and the newspaper comment on the case which they are trying. -Jurymen are not necessarily possessed of legal minds, and under such -circumstances how can twelve ordinary men, however honest, and however -impartial they may wish to be, keep their minds entirely free from -outside influence. - -I don’t know that I have ever heard of a case in which a member or -members of the jury have been known to have talked to witnesses, but -I do not know, either, that there is anything to prevent any member -of the jury discussing the case at night during the progress of the -trial with a witness outside the precincts of the court. No man is -infallible, but justice ought to be. Jean Richepin put the whole case -against the French criminal trial in a nutshell when he sang “Quel -homme est assez Dieu pour rendre la Justice?” The conclusions of a -_juge d’instruction_, however capable the man may be, need not of -necessity be infallible. As he has the power to let the prisoner go, -the power to say that there is no case for the jury, it stands to -reason that, unless he states a doubt, the mere fact that he has sent -the prisoner for trial means that he believes in the prisoner’s guilt. - -The judge therefore starts a trial with the conviction that the -examining magistrate thinks that the prisoner is guilty. This -conviction must influence his conduct of the case. “Quel homme est -assez Dieu pour rendre la Justice” under these conditions? Many -Frenchmen have been of the opinion for a long time that the procedure -of a French criminal trial needs reformation. Many consider that the -judge’s preliminary interrogatory of the prisoner and of the witnesses -should be entirely suppressed, and should give place to examination -and cross-examination by prosecuting counsel and the counsel for the -defence. Many people think too that the _juge d’instruction_ should be -made to justify his _dossier_ in open court and on oath, that he should -be called to justify it at the witness bar instead of the present -system of a formal reading by a clerk of the court which takes a long -time and is always so gabbled that it is merely a formality. - -Another reform in French criminal procedure which many Frenchmen think -necessary is the suppression of the freedom of the jury during the -trial. There is a curious disregard of rules and regulations during the -details of a big criminal trial in France. There are witnesses who, in -response to the judge’s remark after he has asked the witness to swear -to tell the truth without fear and without hatred, and to state name, -address, and age, in response to the three words “Make your deposition” -which give the witness a free head, behave just like racehorses when -the starting gate goes up. Lawyer witnesses particularly have been -known to make long speeches for the defence or for the prosecution on -the plea of giving evidence, and there are many other similar abuses. -It often happens, too, that evidence which the examining magistrate has -collected is never sifted at the trial itself. When the trial is over, -when the Public Prosecutor, the counsel for the defence, and, if the -prisoner has anything to say, the prisoner, have addressed the court, -the jury retires to consider the verdict. There is something oddly, -picturesquely, emphatic and impressive in the mechanism of this -retirement. - -Somehow or another the French have a peculiar knack of stage-managing -anything and everything. No visitor on his first visit to Paris fails -to remark the wonderful stage-management (I suppose I ought to call -it landscape gardening) of the city. Look at the Tuileries Gardens -when dusk is just closing in towards the end of a fine day. The whole -place breathes the history of the last days of the Empire, and has the -gentle melancholy of a Turner picture. Stop in the Avenue des Champs -Elysées where the Avenue Nicholas II. intersects it. Look up the -Avenue and down it. The Arc de Triomphe and the Place de la Concorde, -which, when it ceased to be the Place Royale, held the scaffold of a -king of France. Look out across the Seine, then turn and look behind -you. The bridge which is named after a murdered Czar of Russia and the -Invalides beyond it. Behind you the Palace of the Elysée, the home of -the President of the third Republic, facing Napoleon’s Tomb. At every -turn in Paris, north, east, west, or south, you get signs of this -half-unconscious national gift of staging effects. - -The jury in a criminal trial in Paris does not, as a London jury does, -melt into disappearance before the final verdict. There are a few -solemn words from the judge, there is a rustle as the lawyers gather up -papers and sit back, and then fourteen very ordinary, very weary good -men and true, whose faces we had only seen in profile until then, rise -in their places. Their white and tired faces shine suddenly a pasty -yellow in the electric lamplight. The good men of the jury show us -their backs and walk slowly behind the desk of the Public Prosecutor to -a little door which we had not noticed till then, and which has just -been opened. Through this freshly opened door we stare across the court -up a flight of narrow stairs with red and grey carpets on them. The -verdict will come, presently, down that flight of narrow stairs. The -small door closes, and we wait. - -As a rule a big criminal trial finishes late in the evening. Everybody -is sick of it. For the sake of the prisoner, for the sake of the judge, -for the sake of the jury, for the sake of the lawyers, for the sake of -the public, every one wants to get it over. Nobody wants yet another -adjournment. So it is usually at night that one sits and waits for the -verdict in a big Paris criminal trial, and although I have seen exactly -the same scene, and endured exactly the same sensations many times, the -scene has never lost its dramatic force, and the sensations are always -new. A sense of relief comes first. We have seen the prisoner, in a -state of semi-collapse as a rule, going out through the door of the -dock to the room behind it, where, on this last evening of the trial, -the prisoner is allowed to wait for the verdict which is to be rendered -before her return. We feel the relief that one feels when the fighting -is over, mingled with suspense and with pity for the wretched creature -who is waiting and is wondering. We realize that we are hungry, and -rush off to get a little food. We dare not stay to eat it, and return -with it to court again. The appearance of the court-room has changed -during the few minutes of our scamper to the buffet down below for -sandwiches. We have brought them back with us, and other people are -munching food, too, in the dust, the heat, the squalor of this room -from which the majesty of justice has departed with the red robed -tribunal, the jury, and the prisoner. There is a hubbub of excited talk -and much discussion. Municipal guards forget to keep order and chat -with us and with the barristers of the probabilities and possibilities -of the verdict. Every now and then there is a hubbub of excitement and -a sudden deathly stillness. The little door, beyond which we can see -those red and grey carpeted stairs, has opened. The jury are returning! -No, it is a false alarm. They are not quite clear on some formal point -or other, and they have sent for the judge. After one or more of these -alarms, suddenly, when nobody has expected it, the little door opens -and remains open. The jury really are returning this time. We see them -walk slowly down those narrow red and grey stairs, and file slowly into -the box. Their faces tell us nothing, but we all try to read them. The -presiding judge and his two assistant judges walk slowly in and take -their seats, at the long table. On their right, the red robed Public -Prosecutor who has followed them, stands at his desk, on their left -the lawyers for the defence stand in their seats in front of the empty -dock. The stillness which was broken for a moment while the court came -in becomes something tangible, something quite painful now. It has -a quality of the sensation one feels in a diving bell. Our eardrums -tingle with it. Then the judge’s voice breaks the strain. “There must -be not the least noise,” he says. “I will allow no demonstration of any -kind, whatever the verdict may be.” Somebody laughs, and is hushed down -with indignant sibilance. We know that there will be a demonstration -whatever the judge may say. There has never yet been a French trial -without one. - -“Mr. Foreman of the Jury,” says the judge, “Be kind enough to let -us know the result of your deliberations.” If possible the silence -becomes greater yet. Then: “On my honour and on my conscience,” says -the foreman of the jury “before God and before men, the answer is ... -to all questions.” And pandemonium breaks forth. The answer to the -questions has to be “Yes” or “No”. The jury may not amplify it. They -will be asked, in the trial of Madame Caillaux, to decide whether -there was murder, whether there was murder with premeditation or -without it. They will be asked to state whether there are extenuating -circumstances, or whether there are none. On these answers, on this -simple “Yes” or “No” depends the fate of the prisoner. We see the -judge’s mouth open and shut, we see his hand rise and fall, but we have -heard no sound of his voice in the hubbub which the declaration of -the verdict has let loose. Then there is silence again. The judge has -ordered the prisoner to be brought in. The verdict is told her, and the -sentence, if there is a sentence, is rendered. - -This is the way in which the curtain will fall on the last act of the -Caillaux Drama. Will it be a final curtain? And what will the jury’s -answer be to the questions which will be put to them? That, no man can -answer now. Madame Caillaux may of course be acquitted, though public -opinion in Paris considers this exceedingly unlikely. She may be found -guilty of murder with premeditation. The sentence decreed by the Code -for this is death, and nobody believes in or anticipates the likelihood -of such a verdict. If the verdict be “Murder without premeditation,” if -the jury finds extenuating circumstances, the Code decrees a minimum -of five years, either hard labour or confinement in a prison, and a -maximum of ten years. There is also the possibility that a sentence may -be passed of hard labour or imprisonment for life. - -And beyond the verdict, beyond the sentence, what will the future of -this woman and her husband be? That no man can answer either, but we -all know that whatever happens, whatever the court decides, those shots -from a revolver in the office of the _Figaro_ on the afternoon of March -16, 1914, will never cease to echo in the lives of Joseph and Henriette -Caillaux. - -And in the echo, lurks the tragic essence of the Caillaux drama. - - THE END - - - - -INDEX - - -Agadir - M. Calmette asked not to publish telegrams, 96 - M. Clemenceau and the Barthou Cabinet, 103 - M. Caillaux open to criticism, 106 - M. Calmette’s series of articles, 130 - History of Agadir, 150 - _Panther_ and _Berlin_ arrive, 165 - M. Caillaux’s telegram, 166 - Lord Morley in the _Times_, 168 - Treaty, 259 - -Algeciras, Act of - The right of France to police Morocco, 151, 154 - -Alphonse de Neuville, Rue - Home of Madame Caillaux, 12, 13, 14, 17, 20 - -Aratra Mines - Company floated by M. Rochette, 210 - -Asquith - “extremely difficult” situation, 168 - -Auteuil - Home of M. Schneider, Boulevard Beauséjour, 121 - -Avenue d’Antin - Sale-rooms of Gastinne-Renette, 18 - - -Banque, Franco-Espagnole - Company floated by M. Rochette, 184, 200, 207 - -Banque Perrier - M. Calmette calls M. Caillaux to account for heavy fine, 130 - -Baring Bros., London Bankers - concerned in Prieu affair, 118 - -Barrès - took part in debate in Chamber of Deputies, 42 - -Barthou, Minister of Justice - produced and read statement, 33, 96, 179 - takes part in debate in Chamber of Deputies, 42 - conversation with Mme. Gueydan and with M. Caillaux, 97 - defeated by Clemenceau faction, 103 - opposition to M. Caillaux, 104 - comment on Bourse operation, 137 - M. Fabre’s statement received from M. Briand, 242 - -Baxter, Miss, Mme. Caillaux’s English governess - letter for M. Caillaux, 289 - -Belgian Congo - Railway from German Cameroons, 164, 174 - opinion in Great Britain and Belgium, 168 - -Bernard-Maurice, M. Rochette’s lawyer - statement by M. Fabre, 35, 38, 39, 232 - represented M. Caillaux in divorce proceedings, 83, 181 - M. Poincaré’s evidence, 83, 84, 85 - M. Monis’ remarks, 181 - charges of illegality made, 206 - postponement of trial, 237, 238 - threatened M. Fabre, 247 - -Bernstein, Henry, Jewish play-writer - play produced by Comédie Française, 65 - -Berr, Examining Magistrate - preparing Rochette case, 199 - letter from M. Rochette, 200 - M. Rochette’s complaint, 217 - -Bidault de L’Isle, Judge - question by M. Delahaye, 30 - evidence before Commission of Inquiry, 31, 32 - statement by M. Fabre, 35, 36, 38, 39, 40 - pressure brought on him by M. Monis and M. Caillaux, 140, 240 - contradictions in evidence, 228 - evidence at Chamber of Correctional Appeal, 237, 238 - -Blanc, Examiner of M. Rochette’s books - M. Rochette’s trial a foregone conclusion, 218 - -Bloch-Laroque, friend of M. Fabre - statement by M. Fabre, 35, 39 - conversation with M. Fabre on M. Bernard, 247 - -Boileau, Member of Prieu Syndicate - letters in the _Figaro_, 123 - -Boucard, Examining Magistrate - Madame Caillaux’s evidence, 18, 19, 20, 21, 286, 287 - _Action Française_, 69 - M. Caillaux and evidence of others, 80 - evidence of M. Caillaux, 86, 87, 90, 93, 95 - _re_ Prieu affair, 118 - Madame Caillaux’s request, 277 - -Bourget, Paul - novelist and friend of M. Calmette, 6, 21 - -Briand, Minister of Justice in Monis Cabinet - received M. Fabre’s declaration, 32 - statement handed to M. Barthou, 33 - took part in debate in Chamber of Deputies, 42 - favours Clemenceau party, 103 - founded Federation of the Left, 104 - Prime Minister, 153 - resignation, 155 - Monis Cabinet and desire to break away, 159 - M. Caillaux’s epigram, 159, 163 - interview with M. de Selves, _re_ “green document,” 173 - handed M. Fabre’s statement to M. Barthou, 242 - -Buisson Hella - Company floated by M. Rochette, 184, 207 - - -Caillaux, Eugène Alexandre, Inspector of Finance and Minister of State - father of M. Joseph Caillaux, 87 - -Calmette, Madame - divorce proceedings, 94 - -Cambon, Jules, French Ambassador in Berlin - troops to Fez, 164 - reply of von Kiderlen Waechter, 165 - M. de Selve’s request, 167 - questions German Foreign Minister, 170 - -Cambon, Paul - instructions in relation to British Government, 166, 167 - telegram from Berlin, 171 - -Cameroon - Franco-German understanding, 158, 159, 160, 167 - -Carpin, Police Commissioner - received journalists, 10, 11 - no means of stopping _Figaro_ campaign, 13 - -Cassel, Sir Ernest - influence on behalf of M. Spitzer, 128 - negotiations with Herr von Gwinner, 170 - -Ceccaldi - mentioned in M. Caillaux’s evidence, 100 - charges of corruption, 126 - member of second Commission, 193 - -Chauchard, Founder of Magasins du Louvre - legacy to M. Calmette, 95 - -Chaussée d’ Antin, Rue de la - situation of office of M. Gaudrion, 196 - -Claretie, Leo - first husband of Madame Caillaux, 286 - -Claretie, Madame Leo, second wife of M. Caillaux - became Madame Caillaux, 88, 90 - -Clemenceau - supporter of M. Pams, 102 - against M. Barthou and his Cabinet, 103 - general adviser, 104 - letter published by M. Calmette, 135 - head of Government, 152 - out of office, 153 - M. Caillaux and impeachment for high treason, 169 - interview with M. de Selves, 173 - discussion in the Chamber, 175-177 - accused of moral complicity with M. Rochette, 191 - initiates action in Rochette case, 193, 194 - accusation of proceeding illegally, 206 - evidence before Commission of Inquiry, 209, 212 - Government not protecting M. Rochette, 226 - -Cochery - Finance Minister, 1909, 115 - -Compagnie Transatlantique - quarrel with South Atlantic Company and _Figaro’s_ accusation, 129 - -Congo - Franco-German understanding, 152, 155, 158, 159, 160, 167 - convention with Germany, 163 - M. Waechter’s answer to M. Cambon, 165 - Germany’s demands, 168, 171 - -Conty, Director of Political Affairs in Foreign Office and now - French Minister at Pekin - Franco-German understanding in Congo, 158, 160 - -Corbeil - home of M. Pichereau, 196 - -Crédit Minier - Company floated by M. Rochette, 184, 201, 207, 218, 219, 222 - -Cruppi - Franco-German understanding in Congo, 158, 163 - - -D’Ariste, Heir of M. Prieu - made over his rights to Syndicate, 119 - -Darracq - backed by M. Rochette, 220 - -Delahaye, Member of the Opposition - placed motion before the House, 27 - declared M. Calmette intended to publish letter, 29 - addressed question to M. Monis, 30 - Prime Minister replies, 32 - -Desbons - Counsel for Madame Vitz, 75 - -Desclaux, chef de Cabinet de M. Caillaux - Madame Gueydan’s offer to journalist, 91, 92, 93 - -De Selves, Minister for Foreign Affairs - resignation of, 108 - visit to Holland, 165 - M. Caillaux’s instructions in opposition to his opinion, 166 - returns from Holland and asks for explanation of agreement, 167 - negotiations without his knowledge, 169, 176 - telegram from Berlin to German Embassy in Paris, 171 - the “green document,” 172 - causes excitement, 174 - speech before Senate in Committee, 175 - -D’Estournelles de Constant, friend of M. Caillaux - canvass for M. Caillaux, 257 - -Doumergue, Prime Minister - M. Caillaux telephones his resignation, 23 - Cabinet Council, 24 - speech of M. Delahaye, 27 - speech in Chamber of Deputies, 32 - challenged to a duel, 42 - improbability of re-election, 43 - M. Caillaux endeavouring to maintain Ministry, 107 - M. Renoult, Minister of the Interior, 115 - -Doyen, Dr., surgeon - his opinion as to M. Calmette’s treatment, 277 - -Drouot, Rue - office of the _Figaro_, 2, 3, 4, 43 - -Du Mesnil, managing editor of the _Rappel_ - statement by M. Fabre, 35, 39 - -Dupré, Jules - first husband of Madame Gueydan, 88, 95 - -Durand, Yves, chef de Cabinet de M. Lépine - sent for by M. Lépine, 194 - ordered to find plaintiff, 194, 195 - visits M. Gaudrion, 196, 198 - sent to M. Monier, 197 - accused of speculating, 199, 206 - called as witness before Commission, 207 - acquitted by M. Lépine of all dishonourable action, 208 - -Duret, M. Rochette’s Private Secretary - his evidence, 223 - - -Fabre, Victor, Procureur Général - M. Calmette and letter, 26, 138 - M. Delahaye’s question, 30 - declaration carried by M. Calmette, 31 - statement produced, 33 - “deplorable abuse of influence,” 41 - Madame Gueydan read letter, 97 - story of pressure put upon him, 140 - position at Aix, 180 - evidence before Parliamentary Commission, 231, 232 - cross-questioned, 234 - statements _re_ Rochette case, 235-247 - -Fallières, President of the French Republic - Franco-German understanding in Congo, 158 - warning at Cabinet Council, 160 - visit to Tunis, 163 - -Faubourg Montmartre, Rue du - police-station, 3, 9, 12, 23, 44 - -Fez - French troops to be sent, 163, 164, 165 - -Fontainebleau - M. Rochette’s early life, 183 - -Fonvielle, Antoine de, lawyer Prieu Syndicate - letter to M. Calmette, 120, 122 - -Forichon, Presiding Judge in Court of Appeal - hears M. Poincaré’s evidence on oath, 81 - -François-Poncet - statement by M. Fabre, 36, 40 - -Fresnes - Modern prison, 46, 47 - - -Gabon - Germany’s demands, 168 - -Gaillard, Doctor - Dentist of Madame Caillaux, 14 - -Gastinne-Renette - Armourer, 18, 19, 283 - -Gaudrion, a banker connected with Rochette case - willing to prosecute M. Rochette, 196 - visited by M. Durand, 198 - dealings in shares in M. Rochette’s Companies, 204 - supplies a prosecutor in his stead, 225 - -German Cameroons - railway to Belgian Congo, 164, 174 - -Grange Batélière, Rue de la - other entrance to police station, 12 - -Grey, Sir Edward - refers to Belgian Congo, 168 - -Gueydan, Madame, first wife of M. Caillaux - divorced wife of M. Dupré, 88 - letters burned, 89, 92 - evidence before examining magistrate, 90, 91 - read letters to M. Barthou, 97 - M. Privat-Deschanel and burning of letters, 101, 129 - “Ton Jo” letter, 146, 147 - -Guillemard, Madeleine - wrote in defence of letters, 86 - -Guiot, representative of bondholders of Moroccan Debt - visited German Foreign Office, 153 - provisional agreement, 154 - -Gwinner, of the Deutsche Bank - negotiations, 170 - - -Hartmann - owner of hospital, 4 - -Herbaux, new Procureur Général - probable prosecutor, 180 - -Homberg, André, Director of Société Générale - called on M. Caillaux, 129 - _Figaro’s_ accusation, 130 - -Hotel Ritz - Madame Caillaux’s engagement for tea, 16, 20 - -Hottinguer and Co. - concerned in Prieu affair, 118 - -Humbert - notorious female prisoner, 12, 44 - - -“Intermède Comique—Ton Jo” - Headline in _Figaro_, 98 - -Italian Embassy - Dinner-party, 13, 17, 23, 24 - - -Jaurès - President Parliamentary Commission of Inquiry, 31, 41, 180 - took part in debate in Chamber of Deputies, 42 - Rochette affair, 141, 206, 238 - tells committee the history of the Rochette case, 224-228 - letter summoning M. Monis to Commission of Inquiry, 235 - -Jeanne - Soubrette in attendance on Madame Caillaux, 50, 51 - - -Kissingen - French Ambassador’s conversation with German Secretary of State, 165 - - -Lancken - first mention of Belgian Congo, 169 - -Lavedan - play-writer, 65 - -Laviana - Company floated by M. Rochette, 184, 207 - -Lebon, François, editor of _L’Œuvre_ - attack on M. Caillaux and French Parliament, 125 - -Le Mans - letters sent to M. Caillaux “poste restante,” 286 - -Léonide, Sister, Chief Superintendent of prison nuns - description of, 47 - “Bostock,” 48 - duties in St. Lazare, 60, 62 - -Lépine, Prefect of Police - received orders to inquire into Rochette case, 194, 212, 226 - previously urged authorities to take action, 195 - sent M. Durand to M. Monier, 197 - evidence before Commission of Inquiry, 197, 208, 210 - opinion of M. Rochette, 209 - -Lloyd George - opinion on Congo question, 168 - -Luquet, Permanent Official in Ministry of Finance - intermediary between Government and Société Générale, 128 - superseded and succeeded by M. Privat-Deschanel, 129 - - -Malvy, Minister of Commerce - accompanies M. Caillaux, 12 - sent to M. Caillaux to induce him to reconsider resignation, 24 - appointed Minister Home Affairs, 25 - -Mamers - M. Caillaux’s constituency, 19, 88, 112, 132, 256, 257, 259, 260 - -Manchon Hella - Company floated by M. Rochette, 184, 185, 207 - M. Pichereau’s investments, 197, 198 - -Mannesmann Brothers - claims and concessions, 163 - -Mascuraud Committee - association of parliamentarians and commercial men, 126 - -Mazars - letter in _Figaro_ from M. Prosper Sauvage, 123 - -Messimy, Colonial Minister in Monis Cabinet - instructed to declare Franco-German understanding impossible, 160 - -Michel, Louise - notorious prisoner, cell No. 12, 44 - -Millerand, Socialist, 255 - -Milliés-Lacroix, French Colonial Minister - interview with M. Pichon, 153 - -Mines de Liat - Company floated by M. Rochette, 184, 207 - -Mogador - telegram from M. Caillaux, 166 - -Moinier, General - troops at his disposal, 164 - -Monier, Procureur de la République? - president of the Civil Court, 13, 14 - consulted by Madame Caillaux, 81, 99 - interviewed by M. Durand, 197, 198 - documents accusing M. Rochette, 207 - -Monis, Prime Minister and Minister of Marine - accusation against, 29 - questioned by M. Delahaye and reply, 30 - statement by M. Fabre, 33, 37, 138 - resignation from Cabinet, 40 - Minister of Marine, 104 - article by M. Calmette, 139 - brought pressure to bear on M. Fabre and Judge Bidault de L’Isle, 140 - elected Prime Minister, 155 - Cabinet defeated, 165 - examination by Parliamentary Commission, 179, 180, 234-237 - conversation in regard to trial of Rochette, 181, 182 - M. Caillaux advises postponement of trial, 213 - order for postponement of trial, 243, 245 - -Monniot - letter in _Figaro_ from M. Prosper Sauvage, 123, 124 - -Monquin, Head of Research Department, Paris Police - sent for by M. Lépine, 194 - -Morand, Albert, Artist of St. Lazare - honoured in Carnavalet Museum, 47 - drawings in this volume, 47 - -Morley, Lord - letter in the _Times_, 168 - -Morocco - interests of France, 151, 152, 156 - serious trouble, 160, 161, 163, 169 - M. Caillaux’s telegram, 166 - German Cabinet and the crisis, 171 - -Moroccan Company of Public Works - formed after approval of provisional agreement, 154 - -Mortier, Pierre, Editor of _Gil Blas_ - would not use letters, 93 - - -Neuilly - private hospital at, 3 - -N’Goko Tanga - charges of corruption by M. Ceccaldi, 126 - offered to give up a portion of territory, 154 - question in Parliament, 155 - convention with Germany, 163 - M. Caillaux explains failure of negotiations, 174 - - -Pams, Rival of M. Poincaré - non-election resented by M. Clemenceau, 102 - -Paral Mexico - Company floated by M. Rochette, 184 - -Paris Omnibus Co. - M. Rochette endeavouring to get concession, 220 - -Pau - M. Caillaux founded Radical united party, 104 - -Paul, Dr. Chas., Medical Officer of Health - report of the autopsy after M. Calmette’s death, 283 - -Péret, Raoul - appointed Minister of Commerce, 25 - -Perrier, Minister of Justice (Monis Cabinet) - M. Calmette’s article, 139 - -Philippeau, Robert - reported conversation heard in Paris Tube, 284, 285 - -Pichereau, connected with M. Rochette’s enterprises - introduced by M. Gaudrion, 196 - accusation against M. Rochette signed, 198 - formal charge made, 199 - M. Rochette in letter to examining magistrate, 201, 202 - claim against M. Rochette, 202 - documents in M. Rochette’s desk, 203 - M. Rochette takes legal action, 205 - prosecutor in M. Gaudrion’s stead, 225 - -Pichon - South American Bank Loan refused, 134 - Foreign Minister, 152, 153 - convention with Germany, 163 - -Pierre Charron, Rue - M. Caillaux’s house, 89 - -Pierre de Fouquières of the Protocol, 13 - -Place Beauvau - situation of Home Office, 194 - -Poincaré, President of the French Republic - hears of the tragedy, 24 - signs decrees, 25 - evidence on oath, 79, 80, 81, 86 - conversation with M. Caillaux, 82 - election to Presidency and M. Clemenceau, 102, 103 - M. Calmette in the _Figaro_, 108 - Prime Minister, 140 - -Poirier, Henri, intimate friend of M. Spitzer - M. Calmette’s comment on Finance Minister’s resignation, 133 - -Potsdam Agreement - soothed Russian fears, 165 - -Prestat, father of Madame Calmette - chairman of _Figaro_ Co., 94 - -Prevet, Managing Director _Le Petit Journal_ - M. Rochette’s attack, 187, 191 - realizes effects of M. Rochette’s tactics, 189, 190 - told M. Durand M. Gaudrion would prosecute, 196 - M. Durand complains he has been misled, 199 - _Petit Journal_ and shareholders, 214, 215 - -Prieu, French merchant living in Brazil - M. Caillaux accused by _Figaro_, 106 - misspelled “Priou,” 114 - heirs claim concessions, 115, 116 - difficulty of settlement, 117 - claim on Government, 118, 119 - M. de Fonvielle’s letter, 120 - M. Schneider pressed claims, 121 - members of Prieu Syndicate, 123 - article in _L’Œuvre_, 125 - -Privat-Deschanel, Secretary of the Ministry of Finance - letters burned, 89 - M. Boucard’s call, 90 - evidence of, 101 - successor to M. Luquet in Ministry of Finance, 129 - - -Rabier, one of M. Rochette’s lawyers - received large sums, 220 - -Raynouard - maiden name of Madame Caillaux, 88 - -Renoult, René, Member of Cabinet - appointed Minister of Finance in M. Caillaux’s stead, 25 - Under Secretary for Finance, 1909, 115 - lawyer of one of M. Rochette’s Companies, 220 - -Reymond, Doctor - present with Calmette, 3, 7 - -Richepin, Jean - quotation, 297 - -Rio de Janeiro - French Consul helps Prieu, 115 - -Rocher, Rue de - flat of M. de Fonvielle, 120 - -Rochette, Company Promoter and Speculator - M. Calmette and the _Figaro_, 26 - question by M. Delahaye and M. Monis’ reply, 30 - Commission of Inquiry, 31, 41 - statement by M. Fabre, 33, 34, 36, 37, 38 - cause of political unrest, 106 - M. Caillaux accused of interfering with the course of justice, 112 - _Figaro’s_ article, 138, 139, 140, 145 - M. Fabre pressed to adjourn trial, 179, 180 - postponement requested by Maître Bernard, 181 - trial postponed, 182, 213 - early life, 183 - companies floated, 184 - shareholders sign petition for release, 185 - examination of books by accountants, 186 - Bourse suspicious, 187 - attack in _Le Petit Journal_, 187, 188, 214, 215 - M. Prevet endeavours to stop M. Rochette’s manœuvres, 189 - Western Railway of France, 190 - M. Clemenceau accused of moral complicity, 191 - charges against members of Chamber and Senate, 192 - judicial inquiry, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197 - M. Pichereau’s accusation, 198 - M. Yves Durand accused of speculating, 199 - arrested and imprisoned, 200 - confronted with M. Pichereau, 202 - declared bankrupt, 203 - appealed against verdict and took action against M. Pichereau, 205 - becomes a political matter, 206 - M. Lépine justifies arrest, 208 - M. Lépine’s opinion, 209 - details of M. Rochette’s methods, 210 - sentenced to imprisonment and appeal, 211 - evidence before Commission of Inquiry, 212 - advertisements, 214 - complaint against M. Berr, 217 - examination of books a pretence, 218 - defence of enterprises, 217, 218, 219 - clerk’s story, 220 - secrecy of payment, 222 - evidence of employees, 223 - judgment annulled, 224 - proceedings dragged out, 227, 231, 248 - volume on history of French issues, 249 - -Royale, Rue - conversation between M. and Mme. Caillaux, 99 - - -Saint Calais - M. Caillaux’s speech to his constituents, 173 - -St. Lazare, Prison for Women, 11, 12, 43, 47, 48, 49, 50, - 53, 54, 55, 56, 58, 62, 63 - history of, 44, 45, 46 - motor lorry at, 51 - “six o’clock sickness,” 61 - favours shown Madame Caillaux, 75 - -Santé Prison - M. Rochette imprisoned, 200 - -Sarthe - M. Caillaux candidate for re-election, 91 - popular view of peasantry, 258-262 - -Sauvage, Prosper, member of Prieu Syndicate - letters in the _Figaro_, 123, 124 - -Say Sugar Refinery - M. Rochette’s connexion, 219 - -Schneider, Auguste, pressed claims of Prieu Syndicate - called on M. Caillaux by appointment and agreed settlement, 119 - his home at Auteuil, 121 - introduces M. de Fonvielle to M. Vidal, 121 - conversation recorded in M. de Fonvielle’s letters, 122 - mentioned in M. Boileau’s letters, 123 - referred to in letter of M. Prosper Sauvage, 124 - -Schoen, German Ambassador in Paris - first suggestion of compensation, 167 - -Société des Mines de la Nerva - Company floated by M. Rochette, 184, 207 - M. Pichereau’s investments, 197, 198, 202 - -Socquet, Dr., Medical Officer of Health - report of the autopsy after M. Calmette’s death, 283 - -South Atlantic Company - quarrel with Compagnie Transatlantique and _Figaro’s_ accusation, 129 - -Spitzer, Arthur, Director Société Générale - re-election indirectly opposed by Government, 128 - accusation of Bourse quotations being permitted unfairly, 131 - M. Calmette’s comment, 133 - -Steinheil - notorious female prisoner, 12, 44, 52, 59, 291, 294 - -Syndicat Minier - Company floated by M. Rochette, 184, 203, 207 - - -Tangier, Possibility of German demonstration, 159 - -Thalamas - letter to Madame Caillaux, 28, 29 - -Thorel, solicitor for M. Caillaux - M. Poincaré’s evidence, 83 - -“Ton Jo” - signature to letter written by M. Caillaux, 92, 97, 98, 142, - 144-147, 149 - Copy of “Ton Jo” letter, 143 - -Tripoli - coveted by Italy, 165 - -Tunis - President Faillière’s visit, 163 - - -Ullmann, of the Compte d’Escompte - received by M. Caillaux, 124 - accusation that Bourse quotations were allowed in his favour, 131 - -Union, Franco-Belge - Company floated by M. Rochette, 184, 207 - - -Val d’Airan - Company floated by M. Rochette, 184, 207 - -Valentine Morelli - notorious prisoner, cell No. 12, 44 - -Vervoort, journalist on _Gil Blas_ - Madame Gueydan’s offer, 91-93 - -Vidal, journalist - introduced to M. de Fonvielle, 121 - conversation with M. Schneider, 122 - -Vitz, Madame - prisoner in St. Lazare, 75, 76 - - -Waechter, Kiderlen, German Foreign Minister - remark to French Ambassador in Berlin, 163 - reception of communication from M. Cambon, 164 - answer to M. Cambon’s question, 165 - suggests an agreement, 167 - reply to M. Cambon, 171 - -Waldeck-Rousseau - former Cabinet in which M. Caillaux was Minister of Finance, 144 - -Western Railway of France - M. Rochette’s agitation against State acquisition, 190, 191 - - -Yenck, clerk in Crédit Minier - his evidence, 223 - - - PRINTED BY - BALLANTYNE & COMPANY LTD - LONDON - - - - - * * * * * * - - - - -Transcriber's note: - - Old or antiquated spellings have been preserved. - - Typographical errors have been silently corrected but other variations - in spelling and punctuation remain unaltered. - - The illustrations have been moved so that they do not break up - paragraphs, and the paginations in the List of Illustrations have - been adjusted accordingly. - - - -***END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE CAILLAUX DRAMA*** - - -******* This file should be named 52680-0.txt or 52680-0.zip ******* - - -This and all associated files of various formats will be found in: -http://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/5/2/6/8/52680 - - -Updated editions will replace the previous one--the old editions will -be renamed. - -Creating the works from print editions not protected by U.S. copyright -law means that no one owns a United States copyright in these works, -so the Foundation (and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United -States without permission and without paying copyright -royalties. Special rules, set forth in the General Terms of Use part -of this license, apply to copying and distributing Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic works to protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm -concept and trademark. Project Gutenberg is a registered trademark, -and may not be used if you charge for the eBooks, unless you receive -specific permission. If you do not charge anything for copies of this -eBook, complying with the rules is very easy. You may use this eBook -for nearly any purpose such as creation of derivative works, reports, -performances and research. They may be modified and printed and given -away--you may do practically ANYTHING in the United States with eBooks -not protected by U.S. copyright law. Redistribution is subject to the -trademark license, especially commercial redistribution. - -START: FULL LICENSE - -THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE -PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK - -To protect the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting the free -distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work -(or any other work associated in any way with the phrase "Project -Gutenberg"), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full -Project Gutenberg-tm License available with this file or online at -www.gutenberg.org/license. - -Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic works - -1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to -and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property -(trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all -the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or -destroy all copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in your -possession. If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a -Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work and you do not agree to be bound -by the terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the -person or entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph -1.E.8. - -1.B. "Project Gutenberg" is a registered trademark. It may only be -used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who -agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few -things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works -even without complying with the full terms of this agreement. See -paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic works if you follow the terms of this -agreement and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic works. See paragraph 1.E below. - -1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation ("the -Foundation" or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection -of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works. Nearly all the individual -works in the collection are in the public domain in the United -States. If an individual work is unprotected by copyright law in the -United States and you are located in the United States, we do not -claim a right to prevent you from copying, distributing, performing, -displaying or creating derivative works based on the work as long as -all references to Project Gutenberg are removed. Of course, we hope -that you will support the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting -free access to electronic works by freely sharing Project Gutenberg-tm -works in compliance with the terms of this agreement for keeping the -Project Gutenberg-tm name associated with the work. You can easily -comply with the terms of this agreement by keeping this work in the -same format with its attached full Project Gutenberg-tm License when -you share it without charge with others. - -1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern -what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are -in a constant state of change. If you are outside the United States, -check the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this -agreement before downloading, copying, displaying, performing, -distributing or creating derivative works based on this work or any -other Project Gutenberg-tm work. The Foundation makes no -representations concerning the copyright status of any work in any -country outside the United States. - -1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg: - -1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other -immediate access to, the full Project Gutenberg-tm License must appear -prominently whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg-tm work (any work -on which the phrase "Project Gutenberg" appears, or with which the -phrase "Project Gutenberg" is associated) is accessed, displayed, -performed, viewed, copied or distributed: - - This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and - most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no - restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it - under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this - eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the - United States, you'll have to check the laws of the country where you - are located before using this ebook. - -1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is -derived from texts not protected by U.S. copyright law (does not -contain a notice indicating that it is posted with permission of the -copyright holder), the work can be copied and distributed to anyone in -the United States without paying any fees or charges. If you are -redistributing or providing access to a work with the phrase "Project -Gutenberg" associated with or appearing on the work, you must comply -either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 or -obtain permission for the use of the work and the Project Gutenberg-tm -trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or 1.E.9. - -1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is posted -with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution -must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any -additional terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms -will be linked to the Project Gutenberg-tm License for all works -posted with the permission of the copyright holder found at the -beginning of this work. - -1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg-tm -License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this -work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg-tm. - -1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this -electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without -prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with -active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project -Gutenberg-tm License. - -1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary, -compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including -any word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access -to or distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg-tm work in a format -other than "Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other format used in the official -version posted on the official Project Gutenberg-tm web site -(www.gutenberg.org), you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense -to the user, provide a copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means -of obtaining a copy upon request, of the work in its original "Plain -Vanilla ASCII" or other form. Any alternate format must include the -full Project Gutenberg-tm License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1. - -1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying, -performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg-tm works -unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9. - -1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing -access to or distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works -provided that - -* You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from - the use of Project Gutenberg-tm works calculated using the method - you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is owed - to the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark, but he has - agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the Project - Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty payments must be paid - within 60 days following each date on which you prepare (or are - legally required to prepare) your periodic tax returns. Royalty - payments should be clearly marked as such and sent to the Project - Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the address specified in - Section 4, "Information about donations to the Project Gutenberg - Literary Archive Foundation." - -* You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies - you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he - does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg-tm - License. You must require such a user to return or destroy all - copies of the works possessed in a physical medium and discontinue - all use of and all access to other copies of Project Gutenberg-tm - works. - -* You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of - any money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the - electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days of - receipt of the work. - -* You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free - distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm works. - -1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic work or group of works on different terms than -are set forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing -from both the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation and The -Project Gutenberg Trademark LLC, the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm -trademark. Contact the Foundation as set forth in Section 3 below. - -1.F. - -1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable -effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread -works not protected by U.S. copyright law in creating the Project -Gutenberg-tm collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may -contain "Defects," such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate -or corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other -intellectual property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or -other medium, a computer virus, or computer codes that damage or -cannot be read by your equipment. - -1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the "Right -of Replacement or Refund" described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project -Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project -Gutenberg-tm trademark, and any other party distributing a Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all -liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal -fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT -LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE -PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH 1.F.3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE -TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE -LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR -INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH -DAMAGE. - -1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a -defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can -receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a -written explanation to the person you received the work from. If you -received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium -with your written explanation. The person or entity that provided you -with the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in -lieu of a refund. If you received the work electronically, the person -or entity providing it to you may choose to give you a second -opportunity to receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund. If -the second copy is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing -without further opportunities to fix the problem. - -1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth -in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you 'AS-IS', WITH NO -OTHER WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT -LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE. - -1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied -warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of -damages. If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement -violates the law of the state applicable to this agreement, the -agreement shall be interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or -limitation permitted by the applicable state law. The invalidity or -unenforceability of any provision of this agreement shall not void the -remaining provisions. - -1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the -trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone -providing copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in -accordance with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the -production, promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic works, harmless from all liability, costs and expenses, -including legal fees, that arise directly or indirectly from any of -the following which you do or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this -or any Project Gutenberg-tm work, (b) alteration, modification, or -additions or deletions to any Project Gutenberg-tm work, and (c) any -Defect you cause. - -Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg-tm - -Project Gutenberg-tm is synonymous with the free distribution of -electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of -computers including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It -exists because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations -from people in all walks of life. - -Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the -assistance they need are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg-tm's -goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg-tm collection will -remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project -Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure -and permanent future for Project Gutenberg-tm and future -generations. To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation and how your efforts and donations can help, see -Sections 3 and 4 and the Foundation information page at -www.gutenberg.org - -Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation - -The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non profit -501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the -state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal -Revenue Service. The Foundation's EIN or federal tax identification -number is 64-6221541. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent permitted by -U.S. federal laws and your state's laws. - -The Foundation's principal office is in Fairbanks, Alaska, with the -mailing address: PO Box 750175, Fairbanks, AK 99775, but its -volunteers and employees are scattered throughout numerous -locations. Its business office is located at 809 North 1500 West, Salt -Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887. Email contact links and up to -date contact information can be found at the Foundation's web site and -official page at www.gutenberg.org/contact - -For additional contact information: - - Dr. Gregory B. Newby - Chief Executive and Director - gbnewby@pglaf.org - -Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg -Literary Archive Foundation - -Project Gutenberg-tm depends upon and cannot survive without wide -spread public support and donations to carry out its mission of -increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be -freely distributed in machine readable form accessible by the widest -array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small donations -($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt -status with the IRS. - -The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating -charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United -States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a -considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up -with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations -where we have not received written confirmation of compliance. To SEND -DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any particular -state visit www.gutenberg.org/donate - -While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we -have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition -against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who -approach us with offers to donate. - -International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make -any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from -outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff. - -Please check the Project Gutenberg Web pages for current donation -methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other -ways including checks, online payments and credit card donations. To -donate, please visit: www.gutenberg.org/donate - -Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works. - -Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project -Gutenberg-tm concept of a library of electronic works that could be -freely shared with anyone. For forty years, he produced and -distributed Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks with only a loose network of -volunteer support. - -Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks are often created from several printed -editions, all of which are confirmed as not protected by copyright in -the U.S. unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not -necessarily keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper -edition. - -Most people start at our Web site which has the main PG search -facility: www.gutenberg.org - -This Web site includes information about Project Gutenberg-tm, -including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to -subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks. - diff --git a/old/52680-0.zip b/old/52680-0.zip Binary files differdeleted file mode 100644 index 2e2d6d3..0000000 --- a/old/52680-0.zip +++ /dev/null diff --git a/old/52680-h.zip b/old/52680-h.zip Binary files differdeleted file mode 100644 index 936ab78..0000000 --- a/old/52680-h.zip +++ /dev/null diff --git a/old/52680-h/52680-h.htm b/old/52680-h/52680-h.htm deleted file mode 100644 index 745b327..0000000 --- a/old/52680-h/52680-h.htm +++ /dev/null @@ -1,7520 +0,0 @@ -<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN" - "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd"> -<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"> -<head> -<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" /> -<title>The Project Gutenberg eBook of The Caillaux Drama, by John N. (John Nathan) Raphael</title> - <link rel="coverpage" href="images/cover.jpg" /> - <style type="text/css"> - -body { - margin-left: 10%; - margin-right: 10%; -} - - h1,h2,h3,h4 { - text-align: center; - clear: both; -} - -h1 {page-break-before: always; } -h2 {page-break-before: always; } -h2 {line-height: 2;} -.h_subtitle{font-weight: bold; font-size: 110%;} - -p { margin-top: .51em; text-align: justify; text-indent: 1.5em; margin-bottom: .49em; } -p.indent { text-indent: 1.5em;} -p.no-indent { margin-top: .51em; text-align: justify; text-indent: 0em; margin-bottom: .49em;} -p.author { margin-top: 1em; margin-right: 20%; text-align: right;} -p.f90 { font-size: 90%; text-align: center; text-indent: 0em; } -p.f110 { font-size: 110%; text-align: center; text-indent: 0em; } -p.f120 { font-size: 120%; text-align: center; text-indent: 0em; } -p.f150 { font-size: 150%; text-align: center; text-indent: 0em; } -p.f200 { font-size: 200%; text-align: center; text-indent: 0em; } - -.space-above1 { margin-top: 1em; } -.space-above2 { margin-top: 2em; } - -.space-below1 { margin-bottom: 1em; } -.space-below2 { margin-bottom: 2em; } -.space-below3 { margin-bottom: 3em; } - -hr.r5 {width: 5%; margin-top: 1em; margin-bottom: 1em; - margin-left: 47.5%; margin-right: 47.5%; } -hr.r25 {width: 25%; margin-top: 3em; margin-bottom: 3em; - margin-left: 37.5%; margin-right: 37.5%; } -hr.chap {width: 65%; margin-left: 17.5%; margin-right: 17.5%; } - -ul.index { list-style-type: none; } -li.ifrst { margin-top: 1.5em; } -li.indx { margin-top: .2em; } -li.isub2 {text-indent: 2em;} - -table { - margin-left: auto; - margin-right: auto; -} - - .tdl {text-align: left;} - .tdr {text-align: right;} - -.pagenum { - /* visibility: hidden; */ - position: absolute; - left: 92%; - font-size: smaller; - text-align: right; -} - -.blockquot { - margin-left: 7%; - margin-right: 15%; -} - -.bbox {border: solid 2px;} -.center {text-align: center; - text-indent: 0; } -.right {text-align: right;} -.smcap {font-variant: small-caps;} -.u {text-decoration: underline;} - -img {max-width: 100%; height: auto;} - -.figcenter { - margin: auto; - text-align: center; -} - -.footnotes {border: dashed 1px;} -.footnote {margin-left: 10%; margin-right: 10%; font-size: 0.9em;} -.footnote .label {position: absolute; right: 84%; text-align: right;} -.fnanchor { - vertical-align: super; - font-size: .8em; - text-decoration: - none; -} - -.poetry-container { text-align: center; } - -.poem { display: inline-block; - text-align: left; } - -.poem .stanza {margin: 1em 0em 1em 0em; - font-weight: bold; - font-size: 110%;} - - .poem span.i0 {display: block; margin-left: 0em; padding-left: 3em; text-indent: -3em;} - .poem span.i2 {display: block; margin-left: 1em; padding-left: 3em; text-indent: -3em;} - .poem span.i4 {display: block; margin-left: 2em; padding-left: 3em; text-indent: -3em;} - .poem span.i30 {display: block; margin-left: 15em; padding-left: 3em; text-indent: -3em;} - -.transnote {background-color: #E6E6FA; - color: black; - font-size:smaller; - padding:0.5em; - margin-bottom:5em; - font-family:sans-serif, serif; } - -@media handheld -{ - .pagenum {display: none;} - -.poem {display: block; - margin-left: 1.5em;} -} - - h2.pg { line-height: 1; } - hr.full { width: 100%; - margin-top: 3em; - margin-bottom: 0em; - margin-left: auto; - margin-right: auto; - height: 4px; - border-width: 4px 0 0 0; /* remove all borders except the top one */ - border-style: solid; - border-color: #000000; - clear: both; } - </style> -</head> -<body> -<h1>The Project Gutenberg eBook, The Caillaux Drama, by John N. (John Nathan) -Raphael</h1> -<p>This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States -and most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no -restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it -under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this -eBook or online at <a -href="http://www.gutenberg.org">www.gutenberg.org</a>. If you are not -located in the United States, you'll have to check the laws of the -country where you are located before using this ebook.</p> -<p>Title: The Caillaux Drama</p> -<p>Author: John N. (John Nathan) Raphael</p> -<p>Release Date: July 30, 2016 [eBook #52680]</p> -<p>Language: English</p> -<p>Character set encoding: UTF-8</p> -<p>***START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE CAILLAUX DRAMA***</p> -<p> </p> -<h4>E-text prepared by Clarity, Paul Marshall,<br /> - and the Online Distributed Proofreading Team<br /> - (<a href="http://www.pgdp.net">http://www.pgdp.net</a>)<br /> - from page images generously made available by<br /> - Internet Archive/American Libraries<br /> - (<a href="https://archive.org/details/americana">https://archive.org/details/americana</a>)</h4> -<p> </p> -<table border="0" style="background-color: #ccccff;margin: 0 auto;" cellpadding="10"> - <tr> - <td valign="top"> - Note: - </td> - <td> - Images of the original pages are available through - Internet Archive. See - <a href="https://archive.org/details/caillauxdrama00raphiala"> - https://archive.org/details/caillauxdrama00raphiala</a> - </td> - </tr> -</table> -<p> </p> -<hr class="full" /> -<p> </p> -<p> </p> - -<h1 class="space-above2"><small>THE</small><br />CAILLAUX<br />DRAMA</h1> - -<hr class="r5" /> -<div class="figcenter"> - <a name="WAITING" id="WAITING"></a> - <img src="images/frontis.jpg" alt="Waiting" width="500" height="666" /> - <p class="center space-below1"><i>Waiting.</i></p> -</div> -<hr class="r5" /> - -<p class="f200 space-below2"><small>THE</small><br />CAILLAUX<br />DRAMA</p> -<p class="f90">BY</p> -<p class="f110 space-below2">JOHN N. RAPHAEL</p> -<p> </p> -<p> </p> - -<p class="center">LONDON: MAX GOSCHEN LTD.<br />20 GREAT RUSSELL STREET W.C.</p> - -<p class="f90 space-below2">MCMXIV</p> -<hr class="chap" /> -<p class="center space-above2 space-below2">TO MY MOTHER</p> -<hr class="chap" /> - -<p class="f150 space-above2"><b>CONTENTS</b></p> -<table border="0" cellspacing="2" summary="Table of Contents." cellpadding="2"> - <tbody><tr> - <td class="tdl"><span class="smcap">Chap.</span></td> - <td class="tdl"> </td> - <td class="tdr"><span class="smcap">Page</span></td> - </tr><tr> - <td class="tdr">I </td> - <td class="tdl"><span class="smcap">The Story of the Drama</span></td> - <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_1"> 1</a></td> - </tr><tr> - <td class="tdr">II </td> - <td class="tdl"><span class="smcap">Cell No. 12</span></td> - <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_44">44</a></td> - </tr><tr> - <td class="tdr">III </td> - <td class="tdl"><span class="smcap">The Crime and the Public</span></td> - <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_64">64</a></td> - </tr><tr> - <td class="tdr">IV </td> - <td class="tdl"><span class="smcap">Monsieur Caillaux’s Examination</span></td> - <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_87">87</a></td> - </tr><tr> - <td class="tdr">V </td> - <td class="tdl"><span class="smcap">The Campaign of the “Figaro”</span></td> - <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_102">102</a></td> - </tr><tr> - <td class="tdr">VI </td> - <td class="tdl"><span class="smcap">Calmette</span> <i>v.</i> <span class="smcap">Caillaux</span></td> - <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_114">114</a></td> - </tr><tr> - <td class="tdr">VII </td> - <td class="tdl"><span class="smcap">The “Ton Jo” Letter</span></td> - <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_143">143</a></td> - </tr><tr> - <td class="tdr">VIII </td> - <td class="tdl"><span class="smcap">Agadir</span></td> - <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_150">150</a></td> - </tr><tr> - <td class="tdr">IX </td> - <td class="tdl"><span class="smcap">L’Affaire Rochette</span></td> - <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_179">179</a></td> - </tr><tr> - <td class="tdr">X </td> - <td class="tdl">“<span class="smcap">The Truth, The Whole Truth ...</span>”</td> - <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_230">230</a></td> - </tr><tr> - <td class="tdr">XI </td> - <td class="tdl"><span class="smcap">About French Politics</span></td> - <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_251">251</a></td> - </tr><tr> - <td class="tdr">XII </td> - <td class="tdl"><span class="smcap">Before the Last Act of the Drama</span> </td> - <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_267">267</a></td> - </tr><tr> - <td class="tdr"> </td> - <td class="tdl"><span class="smcap">Index</span></td> - <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_307">307</a></td> - </tr> - </tbody> -</table> -<hr class="r25" /> -<p class="f150 space-above1"><b>ILLUSTRATIONS</b></p> -<table class="space-below3" border="0" cellspacing="2" summary="ILLUSTRATIONS" cellpadding="2"> - <tbody><tr> - <td class="tdl">“<span class="smcap">Waiting</span>”</td> - <td class="tdr"><a href="#WAITING"><i>Frontispiece</i></a></td> - </tr><tr> - <td class="tdl"><span class="smcap">Offices of “Le Figaro” on the Evening of the Murder</span></td> - <td class="tdr"><a href="#P02"> 4</a></td> - </tr><tr> - <td class="tdl"><span class="smcap">Gaston Calmette in his Office at the “Figaro”</span></td> - <td class="tdr"><a href="#P04"> 4</a></td> - </tr><tr> - <td class="tdl"><span class="smcap">M. Boucard (the Examining Magistrate) and the Doctors leaving<br /> -  the Private Hospital where M. Calmette died</span></td> - <td class="tdr"><a href="#P08"> 8</a></td> - </tr><tr> - <td class="tdl"><span class="smcap">M. Victor Fabre, the Procureur Général</span></td> - <td class="tdr"><a href="#P36">36</a></td> - </tr><tr> - <td class="tdl"><span class="smcap">The Funeral of M. Calmette</span></td> - <td class="tdr"><a href="#P40">40</a></td> - </tr><tr> - <td class="tdl"><span class="smcap">The Brothers, Sons and Relatives of M. Calmette at the Funeral</span></td> - <td class="tdr"><a href="#P42">42</a></td> - </tr><tr> - <td class="tdl"><span class="smcap">Mme. Caillaux (and Detective) on her way to the Law Courts<br /> -  to be examined</span></td> - <td class="tdr"><a href="#P44">44</a></td> - </tr><tr> - <td class="tdl"><span class="smcap">SŒur Leonide</span></td> - <td class="tdr"><a href="#P47">47</a></td> - </tr><tr> - <td class="tdl"><span class="smcap">The Corridor Outside the Pistoles</span></td> - <td class="tdr"><a href="#P49">49</a></td> - </tr><tr> - <td class="tdl"><span class="smcap">“Jeanne,” the “Soubrette” of Pistole No. 12</span></td> - <td class="tdr"><a href="#P51">51</a></td> - </tr><tr> - <td class="tdl"><span class="smcap">The Lorry which Paris Journalists thought was full<br /> -  of Mme. Caillaux’s Furniture</span></td> - <td class="tdr"><a href="#P54">54</a></td> - </tr><tr> - <td class="tdl"><span class="smcap">La Cour Des Filles in Saint Lazare</span></td> - <td class="tdr"><a href="#P55">54</a></td> - </tr><tr> - <td class="tdl"><span class="smcap">Madame Caillaux’s Cell exactly as it is</span></td> - <td class="tdr"><a href="#P62">62</a></td> - </tr><tr> - <td class="tdl"><span class="smcap">Monsieur Caillaux in his office at the Ministère des Finances</span></td> - <td class="tdr"><a href="#P68">68</a></td> - </tr><tr> - <td class="tdl"><span class="smcap">President Poincaré gives Evidence on Oath in the Caillaux<br /> -  Drama before the President of the Appeal Court, who waited<br /> -  on Him for this purpose at the Elysée</span></td> - <td class="tdr"><a href="#P80">80</a></td> - </tr><tr> - <td class="tdl"><span class="smcap">Monsieur Caillaux leaving the Law Courts</span></td> - <td class="tdr"><a href="#P86">86</a></td> - </tr><tr> - <td class="tdl"><span class="smcap">M. Privat-Deschanel who witnessed the Destruction of the<br /> -  Letters by Mme. Gueydan-Caillaux</span></td> - <td class="tdr"><a href="#P92">92</a></td> - </tr><tr> - <td class="tdl"><span class="smcap">M. Barthou mounting the stairs of the Law Courts on his<br /> -  way to give Evidence in the Caillaux Case</span></td> - <td class="tdr"><a href="#P99">99</a></td> - </tr><tr> - <td class="tdl"><span class="smcap">Monsieur Caillaux’s Friend, M. Ceccaldi</span></td> - <td class="tdr"><a href="#P127">127</a></td> - </tr><tr> - <td class="tdl"><span class="smcap">The “Ton Jo” Letter from the “Figaro”</span></td> - <td class="tdr"><a href="#P144">144</a></td> - </tr><tr> - <td class="tdl"><span class="smcap">Rochette in Court</span></td> - <td class="tdr"><a href="#P186">186</a></td> - </tr><tr> - <td class="tdl"><span class="smcap">Monsieur Barthou</span></td> - <td class="tdr"><a href="#P242">242</a></td> - </tr><tr> - <td class="tdl"><span class="smcap">Mme. Caillaux in the dress she was to wear at the<br /> -  Italian Embassy on the Evening of the Murder</span></td> - <td class="tdr"><a href="#P279">279</a></td> - </tr><tr> - <td class="tdl"><span class="smcap">M. Joseph Caillaux</span></td> - <td class="tdr"><a href="#P288">288</a></td> - </tr> - </tbody> -</table> -<hr class="r25" /> -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_1" id="Page_1">[Pg 1]</a></span></p> - -<h2>I<br /><span class="h_subtitle">THE STORY OF THE DRAMA</span></h2> - -<p class="no-indent space-below1"><span class="smcap">Late</span> on -Monday afternoon, March 16, 1914, a rumour fired imaginations, like a -train of gunpowder, all over Paris. In newspaper offices, in cafés, -in clubs, people asked one another whether they had heard the news -and whether the news were true. It seemed incredible. The wife of -the Minister of Finance, said rumour, Madame Joseph Caillaux, one of -the spoiled children of Paris society, had gone to the office of the -<i>Figaro</i>, had waited there an hour or more for the managing editor, -Monsieur Gaston Calmette, had been received by him, and had shot him -dead in his own office. Nobody believed the story at first. Nobody -could believe it. The very possibility of such a happening made it -appear impossible. It was known, of course, that for some weeks before -the <i>Figaro</i> had been waging an unsparing campaign against the Minister -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_2" id="Page_2">[Pg 2]</a></span> -of Finance. It was known that Monsieur Caillaux had been and was -infuriated at this campaign, but nobody believed that tragedy had -followed. There was a rush to the <i>Figaro</i> office. Paris is a small -town compared with London, and the <i>Figaro</i> building in the Rue -Drouot is in a more central position in the throbbing news and -sensation-loving heart of Paris than is either Piccadilly or Fleet -Street in London. Within ten minutes of the first news of the tragedy -there was a large crowd gathered in the Rue Drouot, and even those who -could not get into the <i>Figaro</i> building soon received confirmation -that the drama really had occurred. People had seen a large and -luxurious motor-car stationed outside the building. There was nothing -at all unusual in this, for the offices of the <i>Figaro</i> are the resort -in the afternoon of many people with big motor-cars. What was unusual, -and had attracted notice, was the fact that the driver of the car had -worn the tricolour cockade which in Paris is worn only by the drivers -of cars or carriages belonging to the Ministers. Even this evidence was -in no way conclusive, for courtesy permits Ambassadors and Ministers -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_3" id="Page_3">[Pg 3]</a></span> -accredited to the French Government by foreign countries to give their -servants the red white and blue cockade, and it was thought by many -that the car had not belonged to a French Minister at all, but was the -property of an Ambassador. Then the story gained precision. A woman, it -was said, escorted by police, had come out of the <i>Figaro</i> office and -seated herself in the car. The driver, as she entered, had removed his -tricolour cockade and driven round the corner to the police-station. -The doors of the <i>Figaro</i> office were closed and guarded. A few minutes -later all Paris knew the story. In the big grey motor-car in which -she had driven to the Rue Drouot that afternoon, Madame Caillaux had -been taken in custody to the police-station in the Rue du Faubourg -Montmartre. Monsieur Gaston Calmette, the editor of the <i>Figaro</i>, -lay dying in his office. His friend, Doctor Reymond, who was with -him, gave little hope that his life could be saved, and those of the -members of the staff of the paper who could be approached could only -murmur confirmation of the same sad news. Later in the evening Monsieur -Calmette was taken out to Neuilly to the private hospital of another -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_4" id="Page_4">[Pg 4]</a></span> -friend, Professor Hartmann. He died there just before midnight. -Madame Caillaux had arrived in her motor-car at No. 26 Rue Drouot at -about five o’clock, and had asked for Monsieur Calmette. She was told -that Monsieur Calmette was out, but that he would certainly arrive -before long. “Then I will wait,” she said.</p> - -<div class="figcenter"> - <a name="P02" id="P02"></a> - <img src="images/p_02.jpg" alt="Offices of FIGARO" width="450" height="718" /> - <p class="right"><i>Agence Nouvelle—Photo, Paris</i></p> - <p class="center">OFFICES OF <i>LE FIGARO</i> ON THE EVENING OF THE MURDER</p> -</div> -<hr class="r25" /> -<div class="figcenter"> - <a name="P04" id="P04"></a> - <img src="images/p_04.jpg" alt="Gaston Calmette" width="600" height="392" /> - <p class="right"><i>Agence Nouvelle—Photo, Paris</i></p> - <p class="center space-below1">GASTON CALMETTE IN HIS OFFICE AT THE <i>FIGARO.</i></p> -</div> - -<p class="space-below1">The customs of a Paris newspaper differ considerably from -those of newspapers in London. They are, if I may put it so, more social. In a -London newspaper office nearly all the business of the day with the -outside world is transacted by express letter, by telegram, or over the -telephone. The editor and his collaborators see fewer members of the -public in a week in the offices of a London newspaper than the editor -and collaborators of a Paris newspaper of the same importance see in an -afternoon. The difference in the hours of newspaper work in Paris and -in London, the difference in the characteristics of Frenchmen and of -Englishmen have a great deal to do with this difference in newspaper -methods. To begin with, the London newspaper goes to press much earlier -than does the newspaper in Paris, for Paris papers have fewer and later -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_5" id="Page_5">[Pg 5]</a></span> -trains to catch, and “copy” is therefore finished much later in Paris. -The principal London editors are invariably in their offices at latest -at noon every day, and prefer to see their visitors between the hours -of twelve and four o’clock. In Paris practically every newspaper editor -receives between five and seven in the evening, and it is very rare -to find heads of newspaper departments (the business side of course -excepted) in their offices before five <span class="smcap">p.m.</span> In other -words the business of the day begins at about five o’clock in a Paris newspaper -office, when the business of the evening begins in London and the -business of the day is finished, and the real hard work of the night -staff hardly begins until ten. The hour at which Madame Caillaux called -therefore, to see Monsieur Calmette, was a perfectly normal one. She -was told that he would certainly come in before long, and was asked -for her name. She did not give it, said that she would wait, and was -shown into a waiting-room where curiously enough she sat down directly -beneath a large framed portrait of the King of Greece, who met his -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_6" id="Page_6">[Pg 6]</a></span> -death at the hands of a murderer not very long ago. Madame Caillaux -waited over an hour. We learned, afterwards, that in her muff, during -this long period of waiting, she carried the little revolver which she -had bought that day, and with which she was presently to shoot Monsieur -Calmette to death. She grew impatient at length, made inquiries of -one of the men in uniform whose duty it is to announce visitors, and -learned that Monsieur Calmette, who had just arrived, was now in his -office with his friend Monsieur Paul Bourget, the well-known novelist. -“If Madame will give me her card,” said the man. Madame Caillaux took a -card from her case, slipped it into an envelope which was on the table -by her side, and gave it to the man in uniform, who took it to Monsieur -Calmette’s office. Monsieur Calmette and Monsieur Bourget were on the -point of leaving the <i>Figaro</i> office together for dinner. Monsieur -Calmette showed his friend the visiting card which had just been handed -to him. “Surely you will not see her?” Monsieur Bourget said. “Oh yes,” -said Monsieur Calmette, “she is a woman, and I must receive her.” -Monsieur Bourget left his friend as Madame Caillaux was shown into the -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_7" id="Page_7">[Pg 7]</a></span> -room. A few moments afterwards the crack of a revolver startled everybody -in the building. The interview had been a very short and tragic one. -Madame Caillaux, drawing her revolver from her muff, had emptied all -six chambers of it. Gaston Calmette fell up against a bookcase in the -room. He was mortally wounded. There was a rush from all the other -offices of members of the <i>Figaro</i> staff, the revolver was snatched -from the woman’s hand, a member of the staff who happened to be a -doctor made a hasty examination, and a friend of M. Calmette’s, Dr. -Reymond, was telephoned for immediately. Somebody ran or telephoned for -the police, but for a long time Madame Caillaux remained in a passage -near the room where her victim lay dying. Before the ambulance was -brought on which Monsieur Calmette was carried out into the street he -had time to give his keys and pocket-book to one of his collaborators, -and to say farewell to them. Madame Caillaux had said very little -before she was taken away. When the revolver was snatched from her hand -she had said, “There is no more justice in France.” She had also said: -“There was no other way of putting a stop to it,” alluding, no doubt, to -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_8" id="Page_8">[Pg 8]</a></span> -the campaign in the <i>Figaro</i> against her husband. Then she had given -herself into the hands of the police, and the curtain had fallen on -this first act of the drama.</p> - -<div class="figcenter"> - <a name="P08" id="P08"></a> - <img src="images/p_08.jpg" alt="M. BOUCARD" width="600" height="383" /> - <p class="right"><i>Agence Nouvelle—Photo, Paris</i></p> - <p class="center">M. BOUCARD (THE EXAMINING MAGISTRATE) AND THE DOCTORS - LEAVING THE HOSPITAL WHERE M. CALMETTE DIED.</p> - <p class="center space-below1">M. Boucard is in front.</p> -</div> - -<p>The first feeling in Paris when the crime became generally known -was one of stupefaction. The special editions of the evening papers -appeared while Paris was at dinner, were snatched with wild eagerness -from the hands of the hawkers, and nothing else was talked of all -that evening. Gradually, as details became known, a popular wave of -indignation against the murderess became so fierce that the police, -informed of it, took special measures to preserve order, and numbers -of police with revolvers in the great leather cases which are worn in -emergencies appeared in the streets. As a proof of the hold which the -drama took immediately on the imagination of the public, it may be -mentioned that the theatres were almost empty that evening and that in -each entr’acte the audience rushed out of the theatre altogether to -get further news, or if a few remained, they waited in the auditorium -for news to appear on the screens usually devoted to advertisements, -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_9" id="Page_9">[Pg 9]</a></span> -instead of strolling about the theatre corridors as they usually do. An -immense crowd gathered round the police-station in the Rue du Faubourg -Montmartre, where Madame Caillaux had been taken. The crowd, composed -for the most part of riffraff—for the Rue du Faubourg Montmartre is a -favourite haunt of the very worst kind of criminals—formed a surging -mass in front of the police-station with which the strong force of -police found it difficult to cope. Barely a quarter of an hour after -the police commissioner, Monsieur Carpin, had begun to question Madame -Caillaux, her husband arrived at the police-station in a taxicab. He -was recognized and hooted by the crowd, but though his usually ruddy -face was deadly pale he gave no other sign that he had noticed this -hostility. The only man who did not recognize Monsieur Caillaux was the -policeman on duty at the door. He had orders to allow no one to pass, -and barred his passage. “I am the Minister of Finance,” said Monsieur -Caillaux, and pushing past the man, who stood and stared at him, he -added, “You might as well salute me.” Other Ministers and politicians -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_10" id="Page_10">[Pg 10]</a></span> -of note had forced their way into the police-station, and a number of -journalists were among them. Stories of all sorts circulated, one to -the effect that Monsieur and Madame Caillaux had had a stormy scene, -and that the Minister had reproached his wife bitterly for what she had -done; another, which proved to be true later on, that he had telephoned -to the Prime Minister, and resigned his portfolio and his seat in the -Cabinet. Monsieur Carpin, the police commissioner, received some of the -journalists in his office, and gave them a short report of what had -occurred. “I saw Madame Caillaux at once when she came,” he said. “She -was perfectly self-possessed, but complained of feeling cold.” “You are -aware,” she said, “of the campaign which Monsieur Gaston Calmette was -waging against my husband. I went to some one, whose name I prefer not -to mention, for advice how to put a stop to this campaign. He told me -that it could not be stopped. A letter was published. I knew that other -letters were to be published too. This morning I bought a revolver, and -this afternoon I went to the office of the <i>Figaro</i>. I had no intention -of killing Monsieur Calmette. This I affirm, and I regret my act -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_11" id="Page_11">[Pg 11]</a></span> -deeply.” I quote this first statement of Madame Caillaux as Monsieur -Carpin repeated it to the journalists in his office on the evening -on which the crime was committed, and as the <i>Figaro</i> and other -newspapers reproduced it word for word next morning. As will be seen -later, these first statements which the prisoner made are of vital -importance. It was now nine o’clock. The journalists were told that -Monsieur Boucard, the examining magistrate, had given orders for Madame -Caillaux to be locked up in St. Lazare prison, and were asked to leave -the police-station. The crowd outside in the streets had in some way -learned that Madame Caillaux was going, and became denser and more -menacing. The officials inside the police-station realized that there -was danger to the safety of their prisoner, and heard the cries from -the mob in the street below against the Minister of Finance. These -were if anything more threatening than those which Madame Caillaux’s -name provoked. All of a sudden a yell rose from below. “He’s getting -out by the back way! Down with the murderer! Death to Caillaux!” The -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_12" id="Page_12">[Pg 12]</a></span> -police-station has two entrances, one, the main one, in the Rue -du Faubourg Montmartre, the other leading through a passage and a -grocer’s shop out into a little side street, the Rue de la Grange -Batelière. There was a wild stampede round to this little -shop, and the first of the crowd to arrive there were in time to see -Monsieur Caillaux and the Minister of Commerce, Monsieur Malvy, jump -into a taxicab at the door. The cab got away amid a storm of shouts -and imprecations. “Death to Caillaux! Murderer! Démission!—Resign! -Resign!” Madame Caillaux, under the escort of two high police -officials, had been smuggled out of the police-station through the -grocery shop and taken away in another cab a few moments before her -husband left, but the crowd had missed her. She was taken directly to -St. Lazare prison, where she has been since, and locked into <i>pistole</i>, -or cell No. 12, where Madame Steinheil, Madame Humbert, and other -prisoners of notoriety awaited trial in their day.</p> - -<p>On the morning of Monday, March 16, Madame Caillaux had held a -conference at her house in the Rue Alphonse de Neuville with the -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_13" id="Page_13">[Pg 13]</a></span> -President of the Civil Court, Monsieur Monier. It was to Monsieur -Monier she referred when she told Monsieur Carpin and Monsieur Boucard, -the examining magistrate, that she had been informed by a person, whom -she preferred not to mention, that there was no means of putting a -stop to the <i>Figaro</i> campaign against her husband. A few moments after -Monsieur Monier had left the Rue Alphonse de Neuville Madame Caillaux -was called up on the telephone by Monsieur Pierre de Fouquières of the -Protocol. There was to be a dinner-party, in honour of the President -of the Republic, at the Italian Embassy in Paris that evening, and -Monsieur de Fouquières rang Madame Caillaux up on the telephone to know -at what time exactly she and her husband would arrive at the Embassy. -She told him that they would be there punctually at a quarter-past -eight, and reminded Monsieur de Fouquières, at the same time, that she -was counting on his help to place her guests at an important dinner -which was to be given at the Ministry of Finance on March 23. This -dinner of course never took place. After her conversation with Monsieur -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_14" id="Page_14">[Pg 14]</a></span> -de Fouquières, Madame Caillaux telephoned to her hairdresser, whom she -ordered to call and do her hair at seven o’clock for the dinner at the -Italian Embassy. At eleven o’clock that morning, her manicure called, -and Madame Caillaux then drove to her dentist, Dr. Gaillard, whom, -on leaving, she arranged to see again on the Wednesday at half-past -two. From the dentist’s Madame Caillaux drove to the Ministry of -Finance, to fetch her husband. On her way back in the car with him to -the Rue Alphonse de Neuville, Madame Caillaux told her husband of her -conference with the President of the Civil Tribunal, Monsieur Monier, -that morning, and of his declaration that there was no legal means -to put an end to the campaign in the <i>Figaro</i> against the Minister -of Finance. Monsieur Caillaux is a hot-tempered man. He flew into a -violent rage, and declared to his wife “Very well then! If there’s -nothing to be done I’ll go and smash his face.” From my personal -knowledge of Monsieur Joseph Caillaux, from my personal experience of -his attitude when anything annoys him, I consider it quite probable -that his rage would cause him to lose quite sufficient control of -himself to speak in this manner under the circumstances. On one -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_15" id="Page_15">[Pg 15]</a></span> -occasion, not very long ago, Monsieur Caillaux received me in his -office at the Ministry of Finance and spoke of his causes of complaint -against the British Ambassador, Sir Francis Bertie. Although he was -talking to an English journalist about the Ambassador of his king -his language on that occasion was so unmeasured, and his anger was -expressed with such freedom, that in the interview I published after -our conversation I was obliged to suppress many of the things he said. -In fact when he read some of them in the interview which I took to the -Ministry to show him before I had it telephoned to London, Monsieur -Caillaux himself suggested their suppression. Madame Caillaux knew, she -has said afterwards, that her husband’s anger and violence of temper -were such that his threat was by no means a vague one. She has declared -that it was this threat of Monsieur Caillaux’s which gave her the first -idea of taking her husband’s place, and going to inflict personal -chastisement on the editor of the <i>Figaro</i>. It is a truism that small -occurrences often have results out of all proportion to their own -importance. That morning Monsieur and Madame Caillaux made a very bad -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_16" id="Page_16">[Pg 16]</a></span> -luncheon. Madame Caillaux, who has been under medical treatment for -some time, ate nothing at all, and the bad luncheon threw her husband -into another rage. He was so angry that they almost quarrelled, and -Madame Caillaux, to pacify him, promised that she would dismiss the -cook there and then, go to a registry office that afternoon, and secure -another cook for the next day. Monsieur Caillaux went back to the -Ministry of Finance immediately after luncheon, and his wife, who had -an engagement for tea at the Hôtel Ritz in the afternoon, rang for her -maid to put her into an afternoon dress. She says that she felt very -ill while she was dressing, and very worried by her husband’s outburst -with regard to the <i>Figaro</i> campaign against him. She felt that she -must do all she could, she has declared, to prevent the publication of -certain letters which she believed, rightly or wrongly, that it was -Monsieur Calmette’s intention to publish in the <i>Figaro</i>. At half-past -two that afternoon, before going out, Madame Caillaux was, she has told -the examining magistrate, taken ill in her room and obliged to lie -down, and she described with great vividness a sort of vision which she -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_17" id="Page_17">[Pg 17]</a></span> -declares passed like a picture on the cinematograph before her eyes. “I -knew my husband to be a good swordsman, and a good pistol shot,” she -said. “I saw him killing Monsieur Calmette, I saw his arrest, I saw him -in the Assize Court standing in the dock. All the terrible consequences -of the ghastly drama which I foresaw passed before my eyes, and little -by little I made up my mind to take my husband’s place, and I decided -to go and see Monsieur Calmette that same evening.”</p> - -<p>As I have already explained, Madame Caillaux knew, as every Parisian -knows, that the most likely time to find a newspaper editor in his -office was after five o’clock, and, as we know, she had promised to be -at the Italian Embassy at a quarter-past eight and had telephoned to -her hairdresser to go to her and dress her hair in the Rue Alphonse de -Neuville at seven. It is fairly clear therefore, that when she left -her house at three she had no very definite idea of what she was going -to do. At three o’clock Madame Caillaux left home—the home to which -neither she nor her husband has returned since—and drove in her grey -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_18" id="Page_18">[Pg 18]</a></span> -motor-car to a registry office, where she engaged a new cook for the -next day. She then drove to the sale-rooms of the armourer Monsieur -Gastinne-Renette in the Avenue d’Antin. Even then, she declares, she -had no intention of killing the editor of the <i>Figaro</i>, but intended -to ask him to cease his campaign against her husband, to refrain from -publishing letters which she was convinced he intended to publish, and -in the event of his refusal, to “show him of what she was capable” -(these words are a quotation from her statement to the examining -magistrate, Monsieur Boucard), and fire her revolver not to kill, but -to wound him. I wish it to be understood, clearly, that I am quoting -the foregoing from the evidence of Madame Caillaux herself. I do not -wish in any way to comment on this evidence. It is my object merely -to try, to the best of my endeavour, to place before the public the -state of this wretched woman’s mind immediately before the crime which -she committed, and by so doing to allow my readers to form their own -judgment of her motives. Madame Caillaux was well known to Monsieur -Gastinne-Renette, who for that matter knows everybody in Paris society. -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_19" id="Page_19">[Pg 19]</a></span> -She told the armourer that she would be motoring a good deal, by -herself, between Paris and her husband’s constituency of Mamers, during -Monsieur Caillaux’s coming electoral campaign, and that she wanted -a revolver for her own protection. The first weapon which was shown -her did not satisfy her. It was expensive, costing £3 19<i>s.</i> 6<i>d.</i>, -and she hurt her finger, she says, when she pulled the trigger. She -was then shown a Browning which cost only £2 4<i>s.</i>, and worked more -easily. She went downstairs to the shooting-gallery below Monsieur -Gastinne-Renette’s sale-rooms, and tried her new acquisition, firing -six shots from it. By a tragic coincidence her shots struck the metal -figure in almost exactly the same places as the bullets she fired -afterwards struck her victim. She then put six bullets into the loader, -and she told the examining magistrate that her first intention was to -put only two cartridges in, but that the salesman was watching her and -she thought he might think it strange if she only loaded her revolver -partially. At this point in Madame Caillaux’s examination, Monsieur -Boucard interrupted her. “If you did this,” said the magistrate, “you -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_20" id="Page_20">[Pg 20]</a></span> -must surely have made your mind up to murder Monsieur Calmette?” “Not -at all,” said Madame Caillaux. “The thought in my mind was that if he -refused to stop his campaign I would wound him.” From the armourer’s, -Madame Caillaux drove home again to the Rue Alphonse de Neuville, where -she wrote a note to her husband. In this note, which is now in the -hands of the lawyers, she wrote, “You said that you would smash his -face, and I will not let you sacrifice yourself for me. France and the -Republic need you. I will do it for you.” I have not seen this letter -myself. My quotation from it is taken from the report in the French -papers of March 25 of the examination of Madame Caillaux by Monsieur -Boucard. She gave this letter to her daughter’s English governess Miss -Baxter, telling her that she was to give it to Monsieur Caillaux at -seven o’clock if she had not returned home by then. It seems only fair -to believe that Madame Caillaux at that time, while she foresaw the -likelihood of a stormy interview with the editor of the <i>Figaro</i>, did -not intend committing murder. Madame Caillaux’s engagement for tea with -friends was at the Hôtel Ritz, but she did not go there to keep it. She -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_21" id="Page_21">[Pg 21]</a></span> -arrived at the <i>Figaro</i> office exactly at a quarter-past five, and she -waited until a little after six o’clock for Monsieur Calmette to come -in. When she heard that he had arrived, she asked one of the men in -uniform to tell him that a lady whom he knew, but who did not wish to -give her name, wanted to speak to him. “He will only receive you,” said -the man, “if you let him know your name.” Madame Caillaux then, as I -have already said, put her visiting card in an envelope, and sent it -in to Monsieur Calmette. In her evidence to the examining magistrate -Madame Caillaux stated that she heard Monsieur Calmette a few moments -afterwards say aloud, “Let Madame Caillaux come in.” This statement of -the prisoner is flatly contradicted by the man who took her card in to -the editor of the <i>Figaro</i>, and by Monsieur Paul Bourget, who was with -Monsieur Calmette when Madame Caillaux’s card was brought to him. It -is contradicted also by a gentleman, who was in the waiting-room with -Madame Caillaux, waiting to see another member of the <i>Figaro</i> staff, -and by a friend who was there with him. Madame Caillaux, however, -declared in her evidence to Monsieur Boucard that she heard Monsieur -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_22" id="Page_22">[Pg 22]</a></span> -Calmette speak her name aloud, and that she was furiously angry -because her identity had been made known. This is Madame Caillaux’s -own account of the crime itself. “The man opened the door to usher me -into Monsieur Calmette’s office, and as I walked to his room from the -visiting-room, I had slipped my revolver, which was in my muff, out of -its case. I held the weapon in my right hand, inside the muff, when -I entered Monsieur Calmette’s private office. He was putting his hat -on an armchair and said to me, ‘Bonjour madame.’ I replied, ‘Bonjour -Monsieur,’ and added, ‘No doubt you can guess the object of my visit.’ -‘Please sit down,’ he said.” Madame Caillaux declares that she lost her -head entirely when she found herself facing her husband’s mortal enemy. -“I did not think of asking him anything,” she said. “I fired, and fired -again. The mouth of my revolver pointed downwards.” This statement is -undoubtedly true, for the first two bullets fired were found in the -bookcase quite near the ground. Madame Caillaux says that she went -on firing without knowing what she did. Two of her bullets inflicted -mortal wounds, and though everything was done that science could do, -her victim died a few hours later. -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_23" id="Page_23">[Pg 23]</a></span></p> - -<p>Monsieur Caillaux had spent the greater part of the afternoon in the -Chamber of Deputies, and his first news of the crime, which his wife -had committed, reached him at the Ministry of Finance. He had returned -to his office there to sign some necessary papers before returning -home to dress for the dinner at the Italian Embassy, and he did not -therefore receive his wife’s note until much later in the evening, -after the commission of the crime. Monsieur Caillaux, whatever his -faults may be, is a strong man and a plucky one. He turned ashy pale -when he heard what had happened, but said nothing further than to ask -for a cab, and without a moment’s loss of time he went as fast as -the cab could take him to the police-station in the Rue du Faubourg -Montmartre. There he was at once allowed to see his wife. Before -leaving the police-station Monsieur Caillaux telephoned to his chief, -Monsieur Doumergue, the Prime Minister, resigning his position in the -Cabinet as Minister of Finance. He told the Prime Minister then, that -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_24" id="Page_24">[Pg 24]</a></span> -nothing would induce him to reconsider his resignation, and that he -would devote himself exclusively to his wife’s defence, and take no -further part in the political life of the country. The news of the -murder was not definitely known at the Italian Embassy until fairly -late in the evening, although all the guests were surprised at the -absence of Monsieur Caillaux and his wife. Monsieur Poincaré was the -first to be told the news, and left the Embassy immediately, followed -by all the other guests. A little later in the evening, at about ten -o’clock, Monsieur Doumergue summoned his colleagues to a Cabinet -Council which was held at the Ministry for Foreign Affairs. The Council -lasted from ten o’clock till after midnight. Just before the Ministers -separated the news of Monsieur Gaston Calmette’s death reached them -over the telephone wire. The Ministers’ first thought was to save the -political situation. They realized the grave dangers of a Cabinet -crisis at this moment, and dispatched Monsieur Malvy, the Minister of -Commerce, to Monsieur Caillaux to endeavour to induce him to reconsider -his decision to resign. Monsieur Caillaux refused to reconsider it, and -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_25" id="Page_25">[Pg 25]</a></span> -Monsieur Doumergue himself failed, though he tried hard, to get him -to withdraw his resignation and to remain in office. Even then the -colleagues in the Cabinet of Monsieur Caillaux refused to accept his -resignation definitely, and the Council adjourned until the Tuesday -without coming to any definite decision. On Tuesday, realizing the -political impossibility of his retaining his portfolio, even if he -could have been persuaded to retain it, the Government decided that -the Minister for Home Affairs, Monsieur René Renoult, should become -Minister of Finance in Monsieur Caillaux’s stead, that the Minister -of Commerce, Monsieur Malvy, should succeed him at the Home Office, -and that the Under Secretary of State for Home Affairs, Monsieur Raoul -Péret, should take the portfolio of Commerce. These decisions were made -known on the morning following the murder, the morning of Tuesday March -17, and the necessary decrees were signed before luncheon by President -Poincaré, enabling a full Cabinet to meet the Chamber of Deputies that -same afternoon. But that same afternoon a storm burst in the Chamber -with a violence which shook France as she has not been shaken by a -political upheaval for many years. -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_26" id="Page_26">[Pg 26]</a></span></p> - -<p>In the course of his campaign against Monsieur Caillaux in the -<i>Figaro</i>, Monsieur Gaston Calmette had, on several occasions, spoken -of undue interference by members of the Government with the course of -justice in the Rochette affair. I shall endeavour later in this book to -attempt to give my readers some explanation of the broad lines of the -“Affaire Rochette,” though it is so complicated, and the intricacy of -its details such, that very few Parisians, even, understand them, and -even the parliamentary commission which has sat on the case has never -been able to unravel it to the satisfaction and comprehension of the -man in the street. Monsieur Calmette spoke in these articles of his of -a letter written and signed by Monsieur Victor Fabre, the Procureur -Général, or Public Prosecutor, in which Monsieur Fabre was said to have -accused members of the Government of interference with the course of -justice, and to have stated that influence had been brought to bear on -him to postpone the Rochette trial. This story had always been denied -hotly by the parties most interested. At five o’clock in the afternoon -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_27" id="Page_27">[Pg 27]</a></span> -of March 17, the day after the murder of Monsieur Calmette by Madame -Caillaux, Monsieur Delahaye, a member of the Opposition, climbed the -steps of the rostrum and placed this motion before the House: <i>The -Chamber, deeply moved by the crime which was committed yesterday, and -which apparently was committed in order to prevent divulgations of a -nature likely to cast a slur on a magistrate who was acting by order, -invites the Government either to dismiss this magistrate from his post -or to give him the permission necessary to enable him to take legal -action against those who accuse him</i>.</p> - -<p>The Chamber had been half empty when Monsieur Delahaye rose. It filled -in a moment with excited members who poured into their seats from the -lobbies. Monsieur Gaston Doumergue, and nearly all the members of the -Cabinet, took their places on the Government bench, and when Monsieur -Delahaye began his speech the House was in that tremor of excitement -which is the invariable prelude to a big sensation. Nobody knew, -however, with one or two exceptions, what the sensation was going to -be, and probably the members of the Government knew least of all. In an -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_28" id="Page_28">[Pg 28]</a></span> -excited speech Monsieur Delahaye referred first of all to an open -letter which had been written by a member of the Chamber, Monsieur -Thalamas, to Madame Caillaux immediately after her arrest. Monsieur -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_29" id="Page_29">[Pg 29]</a></span> -Thalamas, whose letter I subjoin in a footnote,<a name="FNanchor_1_1" id="FNanchor_1_1"></a><a href="#Footnote_1_1" class="fnanchor">[1]</a> -had written as no decent man had any right to express himself on -the commission of the murder, and those members of the Chamber who -remained unblinded by political prejudice were fully aware of this. -After reading the letter, the reading of which was interrupted -constantly, Monsieur Delahaye declared that Monsieur Calmette had had -the much-talked-about letter, written three years ago, by the Public -Prosecutor in his possession, that he had intended to publish it in the -<i>Figaro</i>, and that it made a direct accusation against Monsieur Monis -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_30" id="Page_30">[Pg 30]</a></span> -who had been Prime Minister at the time that it was written and who was -now, on March 17, Minister of Marine. Monsieur Delahaye addressed a -question directly to Monsieur Monis. “Permit me to ask you,” he said, -“whether this letter exists or not, whether you knew it, and whether or -not it states that you gave orders to Judge Bidault de L’Isle, through -the Public Prosecutor, Monsieur Fabre, to order the postponement of the -Rochette affair?” There was a tumult of excitement in the House. The -excitement centred of course round Monsieur Monis, who had risen to -reply, but who was prevented by his friends from speaking. Altercations -arose on all sides, and in the midst of the tumult Monsieur Monis -rose in his seat and made signs that he insisted on being heard. A -deadly silence succeeded the uproar. “The first question you asked -me,” said Monsieur Monis in a loud and clear voice, “is whether I knew -of the document to which you have alluded, or whether I knew what was -contained in it. My answer is No. You asked me whether I gave orders, -or caused orders to be given, for the adjournment of the Rochette -trial. My answer to that question is emphatically No. And I do more -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_31" id="Page_31">[Pg 31]</a></span> -than deny these statements: I call on the President of the -Parliamentary Commission of Inquiry into the Rochette case, to read to -the Chamber the evidence given before the commission by Judge Bidault -de L’Isle. That evidence is in complete conformity with what I have -just said.” There was a roar of applause from the Left, and Monsieur -Jaurès, the President of the Parliamentary Commission of Inquiry -into the Rochette case, rose in his seat, and made this important -declaration: “Judge Bidault de L’Isle affirmed on his honour, as a man -and as a magistrate, that he had never received any order of the kind. -But it appears impossible to me that, if it is in existence, we should -not be informed about the existence of this document. Does it exist, -or does it not exist? If it has disappeared let us be told so.” The -declaration of Monsieur Jaurès was responsible for more uproar in the -House, in the middle of which Monsieur Delahaye was heard to declare -that the declaration of Monsieur Fabre had existed, and that Monsieur -Calmette, who had obtained possession of it, always carried it about -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_32" id="Page_32">[Pg 32]</a></span> -with him. Monsieur Delahaye declared further that he had seen it, that -Monsieur Briand, who was Minister of Justice in the Monis Cabinet, had -received it when he became Minister of Justice, and that the document -confirmed the accusation of Ministerial intervention, which Monsieur -Calmette had published in the <i>Figaro</i>. Monsieur Doumergue followed -Monsieur Delahaye in the rostrum. The Prime Minister, who was evidently -much affected, declared his horror of these accusations against members -of the Cabinet. “I have read the official summary of the work of the -Commission of Inquiry,” he said, “and it states that Monsieur Bidault -de L’Isle declared that he had been under no pressure whatever, and -that he had adjourned the Rochette trial of his own free will. Monsieur -Delahaye has declared,” said the Prime Minister, “that the letter he -saw was a copy of the original. What is the value of this copy? The -Government is perfectly prepared to favour a fresh Inquiry, perfectly -ready to bring a clear light to bear on this question, but we want -proof. Where is the proof?” And the Prime Minister sat down amid a -yell of applause from his political friends. Then the bombshell fell. -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_33" id="Page_33">[Pg 33]</a></span> -Monsieur Barthou stepped into the rostrum, declared that the -declaration of the Public Prosecutor Monsieur Fabre was in his -possession, and with one of those dramatic gestures of which Frenchmen -have the secret, produced a faded sheet of paper from his pocket, -unfolded it, slapped it on the desk in front of him, and cried “And -here it is!” (“Ce document, le voici!”) “This statement,” he said, -written by Monsieur Victor Fabre, “was handed to Monsieur Briand when -he was Minister of Justice. When I succeeded Monsieur Briand he handed -it over to me. I refused to allow it to become known, but I consider -that the time has come for its production in this house.” And in a -clear voice Monsieur Barthou read the following aloud:</p> - -<div lang="fr"> -<div class="blockquot"> -<p>Le mercredi 2 mars 1911, j’ai été mandé par M. Monis, -Président du Conseil.</p> - -<p>Il voulait me parler de l’affaire Rochette.</p> - -<p>Il me dit que le gouvernement tenait à ce qu’elle ne -vînt pas devant la Cour le 27 avril, date fixée depuis -longtemps; qu’elle pouvait créer des embarras au ministre -des finances, au moment où celui-ci avait déjà les -affaires des liquidations des congrégations religieuses, -celles du Crédit Foncier et autres du même genre. -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_34" id="Page_34">[Pg 34]</a></span></p> - -<p>Le président du Conseil me donna l’ordre d’obtenir -du président de la Chambre correctionnelle la remise -de cette affaire après les vacances judiciaires d’août-septembre.</p> - -<p>J’ai protesté avec énergie. J’ai indiqué combien il -m’était pénible de remplir une pareille mission.</p> - -<p>J’ai supplié qu’on laissât l’affaire Rochette suivre son -cours normal. Le président du Conseil maintint ses ordres -et m’invita à aller le revoir pour lui rendre compte.</p> - -<p>J’étais indigné. Je sentais bien que c’était les amis de -Rochette qui avaient monté ce coup invraisemblable.</p> - -<p>Le vendredi 24 mars Monsieur M.B. ... vint au Parquet. -Il me déclara que, cédant aux sollicitations de son ami -le ministre des finances, il allait se porter malade et -demander la remise après les grandes vacances de son ami Rochette.</p> - -<p>Je lui répondis qu’il avait l’air fort bien portant, mais -qu’il ne m’appartenait pas de discuter les raisons de -santé personnelle invoquées par un avocat, et que je ne -pouvais, le cas échéant, que m’en rapporter à la sagesse du Président. -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_35" id="Page_35">[Pg 35]</a></span></p> - -<p>Il écrivit au magistrat.</p> - -<p>Celui-ci, que je n’avais pas vu et que je ne voulais pas -voir, lui répondit par un refus.</p> - -<p>M<sup>e</sup> Maurice Bernard s’en montra fort irrité. -Il vint récriminer auprès de moi et me fit comprendre, par des -allusions à peine voilées, qu’il était au courant de tout.</p> - -<p>Que devais-je faire?</p> - -<p>Après un violent combat intérieur, après une véritable -crise dont fut témoin, seul témoin d’ailleurs, mon ami et -substitut Bloch-Laroque, je me suis décidé, contraint par -la violence morale exercée sur moi, à obéir.</p> - -<p>J’ai fait venir Monsieur le président Bidault de L’Isle.</p> - -<p>Je lui ai exposé avec émotion la situation où je me -trouvais. Finalement, M. Bidault de L’Isle consentit, par -affection pour moi, à la remise demandée.</p> - -<p>Le soir même, c’est-à-dire le jeudi 30 mars, je suis allé chez -M. le président du Conseil et lui ai dit ce que j’avais fait.</p> - -<p>Il a paru fort content.</p> - -<p>Je l’étais beaucoup moins.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_36" id="Page_36">[Pg 36]</a></span> -Dans l’antichambre j’avais vu M. du Mesnil, -directeur du <i>Rappel</i>, journal favorable à Rochette et -m’outrageant fréquemment. Il venait, sans doute, demander -si je m’étais soumis.</p> - -<p>Jamais je n’ai subi une telle humiliation.</p> - -<p>Ce 31 mars 1911.</p></div> - -<p class="author space-below1"><span class="smcap">V. Fabre.</span></p> - -<div class="blockquot space-below2"> -<p class="no-indent"><i>Annexe.</i> [This was not read in the Chamber.]</p> - -<p>Le jour même de la réunion, pendant la suspension -d’audience, des conseillers qui siégeaient à côté de M. -Bidault de L’Isle se sont élevés en termes véhéments -contre la forfaiture qu’on venait de lui imposer.</p> - -<p>Pourquoi ne les a-t-on pas entendus à la commission d’enquête?</p> - -<p>On aurait pu, par exemple, interroger M. Francois-Poncet -qui n’a dissimulé à personne, ni son indignation ni son -dégoût pour les manœuvres inqualifiables imposées par le -président du Conseil au Procureur Général.</p></div></div> - -<div class="figcenter"> - <a name="P36" id="P36"></a> - <img src="images/p_36.jpg" alt="VICTOR FABRE" width="450" height="697" /> - <p class="right"><i>Agence Nouvelle—Photo, Paris</i></p> - <p class="center space-below1">M. VICTOR FABRE, THE PROCUREUR GÉNÉRAL</p> -</div> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_37" id="Page_37">[Pg 37]</a></span> -For English readers to realize the full importance of this document -I must explain that the Public Prosecutor or Procureur Général ranks -as a Government official, and holds almost the same position as a -judge holds in England, with the difference that he does not judge but -prosecutes. For influence to be brought to bear on such an official -by members of the Government is much the same thing as though Cabinet -Ministers in England had ordered the Director of Public Prosecutions -and the judge who was to try Mr. Jabez Balfour to adjourn the trial for -six or seven months for political reasons. Supposing such a thing to -have been possible, and Jabez Balfour to have disappeared from England -so that he never came up for trial at all, one can imagine the outcry -which would have been raised. Here in plain English, as plain and -as simple English as I can summon to my help, is the translation of -Monsieur Fabre’s accusing document:</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> -<p>On Wednesday March 2, 1911, I was summoned by Monsieur Monis, the Prime -Minister. He wished to talk to me about the Rochette affair. He told me -that the Government did not wish the case to come before the courts on -April 27, which date had been fixed a long time ago. He told me that it -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_38" id="Page_38">[Pg 38]</a></span> -might create trouble for the Minister of Finance at a moment when he -had already on hand the liquidation of the religious congregations, the -Crédit Foncier case, and others of the same kind. The Prime Minister -ordered me to induce the President of the Correctional Court (Judge -Bidault de L’Isle) to adjourn this affair till the end of the legal -vacation August-September. I protested with energy. I pointed out -how painful it was for me to carry out such a mission. I begged (the -Premier) to allow the Rochette case to follow its normal course. The -Premier adhered to his order, and told me to see him again and give him -news of my mission. I was deeply hurt and indignant. I had no doubt -that Rochette’s friends had organized this incredible <i>coup</i>. On Friday -March 24 Mr. M. B. ... (Rochette’s lawyer, Maître Maurice Bernard) came -to my office. He stated that, yielding to the solicitations of his -friend the Minister of Finance, (Monsieur Caillaux) he was going to -plead illness and asked for the adjournment of his friend Rochette’s -trial. I replied to that, that he looked perfectly well, but that it -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_39" id="Page_39">[Pg 39]</a></span> -was no part of my duty to question a plea of personal ill-health made -by a lawyer, and that I should simply refer the matter to the wisdom -of the judge. He wrote to the judge. Judge Bidault de L’Isle, whom I -had not seen and did not want to see, met his request with a refusal. -Maître Maurice Bernard showed great irritation at this refusal. He -called on me again, used recriminatory language, and made me understand -by means of thinly veiled allusions that he was perfectly informed -of everything. What could I do? After much self-communion, after a -veritable crisis of mental agony of which the witness, in fact the -only witness, was my friend and deputy, Bloch-Laroque, I decided that -I must obey the moral pressure which had been brought to bear on me. -I sent for Judge Bidault de L’Isle. I laid before him, with emotion, -the situation in which I had been placed. Eventually Judge Bidault de -L’Isle consented from affection for me to the adjournment which had -been demanded. That same evening, that is to say, Thursday, March 30, -I went to the Prime Minister and told him what I had done. He appeared -very pleased. I was much less pleased. In the ante-chamber I had seen -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_40" id="Page_40">[Pg 40]</a></span> -Monsieur Du Mesnil, the managing editor of the <i>Rappel</i>, a newspaper -which was favourable to Rochette and was in the habit of attacking me -frequently. He had come, no doubt, to ask the Prime Minister whether -I had allowed myself to be coerced. I have never undergone such -humiliation before.</p> - -<p><i>March 31, 1911.</i></p></div> - -<p class="author space-below1"><span class="smcap">V. Fabre.</span></p> - -<div class="blockquot space-below2"> -<p class="no-indent"><i>Annexe.</i></p> - -<p>On the day of the meeting during a suspension the councillors (that -is to say the two judges) who sat on the bench with Judge Bidault -de L’Isle expressed themselves very vehemently against the pressure -which had been brought to bear on them. Why were they not heard by the -Commission of Inquiry? For instance it would have been easy to question -Monsieur François-Poncet, who had taken no pains to conceal either his -indignation or his disgust at the unqualifiable manœuvres which the -Prime Minister had forced on the Public Prosecutor.</p></div> - -<div class="figcenter"> - <a name="P40" id="P40"></a> - <img src="images/p_40.jpg" alt="VICTOR FABRE" width="600" height="352" /> - <p class="right"><i>Agence Nouvelle—Photo, Paris</i></p> - <p class="center space-below1">THE FUNERAL OF M. CALMETTE</p> -</div> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_41" id="Page_41">[Pg 41]</a></span> -The reading of this statement from the rostrum of the Chamber was -followed within forty-eight hours by the resignation of Monsieur Monis -from the Cabinet, and its immediate result was the resumption of the -work of the Parliamentary Commission of Inquiry which had sat on the -Rochette case. This commission (over which of course Monsieur Jaurès -presided, as he had presided over the others) conducted the inquiry, -as all such inquiries invariably are conducted in France, on political -lines. The sessions of the commission did not pass off without the -resignation of some of its members, the public was inclined to shrug -its shoulders at the leniency of its examination of past Ministers -of the State, and the wording of its verdict when delivered was a -farce, not altogether unworthy of the date on which the Paris morning -papers published it, the first of April. The Parliamentary Commission -could find no stronger words to stigmatize the situation described in -Monsieur Fabre’s statement, which description the inquiry proved to be -true, than “a deplorable abuse of influence.” The phrase has become a -joke in Paris now, and is in popular use on the boulevards. The Chamber -of Deputies, however, before the close of the Parliamentary session, -found other words to express the nation’s displeasure, and after a -session which lasted from two o’clock in the afternoon of April 3 till -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_42" id="Page_42">[Pg 42]</a></span> -two o’clock in the morning of April 4, the Chamber of Deputies -adjourned for the Easter holidays, having voted the following order -of the day:</p> - -<div class="blockquot space-below2"> -<p class="no-indent">The Chamber,</p> - -<p>Takes note of the statements and findings of the -Parliamentary Commission of Inquiry.</p> - -<p><i>Disapproves and reprehends the abusive intervention of -financial interests in politics, and of politics in the -administration of justice.</i></p> - -<p>Affirms the necessity of a law on parliamentary incompatibility,</p> - -<p>And with the resolution to assure, more efficaciously, -the separation of political and judicial power,</p> - -<p>Passes to the order of the day.</p></div> - -<div class="figcenter"> - <a name="P42" id="P42"></a> - <img src="images/p_42.jpg" alt="THE RELATIVES" width="600" height="349" /> - <p class="right"><i>Agence Nouvelle—Photo, Paris</i></p> - <p class="center space-below1">THE BROTHERS, SONS AND RELATIVES OF M. CALMETTE AT THE FUNERAL.</p> -</div> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_43" id="Page_43">[Pg 43]</a></span> -The debate, of which this significant order of the day was the -corollary, was not only an extremely interesting, but a very stormy -one. In the course of it, a member of the Chamber challenged Monsieur -Doumergue, the Prime Minister, to fight him, but the quarrel was -smoothed over. Monsieur Briand, Monsieur Barthou, Monsieur Barrès, -Monsieur Doumergue, and Monsieur Jaurès all took a very active part in -the debate, and when the Chamber finally adjourned till June, in other -words till after the general elections, the general impression was that -the Doumergue Ministry would not return to power.</p> - -<p>With this historic debate ends the first chapter of the Caillaux drama. -The vibrations of a revolver shot in a newspaper office in the Rue -Drouot have eddied and spread till France was set aquiver. The woman -who fired the shot, the wife of the man who an hour before the shot was -fired was the most powerful man in France, knew before she was taken -to her cell in Saint Lazare that the first consequence of her act had -been the headlong downfall of her husband. She must feel now like a -child who has pulled up a little stone and caused an avalanche, and not -only France but Europe and the whole world are wondering what may go to -pieces in the wreckage.</p> - -<p class="f150 u"><b>FOOTNOTES:</b></p> -<div class="footnotes"> -<div class="footnote"><p class="no-indent"> -<a name="Footnote_1_1" id="Footnote_1_1"></a><a href="#FNanchor_1_1"> -<span class="label">[1]</span></a> -Copy of open letter sent by Monsieur Thalamas to Madame Caillaux:</p> - -<div lang="fr"> -<p class="no-indent"><span class="smcap"><br />Madame</span>,</p> - -<p>Je n’ai pas l’honneur de vous connaître, mais je sais par expérience -quelle est l’infamie de la presse immonde envers les sentiments les -plus intimes et les plus sacrés, quelle guerre elle mène contre la -famille, les choses privées les plus respectables, et ceux qui luttent -contre les privilèges des riches et contre les menées cléricales. Vous -en avez tué un. Bravo! Lorsqu’un homme en vient à se mettre ainsi -en dehors de la loi morale, il n’est plus qu’un bandit. Et quand la -Société ne vous fait pas justice, il n’y a plus qu’à se faire justice -soi-même!</p> - -<p>Faites de ma lettre l’usage que vous voudrez. Trouvez-y le cri de la -conscience d’un honnête homme révolté, et d’un journaliste-député -écœuré des procédés de ceux qui déshonorent la presse et le Parlement.</p> - -<p class="author space-below1"><span class="smcap">Thalamas</span></p> - -<p class="space-below3">P.S. Ma femme me prie de vous adresser l’expression -de sa sympathie. Elle vient de faire sur votre acte un article pour la <i>Dépêche de -Versailles</i>. Elle vous l’enverra demain.</p> -</div> - -<p class="no-indent"><i>Translation</i>:</p> - -<p class="no-indent"><span class="smcap">Madame</span>,</p> - -<p>I have not the honour of your acquaintance, but I know by experience -the infamy of the unclean Press towards the most intimate and most -sacred sentiments, I know the war which it wages against home and -family, against the intimacies of life most worthy of respect, against -those who oppose the privileges of the rich, and the influence of -the priests. You have killed one of them. Well done! When a man puts -himself in this way outside all moral laws he is nothing but an outlaw, -and when society does not do justice to him the only thing to be done -is to take the law into one’s own hands.</p> - -<p>Make whatever use you like of my letter. It is the genuine expression -of the feelings of revolt of an honourable man’s conscience, the -expression of the conscience of a journalist who is a member of the -Chamber, and who is disgusted by the methods of those who dishonour -both Press and Parliament.</p> - -<p class="author space-below1"><span class="smcap">Thalamas</span></p> - -<p>P.S. My wife begs me to assure you of her sympathy. She has written an -article on your act for the <i>Dépêche de Versailles</i>. She will send -it you to-morrow.</p></div> - -<div class="footnote"><p class="no-indent"> -<a name="Footnote_2_2" id="Footnote_2_2"></a><a href="#FNanchor_2_2"> -<span class="label">[2]</span></a> -The word crushed is underlined in the original text.</p></div> -</div> - -<hr class="chap space-above2" /> -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_44" id="Page_44">[Pg 44]</a></span></p> - -<h2>II<br /><span class="h_subtitle">CELL NO. 12</span></h2> -<hr class="r5" /> -<div class="figcenter"> - <a name="P44" id="P44"></a> - <img src="images/p_44.jpg" alt="MME. CAILLAUX" width="450" height="627" /> - <p class="right"><i>Agence Nouvelle—Photo, Paris</i></p> - <p class="center space-below1">MME. CAILLAUX (AND DETECTIVE) ON HER - WAY TO THE LAW COURTS TO BE EXAMINED</p> -</div> - -<p class=" no-indent space-below2"> -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_45" id="Page_45">[Pg 45]</a></span> -<span class="smcap">It</span> is a very short drive from the Rue du Faubourg -Montmartre to the prison of Saint Lazare, where Madame Caillaux was taken -from the police-station. She had been taken from the office of the <i>Figaro</i> -to the police-station in her own luxurious car. She drove to Saint -Lazare in one of the horrible red taxicabs which have rattled for too -many years about the streets of Paris, with a member of the police -force in plain clothes seated beside her, another on the uncomfortable -little seat opposite, and a third on the box by the driver. The prison -authorities had been advised by telephone of her arrival at the prison, -and arrangements had been made to put her into <i>pistole</i> No. 12, the -cell in which Louise Michel, Valentine Merelli, Madame Humbert, Madame -Steinheil and many other Parisian celebrities awaited their trials. The -cab drove into the courtyard of the prison and the gates closed behind -it. The police handed their prisoner over, with the usual formalities, -to the prison authorities, she was kept waiting while she was inscribed -on the prison books, she was searched—for no prisoner escapes this -formality—and was told to walk forward to a large open space between -two staircases. The house of correction of Saint Lazare is a very old -building, which dates from the beginning of the twelfth century. It -was a hospital for lepers in 1110, and remained one till 1515, when -the monks of the Order of Saint Victor took it over, and abolished the -lepers’ hospital. In 1632 Saint Vincent de Paul and the priests of the -order became the inmates of Saint Lazare, and in 1779 it became a house -of correction and provisional and permanent detention for men. On July -13, 1789, when famine raged in Paris, the mob broke into Saint Lazare, -and looted the enormous stock of food which the Lazarists were known -to be keeping there. The monks were driven out, the building sacked -and the store houses gutted by fire. The convent of Saint Lazare then -became a State prison in which suspects were kept. It is now a prison -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_46" id="Page_46">[Pg 46]</a></span> -for women. There is room for about twelve hundred prisoners, but at a -pinch the old building would hold 1600. The prisoners are divided into -three categories. The first consists of women who are awaiting trial, -or who have been sentenced to less than a year’s imprisonment. The -second division consists of girls under age who have been sentenced -to confinement in a house of correction till they are twenty-one, the -third division is that of unfortunates whose sentences of imprisonment -are short ones. Saint Lazare prison, though of course under State -control, is in practice ruled by a body of nuns who, while responsible -to the authorities, have really the entire management of the enormous -prison in their hands and hold the real power. It is a huge bleak -wilderness of stone with echoing corridors and haunting silences, and -has been sentenced to demolition for sanitary reasons for many years. -But threatened buildings live long in France when they belong to the -State. A modern prison, such as Fresnes in France or any of the English -prisons, is a pleasure resort compared with Saint Lazare, and there is -less difference between Fresnes and a cheap hydropathic than there is -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_47" id="Page_47">[Pg 47]</a></span> -between the prison of Saint Lazare and the prison of Fresnes. The -silence, the darkness, the cold, damp, and dirt are perhaps the worst -of its discomforts, but I have been told by women who have been -imprisoned there that the mental and physical torture of the months -in which they waited trial surpassed anything that could be imagined. -Within an hour after her arrival Madame Caillaux ceased to wear her -name and became a number—No. 12. The number she received is considered -a favour, for cell No. 12 is the most spacious of all the cells in Saint Lazare.</p> - -<div class="figcenter"> - <a name="P47" id="P47"></a> - <img src="images/p_47.jpg" alt="SŒUR LEONIDE" width="400" height="737" /> - <p class="center">SŒUR LEONIDE</p> - <p class="center">The chief superintendent of the prison nuns</p> - <p class="right space-below1"><i>Specially drawn by M. Albert Morand</i></p> -</div> - -<p class="space-below1">In the large open space between the two stairways is a -high chair, almost a throne, on which sits Sister Léonide, the chief superintendent -of the prison nuns. She is a woman of about forty. A handsome woman -with a stern set face. The drawing of her in this volume was done -specially for me by the well-known artist of St. Lazare, Monsieur -Albert Morand. Monsieur Morand is one of the few men who have been -authorized to make drawings of St. Lazare, and his work has the honour -of a special place in the Carnavalet Museum. His drawings which are -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_48" id="Page_48">[Pg 48]</a></span> -reproduced in this volume are probably unique. The nickname which -the prisoners give Sœur Léonide is “Bostock,” after the famous -American lion tamer, who, in his day, was a celebrity in Paris. Her -severity is not more remarkable than is her power of quelling the -first signs of mutiny among the prisoners by a mere glance, and it -was the quick-witted appreciation of this power of the eye which gave -her her name. Sister Léonide made a sign to one of the two women who -stood by her. The woman, a prison attendant who goes by the ironically -prison-given name of a <i>soubrette</i>, opened a door and motioned to No. -12 to walk straight on down a half-lighted misty corridor, painted a -muddy brown. This corridor seems endless. It is like a street in a -nightmare. There are doors on either side which seem to leap out of the -half darkness, and at long, long intervals a little flame of gas. It is -only quite recently that there is any incandescent gas in St. Lazare -and what there is, even now, is quite inadequate, merely serving, as -a former prisoner expressed it, “to show us the darkness around.” -The anticipatory mental torture of this first long journey down the -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_49" id="Page_49">[Pg 49]</a></span> -interminable corridor must be terrific to a woman whose life, before -her imprisonment, has run on easy lines. The doors are named and -numbered. Cell No. 8, Cell No. 9, Workshop No. 2, Library, and so -forth. All of them have huge and heavy locks, and bolts and bars. -“Here,” said the <i>soubrette</i>. She produced a huge key which she fitted -into the lock of a door on which in big white letters were painted the -words “Pistole No. 12.” She had to use both hands to turn the key. The -door creaked and opened inwards. Cell No. 12 is fairly large. As a rule -there are six little beds in it, and it has held as many as eight beds. -The walls are painted black, from the floor up to three quarters of -the distance to the ceiling. The top quarter is white-washed, but the -whitewash is grey, from age and want of care. They use extraordinarily -little soap and water in the prison of Saint Lazare. The heavy beams -across the ceiling have been decorated for many years by a network of -spiders’ webs, and though there was a rumour in the Paris Press at the -time of her imprisonment that Cell No. 12 had been cleaned for Madame -Caillaux’s reception, I am told that the webs and the spiders are there still.</p> - -<div class="figcenter"> - <a name="P49" id="P49"></a> - <img src="images/p_49.jpg" alt="CORRIDOR" width="600" height="371" /> - <p class="center">THE CORRIDOR OUTSIDE THE PISTOLES</p> - <p class="center">Madame Caillaux’s cell, No. 12, is the door on the right by the table.</p> - <p class="right space-below1"><i>Drawn specially in St. Lazare Prison by M. Albert Morand</i></p> -</div> - -<p class="space-below1"><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_50" id="Page_50">[Pg 50]</a></span> -There were so many absurd stories in the Paris Press about the comforts -which had been provided in Saint Lazare for Madame Caillaux that an -impression became prevalent that she must be having rather a good -time in prison. I need hardly say that there was very little, if any, -foundation in fact for these stories. Monsieur Morand’s drawing of the -“soubrette” does away with the mind-picture which newspaper readers may -have formed of a smart maid waiting on this favoured prisoner, getting -her bath for her, and bringing her a breakfast tray each morning. -The <i>soubrette</i> of <i>pistole</i> No. 12, who looks after the <i>pistole</i> -next door as well, where there are seven prisoners, and who therefore -can have little time to devote to the prisoner in No. 12, is a woman -called Jeanne (I do not know her surname), who murdered her husband -with a penknife some months ago. She is a quiet, somewhat surly woman, -and good conduct has obtained for her the privilege of acting as -<i>soubrette</i> in two of the <i>pistoles</i>, for enforced idleness is one of -the prison’s worst punishments. One of the favourite newspaper stories -which were in circulation soon after Madame Caillaux’s imprisonment was -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_51" id="Page_51">[Pg 51]</a></span> -one which told of the furnishing of the <i>pistole</i> in which she had -been put. Journalists had seen a big motor lorry arrive with her -furniture, we were told, and the cell had been made as comfortable as -a room in her own house. This story gained a semblance of truth from -the reproduction in the papers of the arrival of a big motor lorry at -Saint Lazare. I reproduce this picture here. It looks conclusive, and -convincing at first sight, for the group of journalists who saw the -van drive in can, one might think, surely not have all been mistaken. -However, I took the trouble to make some inquiries while my Paris -colleagues, I fear, jumped to conclusions. I learned that the van -which figures in the picture comes quite regularly to Saint Lazare. -It contains linen in the rough sent by a contracting firm, for whom -the prisoners turn the rough linen into sheets and pillow-cases. The -contractors, the prison authorities, and the prisoners, all find their -advantage in this arrangement—and the van did not contain even a chair -for Madame Caillaux’s cell.</p> - -<div class="figcenter"> - <a name="P51" id="P51"></a> - <img src="images/p_51.jpg" alt="THE SOUBRETTE" width="400" height="713" /> - <p class="center">“JEANNE,” THE <i>SOUBRETTE</i> OF PISTOLE NO. 12</p> - <p class="right space-below1"><i>Specially drawn by M. Albert Morand</i></p> -</div> - -<p class="space-below2"><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_52" id="Page_52">[Pg 52]</a></span> -The cell has now two beds in it, one for the prisoner, one for Jeanne -the <i>soubrette</i>. A great deal of nonsense has been written in the -newspapers about “the maid” whom Madame Caillaux was allowed in prison. -The simple fact, of course, is that the authorities consider it -necessary that watch should be kept on her, and the “maid,” Jeanne the -prison <i>soubrette</i>, is by no means a pleasant companion. The furniture -is very primitive, though better than that of some of the other cells. -There are a mattress on the bed of cast iron, a pillow but no bolster, -two straw-bottomed chairs, a little white deal table, a jug and a -basin which were once enamelled yellow but through which the rusty -metal shows. On the bed is a brown rug with the word “Prison” written -on it. Madame Caillaux has been allowed to cover this rug with an old -quilt which Madame Steinheil brought into the prison. Above the bed -is a shelf on which the prisoner’s linen can be put, behind the bed a -little trap through which the wardresses can peep into the cell at any -moment. The floor of No. 12 is tiled with rough red tiles, much worn, -and broken. There is a stove, but it has never warmed the cell, and in -cold weather the damp and cold are very bitter. No. 12 has three -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_53" id="Page_53">[Pg 53]</a></span> -windows, strongly barred, and in addition to the bars there is wire -netting. This wire netting has its reason. The windows of No. 12 look -out on the courtyard in which, twice a day, the prisoners are allowed -for exercise. This courtyard is quite pleasant in the summer, for -there are several trees in it, but the prisoners have an unpleasant -habit of attracting the attention of the inmates of <i>pistole</i> No. 12 -by throwing stones at the windows, as a sign that chocolate or cakes -would be acceptable. In this courtyard inside the old convent of Saint -Lazare, which has the picturesque charm of great age, some of the most -sensational scenes of the days of the Terror took place, for it was -from that courtyard that the tumbrils left for the guillotine. The -chapel opens into this courtyard too, and Madame Caillaux from the -windows of her cell enjoys a very pretty view when the courtyard is -empty. In the exercise hours the view is less pleasing. There is always -war between the women prisoners of the other classes and those of the -<i>pistole</i> class, and until the new inmate of No. 12 learned how to slip -bits of chocolate, biscuit, or sugar out across the window-sill so that -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_54" id="Page_54">[Pg 54]</a></span> -they fell into the courtyard she dared hardly show herself at the -window. It is a peculiarity that, in the house of silence, everything -of interest is known to all the prisoners immediately. Madame Caillaux -had not been twelve hours in No. 12 before all her fellow prisoners -knew all about the drama which had brought her there, and were curious -to see her.</p> - -<div class="figcenter"> - <a name="P54" id="P54"></a> - <img src="images/p_54.jpg" alt="FURNITURE LORRY" width="600" height="353" /> - <p class="right"><i>Agence Nouvelle—Photo, Paris</i></p> - <p class="center">THE LORRY WHICH PARIS JOURNALISTS THOUGHT<br /> - WAS FULL OF MME. CAILLAUX’S FURNITURE.</p> - <p class="center space-below1">Most of the men in the crowd are either journalists or - police in plain clothes.</p> -</div> -<hr class="r5" /> - -<div class="figcenter"> - <a name="P55" id="P55"></a> - <img src="images/p_55.jpg" alt="COUR DES FILLES" width="450" height="601" /> - <p class="center">LA COUR DES FILLES IN SAINT LAZARE.</p> - <p class="center">It is here that Madame Caillaux is allowed to<br /> - take daily exercise for three-quarters of an hour.</p> - <p class="right space-below1"><i>Drawn specially in St. Lazare Prison by M. Albert Morand</i></p> -</div> - -<p class="space-below2">Curiously little is known by the outside world, though -Paris is a gossip-loving and gossipy city, of the real facts of the life inside -the house of correction of Saint Lazare. I never realized myself until -quite recently the horrors of incarceration there. Chance then threw me -into communication with a woman who had shot another woman dead, had -spent some months in Saint Lazare, had been acquitted by the jury and -is a free woman now. Her crime had been a crime of jealousy. The jury -had refused to punish her more than she had been punished, and she got -a verdict of “not guilty,” though she shot and killed her rival in the -affections of her husband and pleaded guilty to so doing. This woman is -a woman with literary tastes, a woman who is in the habit of observing, -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_55" id="Page_55">[Pg 55]</a></span> -and who has the gift of describing what she sees. She has told me -a great deal about the life in Saint Lazare, but far more eloquent -than anything which she has told me is the present condition of the -woman herself. We talk about “the prison taint” with very little real -knowledge of what it means. Imagine a woman of your own world, a lady -of refinement and of education, who waits to be spoken to before she -opens her lips, who stands aside to let you pass if you open a door, -who, if you beg her to take precedence, walks before you with bowed -head and folded hands as though you were her gaoler. Her voice is -always subdued, she never contradicts, she gives her opinion only when -asked for it, and even then it is an opinion without emphasis. She has -forgotten how to hurry. She has forgotten how to lie in bed late in the -mornings. She never gives an order. When she wants something from a -servant her tone and manner in asking for it are those of supplication. -She is resigned—terribly resigned. Her whole attitude is one of -resignation so pitiful that, unattractive woman though she is, a man’s -heart fairly bleeds for her, and one feels a longing to try and comfort -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_56" id="Page_56">[Pg 56]</a></span> -and console her as one would console a child who has been beaten. -Morally and mentally the prisoner in Saint Lazare is being beaten all -the time that she is in prison. There is no physical punishment, there -is no active cruelty, there is only the terrible deadweight of the -prison system; but this is quite enough to unsettle and to dull the -most active brain. There is no doubt that the active brains suffer -the most. The whole atmosphere of the place, as this woman told me, -is the atmosphere of a convent from which all love and sympathy are -banished. Imagine, if you can, a hospital in which, while everything -is done to ease the physical distress of the patients, their moral -distress is ignored. Imagine a hospital in which the nurses are stern -and unsmiling, in which complaint of mental distress is met with -silence, in which no unnecessary word is ever spoken, in which no woman -ever puts her cool hand on another woman’s forehead because she has a -headache, or kisses her because she is unhappy. Imagine long dreary -days with no brightness in them. Imagine the horrid rattle of big keys -in heavy locks. Form your own mind-picture of Cell No. 12, with its -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_57" id="Page_57">[Pg 57]</a></span> -broken red-tiled floor, its bare black walls topped with dirty grey -whitewash, its furniture of a straw-bottomed chair, a plain white -deal table, a battered metal basin and water jug, its windows with -their bars and wire netting, the cruel silence and soul-deadening -simplicity. No flowers, no ribbons, no armchair, no cushions, very -little light after sundown, none of the thousand and one trifles which -brighten the poorest room of the poorest woman. No conversation, no -letters which have not been read first by strangers, visits hedged -in with the severest of formality, no name, a number—in a word no -life, merely existence, and existence without the sympathy which makes -existence lovable. This is the mind-picture I have formed, and this -is a true picture of Madame Caillaux’s daily life in <i>pistole</i> No. -12. Her principal distraction is her occasional drive with two plain -clothes policemen to the Palace of Justice, and her examination there -by the magistrate. And yesterday this woman was fêted and cherished by -society, had a large circle of friends, was busy every moment of the -day. Now she has nothing to do but to think. She may write, she may -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_58" id="Page_58">[Pg 58]</a></span> -read, but she may only exist. Her existence has become a backwater -without a ripple in it, a dark cul-de-sac into which no sunshine -penetrates. Is it surprising that the constant presence of a -<i>soubrette</i> of the prison should be considered necessary? A man smashed -a water-bottle and cut his throat in Paris the other day to avoid six -months imprisonment. He had been in prison before, awaiting trial, and -he knew what it meant. And he was a rough man with no refined tastes, -and no need of refinement. In Italy the other day a brigand went mad -after solitary confinement. The prisoner in Saint Lazare is not even -allowed to go mad. A great deal of nonsense has appeared in the English -newspapers about Madame Caillaux’s life in Saint Lazare. Paris papers -have printed stories (the authorities have always contradicted them) -drawing a picture of a comfortable room with carpet on the floor and -curtains to the windows. The woman who described to me the real life in -Saint Lazare assures me that the “carpet” is merely a strip of rug to -keep the tiled floor, with the dangers of the broken tiles, from the -prisoner’s bare feet when she steps out of bed, and that it is a -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_59" id="Page_59">[Pg 59]</a></span> -physical impossibility that any curtains should be hung. Madame -Steinheil was allowed to hang sheets in front of the windows. Perhaps -Madame Caillaux has obtained this permission too. The prisoner is -allowed to get her food from outside, but this food is of the plainest -and simplest. She is allowed to receive visits, but the visits are rare -ones, and she is never alone with her visitor. She may write, but what -she writes is always read. She may receive letters but she knows that -all her letters pass through other hands and are subject to careful -scrutiny before she gets them. She has no privacy at all and knows -that she is always under watch and that even when she is alone in her -cell there is an eye at the little trapdoor which peeps into it over -her bed. The prisoner in the <i>pistole</i> has not even the consolation of -company during exercise hours, and she must sometimes envy the women -whom she can see from her windows. She can talk to the nuns, but they -answer as little as possible. She lives out her life in a whisper. The -<i>soubrette</i> is a prisoner. She talks a little sometimes—prison talk. -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_60" id="Page_60">[Pg 60]</a></span> -She brings the <i>pistolière</i> her cup of soup at seven in the morning, -and tells her all the prison news, but she is not allowed to remain -long, for she has other work to do and it is the hour of the canteen. -If the <i>pistolière</i> wants coffee she must go to the canteen and buy -it. She is allowed a large mugful every morning, for which she pays -twopence. She walks down the long dreary corridor with her mug in her -hand, and waits in a large hall where the <i>pistolières</i> stand in a row -against the wall. Numbers are called in turn, and each woman is given -her coffee and the permitted trifles she has ordered the day before, -such as butter, milk, white bread (the prison bread is grey), herrings, -dried figs or letter paper. Then the long morning drags on until post -time. The letters are distributed by Sister Léonide herself, and the -letters are always open. The <i>pistolière</i> does not take her exercise -in the large courtyard with the trees in it. The yard in which she is -allowed to walk, and which Monsieur Moran has drawn for me, is small -and has a high wall round it. The windows of cells look down on it, and -as the prisoner walks up and down she knows that she is being watched -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_61" id="Page_61">[Pg 61]</a></span> -and feels that there are eyes behind the bars of every window. Every -now and again a big rat runs across her path. These rats of Saint -Lazare are fat and of huge size. They run about quite freely and are -almost tame, for no one ever interferes with them. The nuns of Saint -Lazare keep cats, but they and the rats made friends long ago, and the -cats and rats feed amicably together. At least a hundred rats a day -are killed in the kitchens and corridors, but there are so many rats -that the others hardly miss them. You hear them at night scampering -over the beams of the ceilings, you see them in the corridors, the -kitchens, the cells, everywhere. For some reason they are most playful -about dusk, and there are stories in the prison of women who have had -fits of hysteria and have even gone out of their minds because of -sudden fear of these rats of the prison. There is a sickness common -to all prisoners in Saint Lazare which is known there as “the six -o’clock sickness” (<i>le mal de six heures</i>). It attacks all newcomers, -and none escape it. It comes on after the walk in the courtyard, when -night begins to close in, and the prison settles into silence till the -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_62" id="Page_62">[Pg 62]</a></span> -morning. It is an attack of a kind of malarial fever, a shivering -fit and a violent headache with a feeling of lassitude and nausea -afterwards. When it comes on, the prisoners are given a cachet of -quinine from the prison pharmacy. It does very little good. After dark -the <i>pistolière</i> is allowed two candles which she fixes in a piece of -bread or fastens by means of their own wax to her wooden table. No -lamps are allowed. I have seen it stated in the newspapers that Madame -Caillaux is allowed a lamp, but I do not know whether the statement -is true. The last ceremony of the day is “the roll call.” This, like -most of the other ceremonies in Saint Lazare, is conducted in absolute -silence. The door of the <i>pistole</i> is opened, and Sœur Léonide -appears with the big Book of Hours which she carries in her two hands. -On either side of her is a <i>soubrette</i>, one of whom carries a big bunch -of keys. Sister Léonide stands in the doorway of the <i>pistole</i> for a -moment, looks at the prisoner to make certain that she is there, bends -her head, turns and goes. Not a word is spoken. And then comes the night.</p> - -<div class="figcenter"> - <a name="P62" id="P62"></a> - <img src="images/p_62.jpg" alt="MADAME CAILLAUX’S CELL" width="600" height="380" /> - <p class="center">MADAME CAILLAUX’S CELL EXACTLY AS IT IS.</p> - <p class="center space-below1"><i>Drawn by M. Albert Morand who received special permission - from the prison authorities to make this sketch</i>.</p> -</div> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_63" id="Page_63">[Pg 63]</a></span> -The one bright spot in this terrible life of monotony in the prison of -Saint Lazare, the one relief from these never-ending days of the same -food, the same walk, the same rats, the same silence, is Mass in the -chapel. Here the <i>pistolière</i> sits, silent, it is true, but with other -women near her and round her. But even here she sits apart, and Madame -Caillaux, I am told, has not attended mass. “There is only one hope -in Saint Lazare,” said the former prisoner who gave me most of this -information, “we all hope for our day of trial.” “All of you?” I asked. -“Oh, yes,” she said. “No matter what we fear, nothing can be worse than -the terrible monotony of life in the <i>pistole</i>. Our lives are those of -prisoners in a dark gallery. The trial and the open law courts are the -one glimpse of light and life at the end of the passage.”</p> - -<hr class="chap space-above2" /> -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_64" id="Page_64">[Pg 64]</a></span></p> - -<h2>III<br /><span class="h_subtitle">THE CRIME AND THE PUBLIC</span></h2> - -<p class="no-indent space-below2"><span class="smcap">Whenever</span> -anything sensational occurs to disturb the serenity of daily -life in Paris, the vortex of politics promptly sucks it in. The -Parisians—Frenchmen in general, in fact—are insatiable -politicians, and no matter what the happening, discussion of it becomes -immediately a party matter. It is of little consequence whether the -item which is talked about in clubs, in cafés, in the newspapers, in -the theatre lobbies, at dinner-parties, and at supper after the theatre -is green hair, the Caillaux Drama, or a new play, the people who -discuss it usually take sides in accordance with their political views. -You may laugh at the idea that green hair or a non-political play has -any bearing on politics, but in Paris this is curiously true. Green -hair, for instance, became a dogma of the Opposition. It was adopted by -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_65" id="Page_65">[Pg 65]</a></span> -ladies of the aristocracy, therefore Socialists and Radicals jeered -at it. The sensible man who ventured to laugh at green hair was -immediately stigmatized by those who upheld the new fashion as a -supporter of the parliamentary system and the <i>bloc</i>, not because -parliamentary Radicals and green hair have any real connexion, not -because Monsieur Jaurès prevents the ladies of his family from wearing -it, but because the Duchesse de Y. and the Comtesse de Z., who are -“<i>bien pensants</i>,” have become votaries of the fashion. A new play -is judged not so much on its merits as on political grounds. If the -author be of aristocratic sympathies, Monsieur Lavedan, for instance, -the anti-aristocrats promptly run down his play, and if he be one of -the class from which Dreyfusards were drawn during the Dreyfus case -and afterwards, the reactionaries have no good word to say for his -work. How curiously true this is in Paris, and how difficult it is for -any foreigner who has not lived many years in Paris to understand it, -was proved by the tumult and bloodshed over a play of Monsieur Henry -Bernstein’s which was produced some years ago at the Comédie Française. -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_66" id="Page_66">[Pg 66]</a></span> -The reactionary party actually contrived to wreck the play because they -disliked Monsieur Bernstein, because he was a Jew, and because his play -was produced in the national theatre. The principal difficulty for a -foreigner in understanding the extraordinary hold of politics in France -on matters which appear and which are really entirely outside the scope -of politics is increased by the Frenchman’s attitude in argument. When -a foreigner disagrees with a Frenchman on any question whatsoever, the -Frenchman, should he happen to be getting the worse of the discussion, -puts an end to it by remarking, smilingly and politely, “But you are -a foreigner, my friend, and therefore cannot possibly understand this -matter, which is essentially French.” There is no answer to such a -statement. Frenchmen believe, quaintly enough, that the hand of every -foreigner is always against them. The national conceit in France, an -excellent asset, of course, for the nation, but singularly aggravating -sometimes, is enormous, unfathomable, and entirely impervious to -argument or logic. The greatest praise for anything in France is that -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_67" id="Page_67">[Pg 67]</a></span> -it is French. The greatest praise for anything in Paris is that it -is very Parisian, and so peculiar is this national conceit that it -finds an outlet in the inevitable claim which is invariably made for -French initiative in any invention, scientific or otherwise, which -has made its mark in the world, for any novelty of medical science, -for anything inspired at all. The origin of anything worth having -in the world is French. This is dogma, and quite indisputable. Your -Frenchman will admit the marvels of Marconi, but he will always add -that Branly, a Frenchman, was the real inventor of wireless telegraphy, -and will ignore Hertz as far as he dares. There was an argument in the -French Press, not long ago, for instance, to prove that Columbus was a -Frenchman. I do not know whether his famous egg was also a French egg, -and I do not remember exactly how Columbus was proved to be French. I -do know, however, that Frenchmen are quite sure that, although Edison -and Bell had something to do with the invention of the telephone, a -Frenchman was the real inventor of it, and quite recently, when Mr. -Westinghouse died, the newspapers proved, to their own satisfaction, -that a Frenchman was the inventor of the Westinghouse brake. -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_68" id="Page_68">[Pg 68]</a></span></p> - -<div class="figcenter"> - <a name="P68" id="P68"></a> - <img src="images/p_68.jpg" alt="MONSIEUR CAILLAUX" width="600" height="352" /> - <p class="right"><i>Agence Nouvelle—Photo, Paris</i></p> - <p class="center space-below1">MONSIEUR CAILLAUX IN HIS OFFICE AT THE MINISTÈRE DES FINANCES.</p> -</div> - -<p>Now the reactionary nationalist party in France makes more noise than -all the others put together. The reactionary newspapers are more -violent in tone than any of the others, and have a knack of making a -statement on Monday, reaffirming it on Tuesday, and alluding to it as -an absolute and admitted fact on Wednesday. They have therefore the -grip on public opinion which noise and reiteration always secure, and -it is very natural that public opinion abroad, which has necessarily -less opportunity for discrimination, should finish by accepting the -reiterated outcry of the noisiest portion of the French Press as the -real French opinion. In a drama like the Caillaux drama, in a case -where a respected man, the editor of a flourishing Paris newspaper, -has been done to death, it is obvious that those who feel that the -woman who has killed him has any claim to sympathy at all will find -themselves in the minority. It is no less a fact that unfair methods -have been in use ever since the death of Monsieur Calmette to rouse the -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_69" id="Page_69">[Pg 69]</a></span> -opinion of the world against the wretched woman who is in prison -for killing him. The law courts will decide how much or how little -sympathy is due to her. In the meanwhile the French Press is pursuing -its inevitable method of judging the case in advance, and everything -is being done for political reasons to increase the public feeling of -natural horror for the deed which resulted in the death of the editor -of the <i>Figaro</i>. It is difficult to exaggerate the bitter tone of the -daily howl for punishment: Already the <i>Action Française</i> has begun to -throw mud at Monsieur Boucard, the examining magistrate, in case his -report on the case should be too lenient, and to suggest that he has -been bought over. I have not seen in any French paper a suggestion that -Madame Caillaux is already being punished by the political downfall of -her husband and her own incarceration. There is no sign anywhere in the -French newspapers of an attempt to be fair, and the very worst side of -the French character has come to the surface in this chorus of bitter -cruelty to a woman who is down, on the one side, and libels on the dead -man on the other. As much harm is being done to Madame Caillaux’s case -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_70" id="Page_70">[Pg 70]</a></span> -by her friends as by her enemies. While her enemies are clamouring -against her, her friends are losing any public sympathy which might -have arisen, by attacking the memory of Gaston Calmette. It is quite -obvious to any reasonable person who considers the drama calmly and -without prejudice that Madame Caillaux did not kill Monsieur Gaston -Calmette for the mere pleasure of killing. It is equally obvious that -Monsieur Calmette waged his campaign in the <i>Figaro</i> against Monsieur -Caillaux because he thought it was the right thing to do, and that -he thought the political downfall of Monsieur Caillaux, which he was -attempting to bring about, would be a good thing for France. Nothing -is to be gained, however, on either side by an attempt to vilify the -other. The facts speak for themselves, and can be chronicled in a very -few lines. Monsieur Calmette considered the political downfall of -Joseph Caillaux a necessity for his country. Monsieur Caillaux, rightly -or wrongly, feared that to procure his downfall Monsieur Calmette -intended to publish certain private letters. Monsieur Calmette’s daily -attacks on Monsieur Caillaux naturally enraged both Monsieur Caillaux -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_71" id="Page_71">[Pg 71]</a></span> -and his wife. The fear of an attack in print on their private lives may -or may not have been justified, but it certainly was the direct cause -of the murder. This murder is deplored by everybody. Nobody will deny -that Madame Caillaux deserves punishment, but if those who are working -every day to embitter public feeling against her would only pause to -think, and would leave political considerations on one side for a -moment, they would realize that their campaign is an insult to their -own judges, their own juries, and their own legal system. France boasts -of its liberty. Whenever a sensational case occurs, and public feelings -are stirred, that liberty is allowed to degenerate into licence, and -to disagree with the howl of the reactionary Press is to ask for -abuse. Everybody who says a word of pity for Madame Caillaux in France -nowadays is accused of trying to make the course of justice deviate. -The examining magistrate whose duty it is to try and find the truth out -and report on it is insulted if he dares to be impartial. Everybody who -dares to suggest that the very bitterness of the Caillaux campaign was -largely responsible for its deplorable climax is held up to obloquy as -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_72" id="Page_72">[Pg 72]</a></span> -an enemy of France. I hold no brief either for Madame Caillaux and -her husband or for the campaign in the <i>Figaro</i>. Both the murder and -the bitterness of the campaign of which it was the climax are to be -deplored. The campaign, as I shall show in this book, was a necessary -evil. The bitterness and insistency with which it was conducted were -perhaps unnecessary evils. The woman has killed, and will undoubtedly -be punished. She is being punished already. The man who conducted the -bitter campaign has been shot dead. Surely there is nothing to be -gained by attempting to sully the dead man’s memory, or by attempting -to overwhelm the woman whose victim he was. Madame Caillaux in prison -is a victim of the political campaign of the <i>Figaro</i> in exactly the -same degree as the editor of the <i>Figaro</i> is the victim of Madame -Caillaux. The two will be judged. The wrong of one neither minimises -nor magnifies the action of the other. I am as certain that Madame -Caillaux believed, she had a right to shoot as I am certain that she -was wrong to kill. I am as certain that Monsieur Calmette believed in -the justice of his campaign as I am certain that Monsieur and Madame -Caillaux believed that it was being conducted unjustly. -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_73" id="Page_73">[Pg 73]</a></span></p> - -<p>What neither of them or Monsieur Calmette realized was the harm that -all three would do to the country which I am certain all three loved.</p> - -<p>The terrible, the brutal fact remains that Gaston Calmette is in his -coffin and that Madame Caillaux killed him. Unhappily, there is no -doubt that if Monsieur Calmette had been wounded merely, the outcry of -the anti-Caillaux party would have been nearly as loud, and the dignity -of French justice would have been considered as little or less than -it is to-day by Monsieur Caillaux and his friends on the one side and -Monsieur Calmette and his on the other. If the Caillaux drama had not -a death in it the disinclination to allow the courts to judge without -interference would have been as great as it is now, in spite of the -lesson which the Fabre incident should teach. To the observer, to the -lover of France the most deplorable, the most unhappy result of the -Caillaux drama is the belittling of France in the eyes of the whole -world by the inability of the French nation to put simple faith in its -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_74" id="Page_74">[Pg 74]</a></span> -own administrators of the justice of the country. And most unhappily of -all, this want of faith is justified. The story of the Rochette case, -like the story of the Dreyfus case, is undoubtedly a blot on France’s -fair name, and every man or woman who loves France sincerely must deplore it.</p> - -<p>It is a regrettable thing that Frenchmen find it so difficult, find -it, indeed, well nigh impossible to fight fairly. The case of Madame -Caillaux is surely bad enough as it stands without the need for unfair -comment before it comes on for trial. If you say this to a Frenchman he -will probably answer that there is very little hope of a fair trial. -This I do not believe, and if I did believe it and were a Frenchman I -should hate to say it. I could fill this volume with extracts from the -Paris newspapers, of almost any day since Gaston Calmette was killed in -his office, to prove how unfair comments have been on the case while it -is still <i>sub judice</i>. I will not weary my readers with long extracts, -however. They would be unpleasant reading, and they would answer no -more purpose than this little but characteristic extract from the -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_75" id="Page_75">[Pg 75]</a></span> -<i>Patrie</i> of the 8th of April. When Madame Caillaux was first put in -prison there was, as I have said, an outcry in the Opposition Press -against the “undue favours which were being shown to her in Saint -Lazare.” The reports of these undue favours were flatly contradicted by -the prison authorities, but the lawyers of another prisoner, a Madame -Vitz, were clever enough to take advantage of the outcry to secure the -comparative comforts of the <i>pistole</i> for their client. Madame Vitz was -already in a weak state of health when she was moved, and she has now -gone mad. This is what the <i>Patrie</i> (a reactionary paper) has to say -about her case: “Madame Caillaux, who enjoys the little and the great -favours of the prison administration, must be satisfied to-day. Another -wish which she recently expressed has just been carried out. Calmette’s -murderess had a neighbour in the cell next to hers, Madame Vitz. Her -counsel, Maître Desbons, obtained, with a great deal of trouble, some -alleviation of her fate, and she was put in the <i>pistole</i> class in -the cell next door to the one occupied by Madame Caillaux. Owing to -her constant annoyance at the extraordinary favours with which Madame -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_76" id="Page_76">[Pg 76]</a></span> -Caillaux was treated Madame Vitz has gone mad. In her cell she was -always calling out ‘Madame Caillaux! Madame Caillaux!’ and screaming. -The wife of the ex-Minister of Finance complained of her neighbourhood. -The director of the prison bowed to her wishes, and had Madame Vitz -removed to the prison infirmary.” Can anything be more grossly, more -stupidly, and childishly unfair than this attempt to alienate sympathy -from Madame Vitz’s neighbour? I have quoted it because it is short, -but any Paris paper of the <i>Patrie</i> type unfortunately provides more -material of the same kind daily than I should care to translate or my -readers would care to read. I should not be surprised if many of the -comments in the London newspapers suffered considerably and indirectly -from the unfairness of many of the newspapers in Paris while the case -has been <i>sub judice</i>. The reason for this is very simple. In Paris -there are six evening papers of any importance. These are the <i>Patrie</i>, -which appears early in the afternoon, the <i>Temps</i>, the <i>Liberté</i>, and -the <i>Journal des Débâts</i>, which appear at about five o’clock, the -<i>Intransigeant</i> and the <i>Presse</i>, which appear just about dinner -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_77" id="Page_77">[Pg 77]</a></span> -time. Of these six papers five are Opposition papers, and only one of -these five, the <i>Journal des Débâts</i>, makes the slightest attempt to -be impartial. The only really impartial evening paper is the <i>Temps</i>, -which gives the news of the day and comments on it, but comments -without bias. The <i>Patrie</i> and the <i>Presse</i> are under the same -directorate, the <i>Intransigeant</i>, while perhaps not quite so rabid as -the <i>Presse</i> and the <i>Patrie</i>, is openly unfair whenever politics call -for unfairness, as they usually do, and the <i>Liberté</i>, while it prints -the news, is always invariably and openly in such frank opposition to -the Government that nothing done by any member of the Government is -ever anything but wrong, and news which has the slightest reference -to politics of any kind is invariably coloured. It follows that the -local correspondent without a very wide knowledge and experience of -French peculiarities and French methods must find it very difficult to -form an opinion (in time for transmission to London the same evening) -sufficiently without bias to be really valuable. Every journalist in -Paris is obliged to read the evening papers; the evening papers, with -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_78" id="Page_78">[Pg 78]</a></span> -two honourable exceptions above mentioned, always present the news -of the day with the colouring of their political convictions, and -the correspondent of an English paper may therefore frequently have -found it impossible during the Caillaux drama, as he often found it -impossible during the Panama scandal, the Dreyfus case, and other of -the periodic convulsions of modern France, to separate the wheat of -fact from the chaff of political colouring. In saying this I intend no -reflection whatever on the honesty, the brilliance, or the intelligence -of the Paris correspondents of the London Press, all of whom are my -acquaintances, and most of whom I am proud to number among my personal -friends. I feel sure that if any of them happen to read what I have -just written they will not only admit its truth, but be inclined to -think that I have spoken with even less emphasis than I might.</p> - -<p class="space-below2">Whatever may be the result of the trial of Madame Caillaux -there is no question of the immediate result of the murder of Monsieur Calmette, on -public opinion in France. Men and women alike, all consider that Madame -Caillaux should be treated with the utmost severity, and men and women -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_79" id="Page_79">[Pg 79]</a></span> -alike, all are anxious to see whatever punishment is possible meted out -to her husband. So real is this feeling—and I am talking now of the -general public and not of journalists or politicians—that Monsieur -Caillaux has found it necessary to go about, when it has been needful -for him to show himself in public, with a strong bodyguard of police -in plain clothes. He has allowed himself to be persuaded, contrary -to his first intention, to remain a candidate for re-election in -his constituency, but he is so well aware of the feeling against him -everywhere that, although lack of personal courage is certainly not -one of the faults of the ex-Minister of Finance, he is conducting his -canvass by deputy, and remains in Paris under constant guard. -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_80" id="Page_80">[Pg 80]</a></span></p> - -<div class="figcenter"> - <a name="P80" id="P80"></a> - <img src="images/p_80.jpg" alt="PRESIDENT POINCARÉ" width="500" height="653" /> - <p class="right"><i>Le Miroir, Dessin de F. Auer.</i></p> - <p class="center space-below1">PRESIDENT POINCARÉ GIVES EVIDENCE ON OATH -IN THE CAILLAUX DRAMA BEFORE THE PRESIDENT OF THE APPEAL COURT, DRAMA BEFORE THE PRESIDENT -OF THE APPEAL COURT, WHO WAITED ON HIM FOR THIS PURPOSE AT THE ELYSÉE.</p> -</div> - -<p>I have spoken of the unfair manner in which the Opposition Press -of France have fallen on everybody who has ventured to express the -opinion that there was any motive at all for Madame Caillaux’s crime -except an inhuman lust for murder. And yet not only the evidence of -Monsieur Caillaux himself but the evidence on oath of the President of -the French Republic, Monsieur Raymond Poincaré, and the evidence of -other independent and unbiased witnesses, shows that there is reason -to believe that the immediate motive of the crime was a hysterical -fear of disclosures which Madame Caillaux believed would be made in -the <i>Figaro</i>. Of course this hysterical fear does not excuse the crime -of Madame Caillaux, but it certainly goes very far towards explaining -it, and the existence of the belief that there was danger of the -publication of letters which contained intimate allusion to her private -life cannot be doubted by anybody, no matter what their political -convictions may be after reading the evidence which President Poincaré -felt called on to give, creating by the giving of it a precedent which -emphasizes the doctrine that the President of the Republic has, with -the rights, the liabilities and the responsibilities of every private -citizen of France. President Poincaré did not go to the Palace of -Justice to give his evidence. Monsieur Caillaux, on Thursday, April -2, informed the examining magistrate, Monsieur Boucard, that certain -persons had evidence of importance to give which bore on his wife’s -case. Among the names which he mentioned was that of Monsieur Raymond -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_81" id="Page_81">[Pg 81]</a></span> -Poincaré, the President of the French Republic, and Monsieur Caillaux -stated that the evidence for which he asked the examining magistrate -to seek would prove conclusively that on the morning of the crime -both he and his wife were, rightly or wrongly, convinced that the -<i>Figaro</i> might publish certain letters of a private nature referring -to themselves. An official letter was sent by the examining magistrate -to the Parquet de la Seine, with reference to the course that should -be followed in this matter of Monsieur Poincaré’s evidence, and after -some hesitation as to ways and means of enabling the President of the -Republic to give evidence on oath, Monsieur Forichon, the presiding -judge of the Court of Appeal, was sent to the Elysée, and to him after -swearing to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, -Monsieur Raymond Poincaré described the interview which Monsieur -Caillaux had with him at ten o’clock on the morning of Monday, March -16. We know that on that morning Monsieur Monier, the President of the -Civil Court of the Seine department, called, at her request, on Madame -Caillaux, and was consulted by her as to means and ways of putting a -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_82" id="Page_82">[Pg 82]</a></span> -stop to the campaign against her husband in the <i>Figaro</i>. Monsieur -Caillaux had intended to be present at this consultation, but a Cabinet -council had been called at the Elysée at ten o’clock, and he was of -course obliged to attend it. The Ministers were nearly all assembled, -and were chatting with the President of the Republic in a room leading -into the Council Chamber, when, just as the doors of the Council -Chamber were opened and the Ministers passed through, Monsieur Caillaux -asked the President of the Republic for a few moments’ conversation -in private. Monsieur Poincaré, with the unfailing courtesy which -distinguishes him, acquiesced immediately, and allowing the other -Ministers to pass into the Council Chamber, the President of the -Republic remained alone with Monsieur Caillaux in the room they had -left, and closed the door. “I have just learned from a sure source,” -said Monsieur Caillaux to Monsieur Poincaré, “that private letters -written by me to the lady who is now my wife have been handed to the -<i>Figaro</i> and that Gaston Calmette intends publishing them.” “Monsieur -Caillaux was under the stress of great emotion,” said the President of -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_83" id="Page_83">[Pg 83]</a></span> -the Republic in his evidence. “He told me that he feared that Monsieur -Calmette was about to publish in the <i>Figaro</i> private letters, the -divulgation of which would be extremely painful to him and Madame -Caillaux. I replied that I considered Monsieur Calmette an honourable -gentleman (<i>un galant homme</i>) altogether incapable of publishing -letters which would bring up Madame Caillaux’s name in the polemics -between them. But my efforts to convince him that this was so were in -vain, and he replied to me that he considered divers articles of the -<i>Figaro</i> were written with the object of preparing (the public mind) -for this publication. I was unable to undeceive Monsieur Caillaux or -to calm him. At one moment he sprang from his seat and exclaimed, ‘If -Calmette publishes these letters I will kill him.’ He then declared to -me that he was going to consult his lawyers, notably Maître Thorel, -the solicitor, on the means to be taken and the procedure necessary to -prevent the <i>Figaro</i> from publishing these letters. I advised him to -see, as well, the barrister who had taken his interests in hand in his -divorce case, Maître Maurice Bernard. Maître Maurice Bernard, I said to -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_84" id="Page_84">[Pg 84]</a></span> -Monsieur Caillaux, knows Monsieur Calmette. It will be easy for him -to get the assurance from Monsieur Calmette that no letter will be -published, and if needs be—if, contrary to my own belief, your -suspicions are founded—he would have the authority necessary to -prevent the publication of the letters. Monsieur Caillaux thanked me, -but declared to me that as he would be occupied at the Senate the whole -afternoon he would not be able to see Maître Bernard. In reply to that, -I told him that Maître Bernard was a friend of my own who often came to -see me, and that he had let me know that not having seen me for some -time owing to a journey to Algiers, he would come, either that day -or the next, to shake me by the hand. I added that if he came to see -me I would make a point of repeating our conversation to him. Maître -Bernard did come early in the afternoon. I told him what Monsieur -Caillaux feared, and asked him to make a point of seeing him. Maître -Bernard replied that he considered Monsieur Calmette quite incapable of -publishing letters which referred to Madame Caillaux, but that for all -that he would make a point of seeing Monsieur Caillaux the same day, -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_85" id="Page_85">[Pg 85]</a></span> -and if need be Monsieur Calmette as well. I heard afterwards that -Maître Bernard had seen Monsieur Caillaux at the end of the afternoon, -but too late. I was much impressed by the state in which Monsieur -Caillaux was, so much so that when the Prime Minister came to see me on -business during the afternoon I thought it my duty to tell him of the -conversation I had had with Monsieur Caillaux and with Maître Maurice Bernard.”</p> - -<p>Monsieur Caillaux’s own evidence was equally assertive on the question -of the letters. I may say here that it is common talk in Paris that -these letters, one a short one, and the other sixteen pages long, -contained passages which well explained Monsieur and Madame Caillaux’s -fears for their publication. Monsieur Caillaux is said to have written -to the lady who is Madame Caillaux now, with the utmost freedom and -disrespect of the Republic to which he gives the nickname “Marianne,” -and the intimacy of portions of the letters is generally believed to -be such that no paper as respectable as the <i>Figaro</i> could possibly -affront its readers by putting them in cold print. -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_86" id="Page_86">[Pg 86]</a></span></p> - -<p>The letters, or copies of them, exist, or were in existence just before -the crime. They are popularly believed to be highly scandalous in -content and in tone. It is, however, only fair to Monsieur Calmette’s -memory and to the writer of the letters, Monsieur Caillaux, and his -unhappy wife to whom he wrote them, to put on record the protest -of Madame Madeleine Guillemard, who wrote on April 8, 1914, to the -examining magistrate declaring that she knew the whole text of the -letters, that they were intimate and tender, but that “their tone was -that of letters written by a gentleman to a lady whom he respects.”</p> - -<p class="space-below2">President Poincaré’s evidence, however, shows that Monsieur -and Madame Caillaux feared that the letters would be printed, and this fear is -made more emphatic by Monsieur Caillaux’s own evidence before Monsieur -Boucard, which, with the curious habit which is prevalent in France, -the examining magistrate summarized and communicated immediately to the Press.</p> - -<div class="figcenter"> - <a name="P86" id="P86"></a> - <img src="images/p_86.jpg" alt="MONSIEUR CAILLAUX" width="450" height="710" /> - <p class="right"><i>Miroir Photo, Paris</i></p> - <p class="center">MONSIEUR CAILLAUX LEAVING THE LAW COURTS.</p> - <p class="center space-below1">(The man on the right is a detective.)</p> -</div> - -<hr class="chap space-above2" /> -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_87" id="Page_87">[Pg 87]</a></span></p> - -<h2>IV<br /><span class="h_subtitle">MONSIEUR CAILLAUX’S EXAMINATION</span></h2> - -<p class="no-indent"><span class="smcap">The</span> principal witness -for the defence of Madame Caillaux will be her husband, and as is usual -in France where every witness is allowed and is expected to tell the -examining magistrate who collects evidence before the trial everything -he knows which bears in any way upon the case, Monsieur Caillaux -has gone at length into his wife’s motives for the crime, and has -described very fully the happenings on March 16, 1914, when the murder -was committed. He was examined by Monsieur Boucard in his room at the -Palace of Justice on April 7 and 8, immediately after the evidence of -the President of the Republic had been taken. Monsieur Joseph Caillaux -is the son of Monsieur Eugène Alexandre Caillaux, who was Inspector of -Finance and Minister of State. He has been married twice. -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_88" id="Page_88">[Pg 88]</a></span></p> - -<p class="space-below2">His first wife was Madame Gueydan, who was the divorced -wife of a Monsieur Jules Dupré. Monsieur Caillaux married her in 1906. Monsieur -Caillaux and his first wife did not live very happily, and their -relations became more than strained in July 1909, after the fall of -the Clemenceau Cabinet, in which Monsieur Caillaux was Minister of -Finance. In September of that year Monsieur Caillaux and his wife were -at Mamers. One night, Monsieur Caillaux declared to the examining -magistrate, a packet of letters disappeared from a drawer in his -writing-table. Two of these letters were letters written by Monsieur -Caillaux to Madame Léo Claretie (<i>née</i> Raynouard). Madame Claretie was -at that time (September 1909) already divorced from her husband. As we -know, she became Monsieur Caillaux’s wife in 1911. These two letters, -which disappeared from Monsieur Caillaux’s writing-table are the two -letters to which reference is made at the end of the last chapter, -letters which Monsieur and Madame Caillaux believed to be in the -possession of Monsieur Calmette. The letters were of a most intimate -character. One, a very short one, was written on letter paper with the -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_89" id="Page_89">[Pg 89]</a></span> -heading of the Conseil Général de la Sarthe. The second, written on -paper of the Chamber of Deputies, was a long sixteen-page letter -containing, Monsieur Caillaux said, the story for the last few years -of all the intimacies of his life. “In this letter,” Monsieur Caillaux -said, “I told my future wife, at length, of the reasons, many of which -were based on political grounds, which prevented me from freeing -myself immediately from my wife (Madame Gueydan) and from marrying -her.” Monsieur Caillaux was much upset at the discovery that Madame -Gueydan-Caillaux had possession of these letters, and for their -restitution he offered his wife either a complete reconciliation or a -divorce. Madame Gueydan-Caillaux accepted the reconciliation with her -husband, and on November 5, 1909, the parties met in the presence of -Monsieur Privat-Deschanel, the secretary of the Ministry of Finance, -and an intimate friend of Monsieur Caillaux’s, at Monsieur Caillaux’s -house, 12 Rue Pierre Charron. In Monsieur Privat-Deschanel’s presence -the letters were solemnly burned, together with others bearing on the -disagreement between husband and wife. Before they were burned Madame -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_90" id="Page_90">[Pg 90]</a></span> -Gueydan-Caillaux gave her word of honour to her husband and to Monsieur -Privat-Deschanel that she had kept no photograph and no copy of the -letters. Their destruction was followed by a complete reconciliation. -Monsieur Caillaux declared that as far as he was concerned the -reconciliation was sincere, that he gave up all thought of Madame -Raynouard-Claretie, his present wife, and he asked Monsieur Boucard to -call on Monsieur Privat-Deschanel to bear witness to this. Some months -later Monsieur Caillaux found, he says, that it was quite impossible -for him to remain friends with his wife, and at the beginning of July -1910 he instituted divorce proceedings. The divorce was pronounced on -March 9, 1911 by agreement between the two parties. Very soon after, -in November of the same year, Monsieur Caillaux was married in Paris -to the divorced wife of Monsieur Léo Claretie, who is now in prison -for the murder of Monsieur Gaston Calmette. As a curious sidelight on -the mixture of intimate home details and of politics in the Caillaux -drama it is worth while remembering here, that in her evidence to the -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_91" id="Page_91">[Pg 91]</a></span> -examining magistrate Madame Gueydan, Monsieur Caillaux’s first wife, -stated the reasons, as she understood them, for this change of mind -on the part of Monsieur Caillaux. She declared that in November 1909 -Monsieur Caillaux, being a candidate for re-election in the Sarthe -District feared that her possession of the letters and her antagonism -to himself might make trouble for him during the electoral campaign. -In April 1910 the election was over and he was elected, he feared her -no longer, wanted to marry his present wife, and instituted divorce -proceedings in consequence in July, forcing her to allow herself to be -divorced by the sheer deadweight of his influence, which if exercised -against her would, she knew, have prohibited her from obtaining the -services of the best counsel and have reduced her to absolute penury. -In October 1911 when Monsieur Caillaux was Prime Minister, his <i>chef -de cabinet</i>, Monsieur Desclaux, told him one day that a journalist, -Monsieur Vervoort, who was on the <i>Gil Blas</i>, had been offered by -Madame Gueydan, his former wife, the right to publish certain letters. -The details which Monsieur Vervoort gave about these letters, referred -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_92" id="Page_92">[Pg 92]</a></span> -exactly, Monsieur Caillaux said, to the two letters which his former -wife had burned in his presence, and to a letter which appeared in -the <i>Figaro</i> of March 13, 1914, in facsimile. This letter was written -by Monsieur Caillaux to his first wife, Madame Gueydan, before he -married her. Like the others it was a love letter with long passages -about politics in it. It was written thirteen years ago, but it -contained Monsieur Caillaux’s statement: “I have crushed the income-tax -while appearing to defend it.” (J’ai écrasé l’impôt sur le revenu en -ayant l’air de le défendre.) It is this letter portions of which the -<i>Figaro</i> published in facsimile. It was written in Monsieur Caillaux’s -well-known handwriting, and he had signed it “Ton Jo”. The intimacy -of the “Ton” was of course in itself something of an outrage when it -appeared in a newspaper, for the letter was written to another man’s wife.</p> - -<div class="figcenter"> - <a name="P92" id="P92"></a> - <img src="images/p_92.jpg" alt="M. PRIVAT-DESCHANEL" width="450" height="719" /> - <p class="right"><i>Miroir Photo, Paris</i></p> - <p class="center space-below1">M. PRIVAT-DESCHANEL WHO WITNESSED THE DESTRUCTION -OF THE LETTERS BY MME. GUEYDAN-CAILLAUX.</p> -</div> - -<p class="space-below2">Monsieur Caillaux considered, he said, that the letters -(the “Ton Jo” letter and the other two) formed a trilogy, so that if one were -published, publication of the two others was likely. When Monsieur -Desclaux told him what Monsieur Vervoort had said, Monsieur Caillaux -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_93" id="Page_93">[Pg 93]</a></span> -answered, “These letters have been stolen from me. Their publication -would cause me pain because of their intimate bearing on my private -life. I cannot believe that any journalist could have so little -respect for himself or his profession as to make use of such weapons.” -Monsieur Desclaux replied that neither Monsieur Vervoort nor his -editor, Monsieur Pierre Mortier, were going to use the letters. Some -weeks after this Monsieur Caillaux married his present wife. Monsieur -Caillaux at this point in his evidence broke off to declare to Monsieur -Boucard that his second marriage was a very happy one. This declaration -was not as unnecessary as it sounds at first sight, for long before the -actual drama, during the weeks of the bitter campaign in the <i>Figaro</i> -against the Minister of Finance, from January’s beginning till the day -of M. Calmette’s death, and afterwards, Paris gossip had been very -busy with the names of both men. They were said to be rivals in their -private lives. I do not care to go into the details of the gossip which -associated their names in rivalry, for this gossip, in which another -woman’s name was mentioned, is decidedly unpleasant. Monsieur Calmette’s -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_94" id="Page_94">[Pg 94]</a></span> -married life would have been cut short by the law courts if death had -not intervened, and if Monsieur Calmette had been killed on March 17, -instead of on the 16th, his wife would no longer have been Madame -Calmette. Divorce proceedings between the two had culminated, and the -divorce would have been made absolute on that day. As it was Madame -Calmette, whose father, Monsieur Prestat, is the chairman of the -<i>Figaro</i> Company, learned the news of her husband’s murder only the -day after it occurred. She had been away from Paris, and returned in -the evening of March 16. As she left the railway station she heard -the newspaper hawkers shouting the news, but believing that they were -announcing the fall of the Cabinet did not take sufficient interest -in the details to buy a paper. Next morning telegrams of condolence -from her friends, and perusal of the morning papers told her what had -happened, and incidentally apprised her that she inherited as his widow -a much larger share of Monsieur Calmette’s large fortune than would -otherwise have been hers. Gaston Calmette was of course a very rich -man, for some years ago Monsieur Chauchard, the founder and principal -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_95" id="Page_95">[Pg 95]</a></span> -shareholder of the <i>Magasins du Louvre</i> had left him a large slice of -his great wealth. Paris gossip had, as I have said, been busy linking -the names of Messieurs Calmette and Caillaux, and this is not to be -wondered at when it is remembered that Monsieur Calmette was on the -point of being divorced, that Monsieur Caillaux had been divorced once -from Madame Gueydan-Caillaux, the divorced wife of Monsieur Dupré, and -that his present wife was the divorced wife of another man. Monsieur -Caillaux in his evidence to Monsieur Boucard declared, however, that -the stories of a disunion in his married life were absolute nonsense, -and that it was so absurd to say that there was any disunion between -him and his present wife that the two of them used to laugh at the -gossip to which I have referred. He added that there was no reason for -any personal animosity towards himself on Monsieur Calmette’s part, and -that he had never given him any reason for such animosity. “On several -occasions,” he said, “during the last few months I was asked to start a -campaign against Monsieur Calmette personally, and papers to support it -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_96" id="Page_96">[Pg 96]</a></span> -were brought to me. I always refused these offers.” Monsieur Caillaux -then spoke of the other documents in Monsieur Calmette’s possession. -These were of course the letter written by the Procureur Général, -Monsieur Victor Fabre, which Monsieur Barthou read in the Chamber of -Deputies on March 17, and other documents which are known as “the green -papers.” These were telegrams and copies of telegrams referring to -the incident of Agadir. They were of so grave a nature that Monsieur -Calmette had been asked not to publish them for diplomatic reasons. “I -should like to point out” (said Monsieur Caillaux), “that I could have -no possible fear personally of the publication of these documents. On -the contrary I should as far as I am myself concerned have been glad -to see them published. A day will come when time has smoothed over -old sores, and I shall be able to speak freely. I have written a book -on Agadir, and it will be seen when that can be published that the -documents, the letters, and the telegrams in this book will convince -all Frenchmen, not only of my patriotism, but of my political clearness -of vision.” Monsieur Caillaux declared that he knew exactly what was -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_97" id="Page_97">[Pg 97]</a></span> -going on in the <i>Figaro</i> office, and that he knew that Monsieur -Calmette would make use of any weapons in his power to cause his -overthrow. He then referred to a conversation in the street under a -gas lamp between Monsieur Barthou and Madame Gueydan, his, Monsieur -Caillaux’s, former wife. During this conversation, he said, Madame -Gueydan had read extracts from letters to Monsieur Barthou, and -Monsieur Caillaux declared that he had understood from Monsieur Barthou -that these letters were the two private letters which had been stolen -from him. The examining magistrate confronted Monsieur Barthou and -Monsieur Caillaux at this point, and Monsieur Barthou stated that -Monsieur Caillaux must have been mistaken. It was true that he had -had a conversation with Madame Gueydan, but the letters she read to -him were the Fabre letter and the “Ton Jo” letter, and it was to them -that Monsieur Barthou had alluded afterwards in his conversation with -Monsieur Caillaux. When the “Ton Jo” letter appeared in the <i>Figaro</i> -on March 13 Monsieur Caillaux was greatly upset, although the more -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_98" id="Page_98">[Pg 98]</a></span> -personal portions of the letter had been cut. On the next day, Saturday -the 14th, he stated, he received an anonymous letter saying that the -<i>Figaro</i> was going to publish the other two letters, and the same -day he received from other sources confirmation of this. “I had told -my wife all about these things,” he said. “She was entirely in my -confidence, and she expected these stolen letters to be published. -Their publication would have affected me comparatively little, but -would have wounded my wife in her dignity as a woman, and distressed -her more than I can say.” Monsieur Caillaux then told the examining -magistrate the events of the day of the murder as he knew them, -beginning with the statement that his wife’s nerves were shattered, and -that she was and had been for some time, in a state of considerable -over-excitement. She read the <i>Figaro</i> every morning, her general -health was bad, and the campaign had overpowered her. “At nine o’clock -on the morning of March 16 my wife walked into my dressing-room with -the <i>Figaro</i> in her hand,” said Monsieur Caillaux. “She showed me -the paper with a headline ‘Intermède Comique—Ton Jo.’ ‘Presently,’ -she said, ‘we shall see your pet name for <i>me</i> in the public Press -like this,’ and she threw the paper angrily on a chair. ‘Can’t you -put a stop to this campaign?’ she asked me. And we decided to consult -Monsieur Monier the President of the Civil Tribunal of the Seine.” -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_99" id="Page_99">[Pg 99]</a></span></p> - -<div class="figcenter"> - <a name="P99" id="P99"></a> - <img src="images/p_99.jpg" alt="M. BARTHOU" width="450" height="714" /> - <p class="right"><i>Miroir, Photo, Paris.</i></p> - <p class="center space-below1">M. BARTHOU MOUNTING THE STAIRS OF THE LAW COURTS -ON HIS WAY TO GIVE EVIDENCE IN THE CAILLAUX CASE.</p> -</div> - -<p>“It was my intention to go and see him that day at half-past one, but -I forgot that he would be busy at the Palace of Justice at that time. -I had to go to the meeting of the Cabinet at the Elysée, and when -Monsieur Monier called at half-past ten my wife received him alone.” -Monsieur Caillaux then repeated his conversation with his wife when -she called for him before luncheon at the Ministère de Finances. -His evidence on this point and the evidence of Madame Caillaux are -identical. From the examining magistrate’s report of the evidence given -by Monsieur Caillaux he appears to have said nothing to his wife of his -own conversation with the President of the Republic. Monsieur Caillaux -confirms his wife’s statement that he said to her, “I shall go and -smash Calmette’s face.” Their car was in the Rue Royale when Madame -Caillaux asked him whether he intended to do so that day. “I answered,” -Monsieur Caillaux said, “No, not to-day. I shall choose my own time, -but the time is not far off.” -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_100" id="Page_100">[Pg 100]</a></span></p> - -<p>After luncheon, as Monsieur Caillaux was leaving the house, Madame -Caillaux told him that she was afraid she would not be able to dine at -the Italian Embassy. “She certainly looked ill and worn out,” Monsieur -Caillaux said, “and I asked her to send my servant to the Ministry -of Finance with my evening clothes. I understand that my wife sent a -telephone message to the Italian Embassy a little later to say that I -should go to the dinner without her. This, I would like to point out, -shows that she had no idea at that time of what was going to happen, -for if she had made up her mind then, she would either have said that -neither of us was going to the Italian Embassy or she would have said -nothing. I left my wife without any apprehensions, except that I was -uneasy at her weakness and the condition of her nerves. At about three -o’clock that afternoon I met Monsieur Ceccaldi at the Senate, and told -him how uneasy I felt. When I returned to the Ministry of Finance I -learned what had happened, and went to the police-station at once. My -wife’s first words to me when I got there and saw her were, ‘I <i>do</i> -hope that I haven’t killed him. I merely wanted to give him a lesson. -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_101" id="Page_101">[Pg 101]</a></span>’”</p> - -<p>This was the end of Monsieur Caillaux’s evidence in the examining -magistrate’s room at the Palace of Justice on April 8, 1914. -Monsieur Privat-Deschanel was called and confirmed that portion of -it which referred to the burning of the Gueydan-Caillaux letters, -and the declaration by Monsieur Caillaux’s first wife that she had -kept no copies or photographs of them. “The scene,” said Monsieur -Privat-Deschanel, “was such a moving one, and impressed me so deeply, -that though it happened four years ago everything that was done and -every word that was spoken have remained graven on my memory.”</p> - -<hr class="chap space-above2" /> -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_102" id="Page_102">[Pg 102]</a></span></p> - -<h2>V<br /><span class="h_subtitle">THE CAMPAIGN OF THE “FIGARO”</span></h2> - -<p class="no-indent"><span class="smcap">In</span> order to understand -the details of the Caillaux drama, it is necessary to search for the -reasons which contributed to the bitter campaign in the <i>Figaro</i> -against Madame Caillaux’s husband, the Minister of Finance. In order -to understand these reasons fully it will be necessary to go some way -back into the history of French politics, when some insight will be -possible into the inner meaning of the campaign, into the interests -which lay behind it, and the reason of its bitterness. When Monsieur -Raymond Poincaré was elected President of the French Republic, his -election gave great offence to that breaker of Cabinets, the veteran -statesman Georges Clemenceau. Monsieur Clemenceau had been a supporter -of Monsieur Poincaré’s rival, Monsieur Pams, and resented deeply the -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_103" id="Page_103">[Pg 103]</a></span> -election of the man whom he had not backed. Soon after the presidential -election the new President of the Republic gave another cause for -offence to Monsieur Clemenceau by choosing Monsieur Louis Barthou as -Prime Minister.</p> - -<p>Monsieur Clemenceau vowed revenge, and true to his invariable system -of playing the Eminence Grise in French politics, he buried the -hatchet with Monsieur Caillaux, whom during the Agadir crisis he had -openly declared to be liable to a trial before the high court for high -treason, and with Monsieur Briand’s help did everything possible to -make matters uncomfortable for Monsieur Barthou and his Cabinet, and -for the man whose policy that Cabinet represented, the new President of -the French Republic, Monsieur Raymond Poincaré.</p> - -<p>The campaign was almost a French War of the Roses. It was conducted -with bitterness on either side, and the Clemenceau faction won the -first battle, overthrowing the Barthou Cabinet, and securing the return -to power of Monsieur Caillaux, while Monsieur Briand, by his own choice -stood aside. Nominally the new Cabinet was under the leadership of the -Prime Minister, Monsieur Gaston Doumergue. -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_104" id="Page_104">[Pg 104]</a></span></p> - -<p>Actually Monsieur Caillaux as Minister of Finance and Monsieur Monis as -Minister of Marine were the two twin rulers in the new Government of -France with Monsieur Clemenceau behind them as general adviser.</p> - -<p>Now Monsieur Briand, though Monsieur Clemenceau’s sworn friend, -politically, was no real friend politically of Monsieur Caillaux. -The two men represented different factions, for in the neighbourhood -of 1913 Monsieur Caillaux had founded the radical unified party, the -programme of which he announced in a great meeting at Pau that year, -and Monsieur Briand very shortly afterwards founded the Federation -of the Left, a form of moderate Socialism which combated the extreme -radicalism of Monsieur Caillaux’s party on many points. Then Monsieur -Caillaux began to make mistakes, most of which were largely due to his -impulsiveness, his ill-temper in the wrong places, and his natural gift -for making enemies. Monsieur Barthou set to work to fight Monsieur -Caillaux and called Monsieur Calmette to help him. Public rumour added -that there was personal animosity and personal rivalry between these -two men, but whether this be true or not their political rivalry was -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_105" id="Page_105">[Pg 105]</a></span> -undoubted, and the reasons for such political rivalry are plain. Both -were rich men, but while Monsieur Caillaux represented reforms for -the lower middle class at the expense of the rich, Monsieur Calmette -representing the party of property, the party which we in England -should describe as that of men having a stake in the country, fought -these reforms with all the influence at his command as editor and -director of a great newspaper. He set out to pull Caillaux down from -his position, and his task was a comparatively easy one owing to the -unreasoned outbursts of temper with which Monsieur Caillaux exposed -the weak points in his armour on many occasions, the number of -mistakes impulse had caused him to make in the past, and his growing -unpopularity. From the beginning of January 1914 until his death on -March 16, hardly a day passed without an article of a column or more, -and sometimes much more, by Monsieur Calmette in the <i>Figaro</i> attacking -Monsieur Caillaux, Monsieur Caillaux’s past, and Monsieur Caillaux’s -policy. He was attacked as a politician, as a man, and as a financier, -and his silence under attack made the attacks which followed more -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_106" id="Page_106">[Pg 106]</a></span> -bitter instead of putting an end to them. Six years ago the Rochette -affair had, directly and indirectly, been the cause of more than one -storm in the French political tea-cup. It had brought the fierce -light of publicity to bear on many public men, and politicians feared -publication of the details of the case as much, almost, as the side -issues of the Dreyfus case were feared some years before, and as, -before that, the Panama and other scandals had been feared. During -the Agadir trouble Monsieur Caillaux had laid himself open to a great -deal of criticism, and the <i>Figaro</i> did not hesitate to disinter both -these affairs and use them as a weapon against Monsieur Caillaux. -Another affair of lesser importance in which Monsieur Caillaux’s name -was mentioned in the <i>Figaro</i> campaign was the affair of the Prieu -inheritance. In this connexion the <i>Figaro</i> did not hesitate to accuse -Monsieur Caillaux of dishonourable conduct, and to base on it his -unfitness for the post of a Minister of France. It is almost impossible -in the space at my command to give all the details of a newspaper -campaign such as this against a Minister in power. The campaign lasted -nearly three months, and it was so many-sided that I should need -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_107" id="Page_107">[Pg 107]</a></span> -another volume if I were to attempt to set down its details fully. But -I may resume the broad lines of the <i>Figaro</i> campaign against Monsieur -Caillaux and the reason which the <i>Figaro</i> itself gave to its readers -for that campaign. Monsieur Calmette from the first declared that he -considered the return to power of Monsieur Joseph Caillaux after his -downfall in 1911 as a veritable misfortune to France. He considered -that the presence of Monsieur Caillaux in the Cabinet was of real peril -to French interests, and, as I have explained, it was undoubtedly a -peril to the interests of the rich men’s party which the <i>Figaro</i> -represented, for Monsieur Caillaux was determined to carry through -his tax on accumulated property, and the general idea of this tax was -decidedly popular. There is nothing Frenchmen love so much as making -a rich man pay. Monsieur Caillaux with political astuteness saw the -vote-catching possibilities of his measure, was doing everything in his -power to maintain the Doumergue Ministry, of which he was the leading -member, at the helm of public affairs until this year’s elections, and -would undoubtedly have succeeded. -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_108" id="Page_108">[Pg 108]</a></span></p> - -<p>Monsieur Calmette, with the help of Monsieur Caillaux’s political -enemies, was working hard for the overthrow of the Cabinet, or rather -for the overthrow of Monsieur Caillaux, for, as the <i>Figaro</i> wrote, it -was Caillaux alone, Caillaux the Minister, Caillaux the politician, -whom Calmette the politician wished to pull headlong. Day by day in -the <i>Figaro</i> he put his adversary in the pillory. He stigmatized his -conduct of the Franco-German negotiations in 1911, he recalled in -stinging terms the general indignation which had wrecked the Caillaux -Ministry after the resignation of Monsieur De Selves, the Minister for -Foreign Affairs. He recalled the work and the report of the Commission -of Inquiry, over which Monsieur Raymond Poincaré (who was of course -not President of the Republic then) presided, and wrote scathingly, -fiercely almost, of Monsieur Caillaux’s difficulties and quarrels with -the Spanish Ambassador and with his Majesty’s Ambassador Sir Francis -Bertie. He recalled words used by Monsieur Caillaux which almost -suggested that France under a Caillaux régime cared very little for the -entente cordiale, and reproduced a threat, which rumour had reported, -of undiplomatic reprisals towards Spain. Some months ago, to be precise -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_109" id="Page_109">[Pg 109]</a></span> -on December 18, 1913, Monsieur Caillaux made a counter declaration to -me personally in reply to the rumours that he had spoken against the -entente cordiale. This declaration was made three weeks before the -beginning of the daily campaign in the <i>Figaro</i>, and Monsieur Caillaux -said for publication in the <i>Daily Express</i>, of which paper I was at -that time the Paris correspondent, “I defy anyone to find in any word -that I have spoken publicly, to find in any act of my public life, -any ground for an assertion that I am not a whole-hearted partisan of -the entente cordiale.” Monsieur Caillaux added that he had relatives -in England, that he was a great admirer of England and of Englishmen, -and said: “I am convinced that the entente cordiale is an asset for -the peace of Europe, and while as a Frenchman and a servant of France, -I point out that France expects to reap equally with her partner -the benefits of the entente cordiale, I am sure that England in her -inherent fairness understands this, and is as anxious both to give and -to take as France can be. I wish to express my amazement and my sorrow -that even for a moment Englishmen should have thought me anything but their friend.” -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_110" id="Page_110">[Pg 110]</a></span></p> - -<p>On the occasion of this interview, which was a long one, lasting a -full hour at the beginning of the afternoon, and another half-hour -later the same day when I submitted what I had written to Monsieur -Caillaux before sending it to London, in order that there should be no -discussion possible afterwards as to what he had really said, a good -deal passed which I did not put into print.</p> - -<p>In the interview as printed appeared an allusion by Monsieur Caillaux -to the undue interference by Englishmen in France’s home affairs. -Monsieur Caillaux spoke that afternoon with ebullient freedom of -expression about the British Ambassador in Paris, Sir Francis Bertie. -He declared that Sir Francis went out of his way to make trouble and -that he had worked against him (Monsieur Caillaux) in London for the -sheer pleasure of stirring up strife.</p> - -<p>I thought it quite unnecessary to say these things aloud in an English -newspaper, especially as, after saying them, Monsieur Caillaux asked me -not to include them in the interview as he had no wish for a newspaper -discussion with the British Ambassador. I quote them now merely for the -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_111" id="Page_111">[Pg 111]</a></span> -purpose of showing the peculiar and unstatesmanlike quarrelsomeness of -Monsieur Caillaux’s temper. The man has very little self-restraint, -and while many of his public acts and public sayings prove this, few -of them prove it so conclusively as his outburst in his room at the -Ministry of Finance, in the presence of the representative of an -English newspaper, against the British Ambassador in Paris.</p> - -<p>Following up these attacks on his personality the <i>Figaro</i> impugned -Monsieur Caillaux’s honour. It did this with the outspokenness which is -a peculiarity of French newspaperdom, and which would be magnificent -if it were not so frequently misused. Monsieur Caillaux was accused -of changing his policy half a dozen times with the one pre-occupation -of retaining his portfolio, was twitted with self-contradiction with -regard to the income-tax law, and the immunity from taxation of French -Rentes, and was openly taxed with encouraging dishonourable and -dishonest speculation, if not of indulging in it himself. According to -the <i>Figaro</i> Monsieur Caillaux made deliberate arrangements to allow -friends of his to speculate and make large sums of money on the Paris -Bourse, tuning his public statements to time with the deals of the -speculators, and in answer to these accusations Monsieur Caillaux said nothing. -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_112" id="Page_112">[Pg 112]</a></span></p> - -<p>“The income-tax was Monsieur Caillaux’s hobby horse. He has stated -frequently that he has always been in favour of it,” wrote the <i>Figaro</i> -one day. “For many years the income-tax was the principal item of -Monsieur Caillaux’s political programme, and he told his constituents -at Mamers that his political programme had never changed in its main -lines.” Then the <i>Figaro</i> reproduced in facsimile Monsieur Caillaux’s -letter to the first Madame Caillaux in which the words occurred: “I -crushed the income-tax while pretending to defend it.”</p> - -<p>But these attacks on Monsieur Caillaux were by no means the only ones, -and Monsieur Calmette also accused Monsieur Caillaux of favouring -Rochette’s escape and interfering with the course of justice. These are -the broad lines of the <i>Figaro</i> campaign against Monsieur Caillaux.</p> - -<p>That some of the attacks were justifiable is undoubtedly the fact. -That the manner of them was a worthy one is more open to discussion. -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_113" id="Page_113">[Pg 113]</a></span> -Politicians must of course expect to be attacked by newspapers which -oppose them, but there is little doubt that the bitterness and the -persistence of this newspaper campaign worked its victim up to a state -of frenzy, and the calm observer knows what effect daily attacks on -a public man are likely to have on that public man’s life within the -four walls of his home. Monsieur Caillaux’s excited declaration to -the President of the Republic, his excitement in the motor car, when, -driving with Madame Caillaux he declared that he would go down to the -<i>Figaro</i> and chastise Monsieur Calmette, show the man’s state of mind, -and show us very clearly how that state of mind is likely to have -reacted on his wife. I repeat that this book is in no sense an apology -for Madame Caillaux’s act of murder. I repeat that I do not wish to -defend either Monsieur Caillaux or his wife. But in common fairness I -cannot do otherwise than present as faithfully as possible the effect -of the <i>Figaro</i> campaign against him, on Monsieur Caillaux and on his -constant companion. Nor do I hesitate to say that while the bitterness -of the <i>Figaro</i> campaign in no way excuses the murder of its editor by -Madame Caillaux, no one can deny, I think, that it explains it.</p> - -<hr class="chap space-above2" /> -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_114" id="Page_114">[Pg 114]</a></span></p> - -<h2>VI<br /><span class="h_subtitle">CALMETTE <span class="smcap">v.</span> CAILLAUX</span></h2> - -<p class="no-indent"><span class="smcap">Whenever</span> an official -in the French Colonial Office had to refuse the application of a -subordinate for leave, he would tone down his refusal with the -metaphor, “We’ll try and give you leave at all events before the -<i>affaire</i> Prieu is decided finally.” For many years <i>l’affaire</i> Prieu -had been the Jarndyce <i>v.</i> Jarndyce case of the French Colonial Office, -and it was almost forgotten when Monsieur Caillaux and the <i>Figaro</i> -brought it back at a bound into the domain of actuality. The case was -forgotten so thoroughly that when the <i>Figaro</i> mentioned it under the -title of “Monsieur Caillaux’s Secret Combinations” in an article signed -by Monsieur Gaston Calmette on January 8, 1914, the name Prieu was -misspelled “Priou”.</p> - -<p>The case in itself was one of concessions in Brazil. In the early years -of the Third Republic a French merchant named Prieu died in France -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_115" id="Page_115">[Pg 115]</a></span> -after a long life spent in Brazil. He had been a rich man and with -the help of the French Consul in Rio de Janeiro had secured certain -profitable concessions. At his death the French Government considered -that these concessions lapsed to the State, and sold them. Monsieur -Prieu’s heirs claimed from the State a considerable sum, something -between £120,000 and £160,000, of which their lawyers contended that -the Government of France had frustrated them. The case dragged on for -many years, and in 1909, when Monsieur Cochery was Finance Minister and -Monsieur Renoult Under Secretary of State for Finance (Monsieur Renoult -is Minister of the Interior in the Doumergue Cabinet), the case was -practically shelved.</p> - -<p>At that time the heirs of Monsieur Prieu, after getting a refusal to -their offer to abandon their entire claim against the French Government -in return for a cash payment of £20,000, were inclined to drop the -whole case, the legal expenses of which were becoming embarrassing. -They had put matters in the hands of a man of affairs, but he and -they had little hope of any result, when, according to the <i>Figaro</i>, -Monsieur Caillaux, on January 5, 1914, sent for their representative. -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_116" id="Page_116">[Pg 116]</a></span> -The <i>Figaro</i> declared on the 8th, over the signature of Monsieur Gaston -Calmette, that Monsieur Caillaux had stated to this gentleman that the -claim of the Prieu family appeared to him to be justified, that the -French Government would probably have to pay from £200,000 to £240,000 -including compound interest on the debt, and that a transaction -might be possible if the Prieu heirs were inclined to hand over a -considerable percentage on the money paid them to the French Government -for political needs. Obviously if Monsieur Caillaux really did make -such an offer, did really offer to settle a case which had been in -litigation for years and was about to lapse, provided the claimants -would agree to pay a large percentage of the money back for party -needs, he made an offer which he would find it difficult to defend in -Parliament or elsewhere.</p> - -<p>The <i>Figaro</i> was most assertive. Monsieur Calmette declared that -Monsieur Caillaux had said: “If you get this money we must get some of -it. The Government has its duties, and its needs.” Monsieur Calmette -went on to declare that a second interview had taken place at the -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_117" id="Page_117">[Pg 117]</a></span> -Ministry of Finance the next day, the Tuesday, when Monsieur Caillaux -had demanded 80 per cent. of the debt for the party coffers, and that -on the Wednesday, the day before the <i>Figaro</i> article appeared, the -representative of Monsieur Prieu’s heirs and the Finance Minister had -come to an agreement on terms somewhat less onerous than the 80 per -cent. mentioned at first.</p> - -<p>The disclosure of these curious proceedings created a storm in the -political world of Paris, and although Monsieur Caillaux published a -denial, in general terms his contradictions were not considered very -satisfactory. The article in the <i>Figaro</i> had of course one result. Any -settlement of the Prieu case on the lines above mentioned became quite -impossible. One is inclined to wonder, now, whether the claimants will -proceed against the French Government, prosecute their claim again, -and call Monsieur Caillaux as a witness to declare in court that he -considers the claim justifiable. It was rumoured at the time that -Monsieur Calmette had offered to compensate the Prieu claimants for the -loss which the publication in the <i>Figaro</i> of their dealings or attempt -at dealing with Monsieur Caillaux would entail. -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_118" id="Page_118">[Pg 118]</a></span></p> - -<p>Whether this offer was actually made or not will probably be shown at -the trial of Madame Caillaux, for the examining magistrate, Monsieur -Boucard, has questioned the parties concerned. As I have said, the -Prieu case is an old one. It has been discussed in the Chamber of -Deputies at intervals during the last thirty years, and the first -interpellation on it goes back thirty-three years to July 8, 1881. -Pierre Marcel Prieu was a candidate for Parliament in 1876 and in -1877. He died in 1899, in France, in poverty. To his last day he had -protested against what he called “the theft” of his concessions by the -French Government, and he had protested with such violence that he had -been imprisoned for some months because of his protests. His claim was -that the Brazilian Government had on August 30, and on September 6, -1879, paid the French Minister for Foreign Affairs in two cheques, one -for £200,000 and one for £400,000, as a settlement of his concessions. -These cheques were, he declared, made payable to the firm of Baring -Brothers in London, and on January 4, 1880, the money—£600,000—was -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_119" id="Page_119">[Pg 119]</a></span> -paid over by the Baring firm to the Paris bankers Hottinguer and -Co. Pierre Marcel Prieu declared that the payment of this money was -compensation by the Brazilian Government due to him personally for the -unjustifiable seizure of thirteen merchant ships with merchandise by -the Brazilian Customs. After Prieu’s death his heir, Monsieur D’Ariste, -did not care to fight the case and made over his rights in it—whether -with or without a quid pro quo does not appear—to relatives and -friends of Prieu, who formed a syndicate for the purpose of recovering -the debt or part of it from the French Government. The principal -members of the little syndicate were Monsieur A. Boileau and Monsieur -Prosper Sauvage. Their lawyer is Monsieur Antoine De Fonvielle, and -they put their claims in the hands of a man of affairs, Monsieur -Auguste Schneider. It is this gentleman who, according to the <i>Figaro</i> -and Monsieur Gaston Calmette, called by appointment on Monday January -5, Tuesday the 6th, and Wednesday the 7th, 1914, at the Ministry of -Finance, and agreed with Monsieur Caillaux to a settlement on the terms already stated. -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_120" id="Page_120">[Pg 120]</a></span></p> - -<p>According to Monsieur Calmette, Monsieur Caillaux bound himself to -see that the full amount of the claim should be paid, and Monsieur -Schneider was to sign an agreement on Saturday, January 10, by which he -handed a large proportion of the money over to the party funds. Whether -such an agreement was ever come to or not is the affair of the law -courts. It must resolve itself into a case of hard swearing, for the -contradictory assertions of both parties will be, in all probability, -somewhat difficult of proof. The disclosures of these matters in the -<i>Figaro</i> naturally enough put an end to all negotiations if such -negotiations really took place.</p> - -<p>On January 10 Monsieur Antoine de Fonvielle wrote a letter to Monsieur -Calmette which I subjoin in full. It was printed in the <i>Figaro</i> on -January 12. It is dated from Paris, where Monsieur de Fonvielle has a -flat at 77 Rue du Rocher. “Monsieur le Directeur,” he writes, “I was -informed at about twelve o’clock on Friday last, January 8, of the -campaign in the <i>Figaro</i> on the Prieu affair, of which I knew all the -details. There are certain mistakes in the <i>Figaro</i> article, and it -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_121" id="Page_121">[Pg 121]</a></span> -struck me as advisable to put the people interested in direct touch -with the <i>Figaro</i>. I went therefore, on the evening of January 8, -at about half-past ten, to see Monsieur Schneider, who lives at 57 -Boulevard Beauséjour at Auteuil. Two people went with me and waited -for me in a taxicab at the door of the house. I went to see Monsieur -Schneider because he has for several years been the mandatory of the -claimants in the Prieu affair. Monsieur Schneider has taken all the -necessary steps to press the claims of the Prieu heirs with the French -Foreign Office both in France and abroad, in England, and in Brazil.</p> - -<p>“Monsieur Schneider, who was very surprised at my visit, introduced me -to a journalist, Monsieur Vidal, who was with him. I asked Monsieur -Schneider to go with me and see Monsieur Calmette at the <i>Figaro</i> -office. Monsieur Schneider replied, ‘There is no reason why I should -put myself out for Monsieur Calmette. He has interfered quite enough -already (<i>Il m’a assez mis des bâtons dans les roues</i>). If it had not -been for his interference, the affair would have been settled by now.’ -I then told Monsieur Schneider that Monsieur Calmette had not sent me -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_122" id="Page_122">[Pg 122]</a></span> -to ask him to come, but that I thought that in his own interests and -in those of the heirs, he would do well to go to the <i>Figaro</i> office -without delay, and tell the truth and all that he knew about this -business. Monsieur Vidal got up from his seat, and said to Monsieur -Schneider, ‘Sir, I do not advise you to go. You must know what has been -agreed.’ I insisted, and Madame Schneider, who was putting her baby to -bed in a room next door, came brusquely into the room and said to her -husband, ‘Do what Monsieur Vidal tells you, and do not go with Monsieur -de Fonvielle.’ I insisted again that he ought to go to the Rue Drouot -with me, and Madame Schneider, who showed some excitement, told her -husband to do what she suggested, adding, ‘You can’t do any good by -going. Besides, you know what you promised Monsieur Caillaux.’ I then -thought it best to go. When I got downstairs I told the two people with -me what had happened. One of them has material interests in the affair. -(Signed) Antoine de Fonvielle.” -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_123" id="Page_123">[Pg 123]</a></span></p> - -<p>Immediately under Monsieur de Fonvielle’s letter, Monsieur Calmette -published in the <i>Figaro</i> of January 12 letters from two members of -the Prieu syndicate, Monsieur Boileau and Monsieur Prosper Sauvage. -Monsieur Boileau made the following declaration: “As the papers had -spoken of the Prieu affair, a meeting was called to hear what Monsieur -Schneider had to say. Monsieur Schneider declared: ‘I was very much -surprised at the fuss made in the papers. The affair was going to be -settled, and I had an appointment to-morrow, Saturday, January 10 -(the meeting was at half-past eleven on the evening of the Friday), -to receive a definite proposal.’ I left the meeting with Monsieur -Schneider, and as we went away together he made this remark to me: ‘If -the affair succeeds we shall have to leave a good many feathers behind us.’”</p> - -<p>The third letter published by the <i>Figaro</i> was from another member -of the Prieu syndicate, Monsieur Prosper Sauvage: “I was present at -the meeting which was called to discuss the situation created by -the articles in the <i>Figaro</i>,” he wrote. “I was one of the first to -arrive, and met Messieurs Monniot, Mazars, and Boileau. Naturally the -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_124" id="Page_124">[Pg 124]</a></span> -conversation bore on the incidents of the day, and when I expressed my -astonishment and my indignation at the proposal that the Government -should take 80 per cent. for its electoral needs while the heirs -received only 20 per cent. of the money, Monsieur Monniot declared -that Monsieur Schneider had told him about the interview which he had -had, and had confirmed these figures. He added that Monsieur Schneider -had found the rate excessively high, and quite unacceptable. (Signed) Prosper Sauvage.”</p> - -<p>These letters appeared in the <i>Figaro</i> on January 12. The same day -Monsieur Calmette accused Monsieur Caillaux of having extorted £16,000 -from the Comptoir d’Escompte for the party funds. Monsieur Calmette -wrote that Monsieur Ulmann, of the Comptoir d’Escompte, had been -received at five o’clock one afternoon by Monsieur Caillaux, and that -some days afterwards the £16,000 had been placed at the disposition -of the Minister of Finance. Everybody concerned contradicted these -statements very flatly, and as they have no bearing on the Caillaux -drama other than to show the bitterness and personal nature of the -attacks in the <i>Figaro</i> against Monsieur Caillaux we may leave them on one side. -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_125" id="Page_125">[Pg 125]</a></span></p> - -<p>Three days later, on January 15, Monsieur Francois Lebon published in -<i>L’Œuvre</i>, a little weekly paper which has been in bitter opposition -to the present Government, an article on the scandals of the week, -in which he referred to the Prieu affair, and to the affair of -the Comptoir d’Escompte. In this article, which is the more worth -quoting because it attacks not only Monsieur Caillaux but the present -parliamentary régime in France as well, Monsieur Lebon exclaims against -the outcry which many people raise against such revelations as those -made by the <i>Figaro</i>, that “they tarnish the good name of the Republic.”</p> - -<p>“The republican régime,” writes Monsieur Lebon, “is settling down in -the mud. We may consider it permissible to think that a few more stains -will not be much more visible. When a man is drowning it is perhaps -an excess of precaution to refrain from throwing him a rope for fear -of splashing him with a few drops of water. One of these days it will -become perceptible that if the Third Republic fell so low, it was -because the Third Republic was ‘la République des camarades. -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_126" id="Page_126">[Pg 126]</a></span>’”</p> - -<p>This is severe language from a Frenchman about France, but -unfortunately there is much in the political history of recent years to -support this charge of graft and of corruption. Charges of corruption -in the N’Goko Tanga affair, charges which were not altogether denied -satisfactorily, were brought by Monsieur Ceccaldi when the colonial -Budget came up for discussion, and the fact that Monsieur Ceccaldi has -since become a close friend and supporter of the Caillaux Government -makes these charges all the more significant now. Each Government in -France has a secret fund of £44,000; £24,000 of this fund are used -comparatively openly. The little balance of £20,000 is not nearly -enough for the funds needed by the Government at the general elections, -and it is a well-known fact that a great deal more is spent.</p> - -<p class="space-below2">The question as to where this money comes from is hardly a -mystery. The Mascuraud committee, an association of parliamentarians and commercial -men, has been generous with money in the past. This year it is said to -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_127" id="Page_127">[Pg 127]</a></span> -have withheld a large proportion of its usual subsidy, and the <i>Figaro</i> -and other Opposition papers declare that Monsieur Caillaux did what he -did for the purpose of ensuring at the coming elections the election of -Government candidates for the Chamber of Deputies.</p> - -<div class="figcenter"> - <a name="P127" id="P127"></a> - <img src="images/p_127.jpg" alt="M. CECCALDI" width="450" height="711" /> - <p class="right"><i>Agence Nouvelle—Photo, Paris.</i></p> - <p class="center space-below1">MONSIEUR CAILLAUX’S FRIEND, M. CECCALDI.</p> -</div> - -<p>On January 15 another long article over Monsieur Calmette’s signature -in the <i>Figaro</i> dealt severely with Monsieur Caillaux’s relations with -financial men in Paris. The suggestion made was that Monsieur Caillaux, -who was a member of the board of the Argentine Crédit Foncier, the -Egyptian Crédit Foncier and other enterprises of international finance, -was for personal and pecuniary reasons unable to resist the pressure -brought to bear on him by his colleagues among the directors of -these financial boards, and was obliged to do what they told him to -do, irrespective of his own political convictions or of the higher -interests of the country, which interests he as a Minister of the State -should have considered first.</p> - -<p>According to the <i>Figaro</i>, a Monsieur Arthur Spitzer, an Austrian by -birth, a Frenchman by naturalization, and one of the most influential -directors of the big French bank, the Société Générale, had gained his -position there owing to the influence and recommendation of Sir Ernest Cassel. -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_128" id="Page_128">[Pg 128]</a></span></p> - -<p>“Since 1911,” said the <i>Figaro</i>, “the French Prime Ministers and -Finance Ministers had successively expressed their opinions that -Monsieur Spitzer took too large a share in every sense of the word of -the big loans which were launched on the Paris market. In consequence -Monsieur Spitzer’s re-election to the board of the Société Générale -in 1913 was indirectly opposed by the Government. Monsieur Spitzer, -in deference to the expression of this opinion which was conveyed -to the Société Générale by a permanent official of the Ministry of -Finance, resigned his position on the board of the Société Générale, -but he remained on the board of the Crédit Foncier Argentin and on the -board of the Crédit Foncier Egyptien, of which two boards of directors -Monsieur Caillaux was a member. The intermediary between the Government -and the Société Générale in the secret and delicate negotiations which -resulted in the resignation of Monsieur Spitzer had been Monsieur -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_129" id="Page_129">[Pg 129]</a></span> -Luquet, one of the principal permanent officials in the Ministry of -Finance. Shortly after Monsieur Caillaux’s return to power an intimate -friend of Monsieur Spitzer, Monsieur André Homberg, a director of -the Société Générale, and another financial magnate whose name the -<i>Figaro</i> does not mention, called on Monsieur Caillaux at the Ministry -of Finance, and shortly afterwards Monsieur Luquet was superseded and -was succeeded in his post by Monsieur Privat-Deschanel, the general -secretary of the Financial office, the man in whose presence Madame -Gueydan had burned her husband’s, Monsieur Caillaux, letters. In other -words, Monsieur Calmette accused Monsieur Caillaux of allowing himself -to be influenced by his financial friends to serve their financial -needs by the removal of a useful servant of the country. On the -following day, January 16, the <i>Figaro</i> launched another accusation -against Monsieur Caillaux, that of interfering between two big shipping -companies in order to please his financial friends.”</p> - -<p>There is no need to go into the details of the quarrel between the -South Atlantic Company and the Compagnie Transatlantique. Suffice it to -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_130" id="Page_130">[Pg 130]</a></span> -say that the <i>Figaro</i> accused Monsieur Caillaux of acting in an -arbitrary fashion and taking orders for his conduct from certain -financial magnates, among whom was Monsieur André Homberg of the -Société Générale. On January 19, Monsieur Gaston Calmette announced for -the following day a series of articles describing “the nefarious part -played by Monsieur Caillaux in the events which preceded the sending of -a German gunboat to Agadir.” On the 20th this series of articles began. -They continued without intermission till January 24. I shall refer to -them more fully in another chapter of this book.</p> - -<p>On January 26, Monsieur Gaston Calmette called Monsieur Caillaux to -account in the <i>Figaro</i> on the question of a heavy fine of £325,000 -which had been inflicted on a Paris bank (the Banque Perrier) for the -non-observance of certain formalities in connexion with an emission of -two million pounds sterling of Ottoman bonds. Monsieur Gaston Calmette -returned the next day to the question, twitting Monsieur Caillaux -somewhat cruelly with his inability to give a satisfactory reply. On -Wednesday, January 28, he returned to the charge again and at some -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_131" id="Page_131">[Pg 131]</a></span> -length on the front page of the <i>Figaro</i>, dropping it on the 29th for -an article of two columns and a half on Monsieur Caillaux’s connexion -with the Crédit Foncier Egyptien and the Crédit Foncier Argentin.</p> - -<p>In this article Monsieur Calmette deliberately accused Monsieur -Caillaux of allowing quantities of South American bonds and shares -an official quotation on the Paris Bourse because Monsieur Spitzer, -Monsieur Ullmann and others of his financial friends were interested -in placing these bonds in France. Monsieur Calmette declared that -during the six months of Monsieur Caillaux’s tenure of office as -Finance Minister in 1911, that is to say from February to June of that -year, South American bonds and shares to the amount of forty million -pounds sterling received an official quotation on the Paris Bourse, -and he drew up and published a Table showing the prices at which the -quotations had been given, and the depreciation of these stocks and -shares during the three years which followed. The depreciation is -about twenty-five per cent. In other words, according to the <i>Figaro</i>, -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_132" id="Page_132">[Pg 132]</a></span> -Monsieur Caillaux’s admission of these enormous blocks of South -American bonds on the Paris Bourse resulted in a loss to French -investors of ten millions sterling.</p> - -<p>Naturally enough Monsieur Caillaux replied through the official Havas -agency, and in reply to his <i>communiqué</i> Monsieur Calmette on January -30 returned to the charge, emphasising his original accusations.</p> - -<p>On the first of February Monsieur Caillaux visited his constituency of -Mamers. The <i>Figaro</i> on that day published a long and bitter article -describing the misdeeds of the Minister of Finance since his entry -into politics. On the 2nd it published two columns more containing -a sarcastic appreciation of Monsieur Caillaux’s visit to Mamers. -On February 5, Monsieur Caillaux was accused in the <i>Figaro</i> of -postponing the French loan and so inducing French investors to place -their money elsewhere, notably in Italy. On February 7 the <i>Figaro</i> -accuses Monsieur Caillaux, of “continuing to earn the gratitude of the -Triple Alliance.” After adjourning the French loan and so facilitating -the success of one Prussian loan, and the preparation of a second, -“Monsieur Caillaux,” he is told by the <i>Figaro</i>, “has enabled -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_133" id="Page_133">[Pg 133]</a></span> -the Hungarian Government to contract a loan of twenty millions -sterling.” “When all our enemies have filled their Treasuries,” says -the <i>Figaro</i> of February 7, “perhaps Monsieur Caillaux will make -up his mind to reveal the great plans and schemes to which he has -subordinated the eventual issue of a French loan.“ On Sunday February 8 -the <i>Figaro</i> contented itself with publishing a photograph of Monsieur -Caillaux, and making fun of it, but day by day no number of the paper -appeared without an attack on him of one kind or another. On February -11, announcing the Finance Minister’s resignation from the board of -the Crédit Foncier Argentin, Monsieur Calmette comments on it in these -words: “Monsieur Henri Poirier, an intimate friend of Monsieur Spitzer, -has taken his, Monsieur Caillaux’s, place provisionally. When Monsieur -Caillaux wishes to return to the board there is no doubt that Monsieur -Poirier will make way for him.” On February 19, commenting on the -statement in the Senate of Monsieur Caillaux, two days before, that he -had never said in 1901 that a Minister of Finance would never consent -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_134" id="Page_134">[Pg 134]</a></span> -to interfere with all the taxes, the <i>Figaro</i> gives him the lie direct, -quotes the speech he made on July 4, 1901, and declares that it is a -complete condemnation of his whole fiscal policy at the present time. -On the 20th Monsieur Calmette returns to the charge, compares several -speeches of Monsieur Caillaux made at different dates, and comments on -them in these words: “Monsieur Caillaux modifies his declarations and -his financial programme according to whether he is a Minister in power -or anxious to become one, according to whether he is speaking so as to -remain in office or speaking against the Ministry so as to overthrow -it.” On February 25 Monsieur Gaston Calmette returns to “the secret -combinations of Monsieur Caillaux,” and the big fine of £325,000, -“which was imposed but never collected,” and ends his article by the -accusation that Monsieur Caillaux, for private reasons, authorized a -loan issued by a South American bank after the authorization had been -refused three times by his predecessor Monsieur Pichon. On Thursday, -February 26, the <i>Figaro</i> returns to the attack on the same subject. -On March 2, 1914, Monsieur Calmette published a letter written on -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_135" id="Page_135">[Pg 135]</a></span> -December 19, 1908, by Monsieur Caillaux, who was then Minister of -Finance, to Monsieur Clemenceau, who was then Prime Minister and -Minister of the Interior. In this letter Monsieur Caillaux protests -against the publication in the <i>Journal Officiel</i> of advertisements of -foreign lottery bonds. “Six months after the date of this letter,” says -Monsieur Calmette, “the Clemenceau Cabinet fell, and Monsieur Caillaux -in the following autumn became President of the board of the Crédit -Foncier Egyptien. He remained President of that board till January -1914, even while he was a member of the Cabinet again from March 2, -1911, till January 10, 1912. In December 1908 while Monsieur Caillaux -was Minister of Finance and was not yet on the board of the Crédit -Foncier Egyptien he had refused the introduction on the Paris market of -800,000 lottery bonds. In 1912 he authorized their introduction.” “Our -plutocratic demagogue,” writes Monsieur Calmette, “had found in the -interval between 1908 and 1912, 100,000 good reasons for suppressing -his refusal of 1908 to give these bonds a market.” -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_136" id="Page_136">[Pg 136]</a></span></p> - -<p>This article is of course a deliberate accusation of financial and -political dishonesty. On March 3, Monsieur Calmette returns to the -question of the South Atlantic Shipping Company. On the 4th, Monsieur -Calmette warns the public against a loan which is to be issued by this -company, and suggests that Monsieur Caillaux’s reasons for encouraging -it are reasons of party policy, and anything but straightforward. On -March 5 the <i>Figaro</i>, over the signature of Monsieur Gaston Calmette, -accuses Monsieur Caillaux publicly of facilitating a Stock Exchange -<i>coup</i> by enabling his friends to gamble, with a certainty of success, -in the price of French Rentes on the Paris Bourse.</p> - -<p>This accusation needs a few words of explanation. The budget proposals -contained one item of supreme interest to French investors. This was -the taxation of stocks. On March 4 at five o’clock it became “known” -in the lobbies of the Chamber and in the newspaper offices of Paris -that Monsieur Caillaux intended to omit French Rentes from his scheme -of taxation. Naturally this expected immunity of French Rentes from -taxation was the reason of a rise of French Rentes. On the Thursday, -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_137" id="Page_137">[Pg 137]</a></span> -March 5, Monsieur Caillaux contradicted the rumour of the afternoon -before, and declared that he intended to propose the taxation of French -Rentes. At twenty minutes to twelve on that morning, when the sworn -brokers of the Paris Bourse fixed the opening price, the official -contradiction had not reached them. At twelve o’clock, when the opening -price was published on the Bourse, Rentes were up to 88.80, the highest -price which had been reached since the declaration of war in the -Balkans. A large amount of stock changed hands at this high price. -Seven minutes later Monsieur Caillaux’s <i>communiqué</i> was generally -known, and Rentes fell forty centimes in a few minutes, entailing heavy losses.</p> - -<p>Monsieur Barthou made a cynical and characteristic comment on this -Bourse operation. “The money was not lost to everybody,” he said. -On March 8 Monsieur Gaston Calmette stigmatizes Monsieur Caillaux’s -behaviour with reference to the immunity and taxation of French Rentes -as “a double pirouette, a looping-the-loop act which allowed certain -friends of the Minister of Finance, of whom he was very fond and whom -he kept very well informed, to execute a most audacious Stock Exchange <i>coup</i>.” -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_138" id="Page_138">[Pg 138]</a></span></p> - -<p>Monsieur Calmette follows this up by a personal attack on Monsieur -Caillaux, who, he declared, stated through the Agence Havas on December -28 that he had resigned his position on the board of the Crédit Foncier -Egyptien and the Crédit Foncier Argentin, that Monsieur Caillaux had -mis-stated the truth, and that he was still a member of these boards -and drawing a large sum for his services. On March 10 Monsieur Calmette -attacked Monsieur Caillaux in an article which occupied nearly three -columns of the front page of the <i>Figaro</i>, on his behaviour in the -Rochette case.</p> - -<p>This article was of course written with the knowledge that the letter -of Monsieur Victor Fabre, the Procureur Général, which appears earlier -in this volume, would, if published, support the charges made by -Monsieur Gaston Calmette against Monsieur Caillaux, and Monsieur Monis. -It marks the last stage of this long series of personal attacks in the -<i>Figaro</i>, far too many of which attacks appear to be only too well deserved. -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_139" id="Page_139">[Pg 139]</a></span></p> - -<p>“For Rochette to escape from legal punishment for his crime against the -investing public it was necessary that his case should not come on for -trial on April 27, 1911,” wrote Monsieur Calmette in the <i>Figaro</i> on -March 10, 1914. The meaning of this is that by French law a prosecution -which has not been followed by execution within three years falls to -the ground and becomes null and void. Rochette would be a free man if -he remained unsentenced three years after his first prosecution in -1908. On March 2, 1911, wrote Monsieur Calmette, “Monsieur Caillaux -became Minister of Finance in the Cabinet of which Monsieur Monis was -Prime Minister, and Monsieur Perrier Minister of Justice. Rochette -had been arrested on March 20, 1908. On May 8 he was released -provisionally. He was tried on July 27, 1910, sentenced to prison, -appealed, and was able to continue his inroads on the private fortunes -of France in all tranquillity. Rochette in 1908 continued to speculate -and continued to empty France’s woollen stocking. He got seventy-two -million francs of small investors’ money before his arrest, he got -sixty-eight million francs more out of it afterwards. If his case did -not come on before the three years were up he would be a free man.” -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_140" id="Page_140">[Pg 140]</a></span></p> - -<p>Monsieur Calmette then tells the story of the pressure which was -brought to bear by Monsieur Monis and Monsieur Caillaux on Monsieur -Fabre and on Judge Bidault de L’Isle, which story we know in all its -details now, and he comments on it in these words: “Rochette was -saved. All he had to do was to wait for the previous procedure to -be proclaimed null and void, and this was done on February 2, 1912. -When, to his amazement, a new suit was commenced under the Cabinet of -which Monsieur Poincaré was Prime Minister, Rochette took flight. He -is a free man to-day, freer and better protected than all of us. He -will smile as he reads this indiscreet account of his troubles which -are over, and in his gratitude he will send from overseas a gracious -greeting to the Minister of Finance, his saviour and his friend. -Monsieur Caillaux it was who demanded, who obtained, who insisted -on, the various postponements which allowed Rochette to thieve with -impunity. Monsieur Caillaux it was who allowed Rochette to proceed -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_141" id="Page_141">[Pg 141]</a></span> -during the long legal procedure with the systematic spoliation of the -public purse for which he had been arrested, tried, and sentenced once. -The protector, the accomplice, of this shady financier is Monsieur -Caillaux. Monsieur Caillaux it was who <i>in exchange for subventions -of money to the newspapers which supported him and his policy</i> -facilitated, prolonged, and increased the strength of the influence of -this Stock Exchange adventurer on the public whom he was ruining.</p> - -<p>“There you have the plutocratic demagogue! There you have the man of -the Congo, the man who nearly made us quarrel with England and with -Spain, the man of the Crédit Foncier Egyptien lottery bonds, the -man who drew money for serving on financial boards and for services -rendered, the man who indulged in secret machinations and criminal -intervention, the Finance Minister of the Doumergue Cabinet! Neither -the Commission of Inquiry nor Monsieur Jaurès ever really understood -the Rochette affair. They guessed something about it, they felt what it -meant, instinctively, and they stopped their inquiry, frightened by so -much illegality, disgusted at so many crimes. Now you know the truth of -it all. Here it stands revealed in all its nakedness to the public whose -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_142" id="Page_142">[Pg 142]</a></span> -savings have been stolen. It can be resumed in one word—infamy! It can -be resumed in one name—Caillaux!”</p> - -<p>On March 11, Monsieur Calmette pointed out that Monsieur Caillaux had -issued no official contradiction to the terrible accusations in the -<i>Figaro</i> of the day before. On Thursday, March 12, he called public -attention again to Monsieur Caillaux’s silence, and in heavy black type -in the very centre of the front page of his paper appeared these three -lines, which were, so soon, to be fraught with tragic consequence.</p> - -<p class="blockquot no-indent"> -“WE SHALL PUBLISH TO-MORROW A CURIOUS<br /> -AUTOGRAPH DEDICATED BY MONSIEUR<br /> -JOSEPH CAILLAUX TO HIS ELECTORS.”</p> - -<p>On Friday, March 13, 1914—those of my readers who are superstitious -will take note that it was a Friday and a thirteenth of the month—the -“Ton Jo” letter appeared on the front page of the <i>Figaro</i>.</p> - -<hr class="chap space-above2" /> -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_143" id="Page_143">[Pg 143]</a></span></p> - -<h2>VII<br /><span class="h_subtitle">THE “TON JO” LETTER</span></h2> - -<div class="poetry-container"> -<div class="poem bbox"><div class="stanza"> -<span class="i0"> SENAT.</span> -</div><div class="stanza"> -<span class="i4"> With the best will in the world it was</span> -<span class="i2"> impossible for me to write to you yesterday.</span> -<span class="i2"> I had to take my part in two terribly tiring</span> -<span class="i2"> sessions of the Chamber, one in the morning;</span> -<span class="i2"> at nine o’clock, which finished at midday,</span> -<span class="i2"> the other at two o’clock, from which I only</span> -<span class="i2"> got away at eight o’clock in the evening,</span> -<span class="i2"> dead beat.</span> -<span class="i4"> However, I secured a magnificent success.</span> -<span class="i2"> I <span class="u">crushed</span><a name="FNanchor_2_2" id="FNanchor_2_2"></a><a href="#Footnote_2_2" class="fnanchor">[2]</a> the income-tax while</span> -<span class="i2"> appearing to defend it, I received an ovation</span> -<span class="i2"> from the Centre and from the Right, and I</span> -<span class="i2"> managed not to make the Left too discontented. </span> -<span class="i2"> I succeeded in giving the wheel a turn towards</span> -<span class="i2"> the Right which was quite indispensable.</span> -<span class="i4"> To-day I had another morning session at</span> -<span class="i2"> the Chamber which only finished at a</span> -<span class="i2"> quarter to one.</span> -<span class="i4"> I am now at the Senate where I am going</span> -<span class="i2"> to have the law on the contributions</span> -<span class="i2"> directes voted, and this evening, no doubt,</span> -<span class="i2"> the session will be over. I shall be dead</span> -<span class="i2"> tired, stupid, ill almost, but I shall</span> -<span class="i2"> have done a real service to my country.</span> -</div><div class="stanza"> -<span class="i30">Ton Jo.</span> -</div></div></div> - -<p class="space-above2 space-below2"> -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_144" id="Page_144">[Pg 144]</a></span> -That is the “Ton Jo” letter. That is the document which, printed in -big black type in the centre of the front page of the <i>Figaro</i> on -Friday, March 13, 1914, and re-printed in facsimile lower down on -the same page, was followed on the 16th by the revolver shots which -killed Monsieur Gaston Calmette. The letter was written by Monsieur -Caillaux on July 5, 1901—thirteen years before it was published in -the <i>Figaro</i>. When he wrote it Monsieur Caillaux was Minister of -Finance in the Waldeck-Rousseau Cabinet, and apart from the tragic -event which followed close on its publication, the letter is a curious -and upsetting confession of political duplicity. The income-tax has -been Monsieur Joseph Caillaux’s hobby horse for many years. It is -an uncomfortable sensation to read, over his own signature, this -confession, in his own handwriting, that while appearing to fight for -the tax he was really doing his best to crush it out of sight. The -natural deduction was of course that Monsieur Caillaux was now, in -1914, pursuing the same tactics which he pursued thirteen years ago.</p> - -<div class="figcenter"> - <a name="P144" id="P144"></a> - <p class="center"><b>La véritable déclaration de M. Caillaux relative à l’impôt sur le revenu</b></p> - <img src="images/p_144.jpg" alt="“TON JO” LETTER" width="600" height="371" /> - <p class="center">THE “TON JO” LETTER FROM THE <i>FIGARO</i></p> - <p class="center space-below1">Friday, March 13, 1914</p> -</div> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_145" id="Page_145">[Pg 145]</a></span> -Once again his speeches have shown him as a partisan of the income-tax, -and a partisan of the taxation of French Rentes. The “Ton Jo” letter -leaves us uncertain whether this partisanship is not merely a political -move, and whether Monsieur Caillaux may not again be “crushing the -income-tax while appearing to defend it.” His own letter is a terrible -comment on his policy, and it is difficult to exaggerate the shock -which the publication of this letter caused in Parliament and among the -supporters of the Minister of Finance and of the present Government.</p> - -<p>Needless to say, Monsieur Gaston Calmette made the most of it. He -embodied the letter in a long article in which he repeated his former -accusations against Monsieur Caillaux, accused him of conniving at -the escape of Rochette from justice because Rochette’s money was -useful to his personal policy, accused him of deliberate lying in the -announcement he made of his resignation from the board of the Crédit -Foncier Egyptien, accused him openly of felony in connexion with the -Bourse <i>coup</i> and the tax. -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_146" id="Page_146">[Pg 146]</a></span></p> - -<p>The “Ton Jo” letter was not published in its entirety. Monsieur -Calmette wrote that he suppressed the end of it because that referred -to a subject which had nothing to do with fiscal questions. The name -of the person to whom it was written was also suppressed, but every -one in Paris knew very soon that the letter had been written to Madame -Gueydan-Dupré, who afterwards—five years after the letter’s date, -when she was divorced—became the wife of Monsieur Caillaux. When -the letter was written in these intimate terms Madame Gueydan-Dupré, -whom Monsieur Caillaux addressed with the familiar “tu” which means -so much in French, his note to whom he signed “Ton Jo,” was the wife -of another man. When that letter was published, the woman, to whom it -had been written thirteen years before, had been the wife of Monsieur -Joseph Caillaux for five years and had ceased to be his wife, had been -divorced from him for two years.</p> - -<p>It is easy to imagine the feelings of the present Madame Caillaux, of -the successor of Madame Gueydan in Monsieur Caillaux’s affections, when -she saw this letter reproduced in facsimile on the front page of the -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_147" id="Page_147">[Pg 147]</a></span> -<i>Figaro</i>, and realized that all France was reading between the lines. -It can have mattered very little to her that Monsieur Calmette had -suppressed the last few lines of this letter. The mere fact that the -first part of it was published, that in his article he made it clear -that he knew how it had begun and ended, and made clear to others to -whom it had been written, was all-sufficient for the woman who now -bears Monsieur Caillaux’s name. That woman knew that there had been -other letters in existence. She knew that Monsieur Caillaux had written -letters to her which had been at one time in the possession of the -woman to whom this “Ton Jo” letter was addressed, and these letters -contained, as she well knew, the same mixture of love and politics as -the document published on that Friday, March 14.</p> - -<p>Her own married life before she became Monsieur Caillaux’s wife had -not been happy. She knew and dreaded the power and the will to injure -of a woman scorned. She knew of course of the dramatic scene which had -occurred before she married Monsieur Caillaux, between her husband and -his first wife, Madame Gueydan. She knew that the letters which she -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_148" id="Page_148">[Pg 148]</a></span> -dreaded had been destroyed on that occasion, but she knew, too, that -their destruction had been obtained at the price of a reconciliation -between Monsieur Caillaux and his first wife, and she knew, no woman -better, that Monsieur Caillaux had not kept to the spirit of the -bargain, had obtained a divorce from his first wife, shortly after the -destruction of these letters, and immediately after his divorce had -become her own husband. She was not sure that there were no copies of -the letters in existence.</p> - -<p>One shudders to visualize that interview between husband and wife on -the morning of Friday, March 13. One can realize the fears which were -expressed, the mud of past years which was stirred. And that morning, -we may be fairly certain, the first thought of desperation was born -in Madame Caillaux’s brain. Can you not see this woman thinking, -pondering, murmuring to herself, “This must be stopped”? Can you not -see her snatching at her copy of the <i>Figaro</i> next morning, skipping -with an impatient shrug of the shoulders her husband’s <i>communiqué</i> to -the Agence Havas, and reading down the page with anxious eyes to see -whether the revelation of the letters which she feared would follow? -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_149" id="Page_149">[Pg 149]</a></span> -One shudders at the mental picture of the lives of Monsieur and of -Madame Caillaux, of this man and this woman, during the days which -followed the publication of the “Ton Jo” letter. And when she saw, on -Monday, March 16, that Monsieur Calmette had not stopped his campaign -against her husband although three days before, on the 13th, he had -said “My task is finished” one can realize her anguish—the anguish of fear.</p> - -<hr class="chap space-above2" /> -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_150" id="Page_150">[Pg 150]</a></span></p> - -<h2>VIII<br /><span class="h_subtitle">AGADIR</span></h2> - -<p class="no-indent"><span class="smcap">In</span> almost every -newspaper article which I have read on the Caillaux drama one sentence -has invariably amused me. “The question of Agadir,” we read, in French -and English papers both, “is too fresh in the reader’s mind for any -exhaustive reference to it here to be necessary.” But memories are -short in these fast-living days, and though the history of Agadir is -recent history, no story of the Caillaux drama can be complete without -recalling it at length. For one of the accusations against Monsieur -Caillaux as a politician which the <i>Figaro</i> made constantly is that -Monsieur Caillaux made mistake on mistake, and was misled by his -hatred of the Ministers who had been instrumental in the original and -comparative settlement of the Moroccan difficulties, to do grave wrong -to France over the Agadir matter. -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_151" id="Page_151">[Pg 151]</a></span></p> - -<p>His hatred of his parliamentary opponents, it was said at the time, -was very nearly instrumental in creating serious international -complications. Further imprudence was shown by his endeavour to -palliate the effect of his first ill-considered act, and he was finally -forced to consent to concessions on behalf of France which France need -not have made at all if Monsieur Caillaux had been more prudent from -the beginning.</p> - -<p>This, stripped of all vituperation, is the accusation which Monsieur -Caillaux has to answer before the tribunal of history. Let us look -into it. In order to do so we must go back to the Act of Algeciras. -It will be remembered that the Act of Algeciras gave France the right -of policing Morocco because of its neighbourhood to Algiers. Three -years after the Act of Algeciras French troops were in occupation -of certain portions of Moroccan territory, and the jingo party, the -Pan-Germanists, in Germany were protesting with heat against this -military occupation.</p> - -<p>The peace party in Germany, however, had other views. There was a -feeling that an understanding on the basis of the act of Algeciras -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_152" id="Page_152">[Pg 152]</a></span> -between France and Germany might lead to a weakening of the Entente -between France and Great Britain, and be useful economically to German -enterprise.</p> - -<p>On February 8, 1909, when Monsieur Clemenceau was at the head of the -French Government with Monsieur Stephen Pichon as his Foreign Minister, -Germany recognized, more freely than it had recognized before, the -interests of France in Morocco for the maintenance of order, and -promised collaboration economically. A secret letter changed hands, -confirming this agreement, and admitting that Germany should remain -disinterested in the politics of Morocco. In this same letter it was -admitted also that the economic interests of France in Morocco were -more important than the economic interests of Germany. The importance -of this letter rested of course on the fact that it practically -entailed the suppression of immediate friction between the two -countries.</p> - -<p>The Clemenceau Cabinet worked hard to carry the good work further -still, so that the spirit of this Franco-German understanding should be -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_153" id="Page_153">[Pg 153]</a></span> -extended to the Congo. The French representative of the bondholders of -the Moroccan debt, Monsieur Guiot, who had been in the French Foreign -Office, paid a visit to Berlin, and the result of his negotiations with -the German Foreign Office in the Wilhelmstrasse was a memorandum dated -June 2, 1909, by which it was decided to create a Franco-German Company -for the purpose of exploiting certain concessions. On June 5 the French -Minister for Foreign Affairs, Monsieur Pichon, took counsel with the -French Colonial Minister, Monsieur Milliés-Lacroix, on the advantages -and disadvantages of this Franco-German collaboration.</p> - -<p>At the end of July 1909, the Clemenceau Cabinet fell. Monsieur Briand -became Prime Minister and retained Monsieur Pichon at the Quai d’Orsay, -but Monsieur Clemenceau dropped out of the Cabinet and Monsieur -Caillaux was no longer Minister of Finance.</p> - -<p>It is not too much to say that the Clemenceau-Caillaux alliance dates -from this little upheaval in French internal politics, and it was at -this point that Monsieur Caillaux’s enmity to Monsieur Briand and -Monsieur Pichon first led him astray. -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_154" id="Page_154">[Pg 154]</a></span></p> - -<p>On August 2, 1909, the N’Goko Sanga Company, in reply to a letter -from the Minister for Foreign Affairs offered to give up, against a -substantial indemnity, a portion of the territory for which it held -concessions. A commission was formed to discuss terms, but it was not -till April 29, 1910, that the amount of the indemnity was definitely -stated. The indemnity was to be F2,393,000 or £95,720.</p> - -<p>On February 17, 1910, after the French and German Governments had -signified in October of the year before their approval of the -provisional agreement between Monsieur Guiot and the Wilhelmstrasse, -the Moroccan Company of Public Works was formed. It had a capital of -F2,000,000, fifty per cent. of which was in French hands, twenty-six -per cent. in German hands, and the remaining twenty-four per cent. in -the hands of the other Powers who had signed the Act of Algeciras. Then -parliamentary politics in France had their say in the matter, and the -Radicals, Socialists and Radical-Socialists in France, with Monsieur -Caillaux in the foreground of debate, made use of the question of the -N’Goko Sanga indemnity as a weapon in Parliament against Monsieur Briand. -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_155" id="Page_155">[Pg 155]</a></span></p> - -<p>In consequence of this, the summer of 1910 did not bring with it any -definite advance in the Franco-German understanding which had appeared -to be so full of promise. In November 1910, after the strike of railway -men had weakened the authority of the French Government somewhat, -the N’Goko Sanga question came up in Parliament once more, and the -Franco-German understanding on Moroccan affairs and the affairs of the -Congo became enveloped in an immense haze of words. By February 1911 -the German negotiators began to show impatience, although on or about -the 15th of the month the Imperial Government had, to all practical -intent, agreed to allow, to a Franco-German company, concessions in -the German Cameroons. A fortnight after that, on February 28, 1911, -Monsieur Briand and his Cabinet were forced to resign. On March 3, -Monsieur Monis became Prime Minister of France, and Monsieur Caillaux -was his Minister of Finance. The Monis Cabinet found itself weighted -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_156" id="Page_156">[Pg 156]</a></span> -with immense responsibility. The situation in Morocco was extremely -difficult, and the French Government found itself on the horns of a -dilemma. On the one side were the promises made and the engagements -formed by the Governments in France which had preceded Monsieur Monis, -owing to which the Monis Cabinet was obliged, if it wished to remain -true to the policy on which it had gained power, to break with the line -of conduct followed by former French Cabinets in relation to Germany -for two years. On the other side was the very real danger of breaking, -without any other reason than that of internal politics, with the -pacific policy of the last twenty-four months.</p> - -<p>The internal troubles in Morocco, making French military action a -necessity, put the French Government in the awkward position of giving -Germany the appearance of a real grievance by the military steps which -had to be taken, and the Pan-Germanists of course jumped at the pretext -for accusing France of laying forcible hands, or attempting to lay -forcible hands on Morocco in spite of all past treaties and agreements -and without ensuring to Germany the share which had been promised her in 1909. -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_157" id="Page_157">[Pg 157]</a></span></p> - -<p>I would ask the reader of this book who has had the strength of will to -struggle with the tortuous paths of Franco-German difficulties which -led to the Agadir climax, to memorize this situation for the sake of -a clearer comprehension of what follows. On the one side two years of -Anglo-French negotiations which promised comparative peace for the -future; on the other, the sudden breaking off of all negotiations -and apparent disregard on the part of France for everything which -had smoothed over the situation before. The fact that the change of -policy had become a necessity owing to Cabinet changes in France and -the promises made by members of the new Cabinet to their constituents -could not be offered as a reason. At the best they could be offered as -an excuse, and it was this necessity of making excuses which enabled -the German Government to voice the claim for compensation which was -to result in a territorial loss which France will never forgive the -Ministers who were responsible, and which will make it difficult for -either of them to take leading parts in France’s government again for -many years to come. -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_158" id="Page_158">[Pg 158]</a></span></p> - -<p>The first thing which the Monis Cabinet did was to bulldose (it seems -the only word to use) the question of the Franco-German understandings -in Congo and Cameroon. This measure was taken in spite of warnings in -high quarters in France. President Fallières is known to have been -against the measure and to have expressed his views as forcibly as the -French Constitution allowed him to express them, and Monsieur Conty, -the director of political affairs in the French Foreign Office, was -distinctly adverse to the measure as well. Monsieur Conty knew that -for twenty years past, one of the principal pre-occupations of the -German Government was the African question, and he knew that the German -colonial party was very warmly supported by the Pan-Germanists, and had -considerable influence with the Kaiser himself.</p> - -<p>On these grounds in a note which he handed to Monsieur Cruppi, Monsieur -Conty (who is now in 1914 the French Minister at Pekin) pointed out the -wire-pulling powers of the German interests in the Cameroon and Congo -companies, and warned the French Government that there was grave danger -to peace in ignoring their claims. He pointed out that while the -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_159" id="Page_159">[Pg 159]</a></span> -Kaiser was known to be pacific and conciliatory at the time, he might -be forced by the Pan-German and colonial interests to demonstrate again -as he had demonstrated once before at Tangier, and that the result was -almost bound to be France’s abandonment to Germany of advantages which -she might, by a show of generosity now, keep secure.</p> - -<p>How right Monsieur Conty was Monsieur Caillaux himself was obliged to -admit nearly a year later when in the Senate he said: “I do not deny -that the rupture of the Franco-German partnership in Cameroon and the -Congo had diplomatic consequences.” Unfortunately at this time (March -1911) the principal pre-occupation of the Monis Cabinet was its desire -to break away from the policy of the Cabinet of Monsieur Briand to -which, logically, it should have adhered.</p> - -<p>Monsieur Caillaux was credited at the time with one of those famous -epigrammatic outbursts of his which have done him harm on various -occasions, when, as this one must be, they are quoted against him. “We -really can’t have Briand’s policy mounted in diamonds and wear it as a -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_160" id="Page_160">[Pg 160]</a></span> -scarfpin,” Monsieur Caillaux is reported to have said. The epigram, -whether he made it or not—and I believe that he did make it—expresses -very neatly—far too neatly—the chief motive which underlay the policy -of the Monis Cabinet at that time, and which was the main cause of that -Cabinet’s stubborn opposition to the advice of Monsieur Conty and the -advice of the President of the Republic himself.</p> - -<p>On March 29, in spite of an eloquent and perfectly constitutional -warning from Monsieur Fallières at a Cabinet Council, the Colonial -Minister in the Monis Cabinet, Monsieur Messimy, was instructed -to declare the consortium in Cameroon and the Congo arrangement -impossible. He made this declaration before the Budget committee at the -end of March and to the Chamber of Deputies on April 4. On April 3, -the French Government learned of serious trouble in Morocco. Several -tribes were rising, and military intervention became inevitable. German -irritation was growing. The German object, or at all events one of -Germany’s main objects, in the discussions and negotiations which began -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_161" id="Page_161">[Pg 161]</a></span> -in 1909 and broke off so suddenly and so dangerously in 1911 had been -to ensure a German share in the public works which were becoming -needful in Morocco. Germany had received as the price of a concession -to France an assurance that this share would be granted. In the -secret letter, which I have mentioned already, Germany admitted -the pre-eminence of French interests in Morocco, and approved the -constitution of a society of public works in which the German share of -capital was to be much smaller than the French share.</p> - -<p>When the Monis-Caillaux-Cruppi Cabinet took the reins in France, -the German Government asked the French Government to intervene -semi-officially so that the promised interests of the German -shareholders should be properly protected. The French Government -refused. Such intervention would be equivalent, it was explained, to -admitting privilege or monopoly, and such an admission was against all -Radical principles.</p> - -<p>The German Government, with great patience, pointed out that what was -really required was some sort of a guarantee that a French tender -should not be accepted to the prejudice of the German share of the -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_162" id="Page_162">[Pg 162]</a></span> -concessions. The question was one which lent itself to much discussion, -many words, long correspondence and wearisome delays, and presently -the question of the railways complicated it still further. In the -secret letter of 1909 it had been stipulated that the directors of the -Moroccan railways should be French. The German Government now claimed -that this clause should be taken to mean that <i>only the directors</i> of -the railway lines should be Frenchmen and that a large proportion of -the subordinate railway servants should be German. Here again Monsieur -Caillaux’s unfortunate propensity for epigram did not forsake him. -“We can’t have German stationmasters in spiked helmets in the railway -stations of Morocco,” he said.</p> - -<p>The French Government made no counter-proposal with regard to the -management of the Moroccan railways, and the Berlin Government remained -silent on the question. This silence gave all thinking men considerable -grounds for uneasiness. It was felt that a very thinly veiled -antagonism on all questions of detail was making itself very apparent -at the Wilhelmstrasse. There was no definite decision made with regard -to Moroccan mining rights either, and it was just about this time that -the claims and concessions of the Mannesmann Brothers began to be spoken of. -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_163" id="Page_163">[Pg 163]</a></span></p> - -<p>The situation became quite critical, and there is no doubt that -the critical trend of the situation was due very largely to the -determination of the Monis Government not to “have Monsieur Briand’s -policy mounted as a scarfpin.” If Monsieur Cruppi and his colleagues -had been able to approve the convention with Germany for N’Goko Sanga -and the Congo which Monsieur Pichon had prepared, there would have been -no excuse for the remark which was made soon afterwards to the French -Ambassador in Berlin by Herr von Kiderlen Waechter. “When the railway -question fell through I saw that you had made your minds up not to work -in concert with us in any matter whatsoever.”</p> - -<p>Things were going from bad to worse in Morocco itself, and French -troops had to be sent on the road to Fez. On April 3, 1911, the French -Government ordered French troops to co-operate with the Sultan in the -chastisement of rebel bands. On April 17 (President Fallières had left -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_164" id="Page_164">[Pg 164]</a></span> -for Tunis on the 15th), the French Government placed 2400 men at the -disposal of General Moinier. On April 23, a column was sent to the -suburbs of Fez and on May 21 the French tricolour floated beneath the -walls of the Moroccan capital.</p> - -<p>The German Government said nothing, but a rumble of popular displeasure -was heard all over Germany. Herr von Kiderlen Waechter and the German -Chancellor received in stony silence the communication made by the -French Ambassador in Berlin, Monsieur Jules Cambon, that it had been -necessary to send French troops to Fez to protect French subjects and -to preserve order. German official newspapers announced, unofficially -but obviously on official inspiration, that Germany was about to resume -her freedom of action.</p> - -<p>At this time there was question (it was about the end of April) of a -railway from the German Cameroons to the Belgian Congo. The line would -of course, as a glance at the map shows, have to run through the French -Congo. For the moment it looked as though there was a loophole for -agreement which might lead to others, in this German line across French -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_165" id="Page_165">[Pg 165]</a></span> -territory. This hope disappeared however, and in May 1911 the Agadir -<i>coup</i> was decided on. Germany realized that the only way of obtaining -“compensation” was a threat. The <i>Panther</i> went to Agadir. The French -Ambassador had a conversation with the German Secretary of State at -Kissingen. The German Press was howling. Herr von Kiderlen Waechter -answered Monsieur Jules Cambon’s question as to what Germany wanted, -in these words: “See what you can give us in the Congo.” A few days -later the Monis Cabinet fell, the Caillaux Cabinet came into power, -and the <i>Panther</i> and the <i>Berlin</i> arrived off Agadir. The -question of compensation had become acute.</p> - -<p>At the beginning of July 1911, English opinion was favourable to -Germany’s desires. The Potsdam agreement had soothed Russian fears in -the East, France’s march on Fez had excited Spain and made her uneasy, -and Italy was beginning to cast greedy eyes on Tripoli. There was -very little protest internationally, at first at all events, when the -<i>Panther</i> and the <i>Berlin</i> went to Agadir. Monsieur de Selves, the -French Foreign Minister, left Paris for Holland on July 3. On July 4, -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_166" id="Page_166">[Pg 166]</a></span> -Monsieur Caillaux, who as Prime Minister took over the Foreign Office -while Monsieur de Selves was away, instructed Monsieur Paul Cambon -to advise the British Government that France would make no immediate -retort to the threat of Germany off Agadir. Monsieur Caillaux gave -these instructions in direct opposition to the opinion of Monsieur de -Selves which he expressed very clearly in a long telegram from Holland -to Paris.</p> - -<p>In spite of this telegram from the Minister for Foreign Affairs -Monsieur Caillaux telegraphed to Monsieur Paul Cambon as follows: -“The German Government has invited us to enter into conversation with -regard to Moroccan affairs. We must therefore ask the German Government -first of all to explain the object of this conversation. According to -the reply of the German Government it will be time, after it has been -made, for us to decide whether we should make a naval demonstration in -the southern waters of Morocco. I beg you therefore to avoid advising -the British Government of any intention for the moment on our part of -sending warships either to Agadir or to Mogador.” -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_167" id="Page_167">[Pg 167]</a></span></p> - -<p>The British Cabinet had been asked by Monsieur Paul Cambon, on the -instructions of Monsieur de Selves, as to England’s intentions, but -before a reply was given Monsieur Caillaux’s telegram had arrived. -The Russian Government remained passive. Germany realized that her -bluff would not be called. On July 7 Monsieur de Selves returned from -Holland, and Herr von Schoen, the German Ambassador in Paris made the -first suggestion of “compensation.” France, in principle, was not -averse to compensation of a kind. If it was to be a question of the -Congo she asked Germany to explain what she wanted.</p> - -<p>There was no objection in Paris to a rectification of the Cameroon -frontier line, but France wanted to know what Germany was prepared -to do in exchange in Morocco. Herr von Kiderlen Waechter on July 30 -suggested that an agreement which should follow the lines of the 1909 -understanding might be possible. Monsieur de Selves immediately asked, -through Monsieur Jules Cambon, for a written note explaining and -setting forth this suggestion. It was not till July 15 that the French -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_168" id="Page_168">[Pg 168]</a></span> -Government knew what the German demands really were, and decided that -on such lines as the cession of all Gabon and all the Congo between the -ocean and the Sanga it was quite useless to continue talking. English -opinion became uneasy at Germany’s demands.</p> - -<p>Lord Morley wrote in the <i>Times</i> on July 19, “If we do not learn by -other means what is going on at Agadir, public opinion may be that we -ought to go and see for ourselves.”</p> - -<p>Belgian opinion became alarmed at the menace to the Belgian Congo. -On July 21, Sir Edward Grey spoke very clearly and Mr. Lloyd George -declared the same evening that war was better than peace with -humiliation. He added that the safety of Great Britain’s commerce -overseas was no question of party, and that the national honour was -at stake. England to a man showed that it was prepared to back France -against the German demands. The Franco-British Entente Cordiale, which -had been asleep for a fortnight, became more wideawake than ever. Mr. -Asquith described the situation as “extremely difficult.” -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_169" id="Page_169">[Pg 169]</a></span></p> - -<p>The situation of the German Government in view of this awakening of -public opinion seemed to have two issues only. Either an ultimatum in -reply to the French Government’s refusal to submit, or the acceptance -in principle of a rectification of the Congo-Cameroon frontier and the -granting to France of sufficient authority to cope with the threat of -anarchy in Morocco. An ultimatum would have meant war, and Germany -would have appeared to be the aggressor. The abandonment of her claims -was an awkward step to take.</p> - -<p>It seems, however, likely that Germany would have taken it, if she had -not believed that secret negotiations with prominent men in France -were possible. The conduct of these secret negotiations without the -knowledge of Monsieur de Selves is the reason which induced Monsieur -Clemenceau to say later that Monsieur Caillaux ought to be impeached -by the high court for high treason. It is very difficult to state with -absolute precision exactly what these negotiations were. According to -Monsieur Caillaux the first mention of the Belgian Congo was made by -Monsieur von Lancken, but there seems to be every reason to believe -that Monsieur Caillaux lost his head a little and introduced the -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_170" id="Page_170">[Pg 170]</a></span> -question himself. If this be so Monsieur Caillaux committed a grave -fault in tactics, and it appears certain that the German Government -considered Monsieur Caillaux an easier person to deal with in these -matters than his Foreign Minister. Monsieur Caillaux’s opinions on the -value to France of British help were certainly very well known—too -well known in fact—in the German Embassy in Paris. Monsieur Caillaux -was believed by the German Foreign Office to put no faith in eventual -help in France’s need from the British army. This anxiety on the part -Monsieur Caillaux, and the knowledge of this anxiety in German official -quarters, enabled the Wilhelmstrasse to exercise indirect pressure.</p> - -<p>It is not known exactly, and I do not suppose ever will be known -exactly, what negotiations were carried on with Herr von Gwinner of the -Deutsche Bank and with or through Sir Ernest Cassel. But on July 28, -the German Government was convinced that Monsieur Caillaux was ready -to treat. On that date, when Monsieur Jules Cambon asked the German -Foreign Minister whether Germany were not ready to find some means of -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_171" id="Page_171">[Pg 171]</a></span> -transaction other than the mutilation of the French Congo, Herr von -Kiderlen Waechter replied: “No, the question is no longer what it was.” -This reply is noted in the French Yellow Book.</p> - -<p>Monsieur Caillaux’s personal interference in the negotiations -undoubtedly allowed the German Foreign Office time to breathe, and the -Cabinet of Berlin took care to fix her claims on the Congo in such a -way as not to justify British alarm, and to offer with one hand what it -withdrew with the other, in Morocco. These negotiations lasted fully -three months, during which time it is not too much to say that France -and Germany, or better still France, Germany and Europe generally, were -on the very verge of war more than once.</p> - -<p>Rumour has been busy with sidelights on the negotiations which took -place, and not the least interesting of these sidelights is afforded -by the telegram which is said to have passed between Berlin and Paris, -between the Wilhelmstrasse and the German Embassy: “Do not waste -time in discussion with De Selves or Cambon. We can get more out of -Caillaux.” I do not know whether these are the exact words of the -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_172" id="Page_172">[Pg 172]</a></span> -famous telegram, but they are certainly the gist of its meaning. It -may be taken as certain that the telegram was sent and received, -that Monsieur de Selves obtained possession of it, and that Monsieur -Calmette would have published it in the <i>Figaro</i> in the course of -his campaign against Monsieur Caillaux if he had not been induced to -refrain from so doing on patriotic grounds. Several people have seen -and read this telegram. After the death of Gaston Calmette it was found -in his pocket book with a bullet-hole through it, and handed over, by -the brothers of the dead man, to Monsieur Raymond Poincaré in person, -for safe keeping. It is the telegram which is currently known as “the -green document” because of the paper on which it was transcribed. The -French Foreign Office was in possession at this time of the cipher -which was used for telegraphic communications between Paris and Berlin -by the Wilhelmstrasse and the German Embassy in Paris. Monsieur de -Selves knew therefore that “the green document” had been sent, knew its -contents, and had a very stormy interview with Monsieur Caillaux, his -Prime Minister, in consequence. -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_173" id="Page_173">[Pg 173]</a></span></p> - -<p>The interview was a dramatic one. Monsieur de Selves when he learned of -“the green document” consulted Monsieur Clemenceau and Monsieur Briand. -He spoke of it, I believe, in other quarters also, and eventually -he asked President Fallières to confront him with Monsieur Caillaux -so that the discussion on Monsieur Caillaux’s interference with the -negotiations between the French and German Foreign Offices should -take place in the presence of the President of the Republic. Monsieur -Caillaux, in a fury of indignation, declared to Monsieur Fallières -that there was no truth in the insinuation contained in the message, -and went straight to the German Embassy to ask what they meant there -by the assertion made in “the green document.” The obvious answer to -this ill-considered step was an immediate change in the Wilhelmstrasse -cipher. Monsieur Caillaux, by his fit of anger and his imprudence, had -lost to his Government a valuable source of information.</p> - -<p>There is no need here to give the details of the agreement with Germany -which was concluded not very long after the events just mentioned. -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_174" id="Page_174">[Pg 174]</a></span> -There can be little doubt, I think, that France might have made a much -better bargain if Monsieur Caillaux had been a little cooler and shown -less unwisdom. On November 6 Monsieur Caillaux in a speech to his -constituents at Saint Calais defended his policy. A week after this -speech the German treaty was discussed for a full week in the Chamber, -and accepted on November 21. During this week’s debate Monsieur -Caillaux was attacked with some vivacity, and Monsieur de Selves’ -attitude gave cause for much excitement. On January 9, 1912, the Senate -sitting in committee discussed the Franco-German treaty. In the course -of this discussion Monsieur Caillaux, the Prime Minister, explained the -conditions under which the negotiations for Franco-German collaboration -in the N’Goko Sanga Company and the Congo Cameroon Railway had fallen -through, and made this declaration: “An attempt has been made in the -Press and elsewhere to establish the story that negotiations with -Germany were carried on outside the negotiations of the Ministry for -Foreign Affairs. <i>I give my word of honour that there were never any -such negotiations beyond those carried on through diplomatic channels.</i>” -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_175" id="Page_175">[Pg 175]</a></span></p> - -<p>This declaration was listened to in deep silence, which Monsieur -Clemenceau broke. “Will the Minister for Foreign Affairs,” said -Monsieur Clemenceau, “state whether documents are in existence showing -that our Ambassador in Berlin complained of the intrusion of certain -people into the diplomatic negotiations between France and Germany?”</p> - -<p>The members of the senatorial commission all turned to Monsieur de -Selves, but Monsieur de Selves remained silent. Monsieur Caillaux, -who had sat down, jumped up again, but Monsieur Clemenceau prevented -him from speaking. “I am not addressing myself to you, Monsieur le -President du Conseil,” he said. “I put this question to the Minister -for Foreign Affairs.”</p> - -<p>Monsieur de Selves, who showed considerable emotion and some -hesitation, rose from his seat and said, “Gentlemen, I am divided -between the wish to speak the truth and the responsibilities of my -situation as Minister for Foreign Affairs. I ask the permission of -the commission to remain silent and to give no answer to the question -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_176" id="Page_176">[Pg 176]</a></span> -Monsieur Clemenceau has just asked.” “Your reply,” said Monsieur -Clemenceau, “may be perfectly satisfactory to my colleagues, but it -cannot be satisfactory to me. I maintain that your reply cannot and -does not give satisfaction to the man to whom you have already given -your confidence. I am that man, and I will add that you gave me your -confidence unsolicited.”</p> - -<p>There was a moment of extreme tension, of extreme uneasiness, almost -of stupor. Monsieur Clemenceau had spoken with great emphasis. His -meaning was self-evident. The situation was a painfully dramatic one, -for the statement of Monsieur Caillaux, the Prime Minister, that there -had been no negotiations carried on without the knowledge of the -Minister for Foreign Affairs appeared to be in flagrant contradiction -with Monsieur de Selves’ reticence, and the statement was given the lie -direct by Monsieur Clemenceau. The emotion was such that the session -of the senatorial commission broke up there and then, and the senators -dispersed after adjourning to another day. -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_177" id="Page_177">[Pg 177]</a></span></p> - -<p>That afternoon there was a confidential interview between Messrs. -Caillaux, Clemenceau and De Selves, and the same evening the Minister -for Foreign Affairs, Monsieur de Selves, handed in his resignation to -the President of the Republic in the following letter, dated Paris -January 9. “Monsieur le Président,” he wrote, “After the painful -incident which occurred to-day at the session of the senatorial -commission, I have the honour to ask you to accept my resignation -as Minister for Foreign Affairs. It would be impossible for me to -undertake any longer the responsibility of a foreign policy for which -unity of views and unity of action are withheld from me in the Cabinet. -My anxiety to obtain a satisfactory result in official negotiations -of difficulty and to obtain the approval of Parliament on my efforts -has been responsible for my remaining in office so long. But the -double anxiety I have endured neither to withhold the truth, nor to -fail in my duty to my colleagues, makes it impossible for me to remain -in the Cabinet. I shall always remember the forbearance and kindness -with which you have honoured me in delicate circumstances which it -is impossible for me to forget. I beg you to receive, Monsieur le -Président, the assurance of my profound respect.” -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_178" id="Page_178">[Pg 178]</a></span></p> - -<p>We know now that Monsieur Clemenceau alluded to the “document vert” -when he made the accusation against Monsieur Caillaux to which I -have already referred. The President of the Republic accepted the -resignation of Monsieur de Selves on the evening of January 9, and on -January 10, 1912, the Caillaux Cabinet was forced to resign office.</p> - -<hr class="chap space-above2" /> -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_179" id="Page_179">[Pg 179]</a></span></p> - -<h2>IX<br /><span class="h_subtitle">L’AFFAIRE ROCHETTE</span></h2> - -<p class="no-indent"><span class="smcap">In</span> the first chapter of -this book is reproduced <i>in extenso</i> the statement of Monsieur Victor -Fabre, Procureur Général, a legal official of judge’s rank, whose -position somewhat resembles that of the Public Prosecutor in England. -Monsieur Fabre, the gravity of whose statement caused the downfall of -the Monis-Caillaux Cabinet, declared that pressure had been brought -to bear on him to postpone or adjourn the trial of a financier named -Rochette, who, since the postponement of his trial has escaped abroad, -and is abroad still.</p> - -<p>The bearing of this statement on the Caillaux drama will be seen in -a moment by the perusal of the examination on March 20, 1914, of -Monsieur Monis and of Monsieur Caillaux by the parliamentary commission -appointed after the storm caused by Monsieur Barthou’s reading of -Monsieur Fabre’s statement to inquire again into the facts of the -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_180" id="Page_180">[Pg 180]</a></span> -postponement of Rochette’s trial. I quote the details from the official -records transcribed from the shorthand notes of the parliamentary -inquiry which are in my possession. The inquiry was voted by the -Chamber of Deputies on March 17. I may add here that Monsieur Fabre, -whose written statement made it necessary, was punished for making -that statement, or, rather, for allowing himself to be coerced by the -Prime Minister and Monsieur Caillaux, and now occupies a position -of lower rank with a smaller salary, at Aix instead of Paris. His -successor as Procureur Général, Monsieur Herbaux, will probably act as -public prosecutor when Madame Caillaux is tried. On March 20, 1914, -at half-past nine in the morning, Monsieur Monis, who was by then no -longer Prime Minister, was introduced before the Commission of Inquiry, -consisting of Monsieur Jaurès, who presided, and thirty-two other -deputies. “Early in the month of March 1911,” said Monsieur Monis, -“when my Cabinet was barely a fortnight old, I received the visit of -the Minister of Finance, Monsieur Caillaux. Monsieur Caillaux told me -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_181" id="Page_181">[Pg 181]</a></span> -that he was anxious to oblige the lawyer, Maître Maurice Bernard, -who had represented him in his divorce proceedings against his first -wife (Madame Gueydan Dupré), and that Maître Bernard had asked for a -postponement of the Rochette affair.”</p> - -<p>“Monsieur Caillaux,” Monsieur Monis said, “pointed out that apart -from his own wish to oblige Maître Bernard it might be dangerous, for -political reasons, to refuse his request for the postponement of the -Rochette trial.” “Maître Bernard,” he said, “is a very vehement man, and -a lawyer of great gifts. If the trial takes place now he is certain to -point out the number of issues of bonds and shares which have been made -in recent years on the Bourse, and authorized by the Government, which -have dwindled in value, which have caused heavy loss to investors, -which issues of stock have never, for all that, resulted in the taking -of legal proceedings. An outcry is sure to be raised round a speech of -this kind in the Law Courts, and the outcry is sure to have political -results. One of the first of these will surely be a number of questions -in the Chamber of Deputies. The Government has troubles enough of its -own just now without adding to them in this way. It will be much wiser -to grant Maître Bernard’s request and postpone the trial.” -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_182" id="Page_182">[Pg 182]</a></span></p> - -<p>It was as a result of this conversation between Monsieur Monis, the -Prime Minister, and his colleague the Minister of Finance, Monsieur -Caillaux, that the trial of Rochette was postponed. Even without going -into any details now, though I am afraid that it will be necessary -to go into a good many details presently, the verbatim report of -this interview throws a curious light on the close connexion in -France between the Government of the country and the country’s legal -procedure. Monsieur Caillaux’s reference to Rochette’s power, or rather -the power of Rochette’s lawyer, of causing the Government serious -inconvenience by an exposure of the number of losses to which French -investors have been subjected recently, points very clearly to a none -too heavily veiled attempt on the part of Rochette to blackmail the -Minister of Finance, and not only points to such an attempt, but looks -very much as though it had succeeded, for the blackmailer’s object in -this case was not money but time, and he was given time to escape doing -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_183" id="Page_183">[Pg 183]</a></span> -it. But perhaps the best way to realize what this man Rochette was and -is, and how he obtained the power of forcing the French Government to -take so strange a step as to order a judge and the Public Prosecutor to -postpone his trial and so secure his impunity and his escape from all -further worry, is to look into the history of Monsieur Rochette himself -from the beginning.</p> - -<p>Rochette was the son of country farmers, or field labourers—people -at all events in poor circumstances. His early years are wrapped in -mystery, for although it is currently believed that he was an errand -boy and afterwards a waiter in a small café in a little town near -Fontainebleau, Rochette himself has always denied this. What is certain -about him is that in 1903 or 1904, nine or ten years ago, Rochette, -who had just finished his military service and who was therefore -twenty-three or twenty-four years old at the most, came to Paris and -became a bank clerk. He had a little money even then, which he himself -says he inherited and which was £2000 or £2500 at the most. He used -this money to launch several financial enterprises, and succeeded in -obtaining an incredible amount of credit for them with incredible rapidity. -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_184" id="Page_184">[Pg 184]</a></span></p> - -<p>This young man, whether he be a swindler or not, and even now that is -an open question, is undoubtedly a financial genius with a wonderful -charm of manner. He made use of these two assets to start several -companies, the first of which were the Banque Franco-Espagnole, the -Crédit Minier, the Société des Mines de la Nerva, the Laviana, the Val -d’Aran, the Paral Mexico, the Union Franco-Belge, the Syndicat Minier, -the Mines de Liat, the Buisson Hella and the Manchon Hella.</p> - -<p>The flotation of nearly all these companies of different kinds, for -the exploitation of banks, mines, electric lamps and incandescent gas -mantles, was an immediate success, and hundreds of thousands of pounds -flowed into the coffers of this young financier. The Crédit Minier -in Paris, which was his headquarters, employed an enormous staff of -clerks, had gorgeous offices, and very shortly after its foundation -bore the appearance of a prosperous bank doing an enormous business. As -a matter of fact the Crédit Minier and Rochette really did an enormous -business, for not only from Paris, but from the provinces, where he had -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_185" id="Page_185">[Pg 185]</a></span> -branches everywhere, Rochette reaped a harvest of gold which flowed in -like Pactolus from the pockets of small investors who believed in him. -At the very beginning their belief was well justified, for everything -Rochette touched turned to gold.</p> - -<p>Very soon after his establishment in Paris Rochette was said to be -worth somewhere between three and four million pounds sterling. Of -course most of this money was employed in his financial enterprises, -but these were successful beyond the dreams of avarice, and the prices -of shares in the Rochette flotations rose and rose continuously. To -mention one only among the number, shares of the Hella Gas Mantle -Company which had been issued at £4 a share ran up in the course of a -very few months to nearly £21 (518 frcs. was the exact figure) a share. -Some idea may be formed of the confidence inspired by Rochette from the -fact that when, in 1908, five years after his first appearance on the -Paris market, the financier was arrested, ten thousand shareholders of -his companies signed a petition for his immediate release, and sent it -to the Chamber of Deputies. -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_186" id="Page_186">[Pg 186]</a></span></p> - -<p class="space-below2">At the time of his arrest there were many more people -than these ten thousand shareholders who pinned their faith to Rochette and -his enterprises, and who maintain even now that his downfall was due to a -conspiracy against him by financiers who were interested in the fall -of his shares. To a certain extent this contention was true, as we -shall see later on by some of the evidence given on oath before the -Commission of Inquiry. A number of charges were formally made against -Rochette by a number of people who had lost money and considered him -responsible for the loss. These charges became so many that the Public -Prosecutor, after consulting the Minister of Justice sent for Monsieur -Rochette one day, and asked him, in view of the fact that a number of -the actions brought against him had been amicably arranged between the -parties while others of a graver nature charging him with fraud had -resulted in acquittal, whether he would consent to a friendly though -judicial examination of his books. This examination took place, took -place it may be remarked at the expense of Rochette himself, who was -perfectly willing to pay for it, and the accountants’ verdict was by no -means altogether unfavourable to the young financier. Rochette, having -triumphed, continued his issues of companies, and general opinion -began to rank him with the Rothschilds and the other overlords of high finance.</p> - -<div class="figcenter"> - <a name="P186" id="P186"></a> - <img src="images/p_186.jpg" alt="" width="450" height="669" /> - <p class="right"><i>Agence Nouvelle—Photo, Paris</i></p> - <p class="center">ROCHETTE IN COURT</p> - <p class="center space-below1">(Rochette is the central figure with the black beard)</p> -</div> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_187" id="Page_187">[Pg 187]</a></span> -France rejoices, however, in the possession of a succession of more -or less avowedly Socialist Governments which govern or try to govern -the country on fatherly lines, and the French Government on the one -hand, and the judicial authorities on the other, began to look with -suspicion and alarm on Rochette’s increasing prosperity. The Bourse, -too, began to become suspicious of Rochette’s success, and an opinion -began to gain ground that sooner or later his rocket-like flight into -the regions of high finance would be followed by one of those crashing -stick-like falls, by one of those disastrous <i>krachs</i> of which so many -have been chronicled during the last century in all great capitals. It -was towards the end of February or the beginning of March 1908, that -Rochette made his big mistake. He attacked the <i>Petit Journal</i>, one -of the biggest and most influential newspapers in France. Rochette -made this attack on the <i>Petit Journal</i> and on its managing director -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_188" id="Page_188">[Pg 188]</a></span> -Monsieur Prevet, a member of the Senate, because he had a very definite -object in view. Rochette’s companies appealed to the imagination and to -the pockets of the small investor, and the small investor in France is -not a regular reader of financial newspapers, which he neither trusts -nor understands.</p> - -<p>These small financial newspapers are legion, but although Rochette -undoubtedly had numbers of them at his disposal he realized that a -paper more generally read and appealing more directly to the people he -wanted to touch was necessary to his ambitions, and to the greater and -wider success for which he was working. He made up his mind, therefore, -to obtain control of the <i>Petit Journal</i>, a newspaper which is sold -all over France in every town, in every village, and in every hamlet, -and which, though it no longer enjoys the largest circulation of any -newspaper in France, was one of the two newspapers most suitable for -his purpose and the only one of the two which he had any chance at all -of getting. In order to obtain control of the <i>Petit Journal</i>, Rochette -set to work with tactics which were characteristic of the astuteness -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_189" id="Page_189">[Pg 189]</a></span> -and the utter lack of scruple of the man. He issued circulars which he -had printed in enormous quantities, forwarded them to every shareholder -of the <i>Petit Journal</i>, and scattered them broadcast, elsewhere. In -this circular, which was issued in view of the next general meeting of -the shareholders of the paper, a meeting which was to be held on April -5, 1908, Rochette painted the financial position of the <i>Petit Journal</i> -in the blackest possible colours, stating without the slightest -reference to truth, that the paper as a property was in a very bad way, -and advising shareholders to sell their shares.</p> - -<p>The managing director of the <i>Petit Journal</i>, the powerful member -of the Senate, Monsieur Prevet, was naturally very much annoyed and -somewhat alarmed by these manœuvres, and took legal action to put a -stop to them. He commenced a prosecution against a “person or persons -unknown,” by which euphemism of course Rochette was indicated, for -the purpose of putting a stop to the disloyal manœuvres by which -Monsieur Rochette was rapidly obtaining a large number of shares and -powers of attorney from discontented shareholders. -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_190" id="Page_190">[Pg 190]</a></span></p> - -<p>Monsieur Prevet realized that unless some such immediate action were -taken it was more than possible that at the general meeting of the -<i>Petit Journal</i> Company on April 5, 1908, the discontented shareholders -either in person or by proxy would oust him, Monsieur Prevet, from his -position as managing director of the <i>Petit Journal</i>, and would hand -over the control of this newspaper with its enormous influence and -immense phalanx of readers to the financier Rochette. Monsieur Prevet -occupied a very high position. He was not only the managing director of -the <i>Petit Journal</i>, he was not only a member of the Senate, but he was -actually, at that time, the “rapporteur” or advisory summariser for the -Senate on the big question of the purchase by the State of the Western -Railway.</p> - -<p>It is a curious sidelight on the Rochette affair that this financier -who had begun his career five years before with a capital of £2000 was -the principal mover in the immense agitation against the acquisition -by the State of the Western Railway of France. That he moved in this -matter on purely personal grounds is of far less importance than the -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_191" id="Page_191">[Pg 191]</a></span> -fact that if he had succeeded in overthrowing Senator Prevet the French -nation would undoubtedly have been spared a very heavy money loss, -for the acquisition by the State of the Western Railway has been a -disastrous undertaking from a money point of view, and has cost and -will continue to cost French taxpayers a large sum of money every year -till the railway begins, if it ever does begin, to pay. Rochette’s -attacks on Monsieur Prevet, and his obvious intentions on the <i>Petit -Journal</i> created a storm of antagonism against him in the French Press.</p> - -<p>In spite of the persistent and unfailing confidence of his shareholders -public opinion began to make itself felt, and as always happens in -France when public opinion is roused, a great deal of mud began to -be flung and accusations of corruption became very frequent and were -directed against the highest in the land. The Government was hotly -accused of laxity, and Monsieur Georges Clemenceau, who was Prime -Minister in 1908, was accused of moral complicity with the financier -Rochette. It is a curious proof of the poetical justice, which comes -to its own even in financial questions, that these accusations against -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_192" id="Page_192">[Pg 192]</a></span> -Monsieur Clemenceau did more to cause the eventual downfall of Rochette -than anything which had happened before. They made “the tiger” angry, -and when Monsieur Clemenceau grew angry with Rochette, the day of -Rochette’s wane had dawned. Accusations were launched against the high -magistrates, who were accused of weakness and of being afraid to take -action. Members of Parliament were directly accused in the public -Press of protecting Rochette and his enterprises, and of taking money -for so doing. No day passed without the launching of an accusation -against some member of the Chamber or the Senate of having accepted -heavy bribes to cover Monsieur Rochette, or to back him up, and the -names of numbers of well-known men who are now more or less indirectly -connected with the Caillaux drama were constantly mentioned at the time -in connexion with Rochette, the financier.</p> - -<p>The connexion between the two cases, the case of Rochette and the -Caillaux drama which followed the attack in the <i>Figaro</i> on Monsieur -Caillaux’s conduct in connexion with it, is curiously close. There have -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_193" id="Page_193">[Pg 193]</a></span> -been two Parliamentary inquiries into the Rochette affair. In the -first one in 1911, among the members of the Parliamentary Commission -we find the names of Monsieur Caillaux himself (he very nearly, in -fact, was the president) and of Monsieur Ceccaldi, who was approached -by Monsieur Caillaux on the afternoon of the crime, and to whom the -Minister of Finance confided his uneasiness with regard to his wife. In -the list of the second Commission Monsieur Ceccaldi’s name and others -closely connected with the Caillaux drama appear once more. But there -was no question, yet, in 1908, of a Rochette inquiry, for the <i>affaire -Rochette</i> was only just beginning. Monsieur Clemenceau fired the first -shot, as Monsieur Clemenceau was bound to do. There had been talk on -the Bourse, there had been talk in the newspapers, Monsieur Clemenceau -had been accused of slackness, and he had made up his mind that he -would not justify the accusation.</p> - -<p>On Friday (it is quite a curious coincidence that so many important -dates of the Caillaux, Agadir, and Rochette affairs should have fallen -on a Friday)—on Friday, March 20, 1908, at exactly twenty minutes to -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_194" id="Page_194">[Pg 194]</a></span> -twelve in the forenoon, Monsieur Clemenceau, the Prime Minister, sent -for Monsieur Lépine, who was then Prefect of Police, and ordered him -to take measures for a judicial inquiry into Rochette’s financial -transactions. Monsieur Lépine spent exactly a quarter of an hour -with Monsieur Clemenceau in his room at the Home Office in the Place -Beauvau, and at five minutes to twelve he returned to the Police -Prefecture, sent for Monsieur Mouquin, the head of the Research -Department of the Paris police, and for Monsieur Yves Durand, his chef -de Cabinet, and told them what Monsieur Clemenceau had said to him.</p> - -<p>Now the French have a way of their own of conducting these matters. -The State does not prosecute for fraud. Monsieur Lépine’s orders were -to find a plaintiff who would bring a charge against Rochette, who -would show proof that Rochette had damaged his pocket, and who would be -willing to pay the caution which the French courts require from such a -plaintiff before legal action begins. Monsieur Yves Durand was ordered -by Monsieur Lépine to go out and find such a plaintiff. Monsieur -Lépine, in his examination by the Parliamentary Commission on July 26, -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_195" id="Page_195">[Pg 195]</a></span> -1911, was very explicit with regard to his own opinion and the opinions -he had heard expressed on Rochette’s financial undertakings. He alluded -to them as “a house of cards built on puffs of hot air, kept afloat by -public credulity and bound to fall to pieces at the first breath of suspicion.”</p> - -<p>Monsieur Lépine had urged the judicial authorities to take action in -the Rochette case long before action was taken, and he alluded with -some bitterness to the difficulty in getting a serious charge brought -against any financier suspected of fraud who was rich enough to make it -worth the while of his creditors to withdraw such charges. There had -been several charges made against Rochette, and they had all fallen -through because the plaintiffs got their money or got money enough to -induce them to withdraw.</p> - -<p>When, therefore, Monsieur Lépine told Monsieur Yves Durand, his chef de -Cabinet, that he must go out and find him a plaintiff, he added that he -himself knew of nobody who was likely to assume the rôle. The French -law gives no greater claim on the assets in such a case to the man who -goes to the expense of prosecuting than it affords to all the other -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_196" id="Page_196">[Pg 196]</a></span> -creditors, and as he has to put up funds for the prosecution, it is -often, as Monsieur Lépine explained, more than difficult to find a -victim ready to fleece himself after he has been fleeced. But Monsieur -Yves Durand happened to have heard that Monsieur Prevet was a likely -man to undertake the prosecution, and he called on him immediately. -He went first to his private house, failed to find him there, and -found him eventually at his office in the <i>Petit Journal</i> building in -the Rue Lafayette. Monsieur Prevet told Monsieur Yves Durand that a -banker named Gaudrion was perfectly ready to prosecute Rochette, and -that he had mentioned his willingness to him. Monsieur Yves Durand and -Monsieur Prevet drove together immediately to the Rue de la Chaussée -d’Antin, where Monsieur Gaudrion had his office. They found Monsieur -Gaudrion there and he told them that although he was not ready to -prosecute Rochette himself, a friend of his, Monsieur Pichereau, -whom he described as a man of property living at Corbeil, was ready -to prosecute and would do so. Monsieur Pichereau, Monsieur Gaudrion -declared, had put £6000 into some of Rochette’s financial enterprises, -the Nerva Mines and Hella Gas Mantle Co. among others, had lost a good -deal of his money, and was ready to do everything possible to get some -of it back again. -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_197" id="Page_197">[Pg 197]</a></span></p> - -<p>At a quarter past two that afternoon, the afternoon of Friday, March -20, 1908, Monsieur Yves Durand returned to the Police Prefecture -and told Monsieur Lépine what he had done. Monsieur Lépine sent -Monsieur Yves Durand to the Procureur de la République, Monsieur -Monier (Monsieur Monier has been promoted since and is the high legal -authority whom Madame Caillaux consulted on the morning of the day -she shot Monsieur Calmette, as to the means of putting a stop to his -campaign against her husband), whom he was to advise of the existence -of a plaintiff ready to prosecute Rochette.</p> - -<p>Monsieur Lépine, in his evidence before the Parliamentary Commission of -Inquiry, explained that he had hoped to get the whole matter settled -that same day, or at all events between the closing of one Bourse and -the opening of the next, so as to avoid news of the prosecution being -allowed to leak out and to be used as a basis for speculation. However, -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_198" id="Page_198">[Pg 198]</a></span> -Monsieur Monier told Monsieur Yves Durand that he would see Monsieur -Pichereau on the next day, Saturday, at two o’clock, and he informed -the Procureur Général and the Minister of Justice that a charge in due -form was to be laid against Rochette on the morrow. At ten o’clock the -next morning, Saturday, March 21, Monsieur Yves Durand went to Monsieur -Gaudrion at his office and told him that the Procureur de la République -would receive Monsieur Pichereau’s charge at two o’clock that afternoon -at the Palace of Justice. Monsieur Pichereau was in Monsieur Gaudrion’s -office, and had drawn up and signed his accusation against Rochette. -Monsieur Gaudrion read it through to Monsieur Yves Durand, who was not -in the least aware that Monsieur Pichereau was not the proprietor of -Nerva shares and Hella Gas Mantle shares as he stated himself to be in -his accusation, but that Monsieur Gaudrion was really the shareholder, -and that Pichereau was only a man of straw. Gaudrion was a speculator. -He had sold shares “short” in the Rochette enterprises, and seeing his -way to a Bourse <i>coup</i> he had coached Pichereau in the part he was to -play, given him a few shares of his own with which to play it, and paid -him a thousand pounds so that he should be able to make the necessary -guarantee on bringing his action and have something over for himself. -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_199" id="Page_199">[Pg 199]</a></span></p> - -<p>Monsieur Yves Durand, who got himself into terribly hot water over -these preliminaries when the whole matter came to light, and who was -openly accused of speculating himself on the fall of Rochette shares, -declared that he was quite unaware of this dishonest combination, and -that he had been misled by Monsieur Prevet, who had told him that he -knew all about Gaudrion and about Pichereau as well. At a quarter-past -two that afternoon Pichereau laid his formal charge against Rochette -at the Palace of Justice, deposited £80 by way of guarantee for costs, -and signed a request to be a civil party to the action. The matter was -placed in the hands of the examining magistrate, Monsieur Berr, for -his immediate attention, and poor Monsieur Berr sat up all Saturday -night and all Sunday night, and worked through all day on Sunday at the -Rochette <i>dossier</i>. At ten o’clock on Monday morning, March 23, 1908, -Rochette was arrested. -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_200" id="Page_200">[Pg 200]</a></span></p> - -<p>Of course the arrest of Rochette created an immense sensation, and -equally of course it occasioned the downfall of the shares of the -companies in which he was interested. But while these shares tumbled -headlong, an immense wave of public indignation swelled against the -financier’s arrest, for so far from finding empty coffers at the -offices of the Crédit Minier, the authorities admitted that there were, -in cash, £240,000 at this office, and £160,000 more at the Banque -Franco-Espagnole, a sister enterprise of Rochette’s. Rochette had -been arrested and sent to the Santé prison on Monday, March 23, 1908. -On Wednesday he wrote a letter to the examining magistrate, Monsieur -Berr, in which he protested with some appearance of justice against -his arrest and the situation created by it for the shareholders of his -companies. “It is my duty,” wrote Monsieur Rochette, “to declare that -on the day of my arrest I left the industrial and financial companies -under my control in an excellent situation. There were about £240,000 -in cash in the safe of the Crédit Minier, and £160,000 in the safe of -the Banque Franco-Espagnole. This makes a total of £400,000. If I were -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_201" id="Page_201">[Pg 201]</a></span> -a malefactor, as attempts are being made to prove me, it would have -been easy for me to get out of my difficulties. I was advised from -all sides of the intrigues which were in course against me under the -leadership of a few men who considered that the growing prosperity of -my companies threatened the enterprises of which they were at the head. -It was these men who put up the plaintiff Pichereau. It was these men -who managed to get you to take action, and who are really responsible -for the exceptional measures which have been taken against me and the -establishments which I control. You have put me in prison, sir, and you -have refused to allow me to communicate with anybody except yourself -outside the prison. You have given orders for the dismissal of all the -clerks of the Crédit Minier and the Banque Franco-Espagnole. You have -closed these establishments. You have given orders for the closing of -all the provincial branches. You have struck a terrible blow at these -companies, without having heard what I have to say, without having -questioned me, without any preliminary examination by accountants of -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_202" id="Page_202">[Pg 202]</a></span> -the financial condition of my banks, without the slightest concern -for the shareholders or the other people interested. Do you know of -any bank, of any financial institution however powerful that would -be capable of withstanding such a blow? And for whom, why, on whose -account, have you done all this? For Pichereau! On account of one -single plaintiff at whose request a judicial examination was ordered, -and of whom after four days imprisonment I know nothing at all, for I -know neither the man himself nor the charge he has made against me.”</p> - -<p>The examining magistrate, on receipt of this letter, confronted -Monsieur Rochette with Monsieur Pichereau, and told the financier the -exact terms of Monsieur Pichereau’s claim. Monsieur Pichereau claimed -to have bought Nerva Copper Mines of the B series, which proved to -be unnegotiable, and he put in nine documents to prove it. Rochette -declared that the nine documents proved nothing, that before his arrest -an attempt had been made to blackmail him, that these same documents -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_203" id="Page_203">[Pg 203]</a></span> -had been offered him on that occasion for £3200, and that he had -refused the offer. In proof of this, he stated that copies of Monsieur -Pichereau’s nine documents would be found among his (Rochette’s) papers -in the private desk in his office.</p> - -<p>In connexion with these statements, it was proved that a number of -attempts <i>had</i> been made to blackmail Rochette, and that he had always -refused any advances of the kind. It is needless to say that the arrest -of this man and the closing of the banks and shutting down of mines and -other enterprises in which he was interested had a disastrous effect -on the market. All the money, and there was a great deal of money in -Rochette’s safes, had been sequestrated by the legal authorities, and -therefore of course no payments could be made. To put one case only, -eighteen hundred men and women in the employ of the Syndicat Minier -were clamouring for wages which could not be given them.</p> - -<p>Eventually the court decided that liquidators should be appointed who -should pay out money from a reserve fund of £110,000 which the Crédit -Minier placed in the liquidator’s hands for this purpose. In July 1908, -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_204" id="Page_204">[Pg 204]</a></span> -Rochette was declared a bankrupt. He resisted vigorously, and even -now many people are inclined to doubt whether the declaration of -his bankruptcy was legally justifiable. But the whole matter of -Rochette’s financial position soon became involved in such a tangle of -legal procedure that it is quite impossible to say whether Rochette -could have got out of his difficulties if he had been left alone, -or whether he could not. It is noteworthy at all events that a very -large percentage was paid to his creditors. On the other hand, the -Rochette enterprises were wildly speculative, and new flotations were -frequently used to fill up financial gaps in former enterprises which -were unsuccessful. One thing is very certain, and was proved during the -parliamentary inquiry into the beginnings of the Rochette affair. A -large number of people, Monsieur Gaudrion among them, had been keenly -interested in the downfall of Rochette and had sold quantities of the -shares in his companies for a fall some time before it came. Most of -them had lost money. Gaudrion, on March 16, that is to say a week -before Rochette’s arrest, had been severely bitten by a sudden upward -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_205" id="Page_205">[Pg 205]</a></span> -jump, or “‘bear’ squeeze,” as it is called, on the Bourse, and was -forced by the rapid rise of Rochette’s shares to buy back with a loss -of nearly £5000.</p> - -<p>Rochette was tried, and the case went against him, but again there -were illegalities in the trial. Information was communicated to the -court which was not, as the French law insists that it should be, -communicated first of all to the defendant or his lawyer. In the -course of the trial the liquidator, who had been officially appointed, -announced that he had distributed 50 per cent. to the creditors of -Rochette, and that he would be able to pay the 50 per cent. balance -integrally. Rochette lodged an appeal against the verdict, and at -the same time took legal action against Pichereau for making a false -declaration. His appeal was heard, dismissed, and judgment rendered, -by the Tenth Correctional Chamber of the Seine Tribunal on July 27, -1910—two years after his original arrest. The case was a long one, -very complicated, and proceedings had been obstructed legally, whenever -and wherever Rochette and his lawyers could obstruct them. The case, -however, provoked considerable scandal. Charges of illegality were made -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_206" id="Page_206">[Pg 206]</a></span> -by Rochette and his lawyer, Maître Maurice Bernard, in court and before -the case came to court, the Press took hold of the matter, and on July -10 Monsieur Yves Durand resigned and left the employ of the Prefecture -of Police. It was proved that this chef de Cabinet of Monsieur Lépine -was a sleeping partner in a stock-broking firm which had made a lot -of money by dealing in the shares of Rochette companies at the time -of his arrest, and though Monsieur Durand was not actually proved to -have profited by these transactions, grave suspicion rested on him -and made his official position untenable. On July 11, 1910, Monsieur -Jaurès brought the question of Rochette’s arrest before the Chamber, -and accused Monsieur Clemenceau in clear terms of having proceeded -illegally against the man, irrespective of his guilt or innocence.</p> - -<p>It is worth noticing that the Rochette question had now become, as -almost everything becomes in France, a political matter, and that the -Socialists, with Monsieur Jaurès at their head, affected to consider -Rochette a victim of arbitrary treatment by vested authority. A -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_207" id="Page_207">[Pg 207]</a></span> -Parliamentary Commission of Inquiry was appointed on July 12 to examine -the question. Monsieur Caillaux was a member of this Commission, -and if he had not just at that time taken Ministerial rank he would -very probably have been its president. The first meeting of the -Parliamentary Commission was held on July 15. The first witness called -was Monsieur Yves Durand, who had been Monsieur Lépine’s chef de -Cabinet. His evidence has already been summarized in the last chapter, -and need not therefore be repeated. Monsieur Monier, who was at that -time Procureur de la République (a position which is more or less -equivalent to that of Deputy Public Prosecutor), produced an immense -budget of documents, all of which accused Rochette of fraud. These -accusations stated that the Nerva Mines Company, the Syndicat Minier, -the Banque Franco-Espagnole, the Crédit Minier, Franco-Belgian Union, -the Laviana Coal Company, the Liat and Val d’Aran Mines, the Hella -Incandescent Mantle Company, and the Buisson Hella, nine companies -in all, which Rochette had launched by public subscription, had been -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_208" id="Page_208">[Pg 208]</a></span> -floated fraudulently and irregularly. The charge was that these -companies had no reasonable prospect whatever of earning money by -honourable means, and that there were no real commercial assets for -exploitation behind them.</p> - -<p>On July 26 Monsieur Lépine was examined by the Commission. He began by -affirming that the arrest of Rochette had been perfectly justified, and -while admitting that Monsieur Yves Durand had perhaps not been prudent -enough in arranging the preliminaries and checking the information he -received, he acquitted him of all personal action of a dishonourable -nature. He defended the arrest of Rochette, and declared that its -consequence had been to put a brake on the wild speculation which -Rochette’s issues had created. “I consider,” said Monsieur Lépine, -“that the arrest of Rochette turned off the tap and prevented him from -making new issues of shares. This preventive measure was a public -benefit. Some people lost money undoubtedly, but they deserved to lose -it. The speculation mania had been enormous and widely spread. It had -been crazy. There were shares which were worth £4 one morning and which -were run up to £22 before the same evening. If matters had been allowed -to go on like this, financial catastrophe would surely have followed.” -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_209" id="Page_209">[Pg 209]</a></span></p> - -<p>In the deposition on November 16 made before the Commission d’Enquête -by Monsieur Georges Clemenceau, the ex-Premier, after declaring that -he himself had no personal knowledge of Rochette, described with -characteristic brevity the conversation which he had with Monsieur -Lépine just before Rochette’s arrest. “This has got to be finished -off promptly,” I told him. “Do you believe Rochette to be an innocent -man against whom calumniators are at work?” Monsieur Lépine replied: -“Rochette is a scoundrel. He is a serious danger to the small -investor, and if he is allowed to go on as he has begun we shall have -a catastrophe one of these days.” “I told Monsieur Lépine to go and -see the magistrates and make arrangements,” said Monsieur Clemenceau. -“If I had to begin it all over again I would do again exactly what I -did before, and I am quite certain that if I had allowed Rochette to -get clear away with his millions out of private people’s pockets then, -there would be a Commission of Inquiry at work now asking me to explain -my complicity with the man.” -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_210" id="Page_210">[Pg 210]</a></span></p> - -<p>Monsieur Lépine was called before the Commission of Inquiry again on -November 18, and once more affirmed his conviction that Rochette’s -arrest had been necessary. He gave a few significant details of -Rochette’s methods. Rochette had bought properties for £8000 and -floated them as a company for £32,000. He had bought the Aratra Mines -for £9000, and floated them with a capital of £200,000. Patents for -which Rochette had paid £1200, and which, Monsieur Lépine declared, -were really not worth four shillings, were valued in the prospectus of -the company, which asked for, and obtained, subscriptions, at £480,000. -There were fictitious dividends declared, fraudulent balance sheets -concocted, prices inflated to figures which had no real existence -except by Rochette’s will. Rochette paid enormous sums for advertising. -One newspaper alone cost him £14,000. His advertising adviser drew -a salary of nearly £2000 a year. On one deal he spent £52,000, for -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_211" id="Page_211">[Pg 211]</a></span> -advertisement alone, in twelve months, and he spent £24,000 on -advertisement in the ten weeks before he was arrested. In three years -he created fifteen companies, issued £4,800,000 worth of shares, and -bought over £3,000,000 worth of his own shares at prices above the -price of issue to inflate and to keep prices up. He had then about a -million and a half sterling in cash to play with.</p> - -<p>On July 27, 1910, Rochette was sentenced to two years’ imprisonment -and a fine of £120, by the Tenth Correctional Tribunal of the Seine -Department. The verdict, with its “attendu,” or reasons, took two and -a half hours to read aloud, though it was read with the extraordinary -volubility of which only a French clerk of the court possesses the -secret. I have this verdict before me in its printed form. It is -printed in very small print by the official printing works of the -Chamber of Deputies, for the copy I possess was printed for the use -of the Commission of Inquiry. The verdict, which is, as I have said, -very closely printed, fills forty large quarto sheets of paper. Against -this verdict Monsieur Rochette appealed again, and in the meanwhile the -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_212" id="Page_212">[Pg 212]</a></span> -Commission of Inquiry spent many full days discussing the questions as -to whether Monsieur Clemenceau had really ordered Monsieur Lépine to -find a prosecutor against Rochette, whether Monsieur Lépine had really -said that Monsieur Clemenceau had given him these orders, whether -orders had been given or whether suggestions had been made—the usual -waste of time and the usual mass of irrelevant detail which appears -to be inseparable from the work of a parliamentary inquiry into any -question in any country.</p> - -<p>Ultimately, after long, long days of verbiage which appear curiously -useless now, Rochette himself was asked to give evidence before the -Parliamentary Commission of Inquiry. He was delighted to attend, for he -had nothing to lose and he had everything to gain by his attendance. He -also had a great deal to say, and said it very well, for Rochette is a -born orator. Naturally enough, he took the opportunity of pleading his -own case from A to Z once more, and of denouncing the illegality of his -arrest in March 1908. He launched accusations against the police, he -launched accusations against members of Parliament, he was very rude -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_213" id="Page_213">[Pg 213]</a></span> -indeed to financiers of repute. Above all, he was always interesting, -and often amusing, and he certainly made his case appear clearer than -it had ever appeared before.</p> - -<p>His evidence is well worthy of consideration in detail, for it must not -be forgotten that one of the men before whom he gave it was Monsieur -Joseph Caillaux, and that he gave this evidence on November 25, 1910. -A few months later, in March 1911, Monsieur Caillaux, who no doubt had -been impressed by Rochette’s powers of oratory, advised his colleague, -Monsieur Monis, of the dangers that might be incurred, politically -speaking, if pressure were not brought to bear on the legal authorities -for the postponement of Rochette’s trial, in accordance with the wishes -of this extraordinary expert in legal obstruction. It is fair to infer, -I think, that Rochette’s attitude before the Commission of Inquiry -had impressed Monsieur Caillaux considerably, but Monsieur Caillaux’s -political enemies ascribed his attitude to motives of another kind. -Rochette’s evidence, if evidence it can be called, occupies twenty-five -closely printed pages in quarto in the transcription printed for the -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_214" id="Page_214">[Pg 214]</a></span> -Commission of Inquiry of the shorthand notes which were taken. One of -the first points Rochette made was on the question of the money which -he spent on advertising his various enterprises. He admitted that -the figures quoted against him were very largely correct, that for -instance, he really had spent as much as £2500 a week for ten weeks on -advertising, “but,” he said, “it is only a question of proportion after -all. The Bon Marché, the Louvre, or the Printemps can spend thousands -on advertising where it would be criminally foolish of a small grocer -to spend hundreds. I am not a small grocer. During the period from -January 1 to March 23, 1908, in which my publicity bill was £24,000,1 -did nearly half a million sterling of business.”</p> - -<p>Rochette then made a vicious attack on Monsieur Prevet and the <i>Petit -Journal</i>, but vicious though his attack was, it was distinctly -plausible. “A shareholder of the <i>Petit Journal</i> called on me,” he -said. “He brought some very interesting figures with him. These figures -showed that in 1901 the shareholders of the <i>Petit Journal</i> got £2 -dividend and the shares were worth £44 to £48. In 1902,” he said -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_215" id="Page_215">[Pg 215]</a></span> -“Monsieur Prevet became director and six years afterwards, at the -beginning of 1908, the shares were worth from £10 to £12 and the -dividend was only sixteen shillings! This drop in value was not due to -a general slump in the newspaper industry, for the <i>Petit Parisien</i>, -the <i>Journal</i>, and the <i>Matin</i>, all of them halfpenny morning papers, -had increased the value of their respective properties enormously.” -Rochette’s visitor maintained, Rochette declared to the Commission, -that if Monsieur Prevet’s management was disastrous to the <i>Petit -Journal</i> shareholders, the fact was largely due to Monsieur Prevet’s -need of money, which was notorious. Rochette went, he said, into the -question of the <i>Petit Journal’s</i> next dividend. He saw, he declared, -that it was problematical, and he therefore “inspired,” though he did -not write, the circular which had been sent to the <i>Petit Journal</i>’s -shareholders. “With regard to Monsieur Prevet’s action at this time,” -says Rochette, “if he really wanted to protect the interests of his -shareholders and not his own, all he had to do would have been to send -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_216" id="Page_216">[Pg 216]</a></span> -out a private circular of his own to the shareholders, a list of whose -names was in his possession, and convince them that my statements were -wrong. He couldn’t, of course, do this, because my statements were -right, and that is why he was afraid that I should take his position -on the paper from him at the next general meeting. That is also why I -was arrested just before that general meeting. The shares had to be -deposited at the office of the <i>Petit Journal</i> for voting purposes -about March 19. Monsieur Prevet was able to convince himself that his -authority with the shareholders had dwindled, and he thought it safer -for himself to get rid of me.”</p> - -<p>Several attempts were made, according to Rochette, during the month of -March 1908, to induce him to fall into cleverly laid traps which would -make his arrest easy. “These traps were laid cleverly, but not cleverly -enough,” Rochette declared, “and I was too astute to allow myself to be -caught in them. That was why,” he added, “I was arrested on Pichereau’s -disgracefully vamped-up charge.” Rochette was convinced, he told the -members of the Parliamentary Commission of Inquiry, that the anonymous -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_217" id="Page_217">[Pg 217]</a></span> -letters and anonymous telephone calls warning him that his arrest -was imminent with which he was bombarded between March 8 and 21 were -police tactics for the purpose of persuading him to take flight and -so to make matters easy for everybody. “I did not take flight,” said -Rochette proudly, “and when I was arrested there were £440,000 in my -safe. I could have taken this money out at any time. I did not take -it.” Rochette declared that the examining magistrate, Monsieur Berr, -had shown unfair prejudice against him from the moment of his arrest, -and that this was so apparent that his lawyer, Maître Maurice Bernard, -had made this accusation to the examining magistrate’s face: “I know -that my client’s arrest was arranged, ‘worked’ if you will, by three -men, Monsieur Lépine, Monsieur Prevet, and yourself!” And the examining -magistrate made no reply. “Ten thousand shareholders in my companies -signed a petition against my arrest and forwarded it to the Chamber of -Deputies,” was one of Rochette’s points. “In this petition they stated -that my arrest had been caused by Monsieur Prevet with the complicity -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_218" id="Page_218">[Pg 218]</a></span> -of Monsieur Gaudrion and Monsieur Pichereau. In February 1909,” -Rochette declared, “one of the experts who was examining my books -walked into Monsieur Berr’s room in the Palace of Justice. I was in -the little room next door, and I heard Monsieur Blanc, the expert in -question, who had not seen me, ask the examining magistrate whether -my case would come on for trial before the Correctional Court before -Easter or not. This was proof that the experts and everybody else knew -at this time that I was to be sent for trial, and that the pretence of -examining my books was only a pretence and nothing more. The examining -magistrate had made his mind up to send me for trial directly he had me -under arrest. The Crédit Minier,” Rochette declared, “ought never to -have been put into bankruptcy. None of my societies ought to have been -declared bankrupt, for every creditor was paid 100 per cent. The only -money that was lost was about £160,000, and that loss was due to the -disgraceful “bearing” of my shares by speculators. It is not fair to -say that I caused this loss of £160,000 to investors. The truth is that -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_219" id="Page_219">[Pg 219]</a></span> -people who were too well informed were allowed to make £160,000 at the -expense of the public. I have done nothing to be ashamed of. I have -committed no fault. Surely the success of the Crédit Minier is not a -fault. It had twenty-five customers when I started it, and five years -later there were fifty thousand of them. I wish to point out,” said -Rochette, “that my enterprises existed and did well before my arrest, -and continue to exist after it and in spite of it. I venture to state -positively that very few financiers who suffered as I have could make -the same statement. The net result of my arrest was the heavy drop of -the shares of my enterprises, a loss of £240,000 by the Crédit Minier, -and the ruin of shareholders whom the <i>krach</i> caught unawares. Of -the £240,000 which the Crédit Minier lost, certain speculators made -£160,000, and £80,000 went to the expenses of the bankruptcy. The -liquidator alone was paid between £12,000 and £16,000.”</p> - -<p>Rochette told the Commission of Inquiry that he had intended taking -charge of the <i>Petit Journal</i>, as he had taken control in the <i>krach</i> -of the Say sugar refinery. He was, at that time, endeavouring to get -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_220" id="Page_220">[Pg 220]</a></span> -hold of the concession of the Paris Omnibus Company and was backing up -the Darracq group with money so that Monsieur Darracq could obtain the -concession from the Municipal Council. Monsieur Rochette, questioned -very closely by the members of the Commission, was forced to admit -that one of his lawyers, Monsieur Rabier (one of the stalwarts of the -Caillaux party in Parliament), drew about £500 a year for legal advice, -and on other occasions received sums varying from £2800 to £3200. The -members of the Commission expressed doubt about these figures, and a -curious story was told by a former clerk of Rochette’s with regard to -his book-keeping methods.</p> - -<p>From this story it appeared that efforts were usually made by Rochette -to conceal the real amounts which were paid for their services to -newspapers and to those lawyers in the employ of the financier who -happened to be members of Parliament or political personages. Curiously -enough most of Rochette’s lawyers happened to be political personages, -and one of the lawyers of the Crédit Minier was Monsieur René Renoult, -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_221" id="Page_221">[Pg 221]</a></span> -who is a member of the present Cabinet. In many ways the examination -of Rochette by the Parliamentary Commission was an eye-opener to the -public. Accusations of venality on the part of public men are so common -in France, owing to the licence allowed in the Press, that such words -as “corruption,” “theft,” “lying” and the like have almost lost their -force when applied to men in the van of politics. But the details of -the manner in which Rochette conducted his business impressed and -alarmed the public by their unpleasant likeness to the unsavoury -details of the Panama case.</p> - -<p>One of the members of the Commission, Monsieur Jules Delahaye, -who throughout the inquiry acted very much like a counsel for the -prosecution of every political man who was mixed up in the Rochette -affair, pointed out this unsavoury resemblance. “I consider Monsieur -Rochette to be a great corrupter of public morals,” he said. “I am not -at all content with his explanations. They do not satisfy me. There are -matters of far greater gravity behind his methods than he would have us -suppose, and I would ask my colleagues to concentrate their attention -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_222" id="Page_222">[Pg 222]</a></span> -on the items of Rochette’s expenditure for publicity with the same -intensity as the attention of the Parliamentary Commission had at the -time to be concentrated, with the results which you remember, on the -publicity accounts of the Panama Canal. In this case, as in the case -of Panama, public morals have been corrupted. Millions (“of francs” -is meant, of course) have been employed, not only to buy publicity in -the newspapers, but, as the Prefect of Police has told us, to corrupt -the moral and financial rectitude of people of all ranks and all -stations in Paris, in the provinces, all over France. I will go so -far as to say that the taint actually extended to the Church. That is -a characteristic of the affair.” (Page 547 of the official shorthand -reports of the Parliamentary Commission.)</p> - -<p>Rochette paid, in many ways, on the plea of publicity. He was in the -habit, when he wanted to pay and to preserve secrecy for the payment, -of sending a note down to the cashier of the Crédit Minier with his -initials “H.R.” and a little cross marked on it next to the amount. -These little crosses were used in the books, it is suggested, to -signify that the amounts entered against certain names were not the -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_223" id="Page_223">[Pg 223]</a></span> -real amounts paid, which were much larger. The payments were made -directly from hand to hand by Monsieur Rochette to his political -friends and helpers, and no receipts passed. I do not propose to go -very much into detail on this uncomfortable question. The evidence -of Monsieur Duret, who acted as Rochette’s private secretary, and -that of Monsieur Yenck, a clerk in the Crédit Minier, leaves a very -uncomfortable taste in the mouth. Monsieur Yenck declared that Monsieur -Duret’s sole business was to act as intermediary between political -men and Rochette. He used to speak in very familiar terms of many -well-known politicians, and was on the friendliest terms with Rochette -himself. He always called Rochette by his first name, “Henri,” and was -in the habit of alluding to Monsieur Rabier as “Rab.” It was Duret who, -according to Yenck, secured, by political influence, the decoration -of the Legion of Honour for Henri Rochette. Yenck declared that Duret -had on one occasion made erasures in the private books of the Crédit -Minier, so as to avoid scandal. He told the Commission that Duret, whom -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_224" id="Page_224">[Pg 224]</a></span> -he had seen with a scratcher in his hand, and one of the Crédit -Minier’s private books in front of him, had explained what he was -doing by the remark: “I am very much afraid that Henri is going to be -arrested, and I don’t want the name of ‘Rab’ to be found in the books.” -(Page 566 of the official shorthand reports of the Parliamentary Commission.)</p> - -<p>On February 1, 1912, the judgment against Rochette was annulled on -grounds of technical irregularity, by the Court of Correctional Appeal, -and the conclusions of the Parliamentary Inquiry Commission were laid -on the table of the Chamber of Deputies. It will be remembered that -according to the statement made by the Procureur Général, Monsieur -Victor Fabre, the Prime Minister, Monsieur Monis, had brought influence -to bear on him for the postponement of the Rochette trial on appeal -from the judgment of July 1910. Monsieur Jaurès, the President of the -Committee of Inquiry, on March 20, 1912, told the Chamber the history -of the Rochette case as he knew it, and he knows it perhaps better than -any other Frenchman living except Rochette himself. He told the story -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_225" id="Page_225">[Pg 225]</a></span> -of the strangely illegal manner in which the police had had Rochette -arrested. He pointed out that the police and the lawyers had been at -loggerheads as to the procedure to be employed. The police acted in -one way, the Parquet (that is to say the legal authorities) acted in -another, and by their ill-considered lack of unity of action with the -Parquet, the police had undoubtedly served the interests of a number of -men who had speculated and had made money on the downfall of Rochette. -It was, said Monsieur Jaurès, a curious fact that while the arrest of -Rochette could not be effected for the mere purpose of protecting the -small investor, it was effected by means of a conspiracy between a -banker, Monsieur Gaudrion, who had sold Rochette shares for the fall, -and Monsieur Prevet, the director of a newspaper, who was anxious to -throttle a competitor.</p> - -<p>In this conspiracy Monsieur Gaudrion furnished the prosecutor and -Monsieur Prevet supplied the influence. Monsieur Gaudrion did not, -himself, prosecute. He could not do so because he had been in trouble -with the laws of his country. He found a man of straw to act as -prosecutor in his stead, a man named Pichereau, and gave him shares and -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_226" id="Page_226">[Pg 226]</a></span> -money to act against Rochette. “When we examined Monsieur Gaudrion -before the Commission of Inquiry, I said to him,” said Monsieur -Jaurès, “I can understand that you, who were gambling for the fall -of Rochette shares should be anxious for the arrest of Rochette, but -why did Pichereau ruin himself by bringing an action which made the -shares in which he had invested his whole fortune perfectly valueless?” -“Gaudrion answered,” said Monsieur Jaurès, “‘The shares did not belong -to Pichereau’,” and this was the truth. Monsieur Jaurès suggested that -the conspiracy had gone even further. Monsieur Clemenceau, who was -Prime Minister, told us that he intervened because he was anxious to -scotch the legend that the Government were protecting Rochette. “I told -him to be careful,” said Monsieur Jaurès. Monsieur Prevet had told the -Commission that Gaudrion had advised him on March 19 or early on the -morning of the 20th, of the readiness of Pichereau to prosecute.</p> - -<p>At half-past eleven on the morning of March 20, Monsieur Clemenceau -telephoned for Monsieur Lépine and told him to find a prosecutor. -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_227" id="Page_227">[Pg 227]</a></span> -Monsieur Lépine spoke to Monsieur Yves Durand, and Monsieur Yves -Durand went straight to Monsieur Prevet. “When I pointed out,” said -Monsieur Jaurès, “the significance of these dates, Monsieur Clemenceau -exclaimed. ‘It is a coincidence.’ Monsieur Lépine also said, ‘It is a -coincidence,’ and I can say no more than ‘It is a coincidence’ to the -Chamber to-day.”</p> - -<p>Here in a few words we have the real origin of the <i>affaire Rochette</i>, -and the “coincidence” which Monsieur Jaurès pointed out to the Chamber -is a painfully suggestive one. Rochette, after his first sentence, was -allowed to drag proceedings out for many months, from July 27 of one -year to April 29 of the next, though the courts always found against -him except in very minor subsidiary actions. He then secured a further -postponement from April 29, 1911, till January 12, 1912. During all -this time Rochette had been a free man, and he was able to continue his -financial operations. His reasons for spending immense sums of money on -securing these postponements of his trial were self-evident. Monsieur -Jaurès pointed out these reasons to the Chamber. Rochette said to -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_228" id="Page_228">[Pg 228]</a></span> -himself, Monsieur Jaurès explained, that the more business he did, the -more chance he had of ultimate escape. If during these months of delay -he succeeded in bringing off one substantial <i>coup</i> he would cease to -be the adventurer who was a danger to the small investor, and would be -considered as the clever and successful financier who had triumphed -over the illegality of his arrest in the first place.</p> - -<p>In this speech before the Chamber, Monsieur Jaurès referred to the -contradictions in the evidence of the Procureur Général Monsieur Fabre, -the Prime Minister Monsieur Monis, and Judge Bidault de L’Isle, with -reference to the last and longest postponement of the Rochette trial -from April 29, 1911, to January 12, 1912. He alluded to the rumour -which was gaining ground that political influence had been brought to -bear on the judicial authorities for the postponement of the trial. He -expressed the regret that these rumours had not been probed until after -the truth was made clear and he declared that Monsieur Fabre had said -either too much or too little before the Parliamentary Commission. We -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_229" id="Page_229">[Pg 229]</a></span> -know the truth now. We know that political influence was brought to -bear for the postponement of the Rochette trial, we know who brought -that influence to bear, and the truckling with the truth on the part -of those concerned in the postponement must be the subject of the next -chapter of this book, for this one is, I fear, too long already.</p> - -<hr class="chap space-above2" /> -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_230" id="Page_230">[Pg 230]</a></span></p> - -<h2>X<br /><span class="h_subtitle">“THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH ...”</span></h2> - -<p class="no-indent"><span class="smcap">The</span> first Commission -of Inquiry closed its labours on March 20, 1912, with the hearing of -three witnesses of importance. These three witnesses were the Procureur -Général, Monsieur Victor Fabre, the ex-Prime Minister, Monsieur Monis, -and the presiding judge of the Chamber of Correctional Appeal, Monsieur -Bidault de L’Isle. All three men were questioned on the rumours of -the bringing of political influence to bear in March 1911 for the -postponement of the Rochette trial. Two years later day for day, on -March 20, 1914, these three men and Monsieur Joseph Caillaux were heard -again by the Parliamentary Commission of Inquiry. A comparison of what -they said in 1912 and what they were obliged to say in 1914 is enough -to move any lover of France to tears. I am anxious to comment on what -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_231" id="Page_231">[Pg 231]</a></span> -happened as little as possible. I am anxious to let these men exhibit -their own shame in their own words. I shall therefore resume their -evidence from the official shorthand notes which remain as its record, -and the public and their own consciences may be their judges.</p> - -<p>“On July 27, 1910,” said Monsieur Victor Fabre, “the Correctional Court -rendered judgment in the Rochette case and Rochette appealed. Rochette -from the very beginning of his case did everything in his power, and -his power was enormous, to hamper the course of legal proceedings, and -to drag them out. Unfortunately the French criminal code plays into -the hands of a man like this,” said Monsieur Fabre, “and it is not too -much to say that when a rich man—for he must be rich—is accused and -wishes to drag out legal proceedings so as not to be judged, it is -perfectly possible for him to effect his object. He has the right to -make proceedings drag and drag, and to obstruct them, and his judges -can do nothing to prevent him, for it is his right—if he can pay the -cost—by the French legal code. Rochette abused this right. He hampered -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_232" id="Page_232">[Pg 232]</a></span> -the course of justice with immense skill, and even before the final -postponement he had succeeded in making the courts play into his -hands. Even on July 27, 1910, you may say,” said Monsieur Fabre to -the Commission, “the affair might have been called on appeal sooner -than April 29, 1911. But there were several reasons against this. The -first, the primary reason, was the long vacation. The courts were not -to meet again until October 15, and before the trial could take place -the President of the Correctional Chamber, the Conseiller Rapporteur, -and the Avocat Général, had to be given an opportunity of absorbing the -facts of the case. This meant several long weeks’ study.”</p> - -<p>“Another reason for the postponement of the trial till April, was the -inquiry which had been ordered into the speculation on the Bourse and -elsewhere in connexion with the Rochette affair. On April 29, 1911, the -trial was postponed till January 11, 1912,” said Monsieur Victor Fabre. -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_233" id="Page_233">[Pg 233]</a></span> -“<i>The postponement was granted at the request of Monsieur Maurice -Bernard. Monsieur Bernard invoked reasons of health. He wrote to the -presiding judge of the Chamber of Correctional Appeal a letter which I -have seen, in which he declares that his state of health will not allow -him to plead the Rochette case before the holidays, and asks for a -postponement. Astonishing as this may seem at first I could not oppose -this request. I assure you that it was most disagreeable to me not to -refuse it, that I was much annoyed at not being able to oppose Maître -Bernard’s request. My wish in this affair was to arrive at a solution -as promptly as possible. But I was unable to make any opposition to -Maître Maurice Bernard’s request, much as I should have liked to do -so. Maître Bernard said that he was ill, and worn out. In consequence, -following the traditions which have always prevailed in the relations -between the court and the Bar I could not oppose a refusal to such a -request.</i> CERTAIN NEWSPAPERS HAVE STATED THAT POWERFUL INTERVENTION -INFLUENCED MY DECISION, AND THAT MORAL PRESSURE WAS BROUGHT TO BEAR ON -ME. I HAVE NO EXPLANATION TO GIVE ON THIS POINT. IF I HAD ANY INTERVIEW -ON THE ROCHETTE AFFAIR WITH A FORMER PRIME MINISTER I CONSIDER THAT I -SHOULD BE FAILING IN ALL MY DUTY IF I WERE TO TELL YOU WHAT TOOK PLACE -AT SUCH AN INTERVIEW.” Monsieur Fabre was questioned and -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_234" id="Page_234">[Pg 234]</a></span> -cross-questioned on this statement. He declared that the last part -of it, the part in which he refers to Monsieur Monis, was purely -hypothetical. The President of the Commission of Inquiry pointed -out to him that everybody would take it to be a statement of fact. -Monsieur Fabre refused to say anything more, but maintained, under -cross-examination, his original statement that Maître Bernard’s -plea of ill-health, and nothing else, had been responsible for the -postponement, for seven long months, of the trial of Rochette.</p> - -<p>And then occurred one of those delightful little interludes which have -a way of lightening the most serious and solemn of France’s bitter -moments. The Parliamentary Commission had called Monsieur Monis to -appear before it. Everybody knew, Monsieur Monis as well as everybody -else, the reason of the summons. Everybody knew the seriousness of the -accusation, implied if unformulated, which lay behind it. Everybody -knew, Monsieur Jaurès as well as Monsieur Monis, that the ex-Prime -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_235" id="Page_235">[Pg 235]</a></span> -Minister would be asked whether or not it were true that he had brought -undue pressure to bear on Monsieur Victor Fabre, in order to secure, -for political and not altogether avowable reasons, a postponement of -the Rochette case.</p> - -<p>In spite of this knowledge, here is the letter in which the President -of the Commission of Inquiry summoned Monsieur Monis. It reads like an -invitation to lunch.</p> - -<div lang="fr"> -<p class="blockquot"> <span class="smcap">Monsieur Le Président</span>, -A la suite des déclarations faites par le Procureur Général, Monsieur -Fabre, la commission de l’affaire Rochette m’a chargé de vous prier de -vouloir bien vous entretenir avec elle demain matin, mercredi, a dix -heures et demie. - -Veuillez agréer mes sentiments respectueusement dévoués.</p> - -<p class="author">(Signed) <span class="smcap">Jean Jaurès</span>.</p> -</div> - -<p>Monsieur Monis in acknowledging receipt of this invitation when he -appeared before the Parliamentary Commission, described it as “an -exquisite little note.” “I wanted to be polite,” he said, “in return -for your politeness, and here I am.” Monsieur Monis then went on to say -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_236" id="Page_236">[Pg 236]</a></span> -that politeness was the only reason for his presence, politeness, and -the wish to protest. “I wish to protest energetically, with all my -energy,” said Monsieur Monis. “If you wish to cover this country with -a fresh crop of scandal you really must not count on my help. I will -be the victim if you like of your injustice, but I will be a proud and -silent victim.” And Monsieur Monis carried impudence to the extent of -forcing the Commission, out of sheer politeness, to admit that he had -been summoned without the least tinge of suspicion that he had done -anything to be ashamed of, and his last words to the Commission as he -left them were, “Respect and confidence.”</p> - -<p>There was not quite so much politeness on either side, when, two years -later, Monsieur Monis gave evidence a second time before the Commission -of Inquiry. It was a Friday, of course, Friday, March 20, 1914. This -time he was forced to admit the truth of the facts he had denied so -lightly and so comfortably two years before. This time he was forced to -admit that for political reasons and on the advice of Monsieur Caillaux -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_237" id="Page_237">[Pg 237]</a></span> -he had brought pressure to bear on Monsieur Victor Fabre to postpone -the Rochette trial. In other words Monsieur Monis, who had been Prime -Minister of France in 1911, who had been forced to resign his position -in the Cabinet now in 1914 because of the revelations contained in -the Fabre statement which Monsieur Barthou had read in the Chamber of -Deputies, was forced to stand before the Parliamentary Commission which -he had hoodwinked with such extraordinary cynicism in 1912, admit that -he had hoodwinked them, admit that he had lied.</p> - -<p>The next witness after the Monis interlude, in March 1912, was the -presiding judge of the Chamber of Correctional Appeal, Monsieur Bidault -de L’Isle. He too declared that he was “rather surprised” at having -been called before the Commission of Inquiry, he too explained that -deference for the Commission had been the sole reason of his coming. He -had received a letter from Maître Maurice Bernard, he said, in which -Rochette’s defending lawyer asked him to have the case postponed. -Maître Bernard said he was very busy, that he had several important -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_238" id="Page_238">[Pg 238]</a></span> -cases coming on, that his doctor told him that he would be ill if he -went on working so hard, and that he really couldn’t plead the Rochette -case for some months. “We never refuse an appeal of this kind from a -member of the Bar,” said Judge Bidault de L’Isle, “so I wrote to Maître -Maurice Bernard that the postponement would be granted. <i>I wish to -affirm in the most formal way</i>,” said Judge Bidault de L’Isle, “<i>that -the question of politics played no part whatever in the decision of -postponement.</i>” Monsieur Jaurès tried very hard, and other members of -the Commission helped as best they could to get the truth from Judge -Bidault de L’Isle, but he repeated the statement quoted above “on his -soul and on his conscience.” On March 20, 1914, exactly two years after -this statement, Monsieur Bidault de L’Isle, who had denied two years -before that Monsieur Fabre, the Procureur Général, had told him that -the Rochette case must be postponed for political reasons, who in March -1912 had declared that the only reason for the adjournment was that -Maître Bernard had asked for it, ate his words without enjoyment, as -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_239" id="Page_239">[Pg 239]</a></span> -Monsieur Monis and Monsieur Fabre had eaten theirs. Three men, a -Prime Minister of France, the judge of one of the highest courts in -the country, and the Public Prosecutor, lied, and admitted under -pressure, when further denial was impossible, that they had trifled, -deliberately, with the truth.</p> - -<p class="space-below2">Of these three men who lied and were forced to admit it, -the most pitiful figure is that of the Procureur Général, Monsieur Victor Fabre, -for he was the victim of a system. Professional secrecy in France has -become such a fetish that it has developed, from a means of preventing -doctors, lawyers, and professional men generally from revealing -unduly the secrets of those who have confided in them, into a kind of -Mumbo-Jumbo idol which protects and cloaks untruth. Now that we know -that Monsieur Victor Fabre told a deliberate lie and made a misleading -half-disclosure of the truth to the Parliamentary Commission which -examined him in 1912, we can only be sorry for the man and amazed at -the system which made such juggling with the truth seem justifiable -to him. In March 1911 Monsieur Fabre, under pressure from the Prime -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_240" id="Page_240">[Pg 240]</a></span> -Minister, Monsieur Monis, had ordered Judge Bidault de L’Isle to -postpone the trial of Rochette. In 1912 either just before or just -after his examination by the Parliamentary Commission, Monsieur Victor -Fabre had handed to the Minister of Justice, who was then Monsieur -Aristide Briand, the written statement which Monsieur Barthou read in -the Chamber of Deputies immediately after the murder of Monsieur Gaston -Calmette in 1914. This statement told the truth which he concealed from -the Commission of Inquiry two years before. Monsieur Fabre had written -his statement immediately after political pressure was brought to bear -on him; he knew, of course, of its existence when he was examined in -1912. And this is how he spoke of it when he was re-examined in 1914. -“I was surprised and afflicted when I learned that a journalist, two -years after I had handed my statement to Monsieur Briand, had boasted -of its possession and proposed to publish it. I didn’t believe this. I -thought that it was quite impossible that he should be in possession -of my statement, that he could publish it, because I did not even know -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_241" id="Page_241">[Pg 241]</a></span> -Monsieur Calmette by sight, because I had not given it to him, because -I considered the fact that the Minister of Justice had this statement -in his possession rendered it inviolable. MY CONVICTION ON THIS POINT -WAS SO STRONG THAT WHENEVER THIS DOCUMENT WAS MENTIONED TO ME I -INVARIABLY STATED THAT IT DID NOT EXIST, AND THAT THERE WAS NO FEAR OF -ITS PUBLICATION.” In plain English, Monsieur Victor Fabre admitted that -he had suppressed the truth, because he was convinced that the truth -would not be known. “I made this declaration to Monsieur Caillaux, -who appeared very uneasy at the thought that this document might be -published. I consider that I HAVE THE RIGHT AND THAT IT WAS MY DUTY TO -SAY WHAT I DID. I CONSIDER THAT I HAD NO RIGHT TO GIVE UP MY SECRET, -FOR THIS DOCUMENT WAS MINE, I COULD DO WHAT I LIKED WITH IT, I COULD -SUPPRESS IT OR TEAR IT UP. TO EVERYBODY BUT MYSELF THE DOCUMENT WAS NONEXISTENT.” -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_242" id="Page_242">[Pg 242]</a></span></p> - -<div class="figcenter"> - <a name="P242" id="P242"></a> - <img src="images/p_242.jpg" alt="M. BARTHOU" width="400" height="634" /> - <p class="right"><i>Agence Nouvelle—Photo, Paris</i></p> - <p class="center space-below1">MONSIEUR BARTHOU</p> -</div> - -<p>After this pitiful confession Monsieur Fabre, as a weak man will, -accused everybody he could think of of breaking faith with him. -“Unfortunately,” he said, “everybody had not the same reserve (this -is an exquisite word to have chosen) that I had. I do not know how my -statement passed from Monsieur Briand’s hands into other hands. I do -know that the use which was made of it was a deplorable abuse.” It was indeed.</p> - -<p>We know now how Monsieur Fabre’s written statement came to be read in -the Chamber of Deputies, and we can guess how Monsieur Calmette and -other journalists knew of its existence, and of its contents. Monsieur -Briand had kept the damning document while he was Minister of Justice. -When he resigned, Monsieur Briand, as his duty was, passed the document -on to the new Minister of Justice, Monsieur Barthou. Monsieur Barthou, -realizing what a political weapon the statement might become, kept it -and used it. Whether he showed it to journalists, I do not know, but we -know from the evidence of Monsieur Fabre as far as faith can be placed -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_243" id="Page_243">[Pg 243]</a></span> -in this evidence after his own confession, that only two copies of the -document were in existence. The one Monsieur Fabre kept in his own -possession until he handed it over on March 20, 1914, to the President -of the Commission of Inquiry, the other, on which he wrote “Copy for -the Minister of Justice,” he copied out in his own handwriting and -handed over to Monsieur Briand. With regard to the contents of the -document nobody now denies that they were true.</p> - -<p>On March 20, 1914, Monsieur Fabre no longer pleaded professional -secrecy, no longer hesitated, but made this direct statement: “It is -perfectly correct that I received an order from the Prime Minister, -Monsieur Monis, to secure the postponement of the Rochette case until -after the holidays. It is perfectly true that I insisted on Judge -Bidault de L’Isle postponing the case. It is perfectly true that I told -him why. If I had gone to Judge Bidault de L’Isle and said, ‘Maître -Maurice Bernard is not very well. Put the case off for a year,’ Judge -Bidault de L’Isle would have told me that there was insufficient reason -for the postponement. I sent for Judge Bidault de L’Isle, I told him of -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_244" id="Page_244">[Pg 244]</a></span> -the interview which I had had with the Prime Minister, and of the order -which had been given me. I explained the situation to him, I adjured -him if he had any affection for me to grant what I asked. He ended by -giving way.” Then this unfortunate man, whose chief fault is weakness, -who trembled for his position, and who allowed the Prime Minister to -dictate to him in consequence, attempted to explain his act away. He -said that even if the case were postponed, even if, as duly happened, -all legal procedure against Rochette were cancelled, Rochette would -not enjoy impunity. At present he is certainly enjoying it, and he -has answered this statement of poor Monsieur Fabre more simply and -conclusively than anybody else can do. Monsieur Fabre had instructions -and carried them out against his own wish, he said. He believed, and -he believes now, that he was obliged to obey them. Under examination -he was asked why he took the Prime Minister’s orders, why he did not -go to his direct superior, the Minister of Justice, Monsieur Perrier. -His answer shows the curiously direct influence of personality in the -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_245" id="Page_245">[Pg 245]</a></span> -government of France. It shows that Monsieur Fabre considered that the -Prime Minister’s order overrode anything that the Minister of Justice -might or might not find to say. And as we know now that Monsieur Monis -gave this order for the postponement of the Rochette trial because -Monsieur Caillaux told him to, as we know that Monsieur Caillaux told -him to give it because Rochette’s lawyer, Maître Bernard, might say -things in court which would be disagreeable to the Government, might -make disclosures which would get the Government, and more especially -Monsieur Caillaux himself, into trouble, we realize that the real ruler -of France on March 2, 1911, was Henri Rochette, who fled the country -under sentence for fraud.</p> - -<p>Monsieur Caillaux himself had an interview, or rather two interviews, -with Monsieur Fabre, who called on him on January 14, 1914, at seven -o’clock in the evening. They spoke of the Rochette affair, and (this -was the second interview) Monsieur Caillaux mentioned the order which -Monsieur Fabre had received. “He asked me,” Monsieur Fabre said to the -Commission of Inquiry (and he had asked me the same question on the -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_246" id="Page_246">[Pg 246]</a></span> -occasion of my former visit), “whether it were true that a copy of my -statement of my interview with Monsieur Monis existed and could be -published. <i>I replied in the negative.</i> He insisted. He told me that he -had information that a journalist was in possession of this document, -and that he was afraid that it would be published. I told him that this -was not possible, <i>that he need not be afraid of the publication of a -document which did not exist</i>. I said this because I was convinced, as -I was convinced up to the last minute, that this document would never -be published and could not be published. I preferred not to reveal -my secret so as not to upset Monsieur Caillaux (‘<i>ne pas attrister -d’avantage</i> Monsieur Caillaux’), who was quite upset enough by the -campaign against him. I had the right to speak as I did because this -document was my property, and because it was useless for me to reveal -its existence as it was not to be published.”</p> - -<p>But the further evidence of Monsieur Victor Fabre, when, in March 1914, -he told the whole truth at last, shows that the orders he received -really did come from Rochette and came almost directly from him. After -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_247" id="Page_247">[Pg 247]</a></span> -his interview with Monsieur Monis, the Procureur-Général had a -conversation with his assistant, Monsieur Bloch-Laroque, whose title -(Substitut) does not exist in England. Monsieur Bloch-Laroque and -Monsieur Fabre talked over the fact that Monsieur Maurice Bernard -had deliberately threatened Monsieur Fabre, that he had said, before -leaving the room and banging the door behind him, that “if Monsieur -Fabre did not obey, it would be the worse for him.” It is surely -unheard of, that Rochette’s lawyer should be able to have terrorized -the French Procureur-Général with such language, but Monsieur le -Procureur-Général Victor Fabre told the Commission of Inquiry, “I was -well aware of the influence and knew the friends of Maître Maurice -Bernard, and I knew that he did not say what he said without knowing -that his words would receive sanction in high places.” Maître Maurice -Bernard is an intimate friend of Monsieur Caillaux, and was his lawyer -in his divorce case. -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_248" id="Page_248">[Pg 248]</a></span></p> - -<p>We may resume this inner history of a series of disgraceful happenings -in the history of France in comparatively few words. Rochette has made -enormous sums of money in a very few years, and the French authorities -believe that he has swindled and is swindling the public. There are -difficulties in the way of proving this immediately. The authorities -connive at the substitution of a man of straw for a proper prosecutor -so as not to allow Rochette to slip through their fingers, and he is -arrested. By every means in his power, and the French legal code gives -him many opportunities, Rochette drags the case against him from court -to court, and succeeds in avoiding final judgment for over two years -and six months. Then, when a definite trial appears inevitable, the -Prime Minister, acting under advice from the Minister of Finance, who -has allowed himself to be terrorized by Rochette—to put the mildest -possible construction on the reason for his conduct—brings influence -to bear on the magistrature, and postpones the trial again. Rochette -in the meanwhile has left France, and has continued to prosecute his -financial schemes. There we have the Rochette case in a nutshell. There -also we have its intimate connexion with the Caillaux drama, for the -Minister of Finance who, for more or less personal reasons, persuaded -the Prime Minister to order the postponement of the trial, was Monsieur -Joseph Caillaux. -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_249" id="Page_249">[Pg 249]</a></span></p> - -<p>How personal were Monsieur Caillaux’s reasons for advising Monsieur -Monis to secure the postponement of the Rochette trial were shown in -a letter from Rochette himself, which he sent to the President of the -Commission of Inquiry on March 27, 1914. The letter was a very long -one. In it Monsieur Rochette told the story of how he had terrorized -the Minister of Finance, Monsieur Caillaux, into working for him. -Rochette had compiled a volume of 120 pages on the history of financial -issues made in France and floated on the market from 1890 to 1910. In -these tables it was shown that French investors had had heavy losses -amounting in all to four hundred million pounds sterling. The book was -likely to create very serious difficulties for Monsieur Caillaux, the -Finance Minister, who had been responsible for permitting many of these -issues of stock, and it was Rochette’s determination that his lawyer -should read these figures in court on the plea of showing that if some -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_250" id="Page_250">[Pg 250]</a></span> -of his issues had brought losses to the French investor other issues -under higher authority than his own had done the same thing on a larger -scale. The importance which Monsieur Caillaux attributed to this book -is proved by the fact that he spoke of it to Monsieur Monis as a -political reason for doing what Rochette wished, and postponing the -trial. It is interesting to note that there are actually thirty-eight -prosecutions waiting Rochette’s return to France.</p> - -<p>The history of the Rochette case shows unfortunately that Madame -Caillaux’s revolver shot was not the only crime in the full story of -the Caillaux drama. There is another criminal whom a higher court must -try than the Paris Court of Assizes, there is another victim besides -Gaston Calmette. The criminal is expediency, expediency which allows -men in the positions of Prime Minister, of judge, of Public Prosecutor -to tamper with fact, to mislead and to lie in the belief that they -“have the right” to do so. The victim whom they murdered is The Truth.</p> - -<hr class="chap space-above2" /> -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_251" id="Page_251">[Pg 251]</a></span></p> -<h2>XI<br /><span class="h_subtitle">ABOUT FRENCH POLITICS</span></h2> - -<p class="no-indent"><span class="smcap">Perhaps</span> the most -difficult part of the life of France for an Englishman to understand -is her politics. To give with any thoroughness at all even a slight -idea of the French political parties and the opinions for which these -parties fight, would require another volume quite as big as this one. -But the object of this chapter is not an essay on the intricacies -of party politics in France, nor do I propose to attempt a detailed -explanation of the differences of opinion which divide the parties. My -object is rather to give the reader some insight into the clockwork -as it were of the inner political life of France, so as to throw more -light, within the measure of my power with the lamp, on the Caillaux -drama, which is such a salad of passion, politics, and finance.</p> - -<p>It is, as I have said, extremely difficult for an English reader -to realize what French political life really is, for it is so very -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_252" id="Page_252">[Pg 252]</a></span> -different from political life at home, and though it might more easily -be compared perhaps to the political life of the United States it -differs in many ways and in many essentials from that also. But French -political life does resemble the political life of America in one way, -in contrast to the political life of England. Its very foundation is -familiarity, and the French politician is not generally respected by -his compatriots as one who knows more than themselves. He is admired -as one who has more cunning. The French used to take pride in the -familiarity with which they treat their politicians, for familiarity -such as is the mainspring of France’s politics used to be called -<i>Egalité</i>, and is still one of the words, in this disguise, with which -the French politician loves to conjure, and succeeds in conjuring, -votes out of an empty hat.</p> - -<p>If I were asked to name the most powerful political class in modern -France I should plump for the <i>marchand de vin</i>. The <i>marchand de vin</i>, -the keeper of the little wineshop, with the zinc counter and the little -tables with their stone tops beyond it, which is the equivalent of the -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_253" id="Page_253">[Pg 253]</a></span> -English public house, is quite the most powerful electoral agent -existing in France, and he is recognized as such by every French -politician. At election times, or for that matter, at any time, no -French politician can afford to neglect him, and he controls votes -without number in every town, every village, and every district -throughout the length and breadth of the country.</p> - -<p>So true is this that every Government is obliged to recognize the fact -of the <i>marchand de vin’s</i> importance, and each succeeding Government -is put in the curious position, as it succeeds the Government before -it, of being obliged, on the score of public morality, public health, -and public well-being to discourage the consumption of strong drink -in words, and to encourage it in act. There are laws in France which -permit certain people to make and to sell alcohol. Governments from -time to time have endeavoured to remove or to restrict the privileges -which these manufacturers of alcohol enjoy, but they have never -succeeded because the <i>bouilleurs du cru</i> as they are called, are much -too strong for them and much too strongly backed. Each succeeding -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_254" id="Page_254">[Pg 254]</a></span> -Government knows, or if it does not recognize the fact at first, the -fact is very soon made clear, that everybody connected with the wine -and spirit industry must be conciliated if votes are to be obtained, -and retained, and although France has for a good many years now called -herself a republic she is really a monarchy under the thumb of a -despot, whose name is King Marchand de Vin, and who is only nominally -under the control of Parliament. Parliament controls the <i>marchand de -vin</i> nominally, perhaps, in France, but as the <i>marchand de vin</i> elects -the members who form Parliament, as the <i>marchand de vin</i> controls and -regulates the votes of the many-headed, the <i>marchand de vin</i> reigns, -and will continue to reign supreme, for France will not stop drinking -wine till England abjures beer.</p> - -<p>To the observer who has the advantage of aloofness as his point -of view, the thing which impresses more than anything else as the -principal characteristic of French politics is their selfishness. This -peculiarity is almost as remarkable, perhaps even more remarkable, than -the curious complications of the many political parties. To begin with, -in studying the parties the first thing which strikes one in addition -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_255" id="Page_255">[Pg 255]</a></span> -to their number is the fact that they are all, with the exception of -the Royalists and Imperialists who call themselves Conservatives, as -advanced or more advanced than any party at all in either England or in -Germany. The German Socialist, for instance, of the reddest type, has -tenets which, if he were a Frenchman, would probably make him vote with -the very moderate Left, and Monsieur Millerand, who used to be looked -upon as such a dangerous Socialist not very long ago is now considered -by the Socialists themselves old-fashioned and reactionary, while -Monsieur Briand is in French eyes a very moderate reformer, if he be -considered a reformer at all.</p> - -<p>But here I am beginning the impossible task of attempting to divide -French politicians into parties, and explaining the views of these -parties in plain language. I must not allow myself to be led away, -by the Chinese puzzle fascination French party politics invariably -exercise, to attempt this task. I could not succeed, for by the time -this book is on the market French parties will no doubt have changed -and shaken down again into other and different shapes, for French -political combinations hold together as cohesive forces with little -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_256" id="Page_256">[Pg 256]</a></span> -more certainty than the bits of coloured glass in the kaleidoscope. -Every time a question of the least importance gives a turn to the -handle, the parties of the day, the week, or the month before -disintegrate and fall into other combinations of infinite shades of colour.</p> - -<p>But we may talk of the selfishness of French politics, for this, -unfortunately, does not change. In a country where politics are so -mixed that the elector understands very little about them, it is not -difficult to catch votes by arguments of another kind. Our business -just now being with the Caillaux drama, it may not be a bad method of -explaining how French politicians gain the authority to govern, by -some sidelights on the election at Mamers of Monsieur Joseph Caillaux. -Immediately after Madame Caillaux had shot the editor of the <i>Figaro</i> -dead her husband resigned office. He was of course obliged to do this. -Immediately after his resignation he announced that he intended to -retire from public life entirely, and would take no part in politics -in the immediate future. He had hardly made this announcement, which I -mentioned on page 79, before he changed his mind, and announced that -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_257" id="Page_257">[Pg 257]</a></span> -owing to the insistence of his constituents he would be a candidate for -re-election when the general election took place, but that he would -not canvass, and that his friend Monsieur D’Estournelles de Constant -would canvass for him, while he himself would remain in the retirement -demanded by the situation of his wife. A very few days after this -second change of plans Monsieur Caillaux changed his mind once more -and determined to canvass Mamers. He has been re-elected. It is not -uninteresting to glance at the reason why.</p> - -<p>Any foreigner might have imagined that there was no possible chance -for any body of electors to re-elect Monsieur Joseph Caillaux as -their representative. The fierce light which played so recently and -so unsparingly on his political career had scarcely shown him to be -a desirable member of Parliament. It would be difficult, one would -think, for Frenchmen to vote for the man who had made such a number -of mistakes, and who had been connected, as Monsieur Caillaux was -connected, with the negotiations disclosed in the chapters in this -volume on Agadir and the <i>affaire</i> Rochette. But the foreigner would -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_258" id="Page_258">[Pg 258]</a></span> -not realize, and Monsieur Caillaux realized, very conclusively, that -the peasants of the Sarthe district cared little or nothing for the -revelations in the Paris Press, and cared a great deal for Monsieur -Caillaux’s personality.</p> - -<p>To anybody who has not lived among them, the ignorance of the French -peasant in the country districts on the affairs of his country must be -incredible. How crass this ignorance can be may be imagined from the -absolute fact that in many parts of Monsieur Caillaux’s constituency -the electors, who have returned him to the Chamber of Deputies again, -are absolutely convinced that Monsieur Calmette is not dead at all, -and that the story of his murder by Madame Caillaux has been put about -by Paris journalists merely to do Monsieur Caillaux harm. The peasants -of the Sarthe believe, in many cases, that Monsieur Calmette is still -alive, and is keeping out of the way, in hiding somewhere. “Tout ça, -c’est des histoires de Parisiens” is the popular view. The distrust -of the townsman in general, and of the Parisian in particular, which -prevails in many French country districts and in Normandy and Brittany -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_259" id="Page_259">[Pg 259]</a></span> -even more than elsewhere, was a remarkable asset for Monsieur Caillaux -when he asked for the suffrage of the Sarthe peasantry.</p> - -<p class="space-below1">Some idea of this asset and the way in which he used it -can be obtained from his letter to his constituents in which he thanks them for -electing him. The letter, which is dated “Mamers, May the 1st,” has -been posted on the walls all over the constituency. “My dear friends,” -writes Monsieur Caillaux, “How can I express my gratitude, and my -emotion? In spite of the pressure exerted by the whole strength of the -reactionary parties, in spite of the money which flowed like water, -in spite of an unqualifiable campaign of calumny and of lying, the -constituency of Mamers has given me a majority of nearly 1500 votes -over my opponent.” -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_260" id="Page_260">[Pg 260]</a></span></p> - -<div class="blockquot"> -<p>“You have avenged your deputy for the odious attacks and the -defamation of which he has been the object. You know that their origin -was his love of peace, which was made clear in the treaty of November -4, 1911 (this is the Agadir treaty), and his wish to make rich men -contribute more freely to the expenses of the country.</p> - -<p>“Once more I thank you from my whole heart. More than ever I will be -the untiring defender of your rights and of your interests. More than -ever I will do my utmost to ensure to France and the Republic order, -stability, and reform. Believe, my dear friends, in my affectionate -devotion to your interests.</p></div> - -<p class="author">“<span class="smcap">J. Caillaux.</span>”</p> - -<p>Does not this letter breathe with surprising clarity humbug of the -broadest? Whatever one may think of Monsieur Caillaux, no one has yet -accused him of poverty, and his opponent in the Sarthe was quixotic -enough to refrain from much mention of the Caillaux drama at election -time, so that the campaign of calumny was purely imaginary. And, to top -everything, when he did mention it and the Rochette case in a final -poster, Monsieur Caillaux challenged him to a duel, for “maligning -the electors of Mamers!” The duel was “fought” before journalists, -photographers and the cinematograph. The snapshots show that Monsieur -Caillaux fired in the air, and his opponent fired into the ground. So -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_261" id="Page_261">[Pg 261]</a></span> -everybody laughed, and “honour was satisfied.” But Monsieur Joseph -Caillaux is looked upon <i>as a victim</i> in the Sarthe! The peasants there -understand nothing and care less about foreign politics. They approve -Monsieur Caillaux’s opposition to three years’ military service, -because Germany is far away and is only a name to them, and they prefer -their sons to be called away from the land for two years instead of -three. They approve Monsieur Caillaux’s suggestion of taxing the rich, -because they have never troubled to understand it, and it sounds good -to them, and most of all, and above all, they approve of Monsieur -Caillaux because he is rich, powerful, and generous in his constituency.</p> - -<p>It must be understood that I am using Monsieur Caillaux and the Sarthe -as an example of the conditions which prevail in many parts of France. -The French elector in many of the country districts is decidedly more -ignorant than one could believe possible, and in almost all parts of -the country he is selfish. Here, again, I may be allowed to quote some -of the electioneering literature of the Sarthe to show the kind of -benefits which appeal to French electors. Political considerations, -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_262" id="Page_262">[Pg 262]</a></span> -benefits to the nation, national defence, big projects—“Tout ça c’est -des balivernes”—is the French peasant’s verdict. A candidate who is -wise will, if he wants to gain favour in a constituency, tell his -constituents as little as possible about political measures and as much -as possible of the things concerning them directly which he has done -in the past, and which he hopes to do in the future. The drainage of -a village will gain more votes than the most important law imaginable -for the benefit of France. Monsieur Caillaux, or rather his friends, -reminded the people of the Sarthe that Monsieur Caillaux had obtained -for them heavy subventions from the Pari-Mutuel for the support of -a hospital, that in the last few years he had secured over £4000 -for them from the Government for local interests, that all kinds of -institutions had been helped, that the nuns had been well treated (oh! -Monsieur Caillaux!), that this village had a new pump, and that one -a new road, in a word, that owing to the power of Monsieur Caillaux, -and the cleverness of Monsieur Caillaux, and the influence of Monsieur -Caillaux, the peasants of La Sarthe had obtained, and were likely to -obtain, greater advantages than the peasantry of any other part of -France as long as he remained their member. -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_263" id="Page_263">[Pg 263]</a></span></p> - -<p>These were the reasons which caused Monsieur Caillaux’s re-election, -and these are the reasons which militate above all others in France -at election times. The natural result of elections conducted on the -narrow-minded basis of selfish advantage is that the deputies, when -they are elected, are as selfish as their constituents’ reasons for -electing them have been. I suppose every country has the government -which it deserves. The French are very certainly governed by a body -of men who do not neglect their own interests. I do not mean to imply -that they do neglect those of their country, but I do say that the -conservation of power and their own welfare take the first place in -their minds, and that is so certain that “L’Assiette au Beurre,” which -expression we may translate “The Cream Jug” is dipped into very freely -by members of all parties who have access to it, in every French -Parliament. The principal vice of the government of France, to my mind, -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_264" id="Page_264">[Pg 264]</a></span> -is the payment of deputies. The class of man is growing in France who -serves his country because his country pays him six hundred pounds a -year to do so, and because there are plenty of pickings over and above -the annual stipend of £600. A French deputy makes very free use of -his right of free travel on all the railways, supplies his family and -friends with free stationery, economizes, through his influence, in -countless little ways, money which the ordinary citizen has to spend -from the fruits of his labours. The French politician is essentially -a professional of politics, places party considerations above all -others, because these keep him in power and allow him access to the -“cream jug,” and is not in the least ashamed of using his influence for -personal benefit either directly or indirectly.</p> - -<p>I do not think it unfair criticism to point out that it is this -mentality which makes for such corruption in French politics as we had -to deplore at the time of the Panama scandal, for such corruption as -was seriously suspected during the progress of the Rochette case, and -for the undue use of influence which is considered quite natural on the -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_265" id="Page_265">[Pg 265]</a></span> -part of individual members of the governing bodies of France, by which -I mean not the Government alone, but also the Chamber and the Senate, -which undue use of influence culminated in the shameful apotheosis -of the scene in the room of the Prime Minister which resulted in the -postponement, with its consequences, of the trial of the financier -Rochette. The inner history of the Caillaux drama differs in details -from the inner history of other French scandals, but it differs very -little from them in essentials. In every case when one of these -unsavoury ulcers on France’s fair name festers and bursts we find the -same pus in it. The root of all the evil is the inherent selfishness of -the French character, and I am not disinclined to believe that there -is a great deal of inherent dishonesty too at the root of the evil. A -Frenchman will often refuse to keep a promise in commercial matters -because the man to whom he made it can produce no <i>written</i> proof that -the promise was given. Business men will refuse business interviews -without the presence of a witness. There are severe laws in France -compelling, under severe penalties, the restoration to the unknown -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_266" id="Page_266">[Pg 266]</a></span> -owner through the police authorities of anything of value found lying -about. But ask anybody who has picked up money in the street what he -would do with it if nobody saw him pick it up. The Frenchman is frank. -He will laugh and will maintain his right to pocket this find, because -if <i>he</i> loses anything he knows that the person who finds it will -pocket it if he dare. I have seen respectable Frenchmen swindle other -respectable Frenchmen out of a halfpenny in a Paris omnibus. It is not -the halfpenny that is important, it is the mentality which underlies -the theft. It may seem a far cry from the theft of a halfpenny to the -Rochette scandal, but you can trace the connexion very easily if you -care to think the matter out. And if you think it out with care, you -cannot fail to see that this basis of selfishness, permeating upwards -through every vein of French private, public, and political life, has -been directly responsible for the Caillaux drama and for the results -which that drama has had and will have on the life of France in the future.</p> - -<hr class="chap space-above2" /> -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_267" id="Page_267">[Pg 267]</a></span></p> -<h2>XII<br /><span class="h_subtitle">BEFORE THE LAST ACT OF THE DRAMA</span></h2> - -<p class="no-indent"><span class="smcap">A French</span> criminal trial -is in every respect as unlike a criminal trial in England as can well -be imagined. To begin with, if the Caillaux drama had been English, if -the wife of an English Cabinet Minister were at the present moment in -Brixton gaol awaiting her trial because she had walked into Printing -House Square and shot the editor of the <i>Times</i>, this book, by the mere -fact of its appearance, would send me and the publisher to prison for -contempt of court. In France, not only is there no contempt of court in -comment on a case sub judice, but the preliminaries of a great criminal -trial are conducted in the open. Ever since the murder of Monsieur -Gaston Calmette the Paris papers have contained long daily digests of -the evidence collected on the details of the murder, and this evidence -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_268" id="Page_268">[Pg 268]</a></span> -has been commented on every day, and with the utmost freedom, by the -Paris newspapers. There is a special magistrate known as the <i>juge -d’instruction</i>, whose duty it is, if I may put it so, to try the case -before it comes into court, and to hand to the judge who presides over -the trial his opinion on the prisoner’s innocence or guilt, his full -reasons for that opinion, and the evidence in résumé which he has -collected to enable him to form it. In other words, directly a crime -has been committed, whether the supposed criminal be arrested or not, -a <i>juge d’instruction</i> or examining magistrate is appointed, and from -the moment of his appointment he takes entire charge of the case. The -prisoner is entirely in his hands. That is to say, he disposes of her -while she is awaiting trial, under certain rules and regulations of -course, as he thinks fit. He may question her as often or as seldom -as he wishes, either in his room at the Palace of Justice or in her -cell, the only proviso being that he is not allowed to question her -without the presence of her lawyer, and that at each interrogatory his -sworn clerk, known as the <i>greffier</i>, must be present to take down his -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_269" id="Page_269">[Pg 269]</a></span> -questions, and the prisoner’s answers, and at the end of each -interrogatory to obtain the prisoner’s signature at their foot. The -examining magistrate’s work is of course by no means confined to his -examination of the prisoner. As soon as he has digested the first -details and circumstances of the crime he has full power to summon and -to examine anybody and everybody whom he considers likely to have any -evidence to give which may help him in his judgment on the case.</p> - -<p>So wide are the powers of an examining magistrate, that he may if -he wishes arrest not only presumable accomplices but any unwilling -witness. It has happened before now that a witness has preferred to -remain away from the room of a French examining magistrate and has -been sent for by him and brought under arrest to him to give evidence, -and a witness who has signed an untrue statement in the examining -magistrate’s office is not unfrequently, when convicted of perjury at -the trial, where he has repeated this evidence on oath, arrested in -court. It sometimes happens, too, that witnesses contradict in court -the evidence which they have given to the examining magistrate. If they -do so they enjoy impunity, unless, they are proved to commit perjury in -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_270" id="Page_270">[Pg 270]</a></span> -their contradiction, for evidence to a <i>juge d’instruction</i> is not -given on oath. It happens very frequently too, in fact it almost always -happens, that numbers of people for whom the examining magistrate -has never thought of sending write to him that they have evidence to -give, and desire to be heard. The prisoner and the prisoner’s lawyer, -even the prisoner’s friends, are encouraged also to give the names of -any people from whom they wish the examining magistrate to collect -evidence. Practically therefore in a French criminal case the criminal -is tried twice over, once by the examining magistrate, and a second -time in the court of assizes before a jury. And the first trial is the -more important of the two, because of the influence of the examining -magistrate’s report on the minds of the judge and of the jury, at the -assize court trial. The examining magistrate has the right to acquit a -prisoner without sending him or her for trial at all if he finds that -there is no case.</p> - -<p>It happens, however, comparatively rarely in practice, that a -<i>non-lieu</i>, as it is called, is pronounced by the examining magistrate, -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_271" id="Page_271">[Pg 271]</a></span> -as it is a very bad mark against the name of any <i>juge d’instruction</i> -to allow a prisoner to be set at liberty without very conclusive proof -of innocence. If there be the slightest doubt the prisoner is always -sent for trial. The benefit of the doubt is practically non-existent in -the conduct of a French criminal case in its preliminary stages, and it -may be taken as a fact that whereas a prisoner in England is considered -to be innocent until guilt has been proved, the reverse is the French -method, and a prisoner in France is considered to be guilty until -conclusive proof of innocence has been given and accepted.</p> - -<p>Another feature of the preliminary stages of a French criminal trial -is the manner in which the evidence which the examining magistrate -collects is made public as he collects it. The examining magistrate -receives members of the Press during the days, weeks, and often months -of his preliminary examination of the evidence, and to all intents and -purposes the evidence which has been laid before him is put at their -disposal for publication. It is very rarely indeed that an examining -magistrate in France withholds any of the evidence he collects from the -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_272" id="Page_272">[Pg 272]</a></span> -newspapers, and as each item is usually laid before the public, -commented on at length, and frequently distorted in accordance with the -views of the staff of the newspaper which reproduces it, the public try -a case while it is in process of trial, and the newspapers criticise -the examining magistrate’s conduct of the long examination and deliver -a verdict of their own before the jury have an opportunity of doing -so. These methods form part of the legal code of France, and as such, -open to criticism though they may be, are never criticised. The methods -of preliminary trial of a French criminal case present of course this -grave disadvantage, that every one of the twelve jurymen and the two -supplementary jurymen before whom the case is tried, practically hear -or read all the evidence before they see the witnesses and hear them -in court, and practically have tried and have judged the case in their -own minds, however impartial they may try to be, before they come into -court to try and to judge it.</p> - -<p>I have already mentioned the freedom of action which the examining -magistrate enjoys in France. This is unlimited. An examining magistrate -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_273" id="Page_273">[Pg 273]</a></span> -is hampered by nothing at all in his examination of the prisoner, -or of witnesses for and against, except by the dictates of his own -conscience. As it is human nature for a man to shrink from the -acknowledgment that he has been mistaken, it is obvious that a French -examining magistrate who starts with the idea that his prisoner is a -guilty man or woman will do everything in his power, and his power -has no limit except his own conscience, to prove the guilt of his -prisoner. He may, and often does, use dramatic methods to force a -confession. He may, and often does, lie to the prisoner for the purpose -of extracting a confession. He may, and often does, misreport to the -prisoner evidence which has been given him so as to entrap a guilty -prisoner, whom he can manage to convince that the game is up, into a -full confession of guilt. There have been many cases known of abuse of -this power. It has happened before now that a prisoner, accused of a -crime of which he or she is perfectly innocent, has actually confessed -to the crime rather than endure the mental torture of the examining -magistrate’s persistent cross-examination. -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_274" id="Page_274">[Pg 274]</a></span></p> - -<p>And in the hands of an unscrupulous man, even when that man honestly -believes in the guilt of the prisoner he is examining, mental torture -is not the only form of torture which may be inflicted. Of course there -are no thumbscrews, rack, or water torture in existence in France -nowadays, but there are other and more refined methods of coercion -which an examining magistrate may use, and often does use, against the -prisoner whose case is under consideration. Pathetic mention of these -methods was made, I remember, during the trial of the motor bandits by -one of the prisoners whom the court afterwards acquitted. All the small -comforts which a prisoner (a <i>prévenu</i> is the French expression) may -enjoy while awaiting trial rest entirely on the good or ill will of the -examining magistrate, and he is paramount to permit them or to remove -them, as his will or his fancy dictates. During these preliminary -stages of the trial nobody has any right to interfere with an examining -magistrate or to question his decision on any matter whatsoever. The -prisoner’s lawyer or the prisoner may of course protest, and the -protest must be registered by the clerk, who is always present. But it -rests entirely with the examining magistrate how much severity and how -much leniency are shown to the <i>prévenu</i> while the preliminary trial proceeds. -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_275" id="Page_275">[Pg 275]</a></span></p> - -<p>Another thing which remains entirely at the examining magistrate’s -discretion is the length of this preliminary trial. He is free to -conclude his examination when he wills. As soon as he considers that -the evidence he has collected is sufficient to allow him to send the -case for trial, and to hand his opinion on it, with the reasons for his -opinion, to the judges, the date of trial is fixed. He may send in this -opinion in a few days, he may take many months over it if he wishes, -and though the imprisonment of a prisoner before trial ranks as part of -the sentence after conviction, an examining magistrate who has taken -a very long time over his preliminary examination may inflict very -serious hardship on a prisoner whom the assize court acquits at the end.</p> - -<p>In the case of Madame Caillaux it is probable that the trial will come -on in July or possibly even after the holidays, in September. It is in -everybody’s interest that the trial should not be heard too soon. The -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_276" id="Page_276">[Pg 276]</a></span> -judges need time to probe every tittle of the evidence, the -Government—though the Government will hardly dare to interfere, I -think—will prefer the case to be heard when Paris is comparatively -empty, and the defence will find in a long detention in Saint Lazare -pending her trial a useful argument for mercy to the prisoner.</p> - -<p>The work of an examining magistrate in France is conducted with a -curious absence of formality. The prisoner or the witnesses come to his -room in the Palace of Justice, and in the case of a prisoner the guards -withdraw. The magistrate collects his evidence in a very conversational -way. He chats with the prisoner and with the witnesses whom he calls, -he interrupts them, he bullies them if he thinks fit, he allows them -to speak or he reads them a lecture, exactly as he likes, he makes -statements, and takes note of contradictions, and he frequently calls -three or four witnesses together and allows them to discuss points in -the case while he listens to the discussion.</p> - -<p>This method, I may remark, is often a very fruitful means of getting at -the truth. The absence of formality has often proved to be a great help -to the course of French justice. The French law and English laws have -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_277" id="Page_277">[Pg 277]</a></span> -very different ideas on the subject of evidence. To give an idea of -what is considered perfectly relevant and perfectly admissible evidence -in France, Madame Caillaux, during the course of her preliminary -examination by Monsieur Boucard, the examining magistrate in charge -of her case, made the following extraordinary request to him. “I am -informed,” she said, “that, in the opinion of the great surgeon Dr. -Doyen, the life of Monsieur Calmette might have been saved after I shot -him if he had been treated differently.” Madame Caillaux’s contention -was that the doctors who attended Monsieur Calmette after she had shot -him might have treated him in such a way as to ensure his recovery, and -she asked the examining magistrate to call Doctor Doyen, who, after -reading the report of the autopsy made by the sworn medical experts -after Monsieur Calmette’s death, was of the opinion that the surgeons -who attended him might have saved his life. Evidence of an equally -irrelevant nature is considered perfectly admissible in any French -criminal trial, and evidence as to character and motive very frequently -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_278" id="Page_278">[Pg 278]</a></span> -admits in France of an immense abuse of the examining magistrate’s -time. In the Caillaux case, for instance, friends of the murdered -man have been prolific with evidence to the effect that from their -knowledge of Monsieur Calmette they consider it most unlikely that he -would ever have printed the letters which play so large a part in the -evidence for the defence, and the publication of which Madame Caillaux -feared and anticipated.</p> - -<p class="space-below2">An immense amount of time has been taken up already with -the hearing of witnesses who had nothing to say except to report that somebody had -told them something of which knowledge had come to him from the report -of somebody else, and friends of Monsieur and Madame Caillaux as well -as friends of Madame Caillaux’s victim have been allowed to spend hours -in the examining magistrate’s office at the Palace of Justice making -speeches on behalf of the prisoner or against her which were sometimes -interesting, which were more or less convincing, but which very rarely -formed any real evidence such as evidence is understood in England. And -all the while the collection of evidence goes on it is published in the -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_279" id="Page_279">[Pg 279]</a></span> -newspapers day by day and commented on at will. More than this, -witnesses, after their examination by the examining magistrate, are -interviewed in the newspapers, and columns of what they have said, -often with very little bearing on the case at all, often the mere -expression of opinion, are published. Sometimes the publication of -these interviews gives curious results. There have been cases where -a witness has said little of interest in the examining magistrate’s -room, and has been so effusive to a journalist afterwards that another -visit to the examining magistrate has become necessary, and has secured -evidence of value.</p> - -<div class="figcenter"> - <a name="P279" id="P279"></a> - <img src="images/p_279.jpg" alt="MME. CAILLAUX" width="450" height="653" /> - <p class="right"><i>Agence Nouvelle—Photo, Paris</i></p> - <p class="center space-below1">MME. CAILLAUX IN THE DRESS SHE WAS TO WEAR AT THE -ITALIAN EMBASSY ON THE EVENING OF THE MURDER</p> -</div> - -<p>The mass of work which the preliminary examination in a big criminal -trial entails may be gathered from the fact that the examining -magistrate’s opinion on the case when written out and handed into court -to be read at the beginning of the trial is frequently of such length -that it forms a volume by itself and takes many hours in the reading. -The judge who presides over the case has of course read the examining -magistrate’s opinion, and digested it very carefully before the case -comes into court, and in France it is the judge who conducts a trial -rather than counsel for the defence and for the prosecution. -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_280" id="Page_280">[Pg 280]</a></span></p> - -<p>During the preliminary examination of the Caillaux case, which finished -just before this volume went to press, several unanticipated points -arose. The reader, who has studied with any care the employment, -given in the first chapter of this book, of Madame Caillaux’s time on -March 16, 1914, will have noticed that some hours of the afternoon -were unaccounted for. A very bitter discussion on the employment of -those hours, a discussion in which Monsieur Caillaux, Madame Caillaux, -Monsieur Caillaux’s friends, the <i>Figaro</i>, the public bank clerks, the -keeper of the registry office where Madame Caillaux engaged a cook, the -cook herself, Madame Caillaux’s servants, her English governess Miss -Baxter—in which all kinds of people were allowed to take a hand, raged -for several days. It came about in the simplest manner. Madame Caillaux -said that she went to the registry office and engaged a cook early -in the afternoon. The keeper of the registry office said that Madame -Caillaux had engaged a cook late in the afternoon. The cook herself -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_281" id="Page_281">[Pg 281]</a></span> -didn’t remember exactly at what time she was engaged. Madame Caillaux’s -chauffeur remembered when he drove her to the registry office, but his -evidence is not considered incontrovertible because he is in Madame -Caillaux’s employ. Matters were complicated by the fact that Madame -Caillaux had been to the Crédit Lyonnais and to her safe there. The -strong room of the Crédit Lyonnais is officered by certain clerks who -hand each person who goes down to the strong boxes a ticket, duly -numbered, which is stamped with a mechanical dating stamp marking the -hour and minutes at which it is issued. Madame Caillaux’s ticket was -marked five o’clock. She maintained that she had been to the Crédit -Lyonnais an hour earlier, between four and five minutes past, and that -she had been home before she went there. For several days, argument -went on in the papers, in which all sorts of people took part, to -show that Madame Caillaux had told the truth or had lied about the -employment of her afternoon before the murder. This argument was -mainly for the purpose of proving or of disproving premeditation or -its absence. After several days’ newspaper discussion, an examination -of the mechanical stamp at the Crédit Lyonnais proved that it was very -unreliable and its use has now been discontinued by the bank. -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_282" id="Page_282">[Pg 282]</a></span></p> - -<p>One of the great difficulties in the task of the examining magistrate -in securing really relevant and really useful evidence in a crime -of this kind, is the French insistence on the need of and the right -to professional secrecy. As I have pointed out in another chapter, -while professional secrecy is in some cases a necessity, it is often -distinctly antagonistic to the search for the truth. It is not -unlikely that there might never have been any Caillaux drama at all -if professional secrecy had not been invoked on another occasion. -During Monsieur Boucard’s examination he was informed by two members -of Parliament that each of them had been told that Monsieur Calmette -had been in possession of the letters, the publication of which Madame -Caillaux feared so much. The examining magistrate very naturally wanted -to know who had supplied this information, and very naturally wanted to -question the informant. One of the two honourable deputies had given -his word of honour as a lawyer, the other had given his word of honour -pure and simple not to disclose the source of his information, with the -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_283" id="Page_283">[Pg 283]</a></span> -result that their evidence is no evidence at all, and that on the -other hand even if it be valueless the public and everybody interested -has been led to believe that there may be a good deal in it. But what -impresses the impartial observer more than anything else in connexion -with the preliminaries for a criminal trial in France is their -unfairness—the unfairness of the system—to the person who is to be -tried. For instance, after Monsieur Calmette’s death, the report of the -autopsy made by the two medical officers of health usually charged with -this duty, Doctor Socquet and Doctor Charles Paul, was handed by them -to the examining magistrate and was, immediately afterwards, published -<i>in extenso</i> in the public press. The examining magistrate had also -received the evidence of the armourer, Monsieur Gastinne-Renette, and -his employees on Madame Caillaux’s visit to the shooting gallery, and -her trial of the revolver she bought there. An enterprising newspaper -secured a figure from the shooting gallery, marked it with the trial -shots as Madame Caillaux had shot them, and published this picture -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_284" id="Page_284">[Pg 284]</a></span> -opposite another one representing Monsieur Calmette, which was marked -with the wounds inflicted according to the autopsy. Does it not -seem an unheard of and unallowable crime against common sense and -common decency that the public should be offered such evidence of -premeditation by a newspaper while the case is still unheard?</p> - -<p>Some idea of the evidence which is inflicted on the examining -magistrate in a case of this kind may be formed from that given -voluntarily by a young man named Robert Philippeau. Monsieur Philippeau -stated with some solemnity that he knew nothing about the drama, that -he did not know Monsieur Caillaux and that he had not known Monsieur -Calmette. He had been in the Nord Sud (a branch of the Paris Tube) in a -first-class carriage, one afternoon in the course of last winter. Two -ladies sat on the seat immediately behind him. One of them said in his -hearing, “She browbeat me, she laughed at me, she took him from me, but -I have four of his letters, and one of them is one which he does not -know I possess. I have shown these letters to Barthou, I have told him -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_285" id="Page_285">[Pg 285]</a></span> -that I am going to use them. He neither advised me to do so, nor -advised me not to. I will wait till they get to the top of the tree and -then I will pull them down headlong.” Monsieur Philippeau said that -he looked at the lady who had spoken. He did not know her by sight, -but when he saw the picture of Madame Gueydan-Dupré in the newspapers -he had no further doubt that it was she who had spoken, and that she -alluded to the letters of which we have heard so much.</p> - -<p>To anyone who has ever seen in a Paris daily newspaper the reproduction -of the photograph of anyone he knows, the value of this “evidence” -is obvious. Madame Gueydan had no difficulty whatever in proving by -the evidence of several intimate friends that she had never been in -the Nord Sud in her life. And even if Madame Gueydan had travelled -every afternoon all through the winter in the first-class carriages -of the Nord Sud she would hardly have been likely to talk to a friend -in a loud voice of private affairs of such importance, or to mention -Monsieur Barthou’s name in connexion with them. -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_286" id="Page_286">[Pg 286]</a></span></p> - -<p class="space-below2">With regard to these letters, it is not yet certain that -they will be read in court, but it is to be hoped that the examining magistrate -may succeed in obtaining possession of them for this purpose, for on -the probability of their publication in the <i>Figaro</i>, and on Madame -Caillaux’s belief that their publication might occur, rests one of -the principal pleas for the defence. In her examination on the motive -for her crime before the examining magistrate, Monsieur Boucard, the -prisoner was asked why she was so afraid at the idea of the publication -of the two letters which Monsieur Caillaux had written to her in 1909 -when he was still the husband of Madame Gueydan, as Madame Caillaux -at that time was already divorced from her first husband, Monsieur -Léo Claretie. “These letters,” said the prisoner, “were intimate in -nature, and I resented and feared the possibility of their publication. -My situation and my reputation could be attacked by the help of these -letters.” “That being so,” said Monsieur Boucard, “why did you give -them back to Monsieur Caillaux?” “When he wrote them to me,” said -the prisoner, “I was staying in the country with friends. So that I -shouldn’t lose them, Monsieur Caillaux asked me to send them back to -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_287" id="Page_287">[Pg 287]</a></span> -him, addressed to him ‘Poste Restante’ at Le Mans. I did this, and -that is how Madame Gueydan was able to steal them from the drawer of -his writing-table. Now that the scandal has burst,” she added, “I -should wish these two letters to be put in with the other evidence on -my case.” Monsieur Boucard told her (it should be understood that the -whole of this conversation in the magistrate’s private room at the -Palais of Justice was reproduced in full, immediately after it took -place, in the Paris newspapers of April 22) that he had asked Madame -Gueydan on three separate occasions to give him the photographs of -these letters—which photographs had been taken and which she had, -she admitted, deposited in a safe place—and that she had refused to -let him have them. “I hope you will be able to get them,” said Madame -Caillaux to Monsieur Boucard. “Their publication will show that they -are not the improper letters they have been described to be, and I wish -to renew my statement that in going to the <i>Figaro</i> office I had no -intention of killing Monsieur Calmette. My object was to obtain from -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_288" id="Page_288">[Pg 288]</a></span> -him the promise that he would not make use of the letters which -Monsieur Caillaux had written to me, and I had intended making a -scandal in case Monsieur Calmette refused.” The magistrate’s answer to -this statement was published, with the statement itself, by the Paris -newspapers of April 22.</p> - -<div class="figcenter"> - <a name="P288" id="P288"></a> - <img src="images/p_288.jpg" alt="M. JOSEPH CAILLAUX" width="400" height="639" /> - <p class="right"><i>Agence Nouvelle—Photo, Paris</i></p> - <p class="center space-below1">M. JOSEPH CAILLAUX</p> -</div> - -<p>I quote his answer from the <i>Petit Parisien</i>, a paper which has made -every effort to try the case in its columns with impartiality, and -without political bias. I quote it as a sidelight on the inherent -peculiarities of the conduct of a criminal trial in France, quite -irrespective of the impropriety of its being published at all. “Do not -let us go back to a discussion on this point,” answered the magistrate. -“You will make nobody believe that when you went to get your letters -back or to obtain a promise that they should not be published you lost -all power of speech, and lost your head at the same time, to the extent -of saying nothing and using your revolver.” “Madame Caillaux had been -in the magistrate’s office for six hours,” says the <i>Petit Parisien</i>. -“She appeared very tired.” -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_289" id="Page_289">[Pg 289]</a></span></p> - -<p>Some weeks before this extract from the examination of Madame Caillaux -had appeared <i>Excelsior</i> published (on March 25, 1914) an extract from -the letter Madame Caillaux had written to her husband and left with -Miss Baxter, her daughter’s English governess, to be given to her -husband on the evening of March 16 in case she did not return home -before him. In this letter Madame Caillaux is said to have written, in -reference to her conversation with her husband that same morning, “you -told me that you were going to smash his face. I do not want you to -sacrifice yourself. France and the Republic need you. I will do it for you.”</p> - -<p>The mere fact that such details of the examination of a prisoner by the -magistrate appointed to instruct the court which is to try her should -be made known in the public Press and should be free for comment weeks -before, and even months before the trial of her case in the assize -court, calls for no remark. It speaks for itself. A prisoner in France -who has been accused of any crime is tried by the public before the -trial of the case begins. The jury cannot possibly come into court with -impartial minds owing to this system, they cannot listen with open -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_290" id="Page_290">[Pg 290]</a></span> -minds to the evidence which is laid before them in the court room, for -they have read it all before, they have thought over it, they have -discussed it with their families and with their friends, and with the -best will in the world they have been unable to help forming an opinion -of one kind or another. And there is another vice of French procedure -which is well worthy of note. In a sensational case such as the trial -of Madame Caillaux, the jury is subjected to direct influence. After it -has been empanelled at the beginning of the trial the members of the -jury return to their homes every evening. They are therefore, during -the actual hearing of the case, liable to outside influence. Even more -than this, the names of the twelve jurymen and of the two supplementary -jurymen will certainly be published in the French newspapers with -details about the men themselves and their professions, before the -trial begins, and this of itself forms an abuse which must inevitably -react on the absolute impartiality of a jury, which should be a -first necessity of any criminal trial in any country, for numbers of -newspapers will tell them what they ought to do and what their verdict ought to be. -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_291" id="Page_291">[Pg 291]</a></span></p> - -<p>The procedure of a French criminal trial in the court of assizes in -Paris is attended with considerable pomp. In the Caillaux case as in -the cases of a sensational nature which have preceded it, the rush for -tickets of admission to the trial will be enormous. Response to this -demand for tickets to hear and to witness the trial rests entirely -in the hands of the judge who presides over the proceedings. He is -able to admit, to standing room behind the bench, such friends of his -own as he cares to admit, and he decides on the number of tickets -of admission to the body of the court, which are distributed to the -Press. The body of the court is supposed to be reserved for the Press -and for the witnesses. In actual fact, as every barrister in robes -is by reason of his profession entitled to admission to the court, -barristers overflow from the seats reserved for the Bar and crowd the -Press benches and the witnesses terribly, and far too many tickets -are invariably distributed to members of the detective force in plain -clothes who become “journalists” for the occasion. The public who have -no particular privileges are admitted to a small space at the back of -the court, through a small door in the Palace of Justice which is set -apart for the purpose. -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_292" id="Page_292">[Pg 292]</a></span></p> - -<p>In the trial of Madame Steinheil long queues waited all night for -admission to this small enclosure, although the hundreds who waited -knew beforehand that very few of them would get in, and in the Caillaux -case we are likely to see similar strings of well dressed society folk -subjecting themselves to the hardships of waiting all night in the -streets for a few hours’ sensation. The assize court is presided over -by the President and two assistant judges. These three men in all the -mediæval glories of their red robes and quaint brimless caps, trimmed -with ermine, sit at a long table on a platform at the upper end. The -court-room is a long parallelogram with beautiful dark oak panelling -and ugly green paper above it. The top half of the room, which is -reserved for the court, the table with the <i>pièces à conviction</i> -(Madame Caillaux’s revolver, for instance), the jury, and the Bar, -behind which is the dock, is divided from the lower half of the room -where the witnesses, the Press, and the public sit or stand, by an -oaken barrier with a gate in the middle of it. Immediately in front of -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_293" id="Page_293">[Pg 293]</a></span> -this gate, plumb in the centre and facing the table at which the judges -sit, is the bar to which witnesses are called. Witnesses, after they -have given evidence, go and sit on the seats beyond the barrier till -the end of the trial. A witness stands facing the judge, and has on his -immediate right the prisoner’s lawyers and above them the dock in which -the prisoner stands. This dock has no door leading into the body of the -court. The only entrance to it or exit from it is a door leading out -to a room and the passage which conducts to the stairway leading down -to the depôt or prison in the Palace of Justice. To the witness’s left -is the box with the jury, and on a level with the judge’s bench and -with the jury’s box is the desk occupied by the Public Prosecutor, who -wears the same imposing red, ermine-trimmed robes as those worn by the -judges, and who prosecutes on behalf of the Government of France. As a -matter of fact, however, in every French criminal trial there are two -prosecutors. The French criminal system considers this right, but to -any foreigner who has been present at a trial in France it must appear -anything but that. For the presiding judge in a French trial is really -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_294" id="Page_294">[Pg 294]</a></span> -a prosecutor as well. Before the case comes into court he has spent -many hours over the opinion provided for him, in a lengthy document -with countless appendices of evidence, by the examining magistrate, and -from the very start of the trial the presiding judge takes the lead in -the examination of the prisoner.</p> - -<p>I was present in the Paris Court of Assizes throughout the Steinheil -trial, and I shall always remember the painful impression which was -made on me then by the judge’s methods. I remember now the picture I -saw of the eager little woman, dressed in black, pleading, protesting, -discussing, admitting and contradicting by turn, and of the man in -his judge’s robes who argued hotly with her, told her, downright, -time after time that she was guilty of the crime for which she was on -trial, thundered out accusations, tried to wheedle her into damaging -admissions, and thundered out the statement that she was not telling -the truth. The judge in a French trial is not only a prosecuting -counsel—he is rather a brutal one at that. Any impartial onlooker, if -he be not a Frenchman, and be not therefore accustomed to the methods -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_295" id="Page_295">[Pg 295]</a></span> -of the French court, cannot help realizing that the judge uses his -power and his prestige as Brennus used his sword, and frequently hurls -it into the scales of justice to the detriment of the prisoner. On the -other hand, a French judge, who is enjoined by law on his honour and -his conscience to use his best efforts to bring out truth at the trial, -undoubtedly does so within the limits of human possibility.</p> - -<p>But the work which a French judge has to do at a criminal trial is more -than any one man should be allowed to do, for no man can both judge -and prosecute. To begin with, his own opinion has been prejudiced, -must have been prejudiced, by the opinion of the examining magistrate, -which, whether he will or not, has influenced him. He examines all the -witnesses, he examines the prisoner, and he cross-examines them. On the -other hand he is forbidden to discuss the arguments after the counsel’s -speeches, either for the prosecution or for the defence (if he did so -the whole proceedings would be void), and he does not sum up as an -English judge is allowed to sum up. But the French judge in a criminal -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_296" id="Page_296">[Pg 296]</a></span> -trial sums up at the beginning of the trial instead of after it. He -has made a complete study of the <i>dossier</i>, which is to all intents -and purposes a complete study of the brief for the prosecution and of -the brief for the defence, he tells the jury the whole story of the -crime with which the prisoner is charged, and tells them the facts on -which the prosecution and the defence rely. The judge tells the jury, -before it is given, of the evidence which will be called in support -of the prosecution, and of the evidence which will be called by the -defence in answer to it. He goes the length of explaining why the -prosecution believes the prisoner to be guilty, and explains the facts -and deductions on which prisoner’s counsel base their defence.</p> - -<p>The amount of apparently irrelevant argument which is permitted in a -French criminal trial is enormous. The code does not allow it, for by -Article 270 the presiding judge is ordered to exclude from the hearing -anything that will prolong the trial without adding to the certainty -of the result. In any trial which has aroused general interest this -article of the code usually becomes a dead letter. The judge himself, -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_297" id="Page_297">[Pg 297]</a></span> -the Public Prosecutor, the prisoner’s counsel, the prisoner and the -witnesses are all allowed immense latitude, are all encouraged to -say all that they care to say at enormous length. The only people in -court who do not talk are the members of the jury, and from the very -beginning of the trial these men go to their homes every night, discuss -the case with their friends and their wives, and read the newspapers -daily, and the newspaper comment on the case which they are trying. -Jurymen are not necessarily possessed of legal minds, and under such -circumstances how can twelve ordinary men, however honest, and however -impartial they may wish to be, keep their minds entirely free from -outside influence.</p> - -<p>I don’t know that I have ever heard of a case in which a member or -members of the jury have been known to have talked to witnesses, but -I do not know, either, that there is anything to prevent any member -of the jury discussing the case at night during the progress of the -trial with a witness outside the precincts of the court. No man is -infallible, but justice ought to be. Jean Richepin put the whole case -against the French criminal trial in a nutshell when he sang “Quel -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_298" id="Page_298">[Pg 298]</a></span> -homme est assez Dieu pour rendre la Justice?” The conclusions of a -<i>juge d’instruction</i>, however capable the man may be, need not of -necessity be infallible. As he has the power to let the prisoner go, -the power to say that there is no case for the jury, it stands to -reason that, unless he states a doubt, the mere fact that he has sent -the prisoner for trial means that he believes in the prisoner’s guilt.</p> - -<p>The judge therefore starts a trial with the conviction that the -examining magistrate thinks that the prisoner is guilty. This -conviction must influence his conduct of the case. “Quel homme est -assez Dieu pour rendre la Justice” under these conditions? Many -Frenchmen have been of the opinion for a long time that the procedure -of a French criminal trial needs reformation. Many consider that the -judge’s preliminary interrogatory of the prisoner and of the witnesses -should be entirely suppressed, and should give place to examination -and cross-examination by prosecuting counsel and the counsel for the -defence. Many people think too that the <i>juge d’instruction</i> should be -made to justify his <i>dossier</i> in open court and on oath, that he should -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_299" id="Page_299">[Pg 299]</a></span> -be called to justify it at the witness bar instead of the present -system of a formal reading by a clerk of the court which takes a long -time and is always so gabbled that it is merely a formality.</p> - -<p>Another reform in French criminal procedure which many Frenchmen think -necessary is the suppression of the freedom of the jury during the -trial. There is a curious disregard of rules and regulations during the -details of a big criminal trial in France. There are witnesses who, in -response to the judge’s remark after he has asked the witness to swear -to tell the truth without fear and without hatred, and to state name, -address, and age, in response to the three words “Make your deposition” -which give the witness a free head, behave just like racehorses when -the starting gate goes up. Lawyer witnesses particularly have been -known to make long speeches for the defence or for the prosecution on -the plea of giving evidence, and there are many other similar abuses. -It often happens, too, that evidence which the examining magistrate has -collected is never sifted at the trial itself. When the trial is over, -when the Public Prosecutor, the counsel for the defence, and, if the -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_300" id="Page_300">[Pg 300]</a></span> -prisoner has anything to say, the prisoner, have addressed the court, -the jury retires to consider the verdict. There is something oddly, -picturesquely, emphatic and impressive in the mechanism of this retirement.</p> - -<p>Somehow or another the French have a peculiar knack of stage-managing -anything and everything. No visitor on his first visit to Paris fails -to remark the wonderful stage-management (I suppose I ought to call -it landscape gardening) of the city. Look at the Tuileries Gardens -when dusk is just closing in towards the end of a fine day. The whole -place breathes the history of the last days of the Empire, and has the -gentle melancholy of a Turner picture. Stop in the Avenue des Champs -Elysées where the Avenue Nicholas II. intersects it. Look up the -Avenue and down it. The Arc de Triomphe and the Place de la Concorde, -which, when it ceased to be the Place Royale, held the scaffold of a -king of France. Look out across the Seine, then turn and look behind -you. The bridge which is named after a murdered Czar of Russia and the -Invalides beyond it. Behind you the Palace of the Elysée, the home of -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_301" id="Page_301">[Pg 301]</a></span> -the President of the third Republic, facing Napoleon’s Tomb. At every -turn in Paris, north, east, west, or south, you get signs of this -half-unconscious national gift of staging effects.</p> - -<p>The jury in a criminal trial in Paris does not, as a London jury does, -melt into disappearance before the final verdict. There are a few -solemn words from the judge, there is a rustle as the lawyers gather up -papers and sit back, and then fourteen very ordinary, very weary good -men and true, whose faces we had only seen in profile until then, rise -in their places. Their white and tired faces shine suddenly a pasty -yellow in the electric lamplight. The good men of the jury show us -their backs and walk slowly behind the desk of the Public Prosecutor to -a little door which we had not noticed till then, and which has just -been opened. Through this freshly opened door we stare across the court -up a flight of narrow stairs with red and grey carpets on them. The -verdict will come, presently, down that flight of narrow stairs. The -small door closes, and we wait.</p> - -<p>As a rule a big criminal trial finishes late in the evening. Everybody -is sick of it. For the sake of the prisoner, for the sake of the judge, -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_302" id="Page_302">[Pg 302]</a></span> -for the sake of the jury, for the sake of the lawyers, for the sake of -the public, every one wants to get it over. Nobody wants yet another -adjournment. So it is usually at night that one sits and waits for the -verdict in a big Paris criminal trial, and although I have seen exactly -the same scene, and endured exactly the same sensations many times, the -scene has never lost its dramatic force, and the sensations are always -new. A sense of relief comes first. We have seen the prisoner, in a -state of semi-collapse as a rule, going out through the door of the -dock to the room behind it, where, on this last evening of the trial, -the prisoner is allowed to wait for the verdict which is to be rendered -before her return. We feel the relief that one feels when the fighting -is over, mingled with suspense and with pity for the wretched creature -who is waiting and is wondering. We realize that we are hungry, and -rush off to get a little food. We dare not stay to eat it, and return -with it to court again. The appearance of the court-room has changed -during the few minutes of our scamper to the buffet down below for -sandwiches. We have brought them back with us, and other people are -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_303" id="Page_303">[Pg 303]</a></span> -munching food, too, in the dust, the heat, the squalor of this room -from which the majesty of justice has departed with the red robed -tribunal, the jury, and the prisoner. There is a hubbub of excited talk -and much discussion. Municipal guards forget to keep order and chat -with us and with the barristers of the probabilities and possibilities -of the verdict. Every now and then there is a hubbub of excitement and -a sudden deathly stillness. The little door, beyond which we can see -those red and grey carpeted stairs, has opened. The jury are returning! -No, it is a false alarm. They are not quite clear on some formal point -or other, and they have sent for the judge. After one or more of these -alarms, suddenly, when nobody has expected it, the little door opens -and remains open. The jury really are returning this time. We see them -walk slowly down those narrow red and grey stairs, and file slowly into -the box. Their faces tell us nothing, but we all try to read them. The -presiding judge and his two assistant judges walk slowly in and take -their seats, at the long table. On their right, the red robed Public -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_304" id="Page_304">[Pg 304]</a></span> -Prosecutor who has followed them, stands at his desk, on their left -the lawyers for the defence stand in their seats in front of the empty -dock. The stillness which was broken for a moment while the court came -in becomes something tangible, something quite painful now. It has -a quality of the sensation one feels in a diving bell. Our eardrums -tingle with it. Then the judge’s voice breaks the strain. “There must -be not the least noise,” he says. “I will allow no demonstration of any -kind, whatever the verdict may be.” Somebody laughs, and is hushed down -with indignant sibilance. We know that there will be a demonstration -whatever the judge may say. There has never yet been a French trial -without one.</p> - -<p>“Mr. Foreman of the Jury,” says the judge, “Be kind enough to let -us know the result of your deliberations.” If possible the silence -becomes greater yet. Then: “On my honour and on my conscience,” says -the foreman of the jury “before God and before men, the answer is ... -to all questions.” And pandemonium breaks forth. The answer to the -questions has to be “Yes” or “No”. The jury may not amplify it. They -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_305" id="Page_305">[Pg 305]</a></span> -will be asked, in the trial of Madame Caillaux, to decide whether -there was murder, whether there was murder with premeditation or -without it. They will be asked to state whether there are extenuating -circumstances, or whether there are none. On these answers, on this -simple “Yes” or “No” depends the fate of the prisoner. We see the -judge’s mouth open and shut, we see his hand rise and fall, but we have -heard no sound of his voice in the hubbub which the declaration of -the verdict has let loose. Then there is silence again. The judge has -ordered the prisoner to be brought in. The verdict is told her, and the -sentence, if there is a sentence, is rendered.</p> - -<p>This is the way in which the curtain will fall on the last act of the -Caillaux Drama. Will it be a final curtain? And what will the jury’s -answer be to the questions which will be put to them? That, no man can -answer now. Madame Caillaux may of course be acquitted, though public -opinion in Paris considers this exceedingly unlikely. She may be found -guilty of murder with premeditation. The sentence decreed by the Code -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_306" id="Page_306">[Pg 306]</a></span> -for this is death, and nobody believes in or anticipates the likelihood -of such a verdict. If the verdict be “Murder without premeditation,” if -the jury finds extenuating circumstances, the Code decrees a minimum -of five years, either hard labour or confinement in a prison, and a -maximum of ten years. There is also the possibility that a sentence may -be passed of hard labour or imprisonment for life.</p> - -<p>And beyond the verdict, beyond the sentence, what will the future of -this woman and her husband be? That no man can answer either, but we -all know that whatever happens, whatever the court decides, those shots -from a revolver in the office of the <i>Figaro</i> on the afternoon of March -16, 1914, will never cease to echo in the lives of Joseph and Henriette Caillaux.</p> - -<p>And in the echo, lurks the tragic essence of the Caillaux drama.</p> -<p class="center space-above1"><span class="smcap">the end</span></p> - -<hr class="chap space-above2" /> -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_307" id="Page_307">[Pg 307]</a></span></p> -<h2>INDEX</h2> - -<ul class="index"> -<li class="ifrst">Agadir</li> -<li class="isub2">M. Calmette asked not to publish telegrams, <a href="#Page_96">96</a></li> -<li class="isub2">M. Clemenceau and the Barthou Cabinet, <a href="#Page_103">103</a></li> -<li class="isub2">M. Caillaux open to criticism, <a href="#Page_106">106</a></li> -<li class="isub2">M. Calmette’s series of articles, <a href="#Page_130">130</a></li> -<li class="isub2">History of Agadir, <a href="#Page_150">150</a></li> -<li class="isub2"><i>Panther</i> and <i>Berlin</i> arrive, <a href="#Page_165">165</a></li> -<li class="isub2">M. Caillaux’s telegram, <a href="#Page_166">166</a></li> -<li class="isub2">Lord Morley in the <i>Times</i>, <a href="#Page_168">168</a></li> -<li class="isub2">Treaty, <a href="#Page_259">259</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Algeciras, Act of</li> -<li class="isub2">The right of France to police Morocco, <a href="#Page_151">151</a>, <a href="#Page_154">154</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Alphonse de Neuville, Rue</li> -<li class="isub2">Home of Madame Caillaux, <a href="#Page_12">12</a>, <a href="#Page_13">13</a>, <a href="#Page_14">14</a>, - <a href="#Page_17">17</a>, <a href="#Page_20">20</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Aratra Mines</li> -<li class="isub2">Company floated by M. Rochette, <a href="#Page_210">210</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Asquith</li> -<li class="isub2">“extremely difficult” situation, <a href="#Page_168">168</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Auteuil</li> -<li class="isub2">Home of M. Schneider, Boulevard Beauséjour, <a href="#Page_121">121</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Avenue d’Antin</li> -<li class="isub2">Sale-rooms of Gastinne-Renette, <a href="#Page_18">18</a></li> - -<li class="ifrst">Banque, Franco-Espagnole</li> -<li class="isub2">Company floated by M. Rochette, <a href="#Page_184">184</a>, <a href="#Page_200">200</a>, - <a href="#Page_207">207</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Banque Perrier</li> -<li class="isub2">M. Calmette calls M. Caillaux to account for heavy fine, <a href="#Page_130">130</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Baring Bros., London Bankers</li> -<li class="isub2">concerned in Prieu affair, <a href="#Page_118">118</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Barrès</li> -<li class="isub2">took part in debate in Chamber of Deputies, <a href="#Page_42">42</a> -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_308" id="Page_308">[Pg 308]</a></span></li> - -<li class="indx">Barthou, Minister of Justice</li> -<li class="isub2">produced and read statement, <a href="#Page_33">33</a>, <a href="#Page_96">96</a>, - <a href="#Page_179">179</a></li> -<li class="isub2">takes part in debate in Chamber of Deputies, <a href="#Page_42">42</a></li> -<li class="isub2">conversation with Mme. Gueydan and with M. Caillaux, <a href="#Page_97">97</a></li> -<li class="isub2">defeated by Clemenceau faction, <a href="#Page_103">103</a></li> -<li class="isub2">opposition to M. Caillaux, <a href="#Page_104">104</a></li> -<li class="isub2">comment on Bourse operation, <a href="#Page_137">137</a></li> -<li class="isub2">M. Fabre’s statement received from M. Briand, <a href="#Page_242">242</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Baxter, Miss, Mme. Caillaux’s English governess</li> -<li class="isub2">letter for M. Caillaux, <a href="#Page_289">289</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Belgian Congo</li> -<li class="isub2">Railway from German Cameroons, <a href="#Page_164">164</a>, <a href="#Page_174">174</a></li> -<li class="isub2">opinion in Great Britain and Belgium, <a href="#Page_168">168</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Bernard-Maurice, M. Rochette’s lawyer</li> -<li class="isub2">statement by M. Fabre, <a href="#Page_35">35</a>, <a href="#Page_38">38</a>, - <a href="#Page_39">39</a>, <a href="#Page_232">232</a></li> -<li class="isub2">represented M. Caillaux in divorce proceedings, 83, 181</li> -<li class="isub2">M. Poincaré’s evidence, <a href="#Page_83">83</a>, <a href="#Page_84">84</a>, <a href="#Page_85">85</a></li> -<li class="isub2">M. Monis’ remarks, <a href="#Page_181">181</a></li> -<li class="isub2">charges of illegality made, <a href="#Page_206">206</a></li> -<li class="isub2">postponement of trial, <a href="#Page_237">237</a>, <a href="#Page_238">238</a></li> -<li class="isub2">threatened M. Fabre, <a href="#Page_247">247</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Bernstein, Henry, Jewish play-writer</li> -<li class="isub2">play produced Comédie Française, <a href="#Page_65">65</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Berr, Examining Magistrate</li> -<li class="isub2">preparing Rochette case, <a href="#Page_199">199</a></li> -<li class="isub2">letter from M. Rochette, <a href="#Page_200">200</a></li> -<li class="isub2">M. Rochette’s complaint, <a href="#Page_217">217</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Bidault de L’Isle, Judge</li> -<li class="isub2">question by M. Delahaye, <a href="#Page_30">30</a></li> -<li class="isub2">evidence before Commission of Inquiry, <a href="#Page_31">31</a>, <a href="#Page_32">32</a></li> -<li class="isub2">statement by M. Fabre, <a href="#Page_35">35</a>, <a href="#Page_36">36</a>, <a href="#Page_38">38</a>, - <a href="#Page_39">39</a>, <a href="#Page_40">40</a></li> -<li class="isub2">pressure brought on him by M. Monis and M. Caillaux, <a href="#Page_140">140</a>, <a href="#Page_240">240</a></li> -<li class="isub2">contradictions in evidence, <a href="#Page_228">228</a></li> -<li class="isub2">evidence at Chamber of Correctional Appeal, <a href="#Page_237">237</a>, <a href="#Page_238">238</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Blanc, Examiner of M. Rochette’s books</li> -<li class="isub2">M. Rochette’s trial a foregone conclusion, <a href="#Page_218">218</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Bloch-Laroque, friend of M. Fabre</li> -<li class="isub2">statement by M. Fabre, <a href="#Page_35">35</a>, <a href="#Page_39">39</a></li> -<li class="isub2">conversation with M. Fabre on M. Bernard, <a href="#Page_247">247</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Boileau, Member of Prieu Syndicate</li> -<li class="isub2">letters in the <i>Figaro</i>, <a href="#Page_123">123</a> -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_309" id="Page_309">[Pg 309]</a></span></li> - -<li class="indx">Boucard, Examining Magistrate</li> -<li class="isub2">Madame Caillaux’s evidence, <a href="#Page_18">18</a>, <a href="#Page_19">19</a>, <a href="#Page_20">20</a>, - <a href="#Page_21">21</a>, <a href="#Page_286">286</a>, <a href="#Page_287">287</a></li> -<li class="isub2"><i>Action Française</i>, <a href="#Page_69">69</a></li> -<li class="isub2">M. Caillaux and evidence of others, <a href="#Page_80">80</a></li> -<li class="isub2">evidence of M. Caillaux, <a href="#Page_86">86</a>, <a href="#Page_87">87</a>, <a href="#Page_90">90</a>, - <a href="#Page_93">93</a>, <a href="#Page_95">95</a></li> -<li class="isub2"><i>re</i> Prieu affair, <a href="#Page_118">118</a></li> -<li class="isub2">Madame Caillaux’s request, <a href="#Page_277">277</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Bourget, Paul</li> -<li class="isub2">novelist and friend of M. Calmette, <a href="#Page_6"> 6</a>, <a href="#Page_21">21</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Briand, Minister of Justice in Monis Cabinet</li> -<li class="isub2">received M. Fabre’s declaration, <a href="#Page_32">32</a></li> -<li class="isub2">statement handed to M. Barthou, <a href="#Page_33">33</a></li> -<li class="isub2">took part in debate in Chamber of Deputies, <a href="#Page_42">42</a></li> -<li class="isub2">favours Clemenceau party, <a href="#Page_103">103</a></li> -<li class="isub2">founded Federation of the Left, <a href="#Page_104">104</a></li> -<li class="isub2">Prime Minister, <a href="#Page_153">153</a></li> -<li class="isub2">resignation, <a href="#Page_155">155</a></li> -<li class="isub2">Monis Cabinet and desire to break away, <a href="#Page_159">159</a></li> -<li class="isub2">M. Caillaux’s epigram, <a href="#Page_159">159</a>, <a href="#Page_163">163</a></li> -<li class="isub2">interview with M. de Selves, <i>re</i> “green document,” <a href="#Page_173">173</a></li> -<li class="isub2">handed M. Fabre’s statement to M. Barthou, <a href="#Page_242">242</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Buisson Hella</li> -<li class="isub2">Company floated by M. Rochette, <a href="#Page_184">184</a>, <a href="#Page_207">207</a></li> - -<li class="ifrst">Caillaux, Eugène Alexandre, Inspector of Finance and Minister of State</li> -<li class="isub2">father of M. Joseph Caillaux, <a href="#Page_87">87</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Calmette, Madame</li> -<li class="isub2">divorce proceedings, <a href="#Page_94">94</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Cambon, Jules, French Ambassador in Berlin</li> -<li class="isub2">troops to Fez, <a href="#Page_164">164</a></li> -<li class="isub2">reply of von Kiderlen Waechter, <a href="#Page_165">165</a></li> -<li class="isub2">M. de Selve’s request, <a href="#Page_167">167</a></li> -<li class="isub2">questions German Foreign Minister, <a href="#Page_170">170</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Cambon, Paul</li> -<li class="isub2">instructions in relation to British Government, <a href="#Page_166">166</a>, <a href="#Page_167">167</a></li> -<li class="isub2">telegram from Berlin, <a href="#Page_171">171</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Cameroon</li> -<li class="isub2">Franco-German understanding, <a href="#Page_158">158</a>, <a href="#Page_159">159</a>, - <a href="#Page_160">160</a>, <a href="#Page_167">167</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Carpin, Police Commissioner</li> -<li class="isub2">received journalists, <a href="#Page_10">10</a>, <a href="#Page_11">11</a> -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_310" id="Page_310">[Pg 310]</a></span></li> -<li class="isub2">no means of stopping <i>Figaro</i> campaign, <a href="#Page_13">13</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Cassel, Sir Ernest</li> -<li class="isub2">influence on behalf of M. Spitzer, <a href="#Page_128">128</a></li> -<li class="isub2">negotiations with Herr von Gwinner, <a href="#Page_170">170</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Ceccaldi</li> -<li class="isub2">mentioned in M. Caillaux’s evidence, <a href="#Page_100">100</a></li> -<li class="isub2">charges of corruption, <a href="#Page_126">126</a></li> -<li class="isub2">member of second Commission, <a href="#Page_193">193</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Chauchard, Founder of Magasins du Louvre</li> -<li class="isub2">legacy to M. Calmette, <a href="#Page_95">95</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Chaussée d’ Antin, Rue de la</li> -<li class="isub2">situation of office of M. Gaudrion, <a href="#Page_196">196</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Claretie, Leo</li> -<li class="isub2">first husband of Madame Caillaux, <a href="#Page_286">286</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Claretie, Madame Leo, second wife of M. Caillaux</li> -<li class="isub2">became Madame Caillaux, <a href="#Page_88">88</a>, <a href="#Page_90">90</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Clemenceau</li> -<li class="isub2">supporter of M. Pams, <a href="#Page_102">102</a></li> -<li class="isub2">against M. Barthou and his Cabinet, <a href="#Page_103">103</a></li> -<li class="isub2">general adviser, <a href="#Page_104">104</a></li> -<li class="isub2">letter published by M. Calmette, <a href="#Page_135">135</a></li> -<li class="isub2">head of Government, <a href="#Page_152">152</a></li> -<li class="isub2">out of office, <a href="#Page_153">153</a></li> -<li class="isub2">M. Caillaux and impeachment for high treason, <a href="#Page_169">169</a></li> -<li class="isub2">interview with M. de Selves, <a href="#Page_173">173</a></li> -<li class="isub2">discussion in the Chamber, <a href="#Page_175">175-177</a></li> -<li class="isub2">accused of moral complicity with M. Rochette, <a href="#Page_191">191</a></li> -<li class="isub2">initiates action in Rochette case, <a href="#Page_193">193</a>, <a href="#Page_194">194</a></li> -<li class="isub2">accusation of proceeding illegally, <a href="#Page_206">206</a></li> -<li class="isub2">evidence before Commission of Inquiry, <a href="#Page_209">209</a>, <a href="#Page_212">212</a></li> -<li class="isub2">Government not protecting M. Rochette, <a href="#Page_226">226</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Cochery</li> -<li class="isub2">Finance Minister, 1909, <a href="#Page_115">115</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Compagnie Transatlantique</li> -<li class="isub2">quarrel with South Atlantic Company and <i>Figaro’s</i> accusation, <a href="#Page_129">129</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Congo</li> -<li class="isub2">Franco-German understanding, <a href="#Page_152">152</a>, <a href="#Page_155">155</a>, <a href="#Page_158">158</a>, - <a href="#Page_159">159</a>, <a href="#Page_160">160</a>, <a href="#Page_167">167</a></li> -<li class="isub2">convention with Germany, <a href="#Page_163">163</a></li> -<li class="isub2">M. Waechter’s answer to M. Cambon, <a href="#Page_165">165</a></li> -<li class="isub2">Germany’s demands, <a href="#Page_168">168</a>, <a href="#Page_171">171</a> -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_311" id="Page_311">[Pg 311]</a></span></li> - -<li class="indx">Conty, Director of Political Affairs in Foreign Office and now French Minister at Pekin</li> -<li class="isub2">Franco-German understanding in Congo, <a href="#Page_158">158</a>, <a href="#Page_160">160</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Corbeil</li> -<li class="isub2">home of M. Pichereau, <a href="#Page_196">196</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Crédit Minier</li> -<li class="isub2">Company floated by M. Rochette, <a href="#Page_184">184</a>, <a href="#Page_201">201</a>, - <a href="#Page_207">207</a>, <a href="#Page_218">218</a>, <a href="#Page_219">219</a>, <a href="#Page_222">222</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Cruppi</li> -<li class="isub2">Franco-German understanding in Congo, <a href="#Page_158">158</a>, <a href="#Page_163">163</a></li> - -<li class="ifrst">D’Ariste, Heir of M. Prieu</li> -<li class="isub2">made over his rights to Syndicate, <a href="#Page_119">119</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Darracq</li> -<li class="isub2">backed by M. Rochette, <a href="#Page_220">220</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Delahaye, Member of the Opposition</li> -<li class="isub2">placed motion before the House, <a href="#Page_27">27</a></li> -<li class="isub2">declared M. Calmette intended to publish letter, <a href="#Page_29">29</a></li> -<li class="isub2">addressed question to M. Monis, <a href="#Page_30">30</a></li> -<li class="isub2">Prime Minister replies, <a href="#Page_32">32</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Desbons</li> -<li class="isub2">Counsel for Madame Vitz, <a href="#Page_75">75</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Desclaux, chef de Cabinet de M. Caillaux</li> -<li class="isub2">Madame Gueydan’s offer to journalist, <a href="#Page_91">91</a>, <a href="#Page_92">92</a>, <a href="#Page_93">93</a></li> - -<li class="indx">De Selves, Minister for Foreign Affairs</li> -<li class="isub2">resignation of, <a href="#Page_108">108</a></li> -<li class="isub2">visit to Holland, <a href="#Page_165">165</a></li> -<li class="isub2">M. Caillaux’s instructions in opposition to his opinion, <a href="#Page_166">166</a></li> -<li class="isub2">returns from Holland and asks for explanation of agreement, <a href="#Page_167">167</a></li> -<li class="isub2">negotiations without his knowledge, <a href="#Page_169">169</a>, <a href="#Page_176">176</a></li> -<li class="isub2">telegram from Berlin to German Embassy in Paris, <a href="#Page_171">171</a></li> -<li class="isub2">the “green document,” <a href="#Page_172">172</a></li> -<li class="isub2">causes excitement, <a href="#Page_174">174</a></li> -<li class="isub2">speech before Senate in Committee, <a href="#Page_175">175</a></li> - -<li class="indx">D’Estournelles de Constant, friend of M. Caillaux</li> -<li class="isub2">canvass for M. Caillaux, <a href="#Page_257">257</a> -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_312" id="Page_312">[Pg 312]</a></span></li> - -<li class="indx">Doumergue, Prime Minister</li> -<li class="isub2">M. Caillaux telephones his resignation, <a href="#Page_23">23</a></li> -<li class="isub2">Cabinet Council, <a href="#Page_24">24</a></li> -<li class="isub2">speech of M. Delahaye, <a href="#Page_27">27</a></li> -<li class="isub2">speech in Chamber of Deputies, <a href="#Page_32">32</a></li> -<li class="isub2">challenged to a duel, <a href="#Page_42">42</a></li> -<li class="isub2">improbability of re-election, <a href="#Page_43">43</a></li> -<li class="isub2">M. Caillaux endeavouring to maintain Ministry, <a href="#Page_107">107</a></li> -<li class="isub2">M. Renoult, Minister of the Interior, <a href="#Page_115">115</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Doyen, Dr., surgeon</li> -<li class="isub2">his opinion as to M. Calmette’s treatment, <a href="#Page_277">277</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Drouot, Rue</li> -<li class="isub2">office of the <i>Figaro</i>, <a href="#Page_2"> 2</a>, <a href="#Page_3"> 3</a>, - <a href="#Page_4">4</a>, <a href="#Page_43">43</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Du Mesnil, managing editor of the <i>Rappel</i></li> -<li class="isub2">statement by M. Fabre, <a href="#Page_35">35</a>, <a href="#Page_39">39</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Dupré, Jules</li> -<li class="isub2">first husband of Madame Gueydan, <a href="#Page_88">88</a>, <a href="#Page_95">95</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Durand, Yves, chef de Cabinet de M. Lépine</li> -<li class="isub2">sent for by M. Lépine, <a href="#Page_194">194</a></li> -<li class="isub2">ordered to find plaintiff, <a href="#Page_194">194</a>, <a href="#Page_195">195</a></li> -<li class="isub2">visits M. Gaudrion, <a href="#Page_196">196</a>, <a href="#Page_198">198</a></li> -<li class="isub2">sent to M. Monier, <a href="#Page_197">197</a></li> -<li class="isub2">accused of speculating, <a href="#Page_199">199</a>, <a href="#Page_206">206</a></li> -<li class="isub2">called as witness before Commission, <a href="#Page_207">207</a></li> -<li class="isub2">acquitted by M. Lépine of all dishonourable action, <a href="#Page_208">208</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Duret, M. Rochette’s Private Secretary</li> -<li class="isub2">his evidence, <a href="#Page_223">223</a></li> - -<li class="ifrst">Fabre, Victor, Procureur Général</li> -<li class="isub2">M. Calmette and letter, <a href="#Page_26">26</a>, <a href="#Page_138">138</a></li> -<li class="isub2">M. Delahaye’s question, <a href="#Page_30">30</a></li> -<li class="isub2">declaration carried by M. Calmette, <a href="#Page_31">31</a></li> -<li class="isub2">statement produced, <a href="#Page_33">33</a></li> -<li class="isub2">“deplorable abuse of influence,” <a href="#Page_41">41</a></li> -<li class="isub2">Madame Gueydan read letter, <a href="#Page_97">97</a></li> -<li class="isub2">story of pressure put upon him, <a href="#Page_140">140</a></li> -<li class="isub2">position at Aix, <a href="#Page_180">180</a></li> -<li class="isub2">evidence before Parliamentary Commission, <a href="#Page_231">231</a>, <a href="#Page_232">232</a></li> -<li class="isub2">cross-questioned, <a href="#Page_234">234</a></li> -<li class="isub2">statements <i>re</i> Rochette case, <a href="#Page_235">235-247</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Fallières, President of the French Republic</li> -<li class="isub2">Franco-German understanding in Congo, <a href="#Page_158">158</a></li> -<li class="isub2">warning at Cabinet Council, <a href="#Page_160">160</a></li> -<li class="isub2">visit to Tunis, <a href="#Page_163">163</a> -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_313" id="Page_313">[Pg 313]</a></span></li> - -<li class="indx">Faubourg Montmartre, Rue du</li> -<li class="isub2">police-station, <a href="#Page_3"> 3</a>, <a href="#Page_9">9</a>, <a href="#Page_12">12</a>, - <a href="#Page_23">23</a>, <a href="#Page_44">44</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Fez</li> -<li class="isub2">French troops to be sent, <a href="#Page_163">163</a>, <a href="#Page_164">164</a>, <a href="#Page_165">165</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Fontainebleau</li> -<li class="isub2">M. Rochette’s early life, <a href="#Page_183">183</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Fonvielle, Antoine de, lawyer Prieu Syndicate</li> -<li class="isub2">letter to M. Calmette, <a href="#Page_120">120</a>, <a href="#Page_122">122</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Forichon, Presiding Judge in Court of Appeal</li> -<li class="isub2">hears M. Poincaré’s evidence on oath, <a href="#Page_81">81</a></li> - -<li class="indx">François-Poncet</li> -<li class="isub2">statement by M. Fabre, <a href="#Page_36">36</a>, <a href="#Page_40">40</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Fresnes</li> -<li class="isub2">Modern prison, <a href="#Page_46">46</a>, <a href="#Page_47">47</a></li> - -<li class="ifrst">Gabon</li> -<li class="isub2">Germany’s demands, <a href="#Page_168">168</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Gaillard, Doctor</li> -<li class="isub2">Dentist of Madame Caillaux, <a href="#Page_14">14</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Gastinne-Renette</li> -<li class="isub2">Armourer, <a href="#Page_18">18</a>, <a href="#Page_19">19</a>, <a href="#Page_283">283</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Gaudrion, a banker connected with Rochette case</li> -<li class="isub2">willing to prosecute M. Rochette, <a href="#Page_196">196</a></li> -<li class="isub2">visited by M. Durand, <a href="#Page_198">198</a></li> -<li class="isub2">dealings in shares in M. Rochette’s Companies, <a href="#Page_204">204</a></li> -<li class="isub2">supplies a prosecutor in his stead, <a href="#Page_225">225</a></li> - -<li class="indx">German Cameroons</li> -<li class="isub2">railway to Belgian Congo, <a href="#Page_164">164</a>, <a href="#Page_174">174</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Grange Batélière, Rue de la</li> -<li class="isub2">other entrance to police station, <a href="#Page_12">12</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Grey, Sir Edward</li> -<li class="isub2">refers to Belgian Congo, <a href="#Page_168">168</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Gueydan, Madame, first wife of M. Caillaux</li> -<li class="isub2">divorced wife of M. Dupré, <a href="#Page_88">88</a></li> -<li class="isub2">letters burned, <a href="#Page_89">89</a>, <a href="#Page_92">92</a></li> -<li class="isub2">evidence before examining magistrate, <a href="#Page_90">90</a>, <a href="#Page_91">91</a></li> -<li class="isub2">read letters to M. Barthou, <a href="#Page_97">97</a></li> -<li class="isub2">M. Privat-Deschanel and burning of letters, <a href="#Page_101">101</a>, <a href="#Page_129">129</a></li> -<li class="isub2">“Ton Jo” letter, <a href="#Page_146">146</a>, <a href="#Page_147">147</a> -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_314" id="Page_314">[Pg 314]</a></span></li> - -<li class="indx">Guillemard, Madeleine</li> -<li class="isub2">wrote in defence of letters, <a href="#Page_86">86</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Guiot, representative of bondholders of Moroccan Debt</li> -<li class="isub2">visited German Foreign Office, <a href="#Page_153">153</a></li> -<li class="isub2">provisional agreement, <a href="#Page_154">154</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Gwinner, of the Deutsche Bank</li> -<li class="isub2">negotiations, <a href="#Page_170">170</a></li> - -<li class="ifrst">Hartmann</li> -<li class="isub2">owner of hospital, <a href="#Page_4"> 4</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Herbaux, new Procureur Général</li> -<li class="isub2">probable prosecutor, <a href="#Page_180">180</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Homberg, André, Director of Société Générale</li> -<li class="isub2">called on M. Caillaux, <a href="#Page_129">129</a></li> -<li class="isub2"><i>Figaro’s</i> accusation, <a href="#Page_130">130</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Hotel Ritz</li> -<li class="isub2">Madame Caillaux’s engagement for tea, <a href="#Page_16">16</a>, <a href="#Page_20">20</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Hottinguer and Co.</li> -<li class="isub2">concerned in Prieu affair, <a href="#Page_118">118</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Humbert</li> -<li class="isub2">notorious female prisoner, <a href="#Page_12">12</a>, <a href="#Page_44">44</a></li> - -<li class="ifrst">“Intermède Comique—Ton Jo”</li> -<li class="isub2">Headline in <i>Figaro</i>, <a href="#Page_98">98</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Italian Embassy</li> -<li class="isub2">Dinner-party, <a href="#Page_13">13</a>, <a href="#Page_17">17</a>, - <a href="#Page_23">23</a>, <a href="#Page_24">24</a></li> - -<li class="ifrst">Jaurès</li> -<li class="isub2">President Parliamentary Commission of Inquiry, <a href="#Page_31">31</a>, - <a href="#Page_41">41</a>, <a href="#Page_180">180</a></li> -<li class="isub2">took part in debate in Chamber of Deputies, <a href="#Page_42">42</a></li> -<li class="isub2">Rochette affair, <a href="#Page_141">141</a>, <a href="#Page_206">206</a>, - <a href="#Page_238">238</a></li> -<li class="isub2">tells committee the history of the Rochette case, <a href="#Page_224">224-228</a></li> -<li class="isub2">letter summoning M. Monis to Commission of Inquiry, <a href="#Page_235">235</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Jeanne</li> -<li class="isub2">Soubrette in attendance on Madame Caillaux, <a href="#Page_50">50</a>, <a href="#Page_51">51</a></li> - -<li class="ifrst">Kissingen -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_315" id="Page_315">[Pg 315]</a></span></li> -<li class="isub2">French Ambassador’s conversation with German Secretary of State, <a href="#Page_165">165</a></li> - -<li class="ifrst">Lancken</li> -<li class="isub2">first mention of Belgian Congo, <a href="#Page_169">169</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Lavedan</li> -<li class="isub2">play-writer, <a href="#Page_65">65</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Laviana</li> -<li class="isub2">Company floated by M. Rochette, <a href="#Page_184">184</a>, <a href="#Page_207">207</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Lebon, François, editor of <i>L’Œuvre</i></li> -<li class="isub2">attack on M. Caillaux and French Parliament, <a href="#Page_125">125</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Le Mans</li> -<li class="isub2">letters sent to M. Caillaux “poste restante,” <a href="#Page_286">286</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Léonide, Sister, Chief Superintendent of prison nuns</li> -<li class="isub2">description of, <a href="#Page_47">47</a></li> -<li class="isub2">“Bostock,” <a href="#Page_48">48</a></li> -<li class="isub2">duties in St. Lazare, <a href="#Page_60">60</a>, <a href="#Page_62">62</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Lépine, Prefect of Police</li> -<li class="isub2">received orders to inquire into Rochette case, <a href="#Page_194">194</a>, - <a href="#Page_212">212</a>, <a href="#Page_226">226</a></li> -<li class="isub2">previously urged authorities to take action, <a href="#Page_195">195</a></li> -<li class="isub2">sent M. Durand to M. Monier, <a href="#Page_197">197</a></li> -<li class="isub2">evidence before Commission of Inquiry, <a href="#Page_197">197</a>, - <a href="#Page_208">208</a>, <a href="#Page_210">210</a></li> -<li class="isub2">opinion of M. Rochette, <a href="#Page_209">209</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Lloyd George</li> -<li class="isub2">opinion on Congo question, <a href="#Page_168">168</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Luquet, Permanent Official in Ministry of Finance</li> -<li class="isub2">intermediary between Government and Société Générale, <a href="#Page_128">128</a></li> -<li class="isub2">superseded and succeeded by M. Privat-Deschanel, <a href="#Page_129">129</a></li> - -<li class="ifrst">Malvy, Minister of Commerce</li> -<li class="isub2">accompanies M. Caillaux, <a href="#Page_12">12</a></li> -<li class="isub2">sent to M. Caillaux to induce him to reconsider resignation, <a href="#Page_24">24</a></li> -<li class="isub2">appointed Minister Home Affairs, <a href="#Page_25">25</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Mamers</li> -<li class="isub2">M. Caillaux’s constituency, <a href="#Page_19">19</a>, <a href="#Page_88">88</a>, <a href="#Page_112">112</a>, - <a href="#Page_132">132</a>, <a href="#Page_256">256</a>, <a href="#Page_257">257</a>, - <a href="#Page_259">259</a>, <a href="#Page_260">260</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Manchon Hella</li> -<li class="isub2">Company floated by M. Rochette, <a href="#Page_184">184</a>, <a href="#Page_185">185</a>, - <a href="#Page_207">207</a></li> -<li class="isub2">M. Pichereau’s investments, <a href="#Page_197">197</a>, <a href="#Page_198">198</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Mannesmann Brothers -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_316" id="Page_316">[Pg 316]</a></span></li> -<li class="isub2">claims and concessions, <a href="#Page_163">163</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Mascuraud Committee</li> -<li class="isub2">association of parliamentarians and commercial men, <a href="#Page_126">126</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Mazars</li> -<li class="isub2">letter in <i>Figaro</i> from M. Prosper Sauvage, <a href="#Page_123">123</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Messimy, Colonial Minister in Monis Cabinet</li> -<li class="isub2">instructed to declare Franco-German understanding impossible, <a href="#Page_160">160</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Michel, Louise</li> -<li class="isub2">notorious prisoner, cell No. 12, <a href="#Page_44">44</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Millerand, Socialist, <a href="#Page_255">255</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Milliés-Lacroix, French Colonial Minister</li> -<li class="isub2">interview with M. Pichon, <a href="#Page_153">153</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Mines de Liat</li> -<li class="isub2">Company floated by M. Rochette, <a href="#Page_184">184</a>, <a href="#Page_207">207</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Mogador</li> -<li class="isub2">telegram from M. Caillaux, <a href="#Page_166">166</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Moinier, General</li> -<li class="isub2">troops at his disposal, <a href="#Page_164">164</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Monier, Procureur de la République?</li> -<li class="isub2">president of the Civil Court, <a href="#Page_13">13</a>, <a href="#Page_14">14</a></li> -<li class="isub2">consulted by Madame Caillaux, <a href="#Page_81">81</a>, <a href="#Page_99">99</a></li> -<li class="isub2">interviewed by M. Durand, <a href="#Page_197">197</a>, <a href="#Page_198">198</a></li> -<li class="isub2">documents accusing M. Rochette, <a href="#Page_207">207</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Monis, Prime Minister and Minister of Marine</li> -<li class="isub2">accusation against, <a href="#Page_29">29</a></li> -<li class="isub2">questioned by M. Delahaye and reply, <a href="#Page_30">30</a></li> -<li class="isub2">statement by M. Fabre, <a href="#Page_33">33</a>, <a href="#Page_37">37</a>, <a href="#Page_138">138</a></li> -<li class="isub2">resignation from Cabinet, <a href="#Page_40">40</a></li> -<li class="isub2">Minister of Marine, <a href="#Page_104">104</a></li> -<li class="isub2">article by M. Calmette, <a href="#Page_139">139</a></li> -<li class="isub2">brought pressure to bear on M. Fabre and Judge Bidault de L’Isle, <a href="#Page_140">140</a></li> -<li class="isub2">elected Prime Minister, <a href="#Page_155">155</a></li> -<li class="isub2">Cabinet defeated, <a href="#Page_165">165</a></li> -<li class="isub2">examination by Parliamentary Commission, <a href="#Page_179">179</a>, <a href="#Page_180">180</a>, - <a href="#Page_234">234-237</a></li> -<li class="isub2">conversation in regard to trial of Rochette, <a href="#Page_181">181</a>, <a href="#Page_182">182</a></li> -<li class="isub2">M. Caillaux advises postponement of trial, <a href="#Page_213">213</a></li> -<li class="isub2">order for postponement of trial, <a href="#Page_243">243</a>, <a href="#Page_245">245</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Monniot -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_317" id="Page_317">[Pg 317]</a></span></li> -<li class="isub2">letter in <i>Figaro</i> from M. Prosper Sauvage, <a href="#Page_123">123</a>, <a href="#Page_124">124</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Monquin, Head of Research Department, Paris Police</li> -<li class="isub2">sent for by M. Lépine, <a href="#Page_194">194</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Morand, Albert, Artist of St. Lazare</li> -<li class="isub2">honoured in Carnavalet Museum, <a href="#Page_47">47</a></li> -<li class="isub2">drawings in this volume, <a href="#Page_47">47</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Morley, Lord</li> -<li class="isub2">letter in the <i>Times</i>, <a href="#Page_168">168</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Morocco</li> -<li class="isub2">interests of France, <a href="#Page_151">151</a>, <a href="#Page_152">152</a>, - <a href="#Page_156">156</a></li> -<li class="isub2">serious trouble, <a href="#Page_160">160</a>, <a href="#Page_161">161</a>, - <a href="#Page_163">163</a>, <a href="#Page_169">169</a></li> -<li class="isub2">M. Caillaux’s telegram, <a href="#Page_166">166</a></li> -<li class="isub2">German Cabinet and the crisis, <a href="#Page_171">171</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Moroccan Company of Public Works</li> -<li class="isub2">formed after approval of provisional agreement, <a href="#Page_154">154</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Mortier, Pierre, Editor of <i>Gil Blas</i></li> -<li class="isub2">would not use letters, <a href="#Page_93">93</a></li> - -<li class="ifrst">Neuilly</li> -<li class="isub2">private hospital at, <a href="#Page_3"> 3</a></li> - -<li class="indx">N’Goko Tanga</li> -<li class="isub2">charges of corruption by M. Ceccaldi, <a href="#Page_126">126</a></li> -<li class="isub2">offered to give up a portion of territory, <a href="#Page_154">154</a></li> -<li class="isub2">question in Parliament, <a href="#Page_155">155</a></li> -<li class="isub2">convention with Germany, <a href="#Page_163">163</a></li> -<li class="isub2">M. Caillaux explains failure of negotiations, <a href="#Page_174">174</a></li> - -<li class="ifrst">Pams, Rival of M. Poincaré</li> -<li class="isub2">non-election resented by M. Clemenceau, <a href="#Page_102">102</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Paral Mexico</li> -<li class="isub2">Company floated by M. Rochette, <a href="#Page_184">184</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Paris Omnibus Co.</li> -<li class="isub2">M. Rochette endeavouring to get concession, <a href="#Page_220">220</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Pau</li> -<li class="isub2">M. Caillaux founded Radical united party, <a href="#Page_104">104</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Paul, Dr. Chas., Medical Officer of Health</li> -<li class="isub2">report of the autopsy after M. Calmette’s death, <a href="#Page_283">283</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Péret, Raoul</li> -<li class="isub2">appointed Minister of Commerce, <a href="#Page_25">25</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Perrier, Minister of Justice (Monis Cabinet) -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_318" id="Page_318">[Pg 318]</a></span></li> -<li class="isub2">M. Calmette’s article, <a href="#Page_139">139</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Philippeau, Robert</li> -<li class="isub2">reported conversation heard in Paris Tube, <a href="#Page_284">284</a>, <a href="#Page_285">285</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Pichereau, connected with M. Rochette’s enterprises</li> -<li class="isub2">introduced by M. Gaudrion, <a href="#Page_196">196</a></li> -<li class="isub2">accusation against M. Rochette signed, <a href="#Page_198">198</a></li> -<li class="isub2">formal charge made, <a href="#Page_199">199</a></li> -<li class="isub2">M. Rochette in letter to examining magistrate, <a href="#Page_201">201</a>, <a href="#Page_202">202</a></li> -<li class="isub2">claim against M. Rochette, <a href="#Page_202">202</a></li> -<li class="isub2">documents in M. Rochette’s desk, <a href="#Page_203">203</a></li> -<li class="isub2">M. Rochette takes legal action, <a href="#Page_205">205</a></li> -<li class="isub2">prosecutor in M. Gaudrion’s stead, <a href="#Page_225">225</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Pichon</li> -<li class="isub2">South American Bank Loan refused, <a href="#Page_134">134</a></li> -<li class="isub2">Foreign Minister, <a href="#Page_152">152</a>, <a href="#Page_153">153</a></li> -<li class="isub2">convention with Germany, <a href="#Page_163">163</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Pierre Charron, Rue</li> -<li class="isub2">M. Caillaux’s house, <a href="#Page_89">89</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Pierre de Fouquières of the Protocol, <a href="#Page_13">13</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Place Beauvau</li> -<li class="isub2">situation of Home Office, <a href="#Page_194">194</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Poincaré, President of the French Republic</li> -<li class="isub2">hears of the tragedy, <a href="#Page_24">24</a></li> -<li class="isub2">signs decrees, <a href="#Page_25">25</a></li> -<li class="isub2">evidence on oath, <a href="#Page_79">79</a>, <a href="#Page_80">80</a>, - <a href="#Page_81">81</a>, <a href="#Page_86">86</a></li> -<li class="isub2">conversation with M. Caillaux, <a href="#Page_82">82</a></li> -<li class="isub2">election to Presidency and M. Clemenceau, <a href="#Page_102">102</a>, <a href="#Page_103">103</a></li> -<li class="isub2">M. Calmette in the <i>Figaro</i>, <a href="#Page_108">108</a></li> -<li class="isub2">Prime Minister, <a href="#Page_140">140</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Poirier, Henri, intimate friend of M. Spitzer</li> -<li class="isub2">M. Calmette’s comment on Finance Minister’s resignation, <a href="#Page_133">133</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Potsdam Agreement</li> -<li class="isub2">soothed Russian fears, <a href="#Page_165">165</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Prestat, father of Madame Calmette</li> -<li class="isub2">chairman of <i>Figaro</i> Co., <a href="#Page_94">94</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Prevet, Managing Director <i>Le Petit Journal</i></li> -<li class="isub2">M. Rochette’s attack, <a href="#Page_187">187</a>, <a href="#Page_191">191</a></li> -<li class="isub2">realizes effects of M. Rochette’s tactics, <a href="#Page_189">189</a>, <a href="#Page_190">190</a></li> -<li class="isub2">told M. Durand M. Gaudrion would prosecute, <a href="#Page_196">196</a></li> -<li class="isub2">M. Durand complains he has been misled, <a href="#Page_199">199</a></li> -<li class="isub2"><i>Petit Journal</i> and shareholders, <a href="#Page_214">214</a>, <a href="#Page_215">215</a> -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_319" id="Page_319">[Pg 319]</a></span></li> - -<li class="indx">Prieu, French merchant living in Brazil</li> -<li class="isub2">M. Caillaux accused by <i>Figaro</i>, <a href="#Page_106">106</a></li> -<li class="isub2">misspelled “Priou,” <a href="#Page_114">114</a></li> -<li class="isub2">heirs claim concessions, <a href="#Page_115">115</a>, <a href="#Page_116">116</a></li> -<li class="isub2">difficulty of settlement, <a href="#Page_117">117</a></li> -<li class="isub2">claim on Government, <a href="#Page_118">118</a>, <a href="#Page_119">119</a></li> -<li class="isub2">M. de Fonvielle’s letter, <a href="#Page_120">120</a></li> -<li class="isub2">M. Schneider pressed claims, <a href="#Page_121">121</a></li> -<li class="isub2">members of Prieu Syndicate, <a href="#Page_123">123</a></li> -<li class="isub2">article in <i>L’Œuvre</i>, <a href="#Page_125">125</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Privat-Deschanel, Secretary of the Ministry of Finance</li> -<li class="isub2">letters burned, <a href="#Page_89">89</a></li> -<li class="isub2">M. Boucard’s call, <a href="#Page_90">90</a></li> -<li class="isub2">evidence of, <a href="#Page_101">101</a></li> -<li class="isub2">successor to M. Luquet in Ministry of Finance, <a href="#Page_129">129</a></li> - -<li class="ifrst">Rabier, one of M. Rochette’s lawyers</li> -<li class="isub2">received large sums, <a href="#Page_220">220</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Raynouard</li> -<li class="isub2">maiden name of Madame Caillaux, <a href="#Page_88">88</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Renoult, René, Member of Cabinet</li> -<li class="isub2">appointed Minister of Finance in M. Caillaux’s stead, <a href="#Page_25">25</a></li> -<li class="isub2">Under Secretary for Finance, 1909, <a href="#Page_115">115</a></li> -<li class="isub2">lawyer of one of M. Rochette’s Companies, <a href="#Page_220">220</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Reymond, Doctor</li> -<li class="isub2">present with Calmette, <a href="#Page_3"> 3</a>, <a href="#Page_7"> 7</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Richepin, Jean</li> -<li class="isub2">quotation, <a href="#Page_297">297</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Rio de Janeiro</li> -<li class="isub2">French Consul helps Prieu, <a href="#Page_115">115</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Rocher, Rue de</li> -<li class="isub2">flat of M. de Fonvielle, <a href="#Page_120">120</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Rochette, Company Promoter and Speculator</li> -<li class="isub2">M. Calmette and the <i>Figaro</i>, <a href="#Page_26">26</a></li> -<li class="isub2">question by M. Delahaye and M. Monis’ reply, <a href="#Page_30">30</a></li> -<li class="isub2">Commission of Inquiry, <a href="#Page_31">31</a>, <a href="#Page_41">41</a></li> -<li class="isub2">statement by M. Fabre, <a href="#Page_33">33</a>, <a href="#Page_34">34</a>, <a href="#Page_36">36</a>, - <a href="#Page_37">37</a>, <a href="#Page_38">38</a></li> -<li class="isub2">cause of political unrest, <a href="#Page_106">106</a></li> -<li class="isub2">M. Caillaux accused of interfering with the course of justice, <a href="#Page_112">112</a> -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_320" id="Page_320">[Pg 320]</a></span></li> -<li class="isub2"><i>Figaro’s</i> article, <a href="#Page_138">138</a>, <a href="#Page_139">139</a>, - <a href="#Page_140">140</a>, <a href="#Page_145">145</a></li> -<li class="isub2">M. Fabre pressed to adjourn trial, <a href="#Page_179">179</a>, <a href="#Page_180">180</a></li> -<li class="isub2">postponement requested by Maître Bernard, <a href="#Page_181">181</a></li> -<li class="isub2">trial postponed, <a href="#Page_182">182</a>, <a href="#Page_213">213</a></li> -<li class="isub2">early life, <a href="#Page_183">183</a></li> -<li class="isub2">companies floated, <a href="#Page_184">184</a></li> -<li class="isub2">shareholders sign petition for release, <a href="#Page_185">185</a></li> -<li class="isub2">examination of books by accountants, <a href="#Page_186">186</a></li> -<li class="isub2">Bourse suspicious, <a href="#Page_187">187</a></li> -<li class="isub2">attack in <i>Le Petit Journal</i>, <a href="#Page_187">187</a>, <a href="#Page_188">188</a>, - <a href="#Page_214">214</a>, <a href="#Page_215">215</a></li> -<li class="isub2">M. Prevet endeavours to stop M. Rochette’s manœuvres, <a href="#Page_189">189</a></li> -<li class="isub2">Western Railway of France, <a href="#Page_190">190</a></li> -<li class="isub2">M. Clemenceau accused of moral complicity, <a href="#Page_191">191</a></li> -<li class="isub2">charges against members of Chamber and Senate, <a href="#Page_192">192</a></li> -<li class="isub2">judicial inquiry, <a href="#Page_193">193</a>, <a href="#Page_194">194</a>, <a href="#Page_195">195</a>, - <a href="#Page_196">196</a>, <a href="#Page_197">197</a></li> -<li class="isub2">M. Pichereau’s accusation, <a href="#Page_198">198</a></li> -<li class="isub2">M. Yves Durand accused of speculating, <a href="#Page_199">199</a></li> -<li class="isub2">arrested and imprisoned, <a href="#Page_200">200</a></li> -<li class="isub2">confronted with M. Pichereau, <a href="#Page_202">202</a></li> -<li class="isub2">declared bankrupt, <a href="#Page_203">203</a></li> -<li class="isub2">appealed against verdict and took action against M. Pichereau, <a href="#Page_205">205</a></li> -<li class="isub2">becomes a political matter, <a href="#Page_206">206</a></li> -<li class="isub2">M. Lépine justifies arrest, <a href="#Page_208">208</a></li> -<li class="isub2">M. Lépine’s opinion, <a href="#Page_209">209</a></li> -<li class="isub2">details of M. Rochette’s methods, <a href="#Page_210">210</a></li> -<li class="isub2">sentenced to imprisonment and appeal, <a href="#Page_211">211</a></li> -<li class="isub2">evidence before Commission of Inquiry, <a href="#Page_212">212</a></li> -<li class="isub2">advertisements, <a href="#Page_214">214</a></li> -<li class="isub2">complaint against M. Berr, <a href="#Page_217">217</a></li> -<li class="isub2">examination of books a pretence, <a href="#Page_218">218</a></li> -<li class="isub2">defence of enterprises, <a href="#Page_217">217</a>, <a href="#Page_218">218</a>, <a href="#Page_219">219</a></li> -<li class="isub2">clerk’s story, <a href="#Page_220">220</a></li> -<li class="isub2">secrecy of payment, <a href="#Page_222">222</a></li> -<li class="isub2">evidence of employees, <a href="#Page_223">223</a></li> -<li class="isub2">judgment annulled, <a href="#Page_224">224</a></li> -<li class="isub2">proceedings dragged out, <a href="#Page_227">227</a>, <a href="#Page_231">231</a>, <a href="#Page_248">248</a></li> -<li class="isub2">volume on history of French issues, <a href="#Page_249">249</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Royale, Rue -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_321" id="Page_321">[Pg 321]</a></span></li> -<li class="isub2">conversation between M. and Mme. Caillaux, <a href="#Page_99">99</a></li> - -<li class="ifrst">Saint Calais</li> -<li class="isub2">M. Caillaux’s speech to his constituents, <a href="#Page_173">173</a></li> - -<li class="indx">St. Lazare, Prison for Women, <a href="#Page_11">11</a>, <a href="#Page_12">12</a>, <a href="#Page_43">43</a>, - <a href="#Page_47">47</a>, <a href="#Page_48">48</a>, <a href="#Page_49">49</a>, - <a href="#Page_50">50</a>, <a href="#Page_53">53</a>, <a href="#Page_54">54</a>, - <a href="#Page_55">55</a>, <a href="#Page_56">56</a>, <a href="#Page_58">58</a>, - <a href="#Page_62">62</a>, <a href="#Page_63">63</a></li> -<li class="isub2">history of, <a href="#Page_44">44</a>, <a href="#Page_45">45</a>, <a href="#Page_46">46</a></li> -<li class="isub2">motor lorry at, <a href="#Page_51">51</a></li> -<li class="isub2">“six o’clock sickness,” <a href="#Page_61">61</a></li> -<li class="isub2">favours shown Madame Caillaux, <a href="#Page_75">75</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Santé Prison</li> -<li class="isub2">M. Rochette imprisoned, <a href="#Page_200">200</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Sarthe</li> -<li class="isub2">M. Caillaux candidate for re-election, <a href="#Page_91">91</a></li> -<li class="isub2">popular view of peasantry, <a href="#Page_258">258-262</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Sauvage, Prosper, member of Prieu Syndicate</li> -<li class="isub2">letters in the <i>Figaro</i>, <a href="#Page_123">123</a>, <a href="#Page_124">124</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Say Sugar Refinery</li> -<li class="isub2">M. Rochette’s connexion, <a href="#Page_219">219</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Schneider, Auguste, pressed claims of Prieu Syndicate</li> -<li class="isub2">called on M. Caillaux by appointment and agreed settlement, <a href="#Page_119">119</a></li> -<li class="isub2">his home at Auteuil, <a href="#Page_121">121</a></li> -<li class="isub2">introduces M. de Fonvielle to M. Vidal, <a href="#Page_121">121</a></li> -<li class="isub2">conversation recorded in M. de Fonvielle’s letters, <a href="#Page_122">122</a></li> -<li class="isub2">mentioned in M. Boileau’s letters, <a href="#Page_123">123</a></li> -<li class="isub2">referred to in letter of M. Prosper Sauvage, <a href="#Page_124">124</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Schoen, German Ambassador in Paris</li> -<li class="isub2">first suggestion of compensation, <a href="#Page_167">167</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Société des Mines de la Nerva</li> -<li class="isub2">Company floated by M. Rochette, <a href="#Page_184">184</a>, <a href="#Page_207">207</a></li> -<li class="isub2">M. Pichereau’s investments, <a href="#Page_197">197</a>, <a href="#Page_198">198</a>, <a href="#Page_202">202</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Socquet, Dr., Medical Officer of Health</li> -<li class="isub2">report of the autopsy after M. Calmette’s death, <a href="#Page_283">283</a></li> - -<li class="indx">South Atlantic Company</li> -<li class="isub2">quarrel with Compagnie Transatlantique and <i>Figaro’s</i> accusation, <a href="#Page_129">129</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Spitzer, Arthur, Director Société Générale</li> -<li class="isub2">re-election indirectly opposed by Government, <a href="#Page_128">128</a></li> -<li class="isub2">accusation of Bourse quotations being permitted unfairly, <a href="#Page_131">131</a></li> -<li class="isub2">M. Calmette’s comment, <a href="#Page_133">133</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Steinheil -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_322" id="Page_322">[Pg 322]</a></span></li> -<li class="isub2">notorious female prisoner, <a href="#Page_12">12</a>, <a href="#Page_44">44</a>, <a href="#Page_52">52</a>, - <a href="#Page_59">59</a>, <a href="#Page_291">291</a>, <a href="#Page_294">294</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Syndicat Minier</li> -<li class="isub2">Company floated by M. Rochette, <a href="#Page_184">184</a>, <a href="#Page_203">203</a>, <a href="#Page_207">207</a></li> - -<li class="ifrst">Tangier, Possibility of German demonstration, <a href="#Page_159">159</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Thalamas</li> -<li class="isub2">letter to Madame Caillaux, <a href="#Page_28">28</a>, <a href="#Page_29">29</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Thorel, solicitor for M. Caillaux</li> -<li class="isub2">M. Poincaré’s evidence, <a href="#Page_83">83</a></li> - -<li class="indx">“Ton Jo”</li> -<li class="isub2">signature to letter written by M. Caillaux, <a href="#Page_92">92</a>, <a href="#Page_97">97</a>, - <a href="#Page_98">98</a>, <a href="#Page_142">142</a>, - <a href="#Page_144">144-147</a>, <a href="#Page_149">149</a></li> -<li class="isub2">Copy of “Ton Jo” letter, <a href="#Page_143">143</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Tripoli</li> -<li class="isub2">coveted by Italy, <a href="#Page_165">165</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Tunis</li> -<li class="isub2">President Faillière’s visit, <a href="#Page_163">163</a></li> - -<li class="ifrst">Ullmann, of the Compte d’Escompte</li> -<li class="isub2">received by M. Caillaux, <a href="#Page_124">124</a></li> -<li class="isub2">accusation that Bourse quotations were allowed in his favour, <a href="#Page_131">131</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Union, Franco-Belge</li> -<li class="isub2">Company floated by M. Rochette, <a href="#Page_184">184</a>, <a href="#Page_207">207</a></li> - -<li class="ifrst">Val d’Airan</li> -<li class="isub2">Company floated by M. Rochette, <a href="#Page_184">184</a>, <a href="#Page_207">207</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Valentine Morelli</li> -<li class="isub2">notorious prisoner, cell No. 12, <a href="#Page_44">44</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Vervoort, journalist on <i>Gil Blas</i></li> -<li class="isub2">Madame Gueydan’s offer, <a href="#Page_91">91-93</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Vidal, journalist</li> -<li class="isub2">introduced to M. de Fonvielle, <a href="#Page_121">121</a></li> -<li class="isub2">conversation with M. Schneider, <a href="#Page_122">122</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Vitz, Madame</li> -<li class="isub2">prisoner in St. Lazare, <a href="#Page_75">75</a>, <a href="#Page_76">76</a></li> - -<li class="ifrst">Waechter, Kiderlen, German Foreign Minister</li> -<li class="isub2">remark to French Ambassador in Berlin, <a href="#Page_163">163</a></li> -<li class="isub2">reception of communication from M. Cambon, <a href="#Page_164">164</a></li> -<li class="isub2">answer to M. Cambon’s question, <a href="#Page_165">165</a></li> -<li class="isub2">suggests an agreement, <a href="#Page_167">167</a></li> -<li class="isub2">reply to M. Cambon, <a href="#Page_171">171</a> -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_323" id="Page_323">[Pg 323]</a></span></li> - -<li class="indx">Waldeck-Rousseau</li> -<li class="isub2">former Cabinet in which M. Caillaux was Minister of Finance, <a href="#Page_144">144</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Western Railway of France</li> -<li class="isub2">M. Rochette’s agitation against State acquisition, <a href="#Page_190">190</a>, <a href="#Page_191">191</a></li> - -<li class="ifrst">Yenck, clerk in Crédit Minier</li> -<li class="isub2">his evidence, <a href="#Page_223">223</a></li> -</ul> - -<hr class="r5" /> -<p class="center space-below2"><span class="smcap">Printed by</span><br /> -Ballantyne & Company ltd<br />London</p> -<p> </p> - -<div class="transnote bbox"> -<p class="f120 space-above1">Transcriber's Note:</p> -<hr class="r5" /> -<p class="indent">Old or antiquated spellings have been preserved.</p> -<p class="indent"> Typographical errors have been silently corrected but other variations - in spelling and punctuation remain unaltered.</p> -<p class="indent">The illustrations have been moved so that they do not break up - paragraphs, and the paginations in the List of Illustrations have - been adjusted accordingly.</p> -</div> - -<p> </p> -<hr class="full" /> -<p>***END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE CAILLAUX DRAMA***</p> -<p>******* This file should be named 52680-h.htm or 52680-h.zip *******</p> -<p>This and all associated files of various formats will be found in:<br /> -<a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/5/2/6/8/52680">http://www.gutenberg.org/5/2/6/8/52680</a></p> -<p> -Updated editions will replace the previous one--the old editions will -be renamed.</p> - -<p>Creating the works from print editions not protected by U.S. copyright -law means that no one owns a United States copyright in these works, -so the Foundation (and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United -States without permission and without paying copyright -royalties. Special rules, set forth in the General Terms of Use part -of this license, apply to copying and distributing Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic works to protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm -concept and trademark. Project Gutenberg is a registered trademark, -and may not be used if you charge for the eBooks, unless you receive -specific permission. If you do not charge anything for copies of this -eBook, complying with the rules is very easy. You may use this eBook -for nearly any purpose such as creation of derivative works, reports, -performances and research. They may be modified and printed and given -away--you may do practically ANYTHING in the United States with eBooks -not protected by U.S. copyright law. Redistribution is subject to the -trademark license, especially commercial redistribution. -</p> - -<h2 class="pg">START: FULL LICENSE<br /> -<br /> -THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE<br /> -PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK</h2> - -<p>To protect the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting the free -distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work -(or any other work associated in any way with the phrase "Project -Gutenberg"), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full -Project Gutenberg-tm License available with this file or online at -www.gutenberg.org/license.</p> - -<h3>Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic works</h3> - -<p>1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to -and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property -(trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all -the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or -destroy all copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in your -possession. If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a -Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work and you do not agree to be bound -by the terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the -person or entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph -1.E.8.</p> - -<p>1.B. "Project Gutenberg" is a registered trademark. It may only be -used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who -agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few -things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works -even without complying with the full terms of this agreement. See -paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic works if you follow the terms of this -agreement and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic works. See paragraph 1.E below.</p> - -<p>1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation ("the -Foundation" or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection -of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works. Nearly all the individual -works in the collection are in the public domain in the United -States. If an individual work is unprotected by copyright law in the -United States and you are located in the United States, we do not -claim a right to prevent you from copying, distributing, performing, -displaying or creating derivative works based on the work as long as -all references to Project Gutenberg are removed. Of course, we hope -that you will support the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting -free access to electronic works by freely sharing Project Gutenberg-tm -works in compliance with the terms of this agreement for keeping the -Project Gutenberg-tm name associated with the work. You can easily -comply with the terms of this agreement by keeping this work in the -same format with its attached full Project Gutenberg-tm License when -you share it without charge with others.</p> - -<p>1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern -what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are -in a constant state of change. If you are outside the United States, -check the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this -agreement before downloading, copying, displaying, performing, -distributing or creating derivative works based on this work or any -other Project Gutenberg-tm work. The Foundation makes no -representations concerning the copyright status of any work in any -country outside the United States.</p> - -<p>1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg:</p> - -<p>1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other -immediate access to, the full Project Gutenberg-tm License must appear -prominently whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg-tm work (any work -on which the phrase "Project Gutenberg" appears, or with which the -phrase "Project Gutenberg" is associated) is accessed, displayed, -performed, viewed, copied or distributed:</p> - -<blockquote><p>This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United - States and most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost - no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use - it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with - this eBook or online - at <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org">www.gutenberg.org</a>. If you - are not located in the United States, you'll have to check the laws - of the country where you are located before using this - ebook.</p></blockquote> - -<p>1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is -derived from texts not protected by U.S. copyright law (does not -contain a notice indicating that it is posted with permission of the -copyright holder), the work can be copied and distributed to anyone in -the United States without paying any fees or charges. If you are -redistributing or providing access to a work with the phrase "Project -Gutenberg" associated with or appearing on the work, you must comply -either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 or -obtain permission for the use of the work and the Project Gutenberg-tm -trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.</p> - -<p>1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is posted -with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution -must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any -additional terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms -will be linked to the Project Gutenberg-tm License for all works -posted with the permission of the copyright holder found at the -beginning of this work.</p> - -<p>1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg-tm -License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this -work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg-tm.</p> - -<p>1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this -electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without -prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with -active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project -Gutenberg-tm License.</p> - -<p>1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary, -compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including -any word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access -to or distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg-tm work in a format -other than "Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other format used in the official -version posted on the official Project Gutenberg-tm web site -(www.gutenberg.org), you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense -to the user, provide a copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means -of obtaining a copy upon request, of the work in its original "Plain -Vanilla ASCII" or other form. Any alternate format must include the -full Project Gutenberg-tm License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1.</p> - -<p>1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying, -performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg-tm works -unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.</p> - -<p>1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing -access to or distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works -provided that</p> - -<ul> -<li>You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from - the use of Project Gutenberg-tm works calculated using the method - you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is owed - to the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark, but he has - agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the Project - Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty payments must be paid - within 60 days following each date on which you prepare (or are - legally required to prepare) your periodic tax returns. Royalty - payments should be clearly marked as such and sent to the Project - Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the address specified in - Section 4, "Information about donations to the Project Gutenberg - Literary Archive Foundation."</li> - -<li>You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies - you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he - does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg-tm - License. You must require such a user to return or destroy all - copies of the works possessed in a physical medium and discontinue - all use of and all access to other copies of Project Gutenberg-tm - works.</li> - -<li>You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of - any money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the - electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days of - receipt of the work.</li> - -<li>You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free - distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm works.</li> -</ul> - -<p>1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic work or group of works on different terms than -are set forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing -from both the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation and The -Project Gutenberg Trademark LLC, the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm -trademark. Contact the Foundation as set forth in Section 3 below.</p> - -<p>1.F.</p> - -<p>1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable -effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread -works not protected by U.S. copyright law in creating the Project -Gutenberg-tm collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may -contain "Defects," such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate -or corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other -intellectual property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or -other medium, a computer virus, or computer codes that damage or -cannot be read by your equipment.</p> - -<p>1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the "Right -of Replacement or Refund" described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project -Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project -Gutenberg-tm trademark, and any other party distributing a Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all -liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal -fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT -LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE -PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH 1.F.3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE -TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE -LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR -INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH -DAMAGE.</p> - -<p>1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a -defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can -receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a -written explanation to the person you received the work from. If you -received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium -with your written explanation. The person or entity that provided you -with the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in -lieu of a refund. If you received the work electronically, the person -or entity providing it to you may choose to give you a second -opportunity to receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund. If -the second copy is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing -without further opportunities to fix the problem.</p> - -<p>1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth -in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you 'AS-IS', WITH NO -OTHER WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT -LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE.</p> - -<p>1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied -warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of -damages. If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement -violates the law of the state applicable to this agreement, the -agreement shall be interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or -limitation permitted by the applicable state law. The invalidity or -unenforceability of any provision of this agreement shall not void the -remaining provisions.</p> - -<p>1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the -trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone -providing copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in -accordance with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the -production, promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic works, harmless from all liability, costs and expenses, -including legal fees, that arise directly or indirectly from any of -the following which you do or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this -or any Project Gutenberg-tm work, (b) alteration, modification, or -additions or deletions to any Project Gutenberg-tm work, and (c) any -Defect you cause. </p> - -<h3>Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg-tm</h3> - -<p>Project Gutenberg-tm is synonymous with the free distribution of -electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of -computers including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It -exists because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations -from people in all walks of life.</p> - -<p>Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the -assistance they need are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg-tm's -goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg-tm collection will -remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project -Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure -and permanent future for Project Gutenberg-tm and future -generations. To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation and how your efforts and donations can help, see -Sections 3 and 4 and the Foundation information page at -www.gutenberg.org.</p> - -<h3>Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg -Literary Archive Foundation</h3> - -<p>The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non profit -501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the -state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal -Revenue Service. The Foundation's EIN or federal tax identification -number is 64-6221541. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent permitted by -U.S. federal laws and your state's laws.</p> - -<p>The Foundation's principal office is in Fairbanks, Alaska, with the -mailing address: PO Box 750175, Fairbanks, AK 99775, but its -volunteers and employees are scattered throughout numerous -locations. Its business office is located at 809 North 1500 West, Salt -Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887. Email contact links and up to -date contact information can be found at the Foundation's web site and -official page at www.gutenberg.org/contact</p> - -<p>For additional contact information:</p> - -<p> Dr. Gregory B. Newby<br /> - Chief Executive and Director<br /> - gbnewby@pglaf.org</p> - -<h3>Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg -Literary Archive Foundation</h3> - -<p>Project Gutenberg-tm depends upon and cannot survive without wide -spread public support and donations to carry out its mission of -increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be -freely distributed in machine readable form accessible by the widest -array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small donations -($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt -status with the IRS.</p> - -<p>The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating -charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United -States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a -considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up -with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations -where we have not received written confirmation of compliance. To SEND -DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any particular -state visit <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/donate">www.gutenberg.org/donate</a>.</p> - -<p>While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we -have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition -against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who -approach us with offers to donate.</p> - -<p>International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make -any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from -outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff.</p> - -<p>Please check the Project Gutenberg Web pages for current donation -methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other -ways including checks, online payments and credit card donations. To -donate, please visit: www.gutenberg.org/donate</p> - -<h3>Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works.</h3> - -<p>Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project -Gutenberg-tm concept of a library of electronic works that could be -freely shared with anyone. For forty years, he produced and -distributed Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks with only a loose network of -volunteer support.</p> - -<p>Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks are often created from several printed -editions, all of which are confirmed as not protected by copyright in -the U.S. unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not -necessarily keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper -edition.</p> - -<p>Most people start at our Web site which has the main PG search -facility: www.gutenberg.org</p> - -<p>This Web site includes information about Project Gutenberg-tm, -including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to -subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks.</p> - -</body> -</html> - diff --git a/old/52680-h/images/cover.jpg b/old/52680-h/images/cover.jpg Binary files differdeleted file mode 100644 index 39b88b3..0000000 --- a/old/52680-h/images/cover.jpg +++ /dev/null diff --git a/old/52680-h/images/frontis.jpg b/old/52680-h/images/frontis.jpg Binary files differdeleted file mode 100644 index b4b7946..0000000 --- a/old/52680-h/images/frontis.jpg +++ /dev/null diff --git a/old/52680-h/images/p_02.jpg b/old/52680-h/images/p_02.jpg Binary files differdeleted file mode 100644 index fce7304..0000000 --- a/old/52680-h/images/p_02.jpg +++ /dev/null diff --git a/old/52680-h/images/p_04.jpg b/old/52680-h/images/p_04.jpg Binary files differdeleted file mode 100644 index c0cc92e..0000000 --- a/old/52680-h/images/p_04.jpg +++ /dev/null diff --git a/old/52680-h/images/p_08.jpg b/old/52680-h/images/p_08.jpg Binary files differdeleted file mode 100644 index f611bfa..0000000 --- a/old/52680-h/images/p_08.jpg +++ /dev/null diff --git a/old/52680-h/images/p_127.jpg b/old/52680-h/images/p_127.jpg Binary files differdeleted file mode 100644 index 6392755..0000000 --- a/old/52680-h/images/p_127.jpg +++ /dev/null diff --git a/old/52680-h/images/p_144.jpg b/old/52680-h/images/p_144.jpg Binary files differdeleted file mode 100644 index ae4ad14..0000000 --- a/old/52680-h/images/p_144.jpg +++ /dev/null diff --git a/old/52680-h/images/p_186.jpg b/old/52680-h/images/p_186.jpg Binary files differdeleted file mode 100644 index 1a4e3e7..0000000 --- a/old/52680-h/images/p_186.jpg +++ /dev/null diff --git a/old/52680-h/images/p_242.jpg b/old/52680-h/images/p_242.jpg Binary files differdeleted file mode 100644 index cf8f229..0000000 --- a/old/52680-h/images/p_242.jpg +++ /dev/null diff --git a/old/52680-h/images/p_279.jpg b/old/52680-h/images/p_279.jpg Binary files differdeleted file mode 100644 index a407f82..0000000 --- a/old/52680-h/images/p_279.jpg +++ /dev/null diff --git a/old/52680-h/images/p_288.jpg b/old/52680-h/images/p_288.jpg Binary files differdeleted file mode 100644 index 1bae2ab..0000000 --- a/old/52680-h/images/p_288.jpg +++ /dev/null diff --git a/old/52680-h/images/p_36.jpg b/old/52680-h/images/p_36.jpg Binary files differdeleted file mode 100644 index d6e69bb..0000000 --- a/old/52680-h/images/p_36.jpg +++ /dev/null diff --git a/old/52680-h/images/p_40.jpg b/old/52680-h/images/p_40.jpg Binary files differdeleted file mode 100644 index 98cf7c6..0000000 --- a/old/52680-h/images/p_40.jpg +++ /dev/null diff --git a/old/52680-h/images/p_42.jpg b/old/52680-h/images/p_42.jpg Binary files differdeleted file mode 100644 index 449c8d1..0000000 --- a/old/52680-h/images/p_42.jpg +++ /dev/null diff --git a/old/52680-h/images/p_44.jpg b/old/52680-h/images/p_44.jpg Binary files differdeleted file mode 100644 index 17397b3..0000000 --- a/old/52680-h/images/p_44.jpg +++ /dev/null diff --git a/old/52680-h/images/p_47.jpg b/old/52680-h/images/p_47.jpg Binary files differdeleted file mode 100644 index ecc3998..0000000 --- a/old/52680-h/images/p_47.jpg +++ /dev/null diff --git a/old/52680-h/images/p_49.jpg b/old/52680-h/images/p_49.jpg Binary files differdeleted file mode 100644 index 658f00a..0000000 --- a/old/52680-h/images/p_49.jpg +++ /dev/null diff --git a/old/52680-h/images/p_51.jpg b/old/52680-h/images/p_51.jpg Binary files differdeleted file mode 100644 index 1495195..0000000 --- a/old/52680-h/images/p_51.jpg +++ /dev/null diff --git a/old/52680-h/images/p_54.jpg b/old/52680-h/images/p_54.jpg Binary files differdeleted file mode 100644 index b601842..0000000 --- a/old/52680-h/images/p_54.jpg +++ /dev/null diff --git a/old/52680-h/images/p_55.jpg b/old/52680-h/images/p_55.jpg Binary files differdeleted file mode 100644 index 3e9f4f2..0000000 --- a/old/52680-h/images/p_55.jpg +++ /dev/null diff --git a/old/52680-h/images/p_62.jpg b/old/52680-h/images/p_62.jpg Binary files differdeleted file mode 100644 index 5d32d49..0000000 --- a/old/52680-h/images/p_62.jpg +++ /dev/null diff --git a/old/52680-h/images/p_68.jpg b/old/52680-h/images/p_68.jpg Binary files differdeleted file mode 100644 index 51ee2d6..0000000 --- a/old/52680-h/images/p_68.jpg +++ /dev/null diff --git a/old/52680-h/images/p_80.jpg b/old/52680-h/images/p_80.jpg Binary files differdeleted file mode 100644 index b24a558..0000000 --- a/old/52680-h/images/p_80.jpg +++ /dev/null diff --git a/old/52680-h/images/p_86.jpg b/old/52680-h/images/p_86.jpg Binary files differdeleted file mode 100644 index 95e0980..0000000 --- a/old/52680-h/images/p_86.jpg +++ /dev/null diff --git a/old/52680-h/images/p_92.jpg b/old/52680-h/images/p_92.jpg Binary files differdeleted file mode 100644 index 753d5d0..0000000 --- a/old/52680-h/images/p_92.jpg +++ /dev/null diff --git a/old/52680-h/images/p_99.jpg b/old/52680-h/images/p_99.jpg Binary files differdeleted file mode 100644 index 608688a..0000000 --- a/old/52680-h/images/p_99.jpg +++ /dev/null |
