THE OTAGO DAILY TIMES SATURDAY, FEBRUARY 26, 1898.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 11047, 26 February 1898, Page 4

THE OTAGO DAILY TIMES SATURDAY, FEBRUARY 26, 1898.

" Vive la France!" cried that pleasant creature, Dr Tanner^ -when the Kiger affair iyas being discussed in the House of Commons a few days ago ; and there will be a general temptation to take up the cry ironically in allusion to the history and result of M. Zola's trial. Doubtless, criticism cannot be too careful -when the difference of national characteristics is involved: it' is so very easy for Englishmen to ridicule various aspects of French life and character, and vice versa • and yet the incongruity may be quite illusory;— the fiction of a particular national point of view. Whether judging our neighbours or the nations, we should (as Geokge Eliot saysj make " all possible effort to escape from the pitiable illusion which makes men laugh, - shriek, or curl the lip at Folly's likeness, in total unconsciousness that it resembles themselves," and it is safest to assume that some feature in the likeness has a relationship to our own physiognomy. Englishmen laugh at Frenchmen, while Frenchmen find Englishmen immensely droll. But with all respect to these lessons of international caution and comity, the world outside France may boldly raise hands in horrified amazement at the judicial scandal of the last three weeks, —nay, should we not say of the lasb three years? Surely this ia the " Debacle " 'of French justice. Whether or not M. Zola is guilty of high treason we cannot say. Convinced that a terrible injustice had been done to an innocent man, and possessed (as he believed) of proofs of his assertions, he made charges of conspiracy against certain public officials, civil and military. His disinterestedness, so far as we know, has not been challenged : it was in the name of justice.and humanity that he charged Colonel Dv Paty db Clam with being the " devilish author" of an extraordinary miscarriage of justice. He has been tried, —how ? We have only the cablegrams, but these tell quite enough. Collectively they furnish a pretty picture of a French court of justice. To start with, both court and public had evidently made up their minds. The people hissed the defendant, cheered everybody connected with the prosecution, and behaved generally like men possessed. The court, aided by the Government, put all possible obstacles in the defendant's

! way. The Minister for Justice "declined to allow" the Minis- | ter for War to give evidence. A number of civil and military officials declined to give evidence on the plea 'of professional and official secrecy. ; " Counsel for Zola claimed the right i to demonstrate the basis of Dheyeus's i innocence "'—the basis,' that is, of ; Zola's action; hut apparently the | claim was'disallowed. " The judgerei fused to admit certain evidence relating to ex-Captain Dreyfus." Tumultuous scenes were the order of the day in court, and the defendant (one of the most distinguished men in France, be it remembered) protested that he was being treated "worse than a thief or a murderer." The judge would not allow the defendant's counsel to cross-examine important •witnesses. Generals in uniform made speeches for the prosecution instead of giving evidence. Count Esterhazy—a person specially implicated in Zola's charge—was called " and made a dramatic speech upon his prosecution. M. Labori reviewed Count Esterhazy's life, but as he put question after question to him Count Esterhazy turned his back and absolutely refused to answer a single one. The excitement in court was intense. The spectators rose in a body and successively cheered Count Esteehazt, General Boisdeffre, and the army. General Boisdefjfre-, overcome with emotionj" wept." Did the good general weep 'with joy at having escaped cross-examination by the judge's order? Surely conviction is triumph after sucha trial as this. Shamefully as M. Zola has been treated, he is fortunate in comparison with poor Dreyfus. We do not take for granted that M. Dreyfus is" innocent, as the wild Parisians have taken for granted that he is guilty; but it may be safely affirmed that he has not had reasonable justice. If we have a prepossession in favour of his innocence, it is because the scandalous methods of his accusers inevitably suggest that their case was shady. He has not had the semblance of a fair trial.. His treatment after his arrest was as outrageous as.the refusal to allow him ordinary judicial privileges. He was arrested on the ; flimsiest of evidence—the opinion of two experts in handwriting, which was contradicted by two others. Ministers, officers, and newspapers appear to have been banded against him with relentless' persistence; but the,, world has never been allowed to see 'the proof of his guilt. He was tried in secret, and convicted on secret evidence. He has protested his innocence from first to last. The incriminating " document" was not shown to his counsel. As The.Times observed three years ago : " The conditions of secrecy unfortunately imposed engender doubts, which in the case of so grave an accusation, involving penalties both degrading and severe, ought not •to be left undispelled. It may-: be important for the French - people to preserve the secrets of their War department, but ifc is of infinitely greater importance to them to guard their public justice against even the suspicion of unfairness or of subjection to the gusts of \popular- passion." Time has gone on, and the French people, so far from recognising this necessity^ have set themselves :to convert the suspicion into a certainty. Popular passion, encouraged ,by"official malice or, obstinacy, has ruled the day. It'has ruled triumphantly in the court during M. Z6la's trial.. Proof or no proof, Dkeyfcs is guilty,—such is its dictum. Everything that has come to light during the last three years tells in Dbeyfus's favour,—so much so that his friends claim that, his innocence has been proved; but officialdom, political and judicial, 'shuts its ears, and the people cheer- themselves hoarse. At Zola's trial the Drbycts , question—the basis of .-'the case—was judicially burked. Grenerais , Pjbl.lieus and Boisdeffre asserted that the Government had received additional proofs of Dreyfus's guilt, but doe's the history of j the case invite ready credence for these bald assertions? Zola's Gounsel wanted to cross-examine the generals, and the refusal of permission is exceedingly suggestive. No doubt there is difficulty in the way of supposing that the Government and officera are in a league of conspiracy against justice, but alternative difficulties, are not less serious.. It is impossible to say whether the French populace will yet throw off their prejudice and lawless ! excitement, — for essentially lawless their influence in this case has been, — and demand a fair trial in a matter wherein they have hitherto applauded tyrannical presumptions; or whether they and their Government will defy the opinion of the', world, from liberal England to autocratic ijussia. A question" remains (with which we shall probably deal in a second article) —What is the basis of the prejudice and the excitement? Is mere noisy .patriotism, military jingoism, devotion to the army of France, at the bottom of this passionate prepossession ? or is there another and less obvious cause, having reference to special racial animosity ?