Jean-Louis Baudouin, guest speaker of the Lord Reading Law Society

The Dreyfus Affair

Arnold J. Cohen and Steven G. Slimovitch, lawyers

---

On February 12, 1998, the honourable Jean-Louis Baudouin of the Quebec Court of Appeal was the invited guest speaker of The Lord Reading Law Society.

Mr. Justice Baudouin addressed the Society on the infamous Dreyfus Affair which occurred in France in the 1890's where a Jewish French Army Officer was falsely condemned as a traitor, stripped of his rank and deported. Mr. Justice Baudouin's unique personal perspective on this Affair stems from the fact that his great-grandfather was the Procureur Général of the French Republic (similar to our Chief Crown Prosecutor) at the time of the Dreyfus Affair. Mr. Justice Baudouin is in possession of an impressive collection of documents relating to the Affair including photographs of all the exhibits, various correspondence and a copy of the Dossier Secret composed mostly of forgeries which were used to falsely condemn Dreyfus.

Mr. Justice Baudouin began with a background of the Dreyfus Affair. Alfred Dreyfus was born in Alsace in 1854 to an old Jewish family. He came to Paris for his education and ultimately joined the French military and quickly progressed through the French officer corps. He married and had two children and both his wife and his son played an important role in his ultimate acquittal.

On October 3, 1894, Dreyfus was invited by a prominent colonel of the French military to a meeting where he was asked to take a letter under dictation. To Dreyfus' great surprise, this colonel arrested him immediately for high treason after writing the letter.

While this episode seems astonishing, it must be placed in the political context of France at the time. France had recently suffered a humiliating defeat at the hands of the Prussians in 1890-91 despite superior military strength and artillery. The reasons for this defeat are largely attributed to the poor quality of the French officer corps as well as a lack of fighting spirit. Needless to say, this defeat struck an important blow to the French collective ego. In addition, the political forces in France at the time were splintered among the Royalists, the Napoleonists, the Anarchists and the burgeoning Socialists, adding further to the turmoil and political instability.

After the military defeat, there were three significant political and social factors which arose in which Dreyfus ultimately became trapped.

Firstly, the high-ranking military officers were not willing to accept the defeat and believed that German spying was at the core. In addition, French military intelligence believed that they had discovered a mole in the German Embassy who was a high-ranking official in the French army. The general physical description of the mole corresponded to that of Dreyfus and it was because of this suspicion that Dreyfus was asked to write the letter so that it could be compared to a writing sample found in a waste-paper basket in the German Embassy.

Secondly, between 1890 and 1892, the campaign against Jews by the French extreme right in the army intensified and was supported by the French newspaper Libre Parole where Jews were often described as disloyal citizens.

Lastly, high-ranking military officials looking for ways to explain the defeat other than their own inability, looked for a party to blame. At this time, as was the case in many European countries, Jews were seen as a natural scapegoat.

After writing the infamous letter, Dreyfus was arrested and jailed but he had no idea why. In December 1894, he was brought to trial before a military court. The judges were provided with the Dossier Secret which was later learned to contain forged documents. The judges were obviously unaware of the forgeries at the time and the Dossier Secret was not even divulged to Dreyfus' own lawyers. Dreyfus was found guilty and condemned to deportation. He was deported in January 1895 after a public ceremony attended by all of the conspirators where he was stripped of his rank.

His wife Lucie and his son Mathieu insisted on an appeal, even though at the time the great majority of the French people were convinced of Dreyfus' guilt. Instead of taking the legal approach, Lucie and Mathieu exerted political pressure using friends which Dreyfus still had in the army. They were able to win a revision of his dossier and ultimately convinced a senior-ranking military official, Picard, that Dreyfus was innocent and that one of the leading conspirators was a high-ranking military officer, Esterazi. In a bold and brilliant political move, Esterazi, complaining that he was being framed, asked to be put on trial and he was subsequently acquitted of any implication in the Dreyfus affair.

By September 1896, the Dreyfus case became very publicized through the efforts of Lucie and Mathieu who petitioned the National Assembly for a revision of the case. The conspirators reacted by replacing Picard and the affair continued to drag. Mathieu kept up the political pressure by visiting England and Italy, thereby making the Dreyfus Affair an international one. He brought with him handwriting experts to show that the note found in the German Embassy was not written by his father.

On January 13, 1898, the noted French author, Émile Zola, intervened and he published his famous article J'accuse targeting Dreyfus' conspirators. Zola in effect asked to be sued for defamation and he was ultimately found guilty and sentenced to one year in prison and a huge fine. The Dreyfus affair again grounded to a halt.

Undaunted, Lucie and Mathieu again mounted political pressure, this time with the upstart socialists who were not anti-Semitic.

An important turning point in the case occurred on August 13, 1898 when a minor French officer reviewing the file examined certain documents in the Dossier Secret and found that they were forgeries. He reported his discovery to his superior officer who hated Esterazi and proceeded to arrest Esterazi's co-conspirator, an officer by the name of Henri. Henri was sentenced to jail and he committed suicide, convincing the family that the time was now right to again have the case addressed by the courts.

Later that same year the Cour de Cassation ordered a revision of the Dreyfus trial and Dreyfus was returned to France in poor health and under house arrest. By this time, the great majority of the French people were convinced of Dreyfus' innocence.

Dreyfus' case was remanded to the military court on September 8, 1899. In a tremendous blow, Dreyfus was again found guilty, notwithstanding that most observers thought that he would be acquitted. The French government offered Dreyfus amnesty but he refused, insisting on his innocence. Instead, he asked for a second revision of his case, this time before the Cour de Cassation itself.

The case was ultimately heard by the Cour de Cassation and Mr. Justice Baudouin's great-grandfather pleaded the case for eight consecutive days attacking all of the co-conspirators. Dreyfus was acquitted and re-instated in rank.

Mr. Justice Baudouin recounted to the Society how, after the case, his great-grandfather was put under police protection for five years after receiving numerous threats and much harassment. Mr. Justice Baudouin poignantly told of the "thank you" note in his possession written by Dreyfus to his great-grandfather which eloquently expressed Dreyfus' thanks to Baudouin by simply saying "merci".

Mr. Justice Baudouin concluded that there were many important lessons to be learned from the Dreyfus Affair. Firstly, that anti-Semitism always starts with the same pattern, by scapegoating Jews instead of blaming oneself for one's own misfortune. Secondly, he suggested that we can be grateful for a justice system today that is geared to protect the rights of the accused. Thirdly, he reminded that anti-Semitism unfortunately creeps into history all too frequently but that fortunately, Mr. Justice Baudouin hoped that our society has never reached the same level of hate and acrimony as that existing in turn-of-the-century France.

Mr. Justice Baudouin was warmly thanked for his remarks by the Vice-President of the Society, M^e Ian Solloway, for offering a pertinent and uniquely personal perspective on an important event in judicial history.

 

Retour au haut de la page

© Barreau du Québec 1996-2012