In Pastures New
Page 8
CHAPTER VIII
A CHAPTER OF FRENCH JUSTICE AS DEALT OUT IN THE DREYFUS CASE
A good many people do not understand the method of French courts oflaw. Take the Dreyfus case, for instance. It has been dragging alongfor years, and the more evidence accumulated by Captain Dreyfus toprove his innocence, the greater seems to be his portion of woe. Hehas been vindicated over and over again and the vindications simplymake him more unpopular with those who prefer to regard him as amysterious and melodramatic villain.
People living at home have never understood why Captain Dreyfus wasconvicted in the first place. That is because they are not familiarwith the workings of a French court and cling to the Anglo-Saxon rule,that every man must be regarded as innocent until he is proven guilty.The French say that trials may be greatly simplified if the presumptionof guilt is attached to every defendant in a criminal case. When thepresumption of guilt is combined with a personal unpopularity, theprisoner usually finds it advisable to throw himself on the mercy ofthe court and accept a life sentence.
In order to elucidate the rules of procedure in a French court and showhow and why Captain Dreyfus was convicted, let us suppose that Frenchmethods could be transferred to the United States and applied to anordinary criminal case--say the theft of a dog. Here is what wouldhappen.
The Court--"Prisoner, you are accused of stealing a dog. Are youguilty or not guilty?"
Prisoner--"Not guilty."
Court--"Well, someone stole a dog, and if you refuse to acknowledgeyour guilt, we may be compelled to cast suspicion on gentlemen whowould be deeply pained to have themselves interrogated."
The Prisoner--"How can I acknowledge my guilt when I didn't steal thedog?"
Court--"That isn't the point. The point is that a great many prominentand influential people have said at different times that you stole thedog. Now, if you come before the tribunal and prove that you didn'tsteal the dog you are going to humiliate a great many well known andsensitive persons and make the whole situation very distressing to me.It would simplify matters greatly if you would admit that you stole thedog."
The Prisoner--"But how can I admit stealing the dog when I am entirelyinnocent?"
The Court--"Did you ever see the dog said to have been stolen?"
Prisoner--"Yes, sir." (Profound sensation.)
Court--"And yet you have the audacity to stand there and say you didn'tsteal it?"
Prisoner--"A great many other people saw the dog."
Court--"Perhaps so; but they would make trouble if you or anyone elsebegan insinuating against them, so I don't propose to have their nameshauled in here. Of all the men who saw the dog and had a chance tosteal it, you are the only one whose conviction would satisfy thegeneral public."
Prisoner--"I can bring witnesses who saw another man steal the dog. Ican prove that he confessed to stealing the dog and that he has fled toescape punishment."
Court--"You ought not to bring any such testimony into this court, forif you do so you are going to upset some theories held by very dearfriends of mine, and if I permit the introduction of such testimony,there is no telling what they will say about me. If you didn't stealthe dog isn't there something else you have done that is punishable inone way or another?"
Prisoner--"I can't think of anything just now."
Court--"Oh, pshaw! Aren't you guilty of something? Just think amoment. Nearly every man is guilty of something. If we can find youguilty of any old crime it will help some."
Prisoner--"I refuse to acknowledge any degree of guilt. I am innocent."
Court--"I don't see how you can be when so many estimable people thinkotherwise, but I suppose we shall have to give you a trial. Call thefirst witness."
First Witness--"Your Honor, I am a very high-minded and aristocraticperson, and I have always disliked this defendant. (Sensation.) Assoon as I had heard that someone had accused him of stealing a dog, Iknew he must be guilty. I still hold to the opinion that he is guilty.I know that another man has confessed to stealing the dog, and hasskipped out in order to avoid arrest, but these details have no weightwith me. I am satisfied that if the defendant did not steal the dogmentioned in this affidavit, he must have stolen some other dog that weknow nothing about. Ever since this wretched defendant was firstaccused of this crime I have been going around saying that he wasguilty beyond the shadow of a doubt. Naturally I am not going to comehere now and acknowledge his innocence. If he is acquitted, I'll bethe subject of ridicule. That is why I urge the court to convict him.No matter what the testimony may show, you take my personal assurancethat he is guilty. Remember one thing, that I have a large pull."
The Court--"Thank you very much for your testimony. Call the secondwitness."
Second Witness--"Your Honor, one day last spring I met a man whosefriend told him that one day he saw the defendant pass the house fromwhich the dog was stolen. From that moment I became convinced of thedefendant's guilt. (Terrific sensation.) Another day a strangerwalked into my office and told me that 'D' was the first letter of thename of the man who stole the dog. Although there are 100,000 personsin town whose names begin with 'D,' I had no difficulty in coming tothe conclusion that the particular 'D' who stole the dog was thescoundrel now on trial. The reason that I came to this conclusion wasthat he used to wear a red necktie, and I dislike any man who wears ared necktie. Also I attach great importance to the fact that theletter 'D,' which is the first letter in his name, is also the firstletter in 'Dog,' thus proving that he stole the dog. (Profoundsensation.) In conclusion I would like to request the court to bringin a verdict of guilty."
The Court--"We will now have some expert testimony."
First Expert--"Your Honor, I never saw the prisoner before, and I hadno personal acquaintance with the dog, but I am convinced that he stolethe dog, and I will tell you why. You know, of course, that anotherman has confessed to stealing the dog. My theory, evolved after muchthought, is that the man who confessed did not steal the dog at all,but that the dog was stolen by the defendant, who disguised himself soas to resemble the man who has confessed. (Great sensation.) Thereseems to be a universal admission that the man who stole the dog was abrunette. Some people claim that this fact points to the innocence ofthe defendant, who is a blonde; but my theory is that the defendantdyed his hair and whiskers so as to cause them to resemble the hair andwhiskers of a certain innocent man, then he borrowed a suit of theinnocent man's clothes and went and stole the dog, and the resemblancewas so perfect that even the innocent man and the dog were bothdeceived. The innocent man thought that he, and not the defendant, hadstolen the dog, so he confessed and then ran away. But I am here tosave him in spite of his confession. I maintain that if this defendantwere to dye his hair and whiskers and put on a suit of clothesbelonging to the man who has confessed to stealing the dog, then toanyone a short distance away he would bear a striking resemblance tothe man who has confessed. Therefore the dog was not stolen by the manwho has confessed, but by this infamous defendant cleverly disguised toresemble the man who has confessed."
The Court--"Then you think he is guilty?"
Expert Witness--"If there is anything in my theory, it is simplyimpossible for him to be innocent."
The Court--"Much obliged. Call the next witness."
Next Witness--"I would like to state to the court that the defendant isnot very well liked down in our neighbourhood, where he formerlyresided, and if the court will only convict him it will be a distinctpersonal favour to several of us."
The Court--"Do you think him guilty?"
Next Witness--"I haven't the slightest doubt of it. Neither has mywife. I have been convinced of his guilt ever since I heard him sayone morning, 'I have something to do this afternoon.' It is evident tomy mind that when he said, 'I have something to do this afternoon,' hemeant, 'I am going to steal a dog this afternoon.'" (Sensation.)
The Court--"Then you are quite sure that he did steal the dog?"
Next Witness
--"Of course."
The Court--"Are there any other witnesses?"
Prisoner--"I have several witnesses here who saw the other man stealthe dog. I can prove that at the time of the stealing I was ten milesaway, attending a picnic. I can prove, also, that I didn't need a dog;that I never liked dogs; that I had no earthly motive for stealing adog; and that from the time of my first accusation I have consistentlyand emphatically denied any knowledge of the crime."
The Court--"Well, I don't see that the dog has anything to do with thecase. I'll sentence you to six months in the bridewell for being soblamed unpopular."