TOW #23-Historic Letter

Source: http://marxists.org/archive/zola/1898/jaccuse.htm

   

          In 1894, military officer Alfred Dreyfus was accused of providing secret military information to Germany via a secret “memo.”   In his open letter to the President of the French Republic Emile Zola speaks out against what he deems the unjustified imprisonment of Dreyfus by pointing out the miscarriage of justice that occurred, explaining an affair that proved Dreyfus to be innocent but was largely ignored, and enumerating the wrongdoings of those involved in the Dreyfus case, attempt to convince the President of Dreyfus’ innocence. 

          Zola begins his letter by identifying commander Paty de Clam as the main orchestrator of the Dreyfus investigation, and the one who ultimately turned into an “affair.”  Zola accuses de Clam of using several unethical methods in an effort to get Dreyfus to confess, among which were things such as shocking Dreyfus into confessing to threatening the man’s wife if she should protest her husband’s arrest.  “One could not conceive of the experiments to which he subjected unhappy Dreyfus, the traps into which he wanted to make him fall, the insane investigations, monstrous imaginations, a whole torturing insanity."  However, de Clam was not alone in this miscarriage of justice.  He had three main accomplices, Generals Mercier, De Boisdeffre, and Gonse, who, at the very least, were guilty of failing to ensure that justice would be carried out fairly.

            Next, Zola cites the Esterhazy affair as another example of Dreyfus' innocence. Three years after Dreyfus was (unjustly) convicted, a new suspect was introduced: Commander Esterhazy.  After an investigation, it became known that Esterhazy was the true perpetrator of the crime for which Dreyfus had been found guilty of.  However, the war department did all it could to cover up for Esterhazy.  Accusing Esterhazy would have meant a reopening of the Dreyfus case, which would result in, “the department of war collapsing under public contempt." This meant that those in command knew that Dreyfus was innocent, but “kept this appalling thing to themselves," and even sought to conceal it using the media and their positions of influence. According to Zola, this only deepened the guilt of the military department and those involved, because neglect now turned to an outright concealment of the crime.

            The letter finishes with Zola recapping the reasons for Dreyfus’ innocence by issuing accusations against those who convicted Dreyfus of a crime he didn't commit. Zola accuses the military department and the judge/jury of the trial of being affected by the feelings of antisemitism, making them already biased toward Dreyfus (a Jew) before the trial had even begun; the military officials involved in the miscarriage of justice and then the concealment of a possible correction to this wrong; and  the handwriting experts who provided a study of the memo of submitting falsified reports/evidence.  

            Through his letter, Zola seeks to bring the French President's attention to a grave miscarriage of justice that had been committed in the French military. To do this, he cites the illegitimacy of the investigation, the cover-up attempt by high ranking military officials, and recaps the various crimes the convictors of Dreyfus themselves are guilty of. Zola speaks out for Dreyfus' innocence, and was ultimately successful. Not long after the publishing of  J'Accuse in a public French newspaper, Dreyfus' case was reexamined, culminating in his ultimate acquittal.