Public ledger. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1865-1893, 1875-03-04
General De wImpnen and M, De
OnaaAKnnR
Paris correspondence to New York Times

OassaBnac.
Paris correspondence to New York Times
In my last | omitted to note the af.
fair of General Wimpffen and Paul De
Cassagnac, which came before the Civil
Tribunal. The court decided that the
general had no case that it could hear,
or that it had no jurisdiction in the mat.
ter at issue. General Wimpffep was
nonsuited, therefor, and condemned to
pay the costs. The Importance of this
decision lies in the fact that in case of
libel no proof is admitted in the civil
courts, while justification can be pleaded
and proved in the assize courts. For
this reason Paul De Cassagnac de-.
manded a criminal trial although he
would have been subject to fine Ii con.
demed in the former, while he ia sub.
ject to fine and Imprisonment in the lat.
ter. But he has ali opportunity for
citing witness, and can have his case
heard before jury. The libel alleged
by General Wimpfen is contained in a
criticism upon his conduct at Sedan, and
is mere reiteratieu of the charges con.
tained in General Ducrot's book. In
my opinion this was the most important
Of all works published about Sedan. but
for some reason or other it attracted
very little attention. | made a transla
ton Of it at the time but did not find
publisher. II is this work that is now
in question, and the result of the trial
in the criminal court will depend greatly
upon De Cassagnac's ability to prove
the statements made by Dncrot The
general has been cited as a witness in
the case now brought by Wimpffen in
the Assize Court, and between the two
parties nearly all the officers at Sedan
have been cited to appear. The sum of
the libel is contained in the charge that
Wimpffen is mainly responsible for the
disaster. When MacMahon was de.
feated at Reichschoffen the Minister of
War sent Wimpffen down to take com.
mand Of the army, in case OF accident
to the commanding general. He ar
rived just as MacMahon was defeated
wounded before Sedan. Finding the
army retreating he declined the COM
mand on the ground that he had not the
confidence Of the officers, and it was
given to Ducrot. That active and ener.
getic officer made an arrangement by
which he could retreat by the nights Of
lily, and sent Lebrun forward to engage
the enemy. For the moment the Ger
mans we're checked with severe loss.
Oucrot meant to fight all day and
retreat at night, and had already sent
off his wagon trains and spare artil.
lery. Seeing hopes Of a victory Wimpffen
claimed command Of the army, and the
Emperor tried to persuade him not to
act upon his orders just then; but the
general wanted the credit of the victory
planned by Ducrot. He took command,
was badly whipped, and when his army
was routed he rushed into the Emperor's
presence and cried; Sire | can do no
more; my officers refuse to obey me"
Ducrot was hidden in the embrasure Of
window, and Immediately sprang for.
ward, ITO whom do you refer, he
said hercely; mot one of your officers
has refused to obey you" A savage
speech then followed. Ducrot said that
the only thing to be done was to let the
retreat 90 on as he had ordered It.
Wimpfen said that he had himself given
orders to stop the retreat. Ducrot re.
piled that il this was the case all was
lost. Having by his fault caused the
surrender, Wimpfen refused TO raise the
white Gag, and it was after this. to spare
further bloodshed, that the Emperor did
it in person. Such are the charges
made by General Duorot against Gen.
eral Wimp6en, and reiterated, in more
offensive way, perhaps, by Paul De Cas-
sagnac in the Pays. The Civil tribunal
could hardly have failed to find this
libel, although De Cassagnac's condemn
alton would have been light, since he
merely repeated Ducrot's charges, but
in the Criminal Court proof can be Of
lered, and jury must decide whether
or not Ducrot's statement is correct,
and whether or not Paul De Cassagnac
wSs guilty of defamation by repeating
IL.