The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1899-08-26
MORE FRENCH JUDICaTURE.


We commented few days back upon
the ouriosities and absurdltles of French
judicial procedure as evidenced in the
Dreyfus trial, but we think the matter
VIII bear further comment, because when
their procedure is contrasted with ours
1t shows our people the value Of their
institutions and impresses upon them the
importance Of preserving them unlmpair-
I'd and IN their native strength and
purity.
on Thursday gentleman who gave the
name OF Georges Charles Alfred Marie
Nfrlcrl de Grandmaison came before the
court and testified that some time back
he had a conversation with an English
friend. named Charles Baker. who said
he felt sure Dreyfus was innocent. be-
cause he had seen a letter from Colonel
swarzkoppen affirming the prisoners IN
noccnce. Baker had seen other documents
showing that certain French officers. not
including Dreyfus. were spies and Baker
asked Grandmaison TO publish these docu-
ments.
Now, n Ggandmaison could tell what
Baker said in exoneration Of Dreyfus.
he could equally tel anything he might
have said that would tend 10 prove Drey-
fus guilty. just as ne was in fact allowed
10 tell what Baker said that tended TO
prove certain other officers guilty. and
thus Dreyfus might he convicted upon
evidence that IS nothing but the baldest
hearsay and that has no element or
character of evidence at all.
OF course. no such statement as Grand
maison made would have been listened
10 in an English or American court Of any
sort whatever. In an English or Ameri-
can court no witness is allowed to repeat
what another person has said. unless it
was said I'm the presence OF the person
who IS to be affected by it. II 1t is said IN
that PERSONS presence the witness may
repeat IL, because the law assumes that
If # were false the person TO be affected
would Immediately brand the statement
as false. and failure to brand II as false
fectly safe. therefore, to allow witness
TO repeat what a person has said in the
presence of one who is to be affected by
&C. but II statements made out OF the
presence Of the person TO be affected by
them are allowed. men may be sworn out
Of their rights by any sort OF trumpet
up tales. and there Will be no sanctions
whatever for any mans security in life
person or property. The reasons against
the French course are so obvious, and the
reasons for our course are so overwhelm-
ing that argument can make the case
no palmer than it is upon its bare state
ment.
We do not see how social order can
exist where such methods Of procedure
in courts are tolerated as the French
have. They have in fact, no methods Of
procedure or sanctions for rights what
ever. Men are liable to be hauled up be-
fore tribunals without notice of any kind
Of what is charged against them and then
deprived Of life, liberty and property upon
statements Of any sort that have no sane
lions whatever. and that arc just as liza
bic to be false as they are to be true.
The proceedings I'm this trial cast a
food Of light upon French character and
explain great deal Of what has been
incomprehensible to mankind heretofore.
Every American who reads the reports
of this trial should thank his God that
he is an American, and he should pray
that no "ofce trust" IS ever given the
opportunity to destroy his free institutions
and substitute for them the tyrannical
old World methods that the political boss
loves so well.