The Worcester spy. [volume] (Worcester, Mass.) 1898-1904, 1899-06-01
4 FRENCH LEGAL RGVoLUr1oN.

Certain experts of the law have dis
cerned in the Dreyfus agitation ten
dency to revolutionize the continental
theory of law so far as it relates to the
rights OF the individual. Some time
ago The Spy had occasion to explain
the difference in the standing of the
Individual as recognized respectively
in French courts and English courts.
Briefly, it is this: In England or the
United States petitioner or plaintiff
appears in the attitude of one who de-
mands certain rights and privileges to
which he deems himself entitled, and
which the state, the government and
the court must grant and ensure to
him. He is importunate in insisting
upon his rights. In the French courts
he appears rather as one praying for
Indulgence or favors, and proceeds to
set forth reasons why it is fitting, eX
pedient and just for the court or the
state to grant what he asks. On the
other hand, the attitude Of the French
court is that the rights and welfare of
the individual are of little consequence
if they be deemed to conflict with the
interests or temporary advantage of
the state
The latter was the precise ground on
which some honest and conscientious
opponents of Dreyfus revision based
their argument. It was no possible
consequence what became of or hap
pened to a single officer Especially if
he were a Jew, said some of the ex-
tremists), if a revision of his sentence
were to involve the disclosure of mill
tary and state secrets that might be
injurious or even embarrassing to the
government. For the same reason, Sc
cret trials are authorized, and an easy,
though confessedly an illegal step,
might then seem to be the Introduction
by the prosecution of evidence which
is not shown to the accused but only
to the judges. Both steps were taken
in the Dreyfus trial.
These same experts of the law are
disposed to see in the French system
certain advantages over the English
in the matter of appeal and revision,
but the fundamental subordination of
the interests of the individual to those
of the state in the original proceed
ings is not to be questioned. 1t is a
principle of long standing, and hence
there is the greater significance in its
recent popular condemnation not only
in the outside world, but in France it
self. To many Frenchmen this eleva-
ton of the individual to an equality
with or even precedence over the state,
seemed revolutionary if not anarchical.
The feeling naturally became all the
more intense when it was asserted that
the honor and efficiency of the beloved
army were involved in the issue, so
that foreigners need not wonder that
some good men have been found per-
sistently and conscientiously opposing
revision at every step. The illegalities
of procedure and the perversions Of
justice, even as interpreted under
French law, in this extraordinary case,
need not be again recounted here.
What has been said refers exclusively
to acts of admitted legality but unfor-
tunate application, based, as the Eng
lish lawyers see. upon an antiquated
and pernieious principle. The ques-
ton is, will the critical experiences
of the past two years be sufficient to
work a revolution in the fundamental
theory Of law in France?