Editing Dreyfus affair (section)

=== The trial of Zola ===

[[File:Zola sortie.jpg|thumb|[[Henry de Groux]], ''Zola faces the mob'', oil on canvas, 1898]]
[[Jean-Baptiste Billot|General Billot]], Minister of War, filed a complaint against Zola and Alexandre Perrenx, the manager of ''L'Aurore'', to be heard at the Assises of the Seine from 7 to 23 February 1898. Defamation of a public authority was liable to trial in the [[Cour d'Assises]], while insults to private figures—such as journalists and intellectuals—uttered by the nationalist and antisemitic press were limited to the civil adversarial system. (The taxpayer is at risk in the first case, while only the plaintiff is at risk in the second.) The minister referred to only three passages of Zola's article,<ref>Miquel, ''The Dreyfus Affair'', p. 45. {{in lang|fr}}</ref> eighteen lines out of hundreds. He accused Zola of having written that the court martial had committed "unlawful acts&nbsp;... by order".<ref>Supreme Court, ''Justice from the Dreyfus Affair'', Pages, p. 143. {{in lang|fr}}</ref> The trial opened in an atmosphere of extreme violence—Zola had been the object of "the most shameful attacks" as well as important support and congratulations. (On 2 February, [[Octave Mirbeau]], [[Laurent Tailhade]], [[Pierre Quillard]] and [[Georges Courteline]], among others, in ''L'Aurore'' signed an "Address to Émile Zola" assuring him of their support "in the name of justice and truth".)

[[Fernand Labori]], Zola's lawyer, intended to call about 200 witnesses. The details of the Dreyfus affair, unknown to most of the public, were published in the press. Several papers, ''Le Siecle'' and ''L'Áurore'' among others, published [[shorthand]] notes verbatim of the debates every day to build support in the population. These notes were, for the Dreyfusards, an essential tool for later debates. The nationalists, behind [[Victor Henri Rochefort, Marquis de Rochefort-Luçay|Henri Rochefort]], however, were more visible and organized riots, which forced the prefect of police to intervene to protect Zola whenever he left the facility<ref>through a side door of the Quai des Orfevres. Winock, ''The Century of intellectuals'', p. 36. {{in lang|fr}}</ref> after every hearing.<ref>Duclert, ''The Dreyfus Affair'', p. 44. {{in lang|fr}}</ref>

This trial was also the scene of a real legal battle in which the rights of the defence were constantly violated.<ref>Repiquet, president of the bar, in ''Edgar Demange and Fernand Labori'', Supreme Court, ''Justice From the Dreyfus Affair'', p. 273 et seq. {{in lang|fr}}</ref> Many observers were aware of the collusion between France's political and military worlds. Evidently the court received instructions not to raise the subject of former judicial errors. President Delegorgue, on the pretext of the long duration of the hearings, juggled the law incessantly to ensure that the trial dealt only with the alleged defamation by Zola. Delegorgue's phrase "the question will not be put" was repeated dozens of times.<ref>[http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k62779w See the whole debate of 1898]. {{in lang|fr}}</ref>

Zola was sentenced to one year in prison and a fine of 3,000 francs,<ref group="Note">Octave Mirbeau paid 7,525 francs from his own pocket, which represented the amount of the fine and court costs on 8 August 1898.</ref> which was the maximum penalty. This harshness was due to the atmosphere of violence surrounding the trial. "The excitement of the audience and the exasperation of the crowd in front of the courthouse were so violent that one could fear the worst excesses if the jury acquitted Mr. Zola".<ref>According to the recollections of anti-Dreyfusard [[Arthur Meyer (journalist)|Arthur Meyer]], ''What my eyes saw'', Plon, 1912, p. 149. {{in lang|fr}}</ref> However, the Zola trial was rather a victory for the Dreyfusards.<ref>From this sentence to the end of the following paragraph: Winock, ''The Century of intellectuals'', pp. 39–41. {{in lang|fr}}</ref> Indeed, the affair and its contradictions had been widely discussed throughout the trial, especially by the military. In addition, the violent attacks against Zola and the injustice of the conviction of Dreyfus reinforced the commitment of the Dreyfusards. [[Stéphane Mallarmé]] declared, "[I am] imbued by the admirable actions [of Zola]"<ref>F. Brown, ''Zola, a life'', Belfond, 1996. 779. {{in lang|fr}}</ref> and [[Jules Renard]] wrote in his diary: "From tonight I hold on to the Republic that inspires respect in me, a tenderness in me that I do not know. I declare that Justice is the most beautiful word in the language of men and I must cry if men no longer understand it".<ref>Jules Renard, ''Journal 1887–1910'', Gallimard, 1965, p. 472. {{in lang|fr}}</ref> Senator [[Ludovic Trarieux]] and Catholic jurist [[Paul Viollet]] founded the [[Human Rights League (France)|League for the Defence of Human Rights]]. Even more than the Dreyfus affair the Zola affair resulted in a regrouping of intellectual forces into two opposing camps.

On 2 April 1898, an application to the Supreme Court received a favourable response. This was the court's first intervention in the affair. The court upheld the appeal, on the formal grounds that as the alleged libel was against the military court, rather than the minister, it was the military court that should have made the complaint. Prosecutor-General Manau supported a review of the Dreyfus trial and strongly opposed the antisemites. The judges of the military court, whom Zola had challenged, therefore opened a new suit against him for libel. The case was brought before the Assizes of Seine-et-Oise in [[Versailles (city)|Versailles]] where the public was considered more favourable to the army and more nationalistic. On 23 May 1898, at the first hearing, Mr. Labori appealed to the Supreme Court regarding the change of jurisdiction, which adjourned the trial and postponed the hearing to 18 July 1898. Labori advised Zola to leave France for [[England]] before the end of the trial, which the writer did, departing for a one-year exile in England. The defendants were convicted again. As for Colonel Picquart, he found himself again in prison.