Newspaper Page Text
Page 10
The Southern Israelite
IVhat Is Behind the Dreyfus Revivalt
Startling Revelations of the French Political Scene
By PIERRE VAN PAASSEN
News dispatches have of late told of weird incidents in connec
tion with renewed efforts by the anti-Dreyfusards to reintroduce
the famous Dreyfus affair on the political scene of France. Pierre
Van Paassen, noted foreign correspondent, scores another scoop by
his thorough investigation of what lies behind the anti-Dreyfus
drive of the Royalists, and gives an insight into what Captain
Alfred Dreyfus himself thinks of being dragged into the limelight
again.—THE EDITOR.
Paris.—The presentation in Paris of
a play based on the memorable treason
trial, known in modern bistory as the
Dreyfus affair, gave rise to some lively
scenes in and outside the Theatre dc
l’Ambigu, where the piece was given.
Thousands of young men belonging to
various royalist organizations, most of
them students, marched up and down
the avenue where the theater is lo
cated, shouting: ‘‘Down with the Jcwsl
Long live the armyl” Clashes with the
police were an almost nightly occur
rence for several weeks on end. At
all hours of the night one could meet
parties escorting wounded and bleeding
comrades home. Every evening, too, the
play was interrupted by cat-calls and
fights and the hurling of stink-bombs,
despite the presence in the audience of
large numbers of plainclothesmen and
detectives. What with piles of smashed
bowlers, torn clothes, broken canes and
a blood-smeared pavement in the
neighborhood of the Atnbigu one may
easily have gained the impression that
the attempts of the monarchist organi
zations to raise the venomous old is
sues of the "affaire’' were meeting with
considrable success.
It must sound almost incredible when
any one intimates, as I do here, that
these belated outbursts over the Drey
fus issue, which, after all, has been
“chose jugec’’ these last thirty years,
were actually sponsored, abetted and
unchained by responsible men in the
twentith century, and this in the most
civilized community on earth. Yet, un
believable as it may seem, this was the
case. For weeks prior to the presenta
tion of the play the royalist and ultra
nationalist newspapers howled defiance
at the men who had announced their
intention to produce it on the Paris
stage. First rumors in Paris had it that
Maitre Henri Torres, famous Jewish
criminal lawyer, whose eloquence lib
erated Schwartzbardt, the murderer of
Petlura, some years ago, was the man
who had adapted the play from the
German by Wilhelm Herzog and H.
Rehfisch. Torres seems indeed to have
entertained the project for some time.
It was he also who introduced “The
Trial of Mary Dugan’’ to the French
theater-going public.
Hardly had the rumor about Torres
gained currency than a shower of
abuse burst loose upon his head. Amer
ican newspaper readers, unfamiliar
with the methods of Parisian journal
ism, can scarcely begin to have an idea
what it means when editors like Ay-
mard, Maurras or Daudet, who are
known as “masters of invective,” let
their vitriolic pens go full-steam ahead,
with all restraint removed. Old-timers
in America may remember some of the
sizzling hot stuff dished up in Texas
by that Southern newspaperman, known
as "Bran the Iconoclast,” but Bran’s
mots searing scorchers were wet crack
ers and harmless child’s play compared
to the monstrous vituperation that
Daudet puts out almost daily without
respect of sex, person or authority.
Without being a Parisian one can
easily imagine that the verve and gusto
of the cpithet-luirlers is not by any
means curbed or dampened when the
object of their scandalmongering fit
happens to be a Jew. The Jew has
always offered the most facile subject
for experimentation in abuse and slan
der. He is, so to speak, the elementary
topic on which embryonic masters of
invective practice their skill until they
are sufficiently advanced in the tech
nique of “schimpfen” to pass on to
more intricate subjects, such as
Briand’s peace notions or Remain Rol-
land's non-violence doctrines. Still this
does not mean that the grand old mas
ters themselves ever disdain to have
a crack at a Jew*, when, in their esti
mation, the occasion warrants a cam
paign of supervillification. Maitre
Torres, at any rate, had it piling up
on him for weeks from all sides. Old
and young, green and ripe, monarchist
and chauvinist, priests and laymen, all
the editorial Jew-baiters of Paris, took
their turn in this free shooting gallery.
Knowing the Socialist lawyer slightly,
I do not believe the hubbub fizzed on
him for a minute. At the moment when
the pot of oozy slime seethed most
furiously Torres was quietly defending
some friendless and penniless social vic
tims before the courts in the Palais
de Justice—and got them off, as usual.
Torres, it should he added, did not
abandon his plan to adapt the play on
account of the anti-Semitic howl. When
a professional actor and playwright,
M. Jacques Richepin, took up the mat
ter, the lawyer simply withdrew.
But why, we may well ask, all this
fuss over a play? Why couldn’t the
royalists let the thing run its course
without dragging in Dreyfus and Jews
and the many other side issues of the
affaire that once split France into
two hostile camps—that on one occa
sion at least led her to the brink of
war with Germany, and on several oc
casions to the verge of civil war? The
answer is simply this: The royalists
have never ceased hammering the
same subject all these years. T
the issue w-as never closed. Tin
never admitted for a single n.inute
that Dreyfus was innocent. Not week
passes but Charles Maurras, tl lead
ing light in the school of nat nalist
philosophy, drags in—probably i | ac k
of suitable hate-producing ma rial—
“the Jewish traitor, Dreyfus.” And. once
on that subject, he’s off on his hobby.
It may lead him anywhere. Jews are a
fruitful subject for a man whose domi
nant characteristics arc xenophobia and
chauvinism. Only recently the publish
ers of L’Action Francaise, the royalist
sheet, came out with a huge volume
by an army officer, H. Dutrait-Croi-
zon, who set out to demonstrate “tor
the benefit of the younger generation"
what the Drefus case really meant and
what it means today. Dreyfus was never
acquitted of the charges against him.
this book says. He was liberated, to be
sure, hut by a parliamentary decree
through the howl of the Jews all over
the world and through the gold of tin
Rothschilds. This is the invariable, eter
nal theme of the reactionary clique in
Paris.
To the royalists Dreyfus remains a
traitor who was convicted twice by a
courtmartial composed of military ex
perts. While the Daudets and others
advance this opinion openly, there are
many others who silently share their
views on the question. The number <•:
Catholic clergymen in France who have
frankly proclaimed their belief in I)n> -
fus’ innocence may be counted on the
fingers of one hand. On the whole tin
church has remained implacabh ant:
Dreyfusard. The fact that the defend
ers of Dreyfus, among them Clemer.
ceau, Zola, Labori, Meric and others
were—or are—at the same time vio
lent anti-clericals has had an important
bearing on the attitude of the church.
As for the army—officially it is inar
ticulate. But, residing as I do the la>t
five years in an important garrison
town on the outskirts of Pari', where
a brigade of cavalry is stationed, I have
yet to meet the officer who, when
taxed with the question, will spon
taneously disinculpate Dreyfus M
of them have their doubts. Perhaps,
they say, he was not actually guilty ot
selling important military seer :s u
Germany, but his actions were, never
theless, suspicious. Twice he wa- seen
in foreign countries, once in Bi .'.se -
and once in Geneva, in the comp >> ° !
strangers. A French officer, un
an official mission, has no 1
abroad.
I am not in the mood to start i
tation of these somewhat put' in ’
sinuations. Nothing is gained by Ci
pecially when one has to do with mer
(Continued on Page 14