Investigation and arrest of Alfred Dreyfus

Content sourced from Wikipedia, licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0.

The Dreyfus Affair began in 1894 when a bordereau—a note listing French military secrets—was found in the wastebasket of Maximilian von Schwartzkoppen, the German military attaché in Paris. French investigators quickly blamed Alfred Dreyfus, a young artillery officer serving with the General Staff.

France’s Counter Intelligence Department, led by Lt Col Jean Conrad Sandherr, had long watched the German embassy. They learned that Schwartzkoppen, perhaps without the ambassador’s knowledge, was still trading information with Berlin and was in contact with the German War Office. They also heard that Schwartzkoppen and the Italian military representative, Colonel Panizzardi, might exchange discoveries. To keep tabs on the plot, they enlisted Marie Bastian, a cleaning woman at the German Embassy. Bastian, a strong German speaker of Alsatian background, collected scraps from Schwartzkoppen’s office and brought them to the detectives. There they were fitted together and repaired to reveal that secret military information had been leaking abroad since 1892.

In the summer of 1894 a most alarming document arrived: the bordereau. It was a handwritten list of available French documents, unsigned and torn in places but mostly intact. The story the French officials told was that Bastian had delivered it as a routine scrap, but many clues suggested it might have been taken directly from Schwartzkoppen’s office by an intermediary. The Bordereau also appeared with the original envelope, and a man named Brucker, who had worked with Bastian, helped move it to the French side. The bordereau described various sensitive French papers and methods about artillery and military maneuvers.

The officials reasoned that the author of the bordereau must be a French officer going through different branches of the service—likely someone in the artillery who had been training with the General Staff. When they checked the list of officers in training, they found Captain Alfred Dreyfus. Dreyfus was Jewish, educated at the elite Ecole Polytechnique, and on track for promotion. He had worked in the General Staff earlier and had a reputation for intelligence and capability, but also for being a bit aloof.

Initially, some investigators thought the handwriting on the bordereau closely matched Dreyfus’s handwriting. They believed the bordereau came from someone who knew how the staff worked. Others noted differences and warned that the evidence might be unreliable. Despite growing questions, the investigation pushed ahead and pointed toward Dreyfus. On October 11 a small council authorized a careful handwriting analysis. The main handwriting expert, Gobert, who worked for the Bank of France, compared the bordereau with Dreyfus’s known writing and with samples from Dreyfus’s “folio” (the official record of his hand). Gobert concluded that the bordereau could have come from the same person who wrote the other documents, including the sample that bore Dreyfus’s name.

With this conclusion, General Auguste Mercier, the minister of war, decided to act. The arrest of Dreyfus was carried out in a dramatic way on October 15. Dreyfus was summoned to appear at the Ministry of War in civilian clothes under the pretext of inspecting the “stage” officers. There he was confronted by Major Du Paty de Clam, an amateur handwriting expert who had helped plan the arrest, along with other officials. Du Paty had Dreyfus copy a letter that seemed to demand the return of the listed documents. Dreyfus wrote calmly, and the scene did not reveal a confession. Du Paty then announced that Dreyfus was under arrest for high treason and handed him to Major Henry to be sent to Cherche-Midi prison, with orders to keep the matter secret even from Dreyfus’s own family.

In Cherche-Midi, the inquiry was led by Du Paty de Clam. He pressed Dreyfus to admit guilt and tried to make him write under various conditions, showing him fragments of the bordereau and samples of Dreyfus’s handwriting. Dreyfus consistently denied the accusation and said he did not know what the documents were or who they had been given to. The prison governor warned that Dreyfus’s health was deteriorating, and he seemed to fear for Dreyfus’s sanity if the matter dragged on.

Handwriting experts continued their work. Bertillon, who had already identified Dreyfus’s name in the case, suggested that Dreyfus might have copied or imitated his own handwriting but inserted similarities borrowed from other family members. Other experts offered mixed opinions: some argued the bordereau matched Dreyfus’s hand, others warned against a definite conclusion. By October 31 Du Paty turned in his report against Dreyfus, but the minister and Mercier faced political pressure and public fear of treason.

Meanwhile the press amplified the affair. An anti-Semitic newspaper called the Libre Parole ran reports accusing “the Jewish officer A. Dreyfus” and claiming he had confessed. The government, worried about its own political standing, decided to proceed with a formal prosecution. The matter was then sent to a court martial, while foreign observers (German and Italian attachés) questioned whether Dreyfus had corresponded with their governments. A cipher telegram Panizzardi sent suggested “our secret agent is warned,” which Paris initially treated as more proof against Dreyfus, though it was later clarified.

Public opinion grew heated. Some remembered Dreyfus’s past curiosity and questioned his morals, while others insisted the case was driven by anti-Semitism and political fear. Mercier publicly claimed the guilt was "absolutely certain" and ordered a secret dossier of related intelligence materials to be kept away from Dreyfus and his lawyers. The cabinet’s decision to press charges turned the affair into a political crisis, threatening Mercier’s own position if Dreyfus were to be found innocent. The case had become less about the evidence and more about politics, pressure, and prejudice.

Thus began the long, controversial process that would reveal deep divisions in French society and expose serious flaws in how the case was investigated.