Georges CLEMENCEAU (1841-1929). Autograph manuscript, Deux interviews, [early 1900]; 7pages small in-4. On the proposed amnesty in the Dreyfus affair. Manuscript of an article with numerous erasures and corrections, at a time when the bill for amnesty in the Dreyfus affair was being debated. Dreyfus affair, opposed by Clemenceau. The project is dormant: "Four members of the Senate commission are resolutely opposed to the law proclaiming impunity for crime [...] Four other members of the commission are willing to do anything to save traitors and forgers, for the sole reason that the Church wants it that way. Finally, the ninth person, who is in a position to tip the balance one way or the other, is in favor of adjournment." It also seems that the Ministry is not very enthusiastic, and that the situation is evolving: "Mercier's election by the royalists of Loire-Inférieure has powerfully changed the disposition of certain minds [...] The Zola trial will be adjourned again until March 8th", as will the Henry-Reinach trial; "Picquart will continue to be denied justice, and we will wait for one of those strokes of chance that people call 'the wisdom of governments'". Clemenceau reports two interviews with a journalist friend of his. The first concerns an important politician, "at the forefront of the moderate opposition"; the other "is one of the most influential members of the Ministry", but he doesn't name names. The former "has already contributed mightily to the rescue of Mercier", but, to the great surprise of his interlocutor, speaks "outrageously against the amnesty proposal" and says he is ready to overthrow the Ministry and offer his services. The amnesty proposed by Waldeck-Rousseau and Millerand was repugnant to him: "Not that he was hostile to 'appeasement'. Nothing seemed so desirable to him. The Dreyfus affair had deeply troubled the country"; but he did not want a half-amnesty that would forget the Assumptionists and the convicts of the High Court. "Many moderates had therefore resolved - even if the Ministry found itself in a minority - to reject outright this ridiculous project for a half amnesty". The government was warned: "If it wishes to gather against it the votes of those who refuse to declare impunity for crime, and of those who wish to place monks and nationalists above the law, it will not use the excuse of surprise". As for the minister in charge, he "began with hyperbolic praise for the amnesty, while declaring that he felt 'no enthusiasm' for the measure". This "double-horned" line of reasoning enabled him to "defend the system of impunity for the guilty" and to "be able to respond to any serious objection: 'Also, did I tell you that I resign myself 'without enthusiasm to this idea'"? He proposes to "hang around a bit... if the question came up during the exhibition [which opens on April 14, 1900] how could we be denied the oblivion of the past?" The journalist says that it is a mockery of justice "that the innocent is not safe, if he has the Church against him, and the high-ranking criminal can make chambers and the government tremble before him". The minister admits that Mercier is a bandit: "if he were not a proven criminal, there would be no need for amnesty". The amnesty will also apply to Picquart, who is innocent; and prevent the discovery of the truth, "Better still, you will amnesty Esterhazy himself for his treason, which could be proved later by the production of the notes mentioned in the bordereau". All this without enthusiasm. Clemenceau concludes that the ministries are all the same: "Like Waldeck-Rousseau and Millerand, Méline's program is to ensure impunity for Mercier and all his gang. [...] So I wonder whether all these great politicians won't end up agreeing at our expense... without enthusiasm, of course".