Émile ZOLA. L.A.S., Paris March 7, 1901, to Maître Fernand Labori; 7pages small in-4, with numerous erasures and corrections. Magnificent open letter in which Zola renounces his prosecution of Judet, who had sullied his father's memory, and of the experts in the Dreyfus affair, so as not to become an accomplice to the "scurrilous law" of amnesty. This letter, conceived as an open letter and probably intended for L'Aurore, was not published at the time. It is extensively crossed out and corrected. ... "You know what my confusion and repugnance have been up to now. This amnesty law, which I have fought so hard against, this scurrilous law which I have denounced as an admission of weakness and shame, am I going to recognize it and accept its consequences? The law has been broken for us, our judges have been changed, am I going to bow down, sanction this monstrous denial of justice, by obeying, by consenting to pass through the small door that has been left ajar, under the derisory pretext of respecting civil action? It would be, it seems to me, taking advantage of the amnesty, no longer ignoring it, no longer rejecting it in its total abomination. And, on the other hand, are we going to accept this diminution of ourselves and our actions, offered to us like alms? We were fighting for truth, for justice, we were defending a holy cause, whose greatness sustained our courage, we were doing a magnificent and disinterested work of equity and humanity. And now it's being soiled and destroyed in our hands, and then we're told, by way of consolation, that we're allowed to plead in civil court if we believe our material interests have been infringed. Now that our ideal work is in the mud, we can try to cash in, and they've managed to strangle what little truth we're still trying to make. I can think of nothing more insolent or humiliating. Well, my friend, I've thought it over and I'd rather give it all up. I don't want to be an accomplice, accepting anything from their amnesty. I don't want our affair, so noble and so pure of selfish interest, to end miserably in petty money matters. That would spoil for me all our efforts of self-sacrifice and bravery". Zola was awarded 5,000 francs in damages against Judet, "my father's insulter". He adds: "I have no confidence in our social justice system, and it is not to it in any case that I would ever have the idea of entrusting my honor and that of my father. My defense and that of my family, in matters of conscience, is a task that concerns me and to which I am sufficiently committed". As for the experts Belhomme, Couard and Varinard, who, "not content with having committed the astounding and disturbing error of not recognizing Esterhazy's handwriting in the docket, had the triumphant idea of aggravating their case, by having me condemned to thirty thousand francs in damages because I had accused them of 'having made false and fraudulent reports, unless a medical examination declares them to be suffering from a disease of sight and judgment' [....] they had my furniture seized and sold during my absence. Their three names are forever engraved on an imperishable monument. Why not let them gallop off with their pockets full? Let them keep the money! The bitter irony of the adventure will be stronger, and there will be a little more baseness in the affair. That, my friend, is my decision, which I had to make known to you. After having admired and loved you so much in the heroic days of your eloquent and courageous pleadings, I don't see you arguing on my behalf, before a civil chamber, to collect M. Judet's five thousand francs or to make up for the experts' thirty thousand francs. I repeat, the work of justice, the work of humanity we were accomplishing in the name of the ideal, has been broken and soiled, and we won't drag it out and finish it off in narrow suits of personal interest, which would only be a cause of long and painful futility. Truth cannot come from there, and it will come"...