In the spring of 1871, in Paris, public offices changed hands and titles with the swiftness of shifting authorities. Jules Mekerski, who had been incarcerated at Cherche-Midi since the 2nd of January upon an accusation of larceny to the prejudice of an inhabitant, was released on the 20th of March, when the Commune opened the prison gates. The report read before the council of war relates that he forthwith offered his services to the chiefs of the insurrection. His sister, known by the name of Paule Menck, is said to have gained him access to their bureaux. He departed as a delegate to Auxerre, Troyes, and Belgium; having returned to Paris, he became a delegate to general public safety, and subsequently commissioner of police for the Quartier de l’Europe.
It is this authority that connects the three episodes laid open at the trial of May 1874. The report read to the council presents them as unlawful searches, thefts, and arbitrary arrests; Mekerski disputes the role ascribed to him by the prosecution. The debate turned upon the degree of each man's participation in these operations conducted alongside armed bodies.
The first episode unfolded on the 11th of May 1871, in the Rue Richelieu, at the residence of Monsieur Opigez-Gagelin. According to the report, some fifteen Federals accompanied Mekerski. They gained entry under the pretext of searching for concealed weapons, detained the master of the house and his son, and ransacked the apartments. Mekerski is alleged to have introduced himself as a delegate from the Prefecture of Police, proceeding to rummage through drawers and cabinets. The operation lasted about an hour and a half. At the intercession of Madame Spuller, whose influence the accused is said to have acknowledged, the troop withdrew, carrying off certain letters belonging to the Sieur Gagelin.
Mekerski does not deny his presence at the Gagelin residence, but rejects the leading part imputed to him by the prosecution. To the president, he replied that he did not “preside over” the search, but had merely attended it. The distinction is narrow, yet it already poses the question that runs through the entire hearing: within an armed body where several men act together, who gives the command, who searches, and who answers for that which disappears?
Two days later, on the 13th of May, the cortege presented itself at the mansion of the Princess d’Essling, in the Rue Jean-Goujon. Mekerski is said to have announced a search for chests of plate bearing the arms of the Emperor. He was accompanied, according to the report, by the police commissioner of the Champs-Élysées district, two officers, ten Federals, and a locksmith charged with forcing the doors; an expert was to inventory the effects. The visitation extended from the apartments down to the cellars. The prosecution asserts that a small casket of jewels and twelve silver place settings were carried off, while preserved foods were divided and wine was either consumed upon the premises or borne away. The inventory was thereafter supposed to place the effects under seal in the princess’s pantry, but the jewel box was found missing.
The report also demarcates the bounds of the prisoner's presence: the plundering allegedly continued until the 21st of May, yet Mekerski was only present on the 13th, from two o'clock until seven. He denies having misappropriated anything whatsoever. As to the cellars, he answered that he could not know what might have been purloined, so numerous were the men. Nevertheless, a witness related that the commissioner, growing impatient at the slowness of the search, had himself gathered jewels upon a salver. This deposition does not of itself resolve the disappearance of the casket; it provided the council, however, with a precise act to confront with the prisoner's denial.
The night of the 17th to the 18th of May brought the affair to the convent of the Carmelites, in the Avenue de Messine. The Mother Superior demanded the leader's papers. “Madame, you shall not see them,” the out-sister recounted. The Federals eventually made their entrance. In the prosecution’s narrative, Mekerski wore the red sash of a commissioner and demanded every key. He traversed the cells, opened presses and chests, caused certain objects to be set apart, and posted guards. A chalice, lace, and other effects were deposited in a room on the ground floor. Later, he is alleged to have carried away the interior keys in a basket and led the out-sister to the chapel, where the Federals are said to have profaned the holy vessels.
The same narrative charges him with the arrest of the Abbé Lecompte, who was kept confined in his dwelling for three days under the watch of a sentry. The chaplain declared that twelve bonds of the Simplon Railway and twelve five-franc pieces were taken from him. The bonds, the record notes, were never restored to him. The out-sister identified Mekerski at the bar, but added that another man had appeared to her to exercise greater command over the Federals. This detail prevents the band from being reduced to a single leader, without effacing the specific acts which the indictment lays to the commissioner’s charge.
Interrogated concerning the convent, Mekerski admitted several material particulars: he had indeed worn the red sash; he held a warrant for the apprehension of two curates; he had entered the house and had caused a chalice to be removed. But he attributed to these acts an entirely different intention. He declared that he had knocked at the doors to warn the curates and save them, and had removed the chalice solely to preserve it from profanation. He denied all part in the indignities committed within the chapel. As for the abbé, he acknowledged having placed him under arrest, while asserting that he had done so to shield him. These replies neither invalidate the depositions of the religious sisters nor that of the priest; they oppose to them a line of defence which the reader must keep distinct from the facts held as established.
The hearing of the 11th of May 1874 commenced with the interrogation by the president and the reading of the report. Madame Spuller, whose husband had formerly employed Mekerski, testified that he had indeed conducted a search at the Gagelin residence. Following her remonstrances, he ordered his men to desist from the search. Pauline Bonivin, a domestic servant, recalled Federals overrunning the house and the prisoner seeking arms; she also described a red sash. The concierge of the Hôtel d’Essling recounted the arrival of three persons, one of whom wore the official sash, followed by the search of the apartments and cellars. He affirmed that a sword belonging to General Wolf was seized, but was returned to him upon his demand. The government commissioner inquired whether the prisoner had gathered jewels upon a tray; he answered that he had.
Next came the out-sister. She related the intrusion of the Federals, the tabernacle broken open, and the consecrated hosts eaten by several men. She recognized Mekerski, but did not designate him as the one who commanded with the greatest authority. The Abbé Lecompte confirmed his arrest and confinement at home; he recounted the disappearance of the bonds and money, and remembered a mocking phrase attributed to the accused. The laughter recorded by the gazette in no way diminishes the gravity of this testimony: the priest described a sentry instructed to fire upon him should he attempt an escape.
Mekerski then recounted his departure from Paris by the Strasbourg railway and his refuge in Switzerland. He affirmed that he had made no attempt to conceal himself upon his return: he had come back to submit to examination a rifle mechanism of his own invention, and had registered at hotels under his true name. The police arrested him at the Prefecture. This explanation accounts for his presence when discovered in Paris; it does not resolve the accusations of pillage that constitute the core of the trial.
Following the examination of the witnesses, Major Romain addressed the court for the prosecution, and Maître Vallon presented the defence. The Gazette reproduces neither the full argument of the one nor that of the other. The council deliberated, and thereupon sentenced Mekerski to hard labour for life. This penalty is the judicial decision reported by the journal; it no more transforms into absolute certainty every detail of the accusation than the prisoner’s denials wipe away the depositions delivered under oath.