“I maintain that I handed over the 1,000 francs and the 6,500 francs to Monsieur Magen.” Such was Loiseau’s declaration before the jury. The officer countered that he was the victim of slander. Between the two men, the court circulated a memorandum seized from Loiseau: he insisted that he had initially written out Magen’s full name, only to scrape it away with a penknife, leaving merely an initial behind. The presiding judge observed that the erasure was plainly visible. Yet the solitary initial, the sums recorded, and the conflicting words of two accused men could not resolve the matter then and there.
On the 3rd of July 1874, the Seine Assize Court opened the trial of the house of Cahen-Lyon for the corruption of public officials. The gazette noted that this fresh prosecution arose out of a previous trial concerning frauds in military procurements. Cahen-Lyon, sentenced to five years’ imprisonment by the correctional tribunal, had evaded justice and stood to be tried in absentia. Twenty-two other defendants took their places in the dock. The Gazette divided them into two camps: the firm’s employees, charged with having bribed, and the ordnance officers tasked with military supplies, accused of having accepted the disbursements.
The prosecution turned upon a commercial association ostensibly organized to serve the army. The enterprise maintained two establishments: an office in Paris for light kit and minor accoutrements, and a workshop at Montplaisir, near Lyons, for uniforms and heavy equipage. Lambert directed the Paris branch; Bazoin had formerly managed the Lyons house before Loiseau replaced him in 1870. Matifas and Lagut acted as commercial travellers. Under this system, contracts depended upon the officers who inspected the deliveries or took part in their formal acceptance.
From the outset of the proceedings, the accounts diverged. Bazoin denied making the alleged disbursements to Magen and Pépin, though he acknowledged that a uniform had been presented to the latter. Loiseau, on the contrary, insisted he had paid several sums to the officers, claiming to have delivered upwards of 7,000 francs to Magen. This Magen categorically denied. Matifas and Lagut admitted to bestowing small gratuities, but characterized them as customary commercial allowances, devoid of any intent to sway the decisions of the procurement commissions. The officers, for their part, denied having received any such considerations.
Mathieu, an accountant, offered a broader justification for the practice. He testified that he had always known of allowances intended to cover the expenses or deficits incurred by quartermasters, styling them commercial discounts. The presiding judge reminded him that he had himself faced prosecution, only to be discharged under the statute of limitations. The judge then read aloud a letter Mathieu had addressed to Cahen-Lyon, wherein the clerk cited his correspondent’s undertaking to pay him twenty francs a day, alongside a commission of two francs fifty centimes per cent on contracts for linen and footwear, over and above the allowances destined for the “C… and M…”. Mathieu admitted having written the letter. When the judge asked whether these initials signified captains and majors, the witness replied that, eight years having elapsed, he could no longer swear to it. He maintained that he had believed the practice to be entirely lawful. When the judge confronted him with the indignant refusals offered by certain officers, Mathieu remarked that he had occasionally met with coarse and abrasive men. The judge observed that these were precisely the men who had shown him the door.
The deposition soon took the colour of an altercation. Mathieu recounted that a captain had once ordered him off the premises; he claimed he had himself demanded to be taken to the guardhouse, refusing to depart until he had received an apology. The scene ended, by his own account, with a door left ajar and his inevitable expulsion. The Advocate General reminded the court that Mathieu had been held in solitary confinement at Mazas prison for fifty-four days during the Commune. The press report does not treat this episode as proof of bribery; rather, it portrays an embattled witness whose assertions regarding the illicit payments were severely tested by his own handwriting.
Pépin admitted having received an article of clothing from the company. As for the 500 francs which the prosecution connected to his lodgings, he explained that his quarters lay far from the workshops and that the firm had defrayed five terms of a rent set at 400 francs per annum. He asserted that his superior officer had, to a certain extent, authorized this arrangement. The commissariat officers Lefrançois and Testa were examined before the court turned its attention to Magen’s dossier.
Magen’s situation was regarded by the presiding judge as the most serious. He noted that the memorandum seized in Loiseau’s possession linked Magen to an entry of 1,000 francs and another sum, framed in the indictment as 6,500 francs. Magen replied that Loiseau had defamed him both during the preliminary examination and before the assize court. He acknowledged an item of 85 francs for footwear, but the president conceded that Magen had provided a satisfactory explanation on that head. As for the rest, Magen surmised that Loiseau had pocketed the money, entering it in his ledgers as though it had been remitted. He stated that he possessed a private income of 12,000 francs, led a modest life, and had never ceased to conduct himself as a loyal officer.
Loiseau stood by his accusation. He explained that he had initially set down Magen’s full name upon the memorandum, then erased it with a scraper, out of scruple and an unwillingness to betray a former friend. He confessed that when previously questioned, he had attempted to mislead the authorities before finally resolving to speak the truth. As read before the bench, the paper bore the entries “1,000 francs” and “6,500” for repairs. Magen protested his innocence; Loiseau insisted he spoke the truth. Five further witnesses were heard before the session was adjourned.
A week later, the examination gave way to the pleadings. On the 10th of July, the Advocate General abandoned the charges against Major Vidal and Captain Burger. The remaining counsel contested both the facts and their legal characterization. On behalf of Lambert, Maître Carraby argued that the alleged gratuities, even if substantiated, were not intended to procure official acts; he portrayed his client as a simple foreman with no sway over the officers, recalling his honourable conduct during the late war. Bazoin’s counsel pleaded that the prosecution itself stood as a sufficient warning, and that his client had acted in entire good faith.
Maître Ferré defended Loiseau, submitting that he had merely executed his employer’s instructions, and that the payments occurred six, eight, or twelve months after the delivery of the goods. In his view, they bore no relation to the awarding of contracts. Counsel further maintained that Loiseau had been drawn into implicating his co-defendants after having initially sought to shield them. For Matifas, Maître Landier countered the allegation of fraud with a commercial interpretation of the correspondence: the wares first submitted were, he claimed, superior to the sample, whereas subsequent deliveries conformed strictly to official regulations. He presented the allowances as customary courtesies sanctioned by long-standing usage.
On the following day, Maître Oscar de Vallée rose for Magen. The proceedings opened with an extended debate over the defendants’ right to wear their decorations. The prosecution contended that an indictment suspended this privilege; counsel cited an opinion from 1826 to the contrary, noting that Magen had nonetheless removed his insignia following an observation from the bench. He then turned to the merits: in his view, the memorandum and Loiseau’s testimony formed the sole evidence against his client. Other advocates addressed the court on behalf of Pépin and Maniel, disputing the proofs or invoking the sanction of their superiors. On the 11th of July, the hearing was adjourned for the conclusion of the pleadings.
On the 13th of July, the remaining counsel concluded their speeches for Monbey, Doublet, Lourcines, Parnajon, Thomas, and Manceaux. The court heard the summary of the presiding judge, whereupon the jury retired. At half-past seven in the evening, they returned with a negative verdict upon every count. The presiding judge pronounced the acquittal of the defendants and ordered their discharge. The Gazette describes the officers tendering their gratitude to the jurors, the pressing of hands, and their reunion with their families. The scraped memorandum had retained its scar. The published record gives no account of the jury’s specific motives, noting merely their negative answers and the general acquittal that followed.
Archival Note: Selected court reports from the Gazette des Tribunaux, hearings of the 3rd, 10th, 11th, and 13th of July 1874, published between the 4th and 14th of July. The narrative is drawn from specific, circumscribed excerpts appearing in the issues of the 4th, 5th, 11th, 12th, and 13th–14th of July; the remaining issues are preserved in the archives but are not cited as having been consulted in their entirety. The Gazette summarizes the prosecution and pleadings without recording the jury’s private deliberations. The sums mentioned in open court are attributed to the respective speakers; the memorandum read by Loiseau and the judge’s question both record 6,500 francs in respect of Magen.