An Officer and a Spy

saying has it. First you claim Major Esterhazy only came to your attention in April. Now we have established it was at least March. But there is evidence in your file on Esterhazy indicating it was even earlier.’
    He passes the captain a newspaper cutting. The captain dutifully comes round from behind the table and hands it to me. It is an announcement of the death of the marquis de Nettancourt, Esterhazy’s father-in-law, dated 6 January 1896.
    ‘I’ve never seen this before.’
    Pellieux affects astonishment. ‘Well then, where did it come from?’
    ‘I presume it must have been added to the file after I left.’
    ‘But you would agree at first glance that this suggests you were taking an interest in Esterhazy two months before the arrival of the petit bleu ?’
    ‘At first glance, yes. I think that may be the reason why someone put it there.’
    Pellieux makes a note. ‘Go back to the petit bleu . Describe its arrival.’
    ‘Major Henry brought it in as part of a delivery late one afternoon.’
    ‘In what form was this delivery?’
    ‘The material always arrived in small, cone-shaped brown paper sacks. This particular cone was bulkier than usual, because Henry had missed a meeting with our agent due to his mother’s illness.’
    ‘Did you examine the contents with him?’
    ‘No, as I mentioned earlier, he had a train to catch. I put it straight in my safe and gave it to Captain Lauth the following morning.’
    ‘Is it possible that someone could have interfered with the cone between your being handed it by Henry and you giving it to Lauth?’
    ‘No, it was locked up.’
    ‘But you could have interfered with it. In fact you could have added to it the fragments of the petit bleu .’
    I feel my face turning red. ‘That is an outrageous accusation.’
    ‘Your outrage is irrelevant. Answer the question.’
    ‘Very well, the answer is yes. Yes, I could, theoretically, have added the petit bleu to the consignment. But I did not.’
    ‘Is this the petit bleu ?’ Pellieux holds it up. ‘Do you recognise it?’
    The light in the chamber is dim. I have to lean forward and half rise from my seat to make it out. It looks more worn than I remember it: I assume it must have been handled many times over the past year. ‘Yes. That looks like it.’
    ‘Do you realise that under a microscope it is possible to see that the original address has been scratched out and that of Major Esterhazy written over it? And also that chemical analysis has revealed that the ink on the back of the telegram card is different to that on the front? One is iron gall ink while the other contains an ingredient found in the trees of Campeche.’
    I jerk my head back slightly in surprise. ‘Then it’s been tampered with.’
    ‘Indeed it has. It is a forgery.’
    ‘No, General – it has been tampered with since I left Paris. When I was still in the section I swear that was a genuine document – I must have held it in my hands a hundred times. May I examine it more closely? Perhaps it is slightly different . . .’
    ‘No, you have already identified it. I don’t want it damaged any further. The petit bleu is a fake. And I suggest that the individual most likely to have perpetrated the forgery is you.’
    ‘With respect, General, that is a preposterous allegation.’
    ‘Is it? Then why did you ask Captain Lauth for his assistance in making the petit bleu look more genuine?’
    ‘I did not.’
    ‘You did. You ordered him to have it franked by the postal authorities, so that it would look as if it had actually been delivered – deny it if you dare!’
    The lies and accusations are flying at me so fast I am finding it difficult to keep track. I grip the armrests of my chair and reply as calmly as I can, ‘I asked Lauth if he could photograph the petit bleu in such a way that it would appear to be a whole document rather than one that had been torn up – exactly the technique he used earlier with the bordereau . And my motive was the same: to have a version that could be circulated within the ministry without compromising our source. Lauth pointed out, correctly, that the address side had not been franked, therefore anyone looking at it would deduce that it must have been intercepted before it was posted. That was when I mused on the possibility of getting it franked. But it was no more than that and the idea was dropped.’
    ‘Captain Lauth gives a different version.’
    ‘Perhaps he does. But why would I go to such