Translation:Letter to Ravachol and Ravachol's request

Francis! (I call you Francis because, from your mother's conversations with journalists, I understood this was her name for you - I want you to feel the joy of hearing that prisoner's ear softly echo with the name that once caressed your childhood). Francis! I've learned you'd want a comrade beside your lawyer. Here I am!

In the petition draft I'm sending, I declare myself as Ravachol's friend. You must know me, if only through the slanders meant to destroy me. But I can't claim to know you - I remember neither your face (reproduced in newspapers) nor your names (listed in the indictment). Yet you're an anarchist - reason enough for me to be your friend, if you'll allow it.

Everything in the petition is accurate. You could have pled both for judicial recusal and legitimate suspicion, dragging proceedings out for months.

It is also absolutely true that the public does not believe they’ve truly captured Ravachol. Fear has clouded their judgment. And if you refused to appear and speak, you would plunge them into deep disarray.

Make them understand that you will only appear if a comrade stands beside Maître Lagasse—and to judge you, they will concede. They might even let you choose whichever comrade you wish. I offer myself to voice your thoughts; but if you prefer someone more eloquent, I repeat: you need only to name them.

You know that the finest orator of our cause is Martin, implicated in the Vienne trial. He must be in the prisons of the Southeast. Were you to demand it, I believe they would bring him here—if only to prove they hold the real Ravachol and stage a proper confrontation.

​After Martin, Sébastien Faure speaks most powerfully. He is in Lyon’s prisons.

Élisée Reclus is perhaps less of an orator than the previous ones, but the gentleness with which he expounds our Anarchy, our harmony, and the virtue that emanates from him make him superior.

After that, you find Tortelier and me. Leboucher perhaps surpasses us. Unfortunately, he is not always himself.

This letter and the draft petition I am sending you concerning your defense—I believe I can be certain that you will receive them. Here as well, the regulations on the rights of the defense align with your interests. If they were intercepted, it would be grounds for appeal.

I have told you all that I believe I can say. From my prison, my fraternal thoughts rush toward yours.

Friend! Friend! Anarchy! Anarchy!

Martinet.

​Paris (Conciergerie Courthouse), 22 April 1892.

Mr. President, Kœningstein – Ravachol (Francis-Claudius), the undersigned, could have, under Art. 542 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, requested the Court of Cassation to refer the case to another assize court due to legitimate suspicion.

He could have, since he is accused of using cartridges alleged to have been stolen in the district of Corbeil—and given that the investigating judge of Corbeil is handling the inquiry into this theft—argued that the theft and the explosions are connected and requested, under either Art. 626 or Art. 540 of the aforementioned Code, to have jurisdiction settled.

He could even have, without pursuing the route of jurisdictional transfer, invoked lack of jurisdiction and filed a declinatory motion to the investigating judge of the Seine.

Finally, he could have appealed for annulment of the referral order and argued that the accused’s declaration of having intended to commit homicide is insufficient to prosecute him as the perpetrator of an attempted assassination that it remains to examine whether the “instruments used” for the act ​that it remains to examine whether the “instruments used” for the act were capable of causing homicide and whether, in this case, a quantity of explosive material barely sufficient to damage a staircase could have resulted in death, especially given that the device was placed at a chosen time when no one was on the staircase. Under these conditions, the Court of Cassation would have examined whether the Chamber of Accusation mischaracterized the charges and whether it should have referred the case solely for destruction of buildings under Art. 437 (unmodified) of the Penal Code.

Ravachol has done none of these things because he neither wishes to defend his head nor delay the moment it is taken from him: he does not fear dying for Anarchy. But if he will not defend his head, he will defend Anarchy.

Well then! Maître Lagasse, despite all his talent, despite all his dedication, cannot speak of Anarchy—he does not know it. Could a man who has never known roses describe their charm, their hues? Anarchy, the flower that will beautify humanity, can only be portrayed by one who believes. All the undersigned expects from Maître Lagasse is that he recount the trial between Decamps, Dardare and Léveillé, and Benoist and Bulot, and what the inner Ravachol he has come to know in prison truly is. This he will do eloquently, truthfully—that is certain. But he cannot, since he does not know, explain Anarchy—and Anarchy is the absolute reason behind the acts of the undersigned.

He therefore asks that beside Maître Lagasse, who will argue the contingent, there stand at the bar a friend of Ravachol to plead the absolute—Anarchy, the initial motive of the acts committed.
​At this moment in Sainte-Pélagie, there is a prisoner who, slandered like Ravachol, took blame upon himself, like Ravachol, to spare comrades imprisonment. He recently pleaded before the assize court with great resolve, yet with sufficient propriety that when the Court of Cassation delivered the final word on his trial, the president of the criminal court wished to grant him the floor to argue his appeal.

This prisoner is Martinet. The undersigned requests that Martinet be joined to Maître Lagasse. Ravachol gives his word, his solemn word as a propagandist, that Martinet will not overstep his role as defender of the motive and will limit himself to explaining, with gentle and profound faith, why the accused did what he did.

Mr. President, Art. 295 of the Code of Criminal Procedure grants you alone the right to approve this request: you are, so to speak, sovereign on this point.