Compare Documents

LONDON, May 4. - The Court has admitted Oscar Wilde to bail in the sum of $12,500–$6250 in two securities. He will probably be released on Monday, if he can secure bondsmen.

NEW YORK, May 4. - The Sun’s London correspondent cables: A very sinister impression has been made upon the public mind by the fiasco in the Oscar Wilde case. It is a fact which no English newspaper dares to print, but which is recognized throughout London, when I say it has come to be generally believed within the past few days that influences are at work sufficiently powerful to prevent further exposure of the scandal and reopen a loophole for escape for those already accused.

The manner in which the prosecution of Wilde and Taylor was conducted aroused universal suspicion. It lacked entirely the vigor and skill with which the case for the Marquis of Queensberry was handled in the recent trial, when the jury, without leaving their seats, declared that Wilde was guilty of what the Marquis had charged. It seemed at the second trial in some matters as if the prosecution was deliberately playing into the hands of the defense, while the cross-examination of Wilde, which in the Queensberry case almost alone sufficed for his conviction, was a mere farce, instead of making the testimony overwhelming, which the police say might have been done.

Everybody present at the trial gained the impression that it was the policy of the prosecution to limit the disclosures as much as possible. More than one reporter attending the trial said to me, before the case went to the jury, that the conduct of the prosecution had been so peculiar that they did not believe that conviction was possible. The public has been quick to detect and resent the same thing, and the persistent coupling of great names with stupendous scandals awaiting exposure has increased popular suspicion.

It is this feeling which the Queensberry Association may seize upon as a potent weapon of public opinion. When this incipient organization came to public notice, a week ago, most people thought its formation was an unnecessary recognition of unnatural vice which might be suppressed by existing legal means. This opinion is now rapidly changing. Powerful influences, legitimate or otherwise, intended to pervert the operations of the Government machinery in this country are always applied with wonderful skill. That is the reason why public scandals in connection with the administration of justice are so frequent.

As a matter of fact, the reputation of the English law for rigor and impartiality is based solely upon its unusually severe punishment of crimes against property. There it is relentless, as always must be the case in a nation of shopkeepers. It is more unreliable than the laws of most other countries in the pursuit of all other crimes.

Present indignation against the Treasury, as the office of the public prosecutor is called, is no new thing. Its administration and policy has long been a national disgrace. No prosecution is undertaken by the government if it can possibly be avoided. The burden of punishing a malefactor lies upon the victim, who must even pay all the cost of the operation of the legal machinery, unless the convicted offender has money to meet the costs, which are usually inflicted as part of the penalty.

The progress of the Oscar Wilde case next session, if he appears for trial, will be watched with the keenest suspicion by the general public. This suspicion may find such emphatic expression before that time that even the highest power in the land will not deem it prudent to put the smallest obstacle in the way of the natural course of events. It need hardly be said that no escape from legal penalties, however obtained, will change the opinion which had been produced by Wilde’s own testimony in the Queensberry trial.

A member of the jury which was unable to agree says that almost from the outset of the trial a member of the panel declared that he would not find Wilde guilty. The jury had a stormy time trying to agree. The obstinate juror, who is an ex-soldier, said in effect that he would not vote guilty on any evidence, no matter how complete. The actual pooling was 10 to 1 in favor of conviction.

It is affirmed, of course, in Wilde's behalf that he will not fail to appear for trial at the next session and that he is confident of acquittal.

A very sinister impression has been made ipon the public mind by the fiasco in the Oscar Wilde case. I am stating a fact which no English newspaper dares to print, but which is recognized throughout London, when I say that it has come to be generally believed within the past few days that influences are at work sufficiently powerful to check further exposures of scandal and to open a loophole for the escape of those already accused. The manner in which the prosecution of Wilde and Taylor was conducted aroused universal public suspicion. It lacked entirely the vigor and skill with which the case for the Marquis of Queensberry was handled in the recent trial when the jury, without leaving their seats, declared that Wilde was guilty of what the Marquis had charged. It seemed in some matters as if the prosecution was deliberately playing into the hands of the defence, while the cross-examination of Wilde, which in the Queensberry case almost alone sufficed for his conviction, was a mere farce instead of making the testimony overwhelming, which the police say might have been done.

Everybody present at the trial gained the impression that it was the policy of the prosecution to limit the disclosures as much as possible. More than one reporter attending the trial said to me, before the case went to the jury, that the conduct of the prosecution had been so peculiar they did not believe conviction was possible.

The public has been quick to detect and resent the same thing, and the persistent coupling of great names with stupendous scandals awaiting exposure has increased the popular suspicion. It is this feeling which the Queensbury Association may seize upon as a potent weapon of public opinion. When this incipient organization came to public notice, about a week ago, most people thought it's formation was an unnecessary recognition of unnatural vice which might be suppressed by existing legal means. This opinion is now rapidly changing. Powerful influences, legitimate or otherwise, intended to pervert the operations of the Government machinery in this country are always applied with wonderful skill. That is the reason why public scandals in connection with the administration of justice are so infrequent. As a matter of fact, the reputation of the English law for vigor and impartiality is based solely upon its usually severe punishment of crimes against property. There it is relentless, as always must be the case in a nation of shopkeepers. It is much more unreliable than the laws of most other countries in the pursuit of all other crimes.