Compare Paragraphs
This page compares two reports at the paragraph level. The column on the left shows the first report in its entirety, and the column in the middle identifies paragraphs from the second report with significant matching content. The column on the right highlights any differences between the two matching paragraphs: pink shows differences in the first report and purple in the second report. The Match percentage underneath each comparison row in this column shows the percentage of similarity between the two paragraphs.
Original paragraph in
San Francisco Chronicle - Sunday, May 5, 1895
San Francisco Chronicle - Sunday, May 5, 1895
Most similar paragraph from
The Boston Globe - Sunday, May 5, 1895
The Boston Globe - Sunday, May 5, 1895
Difference
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.
A very sinister impression has been made upon the public mind by the fiasco in the Oscar Wilde case. Your correspondent is stating a
fact, which no English newspaper dares to print, but which is recognized throughout London, when he says 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 charged.
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.
The manner in which the prosecution of Wilde and Taylor was conducted has aroused universal public suspicion. It lacked entirely the
vigor and skill with which the case for the Marquis of Queensberry was handled in its 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.
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.
The progress of the Oscar Wilde case at the next session, if he appears for trial, will therefore be watched with the keenest suspicion
by the general public. The 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.
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 needs hardly be said that no escape from the legal penalties, however obtained, will change the opinion which was produced by
Wilde’s own testimony in the Queensberry trial. A member of the jury which was unable to agree this week says that from almost the outset of the trial one
member of the panel declared that he would not find Wilde guilty. The jury had a stormy time trying to agree, but 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 polling was 10 to 2 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.