The New York Herald (European Edition) - Sunday, April 21, 1895
This report was originally published in English. Machine translations may be available in other languages.
OSCAR WILDE TO APPLY FOR BAIL,
ON SIR EDWARD CLARKE'S RETURN TO TOWN AN APPLICATION WILL BE MADE.
LETTER
FROM LORD A. DOUGLAS.
HE DECLARES THAT WILDE HAS ALREADY BEEN TRIED AND CONDEMNED BY THE PRESS.
[BY THE HERALD'S SPECIAL WIRE.]
LONDON, April 21.-Owing to the fact that Sir Edward Clarke, Q.C., is out of town for the expected application for bail for Oscar Wilde was not made yesterday.
To-morrow, I am told, a conference will tale place at which Wilde's counsel will decide whether or not they will apply for a postponement of the hearing of the case to the next sessions of the Central Criminal Court or whether they will allow it to come on in the usual way. Should the latter course be decided upon, Wilde will probably make his reappearance at the Old Bailey-this time in the character of a prisoner-on Friday next.
It is probable that even under these circumstances an application for bail will be made, though it will imply a notice to the police of forty-eight hours for inquiries as to the suitability of the sureties, and it will thus be impossible, even if bail is granted, for Wilde to be liberated until Wednesday. It is, however, not absolutely certain that the High Court judge will be bound to grant bail, even though the charge only amounts to a misdemeanour.
A further conference was held yesterday at Scotland Yard between the representatives of the police and the Treasury officials, but so far no decisive steps have been taken, and it is now becoming exceedingly improbable that any further arrests will be made.
A most extraordinary letter, written by Lord Alfred Douglas, appeared in at least one of the evening papers last night. In it he says, among other things: "I feel that I am taking my life in my hands in daring to raise my voice against the chorus of the pack of those who are now hounding Mr. Oscar Wilde, to his ruin; more as I feel assured that the public has made up its mind to accept me as it accepted everybody and everything connected with this case at Mr. Carson's valuation. Of course I am an undutiful son, who in his arrogance and folly has kicked against his kind and affectionate father and who has further aggravated his offence by not running away and hiding his face after the discomfiture of his friends.
SIR,--When the great British public has made up its great British mind to crush any particular unfortunate whom it holds in its power, it generally succeeds in gaining its object, and it is not fond of those who dare to question its power, or its right to do as it wishes. I feel, therefore, that I am taking my life in my hands in daring to raise my voice against the chorus of the pack of those who are now hounding Mr. Oscar Wilde to his ruin, the more so as I feel assured that the public has made up its mind to accept me, as it has accepted everybody and everything connected with this case, at Mr. Carson's valuation. I, of course, am the undutiful son who, in his arrogance and folly, has kicked out against his kind and affectionate father, and who has further aggravated his offence by not running away and hiding his face after the discomfiture of his friend. It is
"It is no part of my intention to try and explain my attitude or defend my position. I submit that Mr. Oscar Wilde has been tried by the newspapers before he has been tried by a jury, that his case has been almost hopelessly prejudiced in the eyes of the public from whom the jury who must try his case will be drawn, and that he is practically being delivered over bound to the fury of a cowardly and brutal mob.
"Sir John Bridge in refusing bail stated that he knew of no graver offence than that which Mr. Wilde is charged. Mr. Wilde, as a matter of fact, is charged with a misdemeanour punishable by two years' imprisonment, with or without hard labor, 'as a maximum penalty.' Therefore the offence with which he is charged is, in the eye of the law, which Sir John Bridge is supposed to represent, comparatively trifling. I should very much like to know how, in view of this fact, Sir John Bridge can reconcile what he said with his conscience and with his position as an absolutely impartial exponent of the law, and whether it is not obvious that in saying what he did he allowed his personal feelings on a particular point to override his sense of abstract justice to the prejudice of a man who is charged before him.
in the eyes of the public from whein the jury who must try his case will be drawn, and that his is practically being delivered over bound to the fury of a cowardly and brutal mob. Sir John Bridge, in refusing bail to-day, stated that he knew of no graver offence than that which Mr. Wilde is charged. Mr. Wilde, as a matter of fact, is charged with a "misdemeanor" punishable by two years' imprisonment with or without hard labor as a maximum penalty; therefore, the offence with which he is charged is, in the eyes of the law, which Sir John Bridge is supposed to represent, comparatively trifling. I should very much like to know how, in view of this fact, Sir John Bridge can reconcile what he said with his conscience, and with his position as the absolutely impartial exponent of the law, and whether it is not obvious that, in saying what he did, he allowed
in the eyes of the public from whom the jury who must try his case will be drawn, and that he is practically being delivered over bound to the fury of a cowardly and brutal mob. Sir John Bridge, in refusing bail to-day, stated that he knew of no graver offence than that which Mr. Wilde is charged. Mr. Wilde, as a matter of fact, is charged with a "misdemeanour" punishable by two years' imprisonment with or without hard labour as a maximum penalty; therefore, the offence with which he is charged is, in the eye of the law, which Sir John Bridge is supposed to represent, comparatively trifling. I should very much like to know how, in view of this fact, Sir John Bridge can reconcile what he said with his conscience, and with his position as the absolutely impartial exponent of the law, and whether it is not obvious that, in saying what he did, allowed
"If a police magistrate of twenty years' experience shows such flagrant prejudice, what can be expected from men who will at the Old Bailey form the jury of what the law humorously terms Mr. Oscar Wilde's 'peers'?"
on a particular point to override his sense of abstract justice, to the prejudice of the man charged before him. If a police-Magistrate of twenty years' experience shows such flagrant prejudice, what can be expected from the men who will at the Old Bailey form the jury of what the law humorously terms Mr. Oscar Wilde's "peers"?
on a particular point to override his sense of abstract justice, to the prejudice of the man charged before him. If a police magistrate of 20 years' experience shows such flagrant prejudice, what can be expected from the men who will at the Old Bailey form the jury of what the law humorously terms Mr. Oscar Wilde's "peers"?