The Brooklyn Citizen - Monday, May 6, 1895
This report was originally published in English. Machine translations may be available in other languages.
A PLEA FOR OSCAR.
Mr. Hamilton Glad Wilde Jury Disagreed
and Believes Him Innocent.
To the Editor of The Citizen:
Dear Sir––I was very happy when I read in "The Citizen" that the jury in the Oscar Wilde trial disagreed and was dismissed, but would have been more happier if he had been acquitted.
I know that the result was regarded as almost inevitable by those who heard of had read the Judge’s charge to the jury. He minimized the whole evidence, and, as the jury comprised a majority of unusually young men, who would be absolutely led by the Judge (and judicial summing up there has an extraordinary weight unknown with us), it was anticipated that no verdict would be obtained.
LONDON, May 1. - The jury in the Oscar Wilde trial disagreed this afternoon and was dismissed. The verdict was received with incredulous amazement by the general public, although such a result was regarded as almost inevitable by those who heard or had read the Judge’s charge to the jury. He minimized the whole evidence, and as the jury comprised a majority of unusually young men who would be absolutely led by the Judge (and a judicial summing up here has an extraordinary weight unknown with us), it was anticipated that no verdict would be obtained.
We are told that at the House of Commons, West End clubs and other places of general resort, opinion is freely expressed that the resultwas a miscarriage of justice. It is considered deplorable that such a horrible scandal should have been stirred up under the public eye without eventuating in the punishment of offenders.
At the House of Commons, West End clubs and other places of general resort the opinion is freely expressed that the result was a miscarriage of justice. It is considered deplorable that such a horrible scandal should have been stirred up under the public eye without eventuating in the punishment of the offenders.
I have always thought that Oscar Wilde was not guilty of the charge against him, and think so yet; it is a conspiracy to ruin him, but they will never succeed. I cannot conceive how in the world a jury comprising respectable men can convict him upon the evidence of such a class of people, who are, no doubt, guilty of the charges preferred against Wilde themselves.
They should all be taken out and given the same treatment as Nicholas Nickleby gave Wackford Squeers in "Dotheboys Hall" (Do-the-Boys), for attempting to administer brutal punishment upon poor Smike.
Oscar Wilde will be brought up in a week’s time and discharged; he will never be tried again, because the law says that he cannot be tried upon the same evidence twice.
Wilde’s shame is enough. "Truth is might, and will always prevail." In the face of such conclusive evidence the jury’s decision is outrageous. He should have been found "not guilty." Mary my words, there is something behind this.
Ignorant, sordid, brutal men, to whom few persons would have entrusted the board and lodging of a horse or a dog, they formed the worthy witnesses against Oscar Wilde, a person of great ability. They have boycotted his books and plays, and his wife has begun suit for a divorce before his fate was known; what little they heard, or had read, they believed.
I close, in the immortal language of Rip Van Winkle, "May ‘The Citizen’ and its editor live long and prosper."
ALBERT EDWARD HAMILTON,
115 Lawrence st., Brooklyn, May 2.