The Sun - Sunday, May 5, 1895

The Public Disgusted with the
Fiasco in the Oscar Wilde Case - Power-
ful Influences at Work to Shield Him
and His Sort - Only Two Jurors Voted to
Acquit Him.
Special Cable Despatch to THE SUN.

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.