New-York tribune., 1886-03-07
CRAWFORD AND dixie.
THE TRIAL IN THE DIVORCE COURT AND
WHAT is THOUGHT OF TIE RESULT.

HE TRIAL IN ltE DINOhIE CODhi AMI
WHAT is THOUGHT OF TIE RESULT.
rrRoM THE REGULAR CORRESPONDENT or ru TrrHrvr-
LONDON, February l3
The only person who comes really well out of tho
Crawford-Dilke case is Mr.. Cra wford and by one
OF those caprices winch illustrate the ideal justice
of English law, it is Mr. Crawford who has to pay
the costs of the whole proceeding. lie is the
injured party, he has been guilty OF no wrong; he
has behaved from beginning to end like a 10y al and
honorable man: and his reward Is u fine Of some
$50 600 There is not another person connected In
any way with this melancholy atar on whom
public censure does not fall more or ess heavily
The wife, the correspondent, tho counsel Tor
petitioner and for the correspondent the Judge him
self are all condemned at the bar of pablc opinion
1t is an odious duty, but suppose mast explain
why.
1t tisnow some six months since the rumor OF Sir
Charles bikes discovered adultery with Mrs.
Crawford spread through London. The end OF the
season was At hand, but London was still pretty
full and the story ran from house to house with
the rapility usual i'll such indeed, with more,
for sir Charles Dixie parsonage IN the pOlIt-
ical and social worlds. Whether he WAS innocent
or guilty question on winch people Differed
but all agreed that he behaved as if guilty. lie icd
FROM town. threw over his engagements, abandoned
the charge of n bill which Lord Salisbury had
placed IN his hands and retired to Brmin gham.
returned to London. When he had become con
vinceG that a petition for divorce woud be nlcd'
and his name included correspondent. lie wrote "a
letter 20 the President of the Liberal Association for
tine borough OF Chelsea. Offering to Withdraw from
the coming contest and from all public HE, shouId
the association desir' it. lie said:
The charge against Inc is untrue. and ! look for.
ward with confidence To the result OIL mo JndIcIdI
inquiry winch must now cake piacr. In the mean,
time, | am plecIuded from making any deldlel
reply, but | convinced that nc.tAtr my friends
my foes Will DO Inc Tue injustice Ol CouuchHIHS
ms UHhedrd.
On the ia th of this denial and this pledge, the
Association declined his offered resignation. ani the
| const t.tuency reelected him to Parliament. The
judicial inquiry to which Sir Charles Dixie appealed
has now been held. 1t was then ho was u be heard
It was in court that he was 10 make that detaheI
reply - to the untrue charge winch he had been
prccludcd" from making before Mir Crawford
went into the wItncssbOX and reDeatcI with every
hIdeous detail, his wes cOnfe To him OF her
adultery with Sir Charles Dixie. 1t was not
adultery .moTely; he became per tutor IN what she
called every French vice and made her an actor IN
orgies such a. have seldom been head oi ia an
| Eng ISL divorce court. The papers print most OF
these Obscenties; some they are Obliged To leave
imprinted. Jhe mother of Mrs Crawford ~ brought
INTO the business 50 10 sister; and but one lnier-
ence as t. thcir relations Is possible from what Is
said slpposing It to he true.
Sir Charles Dixie sat in court while Mr. Crawford
was giving this evidence. The impIe,sIon 1t pro-
duced, 10 use the language Of two friends oil ms
VINO heard IT, WAS disastrous. 1t was ioit to be AL
bat inconcelyible that ths wife should have m
agtned or invented these particulars The adultery
htd begun within u few mouths aiteI her marriage
and lasted nearly three years. he imputati upon
him, the direct charges against HIM, were OF the
most horrible character Now. II ever, WAS the time
t. prove them untrde to make tho detailed reply
he had promised But Sr Charles Dli"e sat silent.
lie offered dsprooi. lie did not enter the wit
| ness-box He would not deny oath the accnsa-
tions publicly made on oath. What Mr. Crawford
sad was not, according to English law. legal evi-
dencc against Sir Charles Dixie. Hls counsel ad-
ylsed him to avail himself Of this technical excuse
for not testifyIug and he did. Their object was to
get Il verdict aud they got it. They did not Iook
bcvond the four walls ol the Divorce Court They
seem to have imagined lawyerlikH, that dismissal
of the petition against their client, Tor want OF
LEGAL evidence Of his guilt would be accepted by
the public equivalent to an aoluitta and vim
dicaton. Sir Charles Dixie. for his part, can hardly
have forgotten that he had bound himself to prove
the charge untrue. But he in the hands of lis
counsel" Ie had left himself and his honor i'll the
keeping of lawyers who took, and perhaps were
obliged 10 take, purely professional view OF the
cares little for lawyers and less for professional
etiquette or technical rules. What the public
wanted to know whether the charges against
Sir Charles Dixie were not true. What his
constituents wanted that he should redeem his
solemn pledge to them to prove these charges false
IL he has failed to convince the pubic Of his.
innocence If he has failed TO redeem bis pledge to
his constituents, the reasons those which have
gwen above His own counsel said in court that
he did not wish TO expose his client to the risks Of
s-eXaniuation His partisans in the press take
various lines Ihe Daily Ne.os expresses the opinion
that there has been full and open trial. that Sir
Charles Dixie has been vndcated and that he will
be welcomed back to public life with fervor. Moth
ing has done him more harm than this. He may
be puilty He may be innocent. 1t IL open to
people to maintain either of these propositions
Bat to assert that tho trial has been full and that
the result of 1t is the vindication of Sir Charles
Dixie. is to insult the common sense Of the readers
of TINS singular journal and they resent it accord
ingy. With some few exceptions the press thinks
the result of the trial unsatisfactory; in many of
tho leading journals all over the kingdom, the
language used ~ Of the sterrest.
The pubo, indeed, declines altogether to swallow
the legal absuriites involved in Mr.. Justice
Butts decisions Ho says. in one breath, that he
soes no reason at all for Ioubtng the truth of Mr.
Crawforjs evidence. He proves that he docs not
doubt it by granting him divorce from his wife.
against whom there is no other evidence wortt
speaking Of Thon he turns round and DISMISSED
the petition against Sir Charles Dixie on the OK
press ground that Mr. Crawiords evidence though
true and though legally sufficient TO convict Mrs.
Crawford of adultery with Sir Charles Dixie not
legally sufficient to convict Sir Charles Dixie of
adultery with Mrs. Crawford. Now OF .wo things,
one Either Mrs Crawford has been unjustly
condemned. or Sir Charles Dixie has been unustly
acquitted. The public does not care straw about