New-York tribune., 1886-08-15
SUPPLEMENT.
PAGES 9 TO IL.
THE CRAWFORD-DILKE CASE
III.
INCIDENTS OF THE TRIAL-Ihh JoD"
- vrpDICT-rHE EPITAPH.

V"'~ LoSpov. July 20.
r,o,, Friday morning. July II. TO Friday aiter,
-, J,iv o. the Crawford Dixie case occnpicu
,,o rnbroken attention Of the Divorce Court. An"
Wv ,h,n the Divorce Court All London de-
u '.od the daily details Of the trial. all Engiah"
ia them served up daily at BREAKFAST aau n'
.n,oI mart Of that non-Engsh part OF inc universe
uh;ch Mr. Gladstone calls the civilized worio was
ros,lei with this dish l suppose no scahaai oi
on, time ba, had wider echo. No other mau 'n"u
CO. Chor,es Dixie has fallen from 80 great
ho;,bt 40 low. Whlo this drama was GU
ao.ing in the law courts Ministries c"ino
a,d went almost uurcgarded. 1t Is hter"ii'
,rue that the resignation of Mr.. dladsto"o
Covernmeut and the accession of Lord Sihsbury 10
no,vcr has far less interest for the ma)orty-"o'"
t the masses and of tho classes-than the q"es''on
os the guilt or innocence Of Sir Charles Dlho. i""
must bs INV excuse for handling the matter a' ouon
length 1t is a social phenomenon OF 'ho i.iS' o.'o
~ course cannot 20 into the details OF tra'
xh,ch took up a this time. The detais ihue' oo
,,ht lv those who care for them in the daily re-
,orta They ill some fifty columns, tnough 'ho
facts lie in narrow compass. described tho scrno
- ,hi. ,ragsdv was enacted. and some OF the
rerfo,mers. in previous letter. What nave
60 do now il to bring out the sailcn'
,o;,,s of the case and TO write an epltaph Oh S'r
Charles Dixie. ~
This preseut re- hearing of the cause decided 'ss'
March is due solely to the fact that oir C"a''0'
then failed 70 go into the wltuess-box ana aony y"
oath the charge Of adultery with Mrs. 'ra"iotu
There was then no legal evidence against hin' 'o
was dismissed from the cause as correspondent "i
Justice Butt in one breath held that mrs. Crd"oiu
had committed adultery with Sir Charies DiiNo ~
the next that sir Charles bad not com'h'''u an"'-
terv with Mrs. Crawford. The law OF Eng
ahsur
In the court in the full belief that
the public would accept this tcchnicai
o.o,;ttai as n substantial verdict of not guilty
n. .honcht 10 walk out Of the divorce Court INTO
the palaces Of Piccadilly and the Palace OF west
minister. the honored and favorite guest OF o'hcr
aavS The door If the Cabinet itssif was 10 rc
omen TO him. lie woke next morning 10 mo MS
hone dream aud himself, rs before, an ou'cas''
Through the smear of legal wh'fewash from 'ii'
Just,ce Butts brush. the blackness OF MS onehco
was iu., "a visible to the world as ever Legally
innocent but morally guilty was the verdlct Vi
that none too austere world of London TO which
. I'D. b,s ,pnoal One or two fricudiy jour
ro,s declared his vndcatlon compIete'
Their voice was drowned in dersion. The L'bera'
wirepullers of Chelsea proclaimed their Deiiei Ill
their representative and people said IL was poh'cs
C,ersymen were found charitable enough 10 co'ci'r
Charles With their presty rob s; 1t tavalled him not.
For brief period he tried the experiment oI Gaining
with his wife on old friends il soon appeared that
they were never at home IL he entered the house
~ Commons honorable members passed without
seeing him lie was political pariah Inc music
halls of the metropolis once more resounded with
riba.d ditles on the Member for Chelsea and music
hall audiences greeted them with shouts OF iaueh'er
apd .unlause Ii anne the fashion among people OF
fashion TO visit these singular places OF entertain
nent TO listen 10 catches often obscene and always
vulgar. The press began to mutter that 'be scah'
dal of Sir Chares's situation was too fragrant lie
himself presently saw that his ostracsm a. things
stood spite of votes OF confidence from creduous or
Interested constituents. was complete ana prom
,sed to be permanent. The buraen OF the par
able against him was ever the same: III ne was
innocent why did he not 90 into the box and deny
the Chargef
There was way in which he might
regain tnat lost opportunity. The Queens Proctor
might ne moved TO intervene to prevent The org
inal decree mis-; being made absolute. as IL wouId
without such intervention. by the mere expiritloh
of time in six months from its date. Facts were
LAID before that functiOnary aud he did intervene
HIS statement to the court alleged that the original
decree had been obtained contrary to the justice OF
The case by reason of material facts not having
been brought to the knowledge OF the court. On
that all egation this trial was ordered, and Sir
But the circumstances were 10 longer the same.
Sir Charles Dixie, having By virtue of the first de-
cree in his favor been dismissed from the suit rs
corespondent was not now party OF record. aud
not entitled TO appear by counsel. He could be
witness tuat was all. The parties to the suit are
now Mr. Crawford. who seeks to maintain the
decree Of divorce and the Queens Proctor, who
seexs TO upset it, Practically. however, the conn
sci tor the Queens Proctor conducted the case for
Sir Charles Dixie II lie had been Sir Charles Rus
sell or Sir Heury James, no complaint that the late
correspondent was uureprcSented would nave been
heard. But as he was Sir Walter Philiinorc. cry
OF hardship rose. By his side however, sat
throug ghout the case one other OF those two
counsel of Sir Charles. aud IL is safe TO say they
allowed no material point in his favor to he missed.
Far worse for Sir Charles than the absence of
counsel was the presence Of Mrs Crawford At the
former trial Mrs Crawl ford was away. Her story
was told in the form of her confession to her hns-
band, and since it was her husband and
not herself who told IT, 1t WAS not tech
nicaliy evidence against Sir Charles. But mark the
bitterness of the Nemesis which dogs the footsteps
of ofendcra Had Sir Charles then gone into the
witness box. he would have had merely TO deny his
guilt and TO endure cross xamination, probably
Of no great severity. Iio would not have
been confronted with Mrs Crawford. The
decree which dismissed him from the court
would have had n moral justification, that OF his
oath and submission to cross-cxaninatiOn, as well
rs a technical basis No douet he would have com
mtted perjury upposng the present verdict correct
bat he would probably have regained his position
in the world and that political reputation which.
~ he told Captain Forster. was moro to hun than
anything else. Nor would he have had behind him
the fatal record of his first refusal to to his
innocence. Mr. Justice Hannen put it now the
jury in terms not less decisive because Of their
moderation. Sir Charles pleaded that he followed
the advice Of his counsel. All his counsel had to do
at the first trial. professionally speaking, was to
get verdict and that they were sure Of But Sir
Charles, who wanted not only q verdict but the
Icsl0Iaiinp of nul,Iic canGdcnce In his characfer