Democratic Sentinel, Volume 14, Number 44, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 28 November 1890 — PARNELL A RUINED MAN [ARTICLE]

PARNELL A RUINED MAN

AN ENGLISH JURY DECIDES AGAINST HIM. The Grut Leader of the Irish Farty Found GuUljr ot Debauching the ffle of His Friend, Cupt. O'Sliea—lt Ie Thought that He Will Be Forced to Retire from the Leadership of His Forty. [London cablegram.] The great suit In which Capt. Q'Bhea. sxnieniher of Parliament, asked for & divorce front his wife, naming as the co-respondent Charlos Stewart Parnell, the Irish leader. Is ended, and Mr. Parnell Is disgraced forevor. Capt. O'Shea has won his verdict against Parnell almost entirely on the testimony of the servants whom Parnell was In the habit of tipping liberally. Those witnesses rattled off their recollections of names and dates so glibly that one jury in 11* offered a feeble protest and said that he would like to hear them'cross-examined before he could determine whether or not O’Shea connived at the adultery of bis wife. Justice Butt answered that however desirable that thU might be It was not possible because there was no ono In court with power to cr >ssexaiulne for Parnell or Mrs. O’Shea. The result was the jury not only declared Parnell guilty of adultery with Mrs. O'Shea, but acquitted Capt. O’Shea of connivance at his wife's dishonor. In summing up. Justice Butt said that the jury wus placed In some difficulty by reason of the appearance ts only one sldo. Neither respondent nor co-respondent had thought tit to appear. The flrst question the Jury hud to consider was whether Mra. O'Shea •fid Parnell had been guilty of adultery. Upon that question there was a great mass of evldenco which he did not think necessary to cull attention to In detail, because unless they were prepared for some reason or another to say that almost every one of the witnesses called had been telling false stories there could be no doubt of adultery. In fact th> evidence was so strong he did not propose to occupy the tlnw of the jury in any further observations upon It. The question of condonation and connivance (the words meant pretty much the same thing) would, however, prevent the granting of the decroe If such charges were established. The petitioner had sworn on his oath there was not the slightest pretense for tho charges. There was no evidence to tho contrary. It was a serious responsibility for the Jury to take upon themselves to disbelieve uncontradicted evidence unless there wus some very strong reason for assuming that the petitioner was guilty of perjury. He could not help thinking that tho matter did not rest upon the evidence of Capt. O’Shea himself. There wus a masa of documentary evldenco which showed that tho petitioner wus not guilty of being accessory to his wife's adultery. Why should Purnell have assumed names of Pox, Preston, Stanhope und a number of others? Furthermore, when tho husband came to the door of ono of the houses ut Brighton, why did Purnell, who was with Mrs. O'Shea, escape by way of the window uud then coma round to the door n 4 if nothing hud happened? There was un absolute answer In favor of Capt. O'Shea. On the question of connlvanco ho would (mint out to the jury that If the husband had been really an accessory, Purnell, notwithstanding his adultery, could stand In a better position. It wus Immoral, Improper, und reprehensible to Indulge in too great Intimacy with a married woiimn, whether the husbund wus a party to It or not, but the man would not he quite so guilty if tho husband were to give him opportunities to debauch his wife. To bring such charges against ('nptuln O’Shea were simply shocking. He would ask the Jury to find (hat adultery had been committed and to decide whether there had been any connivance of adultery on the part of the husband. The jurymen did not leave their goats. Without a moment's delay tho foreman declared they were agreed. “l>o you And tho respondent guilty of adultery with tho co-respondeut? n he was aski d. “Vos.” “Do you And the co-respondent guilty of adultery with the respondent?” “Yos.” “I)o you find there was any connivance on the part of the husbund?” Huvorai of the Jurymen vigorously exclaimed “No!” There was slight upplause In court. Cupt. O'Shea smiled triumphantly, und Clarke wus ut once on Ills legs to ask about the custody of the children und tho c< sts. Lockwood suggested that the Judge should reserve bis decision us to tho custody of the younger children. McCall asked for Mrs. Bteelo's%osts. Justice Butt made an order for costs against Purnell und roservod hi* decision with respect to the respondent until It hud been ascertained whether the wlfo had a separate estate. The Judge also roserved his decision as to the custody ot tho children, although saying ordinarily they would be intrusted t j the father. Decree of nisi was then pronounced. The excited people In court hurried out to tell and talk about the verdict. 80 ou(Jed the celebrated case. Many strong bollevers In Parnell clung to the hope to tho very last that he would coiue forward und deny O'Shea’s charge, but If the woman In such a case refuses to make any contradiction, what can tho man do but follow suit? Thu truth Is that Mrs. O’Shea has made up her mind a marriage sliull follow the divorce suit after the usual interVul. That being so, Parnell could not venture Into court to deny anything. But his complete surrender has been a terrible shock to the stricter sect of the Uladstonlan party, especially to the vetieruble leader, who has no toleration for offenses of this description. Parnell may resolve not to give up, but circumstances will be too strong for him. The Invasion of O'Shea's home under the disguise of friendship, tho son’s protest, the long course of deception, the masquerading In the name* of Smith, Fox, and Preston are calculated to Injuru a man occupying a foremost position. No political leader In England ever survived such an exposure. It wl.l be just as impossible in the 1 mg run for Parnell to lead his party In Parliament as ft was for Sir Charles Dllke to pursue his public career. Attention, therefore, is centered on the question: “Who will succeed Parnell?” Bo far as I can judge there is a strong feeling In favor of Dillob, a man of blameless character, of great parliamentary skill, a brilliant speaker, a devoted and zealous friend of Ireland. Every man who has been brought Into personal contact with him is as much impressed by his earnestness and sincerity us by Ills abilities. William O'Brien is also mentioned, but he lacks the coolness and self-com-mand requisite for the difficult work to be done In Parliament, The Irish party generally will fora time stoutly deny that any change Is pending, but It must come. Gladstone will not go on with an ally stained with the dirt of a divorce court. Dillon would bring renewed energy Into the Irish campaign and arouse fresh enthusiasm. The linger of destiny points to him as the coming man. It ts reported that the followers of Parnell do not desire hint to retire, unless of his own volition. In which event the leadership of the Irish party will be vested ln*a commission of which Mr. Justin McCarthy wilt ba President.