The Kenosha telegraph. [volume] (Kenosha, Wis.) 1860-1888, 1877-09-20
THE TRIAL OF JESUS.
Curious and Interesting Review of that
Celebrated Event.

Celebrated Event.
From the Chicago Tribunel
The question whether the conviction
of Christ was legal is considered by Mr..
Alexander Taylor Innes in the last num-
Der of the Contemporary RevieaO. The
subject naturally divides itself into two
branches, inasmuch as both Hebrew and
Roman law were involved in the pro-
ceedings. Mr.. Innes confines himself
in the first article to consideration OF
the Hebrew law. This law is preserved
in the Mishna, or central portion of the
Talmud, which was compiled by Rabbi
Judah, A. B. 200, and is as open to the
investigation of scholars to-day as it was
when the trial of Jesus took place. Mr.. In
nesfinds thatthe forms Of law were openly
discarded by the Judges in this case.
The court "was organized to convict,
as was said of Mr.. Stanton's military
courts, and it overrode every technicality
that seemed to stand in the way of the
fulfillmnnt of it's mission.
The four great rules of Jewish Grim
inal jurisprudence, as laid down in the
Mishna, were g strictness in the accusa-
ton, publicity in the discussion, full
freedom granted to the accused, and as
surance against all errors of testimony"
Mr.. Innes holds that these rules were
fagrantly violated. The first illegal act
was the arrest of Jesus, which could not
legally be made before trial under the
Jewish law, unless resistance or escape
was apprehended. The lawfulness of
the arrest, supposing that resistance was
apprehended, really turned upon the
question whether it was to be the preface
to legal trial. Subsequent in7estiga-
tions will tend to show that it was to be
otherwise here.
The second illegal act was the secret
examination by night, which was pre-
liminary to the public arrangement be-
fore the Sanhedrim. It was, under the
Hebrew law, the right of the accused to
be free from all personal Investigations
until he was brought to trial before his
congregated brethren. The deposition
of two or more witnesses against the &C
cused was required to be given publicly;
and, until it was given, he was held to
be, in the Judgment Of law, not merely
innocent, but scarcely accused. Jesus
was only insisting upon his rights and
showing his familiarity with the Hebrew
law, when, on being interrogated as to
his doctrine and his disciples, he re-
piled: 81 spake openly to the world ;
lever taught in the synagogue, and in
the temple, whittier the Jews always
resort and in secret have I said moth
ing. Why 0skest thou me? Ask
them aO]adch heard me what [ have said
unto them. Behold, they know what
said" Later, when bystander struck
him for insulting the High Priest, he
again reiterated the law: eff I have
spoken evil, bear aOitaess to evil; the but,
If well, why smitest thou me ?" "These
words, remarks Mr.. Times, "appeal to
the principle of the Hebrew law by
which witnesses took upon themselves
the whole burden and responsibility, and
especially the whole initiative, of every
accusation, even as they were obliged to
appear at the close, and, with their own
hands, to hurl the stones" Nothing is
clearer than that the witnesses did not
appear against Jesus in the preliminary
examination before the High Priest
Moreover, this examination being held
by night was ioSo .focto contrary to law.
The Mishna provides:
Money trials are commenced only in the day
time but may be concluded after nightfall;
capital trials are commenced only in daytime,
and must also be concluded during the day.
The former may be concluded by acquittal or
condemnation on the day on which they have be-
gun; the latter may be concluded on that day if
there is a sentence of acquittal, but must be
postponed to second day if there is to be a
condemnation. And for this reason capital
trials are not held ON the day before Sabbath
or feast-day.
The above extract points out third
fragrant violation of law in the trial of
Jesus. The meeting of the council took
place on a Friday, the day before a
Sabbath, which was also a feast-day.
Such meeting on such day was for
hidden.
A fourth illegality was the failure to
order an adjournment of twenty-four
hours before pronouncing Judgment.
The Mishna provides on this subject:
eff man is found innocent, the court
absolves him. But if not, his Judgment
is put off to the following day. Mean
time, the Judges meet together, and,
eating little meat and drinking no wine
during that whole day. they confer upon
the cause. On the following morning
they return into court and vote over
again with the like precautions as be-
FORE"
The fifth illegality was the seeking of
witnesses against the accused. The in
decorum of this action will be realized
when it is understood that under the
Jewish law the evidence of the leading
witnesses constituted the charge. The
sacredness of the Office of witness is set
forth in the Jewish code, which contains
this awful admonition eff any wit
nesses shall destroy one soul out of Is
rael, he is held by the Scripture to be as
if he had destroyed the world" The
Hebrew. Judges were eminently counsel
for the accused, and the witnesses were
the prosecutors. For the Judges,
therefore, to seek for witnesses, whether
bearers offalse testimony or of true, was
n Jo~0o FROM 4ba ~ 4Io