The Guthrie daily leader. [volume] (Guthrie, Okla.) 1893-1996, 1911-03-14

tal trials could not be had at night
Dupln, one of the greatset French com
neniators on Hebrew law, says that
This rule applied to the entire proceed
ings, from the arrest to the execution
The employment Of Judas, disciple
land companion Of the Saviour, by The
Sanhedrin constitutes the second ele.
| ment Of illegality in the arrest. The
ancient Hebrews forbade the use Of
accomplice testimony, as is clearly
lshown in Mcndclssohns great work,
The Criminal Jurisprudence Of the
Ancient Hebrews" and other authori-
lies. The Hebrew Inv, unlike the
modern American distinctly held that
"a court must not use a wicked insiru-
lment.
The third element of illegality con-
sisted IN the arrest Of Jesus by a
court whose intention was not 10 con
duct legal trial This arrest" says
Rosadl, effected Ia the night, was the
result Of an Illegal and factious reso-
luton Of the Sanhedrin."
POINT H. The private examina-
ton Of Jesus before Annas (or Gaia
Fhasl was Illegal
The evangelists all agree that after
His arrest, Jesus was led away to be
examined before eadisg priest. They
leave some doubt whether this person
was Caiaphas- who was actually High
Priest, or Annas, who had held the
office, but probably it was the former.
But this is immaterial from legal
point of view, as the proceedings would
be illegal in either case. For whether
N was one or the other, neither had
the right 10 sit alone as judge neither
had the right to conduct any judicial
proceeding at night; neither had the
right to institute a secret preliminary
examination by day or night "Be
not q sole judge, for there is no sole
Judge. but One" is one Of the best
known aphorisms Of the Pirke Aboth
and is borne out by every commentary
on Hebrew law
The private examination was mark
ed by an act Of brutality, for zone Of
the officers which stood hy struck Jesus
with his palm" proving the gross prej-I
udicc Of the court against Him.
POINT III.-The indictment against
Jesus was in form Illegal.
The accusation at the trial was
two-fold, vague and indefinite, which
the Mosaic law forbade, and it wasI
made in part by Caiaphas, the High
Priest. who was one Of the judges OF
Jesus, while Hebrew law forbade any
but leading witnesses TO present any
charges.
The accusation consisted Of two
distinct charges, that of sedition, based
upon threat to assault existing !
stitutions by destroying the Temple
and that Of blasphemy, founded upcnI
the claim of equality with God.
Caiaphas, the High Priest, Injected
the charge of blasphemy when he said 1
81 adjure thee that thou tell us wheth-
ar thou be the Christ. the Son Of God, Il
and later he said, He hath spokenl
blasphemy. What further need havel
We Of Witnesses The High Priest
thereby broke the plain letter Of thcl
Hebrew law twice, by confusing theI
indictment and acting as m accuser. /
POINT IV-The proceedings in thel
Sanhedrin against Jesus We're Illegal
because they were conducted at night.I
After his preliminary examination
Iesus was brought before the San
hedrin, which had been hastily con-l
yened ia the Palace Of Caiaphas. III
the arrest in the Garden Of Gethsem-
ane took place between twelve and one.
Il IS remarkable to suppose that liisl
sxamination occupied about two hours'
and that His trial before the San.
nedrin begun itoout half past three IN
he morning. We know from the Cos
pels that tie trial took place imme-l
liafeiv after the examination. ihiFli
light proceeding was absolutely illegal