THE RURAL ME 
D^ttrmg for % gomg. 
WHO DID IT ) 
Who tracked the mud across the floor, 
And throiurh the halt and up the stair ? 
And left it climrinif to the chair ? 
Whose finger-prints deface the door ? 
Whoso crumbs beneath the table lie ? 
Who smeared the buttef on the cloth 1 
Who spilled the gravy, slopped the broth, 
And dropped a pickle in the pie t 
Who pulled the curtain with a Jerk, 
And left it hanging all askew, 
And broke the cord V —’twas nearly new; 
I wonder if 'twas mother’s work 1 
Whose knife is this, with handle stained, 
And open blado with rust so marred ? 
'Twas found this morning in the yard, 
Upon the grass—last night it rained. 
Just now T slipped and nearly fell— 
A marble rolled a rod or more, 
Aud then I crushed an apple-core— 
Whose was it, mother f Can you tell ? 
Face downward on the slab, a book 
Lies open, leaves dog-eared and thumbed . 
Aud near, a handkerchief, begummed 
And still' with taffy—only look ! 
Upon a door-knob hangs a hat— 
'Tjb passing strange it hangs at all ; 
And iu the corner is a ball, 
Aud on the sofa rests a hat. 
I missed the hammer yesterdays 
The hatchet vanished long ago; 
All wiuter, underneath the snow. 
Behind the house the shovel lay. 
Are tilings bewitched 1 Do genii hide 
Within my closets and my drawers, 
Aud skulk behind the chamber doors, 
Aud through the darkened attics glide ? 
I often go from room to room, 
Aud sweep the floating cobwebs down, 
And wonder when the spiders brown 
Departed with their dainty loom— 
But then—who Imows f—those Dims eo fine 
May once have laiu upon my shelf 
Beneath the little bowl of delf j 
’Twas there 1 used to keep my twine. 
The tiny tacltB I lost last spring— 
A paper full, with polished heads 
As black us Jet and round as beads, 
But deader than u ummruio king— 
What do you think they did to-day ‘t 
My sugar-bucket’s sides they stormed. 
And iu the sugar-bucket fairly swarmed— 
Who turned tacks into ants, tell me, pray 1 
The elves are in the house, ’tis clear; 
I'd like to catch that one who took 
The cloihes-brush down from oil' the hook 
And left it on the etagere. 
Who was it, little Johnny Bell 1 
Why do you stand so shame-faced there. 
And blush from chin t.o forehead fair ? 
I think you know the culprit well- 
IMrs. JS. D, Kendall, in Avgunt Wide Awake. 
THE CAT AND THE MOUSE IN PARTNER¬ 
SHIP. 
A Cat having made the acquaintance of a 
Mouse, told her so much of the great love and 
affection that he had lor her, that the Mouse at 
last consented to live In the same house with the 
Cat, and to have their domestic affairs in com¬ 
mon. “But we must provide for the winter,” 
said the Cat, "or we shall be starved: you, little 
Mouse, cannot go anywhere, or you will meet 
with an accident.” This advice was lollowed, and 
a pot was brought with some grease iu it. How¬ 
ever, when they had got It, they could not Im¬ 
agine where it should he put; at last, after a long 
consideration, the Cat said, “ I know no better 
place to put It than in the church, lor there no 
one dares to steal anything: we will set It be¬ 
neath the organ, and not touch It till we really 
want It.” 
So the pot was put away In safety: but not a 
long while afterwards the Cat began to wish for 
It again, so he spoke to the Mouse, and said, "1 
have to tell you that 1 am asked by my aunt to 
stand godfather to a little son, white with brown 
marks, whom she has Just brought Into the 
world, and so I must go to the christening. Let 
me go out to-day, and do you stop at home and 
keep house." 
“Certainly,” answered the Mouse; "pray go; 
and If you eat anything nice, think of me. I 
would also willingly drink a little of the Bweet 
red christening wine." 
But It was all a story; for the Cat had no aunt, 
and had not been aaked to stand godfather. He 
went straight to the church, crept up to the 
grease-pot, and licked It till he had eaten off the 
top; then he took a walk on the roors of the 
houses in the town, thinking over hla situation, 
aud now and then stretching himself In the sun 
and stroking his whiskers as often as he thought 
of the pot. of fat. When it was evening he went 
home again, aud the Mouse said, “So you have 
come home at last: what a charming day you 
must, have hadI” 
"Yes,” answered the Cat; "it went off very 
well.” 
“ What have you named the kitten ?” asked the 
Mouse. 
“ 7'op-oJ /” said the Cat, very quickly. 
“ Top-nil /” replied the Mouse: “ that Is a curi¬ 
ous and remarkable name. Is it common in your 
family?” 
" What does that matter?” said the Cat; " it is 
not worse than Crumb-Stealer, as your children 
are called.” 
Not long afterwards the Cat felt the same long¬ 
ing as before, and said to the Mouse, " You must 
oblige me by taking care of the house once more 
by yourself; I am again asked to stand godfather, 
and, since the youngster has a white ring round 
his neck, I cannot get oft the Invitation.” So the 
good little Mouse consented, and the Cat crept 
away behind the wall to the church again, and 
ate half the contents of the grease-pot. " Nothing 
tastes better than what one cats by one’s-self,” 
said he, quite contented with his day’s work; and 
when he came home, the Mouse asked how this 
child was named. 
“ Half-out.," answered the Cat, 
" Half-out /” What do you mean ? I never 
heard such a name before In my life: I will wager 
anything it is not In the calendar.” 
The Cat’s mouth now began to water again at. 
the recollection of the feasting. “ All good things 
come In threes,” said he to the Mouse. "Iam 
again required to he godfather: this child Is quite 
black, and has little white claws, but not a single 
white hair on his body ; Buch a thing only hap¬ 
pens once In two years, so pray excuse me this 
time.” 
“ Top-off! Half-dull" answered the Mouse; 
“ these are such curious names, they make me a 
bit suspicious.” 
" Ah 1” replied the Cat, " there you sit in your 
gray coat and long tall, thinking nonsense. That 
comes of never going out.” 
The Mouse busied herself during the Cat’s ab¬ 
sence in putting the house in order, but mean¬ 
while greedy Puss licked the grease-pot clean 
out. “ When it is all done, one will rest in peace,” 
thought he to himself, and as soon as night came 
he went home fat and tired. The Mouse, how¬ 
ever, again asked what name the third child had 
received- “ It will not please you any better," 
answered the Cat, “ for he is called AU-outf 
" All-out r exclaimed the Mouse; "well, that 
Is certainly the most curious name by far. I have 
never yet seen It in print. All-outl What can 
that mean?” And, shaking her head, she rolled 
herself up and went to sleep. 
After that nobody qjse asked the Cat to stand 
godfather; but the winter had arrived, and noth¬ 
ing more was to be picked up out-of-doors; so the 
Mouse bethought herself of their store or pro¬ 
vision, and said, " Come, friend Cat, we will go to 
our grease-pot which we laid by; it will taste 
welt now.” 
“ Yes, indeed,” said the Cat; "It will taste as 
well as If you stroked your tongue against the 
window.” 
So they set out on their Journey; and when 
they arrived at the church the pot stood In its old 
place—but It was empty I 
“Ah!” said the Mouse, "I see what has hap¬ 
pened ; now I know you are Indeed a faithful 
mend. You have eaten the whole as you stood 
godfather; first Top-off, then Half-out then-” 
“Will you be quiet?” cried the Cat. “Not a 
word, or I’ll eat you.” 
But the poor Mouse had “ All-out " at her 
tongue’s end, and had scarcely uttered it, when 
the Cat made a spring, seized her in his mouth, 
and swallowed her. 
This happens every day In the world. Grimm. 
THE TRIAL OF JESUS CHRIST. 
THREE BUNNIES’ QUEER MAMMA. 
A curious instance of the affection which the 
female of one species of animal sometimes exhib¬ 
its for the young of a different species Is reported 
by Mr. John Slnnott, of Lafayette, on the Norris¬ 
town Railroad, as having come under his own ob¬ 
servation. In his household is a cat, to which a 
week berore a number of kittens were born. All 
the youngsters, except oue that was to he kept, 
were drowned. In consequence of which Madame 
Pussy appeared sad, mewing and purring her 
bereavement and displaying increased love for 
her only living child. .The couch of pussy and the 
little ones was in the cellar, where, at noon, on 
the day after the drowning, Mrs. SInnctt was sur¬ 
prised to find three tiny animals lying close to¬ 
gether. They were all about the same size, but 
two of them differed somewhat, in shape from the 
third, having cars considerably longer—much too 
long to be those of a kitten. Pussy was not 
about, hut while the lady was examining the lit¬ 
tle creatures the old cat came In, carrying by the 
nape of Its neck, between her teeth, another tiny 
quadruped with long cars. Pussy deposited her 
burden with the three other little things, lay 
down beside them, and tenderly caressed them, 
one at a time. Iu the evening, when Mr. Slnnott 
came home, he saw the quartette vigorously 
drawing the staff of their life from the breast of 
patient Pussy, who seemed no less a mother to 
one than to any other. He soon ascertained that 
the three new additions to the feline family were 
baby rabbits. In order to give them more agree¬ 
able quarters he removed the five to au out-house. 
But thenceforward Madame Pussy seemed to be 
without affection for her adopted children. Evi¬ 
dently she discovered that she had made a mis¬ 
take and was doing wrong. She no more gave 
them suck nor caressed them, but devoted undi¬ 
vided attention to her natural offspring. Mr. 
Slnnott’s family then took charge of the deserted 
bunnies, giving them sweet milk and keeping 
them warm, but despite the best or human care, 
they lived but a day or two afterward. 
A NEW GAME FOR CHILDREN. 
The Juveniles have a now game called “ Blind 
Man’s Mockery,” out of which they are getting 
lots of amusement. One of the party Is blind¬ 
folded, and while he is counting twenty-five the 
others range themselves as miscellaneously as 
possible in a row, and hold out their hands. The 
"blind man” slaps somebody’s hands, at the 
same time Inquiring, "Who arc you?" The 
youngster slapped rather impolitely replies, 
"None of your business/’ and the "blind man” 
Is obliged to guess his name from the sound of 
his voice. He can guess but once, and, lr ho falls, 
must try some one else until ho guesses right, 
when the one whom ho detects becomes "the 
man.” The game depends upon quickness or ear, 
as well as upon the ability to disguise the voice, 
and It shows a wonderful difference In children 
In both respects. 
That the whole council did not meet at 
night Is unquestionable: that a certain number 
of them were present by night with Galaphfis Is 
equally clear. Assuming that, there was a final 
and formal meeting of tho whole Sanhedrim at its 
usual morning hour, If, Is barely possible that the 
vivid scene of the adjuration, confession, and 
sentence took place before It. But It Is much 
more likely on the evidence that it. took place 
earlier, when a considerable number, quite 
enough to be popularly called a council, were al¬ 
ready assembled. And, In any case. It Is certain 
that that still earlier transaction—the examina¬ 
tion of witnesses and the deliberation on their 
evidence—must have taken place some time dur¬ 
ing the night. The contusion ,of representation 
is quite natural. For, according to all the rules 
of Hebrew law, such a transaction In the night 
was absolutely Illegal, incapable of being validly 
transacted In either form, aud Incapable of being 
reported so as to produce an impression of Justice 
upon the minds of the people. 
The law Is laid down In a passage of the Mtsh- 
na, which contrasts capital trials with questions 
of money. 
The former (money trials) are commenced only 
In the daytime, but, may be concluded alter night¬ 
fall: the latter (capital trials) are commenced 
only in the daytime, and must also be concluded 
during the day. The former may bo concluded 
by acquittal or condemnation on the day on which 
they have begun: the latter may be concluded on 
that day if there Is a sentence or acquittal, but 
must be postponed to a second day If there Is to 
he a condemnation. And ror this reason capital 
trials arc not held on the day before a Sabbath or 
a feast day. 
The crucifixion of Jesus took place, as has 
scarcely ever been doubted, on the Friday, the 
day before a Sabbath which was also "an high 
dayand the meeting or the council took place 
on the same Friday morning. Such a mooting on 
such a day was forblddeu. If Indeed It only met 
to register an acquittal. It was lawful. But it the 
court was unable at once to acquit, 11 was bound 
to adjourn for at least four-und-twenty hours be¬ 
fore meetiug for final judgment, und such a final 
meeting could not be on t he Sabbath. The neces¬ 
sity of the adjournment of a capital trial to secure 
the rights of the accused la shown very clearly by 
the detailed regulations of the Mlshua: 
"If a man Is found iuuocent, the court ab 
solves him. But if not, his Judgment Is put off 
to the following day. Meantime 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 pre¬ 
caution as before). If Judgment, Is at last pro¬ 
nounced, they bring out the man sentenced, to 
stone him.” 
These regulations, taken not from the commen¬ 
tary on the oral law, but from the Mlshna ltsolf, 
probably existed in rull detail during the hlgh- 
prlesthood of Oalaplias. There Is no reason to 
doubt that at least tho general rule, which pro¬ 
scribes adjourning the trial from one day to an¬ 
other, bound the Judges of Josus of Nazareth. In 
no case was such a rule so absolutely necessary 
to justice, as where the accused, arrested after 
nightfall, had been put upon his trial by day¬ 
break, without the least opportunity of summon¬ 
ing witnesses for ms defence. But, what the Ge- 
mara describes as the atrocity of thus anticipat¬ 
ing the day of death of tho accused, was exceed¬ 
ed in open injustice by the earlier outrage of 
commencing, and probably substantially con¬ 
cluding, the real trial under cloud of night. That 
would have been an Intolerable scandal even In 
the case of an ordinary civil suit. 
Yet there can he no doubt that at some untime¬ 
ly hour, between Thursday night and Friday 
morning, tho form and somewhat more than the 
form, of a trial by Hebrew law did take place. 
The judges, unjust, as they were, wore men train¬ 
ed in that law of minute scruples and mighty 
sanctions; and they would have felt It impossible 
to dispense with process and form altogether. 
Meantime rnucU was going on. Tho members of 
the council present, sought for witnesses against 
Jesus. Matthew says they sought for false wlt- 
uosHcw. But even the former was a scandalous in¬ 
decorum. Hebrew Judges, as we have scon, worn 
eminently counsel for the accused. Aud one or 
the strangest sights the world has ever seen must 
have been tho adjuration or solemn address to 
the witnesses who oatno to speak against the life 
or Jesus, by the magistrate who had—no doubt 
with perfect sincerity—hold it expedient that one 
man should die for tho people, iiiut form of ad¬ 
juration or solemn appeal still exists in tho body 
or the law. It was the duty of the high piiest to 
pronounce It to each witness in a capital case, 
and so to put them on oath. Who can measure 
the effect of Its utterance by the sacred judge of 
Israel upon men who while tho words were utter¬ 
ed, were toroed to gaze into the race or him whose 
life It guarded ? 
“Forget not, o wltnoss, that It is one thing to 
give evidence In a trial as to money, and another 
In a trial for life. In a money suit, If thy witness- 
bearing shall do wrong, money may repair that 
wrong. But In this trial for life, If thou alrmost, 
the blood of the accused, and the blood of his 
seed to the end of time, shall be Imputed unto 
thee. Therefore was Adam created one man and 
alone, to teach thee, that, if any witness shall de¬ 
stroy one soul out ot Israel, he is hold by the 
•Scripture lo be as if he had destroyed the world; 
and he who saves one such soul to be as ir he had 
saved the world.” 
The Hon of Man whose lire was surrounded by 
the law with this tremendous sanction stood si¬ 
lent before those witnesses; and, whatever was ,, 
the reason, their testimony was found Ineffectual. 
What was the Hebrew law of evidence? The 
Talmud divides all oral evidence Into— 
1. A vain testimony. 
2. A standing testimony. 
3. An adequate testimony; or (perhaps) the 
tost Imony of them that agree together. 
The evidence of the earlier witnesses who on 
that night, were examined seems to have been set 
aside as belonging to the first class; for a " vain 
testimony "was not, oven accepted provisionally, 
or retained until afterwards confirmed. A " stand¬ 
ing testimony ” on the other hand, was admitted 
in the meantime and provisionally, but not held 
valid until confirmed by others. To this Inter¬ 
mediate rank attained the evidence or that wit¬ 
ness who at length came forward to speak to the 
early utterance ot Jesus about the destruction 
and rebuilding or the temple. And when follow¬ 
ing him another came, the question was at once 
raised whether the testimony of both did not 
amount, to the third and complete order of evi¬ 
dence, known as “tho testimony of them that 
agree together.” "Hut neither so,” says Mark, 
using the exact technical term, " neither so did 
their witnesses agree together.” This may un¬ 
doubtedly have been a mere discrepancy In their 
narration of facts. That discrepancy cannot 
hsve been groat, according to our modern ideas. 
For Mark gives the evidence ot both in one Indis¬ 
criminate sentence. And Matthew docs tlio same 
In another sentence, slightly different. Neither 
of them makes any explicit distinction between 
what tho two witnesses said. Let us suppose 
that the discrepancy between tho two (alleged by 
Mark) amounted only to Mils, that the one said, 
In Matthew’s phrase, “1 am able to destroy the 
templo of God,” and tho .other, " I will destroy 
this temple.” It, la by no means clear that even 
such a dirrereneo as this might not have been 
sufficient to nullify their testimony. For In a 
Hebrew criminal trial" tho least discordance be¬ 
tween the evidence of the witnesses was held to 
destroy Its value;” and this rule, like others, was 
pusUed to ilmt childish extreme which we now 
call Judalcal. A more verbal distinction may 
have sometimes been a fatal objection la the 
mind of even such a judge as Calaphas. But the 
evidence of men who are not reported to have 
said anything extreme, but whom tho Evangel¬ 
ists, departing from their usual reserve, distinct¬ 
ly call " false witnesses,” was probably reckless 
and Inaccurate. And It Is just, possible that the 
variation between t he reports or the two Evan¬ 
gelists covers not a mere verbal distinction, but a 
substantial and serious difficulty, or great Import¬ 
ance for the conduct of the ease. 
For at this point wo are confronted by one of 
the most Important questions In the whole in¬ 
quiry, What was the crime for which Jesus was 
all this time being tried ? What was the charge, 
what the Indictment, upon whlcu he stood before 
the council ? l'p to this point we have had no 
Intimation on- that subject. In modern times 
that would be an extraordinary state of matters. 
But we must not Judge Jewish law, or Indeed 
early law or any nation, by our modern rules. 
Hebrew law, as we have seen, gave a peculiarly 
important position to the witnesses. 1 believe 
we shall not, fully realize that position unless we 
remember that, at least, in the earlier days or that 
law, the evidence of tho loading witnesses consti¬ 
tuted the charge. There was no other charge: 
no more format Indictment. Until they spoke, 
and spoke In LUO public assembly, the prisoner 
was scarcely an accused man. When they spoke, 
and tho evidence of the two agreed together, It 
formed tho legal charge, libel or Indictment, as 
well as the evidence ror Its truth. This, to us 
paradoxical, but really simple und natural origin 
of a Hebrew criminal process, Is nowhere better 
Illustrated than In that ancient ca axe oi luhre of 
Naboth the Jezreelito. " They proclaimed u fast, 
and set Naboth on high among the people. And 
there came In two men. children oi Belial, and 
sat before him; and the men of Belial witnessed 
against him, even against Naoot.h, in the pres¬ 
ence or the people, saying, Naboth did blaspheme 
God and che king. Then they carried him forth 
out ot the city, and stoned him with stones that 
he died.” 
The essential points ot a Hebrew trial for life 
arc here given with admirable terseness. But 
In the case of Naboth tho false witnesses sub¬ 
orned by tno Hldonlan queen are represented as 
using the technical word, of blasphemy. Jn the 
trial of Jeaus, the only witnesses distinctly 
spoken to report ed a particular utterance of the 
accusod. what crime was this utterance intend¬ 
ed by the accusers, ortho judges, to infer? There 
are two distinct meanings which may have been 
Innueudord. According to one of them, the 
words " I will destroy tills temple that Is made 
with hands, and within three days i will build 
another made without hands,” may have been 
represented as the voice of one come to attack the 
existing institutions—to "destroy t.he law and 
the prophets.” We have a most Important com¬ 
mentary on this In the paralhV accusation of 
Stephen a few months later: “Wo have hoard 
him say, that this Josus or Nazareth shall de¬ 
stroy Mils place, and shall change the customs 
which Moses delivered us.” But according to 
another view, the same reported utterance— 
especially in tho modified form of Matthew. “I 
arn able to destroy the temple or God"—may 
have been Intended as a charge of arrogating 
superhuman power. So his original auditors fen 
It. " Forty-and-slx years was this templo in 
building, aud wilt thou rear It again In three 
days?” The two charges, It will be observed, 
though very distinct, are not IhcoiislsLunt. May 
he not have been charged both with attempting 
to change the national institutions and with pre¬ 
tensions to miraculous power t The difficulty 
In this supposition Is that wo have been seek¬ 
ing lu these charges for the one Crime Upon which 
Jesus was finally condemned. But ll' .we look 
more narrowly at the supposed difficulty, we 
may find what we have been seeking.—[Conclu¬ 
ded next week. 
