exceptions, regards dancing as an enemy to good morals, and as destructive to all spirituality, because it is productive of so much evil and NO GOOD.  Who upon all the earth has the opportunity of knowing the true inwardness of dancing like the Catholic priests and bishops?  Who ever held and used such a probing instrument as the CONFESSIONAL?  Who on this earth can come as near knowing all the acts and deeds, yea, and the very thoughts, that do pass through the minds and hearts of men, women, boys and girls, as the Catholic priests and bishops can know of and concerning those under their charge?  Arch-Bishop J. Henry William Elder, Co-Adjutor to the Arch-Bishop of Cincinnati, has issued a circular letter to the clergy in his Diocese, from which I take this very significant clipping: 

“THERE MUST BE NO ROUND DANCING AT ANY TIME, AND NO DANCING OF ANY KIND AFTER DARK.”

What meaneth then this blating of the sheep in mine ears, and the lowing of the oxen which I hear?  Why does Arch-Bishop Elder inhibit the round dance even in day-light?  Mr. and Mrs. ECHO and their girls and boys will please answer why?  And why has he inhibited all kinds of dancing after dark?  Will some member of the same family please rise and explain?

  “Oh wad some power the giftie gie us,
  To see oursels as ithers see us.”

While this circular letter has an existence upon earth, let all so-called Protestants and their friends, who say “There is no harm in dancing,” and who participate in dancing of any kind at any time or place, or who simply attend such places, or who remain at a place after it has been turned into a dance, (for the aiders and abettors of crime are just as guilty as their principals), hang their heads for very shame, as poor old dog Tray hangeth his head when caught in company with sheep-killing dogs, and especially when some wool is found in his teeth.  Paul was present when Stephen, the first Christian martyr, was put to death; he only held the clothes of those who cast the stones, but he was just as guilty of murder as though he had cast the fatal missile, by his presence, and making no objection he was consenting to the crime.  To have relieved himself of the blood of Stephen, he should not have gone to the place where the murder was committed, if he knew, or had good reason to know, that a crime was to be committed.  If he had gone there with the belief that it was an innocent, harmless gathering, and after getting there he saw their murderous intent, he should at least have left immediately and thus have withdrawn all his influence and supposed sympathy with the criminals.  The holding of their clothes did not make him guilty, but was only cumulative evidence of the murderous intent in his heart.