Page:The World's Most Famous Court Trial - 1925.djvu/104

100. No talking. (Rapping with gavel.)

(Following the photographing of the court.)

State of Tennessee vs. John T. Scopes.

Court—This case is now before me on a motion to quash the indictment on the following grounds:

"First—(a) Because the act, which is the basis of the indictment, and which the defendant is charged with violating, is unconstitutional and void, in that it violates Section 17, Article 11 of the constitution of Tennessee, which reads as follows:

"Section 17. Origin and frame of bills. Bills may originate in either house; but may be amended, altered or rejected by the other. No bill shall become a law which embraces more than one subject, that subject to be expressed in the title. All acts which repeal, revive or amend former laws, shall recite in their caption, or otherwise, the title or substance of the law repealed, revived or amended."

It is insisted by the defendant, through his counsel, that the body of the act involved in this case is not germane to the caption, and that the caption is too general in its terms, and that, therefore the act is unconstitutional and void.

In passing upon this provision of our constitution, our supreme court has said:

"Any provision of a statute germane to the subject expressed in the title directly or indirectly relating to that subject, and having a natural connection therewith, and not foreign thereto, is embraced in the title.

"It is not necessary that the title should express fully what is contained in the body of the act, for it was not intended that the title should express everything contained in the act. So long as the subject matter of the body of the act is germane to that expressed, in the title, there is an obedience to the mandates of the constitution."

The general title to the act is one which is broad and comprehensive and covers all legislation germane to the general subject stated. The title may cover more than the body, but it must not cover less. It need not index the details of the act, nor give a synopsis thereof.

It is further said:

"The title of a legislative bill may be broader and more comprehensive than the subject of legislation contained in the body of the act, so that the one real subject of legslationlegislation [sic] is expressed in the title, and not obscured by foreign matters."

In the case at bar the caption of the act involved provides, among other things, that the purpose of the act is to prohibit the teaching of the evolution theory in the public schools, etc., of the state of Tennessee. It is true that this provision is rather general in its nature and in my conception of the terms employed in the caption and the bodybody. [sic] Those used in the caption are broader and more comprehensive than those employed in the body of the act; but in my opinion the caption covers all the legislation provided for in the body, and is germane thereto, and in no way obscures the legislation provided for.

The purpose of this provision in our present constitution was to remedy an existing evil, and prevent laws on other subjects from being tacked on to a bill upon a wholly different subject, which tacked on laws this way sometimes eluded the attention of the legislature and were passed without sufficient consideration, and when passed, often remained for a time undiscovered, for the reason that the title of the act failed to call attention to the same, and to prevent smuggling through the legislature important measures without due notice to the members of the legislature as to the nature and purport of the matter under consideration.

In my judgment, the caption of this act is sufficient to put any member of the legislature on notice as to what the nature of the proposed legislation is, and that really the caption is more comprehensive than