Page:The World's Most Famous Court Trial - 1925.djvu/107

Rh to their conscience. He can attend any church or connect himself with any denomination or contribute to the erection of buildings to be used for public worship, as he sees fit. (The court is pleased to overrule these grounds.)

(f) In that it violates Section 8, Article 1 of the constitution of Tennessee, which reads as follows:

"Sec. 8. No Man to Be Disturbed but by Law.—That no man shall be taken or imprisoned or disseized of his freehold, liberties, or privileges, or outlawed, or exiled, or in any manner destroyed or deprived of his life, liberty or property, but by the judgment of his peers or the law of the land."

As the court understands, the defendant insists that this section of the constitution is the foundation for what is generally termed the law of the land.

"The law of the land means the law which embraces all persons who are in, or who may come into like situation and circumstances. It may be made to extend to all citizens, or to be consigned, under proper limitations, to particular classes. If the class be a proper one it matters not how few the persons are who may be included in it, if all who are in, or who may come into the like situation and circumstances, be embraced in the class, the law is general, and not partial."

The law of the land hears before it condemns; it proceeds upon inquiry, and renders judgment only after trial.

"Legislation general in its operation upon the subjects to which it relates, and enforceable in the usual mode established in the administration of government with respect to kindred matters, that is, by process or proceedings adapted, to the nature of the case, is the law of the land."

As the court understands the provisions of the statute involved in the case at bar, if applies alike to all persons coming into the like situation and circumstances, so far as public schools are concerned. That is, it applies alike to all those who see proper to engage themselves as teachers in the public schools of the state of Tennessee. Therefore, I am of the opinion that this statute is not violative of this section of the constitution and that it does not unlawfully deprive this defendant of any of his liberties, privileges, or property, and for this reason the court is pleased to overrule this ground.

(g) In that the act and the indictment and the proceedings herein are violative of Section 9, Article 1 of the constitution of Tennessee, which reads as follows:

"Sec. 9—Rights of the accused in criminal prosecutions. That in all criminal prosecutions, the accused hath the right to be heard by himself and his counsel; to demand the nature and cause of the accusation against him, and have a copy thereof, to meet the witnesses face to face, to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and in prosecutions by indictment or presentment, a speedy public trial, by an impartial jury of the county in which the crime shall have been committed, and shall not be compelled to give evidence against himself."

And also:

(h) In that the act, prosecution and proceedings herein violate Section 14, Article 1, of the constitution of Tennessee, which reads as follows:

"Sec. 14—Crimes punished by presentment, etc.—That no person shall be put to answer any criminal charge but by presentment, indictment or impeachment."

As the court conceives, both of these grounds are predicated upon the same objection to the statute and the indictment, therefore, they will be considered together. One objection, as the court understands, that is insisted upon is that both the statute and the indictment are too vague and uncertain to put him on notice of the nature of the accusation brought against him. The requirement, as the court, understands, is this: The description of