Page:The World's Most Famous Court Trial - 1925.djvu/165

Rh in conflict, that the subject that was taught by J. T. Scopes does not conflict with the Bible.

Now, in regard to the gentlemen for the defense; they have put me in the position which I have experienced as a gun pointer in the navy trying to fire upon a submarine. Yon will see the periscope at one place, and it will go down and in another moment it will be here, and in another moment it will be there. Mr. Hays has said that these experts are paying their own expenses to come here to testify in this case.

The Court—I am not interested in that, Mr. Hicks, at all. I do not care whether they are or not.

Mr. Hicks—If your honor please, they admit that those experts who are coming here are greatly interested in this trial, in the outcome of this trial, and I just want to call your honor's attention to the fact that this is the position that they are in, and to the regard which the higher courts of the state of Tennessee take in regard to the admission of expert testimony in any case. Our higher courts have said that it is largely a field of speculation, and that it is full of pitfalls, that it is full of danger, and must be received with great caution.

Now, in every other case which has been called to the minds of the courts of Tennessee, how much more so must it be in the case at bar, because the theory of evolution itself is unproven and such an eminent scientist as Bateson accepts evolution because he cannot find any better theory to advocate as to the creation of animal life upon earth.

Mr. Darrow—When did he state that?

Mr. Hicks—In his speech at Toronto.

Mr. Darrow—Oh, no, we have that speech.

Mr. Hicks—It was something to that effect.

Mr. Malone—Oh, well, something to the effect.

The Court—Address any objection you have to the court, gentlemen.

Mr. Hicks—That is all right, I don't care. If your honor please, the words of the statute itself preclude the introduction of such testimony as they are trying to bring into the case. I call your honor's attention to the last clause of this act, they are very careful to admit that—they are very careful to leave out even any mention of Section 1, and this law reads: "Be it enacted by the general assembly of the state of Tennessee that it shall be unlawful for any teacher in any of the universities, normals or other public schools of the state, which are supported in whole or in part by the public school funds of the state, to teach any theory that denies the story of the divine creation of man as taught in the Bible, and to teach instead"—instead of what?—"instead of the story of divine creation as taught in the Bible that man has descended from a lower order of animals."

Now, this proof is amply shown, that Mr, Scopes taught that man descended from a lower order of animals—

The Court—Do you think that that meets the requirements of the statute?

Mr. Hicks—Absolutely. There is no question as to that, your honor, In other words, instead of the Bible theory of creation, he taught that man descended from the lower order of animals. Now, on the construction of any statute, our courts hold this, that if one clause of that statue, one part of it is vague, not definitely understood, that you must construe the whole statute together, that you must look at the other part of that statute and see what is the character, what is the intention which our legislature intended to put into that act. Now, that the last part defines that first part. It says what this evolution, or law is, to teach instead—instead of what?—instead of the Bible story of creation, that man has descended from a lower order of animals.

Now, in regard to that very feature of it, your honor, I would like to review just a little Tennessee law— down here, in Tennessee, we believe in Tennessee law, and when our leading courts, our courts of last