Page:The World's Most Famous Court Trial - 1925.djvu/168

164 I would like to be given the right to challenge these men, to pass upon them before they come into this court and give their opinions upon the facts which are in issue; the very province of the jury is invaded by the gentlemen we do not have the right to pass upon. I would like to be given the right to challenge three without cause, because they are without the state of Tennessee, and they come in to interpret our law, of our legislature. What do they know about the Bible? They have to qualify in both the Bible and science before they can.

Mr. Malone—May it please your honor, I do not know whether he is talking about the attorneys or the expert witnesses.

Mr. Hicks—I am talking about the expert witnesses. I will talk about you gentlemen later.

Mr. Hays—We want you to hear them first, before you decide.

Mr. Darrow—After they testified, the motion would be to strike their testimony, if you do not know.

Mr. Neal—I might say, we have a very distinguished Tennessean, the state gologistgeologist [sic], Wilbur Nelson.

Gen. Stewart—I erect we would get along better if there were less heckling.

The Court—Proceed.

Mr. Hicks—Go to it. Any question you would like to ask.

Mr. Darrow—There is one question I would like to call your attention to.

Mr. Hicks—All right, Mr. Darrow.

Mr. Darrow—A question of law. I would like to have your view on it, and anybody else that speaks afterward. The caption of this act, as has been so often said, is entitled, "An act to prevent the teaching of evolution in public schools." The body of the act says: "Whoever teaches any doctrine as to the origin of man, contrary to that contained in the divine account in the Bible, and that he descended from some lower organism, is guilty," and so on. Now then, in order to make your act constitutional, the court must hold that the body of the act describes evolution. Does the court get me?

The Court—Yes.

Mr, Darrow--Do you?

Mr. Hicks—Yes.

Mr. Darrow—Unless the act itself is an act against evolution, then it is not constitutional, and, herefore, you must assume that this act forbidding the teaching of evolution, the body of the act not mentioning evolution, and the caption of the act does not present anything else, so, to say it is constitutional, you must say the body of the act means evolution.

Mr. Hicks—If your honor please, I do not care to take up that. Your honor has held that the act is constitutional.

The Court—Proceed with your argument, Mr. Hicks.

Mr. Hicks—Now, if your honor please, I insist this, when the experts come in they have to qualify upon two subjects, as experts upon the Bible and experts upon the particular branch of science, which they are supposed to know about. Now, why should these experts know anything more about the Bible than some of the jurors? There is one on there I will match against any of the theologians they will bring down, on the jury; he knows more of the Bible than all of them

Mr. Malone—How do you know?

Mr. Hicks—What is the interpretation of the Bible? Some of the experts whom they have brought here do not believe in God; the great majority, the leading ones, do not believe in God; they have different ideas—

Mr. Malone—If your honor please, how does he know until he gets them on the stand, what they believe? We object.

The Court—Sustain the objection; you cannot assume what they believe.

Mr. Malone——We would prefer for the sake of speed to have discussed only the witnesses whom we have