Page:The World's Most Famous Court Trial - 1925.djvu/191

Rh but their souls would be purified. I believe and we believe that men who are God-fearing, who are giving their lives to study and observation, to the teaching of the young—are the teachers and scientists of this country in a combination to destroy the morals of the children to whom they have dedicated their lives? Are preachers the only ones in America who care about our youth? Is the church the only source of morality in this country? And I would like to say something for the children of the country. We have no fears about the young people of America. They are a pretty smart generation. Any teacher who teaches the boys or the girls today, an incredible theory

—we need not worry about those children of this generation paying much attention to it. The children of this generation are pretty wise. People, as a matter of fact I feel that the children of this generation are probably much wiser than many of their elders. The least that this generation can do, your honor, is to give the next generation all the facts, all the available data, all the theories, all the information that learning, that study, that observation has produced—give it to the children in the hope of heaven that they will make a better world of this than we have been able to make it. We have just had a war with twenty-million dead. Civilization is not so proud of the work of the adults. Civilization need not be so proud of what the grown ups have done. For God's sake let the children have their minds kept open—close no doors to their knowledge; shut no door from them. Make the distinction between theology and science. Let them have both. Let them both be taught. Let them both live. Let them be reverent, but we come here to say that the defendant is not guilty of violating this law. We have a defendant whom we contend could not violate this law. We have a defendant whom we can prove by witnesses whom we have brought here and are proud to have brought here, to prove, we say, that there is no conflict between the Bible and whatever he taught. Your honor, in a criminal case we think the defendant has a right to put in his own case, on his own theory, in his on way. Why! because your honor, after you hear the evidence, if it is inadmissible if it is not informing to the court and informing to the jury, what can you do? You can exclude it—you can strike it out. What is the jury system that Mr. Bryan talked so correctly about just about a week ago, when he spoke of this jury system, when he said it was a seal of freedom for free men, in a free state? Who has been excluding the jury for fear it would learn something? Have we? Who has been making the notions to take the jury out of the courtroom? Have we? We want everything we have to say on religion and on science told and we are ready to submit our theories to the direct and cross-examination of the prosecution. We have come in here ready for a battle. We have come in here for this duel. I don't know anything about dueling, your honor. It is against the law of God. It is against the church. It is against the law of Tennessee, but does the opposition mean by duel that our defendant shall be strapped to a board and that they alone shall carry the sword, is our only weapon the witnesses who shall testify to the accuracy of our theory—is our weapon to be taken from us, so that the duel will be entirely one-sided? That isn't my idea of a duel. Moreover it isn't going to be a duel.

There is never a duel with the truth. The truth always wins and we are not afraid of it. The truth is no coward. The truth does not need the law. The truth does not need the forces of government. The truth does not need Mr. Bryan. The truth is imperishable, eternal and immortal and needs no human agency to support it. We are ready to tell the truth as we understand