Page:The World's Most Famous Court Trial - 1925.djvu/194

190 the necessity of evidence in this case? We have witnesses who can testify to all of this and all that we ask is a chance.

The Court—I was just endeavoring to get Col. Darrow's conception of the theory. I will hear you, Gen. Stewart.

Gen. Stewart—This discussion, which is supposed to be a purely legal discussion, has assumed many and varied aspects. Young Haggard, with the prosecution, suggests to me that it would be necessary that I preach a sermon in order to answer what has been said. My views of things—it has been my nature to always be progressive and liberal in the use of the word evolution. The word evolution, as Mr. Bryan stated, has been misunderstood. The word has been misused. I am not an evolutionist, I don't believe that I came from the same cell with the monkey and the ass, and I don't believe they do as much as they appear anxious to be so classified. I believe that civilization was one time at a very low ebb. I believe that it was in an embryonic stage, so to speak. I believe there was a little civilization. I believe that man is more or less a cave-man and I think sometimes when our tempers get ruffled that we have sufficient evidence of that fact, as I am sure Mr. Hayes will agree with me. I do not ascribe to this theory of evolution, however, which undertakes to teach in defiance of the law of the state of Tennessee, that man descended from a lower order of animals. This is an argument being presented to your honor for the purpose of aiding or assisting your honor, if such be possible, from these gentlemen interested on both sides of this case, in determining whether or not scientific testimony shall be introduced here. The primary purpose of which is to show that there is no conflict between science and the Bible, or strictly speaking, that there is nothing in the theory of evolution that man came from a lower order of animals which conflicts with the story of divine creation. I think, your honor, this turns on an entirely legal question. Mr. Bryan, Jr.—William Jennings Bryan, Jr, very ably presented to the court this norning, even though he was sick and hardly able to do it, a splendid brief that he had prepared on the subject of such testimony being an invasion of the right of the court and jury. That having been so ably handled, I only care, your honor, to discuss this feature, and that is the construction of the act. Who has a copy of that act, please?

Mr. Malone—I have a copy of it. (Mr. Malone gives copy of act to Gen. Stewart.)

Gen. Stewart—We are all familiar at this time with the wording of the act, but it is well to have it before us.

(Counsel thereupon read the act in question.)

Your honor is familiar with the citations, and above all of them, that the cardinal rule of construction in all instruments, and this includes legislative acts, is that the court shall always endeavor to construe the instrument in full accord with the intention of the maker thereof.

The general assembly, the legislators, convened at Nashville, the last session, that is the spring of 1925— passed this act. It was passed on the 21st. It was signed or approved by the governor on the 21st of March. According to the working of the act it takes effect from and after its passage, which means the date of approval, March 21st. The intention being the test which the court always placed upon written instruments.

Then we have a broad latitude of discussion in undertaking to ascertain what was the intention of the legislature in the passage of this act. To determine this intention the whole act is looked to. The caption, the body and all of the act, and as your honor well knows, outside matter, except under very peculiar circumstances, is inadmissable to