Page:The World's Most Famous Court Trial - 1925.djvu/206

202 ascertained and proven, it has met the requirements of the statute, and has absolutely established the defendant's guilt; and with his guilt thus admitted and established, his ultimate conviction is unavoidable and inevitable, and that no amount of expert testimony can aid and enlighten the court and jury upon the real issues, or affect the final results. In other words, the state insists that by a fair and reasonable construction of the statute, the real offense provided against in the act is to teach that man descended from a lower order of animals, and that when this is accomplished by a fair interpretation and by legal implication, the whole offense is proven. That is, the state says that the latter clause interprets and explains that the legislature meant and intended by the use of the clause, "any theory that denies the story of divine creation as taught in the Bible."

But the defendant is not content to agree with the state in its theory, but takes issue and says that efore there can be any conviction the state must prove two things:

First, that the defendant taught evolution in the sense used in the statute;

Second, that this teaching was contrary to the Bible.

That these are questions of fact, that the proof must show what evolution is, so that the jury may determine whether evolution as taught by the defendant conflicts with the Bible; that it is not merely what the defendant said, or what the book taught; and that they cannot do this without evidence. That is, that the defendant must have taught the descent of man from a lower order of animals, and a theory contrary to that of divine creation as taught by the Bible. That the teaching of either would not be a crime.

Now upon these issues as brought up, it becomes the duty of the court to determine the question of the admissibility of this expert testimony offered by the defendant.

It is not within the province of the court under these issues to decide and determine which is true, the story of divine creation as taught in the Bible, or the story of the creation of man as taught by evolution.

If the state is correct in its insistence, it is immaterial, so far as the results of this case are concerned, as to which theory is true; because it is within the province of the legislative branch, and not the judicial branch of the government to pass upon the policy of a statute; and the policy of this statute having been passed upon by that department of the government, this court is not further concerned as to its policy, but is interested only in its proper interpretation and, if valid, its enforcement.

Let us now inquire what is the true interpretation of this statute. Did the legislature mean that before an accused could be convicted, the state must prove two things:

First—That the accused taught a theory denying the story of divine creation as taught in the Bible;

Second— That man descended from a lower order of animals.

if the first must be specially proven, then we must have proof as to what the story of divine creation is, and that a theory was taught denying that story. But if the second clause is explanatory of the first, and speaks into the act the intention of the legislature and the meaning of the first clause, it would be otherwise.

To illustrate, when the legistature had provided that it shall be unlawful to teach a theory that denies the divine story as taught in the Bible; and, then, by the second clause, merely clarified their intention, and that the real intention as provided by the statute taken as a whole, was to make it unlawful to teach that man descended from a lower order of animals, then there would be no such ambiguity and uncertainty as to the meaning of the statute, and as to the offense provided against, as to justify the court in calling expert testimony to explain.

The court will seek the aid or opinion of expert evidence only when the issues involve facts of such complex nature that a man of