Page:The World's Most Famous Court Trial - 1925.djvu/60

 creation. Have I violated the law? I presume our teachers should be prepared to teach every theory on every subject. Not necessarily to teach a thing as a fact. There are many hypothesis about which the world is talking. And we desire to know the facts. I can conceive a law as bad that would provide that we could not repeat the story of divine creation as taught in the Bible. It should not be wrong to teach evolution, or certain phases of evolution, but not as a fact. That is quite a different proposition. Even with all the discussion about this law, which has been talked about all over the United States, if I were a teacher in the schools of Tennessee I would not be able to tell whether I, in explaining to my children the facts concerning the theory of evolution, and the facts concerned in teaching the theory of divine creation in the Bible, whether I would know when I was violating this law.

I direct your honor's attention to the fact that a law cannot stand unless it is definite enough for a man to know when he is commitingcommitting [sic] crime. And if we are to teach this or not to teach that. We must know whether or not the making of a particular statement is a crime. If it means that we cannot teach certain things, it should be definitely stated. If it means that you cannot explain a certain theory that should be stated plainly, or whether either or both of them can be expounded.

And the last point to which I wish to address myself, is to consider this act under the police powers of the state. The only limitation on the liberty of the individual is in the police power of the state. The preservation of public safety and public morals falls under this head. The determination of what is a proper exercise of the police power is under the jurisdiction and supervision of the court.

Now, as to whether a law is reasonable or unreasonable under the police power of the state, I have taken the liberty of drafting a law, which it seems to me would be constitutional if this law is constitutional. I have entitled this, "An act prohibiting the teaching of the heliocentric theory in all the universities, normals, and all other public schools of Tennessee which are supported in whole or in part by the public school funds of the state, and to provide penalties for the violation thereof.

Sec. 1—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 and all other public schools in the state which are supported in whole or in part by the public school fund of the state to teach any theory that denies the story that the earth is the center of the universe, as taught in the Bible, and to teach instead, that the earth and planets move around the sun.

Sec. 2—Be it further enacted that any teacher found guilty of a violation of this act shall be guilty of a felony, and upon conviction shall be put to death.

Sec. 3—Be it further enacted that this act take effect from and after its passage, the public welfare requiring it. Now, my contention is that an act of that sort is clearly unconstitutional in that it is a restriction upon the liberties of the individual, and the only reason Your Honor would draw a distinction between the proposed act and the one before us is that it is so well fixed scientifically that the earth and planets move around the sun. The Copernican theory is so well established that it is a matter of common knowledge. I might say that when the Copernican theory was first promulgated, he was under censure of the state. The book was published in Hamberg and Copernicus was banished from the state. And Georgiana later fell under the displeasure of the inquisition, and was put to death, and because of that theory Galileo, too, incurred the displeasure of the inquisition. The only distinction you can draw between this statute and