Page:The World's Most Famous Court Trial - 1925.djvu/72

 hoarse, as a result of his effort and we could not interfere with him; but he cannot go into the public schools, or a school house, which is controlled by the legislature and supported by the public funds of the slate and teach this theory. Under the exercise or the police power, we should have a right to object to it. The legislature has a right to control that. Now if your honor please, Mr. Hays said this morning, by way of injecting a little fun into this matter, I presume, what he conceived to be an act, the equal in viscious qualities to this, and prescribing the death penalty upon any man who might undertake to teach a certain theory or system—as to the earth being round I believe he said; I forget which it was.

Mr. Hays—Round. Round in our city.

Gen. Stewart—How is that? Round in your city? You must live on a hillside. Is it round in New York?

Mr. Hays—All round.

Gen. Stewart—The inference was that this act was absurd to him as an act carrying the death penalty for teaching a theory in contravention of what modern science claimed as a natural and well-known proposition. I presume that under this right to regulate liberty and freedom of thought and freedom of speech, that Mr. Hays would insist that the court should construe the act at bar in this manner—without reflecting, if Your Honor please, on Your Honor, or anybody—that the court in ruling on this would say. (Reading. )

"Law of the land and due process of law have been defined to mean one and the same thing. The law of the land as Daniel Webster has said, is the general law, which hears before it condemns, and proceeds upon inquiry before it renders judgment, and after hearing. The law of the land applies to all amendments, with certain restrictions." No property right is involved in the right of a man to teach in a public school. We come again to the proposition of the exercise of the police power of the state. A man has no vested right, he has no civil right, he has no inherent right, and no right that he can claim as a property right, as a teacher in a public school, except those which are subject to the control of the legislature. So there can be no serious contention there, if Your Honor please; that is a right that is subject to the constitution and subject to the acts of the legislature in the exercise of the police powers.

Mr. Darrow—No person shall be put to answer a criminal charge but by presentment or by indictment.

Gen. Stewart—What particular section do you mean there? Section 14, Article 1 of the constitution is as follows:

"Crimes punished by presentment, etc. That no person shall be put to answer any criminal charge, except—

Mr. Darrow—We mean indictment.

Gen. Stewart—Except by presentment, indictment or impeachment. The two things are void. The whole indictment?

Mr. Darrow—Yes, sir. It doesn't state any crime.

Gen. Stewart—It would void the statute, would it?

Mr. Darrow—We claim the statute is void; and that it is based on those two grounds.

The Court—That the statute is too meager, they claim, General. I think, and therefore, that the indictment, is too meager.

Mr. Neal—That under this law it is not possible to draw an indictment, and therefore this defendant was being tried without indictment.

Gen. Stewart—The wording of the indictment complies with the wording of the statute. In such a case it is generally held to be good.

The Court—As I understand, general, after disposing of the statute they say there is no indictment.