Page:The World's Most Famous Court Trial - 1925.djvu/73

 Mr. Darrow—On both grounds, Your Honor.

Gen. Stewart—There is no way of discussing them without discussing them together.

The Court—Of course the indictment could not be more comprehensive than the statute, and if the statute is too meager therefore, the indictment would be too meager.

Gen. Stewart—And if the statute is good the indictment is good.

Mr. Darrow—We claim that the indictment should set out what the offense was—what the doctrine was—what his version of the doctrine was.

Gen. Stewart—Undertake to set out the full and complete doctrine?

Mr. Darrow—Yes.

Gen. Stewart—I do not understand that to be the law. It would be impossible to frame an indictment properly under that, and no indictment can be presented. An indictment must state facts, and not conclusions of law. Course there is no conclusions of law stated here. An indictment must charge the crime with certainty and show such facts and circumstances as constitute the crime; a mere statement of conclusion on the law, is sufficient. The law says it shall be a violation of the law for a man in our public schools to teach a theory that denies the divine theory of creation and that man descends from a lower order of animals. The indictment complies with the wording of the statute in toto. If the statute is good, then the indictment must be good. Now, if Your Honor please, they say it is too vague; he does not know what he is charged with. We must set out in our indictment that he taught Little Johnnie Jones that a man is descended from a monkey, a gorilla, or what not, and told him this in the following words, to-wit: It is not necessary that we state all that; it is sufficient under our law that he may know what he is charged to answer. This indictment says that John Scopes, on such and such a date, taught a theory denying the divinity of Christ and that man is descended from a lower order of animals. He is notified sufficiently under this what he is here to defend. That is all that is necessary and all that is required under our law.

In Harris vs. State, in 71 Tennessee, Page 326—

Mr. Darrow—71 Tennessee?

Gen. Stewart—At page 326. In that case it is held that the words of the statute must be followed, or otherwise the defendant might be charged with one offense and convicted of another.

By our code, Section 5117, only such a degree of certainty is required as will enable the court who sits on it, to form judgment, and they comment, less strictness. As has always been held in this state—it has always been held in this state, that less strictness is required in indictments for misdeameanorsmisdemeanors [sic] than in felonies. That is from Section 5117, that is where they require that only such degree of certainty is required as will enable the court to pronounce judgment upon conviction. That the section is based upon that same section of the constitution.

All that is necessary under both of them is that the defendant may know what he is charged with and that the court may intelligently pronounce judgment upon conviction. That is all that is required, and that, in my opinion, makes it entirely sufficient. I see no reason why this indictment is too vague. If we had charged John Scopes with unlawfully teaching in the public schools of Rhea county and said no more, then, certainly, he would not be upon notice with what he has was [sic] charged to come here and defend. But we say that he has unlawfully taught a theory that denies the story of divine creation and has taught instead that man descended from a lower order of animals, and what could be plainer? What is there vague and indefinite and uncertain about that? You did not prepare a brief here to defend him on a charge of arson, did you? He is not here for transporting liquor, and he knows it. He is here for teaching a theory that denies the