Page:The World's Most Famous Court Trial - 1925.djvu/74

 story of divine creation and that, if Your Honor please, is sufficient. The act is sufficient to notify him what he is charged with, and therefore the indictment is sufficient, and it complies with the requirements of the law. And when it meets that requirement, and the further requirement that it is sufficient for the court to know to be able to render judgment upon conviction. The next is Article 8, Section 11, general laws, only to be passed. "The legislature shall have no power to suspend any general law for the benefit of any particular individual inconsistent with the general laws of the land, nor to pass any law granting to any individual or individuals right, privileges, immunities or exemptions, other than such as may be by the same law extended to any member of the community who may be able to bring himself within the provision of such law. No corporation shall be created or its general powers increased or diminished by special law; but the general assembly shall provide by general law, for the organization of all corporations hereafter created which laws may, at any time, be altered or repealed; and no such alterations or repeal shall interfere with or divest rights which have become vested."

I don't see that there is anything in that assignment to discuss. One observation, however, I have discussed in discussing this sufficiency of the indictment—it was suggested in conversation between Mr. Darrow and myself that if a man is indicted for murder, he cannot simply be indicted for the unlawful murder of another—as Mr. Darrow says he must be told or he must be accused of murdering some particular man who must be named in the indictment. That is true as a matter of common sense. That is true as a matter of construction of our murder statute. It is true our murder statute says it shall be unlawful for any person to kill any reasonable creature in being. And, of course, you have to name who is killed.

(Reading) In that the act violates Section 2, Article 2 of the constitution of Tennessee. "No person to exercise power of more than one department."

The Court—Gentlemen, the jury will not be sworn this afternoon, and you photographers will have to move out.

Gen. Stewart—You might let the officers dismiss them for the day?

The Court—Yes. Let the jury go home, Mr. Officer?

Gen. Stewart—The next assignment, if the court please, is that no person or persons belonging to one of these departments shall exercise any of the powers properly belonging to either of the others, except in the cases herein directed or permitted.

Mr. Darrow—We are not going to argue that.

Gen. Stewart—We will just strike that then. They say they do not reply on the next assignment—Section 2, Article 2 of the constitution.

Mr. Neal—We do not insist on it.

Mr. Darrow—Oh, we don't care.

Mr. Stewart.—Let's strike it then?

Mr. Neal—All right.

Gen. Stewart—They are willing that that be stricken. The next is, the indictment—

Mr. Darrow—Will you tell me what that is, to be sure?

Gen. Stewart—Under (j) Section 2, Article 2. The next is that the indictment is so vague as not to inform the defendant of the nature and cause of the accusation against him. I have already argued that. The next is that the statute is void. I have already argued that. And void for indefiniteness and uncertainly [sic]. And the next assignment is the only one, if Your Honor please—is the principal one, I think on which this case rests. It is the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States constitution, and that and the other—that and the constitution of Tennessee—raising the same questions are the ones that I think the case must terminate on. (Reading).

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, as citizens