Page:The World's Most Famous Court Trial - 1925.djvu/79

 about it. We have been informed that the legislature has the right to prescribe the course of study in the public schools. Within reason, they no doubt have, no doubt. They could not prescribe it, I am inclined to think, under your constitution, if it omitted arithmetic and geography and writing, neither under the rest of the constitution if it shall remain in force in the state, could they prescribe it if the course of study was only to teach religion, because several hundred years ago, when our people believed in freedom, and when no man felt so sure of their own sophistry that they were willing to send a man to jail who did not believe them. The people of Tennessee adopted a constitution, and they made it broad and plain, and said that the people of Tennessee should always enjoy religious freedom in its broadest terms, so I assume, that no legislature could fix a course of study which violated that. For instance, suppose the legislature should say, we think the religious privileges and duties of the citizens of Tennessee are much more important than education, we agree with the distinguished governor of the state, if religion must go, or learning must go, why, let learning go. I do not know how much it would have to go, but let it go, and therefore we will establish a course in the publicepublic [sic] schools of teaching that the Christian religion as unfolded in the Bible, is true, and that every other religion, or mode or system of ethics is false and to carry that out, no person in the public schools shall be permitted to read or hear anything except Genesis, PilgrimsPilgrim's [sic] Progress, Baxter's SaintSaints' [sic] Rest, and In His Image. Would that be constitutional? If it is, the constitution is a lie and a snare and the people have forgot what liberty means.

I remember, long ago, Mr. Bancroft wrote this sentence, which is true: "That it is all right to preserve freedom in constitutions, but when the spirit of freedom has fled, from the hearts of the people, then its matter is easily sacrificed under law." And so it is, unless there is left enough of the spirit of freedom in the state of Tennessee, and in the United States, there is not a single line of any constitution that can withstand bigotry and ignorance when it seeks to destroy the rights of the individual; and bigotry and ignorance are ever active. Here, we find today as brazen and as bold an attempt to destroy learning as was ever made in the middle ages, and the only difference is we have not provided that they shall be burned at the stake, but there is time for that, Your Honor, we have to approach these things gradually.

Now, let us see what we claim with reference to this law. If this proceeding both in form and substance, can prevail in this court, then Your Honor, no law—no matter how foolish, wicked, ambiguous, or ancient, but can come back to Tennessee. All the guarantees go for nothing. All of the past has gone, will be forgotten, if this can succeed.

I am going to begin with some of the simpler reasons why it is absolutely absurd to think that this statute, indictment, or any part of the proceedings in this case are legal, and I think the sooner we get rid of it in Tennessee the better for the peace of Tennessee, and the better for the pursuit of knowledge in the world, so let me begin at the beginning.

Let us take this statute as it is, the first point we made in this suit is that it is unconstitutional on account of the divergence and the difference between the statute and the caption, and because it contains more than one subject. Now, my distinguished friend was quite right, every constitution with which I am familiar has substantially this same provision, that the caption and the law must correspond. He is right in his reason. Why? Lots of things are put through in the night-time. Everybody does not read all of the statutes, even members of the legislature—I have been a member of the legislature myself,