The Indianapolis times. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1922-1965, 1925-07-17

OdA lON uAN'NA -
II. Scopes for teaching evolut
through a ruling by Judge Johl
to science.
The Judge held that scientific evi'
dence on evolution offered by the
defense was inadmissible, which left
little to do but hear the closing ar
guments and find the young school
teacher guilty.
The defense, however, put forward
a proposal. Testimony Of scientists
should be submitted for the benefit
of the court with the jury barred.
Court Agrees
Judge Raulston agreed to this.
whereupon William Jennings Bryan
interposed a demand for right to
cross.examine the scientists.
Clarence Darrow said the defense
would not stand for this and 1t
finally was decided that the testi'
mony in question would be sub
mitted in the form of affidavlts.
Judge Raulston will consider
these and in the meantime the trial
stands adjourned until Monday
morning while the affidavits are be-
ing prepared. Raulston said II this
testimony altered his opinion he
would reverse himself and have 1t
given to the jury.
In holding against the defense, on
the scientific evidence. Judge
Raulston said he conceived his duty
TO be to take the general intent OF
the Legislatures opinion in passing
the anti-evolution law into considera'
ton and not quibble over a word.
why call expert Witnesses he
said. There is nothing complex
about the wording of the act. The
court sustains the State in It's OBJ
lection to rule out the expert wit
nesses."
Raulston sustained in detail the
prosecutions contention that the
phrase Of the law, "and to teach in
stead that man is descended from
lower animals" only clarified
the prohibition against teaching
evolution" by stating what 1t
meant.
Daily WrangIe EnsueS
Argument over the ruling which
followed reading ofthe opinion
brought the daily clash between At
torney-General Stewart and Arthur
Garfield Hays, defense attorney.
In the course of the wrangle
Stewart said the defense is, try.
ing to make a farce out Of the
case"
Dudley F.. Malone, another de.
fense attorney, asked Stewart to
withdraw his remark.
"I1l withdraw it," Stewart said
" but will substitute 1t with another
The defense looks upon the trial as
a chance 10 educate the world on
their theories of evolution"
Malone denied that the defense
was here TO educate the world"
DbTOW OfCAt uACu
IF the defense is representing
anything outside the case" he said,
1T is merely interested in meeting
the campaign Of propaganda which
was begun by those represented by
the prosecution.
Bryan asked IF these expert wit
nesses are to testify. I suppose they
will be subject to cross-examina-
tion?"
Yes" answer Raulston.
I'VE have definite objection to
that" said Darrow.
"If It is allowed, we will ask that
Mr.. Bryan be put on the stand"
Raulston over.ruled Darrow's OBJ.
lection.
Judge Defled
I'VE expect to protect our rights
in some other court" said Darrow
That's plain enough, isn't II? I
don't understand why every motion
and every suggestion we make is
promptly over-ruled."
"I hope you don't intend this to
be a reflection on this court" said
Raulston.
"You can hope" replied Darrow.
squaring himself.
"I can do something else" said
Raulston. threateningly.
IAN right, all right. said Darrow
grimly standing determinedly with
his arms folded like Ajax defying
the lightning.
But Judge Raulston refused to
hold the distinguished Chicago law
yer in contempt and turned to
Bryan, who asked something about
cross-examination.
Refuses to Re Photographed
You would not have the right to
cross-exanline." said Darrow en-