The Washington times., 1925-07-10
6 7 At { I D
TAKE No
CHANCE
Continued from First Poge.)

CConC1nued from F1rSC FaSeJ
firebrand from New York, and Ar
thur Garfield Hayes, famed for his
defense Of liberal ideals.
barrow and Hayes sat in their
shirt sleeves. Malone appearing un'
comfortable in his smart city attire.
They sat directly opposite Bryan
and his associated local prosecuting
counsel. Bryan was IN shirt Sleeves,
too, as the heat was unbearable in
the courtroom. Once the commonec
arose. walked across the courtroom
aud shook hands with barrow. Both
smiled friendly greetings.
With order finally restored, after
photographers had laid down their
LECTURE barrage. Circuit Attorney
A. r. Stewart asked for a new IN
dictment.
While Stewart did not announce
Immediately that the old indictment
was abandoned. his purpose was APP
parent.
Judge Raulston Immediately called
prospective jurors from the court
room. When one juror objected he
cause. Of the pressure of business.
Stewart arose and said: II don't
think we will need the jury more
than forty-five minutes"
This move of the prosecution, it
was learned, was caused by the
fact that the original indictment OF
Scopes was returned by a grand
jury which had been summoned
without the required sixty days
legal notice of their meetings. The
prosecution feared this technically
might ultimately be used by the de-
Tense to overturn conviction by an
ANIMAL IN hfObaF cnnFf
The issues in the case are
these:
1. Whether any law limiting pub
lie education is a violation Of the
jealousy guarded constitutional
guarantees. of freedom of speech
and freedom Of opinion.
2. Whether any State has the
right to dictate what shall be
taught in State-aid schools.
8. Whether the courts viii de-
eide that science really does con-
tradict the Biblical story of the
Creation Of Man.
Defend Constitutionality.
On these issues the State will
base its fight not so much to con-
Wet Scopes as to defend the con-
stitutionality Of the Tennessee law.
The defense, at the same time,
viii devote its supreme effort not
80 much to acquitting Scopes an to
tearing down the whole structure
Of the anti-evolution act as uncon-
stitutionaI.
The indictment on which young
with ''unlawfully and wilfully
teaching in the public schools OF
Rhea county TENNESSEE. which
taid public schols are supported in
rart and in whole by the public
school funds Of the State. certain
theory or theories that deny the
story Of the Divine Creation Of man
ee taught in the Bible. and did
teach. instead thereof. that man
has descended from a lower order
cf animals
Taught Biology Text.
And what Scopes taught were
lessons from Hunters "Civic Biol
ogy," which was approved by the
State Board Of Education. One of
It's passages, and the one that was
cited to the Grand Jury, which in
dicted him. reads as follows:
THE great English scientist,
Charles Darwin, from this and other
evidence, explained the theory Of
evolution. This is the belief that
simple IOrnlS Oh Ike OH the cal III
slowly and gradually gave rise to
those more complex and that thus.
ultimately, the most complex form
imam came into existence"
A fine legal distinction can be
drawn by the defense as to whether
this statement from Hunters Civic
Biology" actually denies the Di-
vine Creation of man. To find
Scopes guilty, the State must prove
that this passage, or some otner
similar passage in the same text
book, contradicts the Biblical story
Of Adam and Eve. The grand jury
thought so. but the jury listened TO
only one side of the question. The
courts may reach a different con.
clusion.
On the other hand, il Scopes did
deny the Divine Creation Of man
by teaching the textbook theory of
biology, then two constitutional is
sues will be drawn into the Gaze.
And this is the most likely out
come.
Attack Speech Ban.
The defense then will attack the
anti-evolution law as unconstitu-
tional on the contention "a that q
State has no right TO limit public
C0dIdIIOu' i~J llldt any ia"
limiting education Is a violation OF
the Constitutional guarantee OF
freedom of speech and freedom OF
opinion.
Judge r. Raulston. who presided
at the opening Of the trial today,
has announced his readiness to pass
upon the constitutionality of the
law
IF the attorneys ask for q de-
cision on the constitutionality of
the anti-evolution law" he said, II
will hear arguments on both sides
and deliver my decision. II should
= hold the law unconstitutional, that
would finish the case in this court,
and the State could appeal to the
State supreme court. If I should
hold the law constitutional, the trial
would continue and the defense then
could appeal after a verdict was
rendered"
So, whatever the outcome of the
drama being played in this little
Tennessee town. the greater issues
undoubtedly will be decided by the
Supreme Court of the United
States.