Evening star., 1925-07-15
RAULSTON DENIES
MOTION TO QUASH
SCOPES INDICTMENT
Rejects Every Argument Of
fered by Evolution
1 Defense.
HOLDS TENNESSEE LAW
WITHIN STATES RIGHTS
No Restraint Put on Liberty to
Worship, He Says-0pening
Prayer Protested.
BY the Associated Press.

DAY TON, Tenn, July ID uuSe
John T. Raulston today denied the de-
fense motion to quash the indictment
against John T. Scopes. The judges
decision upheld the constitutionality
of the Tennessee antievolution law.
The motion to quash was made
, Monday and the day was spent in
argument. Judge Raulston was occu-
pied all of yesterday in writing his
decision, which was voluminous. 1t
took up each contention of the de-
fense and ruled that the defendant
would be required to plead further.
Poses, Decision in Hand.
Before reading his decision on the
q fense motion to quash, Judge
RaulSton consented to pose for pho
tographers, with the decision in his
hand.
After the judge read the grounds
on which the defense sought to quash
the indictment he discussed the au-
thorities cited. Discussing the al
legged discrepancy between the cap
ton of the act and the body of the
bill itself he said:
The general title to the act is one
which is broad and comprehensive
and covers all legislation germane to
the general subject stated. The title
may cover more than the body. but
II must not cover less. 1t need not
index the details of the act, nor give
a synopsis thereof"
In the particular case. he said. the
caption of the act provided that the
purpose of the act is to prohibit the
teaching of the evolutionary theory
in the public schools of the State.
1T is true that this provision is
rather general in its nature" he con
tinued, and in my conception of the
terms employed in the caption and
the body, those used in the caption
are broader and more comprehensive
than those employed in the body of
the act, but in my opinion the cap
ton covers all the legislation pro-
vided for in the body and is germane
thereto, and in no way obseures the
legislation provided for"
I'm my judgment, the caption . =
is sufficient to put any member of the
Legislature on notice as to what the
nature of the proposed legislation is,
and really the caption is more COM
prehensive than the body of the act"
The second point, alleging a viola
tiOn of a constitutional provision
that the Legislature should cherish
literature and learning in schools Of
the State he passed over with the
DTleI statement Oh IHe law, since lne
point had not been pressed by the
defense.
The next a purely technical point
charging the bill had not been read a
sufficient number of times in the two
houses of the Legislature before it's
enactment. also was dismissed with Il
simple reading of the constitutional
provision.
- 6 L.,
\ Taking up the next phase, which
alleged a violation of the Constitu-
tional right to worship God accord
ing to the dictates of the in
dividual conscience, he declared he
failed to see how this act in any
wise interferes or in the leastwise re-
strains any person from worshiping
God in the manner that pleaSes him.
II gives no preference to any par
ticular religion or mode of worship.
Our public schools are not maintained
as places of worship. but. on the other
hand. designed, instituted and are
maintained for the purpose of mental
and moral development and disci-
pine"
He also failed to see how the teach
er's rights under the same provision
of the State constitution were violated
by the act, since there is no law in
the State of Tennessee that under
takes to compel this. defendant or any
other citizen TO accept employment in
the public schools"
These relations. he said, are purely
,Contractual. and If his conscience
Constrains him TO teach the evolution
theory ne can find opportunities else
where in other schools of the State
and give full IMPRESSION to
his beliefs and convictions upon this
and other subjects without any inter
ference from the State Of Tennessee
or its authorities.
Neither do I see how the act lays
any restraint on his right to worship
according to the dictates of his con
science. Under the provisions of this
act this defendant, or any other per
sons, can entertain any religious be
lief which most appeals to their con-
science"
The statute. he also held, does not
unlawfully deprive Scopes of any of
his liberties. privileges or property.
The alleged vagueness in the indict-
ment. he held did not exist, since it
substantially copies the words of the
statute and is, therefore, sufficiently
certain