Seward daily gateway., 1925-07-14

nessee affixed his signature to "An act prohibiting the teaching of the evo- lution theory in all the high schools, normals, and other public schools of Tennessee, which are supported in whole or in part by the public school funds of the state, and to provide pen alties for the violation thereof"
 This is the now famous, or noto- rious Anti-Eyolution Law, for the vio- lation of which a few weeks later, John Thomas Scopes was indicted by a grand jury in Dayton, Tennessee. Mr. Scopes is now being tried on this indictment. His trial is attracting more public attention of national character than any other court pro- ceeding since the Leopold-Loeb case in Chicago. The interest which has been aroused, and which will proba bly, increase until the end of the trial is due more to certain personalities in the case than to public concern about the theory of evolution. Will liam Jennings Bryan will be associ- .ated with the prosecution, while Clar- eence Darrow, the celebrated criminal lawyer of Chicago will be in charge of the defense.
 Main Legal issue.
 The legal issue involved is that of the constitutionality of the law which young MT. Scopes has appar- ently transgressed. The constitution al question arises out of the due pro- cass" clause of the Fourteenth Con- stitutional Amendment. Therefore, the main issue is extremely technical and, one would suppose, extremey dry. It would naturally be assumed that neither of the two leaders ln the case is particularly qualified to dls- cuss this dry constitutional question. The one is a politico-religious evan gelist; the other is successful crlm- inal lawyer and a philosophical pessl- mist, The explanation of the curious turn which preparations for the trlal have taken is that both the propo- nents and opponents of the law real ize that the constitutional questlon itself is largely bound up with other 7ssues Whether the Anti-EVolutlon law violates that liberty of the clt1- zen which is guaranteed by the que nrocess" clause of the Constitution is a question which the courts Will answer in the light of their views about science, religion, the Bible, edu- cation. public schools, and other mat ters which lie outside the field or technical constitutional theory.
 The statute forbids any instructor in public institution ito teach any theory that denies the story of the Dl- vine Creation of Man as taught Ill the Bible, and to teach instead that Man has descended from lower or der of animal" In sense the law IS a reasonable one. That is to say, the teaching which it forbids ought not to be permitted in public schools, Tor these schools should be, and in theory are. neutral on the subject of rell- gion If it is improper for any pup lie school instructor to teach any par 4icular form of religious belief, 1t IS also improper for him to teach any religious belief. To tell his pupils that the story of the Divine Creation of man as taught in the Bible" IS not true, is surely violation of the neu trality of public schools. To put be- fore the pupils such teachings under the claim of academic freedom is to exceed the bounds of reasonable lib erty of instruction. Such abuses o1 academic freedom constitute one Of the principal reasons why many de nominations desire their young peo pie to avoid the secular high schools and colleges We are only too well aware that in the classes of history biology, physics, sociology, and phy losophy, doctrines are taught which are at variance with many religious principles. Therefore many churches maintain their own schools and col leges.
 Reasons for Condemnation.
 Nevertheless, the Tennessee Anti Evolution Statute is deserving of con demnation. While the anti-religious teaching at which it was aimed ought to be kept out of the public schools the method of preventing it by state law is bad method. Specific legis lative regulation of the doctrines te be taught in the schools is easily lia ble to abuse. The teacher who is ac cused of violating the Anti-Evolution