The Washington times., 1925-07-15

preme Courts ruling that the
power Of the State to make reason
able regulation for all schools is not
questioned. nor has challenge been
made Of the States power to pre-.
scribe q curriculum for institutions
which 1t supports"
I'm the absence of expressed con-
stitutional provisions, Raulston
ruled, "the power Ito control
schools) must necessarily reside in
the legislature, and hence it has
the power to prescribe a course of
study as well as. the books to be
Power Is Not Doubted.
I'VE find neither reason nor au-
thority that suggests q doubt as
to the power Of the legislature to
require designated series OF books
to be used in school.
Under the holdings in the Ore
gon case and In the Nebraska case
and In the Leeper Tennessee case,
the court is satisfied that the act
involved In the case at bar does
not violate the Fourteenth Amend
ment to the Constitution of the
United States and is therefore
pleased to overrule this ground"
As he read his decision, Raulston
famed himself. Once, when he
tried to switch the fan to his other
hand, a policeman stepped up, grab
bed the fan and stood behind him
waving it. From then on, the court
was cooled with all the ceremonies
accorded Egyptian kings of old.
Raulston dismissed. as> a minor
matter. the defense contention that
the title Of the Law was unconstitu-
tional. holding it really was more
comprehensive than the body OF the
act" He also overruled the con.
tention that the law conflicted with
the State constitutional provision
Tor protecting science. He held he
had no jurisdiction to act on this
question az the question OF statu-
tory policy" rested solely with the
legislators.
The court likewise dismisseV the
contention raised by the defense
that the law violated Scopes con-
stitutional guarantee Of religious
freedom.
Il cannot conceive how the teach.
ers' rights under this provision
ton would be violated by the act
in isue,' said the court. There
is no law in the State OF Tonnes.
see that undertakes to compel this
Defendant, or any other citizen. to
accept employment in the public
schools. Neither do see how the
act lays any restraint on his right
to worship according to the distates
OF his conscience. The court is
pleased to overrule this ground"
Jury Called Impartial
Raulston also held the anti evo-
luton law did not violate the
constitutional right OF. due proc.
ess of law" His criminal rights,
the judge added, were ala pro.
tected because he was being given
a speedy public trial by an I'm
partial jury"
The court further held that
Scopes was fully informed OF his
alleged offense and overrWAnA the
motion on that ground. He also
denied the defense's contention that
the indictment was irregular.
Several minor points were similar.
ly overruled while the crowd SWEET
cred in the intense heat.
Then there came the furry of
motions from defense counsel and
the Judge ordered a recess. A few
minutes later, he reconvened the
session only to adjourn until this
afternoon.
A temporary truce was effected
today when the opening prayer was
delivered by Doctor Charles Francis
Potter, a Unitarian minister and
noted evolutionist from New York.
Doctor Potter was chosen for the
ceremony by the Dayton pastors
association at the request of Judge
John T. Raulston. The prayer,
however, was again objected to by
Scopes counsel, even though the
minister came here to be de-
tense witness.
Defense Still Objects.
Doctor John r. Neal, of Scopes
counsel, voiced the protest and
announced that an exception was
taken to the judges ruling per.
hitting the prayer. He cited an
opinion from the Supreme Court of
the United States, which. read: 1.-The
court will take judicial notice that
the religious world is divided into
numerous sects and that a general
doctrine is obtained by each sect"
His announcement provoked State
counsel protest against the con
slant heckling each morning" by
Sue K. Hicks, youngest of the local
prosecuting attorneys, he demand
ing the court prohibit tbs defenses 7
constant objections - The daily
prayer. .
Judge Raulston repeated his
declaration that the prayer was a
custom in his court and that he
did not feel 1t would influence any
person in the case.
Sometimes when there hasn't |
been minister IN court" he said
quietly, II have called on some
GOOD old man, who believed in God, |
to open the court with prayer. I /,
don't believe 1t will hurt anybody !
and 1t may help somebody. So /