New Britain herald., 1925-07-17


 "Now. upon these issues as brought lp r becomes the duty of the court 70 determine the question of the aimsslh!llfy of thls expert testimony offered by the defendant
 "It IS not within tAa province of the court under these issues 10 de- eide and determine creation as taught in the Bible or the a'ory ot the creation Of man as taught by evolution.
 If tho s'a'a Is correct in l's in sis,ence, t Is lmmlteu8l so far as ,he results are concerned. as 10 which theory Is true; because Y IS O.l'Mn inc province of the legisla- i've branch and not the lullcia branch ot th4 EoHcrnmen' 10 pass ppon the policy cf statufr; and inc policy of this statute having hson passed upon by that depart ment of tho Eolernment, thts court IS not further concerned as 10 its policy. but Is interested only in is proper interpretation, and II yalid, its enforcement,
 "Lot us nov inqutre what 's the true interpretation Of this statute. rid the legislature mean that be- fore m accused could be convicted the stat" must prove two things:
 'Firsr that the accused taught q theory denying the story Of divine creation as taught in the Bible;
 "Soconl. that man descended from lower order of animals.
 "Jt the fre, must ho specifically proved. then we must haze proof as to what the story of divine crea- tion is and that a theory was taught denying that story But if the sec ond clause IS explanatory of the first and speaks into the act the lntcn- tion Of the legislature and the meaning of the first clause, 1t would be otherwise.
 ITO illustrate. when the legislature had provided that it shall be unlaW- ful 10 teach a theory that denies the divine story as taught i'll the Bible; and then by the second clause mere ly clarified their intention, and that the real intention provided by the statute taken as 2 whole vas 10 make f unlawful 10 teach that man descended from lower order of animals. then there would be no such ambiguity and uncertainty as 10 the meaning of the statute and as to the offense provided against, as 10 justify the court in calling in ex- pert testimony 70 explain,
 "The court will seek the aid or opinion of expert evidence only when the issues involve facts of such com pley nature that man of ordinary understanding is not competent and qualified 10 form an opinion
 Tn Tennessee an act should be | the purposes for which it vas en- acted.
 "The legislative intent will pre- vail over the strict letter and in order to corry into effect its intent. general terms will he limited, and those which are narrow expanded. Tn Construing q statute we must look to the act as 8 whole, to the object with which it deals and the reason and spirit of the enactment, and thereby, if possible" discover its real purpose. The meaning must te determined, not from the special words in q single sentence of sec 'ion. but from tho get taken as q whole, Comparing on" section with another, and flowing the Legislation in tho liEht of it's general purposes, ," 1 Tn the act involved in the case ! at bar, if it is found consistent to ! interpret the latter clause as ey- i planatory of the legislative intent as to the offcnse provid d against. then why call experts, The ordinary. non export mind ran comprehend f tho simple language 'dAscended from a lower order of animal"
 "'b "o are not ambiguous words or compleX terms Rh while dis cp " th"eo words. hv way of rarenthosis, desire to suggest that I believe cvolutionists should at least show man th" consideration to substitute the word ascend for the word 'dcscond'
 Tn tho final analvsis, this court. after 2 most earnest "nd ca fu1 consideration has reached the con- cnsion that under th" provisions Of i tho act involved in this case. it is made unlawful thereby . teach in ! thc public enhool3 Of tho state of | Tennessee the theory that man de
 City Engineer Joseph n. Williams and Chairman F. r. Hall Of the