synonym for natural selection, one of Darwin's chief theories. The general principle of evolution has nothing to do with natural selection. The latter might be totally discredited without in the least shaking the validity of the principle. But this situation is not at all understood by the antievolutionists, who believe that Darwinism (the principle of evolution) is inextricably bound up with Darwinism (the theory of natural selection).
Well, there is a short statement, but of course, it is a comprehensive statement and your honor would want the facts to show how experts—how the scientists came to their opinion, and if your honor says that opinion evidence cannot be introduced, at least evidence of the facts may be introduced, so you gentlemen can determine the facts, and then draw your opinion as to what this statute means. Any boy of sixteen can understand this law, you say, why any boy of sixteen, without special study doesn't even understand the term "lower order of animals" and neither does the prosecution. Their theory seemed to be at the beginning that Prof. Scopes taught and that evolution teaches that man has descended from a monkey. If Prof. Scopes taught that, he would not be violating this law. Now, you will need evidence to prove that that is a fact, because the orders of animals were classified by Linnaeus about 200 years ago, which was an artificial classification. In the first order—the primate order, was man, monkeys, apes and lemurs. That is the first order. To prove that man was descended from a monkey would not prove that man was descended from a lower order of animals, because they are all in the same order of animals—the first order—and that is the use of the term "order of animals" by zoologists and I suppose we have got to interpret this term according to its usual use and so even if Prof. Scopes taught what the prosecution thinks, even then according to our theory, they would not prove that Scopes taught that man descended from a lower order of animals. They might say that man came from a different genus but not a lower order of animals. Perhaps that is new to you, gentlemen, and I confess it was new to me and yet these men had the audacity to come into court and ask the court to pass upon these questions without offering any evidence. What are the questions of fact in this case? Before I get to that I should like to read to your honor this quotation from 22 Corpus Juris, page 165. I don't think I need cite the authorities, because it is almost hornbook law.
The Court—Will you furnish me the memorandum?
Mr. Hays—Yes, sir.
Mr. Hays (Reading)—"It is no objection to the admissibility to a party's testimony that is competent only on his theory of the case; he has a right to have the case submitted to the jury on his theory if there is any testimony to support it."
Hays Says Prosecution Wants One Side Only
When these gentlemen tell your honor what their theory of the case is, and then say, "the defense should put in no evidence because this is our theory" they immediately suggest to your honor that you should hear one side of the case only. Your honor may know of the occasion some time ago when a man argued a question for the plaintiff before a judge who had a very Irish wit and after he had finished the judge turned to the defendant and said, "I don't care to hear anything from the defendant, to hear both sides has a tendency to confuse, the court" (Laughter in the courtroom). These people cannot bind us by their theory of what our case is. Now then we start at the beginning with a very simple proposition of evidence.
The Court—Have you a paperweight there?
Mr. Hays—I have lots of them, your honor. Where did they get the idea that in a court of law evidence is not admissible to elucidate and explain what it is about? Is the court and jury to pass on a question without knowing what these ques-
