You said on one occasion, that the case would warrant one of three decisions: First, one of not guilty; second, that the defendant taught evolution and, third, that the law was unconstitutional. Either that the law was unconstitutional, but that there was nothing in the subject of evolution when the subject was properly understood, to break down religious faith. Can we take that position, your honor, without showing what evolution is, without showing what the subject is?
Doesn't that require evidence?
And, finally, with your honor so ably stating the duties of a judge, that a judge should begin all investigations with an open mind, and never hastily or rashly rush to a conclusion, so long as there is any question of either law or fact in doubt he should diligently inquire for the truth.
When your honor said that, had you any doubt, as a lawyer, that in this investigation you wanted to hear the facts and the law to the fullest extent?
Who is afraid of the statement of facts? Or do our friends on the prosecution feel that our scientists merely state opinions, and give no evidence of facts? But if this is to be an investigation facts are necessary. If this is to be an investigation, your honor, as a lawyer, knows it is necessary to properly introduce that evidence.
It may be your view was made up from the fact that the court has a right to inform himself. It may be your view is narrower than mine? Or your honor's duties, as the court, to inform the court, but if you, as a lawyer, had a mind that this evidence was admissible, there is no doubt whatever, and shall take it not only as a lawyer, but also as a judge, because yesterday your honor stated that the caption of the act was germane to the body. "In my conception of the terms employed in the caption of the body."
Judge Should Have Open Mind
That was your conception before you heard the evidence. Now, the evidence is to be produced, and I assume that, when lated we make a motion to dismiss, or a motion in arrest of judgment, and argued again, your honor will take it up and hear us with an open mind. Am I right about that?
The Court—Oh, yes.
Mr. Hays—That your honor's position would be the same unless you permitted the introduction of evidence.
Now, then, I assume when all of us were lawyers and not advocates, we agreed that the evidence was admissible.
Your honor, this is a serious thing. It is an important case. The eyes of the country, in fact of the world, are upon you here. This is not a case where the sole fact at issue is whether or not Mr. Scopes taught Howard Morgan that life was evolved from a single cell.
The Court—We will take a few minutes recess.
Whereupon a few minutes were taken. After which the following proceedings were had:
(Following recess.)
The Court—I will hear you, Mr. Malone.
Mr. Bryan—No, Mr. Malone is entitled to speak after Mr. Hicks and Gen. McKenzie.
The Court—Oh, I see.
Mr. Bryan—They are only to have two arguments, we want to use two more.
Mr. Hicks—If your honor, please, in this case, as we understand, they will only have one more argument for the defense, I think it would be proper that the general go ahead and present his arguments at this time, and leave me out.
The Court—No, I will hear you all.
Mr. Hicks—If your honor please—
The Court—Come around.
Mr. Darrow—We want to hear you.
Mr. Malone—You are the best looking man on that side.
Mr. Hicks—If your honor pleases, it is now insisted by the defense that they have the right to inject into this lawsuit a large number of theologians and scientists from different parts of the United States, who will come in here and testify that science and the Bible are not
