Talks of Littleton and Carlisle.
Gen. McKenzie—From the South, we have Martin W. Littleton, I guess these gentlemen admire him. We do. We feel proud of him. We think he is so smart that he scintillates—stands at the very head of his profession, and I thought that I was paying the gentlemen a compliment, I never meant anything about it. This is our country from one ocean to the other, and from New York to that section away down where we can bathe our feet in the Gulf of Mexico and all our possessions, and you know this, the thing of bathing your feet ought to be a good thing, it world save the use of selling so much of this antifoot sweat.
Then we had another great man up there from the South, considered a pretty fair lawyer, John S. Carlisle. We had a great big sign up there, it said: "Counsellor of Counsellors"—a powerful, good man to resort to if you happened to get into a pinch, in a tight place for knowledge. We love him. We love these distinguished gentlemen, and love our local counsel, they are one of us, among us.
But, to the question in controversy in this case, if the honorable court please, as earnestly as I have believed any proposition of law to be established in this state, I believe that this act construes itself; that there is not a thing on the face of the earth that is ambiguous about it.
We Have Done Crossed the Rubicon.
We have done crossed the Rubicon. Your honor has held that the act was reasonable, within the powers of the legislature; that it was not vague, indefinite and void as it was insisted as one of their grounds for motion in this case. That has been passed over, that it was a valid exercise of the police power of the state of Tennessee and that Tennessee had the right to regulate its common schools and prescribe any common school curriculum it desired. That never left anything on the face of the earth to determine, except as to the guilt or the innocence of the defendant at bar in violating that act. The theory of evolution, as to whether it contradicts the Bible, your honor has allowed and correctly so, to introduce that Bible on the stand and it has been read to the jury. It is the duty of your honor to construe all writings if it gives any constructtion, that is the oldest principle of law in every state in this Union, it is a primary principle of law. What is there to construe? Another thing, is there any ambiguity about it, that these distinguished gentlemen through their experts can explain, that is competent in evidence in this case? No, a thousand times no, if it has a single bit of ambiguity bearing on the face of the instrument, there is no remedy for it. It can not be, as the old language of the law is, helped by expert proof, that is the language, it has been held a thousand times in regard to wills and deeds, and other instruments. I have an authority right here, it is an old one, your honor knows all about it, if it is obsolete on i stface, too void for enforcement, you can not make a new contract by shooting in your proof, and it must fall only if there is a case of latent ambiguity; that is, if it says, "I bequeath to my good friend Col. Darrow, of New York, my shotgun," and there happens to be two Col. Darrows up there, they say you can introduce proof to show which Col. Darrow I have reference to.
Not Opposing Bible.
They do not undertake to destroy the Bible, or set up a story in contradition of it, but attempt to reconcile, that is the point I want your honor to catch, and I know your honor does.
Says God Made Man Complete.
The Court—General, let me ask you a question. Is this your position, that the story of the divine creation is so clearly set forth in the Bible, in Genesis, that no reasonable minds could differ as to the method of creation, that is, that man was created, complete by God?
Gen. McKenzie—Yes.
The Court—And in one act, and not by a method of growth or de-
