Another part says: "After careful examination I can find nothing of consequence in the books now being taught in our schools with which this bill will interfere in the slightest manner. Therefore, it will not put our teachers in any jeopardy. Probably the law will never be applied. It may not be sufficiently definite to permit of any specific application or enstatute."
Now, your honor, I believe that that statement is important on the question of the public policy of the state, and has a bearing upon the question of whether this statute is reasonable or within the police powers of the state.
The Court—That is the governor's opinion about it.
Mr. Hays—But when it is a statement made in approval of a bill, your honor will agree with me that his signature is important in the approval of bills.
The Court—Yes.
Mr. Hays—Why not his statement?
Gen. Stewart—His signature on the act is all that could be important, to put the law in force.
Mr. Hays—These are our reasons—
Gen. Stewart—If your honor please, it is absurd to put that into the record.
The Court—He has the floor.
Gen. Stewart—I want to except to his reading any more. If he wants to put that into the record it might be proper to put it in without reading. I say it is not competent for any purpose.
The Court—I will tell you, gentlemen, without further argument, as I have said before, the state government is divided into three branches, one, executive, the other legislative, the other judicial. Of course, the legislative branch has nothing to do with interpreting the law, the courts do that. Gov. Peay—with all deference to Gov. Peay—does not belong to the interpreting branch of the government. His opinion of what the law means, whether or not it would be enforced, is of no consequence at all in the court, and could not have any bearing, and I exclude the statement.
Mr. Hays—I take an exception.
The Court—Yes.
Mr. Hays—May I ask that it be marked for identification?
The Court—Let the record show it was offered and excluded.
Mr. Hays—Will you mark this for identification?
(Passing to court reporter.)
The Court—Yes, mark it for identification. Are you ready to proceed with the case?
Gen. Stewart—Yes, we are ready.
The Court—Do you want the jury?
Gen. Stewart—The state is ready to proceed with the argument.
Mr. Hays—I do not think your honor wants the jury yet.
The Court—No.
Offers New Text Book.
Mr. Hays—We offer in evidence the message of the governor of the state approving the bill; first, for showing the public policy of the state; second, for the purpose of showing that the law providing for the school work: that was taught in the schools is not necessarily inconsistent with the teaching of which Scopes is accused, in other words, that the two laws are not necessarily inconsistent; and third, I ask the court to take judicial notice, without the presence of the jury, of the message of the governor as an indication of the public policy of the state. Motion denied. Excepted to. Statement is ruled out. Exception taken by defendant. Now, your honor, at the same line I wish to introduce in evidence the textbook that has now been adopted by your state commission, these parts—
Gen. Stewart—Your honor—
Mr. Hays—Why should I not be permitted to state what I wish to offer in evidence without interruption. May I make my statement without interruption?
Gen. Stewart—No, sir, you cannot do that.
The Court—The court can exclude that if it is improper. It cannot hurt you.
