lower order of animals." If anything, your honor, the caption to this act is broader than the title. The caption of the act states the legislature's conception of the evolution theory, that is, that it states in words—in so many words—that this act shall prohibit the teaching of the evolution theory and the body of the act—I mean to say states the legislature's conception of the theory of evolution—that is the particular part they undertake to prohibit teaching. Now if anything, your honor, the caption of this act is broader than the title—broader than the body. It covers the evolution theory. It may be said that there are many theories of evolution but it refers in the body of the act to one particular theory of evolution which the legislature certainly had in mind when they passed the law. It has been repeatedly held by our courts that it does not invalidate the act if the caption is broader, or shall be broader than the body of the act—that doesn't invalidate it at all. All that is necessary under our law, is that the caption of the act and the body of the act shall be germaine one to the other. The caption of the act shall simply state enough to put the legislature on notice when the caption is read as to what they are passing—what they, the legislature, are passing upon. This, if your honor please, undertakes to deal with only one thing, and that is to prohibit the teaching in the public schools of Tennessee the evolution theory, that is the particular evolution theory that man descended from a lower order of animal. I don't think, your honor, that that can be seriously considered. I have several cases here—a number of citations I can read to your honor, but I know, of course, that your honor has had a number—or some questions presented to you a number of times and are familiar with the general principles.
The Court—You are insisting that if the caption is broader than the body of the act that it doesn't invalidate the act?
Says Caption is Broader Than the Act.
Gen. Stewart—Our insistence is that the only objection that could be made is that the caption is broader than the act and it is well settled in Tennessee that that would not invalidate it.
Mr. Darrow—There is no question but the caption is broader than the act, but the act can be broader than the caption. I think that is something different.
Gen. Stewart—The caption cannot be broader than the act and then the act in turn broader than the caption. I don't understand that.
Mr. Darrow—We understand that the caption may be broader than the act.
The Court—Without affecting the validity of the act?
Mr. Darrow—Yes, but the act cannot be broader than the caption, or cannot include something that is not in the caption and two subjects cannot be included.
Gen. Stewart—No, that is true, there cannot be, and certainly if the caption of the act is broader than the body of the act, then the body of the act could not be broader than the caption. That could not be true both ways. If the caption is broader than the body, then there couldn't be two subjects within the body of the act, but there are not two subjects in the body of the act. I understand their insistence, your Honor, to be that in order to violate this act it must be necessary first to teach, by specific reference to the story of divine creation in the Bible, that that is untrue—that the story of divine creation is untrue, and to say at the same time that instead of that the story of man's creation by evolutionary process is true. I understand that to be their insistence and about all I would care to remark—to say in remarking to that, would be this, that we have a rule of construction in Tennessee which prohibits the court from placing an absurd construction on the act and that certainly would be an absurd construction. Now the next assignment if the court pleases is that
