Mr. Malone—Because it imposes a religious opinion, yes. What I mean is this: If there be in the state of Tennessee a single child or young man or young woman in your school who is a Jew, to impose any course of science a particular view of creation from the Bible is interfering, from our point of view, with his civil rights under our theory of the case. That is our contention.
Gen. Stewart—Mr. Malone, could not he go to school on Friday and study what is given him by the public school; then on Sunday study his Bible?
Mr. Malone—No, he should be given the same right in his views and his rights should not be interfered with by any other doctrine.
Gen. Stewart—It is not an invasion of a man's religious rights. He can go to church on Sunday or any other day that there might be a meeting, and worship according to the dictates of his conscience. It is not an invasion of a man's religious liberty or an invasion of a man's religious rights. That question cannot determine this act. It is a question of the exercise of the police power. That is what it is, and nothing else, and if they undertake to pass an act to state you shall not teach a certain Bible or theory of anything in your churches, an invasion of a private or civil act, then, according to my conception of this, it might interfere with this provision of the constitution. But this is the authority, on the part of the legislature of the state of Tennessee, to direct the expenditure of the school funds of the state, and through this act to require that the money shall not be spent in the teaching of the theories that conflict or contravene the Bible story of man's creation. It is an effort on the part of the legislature to control and direct the expenditure of state funds, which they have the right to do. It is an effort on the part of the legislature to control the public school system, which they have the right to do.
Insists it is Question of Police Power.
Gen. Stewart—That question cannot determine this act. It is a question of the exercise of the police powers of the state; that is what it is and nothing else, and if they undertake to pass an act saying you cannot teach the Bible or any certain book in any of your Bibles, that is an invasion of civil rights and that would interfere with their rights under the constitution. But this is a statement on the part of the legislature of the state of Tennessee, which directs the expenditure of the school funds of the state, and this is an act requiring that their money shall not be expended in teaching theories that contradict the Bible. It is an effort on the part of the legislature to control the expenditure of state funds, which it has the right to do. It is within the province of the legislature to control the public schools of the state. This is not an invasion of individual rights, nor of the right of worship in the different churches. If they taught there anything that conflicts with this act it would not prohibit attendance at such a church. That is not what it restricts, nor does it undertake to control one's conscience. I have gotten ahead of their assignment, however. Another question is as to the violation of Section 19, Article 1, of the constitution of Tennessee, as to the freedom of speech, the printing press, etc. From the formation of this union, one of the inalienable rights of a citizen has been the right to speak freely on any subject. Being responsible, however, for the abuse of that privilege, or to prosecution, for the publication in papers investigating men in a public capacity, and by indictment for libel, where a jury shall have the right to determine under the law and the facts, under the direction of the court, as in any other criminal case. Now this assignment under freedom of speech, Dr. Neal insists upon. Under that question, I say, Mr. Scopes might have taken his stand on the street corners and expounded until he became
