the procedure in the state of Tennessee. First, our opponents object to the jury hearing the law; now, they are objecting to the jury hearing the facts. The jury is to pass on questions that are agitated not only in this country, but, I dare say, in the whole world. There is one proposition made by the opposition, which I believe is unusual; that is, the insistence by the prosecution of trying the case for the defense; for they are continually telling your honor their theory in this case. And, when we have tried to present our theory of this case, they have objected. The learned attorney-general started his argument this morning by saying, we admit Mr. Scopes taught something contrary to the law, while we admit that Mr. Scopes taught what the witnesses said that he did, but as to whether that is contrary to the theory of the Bible should be a matter of evidence. Possibly the prosecution are without evidence. There are other rather unusual propositions of law I have heard this morning and I think they are based on possible differences in fact. One thing appeals to me in this case; that is, that my mind is so constituted that while I concede all the law the other side presents, I cannot see how it is in point. I concede anything Mr. Bryan said on that subject, yet it does not bear on the questions before us. Certainly no court has ever held it to be dangerous to admit the opinions of scientific men in testimony. Jurors cannot pass upon debatable scientific questions without hearing the facts from men who know. Is there anything in Anglo-Saxon law that insists that the determination of either court or jury must be made in ignorance? Somebody once said that God has bountifully provided expert witnesses on both sides of every case. But, in this case, I believe all our expert witnesses, all the scientists in the country are only on one side of the question; and they are not here, your honor, to give opinions; they are here to state facts. For instance, in Mr. Bryan's Tennessee case, where it was concluded that an expert could not give an opinion as to whether the fall of an elevator was caused by negligence. Of course, he could not. Even I, coming from New York, would know that. But an expert could state the facts with reference to the control of a hydraulic elevator. On that point, the expert did not give only opinion evidence. Experts state facts, but, of course, so far as the weight of their authority is concerned, we want to point to your honor that not a single expert in this case is a paid expert, and every scientist who comes here comes in the interest of science, with no promise of compensation. Which leads me to be sure we can warrant theirs being impartial testimony.
With respect to the remark made by Gen. McKenzie the other day, when he said that any Tennessee school boy of 16 should understand this law, I wish to say, that if that is so, they forget it by the time they get to the age of Atty.-Gen. Stewart, and do not again acquire it by the time they reach the charming age of Gen. McKenzie.
Now, as to evolution, does your honor know what evolution is? Does anybody know? The title of the act refers to evolution in the schools, but when that is done, you do not know what evolution is. I suppose ultimately, the jury, because under your constitution they are the judges, ultimately, of the law as well as the facts, and they will have to pass on the evidence, and that is a question that has been observed by scientific men for at least two centuries.
I have in my hand a part of a proof of the book by Dr. Newman, whom your honor, I hope, will have an opportunity to hear. I hope your honor will not give up the opportunity to hear him.
Two Darwinisms.
Dr. Newman says:
"The secret of the difficulty lies in the fact that there are two Darwinisms, the popular one and the technic one. The layman uses the term Darwinism as a synonym of evolution in the broadest sense; the evolutionist never uses the word in this sense, but always uses it as a
