Q—As to the guilt or innocence of Prof. Scopes?
A—No, sir; that is what I mean.
Q—You talked to Prof. Scopes in regard to the case?
A—At that time, yes, sir.
Q—And heard him say as to what he taught?
A—No, sir.
Q—What did he talk to you in regard to what he taught?
A—He just made the statement, someone asked him—I was in the conversation and I don't remember what the conversation was, someone asked him if he taught evolution and he made the remark that he taught what was in the textbook. That was way back there.
Q—Still you didn't form an opinion?
A—I say I am sure he taught what was in that book. I am confident of that.
Q—You still didn't form an opinion about it, after he said he had taught that?
A—Not as to his guilt or innocence as to this indictment, no, sir.
Mr. McKenzie—I will pass him to you, Colonel. Just a second, please.
Q—Mr. Dunlap, do you know where F. E. Robinson Company place is, where it started?
A—Yes, sir.
Q—I will ask you if you haven't participated in a number of arguments down there time and again in regard to this case?
A—Oh, yes.
Q—And after you have taken the affirmative or negative of this question, then you want the court to understand you have no opinion even though you have argued it down there at the drug store?
A—Mr. McKenzie, the point I am trying to make is if he is guilty of teaching evolution as the law defines it, someone smarter than I am will have to tell you. I know he taught school in the state and we have argued it and everybody else.
Q—As I understand you, Mr. Dunlap, if the statute should say that this man should not teach anything contrary to the Divine Creation of man as taught in the Bible and this textbook that you have spoken of teaches something contrary to that, then you would still have to have additional evidence before you could arrive at it, as to whether or not he was innocent or guilty?
Mr. Darrow—That question is argumentative.
Mr. McKenzie—I am trying to ascertain what his opinion is in regard to the matter.
The Court—I rather think your question was a little involved, Mr. McKenzie. Ask him again, I didn't get that.
Mr. McKenzie:
Q—I say if this law should state that no theory shall be taught that conflicts with the story of the creation of man as taught in the Bible and then this textbook teaches that man evolved from a one-cell animal, then you think it would take still additional proof?
A—No, sir, if that testimony would come up in the trial my mind would be made up.
Mr. McKenzie—I submit, if the court please, he would not be competent.
The Court—I understand the attorney-general insists that—
Gen. Stewart—I understood this gentleman here to say he had a conversation with Mr. Scopes, in which Scopes told him that he taught evolution and if that is true I think that would disqualify the man as a juror.
The Court—Is that what you said, Mr. Dunlap?
A—I really don't remember what was said, whether he said that or not. I am under the impression he said he taught what was in the textbook.
Q—Is that all he said, you think?
A—That is all I remember.
Gen. Stewart—I understood him to say he told he had taught evolution.
Mr. Darrow—May I object to the question as to whether he told him he taught evolution? They have insisted that under the question here, the question as to whether a man came from some lower form, that that is in conflict with the Bible and
