the importance and nonimportance of certain things or the construction of certain passages. All along the line they do not agree among themselves and cannot agree among themselves. They never have and probably never will. There is a great division between the Catholics and the Protestants. There is such a disagreement that my client, who is a school-teacher, not only must know the subject he is teaching, but he must know everything about the Bible in reference to evolution. And he must be sure that he expresses his right or else some fellow will come along here, more ignorant perhaps han he and say, "You made a bad guess and I think you have committed a crime. No criminal statute can rest that way. There is not a chance for it, for this criminal statute and every criminal statute must be plain and simple. If Mr. Scopes is to be indicted and prosecuted because he taught a wrong theory of the origin of life why not tell him what he must teach. Why not say that you must teach that man was made of the dust; and still stranger not directly from the dust, without taking any chances on it, whatever, that Eve was made out of Adam's rib. You will know what I am talking about.
No Man Could Obey Law—No Court Could Enforce It
Now my client must be familiar with the whole book, and must know all about all of these warring sects of Christians and know which of them is right and which wrong, in order that he will not commit crime. Nothing was heard of all that until the fundamentalists got into Tennessee. I trust that when they prosecute their wildly made charge upon the intelligence of some other sect they may modify this mistake and state in simple language what was the account contained in the Bible that could not be taught. So, unless other sects have something to do with it, we must know just what we are charged with doing. This statute, I say, your Honor, is indefinite and uncertain. No man could obey it, no court could enforce it and it is bad for in-definiteness and uncertainty. Look at that indictment up there. If that is a good indictment I never saw a bad one. Now, I do not expect, your honor, my opinion to go because it is my opinion, because I am like all lawyers who practice law; I have made mistakes in my judgment of law. I will probably make more of them. I insist that you might just as well hand my client a piece of blank paper and then send the sheriff after him to jail him. Let me read this indictment.
Reads from Newspaper
I am reading from a newspaper. I forget what newspaper it was, but am sure it was right: "That John Thomas Scopes on April, 1925, did unlawfully and willfully teach in the public schools of Rhea County, Tennessee, which public schools are supported in part and in whole—" I don't know how that is possible, but we will pass that up—"In part or in whole by the public school funds of the state a certain theory and theories that deny the story of the divine creation of man as taught in the Bible and did teach instead thereof that man is descended from a lower order of animals." Now, then there is something that is very elementary. That is one of them and very elementary, because the constitutions of Tennessee provides and the constitution of pretty near every other state in the United States provide that an indictment must state in sufficient terms so that a man may be appraised of what is going to be the character of charge against him. Tennessee said that my friend the attorney-general says that John Scopes knows what he is here for. Yes, I know what he is here for, because the fundalmentalists are after everybody that thinks. I know why he is here. I know he is here because ignorance and bigotry are rampant, and it is a mighty strong combination, your Honor, it makes him fearful. But the state is bringing him here by indictment, and several things must be stated in the indictment; indictments must state facts, not law nor conclusions
