of law. It is all well enough to show that the indictment is good if it charges the offense in the language of the statute. In our state of Illinois, if one man kills another with malice aforethought, he would be guilty of murder, but an indictment would not be good that said John Jones killed another. It would not be good. It must tell more about it and how. It is not enough in this indictment to say that John Scopes taught something contrary to the divine account written by Moses—maybe—that is not enough. There are several reasons for it. First, it is good and right to know. Secondly, after the shooting is all over here and Scopes has paid his fine if he can raise his money, or has gone to jail if he cannot, somebody else will come along and indict him over again. But there is one thing I cannot account for, that is the hatred and the venom and feeling and the very strong religious combination. That I never could account for. There are a lot of things I cannot account for. Somebody may come along next week and indict him again, on the first indictment. It must be so plain that a second case will never occur. He can say to him, "I have cleared that off."
No Other Indictment Like This One
He can file a plea that he has already been put in jeopardy and convicted and paid the fine, so you cannot do it over again. There is no quesion about that, your Honor, in the slightest and the books are full of them. I have examined, I think all the criminal cases in Tennessee on this point. I don't like to speak with too much assurance, because sometimes you get held up on such a thing, but I assume that if they have got anything on the other side I would have heard from them, and I have, with the aid of my assistants and helpers, they doing most of the work, I have examined most all of them, and if there is another indictment in Tennessee like it I haven't found it, and plenty of indictments have been declared void in Tennessee because they did not tell us anything—plenty of them. I do not think there ever was another one like it in Tennessee, and I am not referring to the subject matter now because I know there never was, as far as the subject matter goes, but I am speaking of the form of it. Now, Mr. Scopes, on April 24 did unlawfully and wilfully teach in a public school of Rhea county, Tennessee, which public school is supported in whole or in part by the public school fund of the state, certain theories that deny the story of the divine creation of man. What did he teach? What did he teach? Who is it that can tell us that John Scopes taught certain theories that denied the story of the divine—the divine story of creation as recorded in the Bible. How did he know what textbooks did he teach from? Who did he teach? Why did he teach? Not a word—all is silent. He taught, oh yes, the place mentioned is Rhea county. Well, that is some county—Maybe all over it, I don't know where he taught, he might have taught in a half a dozen schools in Rhea county on the one day and if he is indicted next year after this trial is over, if it is, for teaching in District No. 1, in Rhea county, he cannot plead that he has already been convicted, because this was over here in another district and at another place. What did he teach? What was the horrible thing he taught that was in conflict with Moses and what is it that is not in conflict with Moses? What shouldn't he have taught? What is the account contained in the Bible when he ignored, when he taught the doctrine of evolution which is taught by every—believed by every scientific man on earth. Joshua made the sun stand still. The fundamentalists will make the ages roll back. He should have been informed by the indictment what was the doctrine he should have taught and he should have been informed what he did teach so that he could prepare, without reading a whole book through, and without waiting for witnesses to testify—we should have been prepared to find out whether the thing he taught was in
