FAMOUS CASE RECALLED

Hawera Star, Volume LIV, 18 January 1935, Page 11

FAMOUS CASE RECALLED

THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION TEACHING BAN IN TENNESSEE STATE A LAUGHING STOCK. Sir John Ambrose Fleming’s vigorous challenge to the whole Darwinian theory of evolution made dining his presidential address to the Victoria Institute and Philosophical society, reported in the cables on Tuesday, recalls a famous trial held as recently as July, 1925, in which town of Dayton, Tennessee, in which the State legislature made an effort, and incidentally a laughing stock of itself, in trying to enforce a statute declaring that the preaching of

evolution was illegal. The case is admirably described by Edward Hale Bierstadt in his book, “Curious Trials and Criminal Cases.” “July,” writes Air. Bierstadt, “is apt to be a hot month in the United States and the. July of 19*25 was no exception. Ju the little town of Dayton, Tennessee, the heat waves flickered and trembled, and the Rhea County Court House resembled closely the Black Hole of Calcutta. But the. heat of summer was as nothing compared to the fires of prejudice that burned brightly in that same town and under that same roof.” John Thomas Scopes was charged with violating the anti-evolution .statute of the State of Tennessee. The statute was passed on IMareli 21, 1925, and read : “Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the State of Tennessee : That it shall be unlawful for any teacher in any universities, normal, and all other public schools in the State, which are supported in whole or in part by the public school funds of the State, to teach the theory that denies the story of the divine creation of man as taught in the Bible, and to teach instead that man is descended from a lower order of animals.” Tlie author of this absurdity a farmer by the name of John Washington Butler, is reported, says Mr. Bierstadt, to have said later, “I never had any idea that my Bill would make a fuss. I just thought it would become law, and that everybody would abide by it.” Little did John Washington know, the writer comments. He .states that Mr. Butler later volunteered, “If I had it all to do over again, I’d have introduced it two years earlier—in my first term in the Legislature. I didn’t know anything about evolution when T introduced it. . . When the Bill passed, I naturally thought that we wouldn’t hear any more about evolution in Tennessee.”

The sublime faith in legislation indicated by that last sentence, says Mr Bierstadt, is worthy of the type of mind that brought into being the 19th Amendment of the Federal Constitution (the Volstead Act, enforcing Prohibition. Quite possibly, nothing more would have been heard of evolution in Tennessee had it not been for a certain gentleman of liberal ideas, with convictions on the rights of man, who resolved to test the constitutionality of the law. This was Dr. George Rapplevea, of Dayton. He investigated and found first that his friend Mr. Scopes, had used in his high school class a textbook on biology that contained matter which appeared to violate the statute; second that Air. Scopes was willing to offer himself as a. test case; and third, that the American Civil Liberties Union was ready to finance the defence. Forthwith, Dr.Rappleyea swore out a warrant against his friend, who was promptly indicted by the Grand Jury for caching evolution. Mr. William Jennings Bryan offered his services to the prosecution, on the theory that the Tennessee legislature might have been influenced in its action by his own anti-evolution resolution which had been passed in Florida. Mr. Clarence Darrow, probably the most .noteclf criminal lawyer in the United States, promptly volunteered for the defence, being joined by Mr. Dudley Field Malone. Judge J. T. Raulston presided. Dayton was in a twitter of excitement*. And so, for that matter, was the rest of the community. The little county scat was crowded, and it was hot, very hot indeed. The court opened with prayer, a distinct novelty to the visiting attorneys, and

the fight was on. It lasted many days, and it included numerous passages of a humourous and an exciting nature. For instance, at one stage there was a serious discussion over the date ol the blood, it was mentioned also that, according to Bishop Usslier’s calculation the exact time of creation was 9 a.m. on October 23, 4004 B.C. AYhon Ibis was brought out in court some depraved individual added in. an audible whisper “Eastern Standard Time.”

However, it had been agreed by both sides that a real test of the anti-evo-lution statute could only be made in the higher court and while the defence had pleaded not guilty, it was entirely willing that a contrary verdict ihould be returned. The jury stayed out nine minutes and brought back a verdict of guiity. The Court imposed a line of 100 dollars. The defence at once filed notice of their appeal to the Supreme Court of Tennessee. Argument was heard in June, 1926. The atmosphere was quiet and dignified, but tense. It was clear that the Court wanted to prevent the ease going to the Supreme Court of the United States. Tennessee had made a fool of herself and knew it. The less publicity

now the better. The gist of the decision was that the law was constitutional, but that the fine had been improperly imposed by the judge. More, the court directed tho Attorney-General to nolle piosse all proceedings in the ease. In effect, this meant that the statute was not intended to be enforced. Hence it is perfectly safe to “bootleg” evolution in Tennessee to-day. The State trial had closed on. a Tuesday, and the following Sunday afternoon William Jennings Bryan, counsel for the prosecution died, worn out, says Air. Bierstadt, by a lifetime of lighting.

Not long after tlio ease line! boon heard an anti-evolution measure was introduced in the Kentucky Legislature, but it was laughed out of existence when a member proposed a companion statute that would compel all water in Kentucky to run both up ancl ( down bill.