THE DAYTON TRIAL

Otago Witness, Issue 3724, 28 July 1925, Page 24

THE DAYTON TRIAL

SCOPES FOUND GUILTY. NEW YORK, July 21. Scopes was found guilty. The verdict was returned after eight minutes’ deliberation. He was fined lOOdol. An appeal will be lodged in the Ten nessee Supreme Court. Warm passages were frequent between the opposing counsel. Mr Bryan, who entered the witness box, replying to Mr Darrow’s questions whether or not he believed that the whale swallowed Jonah, and whether he believed that God made the whale big enough, or Jonah small enough, declared that God could make a fish big enough to swallow a man. He believed what the Bible said. One miracle was just as easy to believe as another. Asked if he believed that Joshua commanded the sun to stand still, Mr Bryan said that he accepted the Bible story absolutely. Asked what would happen if the world stood still, he replied: “God would take care of that.” He added that he was there to protect revealed religion. A DRAMATIC ENDING. NEW YORK, July 21. Scopes was held in bail of 500 dollars pending his appeal in September. A Baltimore newspaper offered and was accepted as security for the bail bond. Asked if he had any statement to make before sentence was imj>osed Scopes declared: “Your Honor 1 feel that I have been opposing an unjust law. I will continue to support my ideals.” The trial came to a sudden and dramatic ending following on Mr Darrow’s short, sharp examination of Mr Bryan as a Bible expert, causing the AttorneyGeneral to cry, “What is the meaning of this harangue?” Mr Harrow shouted angrily, “To show up Fundamentalism and to prevent bigots and ignoramuses from controlling the educational system of the United States.” Mr Bryan, springing to his feet and shaking his fist in Mr Harrow’s face, cried, “To protect the Work of God from the greatest atheist and agnostic in the United States.”

Mr Bryan and Mr Harrow were anxious to continue with their avowed purposes, but the judge called a halt and ordered Mr Bryan’s testimony to be expunged from the record, claiming that it was irrelevant to the question at issue—namely, Did Scopes teach that man was descended from a lower grade of animals? A conference between the attorneys for the prosecution and the defence decided to forgo all the closing speeches, and Mr Harrow asked for a verdict of guilty, since the only way to test the law was to take it to a higher court. He said: “We have done our best to turn back the tide that has sought to force itself on the modern world of testing every fact of science by religious dogma.” Judge Raulston’s final tribute might be regarded as a tribute to the defence of a principle. He said, “A great man is one who has ft passion for truth and follows it against all opposition. It takes courage to oppose public sentiment.” An exchange of courtesies followed the end of the trial, all in good humour, the

defence thanking Tennessee for its hospitality. Judge M Kenzie, prosecuting counsel, on behalf of the citizens of the country, said: “We have learned to take a broader view of life since you came. We want to be more broad-minded than some people give us credit for. Thank you for coming. We respect your attitude and think we have benefited.” ECHO OF SCOPES CASE. WASHINGTON, July 22. A test suit to restrain the authorities from teaching evolution and other science* in the public schools in the district of Columbia has been filed by Mr Lauren Wittner, a Government clerk. The suit involves all the unheard evidence in the Scopes trial and seeks to prevent the payment of the teachers’ salaries under a clause of the Appropriation Bill passed by the Congress, stating that no part of the funds should be used to teach disrespect for the Bible. The petition contends that biology denies the Biblical story of the origin of man and teaches the disintegration of organic bodies after death, whereas the Bible saye that all will rise on the Judgment Day. It also refutes the Biblical statement that man is the perfect physical image of God. It alleges that chemistry teaches that one elemental matter cannot be changed into another, whereas the Bible says that Christ made wine from water, God made man from the dust of the earth, and turned Lot’s wife into a pillar of salt. It alleges that physics teaches that the rainbow is a natural reflection of light rays on the water in the clouds, whereas the Bible states that God made the rainbow as a promise to Noah that no flood would again kill all life. It alleges that astronomy shows that the sun is the centre of the solar system around which the earth revolves, whereas the Bible states that the earth is the centre of the universe, that the earth was created four days before the sun, and that the sun, moon, and stars travel around the earth. It alleges that philology shows that language and speech are the" gradual outgrowth of thqught, whereas the Bible teaches that the earth had one language until God confounded man’s speech in the Tower of Babel. Mr Wittner has brought the suit as a taxpayer of the district. He said: “I am on the side of science. I have filed the suit to determine what Congress really meant by the restrictive clause.” THEOLOGY v. BIOLOGY. WASHINGTON, July 23. The city legal forces have set themselves the task of nipping in the bud any court exposition of evolution theories against the teaching of the Bible, such as occurred at the recent Dayton trial. Counsel for the Corporation declared that Mr Wittner’s complaint was full of technical errors.