Scopes Guilty of Teaching Evolution

Scopes Convicted of Teaching Evolution The Associated Press July 21, 1925

The Scopes trial, also known as the “Monkey Trial,” is one of the most famous courtroom dramas in United States history. At the request of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), Tennessee high school biology teacher John T. Scopes agreed to help test a state law known as the Butler Act that forbade the teaching of evolution theories. The court refused to consider the validity of the law. Instead, it asked the jury to determine only whether Scopes had violated that law. Renowned criminal lawyer Clarence Darrow argued for the defense, and famed orator and three-time presidential candidate William Jennings Bryan served as prosecutor. The defense did not deny that Scopes had broken the law and sought to test the law's constitutionality before a higher court. Scopes's conviction was later overturned on a technicality, but the law remained on the books until the 1960s.

Dayton (Tenn.) July 21—The trial of John T. Scopes on a charge of teaching evolution theories in the public schools in violation of the Tennessee law ended today in a verdict of guilty. The minimum fine of $100 was imposed by the court and bail for an appeal was fixed at $500.

The entire testimony yesterday of William Jennings Bryan was stricken from the record today by Judge John T. Raulston, who held that the cross-examination by Clarence S. Darrow of Mr. Bryan on Bryan's biblical views had nothing to do with the case.

Defense counsel then agreed to have the jury brought back into court and return its verdict.

The scene of the “evolution test” will be shifted from Dayton to Knoxville, where, under the regular order of procedure, the Tennessee Supreme Court will hear cases from this circuit the first Monday in September.…

The defendant made a surety bond for his appearance in Rhea County Circuit Court the first Monday in December, when the Supreme Court, it is expected, will have passed upon the case.

After both defense and State counsel had agreed this morning that the defendant should be convicted, the jury returned a verdict in less than ten minutes.

The defense then moved for a new trial and when this was overruled, Scopes's attorneys made the other customary legal motions to complete the record and send the case on its way to the Supreme Court.

The beginning of the end of the case that has covered a wide variety of subjects was noted soon after court convened this morning. Attorneys on the contending sides of the issue announced they had decided to forego argument and submit the case at once to the jury.

Judge John T. Raulston, before retiring to his chamber to prepare his charge, expunged Mr. Bryan's testimony from the record.… “I fear that I may have committed error yesterday in my over-zeal to ascertain if there was anything in the proof that was offered that might aid the higher court in determining whether or not I had committed error in my former decrees,” said the judge. “I have no disposition to protect any decree that I make from being reversed by a higher court, because, if I am in error, I hope that somebody will correct my mistake.

“I feel that the testimony of Mr. Bryan can shed no light upon any issues that will be pending before the higher court.

“The lawsuit now is whether or not Mr. Scopes taught that man descended from a lower order of animals. It isn't a question of whether God created man all complete at once, or it isn't a question of whether God created man by process of development and growth. These questions have been eliminated from this court and the only question we have now is whether this teacher taught that man was descended from a lower order of animals.…

“As I see it, after due deliberation I feel that Mr. Bryan's testimony cannot aid the higher court in determining that question. If the question before the higher court involved issues as to what evolution was, or how God created man, or created the earth, or the universe, this testimony might be relevant, but these questions are not before the court.

“So, taking this view of it, I am pleased to expunge this testimony given by Mr. Bryan yesterday, from the records of this court and it will not be further considered.”

The defense entered an exception to the action of the court and announced that application will be made to the higher court for a writ to have this testimony included in the record.

Clarence Darrow announced that the defense had no proof to offer on the issues laid down by the court that Scopes taught that man descended from a lower order of animals; that no contradiction would be offered and that the defense was willing to save time by having the jury brought in and instructed to find the defendant guilty.…

It was pointed out, however, that an admission of guilt would deprive the defendant of a right to appeal. After conferences between attorneys, it was decided that the judge should charge the jury and permit brief statements from defense and State to be made to the jury.

Before Judge Raulston charged the jury, Mr. Darrow submitted the revised form of procedure agreed upon, saying:

“We claim that the defendant is not guilty, but as the court has excluded any testimony except the one issue as to whether he taught that man descended from a lower order of animals, and we cannot contradict that testimony, there is no logical thing to come, except that the jury find a verdict that we may carry to the higher court, purely as a matter of proper procedure.”

Judge Raulston charged the Jury, reviewing the statute under which the indictment against Scopes was brought and calling attention to the limitations fixed by the court in the admissibility of testimony.…

“We came down here to offer evidence in this case and the court has held under the law that the evidence we had is not admissible,” said Mr. Darrow in addressing the jury.

“All we can do is to take an exception and carry it to a higher court to see whether the evidence is admissible or not. As far as this case stands before this jury the court has told you very plainly that if you think my client taught that man descended from a lower order of animal you will find him guilty. You heard the testimony of the boys on that question and heard read the books and there is no dispute about the facts.

“Scopes did not go on the stand because he could not deny the statements made by the boys. I do not know how you may feel. I am not especially interested in this, but this case and this law will never be decided until it gets to a higher court, and it cannot get to a higher court properly unless you bring in a verdict.…

“I do not want any of you to think we are going to find any fault with you as to your verdict. I am frank to say that while we think it is wrong, and we ought to have been permitted to put in our evidence, the court felt otherwise, as he had a right to hold. We cannot argue to you gentlemen under the instructions given you by the court—we cannot even explain to you that we think you should return a verdict of not guilty. We do not see how you could. We do not ask it. We think we will save our point and take it to the higher court and settle whether the law is good and also whether he should have permitted the evidence.”

“I do not think there is anything that can be said to the jury, other than Mr. Darrow has said,” said Atty.- Gen. Stewart, in addressing the jury. “Of course, the case in its present attitude, is that it will be threshed out by the Supreme Court. That is what the defense wants and the State wants.

“What Mr. Darrow wanted to say to you was that he wanted you to find his client guilty but did not want to be in the position of pleading guilty, because it would destroy his rights in the Supreme Court.”…

The jury retired at 11:20 o'clock and the verdict was read at 11:29.

Before passing sentence John T. Scopes, the defendant, addressed the court in response to the question from the bench: “Have you anything to say, Mr. Scopes, why the court should not impose punishment upon you?”

“Your Honor, I feel that I have been convicted of violating an unjust statute,” Scopes replied.

“I will continue in the future, as I have in the past, to oppose this law in any way I can. Any other action would be in violation of my ideal of academic freedom—that is, to teach the truth, as guaranteed in our Constitution—of personal and religious freedom. I think the fine is unjust.”…

Defense attorneys tonight had begun the work of perfecting their appeal to the Supreme Court. As soon as the verdict of guilty was returned today, a formal motion for a new trial was made and overruled. The court pointed out to attorneys for Scopes that to permit the legal limit of sixty days in which to perfect the appeal would carry the case beyond the next meeting of the Supreme Court. Judge Raulston therefore fixed a limit of thirty days for perfection of appeal with an assurance that if more time should be needed an extension would be granted.

All formal legal motions and exceptions were entered in the record and it was not thought likely that more than thirty days would be required to place the case in proper form for submission to the Supreme Court. A daily transcript was made of the proceedings, totaling approximately 241,000 words, thus avoiding the usual delay in getting out the stenographer's record.

Defense counsel pointed out tonight that when the case reaches the State Supreme Court other counsel may be engaged. It was understood from the outset, attorneys said, that the lawyers in the trial court might not conduct the case in the Tennessee Supreme Court, and it was further suggested that should the case reach the Supreme Court of the United States still other attorneys might become associated with the case.… DAYTON (Tenn.) July 21,—Forbidden to examine Clarence Darrow on the witness stand concerning the Chicago lawyer's religious views, William Jennings Bryan late today administered the examination through the medium of a statement. Nine questions were propounded and these were answered shortly afterward by the Scopes defense attorney.

Mr. Bryan's questions were preceded by the following statement:

“In accepting the invitation of the defense to testify, I did so on condition that I might question the attorneys on the other side in the same way.

“When the court reached the conclusion that such testimony was incompetent and expunged it from the record, I was precluded from asking questions which I had prepared.”…

The questions are as follows:

Mr. Bryan: Do you believe in the existence of God as described in the Bible?”

Mr. Darrow: I do not know of any description of God in the Bible. We are informed, in the first part of the Bible, however, that God is a spirit. If Mr. Bryan will describe what he means by God, I probably could tell better whether or not I believe in his God. Mr. Bryan said, in effect, that God is like a man and is fashioned in the image of man. I do not believe in this kind of a God. As to the origin of the universe, and who or what is back of it, I do not pretend to know.

Mr. Bryan: Do you believe that the Bible is the revealed will of God, inspired and trustworthy?

Mr. Darrow: I think that there is much that is of value in the Bible. I do not believe it was written or inspired by God. I believe it should be taken like every other kind of book, and that the portions that are sublime are like such portions of any great book—as much inspired as, say, “In His Image.”…

Mr. Bryan: Do you believe in the supernatural Christ, foretold in the Old Testament and revealed in the New Testament?

Mr. Darrow: I do not believe that any supernatural Christ was foretold in the Old Testament or revealed in the New Testament. I believe that the Christ prophesied in the Old Testament was a great Jew who should deliver his people from their physical bondage and nothing else.

Mr. Bryan: Do you believe in the miracles recorded in the Old and New Testaments? If you believe in some but not all of them, please name a few of those which you accept and those you reject with the reasons for the same. Do you believe that Christ was conceived of the Holy Ghost and born of the Virgin Mary, as recorded in Matthew and Luke? Do you believe that Christ rose from the dead as described in the Four Gospels?

Mr. Darrow: I do not believe in miracles. I believe the universe acts and always acted in accordance with an immutable law, and that whatever may be back of the universe has never violated these laws.

Mr. Bryan: Do you believe in the immortality of the soul?

Mr. Darrow: I have been searching for proof of this all my life, with the same desire to find it that is incident to every living thing, and I have never found any evidence on the subject.…

Mr. Bryan: If you believe in evolution, at what point in man's descent from the brute is he endowed with hope and promise of a life beyond the grave? Mr. Darrow: I have no knowledge on the question of when man first believed in life beyond the grave. I am not at all sure whether many other animals have not the same hope of a future life that man has. The origin of this belief may have arisen in vivid dreams concerning the return of the dead, or for all I know, from actual evidence of the return of the dead. I have never tried to impose my views on religion on any human being. I have a right to my own views, and I try as hard to protect the right of every other man to his views as I do to protect my own.”

Source: The Associated Press, July 21, 1925.1