State of Tennessee vs. John Thomas Scopes
Trial of July 10-21, 1925
Dayton, Rhea County, Tennessee

One-hour Condensed Version by Timothy H. Heaton

Judge Raulston: The court will come to order. The Reverend Cartwright will open the court with prayer.

Rev. Cartwright: We beseech Thee, our Heavenly Father, that Thou will grant unto every individual that share of wisdom that will enable them to go out from this session of the court, with the consciousness of having under God and grace done the very best thing possible, and the wisest thing possible. And to this end we pray that the power of the presence of the Holy Spirit may be with the jury and with the accused and with all the attorneys interested in this case. . . . Hear us in our prayers, our Father, this morning, for the cause of truth and righteousness, throughout the length and breadth of the earth, and Oh, God, grant that from the President of the United States down to the most insignificant officer thereof, that the affairs of the church and state may be so administered that God may beget unto Himself the greatest degree of honor and glory.

[On subsequent days Darrow and the Defense objected to the opening of the court each day with prayer, but the judge over-ruled them.]

Judge Raulston: Mr. Attorney General I am calling the case of the State vs. John Thomas Scopes. The lawyers that are interested in this case will have their places behind the tables.

Attorney General Stewart: If the court please, some of the gentlemen interested in this case on both sides, of course, are not familiar with our procedure.

Neal: There are a number of council on both sides from out of the state and I would like to have these men introduced to the court.

Judge Raulston: Yes, I will be glad to have them.

Neal: General Stewart, I suggest that now would be the time to introduce the outside council.

Attorney General Stewart: Mr. William Jennings Bryan and his son, both of whom need no introduction, are the only outside lawyers for the State.

Neal: Mr. Darrow, Arthur Hays, Mr. Malone and Mr. Thompson.

Judge Raulston: Gentlemen, I desire to assure you that we are glad to have you here, the foreign lawyers for both the State and the Defendant.

[The jury was selected and empanelled.]

Judge Raulston: Gentlemen of the grand jury, on May 25, 1925, John T. Scopes was indicted in this county for what is generally known as the anti-evolution statute. The statute, which it is alleged that the said Scopes violated, is Chapter 27 of the acts of 1925, which makes it unlawful to teach in the universities, normals and all other public schools of the state, which are supported in whole or in part by the public school funds of the state, any theory that denies the story of divine creation of man as taught in the Bible and teach instead thereof that man descended from a lower order of animals. If you find the statute has thus been violated, you should indict the guilty person or persons, as the case may be.

Attorney General Stewart: State of Tennessee, County of Rhea. Circuit Court. July special term, 1925. The grand jurors of the aforesaid state, being duly summoned, elected, empanelled, sworn, and charged to inquire for the body of the county aforesaid, upon their oaths present: That John Thomas Scopes, in the county aforesaid, unlawfully did willfully teach in the public schools of Rhea County, Tennessee, a certain theory and theories that deny the story of divine creation of man as taught in the Bible, and did teach instead thereof that man has descended from a lower order of animals, against the peace and dignity of the State.

Judge Raulston: What is your plea, gentlemen?

Neal: May it please your Honor. We make a motion to quash the indictment in this case for the following reasons: A) Because the act is unconstitutional in that "No bill shall become law which embraces more than one subject." B) In that it violates Section 12, Article XI of the constitution of Tennessee: "Education is to be cherished. . . . it shall be the duty of the general assembly in all future periods of the government to cherish literature and science . . ." C) In that it violates Section 18, Article II of the constitution of Tennessee: "Every bill shall be read once on three different days, and be passed in the house where it originated, before transmission to the other." D) In that it violates Section 3, Article I of the constitution of Tennessee: ". . . that no preference shall ever be given, by law, to any religious establishment or mode of worship. . . . [13 objections in all] And, therefore, we contend, and in my humble judgment this is the most important contention of the Defense, that in exercising this power, it cannot exercise it so as to violate the great provision of the constitution in regard to religious liberty, in regard to the prevention of any establishment of any particular religion or any particular church. Our contention, to be very brief, is that in this act there is made mandatory the teaching of a particular doctrine that comes from a particular religious book, and to that extent, it places the public schools of our state in such a situation, in regard to particular church establishments, that they contravene the provisions of our constitution.

Darrow: That is the part we claim is effected.

Attorney General Stewart: In what wise?

Darrow: Giving preference to the Bible.

Attorney General Stewart: To the Bible?

Darrow: Yes. Why not the Koran?

Attorney General Stewart: There is as little in that as in any of the rest. If your Honor please, the St. James Version of the Bible is the recognized one in this section of the country. The laws of the land recognize the Bible; the laws of the land recognize the law of God and Christianity as a part of the common law. We are not living in a heathen country.

Malone: Mr. Attorney General, may I ask a question?

Attorney General Stewart: Certainly.

Malone: Does the law of the state of Tennessee recognize the Bible as part of a course in biology or science? Does not this statute impose the duty of teaching the theory of creation, as taught in the Bible, and exclude under penalty of law any other theory of creation? Does not that impose upon the course of biology a particular religious opinion from a particular religious book?

Darrow: Your Honor, there is an old saying that nits are made of lice. I don't know whether you know what it makes possible down here in Tennessee. I know; I was raised in Ohio. It is a good idea to clear the nits, safer and easier. To strangle puppies is good when they grow up into mad dogs, maybe. I will tell you what is going to happen, and I do not pretend to be a prophet, but I do not need to be a prophet to know. Your Honor knows the fires that have been lighted in America to kindle religious bigotry and hate. You can take judicial notice of them if you cannot anything else. You know that there is no suspicion which possesses the minds of men like bigotry and ignorance and hatred. . . . If today you can take a thing like evolution and can make it a crime to teach it in the public school, tomorrow you can make it a crime to teach in the private schools, and the next year you can make if a crime to teach it to the hustings or in the church. At the next session you may ban books and newspapers. Soon you may set Catholic against Protestant and Protestant against Protestant, and try to foist your own religion upon the minds of men. If you can do one, you can do the other. Ignorance and fanaticism is ever busy and needs feeding. Always it is feeding and gloating for more. Today it is the public school teachers, tomorrow the private. The next day the preachers and the lecturers, the magazines, the books, the newspapers. After a while, your Honor, it is the setting of man against man and creed against creed, until with flying banners and beating drums we are marching backward to the glorious ages of the sixteenth century, when bigots lighted fagots to burn the men who dared to bring any intelligence and enlightenment and culture to the human mind.

Judge Raulston: [Two days later] I have decided that the law in question does not violate the constitution of the state of Tennessee as proposed by the defense. Therefore I will not quash the indictment. What is your plea, gentlemen?

Neal: Not guilty, may it please your honor.

Attorney General Stewart: It is the insistence of the state in this case, that the defendant, John Thomas Scopes, has violated the anti-evolution law by teaching in the public schools of Rhea County the theory tending to show that mankind is descended from a lower order of animals. Therefore, he has taught a theory which denies the story of divine creation of man as taught in the Bible.

Judge Raulston: Are your witnesses present for the state?

Attorney General Stewart: We call Walter White, Superintendent of schools, to the stand. Mr. White, do you know what particular books or subjects Mr. Scopes taught in High School?

White: He was a science teacher; he taught chemistry, biology, and other subjects in the science course.

Attorney General Stewart: Did he teach this book, Hunter's Biology?

White: Yes, sir.

Attorney General Stewart: What school did he teach in, Mr. White?

White: The Rhea County Central High School, here in Dayton.

Attorney General Stewart: Is that school supported by state and county funds?

White: Yes, sir.

Attorney General Stewart: Has Mr. Scopes been teaching in the high school here more than a year?

White: No, sir, he taught last year only.

Attorney General Stewart: Did you have any conversation with him concerning this teaching of Hunter's Biology, after the passage of this law or at any time?

White: I talked with him about it on the afternoon of May 4th, 1925, the day before this trial was started.

Attorney General Stewart: You talked with him then after school had adjourned?

White: Yes, sir.

Attorney General Stewart: That was the conversation between you and the defendant Scopes as to the teaching of Hunter's Biology?

White: Mr. Scopes said that he had taught this biology, and that he had reviewed the entire book. . . . That he had reviewed the entire book during certain days in April, somewhere, after having taught it to the boys. That he had brought this book, and had reviewed the entire subject, as it is customary for the teacher to do, and among other things he said he could not teach that book without teaching evolution. And I defended the evolution statute . . . I told Prof. Scopes that he had violated the Tennessee statutes.

Attorney General Stewart: Were you at that time discussing this new law that was passed?

White: Yes, sir.

Attorney General Stewart: That law was passed on the twenty-first of March, was it?

White: The twenty-first of March, of this year, and he said he couldn't teach biology without violating this law.

Attorney General Stewart: And he said that in teaching biology, he was teaching evolution and that would be in violation of the law?

White: Yes, sir.

Attorney General Stewart: He said he had taught it here in Rhea County?

White: Yes, sir.

Attorney General Stewart: And he reviewed it somewhere about the twenty-first of April?

White: Somewhere along there in April, 1925.

Attorney General Stewart: Did he say to you in reference to this book that he had taught the part that pertained to evolution?

White: Yes, sir.

Attorney General Stewart: What did he say?

White: He admitted that he had taught that. He said he couldn't teach the book without teaching that and he could not teach that without violating the statute.

Attorney General Stewart: Did he say that it was unconstitutional?

White: He defended his course by saying that the statute was unconstitutional.

Attorney General Stewart: He taught that here in the high school here in Dayton?

White: Yes, sir.

Attorney General Stewart: You may cross-examine, if you care to.

Darrow: For the reporters. This book of Hunter's, what is the name of that book?

White: George William Hunter's Civic Biology.

Darrow: Where did Mr. Scopes get it?

White: In the course of study, Mr. Robinson, the book man for this section, handled the books.

Darrow: That was the official book adopted by the board, was it not?

White: In Tennessee, the Board of Education does not adopt books.

Darrow: Who does?

White: The Tennessee textbook commission adopts the book.

Darrow: Official book adopted by the Tennessee Textbook Commission?

White: That was the official book adopted by the Tennessee Textbook Commission in 1919, but the contract expired August 31, 1924, a five-year contract.

Darrow: Had any other books been adopted in the meantime?

White: No, sir.

Darrow: And these books were to be purchased at certain places, were they?

White: Certain depositories in Tennessee.

Darrow: The Robinson store was one of those depositories, was it?

White: Yes, sir.

Darrow: So, he taught this, which was the official book at that time?

White: Yes, sir.

Darrow: And did you ever have any talk with him before the time it was charged he taught it?

White: I did not.

Darrow: You never complained about Mr. Scopes as a teacher?

White: I had no complaint about his work in general.

Darrow: That's all; do you know how long this book has been used?

White: It has been used since 1909, the school year of 1909.

Darrow: That is all

Attorney General Stewart: That is all. [Witness excused.] We call Howard Morgan to the witness stand. Your name is Howard Morgan?

Morgan: Yes, sir.

Attorney General Stewart: You are Mr. Luke Morgan's son?

Morgan: Yes, sir.

Attorney General Stewart: How old are you?

Morgan: 14 years.

Attorney General Stewart: Did you attend school here at Dayton last year?

Morgan: Yes, sir.

Attorney General Stewart: What school?

Morgan: High school.

Attorney General Stewart: Central High School?

Morgan: Yes, sir.

Attorney General Stewart: Did you study this book, General Science?

Morgan: Yes, sir.

Attorney General Stewart: Did Professor Scopes teach it to you?

Morgan: Yes, sir.

Attorney General Stewart: When did you complete the book?

Morgan: Latter part of April.

Attorney General Stewart: Now, you say you were studying this book in April; how did Professor Scopes teach that book to you? I mean by that, did he ask you questions and you answered them or did he give you lectures, or both? Just explain to the jury here now, these gentlemen here in front of you, how he taught the books to you.

Morgan: Well, sometimes he would ask us questions and then he would lecture to us on different subjects in the book.

Attorney General Stewart: Did he ever undertake to teach you anything about evolution?

Morgan: Yes, sir. He said that the earth was once a hot molten mass, too hot for plant or animal life to exist upon it; in the sea the earth cooled off; there was a little germ of one cell organism formed, and this organism kept evolving until it got to be a pretty good-sized animal, and then came on to be a land animal, and it kept on evolving, and from this was man.

Attorney General Stewart: Let me repeat that; perhaps a little stronger than you. If I don't get it right, you correct me. . . . He said that in the beginning, the earth was a crystalline mass, too hot for any life to exist upon it; that it cooled off and finally the soil formed and the sea formed, plant life was on the earth, and that in the sea animal life began with a little one-celled animal.

Morgan: Yes, sir.

Attorney General Stewart: Which evolved and evolved and finally got bigger and became a land animal?

Morgan: Yes, sir.

Attorney General Stewart: And the culmination of which was man?

Morgan: Yes sir.

Attorney General Stewart: Is that right?

Morgan: Yes, sir.

Attorney General Stewart: I ask you further, Howard, how did he classify man with reference to other animals; what did he say about them?

Morgan: Well, the book and he both classified man along with cats and dogs, cows, horses, monkeys, lions, horses and all that.

Attorney General Stewart: What did he say they were?

Morgan: Mammals.

Attorney General Stewart: You say this was along around the 2nd or 3rd of April of this year?

Morgan: Yes, sir.

Attorney General Stewart: In high school of Rhea County?

Morgan: Yes, sir.

Attorney General Stewart: At Dayton?

Morgan: Yes, sir.

Attorney General Stewart: Cross-examine.

Darrow: Let's see, your name is what?

Morgan: Howard Morgan.

Darrow: Now, Howard, what do you mean by classify?

Morgan: Well, it means classify these animals we mentioned, that men were just the same as them, in other words--

Darrow: He didn't say a cat was the same as a man?

Morgan: No, sir; he said man had a reasoning power; that these animals did not.

Darrow: [Sarcastically:] There is some doubt about that, but that is what he said, is it? [Laughter in the courtroom.]

Judge Raulston: Order.

Attorney General Stewart: With some men.

Darrow: A great many. Now Howard, he said they were all mammals, didn't he?

Morgan: Yes, sir.

Darrow: Did he tell you what a mammal was, or don't you remember?

Morgan: Well, he just said these were mammals and man was a mammal.

Darrow: But did he tell you what distinguished mammals from other animals?

Morgan: I don't remember.

Darrow: If he did, you have forgotten it? Didn't he say that mammals were those beings which suckled their young?

Morgan: I don't remember about that.

Darrow: But he said that all of them were mammals?

Morgan: All what?

Darrow: Dogs and horses, monkeys, cows, man, whales; I cannot state all of them; but he said all of those were mammals?

Morgan: Yes, sir; but I don't know about the whales; he said all these other ones.

Darrow: You might never have seen a whale suckling its young?

Morgan: I did not.

Darrow: And you didn't know that the definition of a mammal was a species that suckled its young, did you?

Morgan: No, sir.

Darrow: Now, he said the earth was once a molten mass of liquid, didn't he?

Morgan: Yes, sir.

Darrow: And that the first life was in the sea. And that it developed into life on land?

Morgan: Yes, sir.

Darrow: And finally into the highest organism which is known as man?

Morgan: Yes, sir.

Darrow: Now, that is about what he taught you. It has not hurt you any, has it?

Morgan: No, sir. [Laughter in the courtroom.]

Darrow: That's all.

Attorney General Stewart: Step down. We call Harry Sheldon to the witness stand. Your name is Harry Sheldon?

Sheldon: Yes, sir.

Attorney General Stewart: Did you go to the high school up here?

Sheldon: Yes, sir.

Attorney General Stewart: Study under Professor Scopes?

Sheldon: Yes, sir.

Attorney General Stewart: What class were you in?

Sheldon: Biology.

Attorney General Stewart: Among others, did you study this Civic Biology?

Sheldon: Yes, sir.

Attorney General Stewart: Did you study--did Professor Scopes teach you anything about evolution during that time?

Sheldon: He taught that all forms of life began with the cell.

Attorney General Stewart: Did he teach you during this time, during that review, did he teach you these pages, 194 and 195? Did you review this with the other?

Sheldon: Yes, sir; reviewed the whole book.

Attorney General Stewart: Reviewed the whole book; that was along about the middle of April, and he taught you this particular book at that time? That is all I wish to ask you.

Darrow: [Cross-examining] How old are you?

Sheldon: Seventeen.

Darrow: Professor Scopes said that all forms of life came from a single cell, didn't he?

Sheldon: Yes, sir.

Darrow: Did anybody ever tell you before?

Sheldon: No, sir.

Darrow: Are you a church member?

Sheldon: Yes, sir.

Darrow: Do you still belong?

Sheldon: Yes, sir.

Darrow: You didn't leave church when he told you all forms of life began with a single cell?

Sheldon: No, sir.

Darrow: That is all

Attorney General Stewart: That is all. We call F. E. Robinson to the stand. You are Robinson, and own the story known as Robinson's drug store?

Robinson: Yes, sir.

Attorney General Stewart: Where all this thing started?

Robinson: Yes, sir.

Attorney General Stewart: Did you have any conversation with Scopes along about the time that this trial started, with reference to his teaching the theory of evolution?

Robinson: Yes sir. . . . Scopes said that any teacher in the state who was teaching Hunter's Biology was violating the law; that science teachers could not teach Hunter's Biology without violating the law. That was a state adopted book, and Dr. Rappleyea said, You have been teaching this book? And he said, Yes. He asked if he had taught this in regard to evolution, since this law was passed. He said, Yes, I reviewed the book. And he said, Well, you have been violating the law. He said, So has every other man violated the law. He said, When it was passed Professor Ferguson discussed the law that a man could not teach science from any of the books published now without violating the law.

Attorney General Stewart: Who is Professor Ferguson?

Robinson: He is the principle of the Rhea County High School, Central High School, where Scopes taught.

Attorney General Stewart: And you are the chairman of the school board in this county?

Robinson: Yes, sir.

Attorney General Stewart: And Scopes told you that he knew of the law?

Robinson: Yes sir.

Attorney General Stewart: And you discussed it with him?

Robinson: Yes sir.

Attorney General Stewart: I think that is all. You may cross-examine.

Darrow: He showed you a book which has been marked "a civic biology," or entitled A Civic Biology, which I hold in my hand?

Robinson: Yes sir.

Darrow: You were selling them, were you not?

Robinson: Yes, sir.

Darrow: And you were a member of the school board? [Laughter in the courtroom.] I think someone ought to advise you that you are not bound to answer these questions.

Attorney General Stewart: The law says teach, not sell. [Laughter in the courtroom.]

Darrow: How many of those did you have for sale?

Robinson: Oh, I have been selling that book for six or seven years.

Darrow: Have you noticed any mental or moral deterioration growing out of the thing?

Attorney General Stewart: Exception!

Judge Raulston: I sustain the exception.

Darrow: Exception. How did you get them, Mr. Robinson?

Robinson: From the depository at Chattanooga for this county.

Darrow: What is the depository?

Robinson: The place where the state designates to handle the state books.

Darrow: You got them from state authorities and are the only one who handles them in Dayton?

Robinson: In Dayton, yes, yes.

Darrow: Were they adopted, as you understand it?

Robinson: By the State Board of Education.

Darrow: State Board of Education?

Robinson: Yes, sir.

Attorney General Stewart: Are you through with the cross-examination? Come down. [There are several more students willing to testify in the same vein as the previous two, but it is agreed that this is unnecessary.] The State rests [it's case].

Judge Raulston: Let the witnesses for the defense come forward.

Darrow: We call Dr. Maynard M. Metcalf to the stand.

Bryan: [gets up, walks over to Metcalf, and looks down at him, then returns to his seat]

Darrow: What is your profession or business?

Metcalf: I am a zoologist. I have been a professor at Goucher and Oberlin and have done research at Naples, Berlin, and Johns Hopkins.

Darrow: And in your studies in zoology, they have naturally been connected with the study of evolution?

Metcalf: Yes, I have always been particularly interested in the evolution of the individual organism from the egg, and also the evolution of organisms as a whole from the beginning of life; that has been a sort of peculiar interest of mine always.

Darrow: Are you an evolutionist?

Metcalf: Surely, under certain circumstances that question would be an insult; under these circumstances I do not regard it as such.

Darrow: Do you know any scientific man in the world who is not an evolutionist?

Attorney General Stewart: We except to that of course.

Judge Raulston: Sustain the exception. I don't think you can bring one man to prove what others believe.

Hays: If he knows how far the theory is substantiated, how else can he prove it.

Judge Raulston: That would be hearsay testimony.

Hays: Hearsay testimony is allowed in cases where it is a question of how well a scientific theory is substantiated. We expect to prove what all science says.

Judge Raulston: Then bring them here and offer them. I will hear you.

Metcalf: I am very glad to be examined on my own judgment.

Darrow: Would you say that practically all scientific men are evolutionists?

Metcalf: I am acquainted with practically all of the zoologists, botanists, and geologists of this country who have done any work; that is, any material contribution to knowledge in those fields, and I am absolutely convinced from personal knowledge that any one of these men feel and believe, as a matter of course, that evolution is a fact, but I doubt very much if any two of them agree as to the exact method by which evolution has been brought about, but I think there is--I know there is not a single one among them who has the least doubt of the fact of evolution. . . . Evolution and the theories of evolution are fundamentally different things. The fact of evolution is a thing that is perfectly and absolutely clear. There are dozens of theories of evolution, some of which are almost wholly absurd, some of which are surely largely mistaken, some of which are perhaps almost wholly true, but there are many points--theoretical points as to the methods by which evolution has been brought about--that we are not yet in possession of scientific knowledge to answer. We are in possession of scientific knowledge to answer directly and fully the question: "Has evolution occurred?"

Darrow: Now, will you tell what it means, the fact of evolution?

Metcalf: Evolution, I think, means the change; in the final analysis I think it means the change of an organism from one character into a different character, and by character I mean its structure, or its behavior, of its function, or its method of development from the egg or anything else--the change of an organism from one set of characteristics, which characterizes it, into a different condition, characterized by a different set of characteristics either structural or functional, could be properly called, I think evolution--to be the evolution of that organism; but the term in general means the whole series of such changes which have taken place during hundreds of millions of years, which have produced from lowly beginnings, the nature of which is not by any means fully understood, the organism of much more complex character, whose structure and functions we are still studying, because we haven't begun to learn what we need to know about them.

Darrow: Now in the classification of scientists, zoologists, where does man come?

Metcalf: He is classed among the primates. Man is not a very highly evolved animal in his body. He isn't as highly specialized as a great many organisms. His hand, for example, is a very generalized structure, nowhere near as much specialized as the hand of a bird, but he clearly belongs among the mammals. A group well up, I think, toward what we would call the well-elaborated members of that group physically.

Darrow: You might tell us just what you mean by primate, for the benefit of us lawyers.

Metcalf: Well, I think because the group has been regarded as including man, the group has been given primacy. I suppose that some of the insects, if they were sufficiently intelligent, might question that, but we do not question it. The primates mean that order of organisms which include the lemurs, the tailed monkeys of this hemisphere, the tailless monkeys, the ape and baboon and so on of the eastern hemisphere, and man, and also quite a large number of forms of whose--of whom we have a satisfactory fossil record which we may class as apes or may class as men. It is a little hard to say; it is a little hard work to say over half a dozen or so forms about which there can be legitimate differences of opinion as to where they should be classified, whether as man or as ape.

Darrow: Will you give us some of the evidences of the evolution of man from a lower organism?

Metcalf: The great fundamental series, and I use that word in the plural--of evidences, and there are far more than one series--are found not in man himself, but in the whole organic world. The whole plan of evolution indicated so clearly throughout the whole realm of organic life, paralleling as it does the whole plan of evolution seen so clearly in the universe as a whole, makes a tremendous probability in favor of the evolution of man. When, then, we find just such differences among species and different varieties of man as we find among animals, and when we find what we may fairly call the more lowly genera, species and varieties of human kind appearing earlier in the geological series just as do the simpler animals, among the lower forms appearing in the lower rocks, that inherent compulsion toward belief in evolution which is found in all of the universe is tremendously reinforced for man. The series is so convincing that I think it would be entirely impossible for any normal human being who was conversant with the phenomena to have even for a moment the least doubt even for the fact of evolution, but he might have tremendous doubt as to the truth of any hypothesis--as to the methods of the evolution which this or that or the other man--even great men of science--might bring up.

Darrow: And you say that evolution as you speak of it means including man?

Metcalf: Surely.

[Witness dismissed. Next day.]

Darrow: We expect to show by men of science and learning to show first what evolution is, and, secondly, that any interpretation of the Bible that intelligent men could possible make is not in conflict with any story of creation, while the Bible, in many ways, is in conflict with every known science, and there isn't a human being on the earth that believes it literally.

Attorney General Stewart: The state moves to exclude the testimony of the scientists, that there is no conflict between this theory of evolution in question, and the story of the divine creation of man, on the grounds that under the wording of the act this evidence would be entirely incompetent.

[Much discussion ensued. Bryan ridiculed the Hunter textbook and its illustrations on evolution. Two days later Judge Raulston announced his decision on the move.]

Judge Raulston: This case is now before the court upon a motion to exclude from the consideration of the jury certain testimony offered by the defendant. The State insists that such evidence is wholly irrelevant, incompetent and impertinent to the issues pending, and that it should be excluded.

Hays: We hereby request that a written record of the testimony of the scientific witnesses be prepared and entered into the court records. This might be of interest to a higher court.

Judge Raulston: If the defense wants to put their proof in the record in the form of affidavits, of course they can do that.

Darrow: [Angry] Can we have the rest of the day to draft them?

Judge Raulston: I would not say . . .

Darrow: [Sarcastic] If your honor takes half a day to write an opinion . . .

Judge Raulston: [Defensive] I have not taken . . .

Darrow: [Forceful] We want to make statements here of what we expect to prove. I do not understand why every request of the State and every suggestion of the Prosecution should meet with an endless amount of time, and a bare suggestion of anything that is perfectly competent on our part should be immediately over-ruled.

Judge Raulston: I hope you do not mean to reflect upon the court?

Darrow: Well, your Honor has the right to hope.

Judge Raulston: I have the right to do something else, perhaps. [Next day] Mr. Darrow, you are cited with contempt of court and placed under $5000 bond. You will appear this afternoon.

Darrow: Your Honor, you will remember that what took place was hurried, and the truth is I did not know just how it looked until I looked over the minutes, and when I read them over I was sorry that I had said it. What I say is in good faith, regardless of what your Honor may think it is right for you to do.

[The apology continued and was met with applause.]

Judge Raulston: The Savior died on the cross pleading with God for the men who crucified him. I believe in that Christ. I believe in those principles. I accept Mr. Darrow's apology. I am sure his remarks were not premeditated.

[More applause. The court moved outside on the lawn for fear that the crowd would collapse the court building. After a "Read Your Bible" sign was removed from the premises, the proceeding resumed, and Mr. Hays dropped the bombshell.]

Hays: The defense desires to call Mr. Bryan as a witness.

Judge Raulston: If you ask him about any confidential matter, I will protect him, of course.

Bryan: If your Honor Please, I insist that Mr. Darrow can be put on the stand too, and Mr. Malone and Mr. Hays.

Judge Raulston: Call anybody you desire. Ask them any questions you wish. Mr. Bryan, you are not objecting to going on the stand?

Bryan: Not at all.

Darrow: You have given considerable study to the Bible, haven't you, Mr. Bryan?

Bryan: Yes, sir, I have tried to.

Darrow: Well, we all know you have; we are not going to dispute that at all. But you have written and published articles almost weekly, and sometimes have made interpretations of various things?

Bryan: I would not say interpretations, Mr. Darrow, but comments on the lesson.

Darrow: Then you have made a general study of it?

Bryan: Yes, I have. I have studied the Bible for about fifty years, or some time more than that. I have studied it more as I have become older than when I was but a boy.

Darrow: Do you claim that everything in the Bible should be literally interpreted?

Bryan: I believe everything in the Bible should be accepted as it is given there. Some of the Bible is given illustratively. For instance: "Ye are the salt of the earth.'' I would not insist that man was actually salt, or that he had flesh of salt, but it is used in the sense of salt as saving God's people

Darrow: But when you read that Jonah swallowed the whale--or that the whale swallowed Jonah--excuse me please--how do you literally interpret that?

Bryan: When I read that a big fish swallowed Jonah--it does not say whale.

Darrow: Doesn't it? Are you sure?

Bryan: That is my recollection of it, a big fish; and I believe it; and I believe in a God who can make a whale and can make a man, and make both do what He pleases.

Darrow: Mr. Bryan, doesn't the New Testament say whale?

Bryan: I am not sure. My impression is that it says fish; but it does not make so much difference; I merely called your attention that to where it says fish, it does not say whale.

Darrow: But in the New Testament it says whale, doesn't it?

Bryan: That may be true; I cannot remember in my own mind what I read about it.

Darrow: The Bible says Joshua commanded the sun to stand still for the purpose of lengthening the day, doesn't it, and you believe it?

Bryan: I do.

Darrow: Do you believe at that time the entire sun went around the earth?

Bryan: No, I believe that the earth goes around the sun.

Darrow: Do you believe that the men who wrote it thought that the day could be lengthened or that the sun could be stopped?

Bryan: I don't know what they thought.

Darrow: You don't know?

Bryan: I think they wrote the fact without expressing their own thoughts.

Attorney General Stewart: I want to object, your honor. It has gone beyond the pale of any issue that could possibly be injected into this lawsuit, except by imagination. I do not think the defendant has a right to conduct the examination any further and I ask your Honor to exclude it.

Judge Raulston: Mr. Bryan is willing to be examined. Go ahead.

Darrow: Have you an opinion as to whether--whoever wrote the book, I believe it was Joshua, the Book of Joshua--thought the sun went around the earth or not?

Bryan: I believe that the Bible is inspired, and an inspired author, whether one who wrote as he was directed to write understood the things he was writing about, I don't know.

Darrow: Do you think whoever inspired it believed that the sun went around the earth?

Bryan: I believe it was inspired by the Almighty, and He may have used language that could be understood at that time -- instead of using language that could not be understood until Mr. Darrow was born.

Darrow: Don't you believe that in order to lengthen the day it would have been construed that the earth stood still?

Bryan: Well, I should say so.

Darrow: Yes, but it was language that was understood at that time, and we now know that the sun stood still, as it was, with the earth. We know also the sun does stand still?

Bryan: Well, it is relatively so, as Mr. Einstein would say.

Darrow: I ask you, if it does stand still?

Bryan: You know as well as I know.

Darrow: Better. You have no doubt about it?

Bryan: No, no.

Darrow: And the earth moves around it?

Bryan: Yes. But I think there is nothing improper if you will protect the Lord against your criticism.

Darrow: I suppose he needs it?

Bryan: He was using language at that time that the people understood.

Darrow: And that you call "interpretive "?

Bryan: No, sir, I would not call it interpretation.

Darrow: Now, Mr. Bryan, have you ever pondered what would have happened to the earth if it had stood still?

Bryan: No.

Darrow: You have not?

Bryan: No. The God I believe in could have taken care of that, Mr. Darrow.

Darrow: I see. Have you ever pondered what would naturally happen to the earth if it stood still suddenly?

Bryan: No.

Darrow: You believe the story of the flood to be a literal interpretation?

Bryan: Yes, sir.

Darrow: When was that flood?

Bryan: I wouldn't attempt to fix the date. The date is fixed, as suggested this morning.

Darrow: About 2400 B.C.?

Bryan: That has been the estimate. I would not say it is accurate.

Darrow: That estimate is printed in the Bible.

Bryan: Everybody knows that, at least I think most people know, that was the estimate given.

Darrow: But what do you think that the Bible itself says? Don't you know how it is arrived at?

Bryan: I never made a calculation.

Darrow: What do you think?

Bryan: I do not think about things I don't think about.

Darrow: Do you think about things you do think about?

Bryan: Well, sometimes. [Laughter]

Darrow: But the Bible you have offered in evidence says 2,340 something, so that 4,200 years ago there was not a living thing on the earth, excepting the people on the ark and the animals on the ark, and the fishes?

Bryan: There had been living things before that.

Darrow: I mean at that time?

Bryan: After that.

Darrow: Don't you know there are any number of civilizations that are traced back to more than five thousand years?

Bryan: I know we have people who trace things back according to the number of ciphers they have. But I am not satisfied they are accurate.

Darrow: You are not satisfied there is any civilization that can be traced back five thousand years?

Bryan: I would not want to say there is, because I have no evidence of it that is satisfactory.

Darrow: Let me make this definite. You believe that every civilization on the earth and every living thing, except possibly the fishes, that came out of the ark, were wiped out by the flood?

Bryan: At that time.

Darrow: At that time; and then, whatever human beings, including all the tribes that inhabited the world, and have inhabited the world, and who run their pedigree straight back, and all the animals have come on to the earth since the flood?

Bryan: Yes.

Darrow: Within 4,200 years? Do you know a scientific man on the earth that believes any such thing?

Bryan: I cannot say, but I know some scientific men who dispute entirely the antiquity of man as testified to by other scientific men.

Darrow: Oh, that does not answer the question. Do you know of a single scientific man on the face of the earth that believes any such thing as you stated, about the antiquity of man?

Bryan: I don't think I have even asked one the direct question.

Darrow: Don't you know that the ancient civilizations of China are six or seven thousand years old, at the very least?

Bryan: No, but they would not run back beyond the creation, according to the Bible, six thousand years.

Darrow: You don't know how old they are, is that right?

Bryan: I don't know how old they are, but possibly you do. [Laughter] I think you would give preference to anybody who opposed the Bible, and I give preference to the Bible.

Darrow: Mr. Bryan, am I the first man you ever heard of who has been interested in the age of human societies and primitive man?

Bryan: You are the first man I ever heard speak of the number of people at these different periods.

Darrow: Where have you lived all your life?

Bryan: Not near you. [Laughter and applause]

Darrow: Nor near anybody of learning?

Bryan: Oh, don't assume you know it all.

Darrow: Do you know there are thousands of books in your libraries on all those subjects I have been asking you about?

Bryan: I couldn't say, but I will take your word for it.

Darrow: Have you any idea how old the earth is?

Bryan: No.

Darrow: The Book you have introduced in evidence tells you, doesn't it? [Referring to the Bible]

Bryan: I don't think it does, Mr. Darrow.

Darrow: Let's see whether it does. Is this the one?

Bryan: That is the one, I think.

Darrow: It says B.C. 4004.

Bryan: That is Bishop Usher's calculation.

Darrow: Printed in the Bible in general use in Tennessee?

Bryan: I couldn't say.

Darrow: Would you say that the earth was only four thousand years old?

Bryan: Oh no, I think it is much older than that.

Darrow: How much?

Bryan: I couldn't say.

Darrow: Do you think the earth was made in six days?

Bryan: Not six days of twenty-four hours.

Darrow: Doesn't it say so?

Bryan: No, sir.

Attorney General Stewart: I want to interpose another objection. What is the purpose of this examination?

Bryan: The purpose is to cast ridicule on everybody who believes in the Bible, and I am perfectly willing that the world shall know that these gentlemen have no other purpose than ridiculing every person who believes in the Bible.

Darrow: We have the purpose of preventing bigots and ignoramuses from controlling the education of the United States, and you know it, and that is all.

Bryan: I am glad to bring out that statement. I want the world to know that this evidence is not for the view Mr. Darrow and his associates have filed affidavits here stating the purpose which, as I understand it, is to show that the Bible story is not true... I am simply trying to protect the Word of God against the greatest atheist or agnostic in the United States. [Prolonged applause] I want the papers to know I am not afraid to get on the stand in front of him and let him do his worst. I want the world to know that agnosticism is trying to force agnosticism on our colleges and on our schools, and the people of Tennessee will not permit it to be done. [Prolonged applause]

Darrow: I wish I could get a picture of these claquers... Mr. Bryan, do you believe that the first woman was Eve?

Bryan: Yes.

Darrow: Do you believe she was literally made out of Adam's rib?

Bryan: I do.

Darrow: Did you ever discover where Cain got his wife?

Bryan: No, sir; I leave the agnostics to hunt for her.

Darrow: You have never found out?

Bryan: I have never tried to find.

Darrow: You have never tried to find?

Bryan: No.

Darrow: The Bible says he got one, doesn't it? Were there other people on the earth at that time?

Bryan: I cannot say.

Darrow: You cannot say? Did that never enter into your consideration?

Bryan: Never bothered me.

Darrow: There were no others recorded, but Cain got a wife. That is what the Bible says. Where she came from, you don't know. All right. Does the statement, "The morning and the evening were the first day" and "The morning and the evening were the second day" mean anything to you?

Bryan: I do not think it means necessarily a twenty four-hour day.

Darrow: You do not?

Bryan: No.

Darrow: What do you consider it to be?

Bryan: I have not attempted to explain it. If you will take the second chapter--let me have the book. [Examining Bible] The fourth verse of the second chapter (Genesis) says: "These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth, when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens." The word "day" there in the very next chapter is used to describe a period. I do not see that there is necessity for construing the words, "the evening and the morning" as meaning necessarily a twenty-four-hour day: "in the day when the Lord made the Heaven and the earth."

Darrow: Then when the Bible said, for instance, "And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day," that does not necessarily mean twenty-four hours?

Bryan: I do not think it necessarily does.

Darrow: Do you think it does or does not?

Bryan: I know a great many think so.

Darrow: What do you think?

Bryan: I do not think it does.

Darrow: You think these were not literal days?

Bryan: I do not think they were twenty-four-hour days.

Darrow: What do you think about it?

Bryan: That is my opinion--I do not know that my opinion is better on that subject than those who think it does.

Darrow: Do you not think that?

Bryan: No. But I think it would be just as easy for the kind of God we believe in to make the earth in six days as in six years or in six million years or in six hundred million years. I do not think it important whether we believe one or the other.

Darrow: Do you think those were literal days?

Bryan: My impression is they were periods, but I would not attempt to argue as against anybody who wanted to believe in literal days.

Darrow: Have you any idea of the length of the periods?

Bryan: No, I don't.

Darrow: Do you think the sun was made on the fourth day?

Bryan: Yes.

Darrow: And they had evening and morning without the sun?

Bryan: I am simply saying it is a period.

Darrow: They had evening and morning for four periods without the sun, do you think?

Bryan: I believe in creation, as there told, and if I am not able to explain it, I will accept it.

Darrow: Yes, all right. Do you believe the story of the temptation of Eve by the serpent?

Bryan: I do.

Darrow: Do you believe that after Eve ate the apple, or gave it to Adam--whichever way it was--God cursed Eve, and at that time decreed that all womankind thenceforth and forever should suffer the pains of childbirth in the reproduction of the earth?

Bryan: I believe what it says, and I believe the fact as fully.

Darrow: That is what it says, doesn't it?

Bryan: Yes.

Darrow: And for that reason, every woman born of woman, who has to carry on the race--the reason they have childbirth pains is because Eve tempted Adam in the Garden of Eden?

Bryan: I will believe just what the Bible says. I ask to put that in the language of the Bible, for I prefer that to your language. Read the Bible, and I will answer.

Darrow: And you believe that is the reason that God made the serpent to go on his belly after he tempted Eve?

Bryan: I believe the Bible as it is, and I do not permit you to put your language in the place of the language of the Almighty. You read that Bible and ask me questions, and I will answer them. I will not answer your questions in your language.

Darrow: I will read it to you from the Bible: "And the Lord God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life." Do you think that is why the serpent is compelled to crawl upon its belly?

Bryan: I believe that.

Darrow: Have you any idea how the snake went before that time?

Bryan: No, sir.

Darrow: Do you know whether he walked on his tail or not?

Bryan: No, sir. I have no way to know. [Laughter]

Darrow: Now, you refer to the bow that was put in the heaven after the flood, the rainbow. Do you believe in that?

Bryan: Read it.

Darrow: All right, Mr. Bryan, I will read it for you.

Bryan: Your Honor, I think I can shorten this testimony. The only purpose Mr. Darrow has is to slur at the Bible, but I will answer his questions. I will answer it all at once, and I have no objection in the world. I want the world to know that this man, who does not believe in a God, is trying to use a court in Tennessee ...

Darrow: I object to that.

Bryan: ... to slur at it, and, while it will require time, I am willing to take it.

Darrow: I object to your statement. I am examining you on your fool ideas that no intelligent Christian on earth believes.

Judge Raulston: Court is adjourned until 9 o'clock tomorrow morning.

[The court was in an uproar. Death threats were made against Darrow and Bryan. The local police encouraged Judge Raulston to end the trial as soon as possible. Next day.]

Judge Raulston: Let's have order. Since the beginning of this trial the Judge has had some big problems to pass upon. There is no way for me to know whether I decided these questions correctly or not until the courts of last resort speak. I feel that the testimony of Mr. Bryan can shed no light upon any issues that will be pending before the higher courts. I therefore expunge this testimony, given by Mr. Bryan on yesterday, from the records of this court and it will not be further considered.

Darrow: Then we have no witnesses to offer, no proof to offer on the issues that the court has laid down here, that Mr. Scopes did teach what the children say he taught, that man descended from a lower order of animals. I think to save time we will ask the court to bring the jury and instruct the jury to find the defendant guilty.

Attorney General Stewart: We are pleased to accept the suggestion of Mr. Darrow.

[Bryan objected that he did not have a chance to question Darrow as Darrow had questioned him, but they agreed to offer such an exchange to the press following the trial, which they did. The Jury was called in.]

Darrow: We claim that the defendant is not guilty, but the court has excluded any testimony, except as to the one issue of what Mr. Scopes taught. We cannot contradict that testimony, so we ask the jury to find a verdict that we may carry to a higher court, purely as a matter of proper procedure.

Judge Raulston: Have you gentlemen any statements to make?

Attorney General Stewart: We want your Honor to proceed to charge the jury.

Judge Raulston: [Long charge] In this case the defendant did not go on the stand. Under our constitution he has the right to either testify or not to testify as he sees proper, and his failure to testify creates no presumption of guilt. According to this statute the defendant, if found guilty, may be punished by a fine of not less than $100 nor more than $500. If you find the defendant guilty and find that his offence deserves a greater punishment than a fine of $100, then you must impose a fine not to exceed $500 in any event. But if you are content with a $100 fine, then you may simply find the defendant guilty and leave the punishment to the court. The truth, and the truth alone, should bring you to a verdict.

Attorney General Stewart: Of course, that is a minor matter, but I had it in mind that it would be the duty of the jury to fix whatever fine was imposed.

Judge Raulston: As I understand the holding, the Court can impose a minimum fine always under the statute--that is our practice in whiskey cases; the least fine in a transporting case is $100.

[The judge was in the wrong, and this technicality later allowed the Tennessee Supreme Court to overturn the conviction and thus prevent appeal of the case to the U.S. Supreme Court.]

Judge Raulston: Mr. Foreman, you will tell us whether you have agreed on a verdict.

Foreman: Yes, sir. We have, your honor.

Judge Raulston: What do you find?

Foreman: We have found for the state, found the defendant guilty.

Judge Raulston: Did you fix the fine?

Foreman: No, sir.

Judge Raulston: You leave it to the court?

Foreman: Leave it to the court.

Judge Raulston: Mr. Scopes, will you come around here, please, sir. Mr. Scopes, the jury has found you guilty under this indictment. The court now fixes your fine at $100, and imposes that fine upon you.

Neal: May it please your Honor, he wants to be heard a moment.

Judge Raulston: Oh, have you anything to say, Mr. Scopes, as to why the Court should not impose the punishment upon you?

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

Judge Raulston: So, then, the Court now imposes on you a fine of $100 and costs, which you will arrange with the clerk.

[The court was adjourned with prayer.]