Scopes Guilty, Fined $100, Scores Law; Benediction Ends Trial, Appeal Starts; Darrow Answers Nine Bryan Questions

Final Scenes Dramatic

Defense Suddenly Decides to Make No Plea and Accept Conviction

Bryan is Disappointed

Loses Chance to Examine Darrow and His Long-Prepared Speech Is Undelivered

His Evidence Is Expunged

Differences Forgotten in the End as All Concerned Exchange Felicitations

Dayton, Tenn., July 21 (1925) — The trial of John Thomas Scopes for teaching evolution in Tennessee, which Clarence Darrow characterized today as “the first case of its kind since we stopped trying people for witchcraft,” is over. Mr. Scopes was found guilty and fined $100, and his counsel will appeal to the Supreme Court of Tennessee for reversal of the verdict. The scene will then be shifted from Dayton to Knoxville, where the case will probably come up on the first Monday in September.

But the end of the trial did not end the battle on evolution, for not long after its conclusion William Jennings Bryan opened fire on Clarence Darrow with a strong statement and a list of nine questions on the basic principles of the Christian religion. To these Mr. Darrow replied and added a statement explaining Mr. Bryan’s “rabies.” Dudley Field Malone also contributed a statement predicting ultimate victory for evolution and repeating that Mr. Bryan ran away from the fight.

The end of the trial came as unexpectedly as everything else in this trial, in which nothing has happened according to schedule except the opening of court each morning with prayer. It was reached practically by agreement between counsel in an effort to end the case which showed signs of going on forever, although all the testimony offered before the jury took only two hours.

Young Scopes, in his shirt sleeves, his collar open at the neck, his carrot-colored hair brushed back, stood up before the bar with a [text unreadable] policeman beside him, and Judge Raulston had pronounced sentence before his counsel could suggest that Mr. Scopes might have something to say.

“Oh,” exclaimed Judge Raulston, “Have you anything to say, Mr. Scopes, as to why the Court should not impose punishment on you?”

Scopes Calls Statute Unjust

Mr. Scopes, who is hardly more than a boy and whose pleasant demeanor and modest bearing have won him many friends since this case started, was nervous. His voice trembled a little as he folded his arms and said:

“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 the law in any way that I can. Any other action would be in violation of by idea 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.”

No one had expected such a quick ending. Mr. Darrow came into court full of pleasant anticipation of another “go” at Mr. Bryan, whom he questioned to the delight of hundreds the day before. But the court had no sooner opened than Judge Raulston decided that there would be no further questioning, and then ordered Mr. Bryan’s testimony expunged from the records.

Mr. Bryan, who had contented himself with the thought that he would have an opportunity to put Mr. Darrow on the stand and tear into him was somewhat chagrined at this turn of the case, and announced that he would have to appeal to the fairness of the press to give prominence to the questions, which he would have asked Mr. Darrow.

“I had not reached the point where I could give my statement to answer the charges and made by the counsel for the defenses as to my ignorance and bigotry,” he said, bitterly.

Sparrow Poses as Dove of Peace

But before the day’s session was over a dove of peace hovered over the court room in the form of a frightened sparrow, which had strayed in through an open window, and everybody exchanged felicitations except Mr. Bryan and Mr. Darrow. Judge John Raulston declared that the Word of God “given to man that man may use it as a waybill to the other world,” was an indestructible thing, and prayed God that he had declared right the questions raised in the trial. A minister pronounced a benediction and the court adjourned.

The general gratification of the people at the end of a good show was shown by their applause whenever any member of either side or the visiting spectators, rose to thank Dayton for its hospitality and kindness. And there was a further manifestation of the remarkable change in sentiment which has taken place since this trial began.

The defense faced a unitedly, hostile audience when they started. There were clamors against Clarence Darrow, the agnostic, and resentment that outsiders should come in and tell Tennessee how to run its schools.

The tide turned when Dudley Field Malone made his first speech and won the hearts of Dayton, for Tennesseans love a fiery speaker, and rounded, eloquent periods delight them. Mr. Darrow ended by winning their respect by his courage in the face of hostility, and when today both sides spoke briefly their appreciation of courtesies and Mr. Bryan defended his position. It was a repudiation of Mr. Bryan’s charges by Mr. Malone and the denunciation of bigotry by Mr. Darrow that won the most fervent applause.

That does not mean that the majority was with them. It was not. But they had caught the fancy of the crowd, which has learned a lot about evolution from the scattered fragments presented to them. Many people of the State crowded around Mr. Darrow after court was over to thank him for his defense of Mr. Scopes and to say that they were ashamed of the Anti-Evolution law.

There was no doubt that the ruling of the Court against further examination of counsel on either side was as much a disappointment to Mr. Bryan as it was to Mr. Darrow. Mr. Bryan was obviously full of wrath at the position in which he had been placed, with no opportunity of justifying himself on the court record, and Mr. Darrow had come into court with the pleasant anticipation of learning what else Mr. Bryan knew about the Bible.

There was a council of war by the forces of the State last night, and whatever desire Mr. Bryan had of going on with his examination so that he could rip into Mr. Darrow and his colleagues, and brand them as agnostics or infidels, was suppressed by Attorney General Stewart, who has maintained an indignant, though dignified, opposition to the events of the last few days. He was anticipated, however, by the Court.

“Since the beginning of this trial the Judge of this court has had some big problems to pass upon,” said Judge Raulston as soon as court opened. “Of course, there is no way for me to know whether I have decided these questions correctly or not until the courts of last resort speak. If I have made a mistake, it was a mistake of the head and not the heart.

“There are two things that may lead a Judge into error. One is prejudice and passion, and another is an over-zeal to be absolutely fair to all parties. I fear that I may have committed error on yesterday in my over-zeal to ascertain if there was anything in the proof that was offered that might aid the higher courts in determining whether or not I had committed error in my former decrees. 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 to God 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 courts. The issue 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 as all complete at once, or it isn’t a question as to whether God created man by the process of development and growth. Those questions have been eliminated by this Court, and the only question we have right now is whether or not this defendant taught that man 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 the issue as to what evolution is, or as to how God created man, or created the earth, or created the universe, this testimony might be relevant, but those questions are not before the Court, and 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.

“Of course I am not at all sure that Mr. Bryan’s testimony would aid the Supreme Court or any other human being,” said Mr. Darrow, “but he testified by the hour there and I haven’t got through with him yet.”

General Stewart objected to an argument, and Mr. Darrow took an exception from the court’s ruling, announcing that he would try to get from the Supreme Court a writ certifying the testimony. Then Mr. Darrow threw up his hands and ended the case.

“We have all been here quite a while, and I say it in perfectly good faith we have no witnesses to offer, no proof to offer in the issues that the Court has laid down here,” he said, “that Mr. Scopes did teach what the children said Scopes did teach what the children said he taught, that man descended from a lower order of animals. We do not mean to contradict that and I think to save time we will ask the Court to bring in the jury and instruct the jury to find the defendant guilty. We make no objection to that and it will save a lot of time and I think it should be done.”

Hays Again Offers Proof

Arthur Garfield Hays then made again his offer of proof for the record.

“We offer to prove by Mr. Bryan that the Bible was not to be taken literally,” he said, “that the earth was a million years old, and we had hoped to prove by him further that nothing in the Bible said what the processes were of man’s creation. We feel that the statement that the earth was a million years old, and nothing said about the processes of man’s creation, that it was perfectly clear what Scopes taught would not violate the first part of the act.”

All Mr. Haye’s arguments brought nothing but exceptions, and then Mr. Bryan rose to his feet, a great weariness in his voice and with the look of a tired and disappointed man.

“At the conclusion of your decision to expunge from the testimony the testimony given by me upon the record, I didn’t have time to ask you a question,” he said. “I fully agree with the Court that the testimony taken yesterday was not legitimate or proper. I simply wanted the Court to understand that I was not in position to raise an objection at that time myself, nor was I willing to have it raised for me without asserting my willingness to be cross-examined. Now the testimony has ended and I assume that you expunge the questions as well as the answers.”

“Yes, sir,” said Judge Raulston.

“That it isn’t a reflection upon the answers any more than it is upon the questions,” continued Mr. Bryan in his dispirited voice.

“I expunge the whole proceedings,” said the Court.

“Now, I hadn’t reached the point where I could make a statement to answer the charges made by the counsel for the defense as to ‘my ignorance and bigotry,’” said Mr. Bryan, turning to glare at Mr. Darrow, who hunched up his shoulders and said:

“I object, your honor! Now what’s this all about?”

“Why do you want to make this, Colonel Bryan?” asked the Court.

“I just want to finish my sentence.”

“Why can’t he go outside on the lawn?” growled Mr. Darrow.

Judge Raulston said he would hear what he had to say, and Mr. Bryan continued:

“I think it would be better, Mr. Bryan,” said Mr. Darrow, “for you to take us out also with the press and ask us the questions, and then the press will have both the questions and the answers.”

“The gentleman, who represents the defense not only differs from me,” continued Mr. Bryan, “but he differed from the Court very often in the matter of procedure. I simply want to make that statement, and say that I shall have to avail myself of the press without having the dignity of its being represented in this court, but I think it is hardly fair” — his voice rose as he lifted his clenched hand — “to bring into the limelight my views on religion and stand behind a dark lantern that throws light on other people but conceals themselves. I think it is only fair that the country should know the religious attitude of the people who come down here to deprive the people of Tennessee of the right to run their own schools.”

“If your Honor please,” interrupted Mr. Malone, who manages to get into every argument, “I wish to make a statement if statements are in order.”

If your Honor please,” added Mr. Malone, who has taken joy in standing up for the religious principles of all those on the side of the defense, “the attorneys for the defense are hiding behind no screen of any kind. They will be happy at any time in any forum to answer any questions which Mr. Bryan can ask along the lines that were asked him yesterday.”

Attorney General Stewart, whose Fundamentalism has been the cause of much embarrassment to him all during the case, stopped fidgeting and suggested that the jury be brought in and the case ended. Mr. Darrow and Mr. Stewart, with Judge Raulston, then agreed that the jury be brought in and instructed by both sides to bring in a verdict of guilty.

When the jury were present Judge Raulston charged them that all they had to do was to determine whether or not Mr. Scopes taught that a man descended from a lower form of animals and that if they so found beyond a reasonable doubt they should bring a verdict of guilty.”

“May I say a few words to the jury,” said Mr. Darrow. He stood before them as plain a looking person as any one among them, his suspenders standing out against his shirt, his arms folded so that he grasped his shoulders, and smiled benignantly at them.

“We are sorry we have not had a chance to say anything to you. We will do it some other time,” he said. “Now 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, so all we can do is take and 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 animals you find him guilty, and 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 it, 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 very well 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.

“We cannot 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.”

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

Bryan’s Speech Is Undelivered

And that’s all there was to that. Mr. Bryan did not get his chance to make the summing up he had been working on so long the speech that was to rival his “Cross of Gold” speech of many years ago, which made him a candidate for the Presidency. He knew he would not get this into the records soon after court opened, and it was one of his great disappointments. He is said to have been writing it for three months. He never would have gotten a chance to make it even if the verdict of guilty had not been found by agreement, because the defense had planned to let the State open the summing up, and then refuse to argue, which would have shut off anything except the verbal onslaught of Sue Hicks, who was scheduled to talk first for the prosecution.

After Mr. Scopes had been found guilty and fined, Judge Raulston set bail in $500, which was furnished by The Baltimore Sun. The case will come up before the State Supreme Court in September, and Judge Raulston allowed thirty days for preparation of the appeal.

Then followed the felicitations, started by Mr. Malone, who said:

“Your Honor, may I at this time say on behalf of my colleagues that we wish to thank the people of the State of Tennessee, not only for their hospitality, but for the opportunity of trying out these great issues here.”

He was applauded liberally by the crowd. One of the visiting spectators got up to thank Dayton for its hospitality. Gordon McKensie of the prosecution, thanked the defense for bringing into Tennessee new ideas.

“We have learned to take a broader view of life since you came,” he said. “While much has been said and much written about the narrow-minded people of Tennessee, we do not feel hard toward you for having said that, because that is your idea. But we people here want to be more broad-minded than some have given us credit for, and we appreciate your coming and we have been greatly elevated, edified, and educated by your presence, and should the time ever come when you are back near the garden spot of the world we hope that you will stop off and stay a while with us here in order that we may chat about the days of the past when the Scopes trial was tried in Dayton.”

Dr. John R. Neal of the defense spoke, and then Mr. Bryan rose again and said the people would decide this issue.

“I don’t know that there is any special reason why I should add to what has been said, and yet the subject has been presented from so many viewpoints that I hope the Court will pardon me if I mention a viewpoint that has not been referred to,” he said. “Dayton is the centre and seat of this trial largely by circumstance. We are told that more words have been sent across the ocean by cable to Europe and Australia about this trial than has ever been sent by cable in regard to anything else doing in the United States. That isn’t because the trial is held in Dayton. It isn’t because a school teacher has been subjected to the danger of a fine of from $100 to $500, but I think it illustrates how people can be drawn into prominence by attaching themselves to a great cause.

“Causes stir the world, and this cause has stirred the world. It is because it goes deep. It is because it extends wide and because it reaches into the future beyond the power of man to see. Here has been fought out a little case of little consequence as a case, but the world is interested because it raises an issue, and that issue will some day be settled right, whether it is settled on our side or the other side. It is going to be settled right. There can be no settlement of a great cause without discussion, and people will not discuss a cause until their attention is drawn to it, and the value of this trial is not in any incident of the trial, it is not because of anybody who is attached to it, either in any official way or as counsel on either side.

“Human beings are mighty small, your Honor. We are apt to minify the personal element and we sometimes become inflated with our importance, but the world little cares for man as an individual. He is born, he works, he dies, but causes go on forever, and we who have participated in this case may congratulate ourselves that we have attached ourselves to a mighty issue.

“Now, if I were to attempt to define that issue I might find objection from the other side. Their definition of the issue might not be as mine is, and therefore, I will not take advantage of the privilege the Court gives me this morning to make a statement that might be controversial, and nothing that I would say would determine it.

“I have no power to define this issue finally and authoritatively. None of the counsel on our side has this power, and none of the counsel on the other side has this power. Even this honorable Court has no such power. The people will determine this issue. They will take sides upon this issue, they will state the questions involved in this issue, they will examine the information — not so much that which has been brought out here, but this case will stimulate investigation and investigation will bring out information, and the facts will be known, and upon the facts as ascertained the decision will be rendered, and I think my friends and your Honor, that if we are actuated by the spirit that should actuate every one of us, no matter what our views may be, we ought not only desire but pray that that which is right will prevail, whether it be our way or somebody else’s.”

Darrow Makes Final Retort

His words brought a last retort from Mr. Darrow. He thanked Dayton for its hospitality and courtesy and liberality and thanked the Court for not sending him to jail, which aroused laughter.

“Of course there is much that Mr. Bryan has said that is true,” he continued. “And nature — nature, I refer to — does not choose any special setting for mere events. I fancy that the place where the Magna Carta was wrested from the barons in England was a very small place, probably not as big as Dayton. But events come along as they come along.

“I think this case will be remembered because it is the first case of this sort since we stopped trying people in America for witchcraft, because here” — and he thundered out the last words — “we have done our best to turn back the tide that has sought to force itself upon the modern world of testing every fact in science by a religious dictum. That is all I care to say.”

Judge Raulston was moved to join the proceedings.

“I recently read somewhere what I think was a definition of a great man, and that was this: That he possess a passionate love for the truth and has the courage to declare it in the face of all opposition. It is easy enough, my friends, to have a passion to find a truth, or to find a fact, rather, what coincides with our preconceived notions and ideas, but it sometimes takes courage to search diligently for a truth that may destroy our preconceived notions and ideas.

“The man that only has a passion to find the truth is not a complete and great man; but he must also have the courage to declare it in the face of all opposition. It does not take any great courage for a man to stand for a principle that meets with the approval of public sentiment around him, but it sometimes takes courage to declare a truth or stand for a fact that is in contravention to the public sentiment.

“Now, my friends, the man — I am not speaking in regard to the issues in this case, but I am speaking in general terms — that a man who is big enough to search for the truth and find it, and declare it in the face of all opposition, is a big man.

“Dayton has been referred to, that the law — that something big could not come out of Dayton. Why, my friends, the greatest Man that has ever walked on the face of the earth, the Man that left the portals of Heaven to earth that man might live, was born in a little town, and he lived and spent his life among a simple, unpretentious people.

“Now, my friends, the people in America are a great people. We are great in the South, and they are great in the North. We are great because we are willing to lay down our differences when we fight the battle out and be friends. And, let me tell you, there are two things in this world that are indestructible, that man cannot destroy, or no force in the world can destroy.

“One is the truth. You may crush it to the earth, but it will rise again. It is indestructible, and the causes of the law of God.

“Another thing indestructible in America and in Europe and everywhere else, is the Word of God, that He has given to man, that man may use it as a waybill to the other world. Indestructible, my friends, by any force because it is the Word of the Man, of the forces that created the universe, and He has said in His Word that ‘My word will not perish,’ but will live forever.

“I am glad to have had these gentlemen with us. This little talk of mine comes from by heart, gentlemen. I have had some difficult problems to decide in this lawsuit, and I only pray to God that I have decided them right.

“If I have not the higher courts will find the mistake. But if I failed to decide them right, it was for the want of legal learning and legal attainments, and not for the want of a disposition to do everybody justice.”

The meeting was about to break up when Arthur Garfield Hays rose and called out to the Judge, laughingly:

“May I, as one of the counsel for the defense, ask your Honor to allow me to send you the ‘Origin of Species’ and the ‘Descent of Man,’ by Charles Darwin?

There was a roar of laughter as the Judge said he would be glad to receive them.

“We will adjourn,” said the Court, “and Brother Jones will pronounce the benediction.”

Benediction was pronounced, and it was followed by a rush to the doors.