You will bear in mind that in this investigation you are not interested to inquire into the policy of this legislation.[25]
The Defense
Mr. Darrow: I don’t suppose the court has considered the question of competency of evidence. My associates and myself have fairly definite ideas as to it, but I don’t know how the counsel on the other side feel about it. I think that scientists are competent evidence—or competent witnesses here, to explain what evolution is, and that they are competent on both sides.
The Prosecution
Attorney-General Stewart: If the Court please, in this case, as Mr. Darrow stated, the defense is going to insist on introducing scientists and Bible students to give their ideas on certain views of this law, and that, I am frank to state, will be resisted by the state as vigorously as we know how to resist it. We have had a conference or two about the matter, and we think that it isn’t competent evidence; that is, it is not competent to bring into this case scientists who testify as to what the theory of evolution is or interpret the Bible or anything of that sort.
The Defense
Mr. Neal: The defendant moves the court to quash the indictment in this case for the following reasons: In that it violates Sec. 12, Art. XI, of the Constitution of Tennessee: “It shall be the duty of the general assembly in all future periods of the government to cherish literature and science....” I want to say that our main contention after all, may it please your honor, is that this is not a proper thing for any legislature, the legislature of Tennessee or the legislature of the United States, to attempt to make and assign a rule in regard to. In this law there is an attempt to pronounce a judgment and a conclusion in the realm of science and in the realm of religion.
The Prosecution
Mr. McKenzie: Under the law you cannot teach in the common schools the Bible. Why should it be improper to provide that you cannot teach this other theory?