mother and an uncle were among the people he tried to kill.
Darrow—He didn't make half as many insane people as Jonathan Edwards, your great theologian. And he did not preach the doctrine of evolution. He said that Darwin had a great mind. I suppose Col. Bryan would say that. And Napoleon, though neither Mr. Bryan nor adore Napoleon—I know I don't, and I don’t think he does. He did not teach the doctrine of evolution.
Court—All right, colonel, be certain to return the book.
Malone Replies to Bryan.
Dudley Field Malone—If the court please, it does seem to me that we have gone far afield in this discussion. However, probably this is the time to discuss everything that bears on the issues that have been raised in this case, because after all, whether Mr. Bryan knows it or not, he is a mammal, he is an animal and he is a man. But, your honor, I would like to advert to the law, and to remind the court that the heart of the matter is the question of whether there is liability under this law.
I have been puzzled and interested at one and the same time at the psychology of the prosecution and I find it difficult to distinguish between Mr. Bryan, the lawyer in this case; Mr. Bryan, the propagandist outside of this case, and the Mr. Bryan who made a speech against science and for religion just now—Mr. Bryan my old chief and friend. I know Mr. Bryan. I don't know Mr. Bryan as well as Mr. Bryan knows Mr. Bryan, but I know this, that he does believe—and Mr. Bryan, your honor, is not the only one who believes in the Bible. As a matter of fact there has been much criticism, by indirection and implication, of this text, or synopsis, if you please, that does not agree with their ideas. If we depended on the agreement of theologians, we would all be infidels. I think it is in poor taste for the leader of the prosecution to cast reflection or aspersions upon the men and women of the teaching profession in this country. God knows, the poorest paid profession in America is the teaching profession, who devote themselves to science, forego the gifts of God, consecrate their brains to study, and eke out their lives as pioneers in the fields of duty, finally hoping that mankind will profit by his efforts, and to open the doors of truth.
Mr. Bryan quoted Mr. Darwin. That theory was evolved and explained by Mr. Darwin seventy-five years ago. Have we learned nothing in seventy-five years? Were we have learned the truth of biology, we have learned the truth of anthropology, and we have learned more of archology? Not very long since the archeological museum in London established that a city existed, showing a high degree of civilization in Egypt 14,000 years old, showing that on the banks of the Nile River there was a civilization much older than ours. Are we to hold mankind to a literal understanding of the claim that the world is 6,000 years old, because of the limited vision of men who believed the world was flat, and that the earth was the center of the universe, and that man is the center of the earth. It is a dignified position for man to be the center of the universe, that the earth is the center of the universe, and that the heavens revolve about us. And the theory of ignorance and superstitution for which they stood are identical, a psychology and ignorance which made it possible far theologians to take old and learned Galileo, who proposed to prove the theory of Copernicus, that the earth was round and did not stand still, and to bring old Galileo to trial—for what purpose? For the purpose of proving a literal construction of the Bible against truth, which is revealed. Haven't we learned anything in seventy-five years? Are we to have our children know nothing about science except what the church says they shall know? I have never seen harm in learning and understanding, in humility and open-mindedness, and I have never seen clearer the need of that learn-
