The Bailiff—Raps for order. Everybody stand up, please. Is Rev. Mark in the house?—Rev. Rabbi Mark. Is Rev. Dr. C. G. Eastwood in the house?
The Court—Dr. Eastwood, open court with prayer.
Dr. Eastwood—Our Father and our God, we thank Thee for the privilege that is ours of living in this glorious land that Thou hast given to us through the sacrifice and heroism of those who have lived and gone. We thank Thee, Oh God, that Thou didst inspire them to press onward and upward in the building of a civilization that should last and we pray Thee that the same spirit that impelled them may grip our hearts and seize upon us that we may give to the generations that shall yet follow as rich a heritage as they have bequeathed unto us. And, our Heavenly Father, we thank Thee for the courts of justice in our land, where men can come and receive justice and this morning we pray that Thy blessings may rest upon the Court at this hour and upon this occasion. Wilt Thou give him clearness of vision and of mind for the solution of the problems that are before him? And, our Father, we pray that Thy blessings may rest upon the jury in its deliberations and upon the counsel and upon all those engaged in or participating in this case and, Oh God, we ask Thee that Thy blessings may rest upon those who are members of the press as they send out the messages to the waiting millions of the world. Now again we pray that Thy blessings may rest upon the Court and Thou wilt give Thy divine guidance in the things that shall be done and the decisions that shall be made. These things we ask in the name of our Lord and Master Jesus Christ. Amen.
The Court—Open court, Mr. Sheriff.
The Bailiff—Oyez, oyez, this honorable circuit court is now open, pursuant to adjournment. Sit down please.
TEXT OF JUDGE RAULSTON'S RULING IN EXCLUDING EXPERTS
State of Tennessee vs. John T. Scopes.
This case is now before the court upon a motion by the attorneygeneral to exclude from the consideration of the jury certain expert testimony offered by the defendant, the import of such testimony being an effort to explain the origin of man and life. The state insists that such evidence is wholly irrelevant, incompetent and impertinent to the issues pending, and that it should be excluded.
Upon the other hand the defendant insists that this evidence is hghly competent and relevant to the issues involved, and should be admitted.
The first section of the statute involved in this case reads as follows:
"Be it enacted by the general assembly of the state of Tennessee, that it shall be unlawful for any teacher in any of 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, to teach any theory that denies the story of divine creation as taught in the Bible, and to teach instead that man has descended from a lower order of animals."
The state says that it is both proven and admitted that this defendant did teach in Rhea county, within the limits of the statute, that man descended from a lower order of animals; and that with these facts
