vision of the constitution which says laws must be uniform. There is no question about the theory of it. If there were not, why, they would be passing laws against—the fundamentalists would be passing laws against the Congregationalists and Unitarians—I cannot remember all the names—Universalists—they might graduate the law according to how orthodox or unorthodox the church was. You cannot do it; they have to be general. The supreme court of this state has decided it and it does not admit of a doubt.
Now, I will just read one section of the opinion: The act is for the benefit of all individuals, barbers excepted; we know that all of the best hotels have bathrooms for the use of guests, that they accept pay for baths and permit them on Sunday.
Charges Class Legislation
(Reading from Barbers case, 2 Pickle, beginning with "that in many cases the barber has bathroom" to "for this and other things the act is held void.")
That in the case in 2 Pickle that I read from. Why they named this Pickle I have not found out yet.
But there is another in 16 Cates, page 12. This is a case, your honor, where they passed a law:
(Reading from above book beginning with words "that it shall be unlawful for any jobbing," to "It shall be unlawful.")
If it is unlawful for these corporations to discharge an individual because they didn't vote a certain ticket, this must have been passed against the wicked democrats up here. Up in our state it is the republicans who do all that, but still, it shall be unlawful to discharge any man if he don't vote a certain way or buy at a certain place if he did buy at a certain place, that only applied to corporations; if John Smith had a little ranch upon the mountain or had hired a man he could discharge him all right if he didn't vote the right ticket or go to the right church or any old reason. And the supreme court of the state said, "Oh, no, you cannot pass that sort of a law." What is sauce for the goose must be sauce for the gander. You cannot pass a law making it a crime for a corporation to discharge a man because he voted differently and leave private individuals to do it. And they passed this law.
Let us look at this act, your honor. Here is a law which makes it a crime to teach evolution in the caption. I don't know whether we have discussed that or not, but it makes it a crime in the body of the act to teach any theory of the origin of man excepting that contained in the divine account, which we find in the Bible. All right. Now that act applies to what? Teachers in the public schools. Now I have seen somewhere a statement of Mr. Bryan's that the fellow that made the pay check had a right to regulate the teachers. All right, let us see. I do not question the right of the legislature to fix the courses of study, but the state of Tennessee has no right under the police power of the state to carve out a law which applies to school-teachers, a law which is a crimnal statute and nothing else; which makes no effort to prescribe the school law or course of study. It says that John Smith who teaches evolution is a crimnal if he teaches it in the public schools. There is no question about this act; there is no question where it belongs; there is no question of its origin. Nobody would claim that the act could be passed for a minute excepting that teaching evolution was in the nature of a criminal act; that it smacked of policemen and criminals and jails and grand juries; that it was in the nature of something that was criminal and, therefore, the state should forbid it.
It cannot stand a minute in this court on any theory than that it is a criminal act, simply because they say it contravenes the teaching of Moses without telling us what those teachings are. Now, if this is the subject of a criminal act, then it cannot make a criminal out of a teacher in the public schools and
