A Religious Orgy in Tennessee (18 page)

DARROW:
You couldn't say then how long Mr. Wright places it?

BRYAN:
I don't attempt to tell you.

DARROW:
When was the last glacial age?

BRYAN:
I wouldn't attempt to tell you that.

DARROW:
Have you any idea?

BRYAN:
I wouldn't want to fix it without looking at some of the figures.

DARROW:
That was since the Tower of Babel, wasn't it?

BRYAN:
Well, I wouldn't want to fix it. I think it was before the time given in here, and that was only given as the possible appearance of man and not the actual.

DARROW:
Have you any idea how far back the last glacial age was?

BRYAN:
No, sir.

DARROW:
Do you know whether it was more than 6,000 years ago?

BRYAN:
I think it was more than 6,000 years ago.

DARROW:
Have you any idea how old the earth is?

BRYAN:
No.

DARROW:
The book you have introduced in evidence fails you, doesn't it? [referring to the Bible]

BRYAN:
I don't think it does, Mr. Darrow.

DARROW:
Let's see whether it does. Is this the one?

BRYAN:
That is the one, I think.

DARROW:
It says BC 4004.

BRYAN:
That is Bishop Ussher's calculation.

DARROW:
That is printed in the Bible you introduced?

BRYAN:
Yes, sir.

DARROW:
And numerous other Bibles?

BRYAN:
Yes, sir.

DARROW:
Printed in the Bible in general use in Tennessee?

BRYAN:
I couldn't say.

DARROW:
And Scofield's Bible?
^*

BRYAN:
I couldn't say about that.

DARROW:
You have seen it somewhere else?

BRYAN:
I think that is the chronology actually used.

DARROW:
Does the Bible you have introduced for the jury's consideration say that?

BRYAN:
Well, you'll have to ask those who introduced that.

DARROW:
You haven't practiced law for a long time, so I will ask you if that is the King James version that was
introduced. That is your marking, and I assume it is.

BRYAN:
I think that is the same one.

DARROW:
There is no doubt about it, is there, gentlemen?

STEWART:
That is the same one.

DARROW:
Would you say the earth was only 4,000 years old?

BRYAN:
Oh no, I think it is much older than that.

DARROW:
How much?

BRYAN:
I couldn't say.

DARROW:
Do you say whether the Bible itself says it is older than that?

BRYAN:
I don't think the Bible says itself whether it is older or not.

DARROW:
Do you think the earth was made in six days?

BRYAN:
Not six days of twenty-four hours.

DARROW:
Doesn't it say so?

BRYAN:
No, sir.

STEWART:
I want to interpose another objection. What is the purpose of this examination?

BRYAN:
The purpose is to cast ridicule on everybody who believes in the Bible, and I am perfectly willing that the world shall know that these gentlemen have no other purpose than ridiculing every Christian who believes in the Bible.

DARROW:
We have the purpose of preventing bigots and ignoramuses from controlling the education of the
United States, and you know it, and that is all.

BRYAN:
I am glad to bring out that statement. I want the world to know that this evidence is not just for the view. Mr. Darrow and his associates have filed affidavits here stating, the purpose of which, as I understand it, is to show that the Bible story is not true.

MALONE (FOR THE DEFENSE):
Mr. Bryan seems anxious to get some evidence into the record that would tend to show that those affidavits are not true.

BRYAN:
I am not trying to get anything into the record. I am simply trying to protect the Word of God against the greatest atheist or agnostic in the United States. [Prolonged applause.] I want the papers to know I am not afraid to get on the stand in front of him and let him do his worst. I want the world to know that agnosticism is trying to force agnosticism on our colleges and on our schools, and the people of Tennessee will not permit that to be done. [Prolonged applause.]

DARROW:
I wish I could get a picture of those claquers.

STEWART:
I am not afraid of Mr. Bryan being perfectly able to take care of himself, but this examination cannot be a legal examination, and it cannot be worth a thing, Your Honor. I respectfully except to it, and call upon Your Honor in the name of all that is legal to stop this examination, and stop it here.

HAYS (FOR THE DEFENSE):
I rather sympathize with the General [Stewart], but Mr. Bryan is produced as a witness because he is a student of the Bible, and he presumably understands what the Bible means. He is one of the foremost students in the United States, and we hope to show Mr. Bryan, who is a student of the Bible, what the Bible really means in connection with evolution. Mr. Bryan has already stated that the world is not merely 6,000 years old, and that is very helpful to us. And where your evidence is coming from, this Bible, which goes to the jury, is that the world started in 4004 BC.

BRYAN:
You think the Bible says that?

HAYS:
The one you have taken in evidence says that.

BRYAN:
I don't concede that it does.

HAYS:
You know that that chronology is made up by adding together all of the ages of the people in the Bible, counting their ages. And now then, let us show the next stage from a Bible student, that these things are not to be taken literally, but that each man is entitled to his own interpretation.

STEWART:
The court makes the interpretation.

HAYS:
But the court is entitled to information on what is the interpretation of an expert Bible student.

STEWART:
This is resulting in a harangue and nothing else.

DARROW:
I didn't do any of the haranguing; Mr. Bryan
has been doing that.

STEWART:
You know absolutely you have done it.

DARROW:
Oh, all right.

MALONE:
Mr. Bryan doesn't need any support.

STEWART:
Certainly he doesn't need any support, but I am doing what I conceive my duty to be, and I don't need any advice, if you please, sir. [Applause.]

JUDGE RAULSTON:
That would be irrelevant testimony if it was going to the jury. Of course, it is excluded from the jury on the point it is not competent testimony, on the same ground as the affidaviting.

HICKS:
Your Honor, let me say a word right there. It is in the discretion of the court how long you will allow them to question witnesses for the purpose of taking testimony to the Supreme Court. Now we, as taxpayers of this county, feel that this has gone beyond reason.

JUDGE RAULSTON:
Well, now, that taxpayers doesn't appeal to me so much, when it is only 15 or 20 minutes time.

DARROW:
I would have been through in a half-hour if Mr. Bryan had answered my questions.

STEWART:
They want to put in affidavits as to what other witnesses would swear, why not let them put in affidavits as to what Mr. Bryan would swear.

BRYAN:
God forbid!

STEWART:
It is not worth anything to them, if Your Honor please, even for the record in the Supreme Court.

HAYS:
Is it not worth anything to us if Mr. Bryan will accept the story of creation in detail, and if Mr. Bryan, as a Bible student, states you cannot take the Bible necessarily as literally true?

STEWART:
The Bible speaks for itself.

HAYS:
You mean to say the Bible itself tells whether these are parables? Does it?

STEWART:
We have left all annals of procedure behind. This is a harangue between Col. Darrow and his witness. He makes so many statements that he is forced to defend himself.

DARROW:
I do not do that.

STEWART:
I except to that is not pertinent to this lawsuit.

JUDGE RAULSTON:
Of course it is not pertinent, or it would be before the jury.

STEWART:
It is not worth anything before a jury.

JUDGE RAULSTON:
Are you about through, Mr. Darrow?

DARROW:
I want to ask a few more questions about the creation.

JUDGE RAULSTON:
I know. We are going to adjourn when Mr. Bryan comes off the stand for the day. Be very brief, Mr. Darrow. Of course—I believe I will make myself clearer. Of course, it is incompetent testimony
before the jury. The only reason I am allowing this to go in at all is that they may have it in the appellate courts, as showing what the affidavit would be.

BRYAN:
The reason I am answering is not for the benefit of the Superior court. It is to keep these gentlemen from saying I was afraid to meet them and let them question me. And I want the Christian world to know that any atheist, agnostic, unbeliever, can question me any time as to my belief in God, and I will answer him.

DARROW:
I want to take an exception to this conduct of this witness. He may be very popular down here in the hills. I do not need to have his explanation for his answer.

BRYAN:
If I had not, I would not have answered the question.

HAYS:
May I be heard? I do not want Your Honor to think we are asking questions of Mr. Bryan with the expectation that the higher court will not say that those questions are proper testimony. The reason I state that is this, your law speaks for the Bible. Your law does not say the literal interpretation of the Bible. If Mr. Bryan, who is a student of the Bible, will state that everything in the Bible need not be interpreted literally, that each man must judge for himself, if he will state that, of course, then Your Honor would charge the jury.
We are not bound by a literal interpretation of the Bible. If I have made my argument clear enough for the attorney general to understand, I will retire.

STEWART:
I will admit you have frequently been difficult of comprehension, and I think you are as much to blame as I am.

HAYS:
I know I am.

STEWART:
I think this is not legal evidence for the record in the Appellate Courts. The King James version of the Bible, as Your Honor says …

JUDGE RAULSTON:
I cannot say that.

STEWART:
Your Honor has held the court takes judicial knowledge of the King James version of the Bible.

JUDGE RAULSTON:
No sir, I did not do that.

STEWART:
Your Honor charged the grand jury and read from that.

JUDGE RAULSTON:
I happened to have the Bible in my hand, it happened to be a King James edition, but I will charge the jury, gentlemen, the Bible generally used in Tennessee, as the book ordinarily understood in Tennessee, as the Bible, I do not think it is proper for us to say to the jury what Bible.

STEWART:
Of course, that is all we could ask of Your Honor. This investigation or interrogation of Mr. Bryan as a witness, Mr. Bryan is called to testify, was of the counsel for the prosecution in this case,
and has been asked something, perhaps less than a thousand questions, of course not personal to this case, and it has resulted in an argument, and argument about every other question cannot be avoided. I submit, Your Honor, it is not worth anything in the record at all, if it is not legal testimony. Mr. Bryan is willing to testify and is able to defend himself. I accept it, if the court please, and ask Your Honor to stop it.

HAYS:
May I ask a question? If your contention is correct that this law does not necessarily mean that the Bible is to be taken literally word for word, is this not competent evidence?

STEWART:
Why could you not prove it by your scientists?

DARROW:
We are calling one of the most foremost Bible students. You vouch for him.

MALONE:
We are offering the best evidence.

MCKENZIE:
Do you think this evidence is competent before a jury?

DARROW:
I think so.

JUDGE RAULSTON:
It is not competent evidence for the jury.

McKENZIE:
Nor is it competent in the Appellate Courts, and these gentlemen would no more file the testimony of Col. Bryan as a part of the record in this case than they would file a rattlesnake and handle it themselves.

DARROW, HAYS, MALONE:
We will file it. We will file it. We will file every word of it.

BRYAN:
Your Honor, they have not asked a question legally, and the only reason they have asked any question is for the purpose—as the question about Jonah was asked—for a chance to give this agnostic an opportunity to criticize a believer in the word of God; and I answered the question in order to shut his mouth, so that he cannot go out and tell his atheistic friends that I would not answer his questions. That is the only reason, no more reason in the world.

MALONE:
Your Honor, on this very subject I would like to say that I would have asked Mr. Bryan—and I consider myself as good a Christian as he is—every question that Mr. Darrow has asked him, for the purpose of bringing out whether or not there is to be taken in this court only a literal interpretation of the Bible; or whether, obviously as these questions indicate, if a general and literal construction cannot be put upon the parts of the Bible which have been covered by Mr. Darrow's questions. I hope, for the last time, no further attempt will be made by counsel on the other side of the case, or Mr. Bryan, to say the defense is concerned at all with Mr. Darrow's particular religious views or lack of religious views. We are here
as lawyers with the same right to our views. I have the same right to mine as a Christian as Mr. Bryan has to his, and we do not intend to have this case changed by Mr. Darrow's agnosticism or Mr. Bryan's brand of Christianity. [Prolonged applause.]