The Postcard
A postcard that was published by Rotary Photo of London EC. They state on the back of the card:
'This is a Real Photograph
on Rajar Bromide Paper,'
The card was printed in England. It was posted in Birmingham using a 1d. stamp on Sunday the 26th. July 1925. It was sent to:
Mrs. Goodwin,
43, Oakfield Street,
Altrincham,
Cheshire.
The message on the divided back of the card was as follows:
"Dear Elsie,
Just a card to wish you
Many Happy Returns of
the Day and the Best of
Luck.
With love from
Auntie and Uncle."
The 1925 French Grand Prix
So what happened on the day that the card was posted?
Well, on the 26th. July 1925, the French team of Robert Benoist and Albert Divo won the 1925 French Grand Prix, although the race was marred by the death of 36 year old Italian race driver Antonio Ascari who crashed while leading the race.
On lap 23, Antonio swerved at a left handed corner and got caught in some wooden fencing, which caused his car to overturn. One of his legs was almost severed, and he was bleeding heavily from several wounds, including a head wound; medical help was slow in coming, and Ascari died in the ambulance on his way to hospital.
Alfa withdrew their other cars from the race, and race winners Robert Benoist and Albert Divo drove to the scene of the crash and laid their winners' garlands there.
The Scopes Monkey Trial
The day also marked the death at the age of 65 of William Jennings Bryan, American politician and associate of the prosecution in the Scopes Monkey Trial.
The Scopes Monkey Trial began in Dayton, Tennessee with jury selection on the 10th. July 1925.
The Scopes Trial, formally known as The State of Tennessee v. John Thomas Scopes, and commonly referred to as the Scopes Monkey Trial, was a landmark American legal case in which a high school teacher, John T. Scopes, was accused of violating Tennessee's Butler Act.
The Butler Act had made it unlawful to teach human evolution in any state-funded school. The trial was deliberately staged in order to attract publicity to the small town of Dayton, Tennessee, where it was held.
Scopes was unsure whether he had ever actually taught evolution, but he incriminated himself deliberately so that the case could have a defendant.
Scopes was found guilty and fined $100 (equivalent to $1,500 in 2019), but the verdict was overturned on a technicality.
The trial served its purpose of drawing intense national publicity, as national reporters flocked to Dayton to cover the big-name lawyers who had agreed to represent each side. William Jennings Bryan, three-time presidential candidate and former Secretary of State, argued for the prosecution, while Clarence Darrow, the famed defence attorney, spoke for Scopes.
The trial publicised the Fundamentalist–Modernist controversy, which set Modernists, who said evolution was not inconsistent with religion, against Fundamentalists, who said the Word of God as revealed in the Bible took priority over all human knowledge.
The case was thus seen both as a theological contest, and as a trial on whether modern science should be taught in schools.
The Origins of The Scopes Monkey Trial
State Representative John W. Butler, a Tennessee farmer and head of the World Christian Fundamentals Association, lobbied state legislatures to pass anti-evolution laws.
He succeeded when the Butler Act was passed in Tennessee, on the 25th. March 25 1925. Butler later stated:
"I didn't know anything about evolution,
but I'd read in the papers that boys and
girls were coming home from school and
telling their fathers and mothers that the
Bible was all nonsense."
Tennessee governor Austin Peay signed the law to gain support among rural legislators, but believed the law would neither be enforced nor interfere with education in Tennessee schools. William Jennings Bryan thanked Peay enthusiastically for the bill:
"The Christian parents of the state owe
you a debt of gratitude for saving their
children from the poisonous influence
of an unproven hypothesis."
In response, the American Civil Liberties Union financed a test case in which John Scopes, a Tennessee high school science teacher, agreed to be tried for violating the Act.
Scopes, who had substituted for the regular biology teacher, was charged on the 5th. May 1925 with teaching evolution from a chapter in George William Hunter's textbook, 'Civic Biology: Presented in Problems' (1914), which described the theory of evolution, race, and eugenics.
The two sides brought in the biggest legal names in the nation, William Jennings Bryan for the prosecution and Clarence Darrow for the defence, and the trial was followed on the radio throughout the United States.
Dayton, Tennessee
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) offered to defend anyone accused of teaching the theory of evolution in defiance of the Butler Act.
On the 5th. April 1925, George Rappleyea, local manager for the Cumberland Coal and Iron Company, arranged a meeting with county superintendent of schools Walter White and local attorney Sue K. Hicks at Robinson's Drug Store, convincing them that the controversy of such a trial would give Dayton much needed publicity.
According to Robinson, Rappleyea said:
"As it is, the law is not enforced.
If you win, it will be enforced.
If I win, the law will be repealed.
We're game, aren't we?"
The men then summoned 24-year-old John T. Scopes, a Dayton high school science and maths teacher. The group asked Scopes to admit to teaching the theory of evolution.
John Scopes
Rappleyea pointed out that, while the Butler Act prohibited the teaching of the theory of evolution, the state required teachers to use a textbook that explicitly described and endorsed the theory of evolution, and that teachers were, therefore, effectively required to break the law.
Scopes mentioned that while he couldn't remember whether he had actually taught evolution in class, he had, however, gone through the evolution chart and chapter with the class. Scopes added to the group:
"If you can prove that I've taught
evolution and that I can qualify as
a defendant, then I'll be willing to
stand trial."
Scopes urged students to testify against him, and coached them in their answers. He was indicted on the 25th. May, after three students testified against him at the grand jury; one student afterwards told reporters:
"I believe in part of evolution, but I
don't believe in the monkey business."
Judge John T. Raulston accelerated the convening of the grand jury and all but instructed the grand jury to indict Scopes, despite the meagre evidence against him and the widely reported stories questioning whether the willing defendant had ever taught evolution in the classroom.
Scopes was charged with having taught from the chapter on evolution to a high-school class in violation of the Butler Act and was nominally arrested, although he was never actually detained. Paul Patterson, owner of The Baltimore Sun, put up $500 in bail for Scopes.
The original prosecutors were Herbert E. and Sue K. Hicks, two brothers who were local attorneys and friends of Scopes, but the prosecution was ultimately led by Tom Stewart, who later became a U.S. Senator. Stewart was aided by Dayton attorney Gordon McKenzie, who supported the anti-evolution bill on religious grounds, and who claimed:
"Evolution is detrimental to our morality,
and an assault on the very citadel of our
Christian religion".
Hoping to attract major press coverage, George Rappleyea went so far as to write to the British novelist H. G. Wells asking him to join the defence team. Wells replied that he had no legal training in Britain, let alone in America, and declined the offer.
John R. Neal, a law school professor from Knoxville, announced that he would act as Scopes' attorney whether Scopes liked it or not, and he became the nominal head of the defence team.
Baptist pastor William Bell Riley, the founder and president of the World Christian Fundamentals Association, was instrumental in calling lawyer and former United States Secretary of State, William Jennings Bryan to act as that organization's counsel.
Bryan had originally been invited by Sue Hicks to become an associate of the prosecution, and Bryan had readily accepted, despite the fact he had not tried a case in thirty-six years. As Scopes pointed out to James Presley in the book 'Center of the Storm', on which the two collaborated:
"After Bryan was accepted by the state
as a special prosecutor in the case, there
was never any hope of containing the
controversy within the bounds of
constitutionality."
In response, the defence sought out Clarence Darrow, an agnostic. Darrow originally declined, fearing his presence would create a circus atmosphere, but eventually realised that the trial would be a circus with or without him, and agreed to lend his services to the defence, later saying:
"I realised there was no limit to the
mischief that might be accomplished
unless the country was aroused to
the evil at hand".
The defence team consisted of Darrow, ACLU attorney Arthur Garfield Hays, Dudley Field Malone, an international divorce lawyer who had worked at the State Department, W.O. Thompson, who was Darrow's law partner, and F.B. McElwee. The defence was also assisted by librarian and Biblical authority Charles Francis Potter, who was a Modernist Unitarian preacher.
The prosecution team was led by Tom Stewart, district attorney for the 18th. Circuit (and future United States Senator), and included, in addition to Herbert and Sue Hicks, Ben B. McKenzie and William Jennings Bryan.
The trial was covered by journalists from the South and around the world, including H. L. Mencken for The Baltimore Sun, which was also paying part of the defence's expenses. It was Mencken who provided the trial with its most colourful labels such as the "Monkey Trial" of "The infidel Scopes".
It was also the first United States trial to be broadcast on national radio.
The Proceedings
The ACLU had originally intended to oppose the Butler Act on the grounds that it violated the teacher's individual rights and academic freedom, and was therefore unconstitutional.
Principally because of Clarence Darrow, this strategy changed as the trial progressed. The earliest argument proposed by the defence once the trial had begun was that there was actually no conflict between evolution and the creation account in the Bible; later, this viewpoint would be called theistic evolution.
In support of this claim, they brought in eight experts on evolution. But other than Dr. Maynard Metcalf, a zoologist from Johns Hopkins University, the judge would not allow these experts to testify in person. Instead, they were allowed to submit written statements so their evidence could be used at the appeal.
In response to this decision, Darrow made a sarcastic comment to Judge Raulston (as he often did throughout the trial) on how the judge had been agreeable only to the prosecution's suggestions. Darrow apologized the next day, keeping himself from being found in contempt of court.
Raulston frequently clashed with Darrow. At the outset of the trial, Raulston quoted Genesis and the Butler Act. He also warned the jury not to judge the merit of the law (which would become the focus of the trial) but on the violation of the Act, which he called a 'high misdemeanor'.
The jury foreman himself was unconvinced as to the merit of the Act but he acted, as did most of the jury, on the instructions of the judge.
Bryan chastised evolution for teaching children that humans were but one of 35,000 types of mammals, and bemoaned the notion that human beings were descended:
"Not even from American monkeys,
but from old world monkeys".
Darrow responded for the defence in a speech that was universally considered the oratorical climax of the trial. Arousing fears of "inquisitions", Darrow argued that the Bible should be preserved in the realm of theology and morality, and not put into a course of science. In his conclusion, Darrow declared that Bryan's "duel to the death" against evolution should not be made one-sided by a court ruling that took away the chief witnesses for the defence.
Darrow promised there would be no duel because:
"There is never a duel with the truth."
The courtroom went wild when Darrow finished; Scopes declared Darrow’s speech to be the dramatic high point of the entire trial and insisted that part of the reason Bryan wanted to go on the stand was to regain some of his tarnished glory.
The Examination of Bryan
On the sixth day of the trial, the defence ran out of witnesses. The judge declared that all the defence testimony on the Bible was irrelevant and should not be presented to the jury (which had been excluded during the defence).
On the seventh day of the trial, Clarence Darrow took the unorthodox step of calling William Jennings Bryan, counsel for the prosecution, to the stand as a witness in an effort to demonstrate that belief in the historicity of the Bible and its many accounts of miracles was unreasonable.
Bryan accepted, on the understanding that Darrow would in turn submit to questioning by Bryan. Darrow spent the night before in preparation. The scientists the defence had brought to Dayton prepared topics and questions for Darrow to address to Bryan on the witness stand.
Kirtley Mather, chairman of the geology department at Harvard and also a devout Baptist, took the role of Bryan and answered questions as he believed Bryan would.
Raulston adjourned court to the courthouse lawn, ostensibly because he was "afraid of the building" with so many spectators crammed into the courtroom, but more likely because of the stifling heat.
Adam and Eve
One area of questioning involved the book of Genesis, including questions about whether Eve was actually created from Adam's rib, where Cain got his wife, and how many people lived in Ancient Egypt.
Darrow used these examples to suggest that the stories of the Bible could not be scientific, and should not be used in teaching science with Darrow telling Bryan:
"You insult every man of science and
learning in the world because he does
not believe in your fool religion."
Bryan's declaration in response was:
"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 anytime as to my belief in
God, and I will answer him."
Stewart objected for the prosecution, demanding to know the legal purpose of Darrow's questioning. Bryan, gauging the effect the session was having, claimed that:
"Its purpose is to cast ridicule on
everybody who believes in the Bible".
Darrow, with equal vehemence, retorted:
"We have the purpose of preventing
bigots and ignoramuses from controlling
the education of the United States."
A few more questions followed in the charged open-air courtroom. Darrow asked where Cain got his wife; Bryan answered:
"I will leave the agnostics to hunt for her".
When Darrow addressed the issue of the temptation of Eve by the serpent, Bryan insisted that the Bible be quoted verbatim rather than allowing Darrow to paraphrase it in his own terms. However, after another angry exchange, Judge Raulston banged his gavel, adjourning the court.
The End of the Trial
The confrontation between Bryan and Darrow lasted approximately two hours on the afternoon of the seventh day of the trial. It is likely that it would have continued the following morning, but for Judge Raulston's announcement that he considered the whole examination irrelevant to the case. He decided that it should be "expunged" from the record.
Thus Bryan was denied the chance to cross-examine the defence lawyers in return, although after the trial Bryan distributed nine questions to the press to bring out Darrow's "religious attitude".
The questions and Darrow's short answers were published in newspapers the day after the trial ended, with The New York Times characterizing Darrow as answering Bryan's questions:
"With his agnostic's creed, 'I don't know,'
except where he could deny them with
his belief in natural, immutable law".
After the defence's final attempt to present evidence was denied, Darrow asked the judge to bring in the jury only to have them come to a guilty verdict:
"We claim that the defendant is not guilty, but as
the court has excluded any testimony, except as
to the one issue as to whether he taught that man
descended from a lower order of animals, and we
cannot contradict that testimony, there is no logical
thing to come except that the jury find a verdict that
we may carry to the higher court, purely as a matter
of proper procedure.
We do not think it is fair to the court or counsel on
the other side to waste a lot of time when we know
this is the inevitable result and probably the best
result for the case".
Darrow then addressed the jury:
"We came down here to offer evidence in this case,
and the court has held under the law that the
evidence we had is not admissible, so all we can do
is to take an exception and carry it to a higher court
to see whether the evidence is admissible or not.
We cannot even explain to you that we think you
should return a verdict of not guilty. We do not see
how you could. We do not ask it".
Darrow closed the case for the defence without a final summation. Under Tennessee law, when the defence waives its right to make a closing speech, the prosecution is also barred from summing up its case, preventing Bryan from presenting his prepared summation.
Scopes never testified, since there was never a factual issue as to whether he had taught evolution. Scopes later admitted that, in reality, he was unsure of whether he had taught evolution (another reason the defence did not want him to testify), but the point was not contested at the trial.
William Jennings Bryan's summation of the Scopes trial (distributed to reporters but not read in court) was as follows:
"Science is a magnificent force, but it is not a teacher
of morals. It can perfect machinery, but it adds no moral
restraints to protect society from the misuse of the
machine.
It can also build gigantic intellectual ships, but it
constructs no moral rudders for the control of the storm-
tossed human vessel. It not only fails to supply the spiritual
element needed, but some of its unproven hypotheses
rob the ship of its compass and thus endanger its cargo.
In war, science has proven itself an evil genius; it has made
war more terrible than it ever was before.
Man used to be content to slaughter his fellowmen on a
single plane, the earth's surface. Science has taught him
to go down into the water and shoot up from below and
to go up into the clouds and shoot down from above,
thus making the battlefield three times as bloody as it was
before; but science does not teach brotherly love.
Science has made war so hellish that civilization was about
to commit suicide; and now we are told that newly discovered instruments of destruction will make the cruelties of the late
war seem trivial in comparison with the cruelties of wars that
may come in the future.
If civilization is to be saved from the wreckage threatened by intelligence not consecrated by love, it must be saved by the
moral code of the meek and lowly Nazarene.
His teachings, and His teachings alone, can solve the
problems that vex the heart and perplex the world".
After eight days of trial, it took the jury only nine minutes to deliberate. Scopes was found guilty on the 21st. July and ordered by Raulston to pay a $100 fine (equivalent to $1,500 in 2019).
Raulston imposed the fine before Scopes was given an opportunity to say anything about why the court should not impose punishment upon him, and after Neal brought the error to the judge's attention, the defendant spoke for the first and only time in court:
"Your honour, I feel that I have been convicted
of violating an unjust statute. I will continue in
the future, as I have in the past, to oppose this
law in any way I can.
Any other action would be in violation of my
ideal of academic freedom—that is, to teach
the truth as guaranteed in our constitution, of
personal and religious freedom.
I think the fine is unjust".
Bryan died suddenly five days after the trial's conclusion. The connection between the trial and his death is still debated by historians.
Appeal to the Supreme Court of Tennessee
Scopes' lawyers appealed, challenging the conviction on several grounds. First, they argued that the statute was overly vague because it prohibited the teaching of "Evolution", a very broad term. The court rejected that argument, holding:
"Evolution, like prohibition, is a broad term. In recent
bickering, however, evolution has been understood
to mean the theory which holds that man has developed
from some pre-existing lower type.
This is the popular significance of evolution, just as the
popular significance of prohibition is prohibition of the
traffic in intoxicating liquors.
It was in that sense that evolution was used in this act.
It is in this sense that the word will be used in this opinion,
unless the context otherwise indicates.
It is only to the theory of the evolution of man from a lower
type that the act before us was intended to apply, and
much of the discussion we have heard is beside this case".
Second, the lawyers argued that the statute violated Scopes' constitutional right to free speech because it prohibited him from teaching evolution. The court rejected this argument, holding that the state was permitted to regulate his speech as an employee of the state:
"He was an employee of the state of Tennessee or
of a municipal agency of the state.
He was under contract with the state to work in an
institution of the state.
He had no right or privilege to serve the state except
upon such terms as the state prescribed. His liberty, his
privilege, his immunity to teach and proclaim the theory
of evolution, elsewhere than in the service of the state,
was in no wise touched by this law".
Third, it was argued that the terms of the Butler Act violated the Tennessee State Constitution, which provided that:
"It shall be the duty of the General Assembly in all
future periods of this government, to cherish literature
and science."
The argument was that the theory of the descent of man from a lower order of animals was now established by the preponderance of scientific thought, and that the prohibition of the teaching of such theory was a violation of the legislative duty to cherish science. The court rejected this argument, holding that the determination of what laws cherished science was an issue for the legislature, not the judiciary:
"The courts cannot sit in judgment on such acts of the Legislature or its agents and determine whether or not
the omission or addition of a particular course of study
tends to cherish science".
Fourth, the defence lawyers argued that the statute violated the provisions of the Tennessee Constitution that prohibited the establishment of a state religion. The provisions of the Tennessee Constitution stated:
"No preference shall ever be given,
by law, to any religious establishment
or mode of worship".
Writing for the court, Chief Justice Grafton Green rejected this argument, holding that the clause was designed to prevent the establishment of a state religion as had been the experience in England and Scotland at the writing of the Constitution, and held:
"We are not able to see how the prohibition of
teaching the theory that man has descended
from a lower order of animals gives preference
to any religious establishment or mode of worship.
So far as we know, there is no religious establishment
or organised body that has in its creed or confession
of faith any article denying or affirming such a theory.
So far as we know, the denial or affirmation of such a
theory does not enter into any recognized mode of
worship.
Since this cause has been pending in this court, we
have been favoured, in addition to briefs of counsel
and various amici curiae, with a multitude of resolutions,
addresses, and communications from scientific bodies,
religious factions, and individuals giving us the benefit
of their views upon the theory of evolution.
Examination of these contributions indicates that
Protestants, Catholics, and Jews are divided among
themselves in their beliefs, and that there is no unanimity
among the members of any religious establishment as to
this subject.
Belief or unbelief in the theory of evolution is no more a characteristic of any religious establishment or mode of
worship than is belief or unbelief in the wisdom of the
prohibition laws. It would appear that members of the
same churches quite generally disagree as to these
things".
Further, the court held that while the statute "forbade" the teaching of evolution (as the court had defined it) it did not require teaching any other doctrine, and thus did not benefit any one religious doctrine or sect over others.
Nevertheless, having found the statute to be constitutional, the court set aside the conviction on appeal because of a legal technicality: the jury should have decided the fine, not the judge, since under the state constitution, Tennessee judges could not at that time set fines above $50, and the Butler Act specified a minimum fine of $100.
Justice Green added a totally unexpected recommendation:
"The court is informed that the plaintiff in error is no
longer in the service of the state.
We see nothing to be gained by prolonging the life
of this bizarre case. On the contrary, we think that the
peace and dignity of the state, which all criminal
prosecutions are brought to redress, will be the better
conserved by the entry of a nolle prosequi herein.
Such a course is suggested to the Attorney General".
Attorney General L. D. Smith immediately announced that he would not seek a retrial, while Scopes' lawyers offered angry comments on the stunning decision.
Publicity Surrounding the Trial
Edward J. Larson, a historian who won the Pulitzer Prize for History for his book 'Summer for the Gods: The Scopes Trial and America's Continuing Debate Over Science and Religion' (2004), notes:
"Like so many archetypal American events,
the trial itself began as a publicity stunt."
The press coverage of the "Monkey Trial" was overwhelming. The front pages of newspapers like The New York Times were dominated by the case for days. More than 200 newspaper reporters from all parts of the country and two from London were in Dayton.
Twenty-two telegraphers sent out 165,000 words per day on the trial, over thousands of miles of telegraph wires hung for the purpose; more words were transmitted to Great Britain about the Scopes trial than for any previous American event.
Trained chimpanzees performed on the courthouse lawn. Chicago's WGN radio station broadcast the trial with announcer Quin Ryan broadcasting the first on-the-scene coverage of a criminal trial. Two movie cameramen had their film flown out daily in a small plane from a specially prepared airstrip.
H.L. Mencken's trial reports were heavily slanted against the prosecution and the jury, which were "Unanimously hot for Genesis".
He mocked the town's inhabitants as "yokels" and "morons". He called Bryan a "buffoon" and his speeches "theologic bilge". In contrast, he called the defence "eloquent" and "magnificent".
The Courthouse
The Rhea County Courthouse in Dayton is a National Historic Landmark. In a $1 million restoration, completed in 1979, the second-floor courtroom was restored to its appearance during the Scopes trial.
A museum of trial events in its basement contains such memorabilia as the microphone used to broadcast the trial, trial records, photographs, and an audio-visual history.
Every July, local people re-enact key moments of the trial in the courtroom.
Bruce Springsteen
Bruce Springsteen performed a song called "Part Man, Part Monkey" during his 1988 Tunnel of Love Express Tour, and recorded a version of it in 1990.
The song references the Scopes trial:
"They prosecuted some poor sucker
in these United States
For teaching that man descended from
the apes"
But he says that the trial could have been avoided by merely looking at how men behave around women:
"They coulda settled that case without
a fuss or fight
If they'd seen me chasing you, sugar,
through the jungle last night
They'da called in that jury and a one
two three, said
Part man, part monkey, definitely".
