John Thomas Scopes Trial: 1925
(The "Monkey Trial")
Name of Defendant: John Thomas Scopes Crime Charged: Teaching
evolution Chief Defense Lawyers: Clarence Darrow, Arthur Garfield Hays,
and Dudley Field Malone. Chief Prosecutors: William Jennings Bryan and
A.T. Stewart Judge: John T. Raulston Place: Dayton, Tennessee
Dates of Trial: July 10-21, 1925 Verdict: Guilty; however, neither side
won the case because the decision was reversed on a technicality involving
the judge's error in imposing a fine that legally could only be set by the jury
Sentence: $100 fine
SIGNIFICANCE
The John Thomas Scopes trial checked the influence of Fundamentalism in public
education and stripped William Jennings Bryan of his dignity as a key figure in
American political history. It also marked the displacement of religious faith and
rural values by scientific skepticism and cosmopolitanism as the dominant strains
in American thought.
R
arely has the American psyche been so at odds with itself as in the early
1920s. In the cities, Americans were dancing to the opening bars of the Jazz
Age. debating Sigmund Freud's theories and swigging bootleg liquor in defiance
of Prohibition. I n t h e rural heartland, particularly in the South, believers in oldfashioned values were caught u p in a wave of religious revivalism. Preachers
damned modern scientific rationalism in all its guises and uphefd a strict and
literal interpretation of the Bible as the onlv source of truth. '4 showdown
between modernists and traditionalists to decide wllich would dominate American culture seemed inevitable. Both sides itched for a decisi1.e battle.
31 2
Fundamentalists were particularly galled by the gains modernism had
made in public schools. ~ v h e r ethe teaching of Charles Darwin's t h e o n of
evolution by natural selectior~had supplanted the Biblical story of creation. 7-0
them, it seemed their tax dollars were being spent to turn their own children
against-even
to scoff at-the religion of their parents. L e d by \~'ilIiam]ennings B ~ a n the
. thrice-defeated presidential candidate of populism, the Funda-
mentalists tried to drive t h e Darwinian "heresy" out of the schools by legislative
d5
,I
In T e n n e s s e e a bill sponsored by John Washington Butler was enacted in
February 1925, declaring it unlawful for a teacher in any school supported by
state funds "to teach any theory that denies t h e story of the divine creation of
man as taught in t h e Bible, and to teach instead that man has descended from a
lower order of animals." Fearful that if the Tennessee law went unchallenged
other states would soon pass similar bills, t h e American Civil Liberties Union
(ACLU) immediately announced it would defend any teacher charged with
violating the Butler Act.
h few weeks later, in the little town of Dayton, a transplanted N e w Yorker
with Darwinian views got into a debate at the local drugstore soda fountain with
two Fundamentalist lawyers. However much they fought over evolution and
whether mankind and m o n k e y were close relatives, they quickly agreed that a
trial to test the law would d o wonders for Dayton's commerce. T h e 24-vear-old
science teacher of the local high school, John Thomas Scopes, was recruited that
very afternoon to be the legal guinea pig. Just as quickly. the ACLU confirmed it
was prepared to defend Scopes.
L1sing a state-approved textbook, Scopes taught a lesson on evolutionary
theory on April 24 to his Rhea County High School science class. Arrested on
May 7. Scopes was quickly indicted by t h e grand jury, setting the stage for what
newspaper headline writers were already calling the "Monkey Trial."
The Circus Comes to Dayton
T h e legal teams fielded by borh sides guaranteed the press attention they
and Dayton's business leaders craved. T h e A C L U dispatched ics chief attorney,
Arthur Garfield Hays, and his partner, Dudley Field Malone, along with Clarence Darrow. Darrow, \+rhohad made his reputation by defending controversial
clients. became the chief lau~verfor the defense. A militant agnostic, h e had long
been on a personal crusade against resurgent Fundamentalism. and he saw the
Scopes trial as the perfect opportunity to kick the \\obbl\; intellectual props our
from under that ideology.
Personif\ing the Fundamentalist \vorld \-ie\\., the star of t h e prosecution
team Ivas none other rhan \Yilliam Jennings Bryan himself. N o one \vas more
holier-than-thou or more effective on the stump in defending old-fashioned
rural .America's Fundamentalist values rhan "'l'he Grear Commoner." as h e
liked to be called.
Pro- and anti-e\olurionists alike billed the trial as a winner-take-all debate
berlveen incomparible ideologies. a forensic arm:~geddon between religion and
science. Faith and reason. traditional and modern \-alues. the forces of light and
the forces of darkness. Scientisrs and intellecruals \\-ere horrified at the prospecr
of a state barring scient~fickno\~-ledgefrom the clussroom. Civil libertarians saw
the case as 3 rrticiaJ test of academic freedom. lvhich had to be defended
regardless of the prel~ailingreligious beliefs of the local population. Fundamen-
John Thomas
talists proclaimed the case a last-ditch battle to save the souls of their children
from atheism.
GREAT
AMERICAN
Big-city editors recognized it as a circus and sent their most tvaspish
reporters and columnists to poke fun at the hayseeds. Dozens of new telegraph
lines had to b e strung into Dayton to handle their cable traffic. In addition to the
lawyers and reporters, the town was overrun with itinerant preachers, commercial hucksters, eccentrics of every stripe, and numerous chimpanzees accompanied by their trainers. Monkey dolls, umbrellas with monkey handles, and
dozens of other souvenirs with a monkey motif were put on sale.
TRIALS
Despite t h e circus-like atmosphere, the trial was no laughing matter for
Brian. Arriving a few days early, h e preached to a large audience, " T h e contest
between evolution and Christianity is a duel to the death. . . . If evolution wins in
Dayton, Christianity goes."
Evolution on Trial
T h e trial began Friday, July 10, 1925, with Judge John T. Raulston
presiding. More than 900 spectators packed the sweltering courtroom. Because
of an error in t h e original indictment, most of the first morning was spent
selecting another grand jury and drawing u p a new indictment. With that task
done, a trial jury of 10 farmers, a schoolteacher and a clerk was quickly
impaneled, and t h e court adjourned for the weekend.
O n t h e first business day of t h e trial, the defense tried and failed to quash
the indictment on grounds that t h e law violated both t h e Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which states that no one may be deprived of
rights without d u e process of law, and the freedom of religion clause of t h e First
Amendment. Describing the Butler Act to be "as brazen and as bold an attempt
to destroy learning as was ever made in the Middle Ages," Darrow predicted
there would be a natural progression from the forbidding of the teaching of
e\,olution in public schools to t h e banning of books and censoring of newspapers.
314
-
T h e opening statement for the prosecution was made the next day by A.T.
Stewart, t h e attorney general of Tennessee, who charged Scopes w ~ t hcontradicting the Biblical story of Creation, thus violating the Butler Act. Responding for
t h e defense, Dudley Malone insisted that for Scopes to be convicted the state
had to prove two things: that he had denied the Biblical story of creation and that
he had taught instead that man descended from a lower order of animals.
Proving both would considerably complicate the prosecution's task. (While
Scopes had admitted teaching evolution, there was no evidence h e had.denied
the Bible's version of man's origins.) Malone conceded there was there were
some apparent contradictions between t h e Darwinian and Biblical accounts of
creation, but he noted that many people managed to reconcile the two theories.
Only t h e Fundamentalists maintained that science and religion were totally
incompatible on the subject.
I
I
aspish
:graph
to the
nmer3mpa;. and
j
i
I
T h e prosecution's case was presented briskly. T h e superintendent of thc
Rhea County school system testified that Scopes had admitted teaching exolution in a biology class. Stewart then offered a King James \.ersion ot'the Bihle as
evidence of what the Butler . k t described as the Biblical accoirnt of Creation.
T h e judge accepted this as evidence over the objection of Arthur Garfield Eid)s,
tvho pointed out that there \c.ere several different versions of the Bible.
1925
John Thomas
Scopes Trial
er for
)ntest
ins in
lston
:ause
pent
task
ickly
uash
cndd of
.
-1rst
m Pt
xed
K of
spa?
.
1.Tdicfor
:ate
hat
als.
~ile
ied
es.
Scopes' students testified that he had taught that mammals had evolved
from one-cell organisms and that humans share the classification "mammal"
with monkeys, cats, etc. T h e owner of the local drugstore where Scopes had
purchased the textbook he used to teach evolution acknowledged that the state
had authorized sale of the textbook. Darrow and t h e druggist read aloud portions
on Darwin. T o counter, Steward read the first two chapters of the Old Testament's Genesis into the record. With that, the prosecution rested.
T h e next day, Thursday, July 16, the defense started calling its w i tnesscs,
beginning with a zoologist from Johns Hopkins University. T h e prosecution
objected, arguing t h e evidence was inadmissible and irrelevant since rhe j u q
did not need to understand evolutionary theory to decide whether Scopes had
violated t h e law in teaching it.
I
Bryan seized this opportunity to give his major speech of t h e trial. Clutching the offending textbook in one hand and a palm fan in the other, he belitrled
t h e theory of evolution and ridiculed a diagram in the textbook. Bryan &argecl
that Darwinism produced agnostics and atheists, thus weakening moral stan-
The crowded courlroom
of the Scopes trial
Clarence Darrow and
other members of the
defense leam are ~n Ihe
foreground (Courtesy.
L~braryof Congress)
GREAT
AMERICAN
TRIALS
dards. As evidence of this, h e claimed it had inspired t h e German philosopher
Friedrich Nietzsche, whose writings, in turn, had motivated the Chicago "thrillkillers," Nathan Leopold and Richard Loeb. Darrow, who had been t h e defense
attorney in that case, angrily objected, stating that Bryan was misrepresenting
Nietzsche's views to prejudice the jury; Judge Raulston overruled him. Bryan
closed on a defiant note, assuring his audience that t h e Bible would survive
attacks by scientists trying to reconcile it with evolution. Although some of his
quips provoked appreciative laughter from spectators, observers noted that the
speech lacked t h e eloquence and punch of Bryan's best s t u m p performances.
Dudley Malone, presenting the defense's last argument for t h e
admissibility of scientific evidence, charged t h e Fundamentalists with suppressing new ideas out of fear and claiming they had a monopoly on t h e truth.
Malone proclaimed: " T h e truth always wins. . . . T h e truth does not need the
forces of Government. T h e truth does not need Mr. Bryan. T h e truth is imperishable," Malone declared. "We feel we stand with progress. . . .W e feel we
stand with fundamental freedom in America. W e are not afraid. Where is the
fear? W e defy it!" Although Malone's speech received more applause than
Bryan's, it failed to persuade t h e judge.
'The phrase "descended from a lo\ver order of animals" was clear enough
to define e\lolurion under the law, Judge Raulston decided, ruling out t h e
admissibility of scientific testimony.
Enraged by this decision, Arthur Hays requested t h e judge at least permit
the expert statements to be entered into the court record, not to b e heard by t h e
jury but to be available to an appeals court. Avoiding cross-examination of its
expert \vitnesses, the defense lawyers submitted their written statements, summaries of which went into t h e record.
Darrow Deflates Bryan
T h e trial, which had been moved to the courthouse lawn ro accommodate
the crowds, seemed to be winding do\vn when defense atrorne>-Hays dropped a
bombshell: H e called \I'illiam Jennings Bryan ro t h e stand as an expert on the
Bible. T h i s was an unheard-of legal tactic, but. \vith jaunty overconfidence,
Hr\an sprang up to accept the dare and the doubtful judge agreed. Darro\v.
whose skill at trapping witnesses with their own words was legendary, dropped
his pre\ iously gentle manner when Bryan took the stand. First, he got Bryan to
state e\-er\ ~ o r din the Bible \vas lirerally true. H e then asked ho\v t h e Old
Testament figure Chin got a wife if he, Adam. Eve. and Xbel were t h e onl\- four
people on earth a t the time. as the Bible taid. n'ext, Clarence Darro\v pointed
out that the Book of Genesis states that t h e serpent \rho tempted E\,e in the
Garden of Eden \\as condemned by God to slither on its belly. Darrow- then
asked R r ~ a nif before that. had the snake 12-alked on its tail? 'l'he more Darrov.
bored In. rhe more entangled Br\:an became in contradictions. and the more
foolihh he 2nd his cause appeared.
dii
Bil
Fu
ch:
Bit
Ch
ing
mo
recc
OPP
aski
nint
law,
let 1
verd
did
I
.
teacl
soon
Butlc
effor
Cour
unco
by th
and c
scopc
thoug
viewe
tollin!
Daytc
ensurc
battle:
-
Sugge:
Allen, L
7
Darrow.
Sweating and shaking, Bryan shocked his own supporters by admitting h e
didn't think t h e earth was made in six 24-hour days, as a literal reading of the
Bible suggested. T h i s was significant, since literalism was the cornerstone of
Fundamentalist doctrine. T h e personal antagonism between Darrow and Bryan
charged t h e courtroom with electricity. Bryan accused Darrow of insulting t h e
Bible. Darrow responded, "I am examining you on your fool ideas that n o
Christian on earth believes."
Finally, after a n hour and a half, Judge Raulston adjourned the proceedings in a transparent attempt to save Bryan further embarrassment. T h e next
morning Bryan's testimony was described as irrelevant and removed from t h e
record by the judge. T h e defense immediately rested, denying Bryan any
opportunity to erase t h e previous day's humiliation.
1925
John Thomas
Scopes Trial
Closing for the defense, Clarence Darrow stole the prosecution's lines by
asking the jury to find Scopes guilty so that t h e case could b e appealed. After
nine minutes, the jury came back with a guilty verdict. In violation o f T e n n e s s e e
law, which required that the fine be set bv t h e jury, Raulston advised, t h e jury to
let him fix the fine, an error that led the court of appeals to reject the original
verdict. M'hile the appeals court upheld the constitutionality of the Butler Act, it
did not order a retrial for John T h o m a s Scopes, who by that time had given u p
teaching.
I n a narrow sense, Scopes and t h e evolutionists lost t h e battle. But it was
soon apparent thar they had won t h e war. N o attempt was made to enforce the
butler Act agaln, although ~t was not repealed u n t ~ l196,'. W ~ t h ~a nfew years,
efforts to enforce similar laws in other states were also abandoned. T h e Supreme
Court put t h e issue to rest in 1968, when it held a similar statute in Arkansas
unconstitutional because it violated the separation of church and state required
by the First Amendment of the Constitution.
But the Scopes trial is remembered not so much for its legal as its social
and cultural significance. It marked a watershed in intellectual history; before
Scopes, religious faith was the cornmon, if not universal, premise of American
thought; after Scopes. scientific skepticism prevailed. Friends and enemies alike
viewed William J e n n ~ n g BQ-an's
s
death just ,a few weeks after the trial ended as
tolling the e n d of an era. A 1955 plav and subsequent film based on the events in
Dayton, Tennessee, Inherif the 14Jind bv Jerome Lawrence and Robert Lee,
ensured thar the trial would remain among the most remembered courtroom
battles in U.S. history.
-Edward
11'. Knuppman
Suggestions for Further Reading
Allen. 1,eslie H.. cd Bmon -1nd Dor-row .41 Dosfon. Thp Record-lnd Domrn~nfrOf The "Blhlr E;.u/u/ion
7 i ~ n l "Yew 1ork Arrhrlr I x e . 1925
Coletra. Paoln E. I4'1//rom.f~nninfsB n o n L~ncoln:I ' n n erslry of Piebraska Preo. 19b9.
Darrolr. Clarence Thr .Sfon
c!i.!i.Nl-
l.!fr Nr\x l ork: Charles Scrlbner's Sons. 1932
I