PeRehear

JOHN THOMAS SCOPES ) ) In the Supreme Court of Tennessee ) ) At Nashville VS. ) ) ) STATE OF TENNESSEE ) ) PETITION TO REHEAR
TO THE HONORABLE JUDGES OF THE SUPREME COURT: The Defendant John T. Scopes, petitioner herein being much aggrieved by the opinion of this Court delivered in this cause on the 17 day of January, 1927 presents this his petition to rehear and to reconsider the ground as set out in the opinion of this Honorable Court. A. Petitioner respectfully submits that this Court was in error in holding that the fine was improperly assessed by the Trial Judge and not by the Jury in conformity with the constitutional requirements. B. The petitioner would be greatly grieved by a nolle prosequi entered by the Attorney-General of the State thus preventing a retrial of the case and the securing by the defendant of an acquittal or conviction. C. Your petitioner and thousands of science teachers throughout the state would be greatly grieved unless the Court grants a rehearing before a full bench in order to arrive at a majority interpretation of the Anti-Evolution Law. D. The suggestion of the Court to the Attorney-General to enter an order nolle prosequi if carried out may possibly prevent appeal to the Supreme Court of the United States to which the petitioner thinks under peculiar circumstances of this case he has a right. A. An examination of page Vol. I of the Bill of Exceptions will show that in this case that while suggestions as to amount of fine was made in open court by attorneys and the judge the real determination of the amount was the action of the jury. Your petitioner is aware that by previous order of the Court said Bill of Exceptions was stricken out, but he earnestly urges upon the Court the reconsideration of said order so this case which was of such tremendous importance and interest, not only to the petitioner but the public could not be decided upon (the basis of) irregularity which did not really occur. B. If this was only an ordinary case and if the petitioners were simply desirous of being relieved from paying a fine of $100.00 he would of course not be aggrieved by the suggestion of the Court to the Attorney General to enter a nolle prosequi. But this is not an ordinary case. Its extra-ordinary features have been recognized by the state in the employment of special council of great skill and learning. the Court itself in many ways has taken judicial knowledge of the extra-ordinary character of the case. In the opinion of the Chief Justice three reasons are given for his suggestion to the Attorney-General to enter a nolle prosequi. 1. That the petitioner was out of the state. It is true that this present moment he was out of the state, but for a temporary purpose, which in no way affects his domicile or citizenship in the state of Tennessee. He is at present a post-graduate student pursuing scientific courses in the University of Chicago for the purpose of further equipping himself for his life's vocation, that is, a teacher of science. 2. That he is no longer a teacher in the public schools. While this is true the relinquishment of his employment as a teacher in the public schools of Tennessee which he held at the time this prosecution was sought was not voluntary, but was the result of the prosecution. His application for the continuence of his employment is still in the hands of the Board of Education of Rhea County. He has remained continually anxious to continue in the schools of Tennessee his calling as a teacher of science for which he has prepared himself by long and rigorous college training. If this case should be dismissed without a decision as to whether his teachings was in conformity with the law it would undoubtedly result in his exclusion from employment as a teacher in the public schools for an indefinite future. He does not insist that he has a right to employment, but he does insist most earnestly that his opportunity be not clouded by the failure of this prosecution to result either in acquittal or conviction. 3. This has been a bizarre case. If this case has had its bizarre features it has not been the fault of petitioner. In his defense to this prosecution by the state for teaching what he regarded as the truth, he has insisted that certain great constitutional rights under both the constitution of the state of Tennessee and the United States were being denied him. That his insistence that these rights were being impaired by this Anti-Evolution Statute has attracted the attention of the whole civilized world has not been due to any action on the part of the petitioner, but to the character of the issues involved. The Tennessee legislature had passed an absolutely novel statute. For the first term since parliamentary and legislative governments were created, the state by statute had attempted to define What is Truth and this for religious reasons and had given this definition penal sanctions. C. The fact that the Court after having disposed of the case on the technical ground that the fine was improperly assessed saw fit to give elaborate opinions interpreting the law which were not absolutely necessary is undoubtedly a recognition by the Court that a great public intererest would be subserved by an authoritative interpretation of the law. That this purpose was not accomplished by the Court the petitioner will not in this petition attempt to demonstrate by analysis of the opinions as he is confident that this fact is obvious to the court. A rehearing before a full bench would undoubtedly tend to bring about this most desirable result, namely, a majority of opinion interpreting a law affecting every school teacher in Tennessee. D. Unless the case is returned to Rhea County for retrial it may be impossible for the petitioner to presecute an appeal to the Supreme Court of the United States, which the petitioner thinks he has a right if this Court should finally hold that his teachings are contrary to the interpretation of the statute. The injury to the petitioner has already occurred. He has not been merely contesting a fine amounting to $100.00 but the loss of employment and the right to his calling on the grounds of teaching what he contends is his right under the constitution of the United States. In his efforts he has had this assistance of the American Civil Liberty Union and numberless other individuals interested in the question from the standpoint of Civil Liberties. Unless The case goes back to Dayton all this expenditure of money, time and labor will (go) for naught, save relieving him from a fine of $100.00. Your petitioner therefore prays this Honorable Court pursuant to the ground(s) above set out rehear this case and grant to your petitioner such other and general relief as defendant may be entitled to. Respectfully Submitted,
*John Randolph Neal* Attorney for Petitioner. This is a PETITION TO REHEAR the charges made against John T. Scopes in 1925. John R. Neal disputes the opinion of the Tennessee Supreme Court (17 January, 1927) that the $100.00 fine was improperly assessed by the Trial Judge and not by the Jury. Neal asserts: “the Bill of Exceptions” will show “this Court was in error in holding that” the trial of July, 1925, is a mistrial. “By previous order of the Court said Bill of Exceptions (The appeal) was stricken out.” “The state by statute had attempted to define What is Truth and this for religious reasons and had given this definition penal sanctions.” “Thousands of science teachers throughout the state would be greatly grieved unless the Court grants a rehearing” “to bring about” “a majority of opinion interpreting a law affecting every school teacher in Tennessee.” Tennessee Bar Journal, May/June, 1996, article by Donald F. Paine: “The court had charged the jury that, if it found Scopes guilty, it could leave punishment to the court. Accordingly, the jury returned a guilty verdict without setting the fine; Judge Raulston set the minimum $100 fine.” Judge Raulston overruled a motion for a new trial, and allowed 30 days to file the bill of exceptions— “transcript of evidence.” “Neal failed to file the bill of exceptions on time.” “For anumber of years after the trial, Neal had bills introduced at each successive session of the legislature to have the anti-evolution law repealed.” (The Associated Press, Tennessee State Mail: Tenn. 921.) [ This draft copy has errors of spelling, typing, and written corrections. These errors and notations are edited, with added color highlights, to emphasize the content. This document is included in the personal papers of John R. Neal, at the University of Tennessee Special Collections Library. Special thanks to Elizabeth, and the Director of Special Collections. ] Scopes Trial The Butler Act, Trial, Repeal (P. 147). Friday, 4 May, 2007 Mike Huckabee said: He “can accept that others believe that they and their families come from apes.”

JOHN
THOMAS SCOPES  )

) 
In the Supreme Court of Tennessee

)

) 
       
At Nashville

VS.
         )

)

)

STATE OF TENNESSEE  )

)

PETITION 
TO  REHEAR

TO 

THE  HONORABLE  JUDGES 
OF  THE  SUPREME  COURT:

 The Defendant  John T. Scopes, 
petitioner  herein being much

aggrieved  by the opinion of this Court 
delivered in this

cause  on the
   17  day
of January, 1927 

presents this  his petition

to rehear  and to reconsider the ground 
as set out in the opinion

of this Honorable Court.

A.  Petitioner respectfully submits that 
this Court  was
in error 

in holding that 
the fine was improperly assessed by the

Trial Judge  and not 
by the Jury 
in conformity with the constitutional
requirements.

B.  The petitioner would be greatly grieved 
by a  nolle prosequi 

entered by the Attorney-General of the State 
thus preventing a 

retrial of the case  and the securing 
by the defendant  of an acquittal 
or conviction.

C.  Your petitioner 
and thousands of science teachers 

throughout

the state  would be greatly grieved 
unless the Court  grants a 

rehearing  before a full bench 
in order to arrive at  a majority

interpretation of the Anti-Evolution Law.

D.  The suggestion of the Court 
to the Attorney-General  to

enter an order  nolle prosequi 
if carried out  may possibly  prevent

appeal to the Supreme Court of the United States 
to which the petitioner  thinks 
under peculiar circumstances of this case 
he has a right.

A.  An examination of
page         
Vol. I  of the
Bill of

Exceptions  will show that 
in this case  that while suggestions  as to

amount of fine 
was made in open court 
by attorneys  and the judge 

the real determination of the amount 
was the action of the jury. 

Your petitioner is aware that 
by previous order of the
Court  said Bill 

of Exceptions  was
stricken out, 
but he earnestly urges

upon the Court  the reconsideration of said order 
so this case  which

was of such tremendous importance and interest, 
not only to the

petitioner  but the public  could not be decided upon 
(the basis of) 

irregularity  which
did not  really occur.

B.  If this was only an ordinary case 
and if the petitioners 

were simply desirous of being relieved from 
paying a fine of  $100.00 

he would  of course  not be aggrieved
by the suggestion of the Court 

to the Attorney General  to enter a nolle prosequi. 
But this is not

an ordinary case. 
Its extra-ordinary features  have been recognized

by the state  in the employment of special council 
of great skill

and learning.  the Court itself 
in many ways  has taken judicial

knowledge of the extra-ordinary character of the case. 
In the

opinion of the Chief Justice  three reasons
are given for his

suggestion to the Attorney-General 
to enter a nolle prosequi.

    1.  That the petitioner 
was out of the state.   It is

true that  this present moment 
he was out of the state,  but for a

temporary purpose,  which 
in no way  affects his domicile  or

citizenship in  the state of Tennessee. 
He is  at present  a post-graduate

student  pursuing scientific courses 
in the University of Chicago

for the purpose of further equipping himself 
for his life's vocation,  that is, 
a teacher of science.

    2.  That he is no longer 
a teacher in the public schools. 

While this is true 
the relinquishment of his employment  as a teacher

in the public schools of Tennessee 
which he held  at the time  this

prosecution was sought  was not voluntary, 
but was the result of

the prosecution. 
His application for the continuence of his

employment  is still
in the hands of
the Board of Education of Rhea

County.  He has remained
continually anxious  to continue in the

schools of Tennessee 
his calling 
as a teacher of science  for which

he has prepared himself 
by  long and rigorous 
college training. 

If this case should be dismissed 
without a decision  as to

whether  his teachings was in conformity
with the law  it would

undoubtedly result in his exclusion from employment 
as a teacher 

in the public schools  for an indefinite future. 
He does not

insist that  he has a right to employment, 
but he does insist 

most earnestly  that his opportunity 
be not clouded by the

failure of this prosecution  to result 
either  in acquittal  or conviction.

    3.  This has been a 
bizarre case. 
If this case has

had its bizarre features 
it has not been the fault of petitioner. 

In his defense to this prosecution by the state 
for teaching  what

he regarded as the truth,  he has insisted that 
certain great 

constitutional rights  under  both 
the constitution of the state of

Tennessee  and the United States 
were being denied him.  That his

insistence  that these rights 
were being impaired  by this

Anti-Evolution Statute  has attracted
the attention of the whole civilized

world  has not been due to any action 
on the part of the petitioner, 

but to the character of the issues involved. 
The Tennessee legislature 

had passed an absolutely novel statute. 
For the first term 

since parliamentary and legislative
governments were created, 
the

state  by statute  had attempted
to define  What is Truth 
and this 

for religious reasons 
and had given this definition 
penal sanctions.

C.  The fact that the Court 
after having disposed of the

case  on the technical ground that 
the fine was improperly assessed 

saw fit to give elaborate opinions 
interpreting the law  which were

not absolutely necessary  is undoubtedly 
a recognition  by the Court 

that a great 
public intererest 

would be subserved  by an authoritative

interpretation of the law. 
That this purpose  was not accomplished

by the Court  the petitioner 
will not  in this petition  attempt to

demonstrate  by analysis of the opinions 
as he is confident  that this

fact is obvious to the court. 
A rehearing 
before a full bench  would

undoubtedly  tend to bring about this 
most desirable result,  namely, 

a majority of opinion  interpreting
a law  affecting every school

teacher in Tennessee.

D.  Unless the case is returned to
Rhea County  for retrial 

it may be impossible for the petitioner 
to presecute an appeal to

the Supreme Court  of the United States, 
which the petitioner

thinks  he has a right 
if this Court
should  finally hold that 

his teachings are contrary to the
interpretation of the statute. 

The injury to the petitioner 
has already occurred.  He has not

been merely  contesting a fine 
amounting to  $100.00 
but the loss of

employment  and the right to his calling 
on the grounds of teaching

what he contends  is his right 
under the constitution  of the United

States.  In his efforts 
he has had this assistance of the American

Civil Liberty Union  and numberless
other individuals  interested
in the question  from the standpoint of
Civil Liberties.  Unless

The case goes back to Dayton 
all this expenditure of money,  time 

and labor  will  (go)  for naught, 
save relieving him  from a fine
of  $100.00.

Your petitioner 
therefore  prays 
this Honorable Court  pursuant

to the ground(s)  above set out 
rehear this case  and grant

to your petitioner  such other 
and general relief  as defendant may

be entitled to.

Respectfully
Submitted,

John Randolph Neal
Attorney for Petitioner.

This is a PETITION TO REHEAR the charges made against John T. Scopes in 1925. John R. Neal disputes the opinion of the Tennessee Supreme Court (17 January, 1927) that the $100.00 fine was improperly assessed by the Trial Judge and not by the Jury.
Neal asserts: “the Bill of Exceptions” will show “this Court was in error in holding that” the trial of July, 1925, is a mistrial.
“By previous order of the Court said Bill of Exceptions (The appeal) was stricken out.”
“The state by statute had attempted to define What is Truth and this for religious reasons and had given this definition penal sanctions.”
“Thousands of science teachers throughout the state would be greatly grieved unless the Court grants a rehearing” “to bring about” “a majority of opinion interpreting a law affecting every school teacher in Tennessee.”

Tennessee Bar Journal, May/June, 1996, article by Donald F. Paine: “The court had charged the jury that, if it found Scopes guilty, it could leave punishment to the court. Accordingly, the jury returned a guilty verdict without setting the fine; Judge Raulston set the minimum $100 fine.” Judge Raulston overruled a motion for a new trial, and allowed 30 days to file the bill of exceptions— “transcript of evidence.” “Neal failed to file the bill of exceptions on time.”
“For anumber of years after the trial, Neal had bills introduced at each successive session of the legislature to have the anti-evolution law repealed.” (The Associated Press, Tennessee State Mail: Tenn. 921.)
[ This draft copy has errors of spelling, typing, and written corrections. These errors and notations are edited, with added color highlights, to emphasize the content. This document is included in the personal papers of John R. Neal, at the University of Tennessee Special Collections Library. Special thanks to Elizabeth, and the Director of Special Collections. ]

Scopes Trial
The Butler Act, Trial, Repeal (P. 147).
Friday, 4 May, 2007 Mike Huckabee said:
He “can accept that others believe that they and their families come from apes.”