Trial by Fire (1952) watch online (quality HD 720p)
We offer you to watch the movie Trial by Fire (1952), which you can enjoy in the arms of a loved one. This film is in HD quality. Less words, more movies! Watch and enjoy!
Origins[ edit ] 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 March 25, Presented in Problems , 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 defense, and the trial was followed on radio transmissions throughout the United States.
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 If I win, the law will be repealed. Scopes , a Dayton high school science and math teacher.
The group asked Scopes to admit to teaching the theory of evolution. Scopes added to the group: Raulston accelerated the convening of the grand jury and " Hicks , two brothers who were local attorneys and friends of Scopes, but the prosecution was ultimately led by Tom Stewart , a graduate of Cumberland School of Law , who later became a U.
Stewart was aided by Dayton attorney Gordon McKenzie, who supported the anti-evolution bill on religious grounds, and described evolution as "detrimental to our morality" and an assault on "the very citadel of our Christian religion".
Wells asking him to join the defense team. Wells replied that he had no legal training in Britain, let alone in America, and declined the offer. 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: Darrow originally declined, fearing that his presence would create a circus atmosphere, but eventually realized that the trial would be a circus with or without him, and agreed to lend his services to the defense, later stating that he "realized there was no limit to the mischief that might be accomplished unless the country was aroused to the evil at hand".
McKenzie and William Jennings Bryan. It was Mencken who provided the trial with its most colorful labels such as the "Monkey Trial" of "the infidel Scopes". It was also the first United States trial to be broadcast on national radio. Principally because of Clarence Darrow, this strategy changed as the trial progressed. The earliest argument proposed by the defense 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 that their evidence could be used at the appeal. Darrow apologized the next day, keeping himself from being found in contempt of court. Mencken in The presiding judge, John T. Raulston, was accused of being biased towards the prosecution and frequently clashed with Darrow.
At the outset of the trial, Raulston quoted Genesis and the Butler Act. Malone promised that there would be no duel because "there is never a duel with the truth.
The judge declared that all of the defense testimony on the Bible was irrelevant and should not be presented to the jury which had been excluded during the defense. On the seventh day of the trial, the defense asked the judge to call Bryan as a witness to question him on the Bible, as their own experts had been rendered irrelevant; Darrow had planned this the day before and called Bryan a "Bible expert".
This move surprised those present in the court, as Bryan was a counsel for the prosecution and Bryan himself according to a journalist reporting the trial never made a claim of being an expert, although he did tout his knowledge of the Bible. Bryan accepted, on the understanding that Darrow would in turn submit to questioning by Bryan. Although Hays would claim in his autobiography that the cross-examination of Bryan was unplanned, Darrow spent the night before in preparation.
The scientists the defense had brought to Dayton—and Charles Francis Potter , a modernist minister who had engaged in a series of public debates on evolution with the fundamentalist preacher John Roach Straton —prepared topics and questions for Darrow to address to Bryan on the witness stand. 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.
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. Bryan, gauging the effect the session was having, snapped that its purpose was "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.
Darrow asked where Cain got his wife; Bryan answered that he would "leave the agnostics to hunt for her". However, after another angry exchange, Judge Raulston banged his gavel, adjourning the court. 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. After they were brought in, Darrow then addressed the jury, telling them that: 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 do not see how you could.
We do not ask it. Darrow closed the case for the defense without a final summation. Under Tennessee law, when the defense waived its right to make a closing speech, the prosecution was also barred from summing up its case. 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 defense did not want him to testify , but the point was not contested at the trial. 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 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.
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.
Your honor, 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.
Just a moment...
I think the fine is unjust. 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.
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 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 defense lawyers argued that the statute violated the provisions of the Tennessee Constitution that prohibited the establishment of a state religion. The Religious Preference provisions of the Tennessee Constitution section 3 of article 1 stated, "no preference shall ever be given, by law, to any religious establishment or mode of worship".
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.
Zola is brought to trial - Feb 07, 1898 - windowsforum.info
So far as we know, there is no religious establishment or organized 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 favored, 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 the teaching of any other doctrine, so that it did not benefit any one religious doctrine or sect over the others.
Nevertheless, having found the statute to be constitutional, the court set aside the conviction on appeal because of a legal technicality: 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.