Gen. Stewart—In determining this—whether or not the evidence is admissible. All this is supposed to do is to get before the court just what the evidence is and then, your honor will pass upon it. And if your honor holds it competent, the jury will be brought back, and this man will proceed to testify, and if it isn't competent—
Court—Let me see what the question was.
Gen. Stewart—I say if it isn't competent, now is that we ought to get at once to the issues and let the court pass on the proposition of whether or not it is admissible.
Court—Your plan is, if I was to exclude the evidence, you would want this witness back and have him re-examined.
Gen. Stewart—Yes, sir, that is our procedure, your honor, always as I understand it.
Court—There was a mix-up here by some kind of an agreement or suggestion yesterday.
Gen. Stewart—That was with the suggestion and understanding as I had it that Mr. Darrow would put before the court sufficient of this evidence to let the court and attorneys on the other side intelligibly understand just what he insisted upon.
Mr. Darrow—I don't think we need lose any time—if counsel says the understanding is if the court sustains this objection, we may call them back to prove what they would say. I was proceeding upon a different idea.
Court—I thought if I excluded the evidence, you would put this evidence in; then if I excluded the evidence it would all be in the record, and that would be final so far as this proof is concerned.
Gen. Stewart—No, I didn't so understand it.
Metcalf Called from Stand.
Court—Then, all right. You may stand aside, Dr. Metcalf.
Mr. Darrow—I am inclined to think that is the best way.
Court—We just didn't understand each other. That's all. I didn't know the witness was to be called back in the event the evidence is excluded.
Gen. Stewart—Will you gentlemen just state what you expect to show and let us make our exception?
Mr. Darrow—I don't think we need to do that because we have asked him questions and they are objected to, and after the court passes upon it and the court excludes it, then we will say what we expect to show.
Gen. Stewart—Well, knowing just what is before the court—(confers with Darrow in undertone).
Mr. Darrow—We expect to show by men of science and learning—both scientists and real scholars of the Bible—men who know what they are talking about—who have made some investigation—expect to show first what evolution is, and, secondly, that any interpretation of the Bible that intelligent men could possibly make is not in conflict with any story of creation, while the Bible, in many ways, is in conflict with every known science, and there isn't a human being on earth believes it literally. We expect to show that it isn't in conflict with the theory of evolution. We expect to show what evolution is, and the interpretation of the Bible that prevails with men of intelligence who have studied it. This is an evolutionist who has shown amply that he knows his subject and is competent to speak, and we insist that a jury cannot decide this important question which means the final battle ground between science and religion—according to our friend here—without knowing both what evolution is and the interpretation of the story of creation. And Mr. Hays is prepared with authorities on that subject.
Court—Now I have a great regard for the opinion of great lawyers, gentlemen, but I have—if I had an opinion of the courts of last resort, I have greater regard for them than I do the words of any lawyer on either side. That is my remarks for the record.
Mr. Hays—But I intend to support my argument with authorities, your honor.
Gen. Stewart—Of course, in this matter, the rules of procedure are the same as you made the other day, and
