"In Memoriam: W.J.B." was first printed in The Baltimore Evening Sun, July 27, 1925; rpt. by Mencken in the American Mercury5 (October 1925) pp. 158–60 in his Prejudices (Fifth Series), pp. 64–74; and in https://archive.org/details/mencken017105mbp Cooke, Alistair, The Vintage Mencken, Vintage Books, pp. 161–167.
Claeys, Gregory (2000). "The "Survival of the Fittest" and the Origins of Social Darwinism". Journal of the History of Ideas. 61 (2): 223–240. doi:10.1353/jhi.2000.0014. S2CID146267804.
Halliburton, R. Jr. (1964). "The Adoption of Arkansas' Anti-Evolution Law". Arkansas Historical Quarterly. 23 (Autumn 1964): 280. doi:10.2307/40038058. JSTOR40038058.
Longfield, Bradley J. (2000). "For Church and Country: The Fundamentalist–Modernist Conflict in the Presbyterian Church". The Journal of Presbyterian History. 78 (1): 35–50. JSTOR23335297.
Laats, Adam (2011). "Monkeys, Bibles, and the Little Red Schoolhouse: Atlanta's School Battles in the Scopes Era". Georgia Historical Quarterly. 95 (3): 335–355. JSTOR41304304.
Halliburton, R. Jr. (1964). "The Adoption of Arkansas' Anti-Evolution Law". Arkansas Historical Quarterly. 23 (Autumn 1964): 280. doi:10.2307/40038058. JSTOR40038058.
Webb, George E. (1991). "The Evolution Controversy in Arizona and California: From the 1920s to the 1980s". Journal of the Southwest. 33 (2): 133–150, 0894–8410. JSTOR40169811.
Claeys, Gregory (2000). "The "Survival of the Fittest" and the Origins of Social Darwinism". Journal of the History of Ideas. 61 (2): 223–240. doi:10.1353/jhi.2000.0014. S2CID146267804.
See Supreme Court of Tennessee John Thomas Scopes v. The StateArchived January 28, 2011, at the Wayback Machine, at end of opinion filed January 17, 1927. The court did not address the question of how the assessment of the minimum possible statutory fine, when the defendant had been duly convicted, could possibly work any prejudice against the defendant.
See Supreme Court of Tennessee John Thomas Scopes v. The StateArchived January 28, 2011, at the Wayback Machine, at end of opinion filed January 17, 1927. The court did not address the question of how the assessment of the minimum possible statutory fine, when the defendant had been duly convicted, could possibly work any prejudice against the defendant.