TUCSON, ARIZONA, SUND ANTI-EVOLUTION LAW SUSTAINED IN SCOPES CASE But Court Refuses to Confirm Conviction, Due to Ille- gal Sentence. CHARGES DISMISSED Judges Unanimously Advise Against Continued Prosecution. NASHVILLE, Tenn., Jan. 15 (By The Associated Press)—Tennessee’s supreme court today proclaimed the fundamental soundness of the state's famous law against teaching the theory of evolution in state- supported schools. At the same time it reversed the verdict of guilt against John T. Scopes, whose case was on appeal, and then barred recourse to the United States supreme court by recommending that the case be nolle prossed instead of re-tried. This was done late today and the case dismissed. Without a dissenting vote, court recommended to L. D. Smith, state attorney-general, that the “peace and dignity” of the state would best be served by a nolle prosse, thus ending what the court termed “this bizarre case,” once and for all. Mr. Smith announced he would follow the recommenda- tion and not seek a re-trial. Says Act Uncertain The opinion declaring the law constitutional was delivered by Chief Justice Green and concurred in by two other justices, but Jus- tice McKinney dissented on the ground that the act’s “uncertainty of meaning,” rendered it invalid. The conviction of Scopes, who was a science teacher in Dayton high school, was reversed because Judge John T. Raulston, presiding, fined him $100, when the jury failed to fix a fine. The high court held that only a jury may fix a fine of more than $50 under Tennessee law. While obviously disappointed over the action of the court, counsel for Scopes pointed to certain features as indicating a partial victory for the opponents of the law. Express- ings satisfaction with the dissenting opinion of Justice McKinney, they viewed as favorable also a part of Justice Chambliss’ opinion, which differed in one phase from the majority decision. Agrees Law Is Sound Justice Chambliss, while agree- ing with Chief Justice Green and Justice Cook, as to the organic soundness of the act, declared his belief that the act “only prohibits teaching of the materialistic theory of evolution, which denies the hand of God in the creation of man.” Commenting on this opinion, Henry E. Cotton, attorney for the Tennessee Academy of Science, and an associate in Scopes’ counsel, asserted that this view was not op- p