Blue-grass blade., 1899-02-19

with the circumstances which hav,
led to the prosecution and imprison
ment OF Mr.. Moore; but for thos,
who are not will enter into the fol
details, at the risk OF being tedious
will endeavor TO report accurately
and impartially, aud while my sym.
pathies are with Mr.. Moore, they
will not bias my judgement wherein
] think he should not be spared.
Prof. Ruckcr "a Christian Prohibi
ZIONIST Of Georgetown Kentucky, and
Mr.. Moore we're friends of long
standing and oo-workers III the Pro
hibition cause. Rucker patronzed
the BLADE for years, and Moore
sent his sons TO the college presided
over by Rucker, TO be educated.
Prohibition was the tie that bound.
This friendship continued for some
years. As it has been stated
often in the BLADE, Rucker started
a rival Prohibition sheet called "The
Temperance Star" Ii is supposed
by Moore aud many others that
Rucker thought that the Prohibition
cause was not presented in its best
light associated with Infdelity and
if Moore could successfully conduct
q paper on the Iniidel-Prohibition
plan, ne (Ruckcr) Would startle Ken
lucky, as we'll as make lot of mon
ey, by editing one on the Christian
Prohibition plan. lie failed His
paper cut SO little figure that people
living within ten miles. of George
town never heard OF its existence.
At sometime within this period,
Atherton, the Kentucky distler
presented 50, 900 in all to a church
in whichNSucker was an official, and
to the coAnge over which Rucker
presided. These institutions ac-
cepted the money without protest
Moore finding this out exposed Ruck
er's hypocrisy. Time and again he
held this actof Rockers up as an
illustration of Christian pretepsion
and inconsistency. This is Moore's
side OF the story. II it is not trne
Mr.. Rucker has had j. long time IN
to this exposition Oh Prof. fuckers
professed Prohibition and TO relig-
ious hate that Mr.. Moore attributes
the revenge sought by reporting
the BLADE to the. Postal inspectors
about one year ago.
The Postal authorities at Wash
ington referred the matter to the
District Attorney, Harlan Cleveland
OF Cincinnati, in which city the
BLADE was published. Cleveland
drew up the indictment, and in the
meantime was superseded as Dis
trict Attorney by William Bundy
who prosecuted Moore and Hughes.
Mr.. Bundy is nephew of Senator
Foraker, through whose influence be
secured the position of District At
torney. He is young man, sue
cessful lawyer, and stands high in
the community. Judge Thompson
comes from Portsmouth, Ohio in
which little city he has been a sue
cessful politician, having represent
ed that District in Congress once or
twice, and held minor political ap-
pointments.
Mr.. Moore and Mr.. Hughes stood
charged in the indictment with having
mailed or caused to be mailed Ger
tain lewd, lascivious aud indecent
matter. The statute under which
they were indicted reads as follows,
and should be carefully considered;
Section 333. Obscene matter. -
every obscene, lewd or lascivious
book pamphlet, picture, paper, let-
ter, writing, print, or other publi-
cation of an indecent character,
whether sealed as first class matter
or not are hereby declared as non
maiable matter and shall not be
conveyed in the mails nor delivered
from any post Office, nor by any let
ter carrier; and any person who
shall knowingly deposit or cause to
be deposited for mailing or delivery
anything declared by this section to
be non -maiIable matter, and any
person who shall knowingly take the
same or cause the same to be taken,
from the mails for the purpose of
circulating, or disposing of, or aid
ing in the circulation or disposition
of the same, shall for each and every
offense be fined upon conviction
thereof not more than s., 900 or i'm
prisoned at hard labor not more
than five years, or both at the dis
cretion of the Court.
The triaF began with the reading
Of the Indictment and the statute
covering the case. Judge Feland OF
Lawrenceburg, KY, asked the court
for a separate trial, stating that he
had been engaged as counsel for Mr..
Hughes but not for Mr.. Moore This
situation OF the case had the effect
of obtaining separate trial, which
was protested by the District Attor-
ney, but reluctantly granted by the
Court. Otherwise Mr.. Hughes would
most probably have received the
same sentence as Mr.. Moore. The
Court summoned the jury and the
trial of Mr.. Moore. commenced
Very unwisely, Mr.. Moore assumed
charge Of his case, and doing SC
verified the old adage OF the mar