Blue-grass blade., 1899-02-19

TO personal attachment to MIR. Moore.
The principle involved is more 10
them q au the man. The Ohio Lib.
eral Society las already entered an
appeal, and intends TO fight the case.
AS this Society is not particularly
friendly to MIR. Moore and as " Is
here on the ground, the Frcethink-
crs throughout the country eau
trust to- It's actions and believe that
its condemnation of this sentence,
merits the help and assistance OF
every organized Society and iudivid.
ual Libcralist. For myself, say
tha; Mr.. Moore deserves ccnsure.
He had been warned by Mr.. Belts,
the Post Oiilce uspector, but did not
heed IL and thus exposcdp him self
to prosecution.
He has been appealed TO by his best
friends, and time and again rebuked
by his subscribers for using Ian
guage neither dignified nor refined,
But he is imprisoned under false
charge. The language upon which
he was indicted was neither
''lewd, obscene nor lascivious" )"
as charged by the District At
torney. In fact the words them
selves are as chaste as paragraph
from Addison. The substance OF the
speech Is all that can be called into
question, whether or not II Is Of an
Indecent character"
You will notice II you refer back
to the statute previously quoted that
an offense of this kind involves the
use OF words and language which
are 'obscene, lewd, lascivious or OF
indecent character. IL Mr.. Moore's
language for which he was indicted
was ALL OF these his sentence was
Just under the law. But IL was Ger.
tainly neither OF the first three, and
as to being Of an indecent charac-
ter" that is debatable question.
Is an opinion, clothed 10 chaste
words, expressed OF any of the nat
ural appetites regarded by the law
as indecent2 That is the question.
II not, Mr.. Moore Is q wrongly i'm
prisoned man, and the charge
against him Is as false as the state
ment that he Is Free Lover and
Editor OF Free Love paper. un-
derstand II was decided by the Super
ior Court Of Illinois that the public
discussion OF Love, free or otherwise,
is not indecent.
Mr.. Bundy dwelt largely upon the
"suggestivencss" OF Mr.. Moore's
language, saying that ''it suggested
indiscriminate relation OF the sexes
and therefore damnable, lewd and
indecent. What is Suggestion"
go the pure all thing are pure. !"
evil to him who evil thinks. T"
Where does the law draw the line at
suggestion. Marriage itself is
only legalized sexuality, and why
may not the suggestion" Of mar
riage itself incline to thought Of las
civiousnessl Why may not the dis
cussion Of Love after marriage be
as suggestive OF indecency" as be
fore marriage2
When closely analyzed, as between
RnndE,s speech. aud Moore 8, u is
hard to tell which one Is to be piJleti
most for its weakness. Moore S was
incoherent and Bundys puerile
and merely assertive. 1t proved
nothing. Mr.. Moore In his defense
was not allowed the time to define.
weigh aud analyze the words which
are charged to be obscene. When
ordered to stop by the Court, he was
making what thought was q very
good argument. He was endeavor
ing to prove to the jury. by showing
them the contents OF the paper, that
it was not "a Free Love- journal.
1t was a new thing to me, to see q
man on trial, with his liberty in
volved, called down while he was
making his best point to prove his
innocence. Suppose he had been
indicted for advocating Christian
principle such as Paul advocate
that ''it Is best for man not to mar
ry at ALL" Is there anything more
offensive to our marriage laws than
that. The time should be given
him, and the Ohio Liberal Society
intends to carry this question to the
Superior Court and test it. The
question more than the man it thinks
is vital. 1t involves free speech and
q fair trial. II concerns every Ag-
nostic, Atheist, Deist, Socialist,
Spiritualist, Materialist, and Free
thinker of every description in this
country. If this Comstock law is to
be pushed with such vigor as to send
men to the penitentiary for mailing
such language as Mr.. Moore used, It
must also be applied as vigorously
in other directions. We demand |
fair play. Obscenity, lasciviousness
and suggestiveness in the Bible is
ranker in quality than any that ever
appeared in the BLUE GRASS BLADE,
or in most any other print for that |
matter. We want to know II this |
Comstock law Is made for the Infdel |
and not for the preacher. We want |
10 know just what and who 1t covers. |
We wart to know and have II settled
sacred vulgarity has privil-
ege before the law, that Is not to be
granted to the plain, ordinary kind.
We want to know II an Infidel has
he right to fair trial. In6dels
furnished the hands and the brains