Rev. H. A. Tucker

                                                                 Winfield.
Note: The Winfield Courier constantly goofed on giving initials of Rev. Tucker. They referred to “A. H. Tucker.” It could well be that they had him confused with the Rev. A. J. Hyden.
Winfield Courier, March 10, 1881.
The Methodist Conference at Wellington located Rev. A. J. Hyden at Larned, and suspended Rev. D. P. Mitchell. Rev. Tucker is assigned to this charge.
Winfield Courier, March 17, 1881.
Rev. Tucker, the new Methodist minister, preached his first sermon Sunday morning.
Winfield Courier, April 14, 1881.
Rev. Tucker and family are now “at home” at the M. E. Parsonage.
[GRAND CAMP MEETING: WINFIELD SELECTED.]
Winfield Courier, April 21, 1881.
The Methodist Episcopal people of Kansas will hold a grand camp meeting in the grove just north of Winfield, next September, from the 14th to the 25th. This will be the greatest affair of the kind ever held in Kansas, not excepting the Bismarck Grove camp meeting of last year. Bishop Bowman, of St. Louis, will preside. The Rev. Mr. Tucker and others are already preparing the ground in the most beautiful grove in Kansas close to town, and the most extensive and perfect arrangements will be made.
Winfield Courier, September 15, 1881.
During the past week Rev. H. A. Tucker attended the follow­ing funerals: child of Mr. and Mrs. Weaver, 14 months old, their only son; child of Mr. and Mrs. Thompson, 13 months old, their only daughter; also the sad funeral of Mr. Daniel Sheels. Mr. Sheels leaves a wife and five children, the oldest child 13 years.
[A. H. GREEN ASSAULTS REV. H. A. TUCKER.]
Winfield Courier, October 27, 1881.
Last Monday A. H. Green made a fierce assault on the Rev. H. A. Tucker, beating him severely about the head and face, knocking him down on the sidewalk, and attempting to kick him in the face; but was prevented in the last by being heaved into the street by a third party, which ended the attack.
Mr. Tucker resisted no farther than to raise his bent arm to ward off the blows which were put in thick and fast, and did not speak a word.
The provocation was that in a short address at the Union temperance meeting in the Opera House the evening before, Mr. Tucker said in relation to a call for a grand jury that remon­strances had been circulated, one of them by a man named Green; that some two or three men who signed these remonstrances had expressed a desire to get their names off, stating that they signed under the false representation that the grand jury would cost the county from $1,500 to $1,800. Mr. Tucker added that he believed the men making such representation knew it was a lie when they made it.
We think Mr. Green was not present at the meeting; but had since been told exaggerated stories of what had been said, doubtless that the speaker accused him directly of lying or being a liar, and had been stimulated and inflamed into a burning passion.

We do not think that Mr. Tucker’s remarks were judicious, particularly the mention of Mr. Green by name, but that was no excuse for this assault on a non-resistant preacher, nor any excuse for others to misrepresent him and urge an assault. As we understand this case will be settled in the courts, we will now say no more.
Winfield Courier, October 27, 1881.
Sheriff Shenneman attached all of A. H. Green’s property Monday evening in a damage suit brought by Rev. H. A. Tucker. The General is in a fair way for finding out how much it is worth to skin the nose of a minister.
Arkansas City Traveler, November 2, 1881.
On Sunday evening at the temperance meeting, Rev. Tucker made some personal allusions of an unpleasant nature in regard to Gen. A. H. Green, to which the latter took exceptions. Today they met on the sidewalk in front of the General’s office, and after a few words, Mr. Tucker was knocked down. The affair grew out of the temperance question. A great deal of bad blood has been stirred up and some spilt, and the end is not yet.
The plot thickens. Rev. H. A. Tucker has sued A. H. Green for $5,000 damages, supposed to have been sustained in yesterday’s racket. Telegram, Oct. 25th, 1881.
Winfield Courier, November 3, 1881.
MARRIED. At the residence of Mrs. Call, Winfield, Nov. 2, 1881, Mr. Chas. W. Nichols and Miss N. A. Davis, both of Winfield, by Rev. H. A. Tucker.
Winfield Courier, November 24, 1881.
The case of the State against A. H. Green for assault and battery on Rev. Tucker came up before Judge Torrance Tuesday evening. Mr. Green plead guilty and was fined $100, and costs.
Winfield Courier, January 19, 1882.
                                                 “CHURCH ADVERTISING.”
EDS. COURIER: In the COURIER of last week was the first attempt I ever saw to put schools and churches on the same level with traveling shows. Please allow me to differ with you. I do not know which church you like the best—I shall not ask, it is the principle that I care for.
I had always supposed a local paper desired to publish local news. I have frequently been asked for items of news by editors, about the church of which I had charge. I believe Winfield editors are as anxious to please their subscribers as editors in other places. Yet, during the past month I have heard a great deal of complaint that Winfield papers did not speak about the churches. Some have said that if there was not a change in the papers, they would change their subscription, they could hear more about Winfield from some other county papers than from those published at Winfield.

I do not know how much advertising for churches and schools was done before I came here, but I know that since I came here but little has been done for the church I represent, as we have had but little that called for advertising. When the Methodist camp meeting advertised, they paid for their work, at the COURIER office, from a third to one-half more than they would have paid for the same work done elsewhere. This was paid, and no complaint made. A short time since, the COURIER published a manuscript of mine, which, had I given it to another paper, I could have received $10. I gave it to the COURIER because it was the desire of the people—it was what they wanted, and I gave it to them. Then when I wanted a few copies of the paper, I paid full price for them, I did not ask for complementaries nor grumble that they were not given. The Tennesseans came to Winfield under the auspices of the church. Three dollars worth of tickets were given to the COURIER office, and not a line of advertisement, except a little note from Mrs. Adams. This may have been a mistake or intentional. However that may be, ladies who usually get up church entertainments, are so occupied with the entertainment that they frequently forget to send complementaries where they had intended to send them, besides they often do not have tickets to send.
If schools and churches were money making institutions then you might grumble. If they get money it is for some public good which makes the town better, to buy libraries or improve churches. If it were not for schools and churches, I do not know who would read the papers. Every advance to schools and churches increases the circulation of papers and books.
Many of the businessmen of Winfield are either members of one of the different churches, or closely connected with one of them. Their names are found in the advertising columns of your paper each week, for which you say you are well paid. These men have a common interest in the welfare of the school where their children attend, and of the church to which they belong. Any news about the school or church is what they want; they are willing to pay you well for their advertising that you may live and be of public benefit. You and they are well aware that the more of education, and the more of christianity there is in any community, the better is society, and the better is business and the wider circulation do newspapers have. You owe your existence to schools and churches, and no man ought to grumble about speaking well of his mother.
I think it would be well to remember that churches and schools are not traveling shows. They are a permanent institution, a local benefit, and the people of the county who read your paper are anxious to know how they come on. If you are obliged to crowd out any paid advertising to notice the schools and churches, then you can complain; but I am quite sure most of your readers would be more pleased and benefitted by a notice of church or school work than they are by some of the unpaid matter that now appears in your paper.
                                                 Respectfully, H. A. TUCKER.

The writer of the above seems to misapprehend the purport of the editorial to which he alludes. Let us be understood. We have a high respect for the Methodist Church. It is a mighty engine for good in this community. Many of our valued advertising patrons, a great many of our subscribers, and many of our most intimate friends are members of that church. We have the kindest feelings for it and its members, and particularly for Rev. Mr. Tucker, whom we respect for his fearless energy and stalwart work for his church, for temperance, and other interests of this community. We are always happy to meet him, and if he would call oftener and stay longer, it would please us more. He has always treated us with kindness and courtesy, and we have endeavored to treat him in the same way. There are a great variety of items of news connected with churches which we are always glad to get for publication, and are thankful when members or others hand them in, but it cannot be expected that we can be everywhere at the same time, and know all that is going on in each of the churches, so if we fail to get some of these items, it is because no one present has furnished them. Clergymen are not bound to furnish us with marriage notices and a great many other items which they have opportunities to pick up, but when they do so, we esteem it as a favor.
It is none of these to which we allude. We referred to cases in which church societies and others get up lectures, concerts, entertainments, or suppers for the purpose of raising money for some particular object. In such cases ladies and members of the church society often contribute, each for his own church, time and money to prepare the entertainment, and expect to get returns from the general public by selling tickets. The publisher of a newspaper should be considered as one of that general public, and might be expected to attend with his wife and pay for his tickets like others, but should not be expected to contribute his time and money in the preparation as though he was a leading member of each and all these churches, for this would be five times, to the most liberal churchman once. Much of the success of these schemes depends upon liberal advertising in the newspapers, and it would certainly be just to pay the publishers for it at the same rates that others pay. We do not see the impropriety in putting “churches on the same level with traveling shows” in this matter. But as we don’t do so, but give the amount outright, we don’t like to be squeezed any farther in the matter, and those who recognize this fact get credit with us for courtesy.
Mr. Tucker is mistaken in the statement that we did not give the Tennesseans “a kube if advertisement” except a little note from Mrs. Adams. We gave them 20 lines in the issue of the 5th and 8 in that of the 12th, making 28 lines, which at regular rates make $5.60, which is pretty good pay for six tickets. When we wrote the editorial in question, we were not aware that any church was interested in that show, but our local was, and had prepared several local notices of it for the last issue, but being short of hands, his attention was so absorbed on the mechanical work of the paper that he did not observe that they were omitted until too late, a circumstance which we deeply regret.
In regard to the poster job for the camp meeting to which Mr. Tucker alludes, our regular rates would have been $22, and we do not know where he could have got the work done for less, but we charged only $18, and received only $12. It is claimed, however, that the balance should be paid by the temperance branch of the meeting.
If the fact that churches and schools are public benefits and create a demand for newspapers, books, pictures, preachers, teachers, buildings, and goods of all kinds is a reason that newspapers should work for them without pay, why should not preachers, teachers, builders, and other persons do the same thing? Why does not Mr. Tucker refuse his salary? Why did you pay men for building churches?
Mr. Tucker is unjust to himself in putting on this coat, for of course it would pinch, and we will add that we shall take pleasure in assisting him and the Methodist Church, as far as we can reasonably afford, in every good work.
Cowley County Courant, February 2, 1882.
We learn that a child of the Rev. Tucker is lying very ill with brain fever, and fears are entertained that it will not recover.
Winfield Courier, February 16, 1882.
                                                              PROGRAM.
                                                    Reception of the Governor.

Saturday, 18th, 11 o’clock a.m. Citizens with carriages will assemble at the Santa Fe depot to receive the Governor and escort him through town. Salutes by the St. John Battery, Capt. Haight.
7 o’clock evening: Salute from the Battery. 7-1/2 to 9-1/2 evening, reception at the residence of D. A. Millington. Ladies and gentlemen who desire to pay their respects to the Governor are invited to call at that time. This is a general and cordial invitation. There will be no special invitations.
                                                     SUNDAY EXERCISES.
Doors of the Opera House will be open at 1:15 p.m. Persons from the country and from a distance are invited to occupy the seats early, and citizens of this city are requested to come from 1:45 to 2 o’clock, so that in case the room cannot contain the whole crowd, the preference will be given those from a distance and Winfield people can have plenty of chance in the evening. We do not doubt this courtesy will be extended by the Winfield people. A bell will ring half an hour before services commence and will toll ten minutes before.
                                                 AFTERNOON EXERCISES.
2 o’clock: Prayer by Rev. J. B. Platter.
Temperance song by the choir.
Senator Hackney introduces the speaker.
Address by Gov. St. John.
Music by the choir.
Benediction by Rev. F. M. Rains.
                                                               EVENING.
7½ o’clock: Prayer by Rev. H. A. Tucker.
Music by the choir.
Address by the Governor.
Music by the choir.
Benediction by Rev. C. H. Canfield.
Winfield Courier, February 16, 1882.
                                                     Complimentary Social.
The ladies of the M. E. Church of this city, announce a sociable with donations on Thursday evening, Feb. 16, in said church, the object of which is to give some expression of their appreciation of the valued services of their pastor, the Rev. H. A. Tucker, and his wife during the past year. They invite a full attendance of all the members of their church, and of all others who may be inclined to cheer them and their pastor and wife by their presence, or by a donation. Everything that can be used in the way of eatables, also dry goods or money or choice books will be gladly received.
BY COMMITTEE OF ARRANGEMENT.
Winfield Courier, February 23, 1882.
                                                        The Governor’s Visit.

Governor St. John arrived promptly at 11 o’clock Saturday morning on the Santa Fe train and was received with a salute from Capt. Haight’s St. John battery, and a delegation of citizens with about thirty carriages, who escorted him through the principal streets of the City. The sidewalks were lined with dense crowds of enthusiastic people, who manifested their gratification at his arrival by rounds of cheers. The escort left him at the residence of Mr. Millington, who was to entertain him during his stay. In the afternoon the Governor conversed pleasantly with such friends as he happened to meet, and was driven about the city to observe the various improvements which had been made since his last visit. In the evening at 7 o’clock, the St. John battery fired salutes and an informal reception was held at Mr. Millington’s and notwithstanding the sleet and storm which had set in and continued, a large number of ladies and gentlemen called to pay their respects to the governor and the rooms were pleasantly filled with admiring friends to a reasonably late hour. The storm continued throughout the night and increased in violence. All day Sunday and during the evening, the wind was strong from the north and stinging with cold, the sharp hail cut one’s face like shot, the sand-like snow covered the ground to the depth of several inches, and it was almost impossible to walk on the streets and sidewalks. As 2 o’clock approached, the governor thought it impossible that many could get to the ball and desired to have it announced that the exercises would be adjourned until evening. Senator Hackney so announced to a few already assembled at the Hall, but immediately thereafter, Capt. Scott arrived with about sixty energetic ladies and gentlemen of Arkansas City who had come up on a special train chartered for that purpose, and who were determined not to miss the treat. Immediately the citizens came pouring into the hall and the Senator promised them that the governor should come forthwith and speak to them, and then went to the governor and escorted him to the Hall, where they found every seat occupied and many standing, an audience of more than seven hundred.
The exercises opened with Hackney in the chair, by an appropriate song from the quartette composed of Messrs. Buckman, Black, Blair, and Snow. Rev. J. E. Platter offered a prayer, another song by the quartette, and the chairman in a neat little speech introduced the speaker, who then addressed the enthusiastic and appreciative people for an hour with one of his grand, telling, and characteristic speeches. Another song by the quartette, benediction by Rev. F. M. Rains, and the courageous audience reluctantly retired.
It now became evident that more seats would be wanted and the managers procured two hundred and fifty more seats and filled the hall with seats to its full capacity. In the evening nine hundred seats were early filled with people and a great many were obliged to stand in the passages. More than a thousand people were present.
Exercises opened by prayer lead by Rev. H. A. Tucker, and song by the quartette, followed by one of the grandest speeches ever delivered. The governor held this crowded audience in rapt attention for about an hour and a half, and we believe they would have listened to him all night without exhibiting a sign of weariness. Another song by the quartette and Rev. C. H. Canfield dismissed the audience with a benediction. In this connection it is due to the gentlemen of the quartette to say that their music was of the highest order of merit and added greatly to the pleasure of the performances, for which they have the thanks of the entire audience and the compliments of the governor.

The events of this day prove beyond cavil, the affection, the high esteem, and admiration with which the people hold their governor, and are also a pretty strong indication that prohibition is not unpopular in this city. We are now convinced that had the weather been good, thousands of people from the country would have been present and thousands would have had to return disappointed, unless indeed the speaking had been done in the open air, for the country is where we find the real enthusiasm for St. John and the cause of which he is the most prominent exponent.
Winfield Courier, March 2, 1882.
Rev. H. A. Tucker has gone to Burlington to attend the conference and his pulpit will be filled next Sunday by Mrs. Tucker.
[ARTICLE RE REV. TUCKER.]
Cowley County Courant, March 2, 1882.
We have to express our obligation to the Rev. Tucker, a leading theologaster of this city, for some free advertising given us on last Sunday evening. We cherish no deep animosity toward the reverend gentleman and forgive him freely as he hopes to be forgiven. What we have to say, we say with calmness and with no desire to fight him or stir up unpleasant feelings. We would treat Mr. Tucker as any other public man. If we really thought him deserving of criticism, we shouldn’t hesitate to criticize.
We have no respect for preachers because they are preachers anymore than for lawyers because they are lawyers or doctors because they are doctors. We respect men for their virtues and not for their positions. If this were not the principle to be followed, rogues and hypocrites would stand secure in high places and society would be dominated by unworthy men.
The reason Mr. Tucker gets out of tune with his surroundings is that he is possessed of too belligerent a nature for the position he occupies. It has never been considered in orthodox circles hardly an exhibition of a christian virtue to call a man a liar from the pulpit or accuse a number of citizens of being on a par with the denizens of Five Points, New York. Such state­ments, even though true, aren’t in accord with the ideas which are insensibly formed respecting the apostles of a great reli­gion, the chief feature of which is the humility it teaches.
This nature, perhaps, is Mr. Tucker’s misfortune and not his fault, though self-training is often capable of remedying defects of nature. It has in other places than this brought the Rev. into disgraceful newspaper squabbles, and we doubt not has robbed him of the greater part of his influence for the good of society.
Such exhibitions of character among men of such professions always lead to the detriment of the cause for which they are laboring, will always cast more or less disrepute upon the efficacy of their teachings, will create disagreeable reflections in the minds of the majority of the people, will detract from the prosperity and support of their churches, and create discord among the members.
There are other disadvantages under which Mr. Tucker labors. A highly developed trait of vanity and a strong taint of bigotry adds much to the disagreeable complexion of his character; and while they add greatly to his individuality, they create equally strong impressions of dislike which end in active opposition and which cannot be overcome by men of such disposition.

All this we say without the least desire to maliciously attack the gentleman. We would not for a moment insinuate that he has not the average number of good qualities, but we say again, in all honesty, that his influence is not favorable for him or his profession. He has in the past, as we said, been engaged in the bitterest newspaper fights on account of the peculiar construction of his character, and he is liable to do so as long as he takes an active part in public life.
We are sorry that we have occupied so much space, but we have had something to say before in relation to this matter, and we wish to sustain our position and remove any ideas that we say what we have through a base desire to assail for notoriety’s sake.
[EDITORIAL RE REV. TUCKER.]
Cowley County Courant, March 9, 1882.
We wish to say a word or two concerning the controversy, which has reached some prominence, on account of THE COURANT criticizing the style and manner of the Rev. Mr. Tucker, who has filled the Methodist pulpit here the past year. There are a few persons in this city who feel called upon to misrepresent us concerning the matter, and lose no opportunity convey the impres­sion that we are endeavoring to make a fight upon this particular denomination, and its members.
This is not only untrue but unfair, and those who have busied themselves in the circulation of such reports well know they are not literally truthful. We are willing to stand upon the record as it is made. We have a complete file of the paper, in which can be found every sentence, word, or syllable published since the first issue of our paper here. If there is a word of disrespect, jest, or censure concerning the Methodist church to be found in these files, then we are willing to acknowledge our wrong and apologize in any manner the church or its friends may ask. But such is not the case, nor have we ever had any occasion to “abuse” the church as we are accused. . . .
Note: Next item in Courier shows P. F. Johns taking Winfield church. The Traveler follows on March 15th showing P. V. Jones taking Winfield church. The Cowley County Courant on March 16th shows P. F. Jones taking Winfield church.
                         [The correct name for Tucker replacement: P. F. Jones.]
           I have corrected name to show “P. F. Jones” in both Courier and Traveler.
Winfield Courier, March 9, 1882.
                                                  M. E. General Conference.
Rev. H. A. Tucker returned Tuesday evening from attendance on the M. E. General Conference held at Burlington. The next annual meeting of the M. E. General Conference will be held at Winfield.
Rev. P. F. Johns [Jones] appointed to the Winfield church for this year.
Rev. J. A. Hyden goes to Burlington.
Rev. H. A. Tucker goes to Ottawa.
Arkansas City Traveler, March 15, 1882.
The next annual meeting of the M. E. General Conference will be held at Winfield.
Rev. P. V. [F.] Jones is appointed to the Winfield church for the year.
Rev. H. A. Tucker goes to Ottawa.
Cowley County Courant, March 16, 1882.
The M. E. Conference at Burlington appointed the Rev. H. A. Tucker to the post at Ottawa. The Rev. P. F. Jones was selected for this city.
Winfield Courier, March 16, 1882.
                                                           Farewell Sermon.

Last Sunday morning Rev. Tucker preached his farewell sermon to a large and appreciative audience. The sermon was the best we have heard him deliver and toward the close was eloquent and impressive. He spoke feelingly of his connection with the church here and of the friends who had assisted him in his work. After the sermon he devoted a few minutes to personal matters, severely criticizing the editor of the Daily for the attacks recently made upon him by that paper. This is a matter that for that gentleman’s own sake we wish had never been alluded to. The articles in the Daily could, in this community, where all are so well known, detract none from his character as a gentleman and a minister, and his criticism from the pulpit cannot possibly help the matter while it may impair his influence in communities elsewhere. Rev. Tucker has accomplished much in his labors here and our city is certainly better off for his work. In his zeal for the church and the moral advancement of the people, he has said and done some injudicious things. We bespeak for him and his most excellent lady a warm reception at their new and important charge which is one of the best in the conference.
Winfield Courier, March 16, 1882.
                                                  DEATH OF MR. SERVICE.
                                           “In the Midst of Life we Are in Death.”
DIED. Never before do we remember being so shocked as when a gentleman came hurriedly into our office Saturday and announced that John Service was dead. It was some time before we could realize that this was indeed the case. Only a short time before we had seen him strong, healthy, and in the full blush of a noble manhood, honored and respected by a large circle of friends and associates. It was hard to believe that such a life should be so suddenly cut off, but the grim destroyer knows no preference and brooks no delay.
Mr. Service and Rev. Platter had been at Wellington assisting in a series of meetings in progress there. They returned on the 5:40 train Saturday and separated, Mr. Service going to his home, apparently in perfect health and good spirits. He went home and into the yard to split some wood. After awhile he came in and laid down on the bed, complaining of a pain his side, and in less than fifteen minutes was dead. The trouble is attributed to heart disease. In a few minutes the news of his death had spread all over the city and deep and universal were the expressions of sorrow and sympathy for the bereaved sister.
Mr. Service was a native of Scotland and was fifty-eight years of age. He came to this county nine years ago, and during his residence here has earnestly labored for the moral and material advancement of the people. As a man he had but few equals. Quiet, and unassuming, he was yet a man of strong purposes and convictions, unfaltering in his advocacy of moral and social reforms, and lived a life of spotless purity. Though close in business affairs, he dispensed charity with a willing hand and no poor and needy one was ever turned from John Service’s door empty-handed. The loss of such a man is keenly felt by the community, and especially at this time when our county and state need men of sterling worth to battle with the great moral questions now coming before the people.
To the bereaved sister, his companion and co-laborer in the great field of humanity, the COURIER extends its most sincere sympathy in this hour of bereavement.
                                                           THE FUNERAL

services were held at the Presbyterian Church Monday at two o’clock. The church was crowded with friends of the deceased. The pulpit was heavily draped in black and Mr. Service’s pew was fringed with crape looped with knots of wheat heads. The services were conducted by Rev. Platter assisted by Revs. McClung of Wellington, Hyden of Larned, and Cairns, Canfield, and Tucker of this city. Mr. Platter spoke feelingly of the close fellowship existing between Mr. Service and himself, of his pure character and moral worth, and of the buoyant and zealous christian spirit which he carried through all his life’s work and across to the other shore where the speaker hoped to meet him bye and bye. Rev. McClung had come from his home in Wellington to pay a last sad tribute to the friend whom he had learned to love as a brother and who had spent the last night of his life under his roof. His remarks were touching and brought tears to the eyes of many in the audience. After the conclusion of the services, those who desired were allowed a last look at the face of their dead friend, when the casket was taken up, conveyed to the hearse, and as the bell toiled sadly the procession moved out to the cemetery, there to deposit the last remains of an honored citizen in the bosom of mother earth. “Peace be to his ashes” forevermore.
Winfield Courier, March 16, 1882.
Someone cabbaged seventeen yellow-legged chickens from Mr. S. P. Jennings Monday night. The heads were found lying in a heap near the chicken house. Revs. Hyden, Tucker, and Jones left the next day for other towns. [???]
Hibbard A. Tucker...
[TRIAL DOCKET: DISTRICT COURT.]
Cowley County Courant, April 20, 1882.
                                             CIVIL DOCKET. FOURTH DAY.
                                             Hibbard A. Tucker vs. A. H. Green.
Winfield Courier, May 4, 1882.
Rev. Tucker came over from Ottawa last week and preached at the Presbyterian Church Sunday morning and to his old congregation in the evening. He is well pleased with the new location, and looks less careworn than when he left here.
Winfield Courier, May 18, 1882.
The jury in the Tucker-Green assault and battery case were out thirty-six hours and on Monday returned a verdict for $250 damages.
Cowley County Courant, May 18, 1882.
The jury in the case of Tucker vs. Green returned a verdict for the plaintiff, and assessed the damage of $250.00.
[A. H. GREEN SOUNDS OFF AGAINST TUCKER.]
Cowley County Courant, May 25, 1882.
CARD NO. 2. Mr. Editor: It will be remembered that immedi­ately after the difficulty between myself and Tucker, there were individuals in this town misrepresenting me and trying to create the impression that the said trouble was the forerunner or the initial step of an organized fight against the ministers of the gospel, or in other words, the commencement of a war between ruffianism and vice, against Christianity and morality. Upon hearing this I published a card denying the same in toto. Now that the matter is all over and the smoke has cleared away, and, as many are daily enquiring of me as to the particulars, I desire to recapitulate this huge affair briefly.

On the morning of the 24th of October last, I was told by many of our reputable citizens that on the night previous, Tucker, a professed christian minister, in a speech in the opera house before an audience of some five or six hundred persons, had singled me out, named me, and charged me with having misrep­resented and lied to obtain signatures, to a certain paper circulated a week previous by Mr. Lynn and myself. That day I met the Reverend gentleman and quietly told him what I had heard, whereupon he in a very haughty, sarcastic, and insulting manner, said “he guessed I had heard what he said about me.” At this time I took occasion to slap the gentleman, which of course I do not claim to have been a christian act nor even right in a moral sense, but yet I believe the average mortal under like circumstances would have done the same.
Now, I have the word of a resident minister that Tucker told him about the time the suit for damages was instituted against myself that a certain lawyer had volunteered his services to prosecute the case against me. This minister asked Tucker who that lawyer was, and Tucker replied it was Capt. McDermott. I have the word of a lawyer in this town that about the time said suit was started that the said volunteer attorney boasted on the street that he would make me sick before he got through with me.
These acts of an eminently moral gentleman will evidently be considered by the community at large as emanating from a true christian spirit, especially when they learn that of $250 damages allowed by the jury and already paid by me, Mr. Tucker gets nothing, but that the same is divided up among the lawyers who tried the case, McDermott & Johnson, as I am informed, getting $150, and Hackney & McDonald getting $100 of the spoils, leaving poor Ben. Henderson, who made the only legal on the side of the prosecution, out in the cold, without a penny for his services.
And I also was reliably informed that Mr. Tucker is honor­able enough to object to this course and demands that Henderson must have at least a small portion, but our Winfield christian law­yers, I understand, don’t like to give any money up. It’s too soft a thing especially when ordinary law practice is light. I have paid the money and the lawyers and their client are now quarreling over it. Of course, it is hard to pay out hundreds of dollars to such a purpose, but I do not regret it. I would feel that I had lost my manhood and disgraced my parentage if I would take such a wanton insult slung at me without cause or provoca­tion without resenting it. If I had been permitted, I could have proven that I was not guilty of the charges made against me by Mr. Tucker, and that they were entirely without foundation. I love a christian gentleman, but a hypocrite I hate.
I believe the community will bear me out in the assertion that my actions have proven that I have no fight against churches or christians, but to the contrary have always endorsed all reli­gious organizations and helped them financially. My father and mother have been members of the M. E. church ever since I can remember. I believe they are christians, but the religion they taught me was not the kind practiced by some in this town. The question is, has this affair had a tendency to strengthen the cause of christianity? Did the language used by Mr. Tucker in the hall, with reference to myself, indicate a christian spirit, or did it sound like the ranting of a third-rate ward politician?

Did the money I paid into court belong to Mr. Tucker or myself, or was it confidence money? If the suit was brought through good and honest motives, for the good of the community, and for the benefit of society and Mr. Tucker combined, why was it the lawyers forgot Mr. Tucker in dividing the spoils? I may be wrong, and hope I am, but it appears to me that the whole affair would look to an unbiased mind like a robbery under the cloak of a prosecution in the interest of morality and in vindi­cation of the law. Again, is it not a strange coincidence that after Judge Campbell and Mr. Tipton (two gentlemen who never made any pretension toward being possessed of an extraordinary degree of moral virtue) had addressed the jury in my behalf, without making use of a single expression reflecting upon the character of Mr. Tucker. That in the closing argument the gentleman who professed to have the love of God in his heart should so far forget himself as to resort to blackguardism and billingsgate as I am informed he did. Among other things referring to myself and insinuating that I was a coward. Now I desire to address myself to this christian statesman and say to him kindly, but firmly, that he dare not undertake to substantiate that charge of coward­ice on any ground, at any time, or in any manner he may choose. A. H. GREEN.
Winfield Courier, June 8, 1882.
The following was written for the Courant, but being refused, was brought to this paper for publication.
                                                         “That Pretty Note.”
Editor of the Courant, Winfield, Kansas.
DEAR SIR: I publish this letter in reply to your remarks concerning the card sent you by myself, asking you to discontinue the Courant to my address, and giving reasons therefor.
You doubtless claim to be among that unprejudiced class that would apply certain terms to me, if the discontinuing of the Courant to my address was prompted in part because of your position upon the subject of prohibition. Therefore your “ignorant,” “cranky,” “weak-minded,” “reverend” “Christian friend” will state that your strong reasons have not convinced him as to the impropriety and “childishness” of discontinuing the Courant because of its “position on certain moral questions”; and I will add, moral and religious tone generally.
First, the moral question, as well as legal, of the prohibiting of the manufacture and sale of intoxicating liquors save for certain purposes. Our State Constitution is so amended as to prohibit the making and sale of intoxicating liquors, save for mechanical, scientific, and medicinal purposes. We have a law that gives power to certain officials, to see that this amendment is observed. If the law may be imperfect, this changes not the fact that opposition thereto weakens respect for the constitution and all law, and incites to the disobedience thereof. Therefore your paper is immoral because it is incendiary in its general tone. It is moral to be loyal, immoral to be disloyal. There is perhaps no crime forbidden either by Divine or human law but what the use of intoxicating liquors is in many instances one of the factors in bringing about disobedience—some jurists say three-fourths of all crimes committed. The Courant is regarded as an anti-prohibition journal in the city and county. Therefore I plead guilty to the charge of being so ignorant as to judge its influence was against morality, knowing what influence it was possessed of, it exerted against the overthrow of the liquor trade.

How and when did you encourage the cause of churches? It is your business to give the news. One seventh of the time of the better class of people in the city and county is employed religiously. Have you given one-hundredth part of your space to religious items? Your subscribers complained last winter because you gave scarcely any notice to the “revival meeting” at the M. E. Church in your city. Did you encourage the Methodist cause by the doubtful compliments you paid their pastor, Rev. Mr. Tucker? If all churches are “alike to you” (including the Mormon) why did you publish an article detrimental to the M. E. Church South, a few months since?
It is true you offered space for a reply by myself, which was not accepted, because of the absurdity of the charge. Still why publish such an inconsistent dispatch, if all churches are alike to you?
Second. Your items intended for wit are of such a character that only those acquainted with slang phrases and vulgar stories can understand or appreciate them.
Third. From honest, truthful, and well informed persons, and from personal knowledge, some of your contributions from the country were not to be depended upon as to their truthfulness.
These were sufficient reasons to induce me to withdraw my name from your “ministerial list” deliberately, not in haste or in anger. Your paper is better than others in size, and in number of paragraphs; but not in respect to its editorials, or quality of your clippings.
As for arguments in opposition to prohibition, in order to defend my side I would have to be more fortunate in the future than in the past, if I obtained any that were original. All reasons assigned as far as I remember, are that the law is not enforced, cannot be, and the great expense in prosecuting those charged with violating it. The same objections in most particulars hold good against all laws for the protection of character, property, and life. Your so-called arguments would overturn all law. Counties in certain states have paid tens of thousands of dollars, and then failed in convicting murderers. Your mode of reasoning would, if carried out to its conclusions, make you favor, if in said states, the repeal of all laws against the taking of human life.
Please answer these questions, my learned friend. With whom will perish wisdom? If prohibition does not prohibit, why are drunken men not seen in Winfield in daylight? How many widows have lost their teams because of drunken hired hands allowing them to walk over bridge abutments, under prohibition? Have as many men been hauled from town “dead drunk” as under the reign of saloons? How many have fallen from their wagons and been killed, while intoxicated? How many divorces have been granted in our county during the past year because of liquor drank under the prohibitory law? Was it the observance of the law or the violation of the same that sent Mr. Riely to the tomb and Mr. Armstrong to the State prison, for his murder? Armstrong, in your County jail, confessed to the writer that liquor was the cause of his downfall. Who paid the costs? The people. If you are aware of the incessant violation of the law, give names of parties, time and place, and you may even convince a crank—if such I am—that the law is a failure.
As to strength of mind sufficient to combat your fallacies, whether I have it or not I will not affirm; but be assured the intelligent people of Cowley County will discover them; therefore it would be a work of supererogation on my part. As to my sincerity I cannot see what it has to do with the Courant, I will affirm that I will suffer more for prohibition than the Courant will for brewers and distillers.

It is not, as far as I can discover, a minister’s business to be in a continual newspaper war. It would last longer than the wars of the Romans and Carthaginians. It is my duty to preach, visit the sick, and from house to house, watch over the moral and spiritual interests of my churches, or churches under my care. I can do this by circulating good papers and books, and by keeping out those that are immoral in their tendencies. This is easier than trying to correct every incorrect statement, point out every immoral and impure paragraph, and expose every fallacy of the secular press, and the Courant in particular.
As to the charge of ignorance, the Courant prefers against me, I am willing to be so judged by him, or it, as long as the more intelligent class of people in Beaver, Rock, Richland, Harvey, Dexter, and Silverdale Townships, and the people of Torrance and community consider my discourses worth hearing, and attend my services—such men as S. D. Jones, J. D. Hammond, John Watt, Stephenson and Morgan, Stevens of Richland, Rash of Harvey, Gardenhire and Jackson of Torrance, Warren and Musselman of Silverdale, and others.
Mr. Editor, I trust that your paper may improve in morals and in all other particulars, and that you may be good and do good, and finally enter into that glorious state “where we shall know as we are known.”
                   HARVEY J. BROWN, Pastor, Winfield Circuit, M. E. Church South.
Winfield Courier, September 14, 1882.
Through Rev. H. A. Tucker, of Ottawa, we learn that Miss Ida McDonald has been elected Professor of Music in the Ottawa University. This is the Baptist College of Kansas, and the position is a very responsible one. She has not yet accepted, but perhaps will.
Winfield Courier, December 14, 1882.
Rev. Tucker, assisted by Mrs. Rogers, is holding a series of revival meetings at Ottawa that seem to be stirring the foundations of that city. It is a pity that brother Sharpe is absent.
Winfield Courier, March 15, 1883.
                                                          Conference Notes.
Rev. Tucker was with us a few days in attendance upon the Conference. He now belongs to the South Kansas Conference, and stays a second year at Ottawa.
Winfield Courier, June 21, 1883.
Rev. Tucker came over from Ottawa Friday with the plans and specifications of a magnificent new church which they expect to erect at once. He wants to build it of Cowley County stone, if possible. By the way, these Methodist ministers are the most indefatigable church builders in the world. They no sooner finish up a new church in one town than they move on to another and repeat the operation. They are all church architects as well as faithful workers for Christianity and morality. This would be a poor world without Methodist ministers.
[CHURCHES.]
Winfield Courier, May 15, 1884.
Rev. Tucker will occupy the pulpit at the M. E. Church next Sunday. Rev. Kelly fills the Ottawa pulpit.
[CHURCHES.]
Winfield Courier, May 22, 1884.

Rev. H. A. Tucker, of Ottawa, and Rev. B. Kelly, of this city, exchanged pulpits last Sunday. Mr. Tucker has always been popular with Winfield people, and the church was crowded both morning and evening. He is one of the ablest of the Methodist ministers, and his sermons last Sunday were remarkable for clear-cut illustrations and everyday applications.
Winfield Courier, Thursday, March 26, 1885.
Rev. H. A. Tucker has been stationed at Parsons for the coming year. Since leaving here three years ago, he has had charge of the Ottawa Methodist church.