Issuu on Google+


PROOEEDINGS OF THE

FIFTY-SECOND ANNUAL

CO~iMUNICATION

OF THE

M. W. GRAND LODGE, A. F.

AND

oil.. M.

OFr.rHE

STATE OF MISSOURI, CONVENED IN

srr. LOlTIS, 001'.

15, A. D. 1872

~

i\.. L. 5b72.

- - .......

SAINT LOUIS: H. R. HILDRETH, PRINTER & STATIONER, 126'" OLIY}~ STREE'l'.

1872.


PROCEEDINGS OF THE

Fl FTY -SECOND

ANNU AL COMMUNICATION OF THE

M. W. GRAND LODGE OF THE STATE OF MO• • The Most Worshipful Grand Lodge of Missouri, Ancient Free and Accepted Masons, Inet in Fifty-Second Anllual C01l1n1Unication in Freemason's Hall, St. IJouis, commencing Tuesday, October 15, A. D. 1872, A. L. 5872, at 10 o'clock A. M. OFFICERS. THOS. E. GARRETT, .J.Y. W. (kand Master. RUFUS E. ANDERSON, R. lV. Deputy G'rand Ma5ter. SA:rvlUEL H. OWENS, R. lV. Senio'/' Grand lVa1 (len. XENOPHON RYLAND as R. lV. Junior GrJ"and Wa1·den. WM. N. LOKER, R. W. Grand Treasure?'. GEO. FRANK GOULEY, R. W. G'rand Sec'retary. JOHN D. VINCIL, as w: G'rand Ohapla~n. ALLAN L. 1vlcGREGOR, as lV: Senio'l" Grand Deacon. D. N. BURGOYNE, as w: J1.lnio'J" Grand Deacon. J. E. CADLE, W. Grand Marshal. O. H. GEE, lV. G'rand Steward. JOHN D. VINCIL, W. G'rand Orator. SAMUEL H. OWENS., TV:. Grand Orato"J·. B. L. QUARLES, W. GrantlPursuivant. •T. X. ALLEN, a~ Grand Tyler. 7

The M. W. Grand Lodge waR opened Prayer by Gra11d Chaplain.

ill A1\orPIJ~ FORl\f.


Proceedings of the

4

[Oct.

CREDENTIALS.

rrhe Gl~and l\faster appointed Bros. J. A. H. Lampton, Alex. M. Dockery and H. M. Rhodus, a Committee on Credentials, who submitted the following report: To the M.

~r:.

Grand Lodge oj Mi8soU'ri:

Your Commi ttee on Credentials report the following Lodges represented, together with the names of the representatives, and permanent members ofth~ Grand Lo<1g~: [Those marked with an asterisk (01;) are proxies.] MISSOURI.........•...•........•.•......•....•• N o.

::;\:IERIDIAN.

.•...• .•. .•.•.....•.

"

BEACON••.•••.•...•....•.....•.•.•.•.••........

"

3

ARK ...•••••.....••••••••.•••••.••.•...•.••....••

u

6

\VILLIAMSBURG •...••• •...•.

"

8

G. W ASHTNGTON......................... "

9

" " " "

11 14 15 16

H

17

PALMyRA PARIS UNION ST. LOUIS

" " "

18 19 20

WELLINGTON NAPTHALI

" "

22 25

EVERGREEN.............

"

27

ST. JOHN'S....................................

"

28

LIBERTy

"

31

LAl"AyETTE................................. "

32

RALLS

"

TRoy

"

33 34

PAULDINGVILLE......................... AUBURN WESTERN 'STAR l\1EMPHIS OLARKS'\rILLE

u...... ..

l

o. N. Garvin, W. M. D. Goodfellow, S. W . .T. X. Allen, J. W. J. G. Wrerner, S. W. H. J. Fluegel, J. W. Milton H. Wash, W. lVI. B. F. Snyder, W. M.i: T. R. Rogers, \\r. M. John W. Bailey, S. W. T. R. ::E-Iobson, J. W. ~ Geo. J. Goodwin, W. M. W. W. Ehninger, S. W. T. H. Russell, J. W.* A. S. Loving, W. M. Jas. 1.1. Ne\vland, W. 1.r. T. B. Crowder, S. W.?-' S. R. Peters, W. 1\-1. Jas. T. Perry, S. W/ 1\-1. M. Tucker, W. M. Francis M. Reynolds, S. 'V. J. O. B. Thomas, S. \V. Theodore Brace, S. W. P. J. Hendgen, '\V. M. S. Popper, S. W. C. R. Williamson, J. W. T. F. Norris, W.l\L P. S. Pfouts, W. M. J. C. Edgar, S. W. Henry G. I{evil, J. W. Jackson Farrar, W. M. W. O. Bragg, 8. W.* 1. N. Wilber, W. M. I. N. Wilber, S. W.:!' 1. N. Wilber, J. W.' S. T. Major, S. W. S. T. ~Iajor, J. W.* James Olowdsley, W. M. Xen. Ryland, .T. W. J. B. Vardeman, S. W. Wm. B. Thornhill, .T. W


1872.J

Gra1td Lodge oj" 1lfis8ouri.

No. 35 H. J. Alley, W. M. J. C. W. Lindsey, S. W. COOPER " 36 E. C. Evans, \V. )I. CEDAR · ..·..•..·. " 37 Joseph N. AI'nest, 1\-f. CALLAO " 88 James Lovern, W. lYr.* MT. MORIAH................................ " 40 E. V. Kyte, M ..l* MIDDLE GROVE......... " 42 J. B. Quisenberry, W.1\1:. JEFFERSON " 43 Sigmund Vetsberg, W. M. E. S. Woog, J. W.~ .JACKSONVILLE •..... " 44 vV. G. Riley, W, M. BONHOMl\IE . 45 Wm. D. Clayton, W. 1\'1. WENTZVILLE.............................. '" 46 J.l\I. \Vilson, W. M. Wm. H. Muzzy, S. vV.'!' FUL'rON " 4H David L. vVhaley, W. M. HAyNESVILLE " 19 James R. 'Vhit~ett, 'V. 1\1:. XENIA . 50 George \V'. Pistole, W. M. LIVINGSTON H 51 John H. Turner, W. ~r.ll­ WAKANDA " 52 R. E. Buchanan, 8. G. 'V. Deatherage. J. \V.l> rl'lPTON , 56 J. W. Xormau, W. :M.*' W. :rIo Stinson, S. 'V. lVIoNTICELLO ..• .•.... . " 58 W. T. Humphrey, W. M. CENTRALIA.................... " 59 F. M. Roberts, S. W. R. P. Roberts, J. "\VAVERLY '. 61 J. B. \Vood. W. M. VrNCIL , 62 Mllton I-Iehvig, W. M."" ~10NROE ,. 64 W. S. ].!cClintic, W. ~r. LINN " 66 O. H. Abbott, J. W. ROCHEPOR'r " 67 W. Seobel, 'V. M. TEBO " 68 Wm. T. Thornton, W. M.~ SUJ.. LIVAN••.. ,. 69 Wm. D.l\fcFaddeu, W. ~I. SAVANNAH " 71 N. B. GiddIngs, W. 1\1ASHLEy " 7~ Jesse W. Bartlett, J. \V. 77 Joe Davis, \V. 1\L LEBANON " 78 John Bonham, W. M. ST. JOSEPH " John Bonham, S. W.'~ .John BOllham, J. \V.<i: POLAR S'rAR....... .. " 79 Chas. H. Whittlesey, \V. M. Loren Mitchell, S. W. D. W. Saddler, J. W. HICKORY GROVE............... " 81 R. M. Flint, W. M. POTTER " 84 J. C. Hemphill, W. M. H. B. Scott, S. W.* J. C. Hemphill, J. W.:l FRIE'NDSHIP................................ " bB J. E. Cadle, \V. 1\:[. J.\;IADISON.............................. " HI Wm. Nord, W. :J\{' PERSEVERANCE " 92 \Vm. O. Parks, W. M. ST. MARK'S......... " 93 G. F. Green, Vl. 1\1:. EVENING STAR........................... " 94 B. F. Johnson, W. M. WEBSTER .....•• " 98 Noah H. Hampton, W. 1\1. MT. VERNON " 99 W. E. Wright, W. M. CANTON " 100 S. ""V. B. Carnegy, W. l\rI.ll' KIRKVILLE... H 105 J. 1\:1:. Oldham, W. M. MACON " 106 R. B. Rubey, W. M. GOLDEN SQUARE........................ " 107 Lewis Leon, S. W. MARCUS...... " 110 N. B. Allen, W. M. M. TRENTON " III W. H. McGrath, MERCER

"V.

'V.

""V.

"'T.

,V.


[Oct. PLATT~BU1{G

TWILIGHT.................

DA VlESS........................... VERSAILLES................................ COMPASS ERWIN GENTRYVILI.lE..................... SEAffIAN •.•..•. . ATHENS.......................................

LIVE OAK.................................... CONSTANTINE.................. WEST PRAIRIE........................... POTOSI FAR)!I~GTO:rs..............................

STAR OF

'.rRE

WEST.....................

PLEASANT l\IOUNT..................... WARRENSBURG PLEASANT GROVE........... IRONDALE

CASS............................................. LEXINGTON.................. ~IILTO:N

BLOOMFIELD............................... CONCORD...................................... ASHLAND.................................... .JOHNSON PACIFIC....................................... PLEASANT.................................... CLIFTO~ :HILL OCCIDENTAL................................ MARYVILLE ORIENT FRANCAIS

UNIO:N PRIDE OF THE WEST•••..•.•••••••.... DES MOINES................................ CALIFORNIA.........

OALHOUN l\<IoRALITY HENRY CLAy.............................. HANNIBAL ZEREDETHA................................. PUTNA1\-I....................................... WELLSVILLE

No. 11:3 "\Villl::llow Turner, W. ~1. " 114 T. LeNoir, W. M. D. D. Berry, S. W. W. 1'. LeNoir, J. W.;i· " IlG A.. 1\1. Irving, W. J\.I. " 117 J. N. Martin, J. W. " 120 C. H. Taylor, W. IVr.* H 121 Edmnnd I{ue:::,tner, S. W. " 125 Ahira Manring, W. M. " 126 J. J. Dilli nger, S. W. 'r" 121 R. R. Canaday, W. M.* R. R. Canada~", S. W.~ R. R. Oanaday, .J. W . .t: ' 12g '1\ J. Buchanan, ~. \V. I"!. J. Deming, J. W. " 129 .A.. H. Danforth, W. l\f. " 130 V. H. Harrison, W. M.~ " 131 E. B. Smith, W. M.* E. B. Sn1ith, S. W.·l' ~, 132 Robert r:retley. W. ).\,1. " 133 .Jalnes A. Greason, W ..M:. HOl1ston .A.. Turner, J. W. " 134 James Johnston, W. M. " 135 J. M. Bosaker, \V. M. " 142 TIlos. J. Starke, W. 1'1. " 143 Joseph Neel, W. M. " 147 W. H. Stansbury, W. i\I. " 149 .A.• A. LeSueur, W. M. " 151 J. P. l\Ieals, VV. M. Martin Featherston, S. ,~~. " 153 A. E. Carter, W. M.* " 154 R. S. Shields, W. M. John E. Sallee, S. W. H 156 A. J. Johnston, S. W.,I . A... J. JohnBton, J. W." " I5H Jo. Yancey, W.l\'I. .., 159 R. C. Allen, W. M. " 160 A. E. Mitchell, W. M.* " 161 .l~.• Bradsher, W. M. " 163 Alex. A. BassE-tt, W. M. " 165 Lycurgu~ Miller, \V. M.* " 167 Jas. A. Schultz, W. M. August 'Vilderm uth, S. Vi. Jules Jeanneret, J. W. " 173 John H. Pugh, J. W. " 179 John A. Sloan, S. 'V. " 180 S. IV!. Northrup, J. W. j: " 183 N. C. Rice, W. M. James R. Todd, S. W.~j. J. M. Lawson, J. W. " 184 T. J. Hastain, J. W. " 186 G. A. Settle, W. M. " 187 W. D. Hurne, W. M. " 188 J. F. E. Phillips, S. W. " 189 Samuel Russell, W. M.~; " 190 W. F. Dyer, W. M. ., 194 Milton Cox, W. M.

'\T.


1872.]

G/rand Lodge oj· lVIis8o·url..

No.195 W. G. Weaver, S. W. " 19i G. M. Robinson, W. Iv!.)· G. M. Robinson, J. W.* GREEN RIDGE " 203 Josiah McCary, W. M.* ROWLEy....................................... H 204 John B. Sherwood, S. W. J. W. Meadows, J. W. SALISBURy................................. " 208 J. Eagan, S. W. HICKORY HILL " 211 A. A. Mahan, W. M. W. H. Plummer, S. W. ROLLA " 213 Perry Collins, S. W. HORNESVILLE............................. " 215 '1. O. Langdon, S. W .. GRANBy...................................... H 216 W. S. Mesplay, .r. W. GOOD HOPE................................. " 218 J. Baldwin, W. M. A. M. Everest, S. W. KANSAS CITy.............................. " 220 Charles Brooke, W. J.\iI. MYSTIC TIE................................. " 221 R. T. Henderson, W. M. WOODIJAWN " 223 R. M. Ash, W. M.* H. H. Maupin, 8. "V.·r: R. M. Ash, J. W."':· SALEM " 225 Wallace McDonald, ~. \-V. Lucius Judson, J .. W. SALINE H 226 Henry Roseman, W .. M. ST. JAMES.................................... " 230 W. E. Glenn, W. M;l: SEDALIA ..•..... " 236 O. A. Crandall, W. M. O. A. Crandall, S. W.* PORTLAND................................... " 242 Joseph J. Neal, W .. M. KEYSTONE ..........................••...... " 243 Edward Spencer, W. M. Geo.. B. Wintle, J. W. KNOB NOSTER .••••••••..•...•••••.•..... " 245 H. S .. Witherspoon, W. M. NEOSHO " 247 Sam. M. Dille, W. M. HIGH HILL................................. " 200 John W. Hogge, W. M. HOPE........................... H 251 S. M. Davidson, W. M. BUTLER...................•..........•••.•.... " 254 Wm. Page,S. W. LODGE OF LOVE........................... " 259 W. B. Hays, W. M. MECHANICSVILLE........ ........•.•...• " 260 .Jas. Long, W. M. HOLDEN " 262 1. Starkey, W. M. FAYETTEVILLE ......•......••............ " 264 G. N. McMahon, S. W. CORINTHIAN •• ••........... ..•.•.... ...... u 265 Ben. E. Lemnlon, W. M. SOCIAL .••.•................ ••.••.•••••. .•...... " 266 E. T. Violett, J. W. AU.RORA " 267 John M. Harklerodes, S. W. F .. W. Fischer, J .. W. LODGE OF TRUTH........................ " 268 Daniel Moody, W. !\L GRANITE " 272 M. L ..Jacobs, J. W. GRAND RIVER........................... " 276 A. H. I-Iale, W. M. LODGE OF PEACE........................ " 280 John Brown, J. W.~ COSMOS ...•.. ...••..••..••.•.. " 282 Joseph R. Friend, W. M. Robert Lyle, S. W. Jas. Brandly, J~ W. EAST............................................. " 2B5 D. E. Yarborough, W. M. CRAFT , u 287 .Tames M. Holt, W. M. LAMAR......................................... " 2H2 .Tno. M. Dunn, W. M. MONITEAU " 295 Jackson Bruce, W. M. C. K .. Scott, J. W. GROVE ....•. .•.... ....•. ••• ...•.... " 296 Charles T. Daniel, S. W. S. A .. Moody, J. W. TEMPLE ••.••• ..•... " 299 Asa Maddox, W. M.*

BOLIVAE CARTHAGE...........

'V.

7


Proceeclilf~gs

8

of the

[Oct.

No. 303 J. E. Harding, W. M. J. A. Tyler, S. W. NEW LO~DON..... ......•.........••...... " 307 .1. \V. Rule, S. W. ST. AUBER'l.................................. " 31-:1 D. 'V. Snlurt, S. W. PAULVll.Jl,E " 3HJ R. 1f. Brashears, W.l\tI. HAHDIN " 322 Thomas l\lcGinnis, .J. W. CORXER STONE..... " 323 Joel Swope, W. M. H. Rosenfeld, S. 'V. o. B. Barron, J. LA'L'HROP " 330 R. J. McKnight, J. W. CHAHITy..... " 331 J. M. Austin, S. W. CHILLICOTHE " 333 J Ohll R. Middleton, W. M. RELIEP " 341 Z. N. Rountree, W. M. AGRICOLA " 343 B. L. Quarles, W. M · MOBERLy.................................... " 3·14 Eli Owen, W. 1\'1. J. T. Aldridge, S. W.1t O. A. Crosby, J. W.=:; ....- \RLING1'ON " 346 Frank L. Colley, S. W. MOSAIC................................. " a51 W. H. BUford, S. 'V\r. W. P. Harral, J. "V. B. }1'RANKLIN " 333 Cutbbert xl. Gee, "\V. 1\1:. ADELPHI " 355 T. M. Moore, \r. M. TUSCAN ......•. " 360 Jno. B. Maude, W. M. W. E. Robinson, S. W.:t: Sehvyn B. Pallen, J. 'V. RIDDICK " 361 Richard \VilkinsoD, W. :M:. 'VARSA\V· " 365 James R. Jones, W. M. George Gillette, S. W. COMPOSrL'E " 369 D. K. Ponder, W. M. CRAIG H 371 Charles A. Doughty, W. M. Samuel VanGundy, S. W. OBAGE

"V.

PLUMB

"

375 Benjamin F\ Hayden, S. W.

IONIA RICHLAND

" ;,

:3S1 William Simpson, W. M. 382 James I. Tyree, \V. M.

Robert C. Parrott,.T. \V. 386 .T. H. Page, W. M. LA/rIMER...................................... " 395 D. T. Collier, W. M.* ITURIA " 406 \V. J. Karner, .To W. IBERIA " 410 WJu. E. 'Vheeler, W.1\-L Frank E. Lnmbar, J. W. HUNNEWELL " 415 A. P. Vance, J. W. CACHE " 416 B. A. Dozier, S. W. DAyTON

"

PAST GRAND MASTERS•

.John H. Turner, ~. 'Vf-l. B. Carnegy,

S. H. Saunders, J. D. Vincil,

Joseph Foster.

PAST DEPUTY GRAND 1ttASTERS.

John Decker. PAST SENIOR GRAND WARDENS.

Allan L. McGregor,

Alex. M. Dockery. PAST MASTERS.

This list includes only those who vote as Past Masters, and not as represent-

atives. John J. Skinner, J. P. H. Gray,

J. R. Davis, B. D. Parks,

c. W.

Samuel,

W. F. Baird,


1872.J

Grand Lodge

of Missouri.

PAST MASTERs-Omtinued.

F. C. Gillette, John B. Henderson, D. N. Burgoyne, .1. M. Fox, F.B. Howe, Morris Jacks, A. Weigle, David Capt, J. P. Ravold, Allan McDowell, C.Thaw, G. B. Dam.eron, Jas. R. Tinsley,

Jno. A. Gilfillan, Henry B. Butts, J. H. Pottinger, W. S. Stockwell, Robt. G. Hubbard, W. T. l\fcCutchan, A. B. Barber, Jno. W. Luke, J as. E. Carter, Wm. Nifong, WIn. O. Defriez, Wm. H. Sione, A. M. McIntyre, Fraternally sUbmitted,

John C. Summers, EO' J. Williamson, Wm. A. Gibson, Wm. Coo Watts, Wm.. P. Mullen, J. B. Austin, Hoi F. Hoppins, J. R. Arnold, Geo. T. King, Thos. C. Ready, .las. H. Tolman, J. H. Bethune, J. A .. H. Lampton. J. A .. H. LAMPTON ALEX. M. DOCKERY, H. M. RHODUS, Committee.

There being one hundred and eighty-three lodges represented, the Grand Master declared a quorum present.

ANNUAL .ADDRESS. 'fhe Grand Master delivered the following address: OFFICERS AND MEMBERS O:H' THE GRAND LODGE:

We are met again in Annual CommunicatioD, to survey our Masonic field and inspect the structure we are building thereon. We have solemnly invoked the blessing of the Eternal One to rest upon our work. Under the direction of the Great Architect of the Universe, let us proceed with the building, and through His guidance, we may reasonably hope that what we build will not only stand the inspeetion of our own times, but the storms and tumults and convulsions of ages to come. In this spirit of dependence upon Him we cannot fail to labor in harmony, develop in strength, and realize the divine beauty of our tenets-Brotherly Love, Relief, and Truth. I extend to you, Brethren, sincere congratulations upon the flourishing condition of our beloved order throughout our entire jurisdictIon. The state of the work speaks well for the past. It proves that you have the materials, and the skill, and the zeal to build. It is your business here, as it is your duty, to devise the best means to secure the future prosperity of a work which has already brought you so much honor and happiness. Clinging with pride to the noble record you have made, with its fruits spread before you, no one can doubt that the proc-eedings of this Communication will be marked by the same wisdom that has characterized your deliberations in former years. The good you have done is an anchor of safety. The good you may yet do is a beacon of hope. You are fully ali ve to the position you occupy before the world, and do not shrink from its responsibilities. You recognize the fact. that the design of our order is not only to promote each others' welfare, but to advance the interests and improve the tone of society at large. Let us set ourselves earnestly to work here to aceomplish the first part, and foundation of our design, and we shall have gone far towards performing the


10

Proceedings

oj~

the

[Oct.

latter part, which involves our duties to society and the world. Let us apply to ourselves the beautiful sentiment of the poet: " This above all-to our own selves be true; And it must follow as the night the day, We cannot then be false to any man." MEMORIAL.

At the commencement of these annual gatherings from every part of our Grand Jurisdiction, when we bring up our gifts, and offerings, and dues for the support of the Temple, we find our first pleasure in greeting our brethren, the master workmen, whom probably we have not seen for twelve months. Some faces do not appear among the throngs of the Brotherhood; ~ome hands are extended no more to exchange fraternal greetings; some voices are silent at roll-call, and fail to participate in our counsels; some stations are-alas!vacant, perhaps to be filled so worthily as they have been, no more, forever. It is our mournful duty, after we hnve greeted and congratulated the living, as we have already done, to enter, for a moment, the gallery containing the memories of our dead, and see whose familiar faces and figures have been added to the list of the silent and cold. Of the Grand Masters there is REDDICK, TUCKER, BATES, LANE, GAUBLE, KIRTLEY, CHAMBERS, McBRIDE, GROVER, BROWN, SHARP, BOYD, HOUSTON. Of the brilliant workers and teachers, there are MELODY and O'SULLIVAN; and now has been added to the collection of our honored and departed brethren, PAST GRAND MASTER GEORGE WHITCOMB, who died at his residence in Charleston, MiSSIssippi County, Misf:louri, on the lOth day of July, in the fifty路ninth year of his age. As we all kno,,", he had suffered for years, wIth a great physical afiliction, which rendered him almost a confirmed cripple, and yet as a member of the Grand Lodge and a representa.. tive of his lodge at our annual communications, no one was more pl1nctual than he_ He was attending to pUblic Masonic duties on the 24th of June previous to his death, and delivered an address at the festival of st. John, to the brethren ill his vicinity. He may be said to have died with the Masonic harness OD. A native of Massachusetts, he had been a citizen of Missouri for over thirty years, and was a strong pillar of Masonry in this State_ He was elected Senior Grand Warden in 1861, and Grand Master in 1862, when our Masonw ranks needed their best men at the front, and their very best man as a leader. George Whitcomb proved equal to the occasion, and by his sound Masonic conservatism, materially aided in bringing our band of brothers safely through the strife of sectional differences and civil war. He was more than he appeared to be in the glance ofa slight acquaintance, and those who knew him best, saw most in him to admire and love. He was a man of good natural ability, strong and healthy humanity, and excellent mental attainments. He was the author of several Masonic papers, historical and otherwh;e, which he made public from time to time during his more active years. His impulses were good and pure, and his social qualities of a character that rendered him a pleasant companion and popular among his brethren. Having no family of his own, he lavished his affections on an unprotected boy, whom he reared and nurtured with all the tenderness of a father. That boy became a Mason, a member of this Grand :Body; and in his family t surrounded by every comfort that grateful love could dictate" the old man died. Brother Whitcomb was fully aware of his approaching end, and anticipating a sudden departure, settled his worldly affairs, made all due preparations, and gave instructions for his fllneral. It was his last reque~t to have his body brought to this city and buried in the Grand Lodge lot in Bellefontaine cemetery by the Grand Lodge.


187~.J

Grand Lodge of Missouri.

11

Accordingly, I took charge of the funeral, and called a special session of the Grand Lodge to perform. the services. The funeral took place on Sunday, the 14th of July, the body being placed for view in this hall. A. very large concourse of Masons responded to the call, including all the resident Grand officers, and nearly all the Masters and Past Masters of Lodges in St. Louis. The mortal remains of George Whitcomb were deposited in the Grand Lodge lot, Bellefontaine cemetery, with solemn ceremonies. I recommend that a page in our published records be dedicated to his memory. Thus the Grand Lodge of Missouri commemorates her honored dead. BUSINESS.

From the press of the accumulated business matters and official aets of twelve months, there is little time or space for lecturing upon general principles, in an address of this character. But the word business, and the thing business, rem.inds me tbat many of our brethren need lecturing upon a pernicious habit they have contracted of mixing BUSINESS AND MASONRY. Business is speculation-Masonry is speculative. So far they are alike, and thus widely do they differ. Business is severe and grasping in pursuit of its interests-Masonry is merciful and open-handed in the performance of its charities. The inexorable laws by which fortunes are bUIlt, have little in comm.on with those which govern the Masonic structure. One of the most fruitful sources of trouble and vexation to Masons everywhere is the thoughtless persistency of many brethren in dragging their unfortunate business ventures into the lodge for hearing and adjustrnent. They ring the changes of dollars and cents and Masonic obligations in the lodge and out of it, as if they thought that Masonry had in some mysterious manner modified the usual forms of transacting the common affairs of life. This is an error that leads to many unpleasant consequences, and the sooner it is recognized as such and corrected, the better it will be for the prosperity of the lodges and the harmony of the Brotherhood. More tho.n half the Masonic trials have their origin in private business matters, which have become entangled in the awkward hands of the parties to them; and when a satisfactory solution appears to be imposslble, the (\fyof "fraud" is raised, and the grievance is brought before the lodge in the shape of charges. There is a trial, and a Mason is suspended or expelled for "gross unmasonio conduct," which is often nothing worse than inability to pay a debt according to promise, perhaps, on the faith of a brother Master Mason. Suppose the evidence establishes the breach of faith to have been wilful and the defrauding premeditated-the strongest case that can be made on the business basis-the fact that one brother has lost money by trusting another IS almost the only one taken into consideration. It was a purely business matter at the start, and should have been subject only to the laws of business. It has now apparantly become a Masonic matter of the first importance, for, upon its settlement, hangs the Masonic life or death of a member of the lodge. As it was btlSiness, it would be well to Inquire how the business was done~ Such an investigation would, in nearly every instanoe, show the accuser to be more to blame than the aocused. It wotlld prove that he had been mixing up his business affairs with Masonry, and making money transactions depend entirely upon the compact of the Masonic brotherhood. He had taken the word of a brother Mason for a property consideration, in which, as a business man, in a pUL'ely business matter, he should have required ample security on the usual scale of values. If he was doing business he should have secured himself in the transaction by means known to business men. Then no tl'ouble could have


12

Proceedings of the

[Oct.

come, nobody could have been defrauded, and no one's Masonry could have been called in question. That's business. If he was practising Masonry to accommodate a brother, which he had a perfect right to do, he should not falsify the name, and compromise his profession, by turning it into this very serious business before the lodge. Now, no l\tIason, as such, has the right to demand of a Masonic brother business accommodations which he could not expect and would not ask of a profane. Masonry gives him no such franchise, or exemption, or special privilege in his business affairs; neither does it obligate him to grant such favors to another. It has nothing whatever to do with these matters, and when it touches them it is sure to get its bands soiled. If a lVlason is in want and distress and asks a favor which involves a money value without an equivalent or security, let his appeal be met in a true Masonic spirit. Such relief should be freely bestowed. If his improved circumstances in the future enable him to repay in kind, let him not forget the debt. That's Masonry. It has been truly said, there is no friendship in business. In the same sense, there is no brotherhood in business. Business is a game in which bloodbrothers often playas antagonists. They are justified in using against each other every advantage of position, knowledge, foresight and superior qualifications generally. Brother Masons avail themselves of the same privileges ill their worldly intercourse. Were they to discriminate in favor of the large class of their brethren, and permit Masonry to guard their business interests exclusively, they would soon be forced to wit.hdraw from the field of trade defeated, routed, and objects of future charity. Such faith in the theory of the Masonic institution is beautiful and deserved but such abandonment to the integrity of individuals will not do in this busi~ ness world. Every department of life has its laws, which cannot be infringed upon without disorder and confasion. Business demands that its laws be rigidly observed. Its presiding goddess is the severe form of Justice. Masonry has this and several other beautiful divinities in its gallery of virtues and graces. Business means gain and wealth :-Masonry, love and charity. Neither can interfere with the province of the other without detriment to both. When they do, Jet us observe the confusion that ensues in our Order. As a D1atter of business, one Mason accommodates another, and without taking legitimate precaution to protect himself, expects to hold his brother to his word and bond of faith by private means well known to both. The contract to pay is not fulfilled, and the money-lender insists on the bond. There is no way of executing it but by riding the poor brother to death with the Whip of charge~ and specifications, and the spur of Masonic obligations. There is neither business nor Masonry in this usage, yet it is often applied and pursued to the extreme penalty-Masonic death. Who is more to blame, the prosecuting witness or the victim. ? The former has nothing to substantiate his claim in the courts, and under the laws made and provided for the adjustment of such business, and he therefore appeals to the lodge as a sort of collecting engine, or a private, patent money-press, which he uses to correct his own mistakes, flnd possibly to enrich himself. If the fiesh-and-blood bond be satisfied by the payment of a certain a,mount of money, all is well; the debtor is a good Mason; if Dot, the helpless bankrupt is cast beyond the pale of the Brotherhood. The case represented may be an extreme one. It is, nevertheless, given as a.n illustration of what too often happens in lodges, and for the purpose of warn路 ing Masons against such gross inconsistencies. Money is the hinge upon whicb such a trial turns, and the money consideration decides it. A trial in a lodge of Masons should be founded in and conducted upon Masonic principles, and th~ only casein which a money consideration can legitimately appear in a Masonic trial is in debts and dues, taking the attitude of wronging and defrauding the lodge itself. This has nothing to do with business. Refusing to pay dues is a.


1872.J

Grand Lodge of Missouri.

13

violation of a compact which the lodge makes with every member, upon which rests many of his privileges as a Mason, and the very existence of the lodge itself as an instrument for the accomplishment of good.. Such cases are especially provided for by our Masonic laws. No Mason is excusable for violating his word, or betraying a trust reposed in him by a brother. or any other person. He should be held strictly accountable for his acts aecording to our moral standard, and not by the world's money-guage. On the other hand, Masons cannot be too careful not to expose a brother to the danger of forfeiting his word by seeming to do him a favor in a time of need, and imposing conditions which he may be unable to perform, thus inflicting upon him irreparable injury and disgrace. Leave collecting debts to agents, constables and courts. Let business be strictly business, and Masonry remain purely Masonry, and do not mingle the incongruous elements of the two, to make one subserve the purposes of the other. Grant business accommodations only at their par value and dispense Masonic charity freely. Pursue this straightforward course, and the lodges will be spared an infinitude of trouble in conducting trials of a character that should never come before them. THE SECRET BALLOT. The secret ballot, and acceptance by unanimous vote, constitutes the impregnable bulwork of the Masonic Order. These condiiJions are fundamental and unalterable, and without them Freemasonry could not exist at all. They are a positive prohibition of discord in their inception, and in theory they can produce nothing but harmony. In practice, however, they are not entirely exempt from the fate of other beautiful theories-that is, they somet.imes make a partial failure. Such isolated cases, while they prove the rUle, and demonstrate the truth they seem to deny, are exceedingly troublesome whenever they arise in a lodge. They are entirely beyond the reach of law or discipline, for the reason that they take refuge behind the impregnable bulwork and abuse its sanctity "while the offense is palpable and the offender is safe. Now, since the ballot is secret, how do we know certainly there is an offender? Ever member of the lodge exercises his right to vote, and by the conditions no member's vote can be called in question. We do not certainly know that anyone abuseR his principles at the ballot-box, but we do know that times come in the histors"" of some lodges, when for months, even years, a clear ballot is unknown. 'l'his proves either that the lodge is surrounded altogether by bad material, or that somebody inside of it has determined not to be satisfied with any applicant who lnay present himself. In either case it is hard for the lodge to bear its situation patiently, and resist the impulse to surrender its charter. Some plain words on what may be termed the abuses of the secret ballot are needed. No Mason of any experience will deny that these abuses exist; scarcely anyone but has known some palpable instance of wrong perpetrated through the ballot-box.. A sacred right to the many, has apparently given a few the right to do wrong, which admits of no redress. To remove the wrong would be to root up the right. In our immutable constitutions the Great Charter of Freemasonry itself was locked up for safety, and the key purposely thrown away and lost. Conceived, and brought forth in truth, it admits of no change but growth, and t,he natural development of its vital organism, and it was intrusted in pure hands. These conditions preserved, it is perfect; but in its contact and struggle with human passions its very perfections are sometimes distorted into blemishes, and made the means of injustice.. It is to be deeply regretted that there are those in the order who areso far from being Masons as to seize on the ballot-box: as an instrument of vengeance. Humiliating as this admission is, it is nevertheless an honest confession, sa.fer to make than to withhold f for it may be the beginning of repentance and


14

P1"oceedings of the

[Oct.

reform. The evil is not wide-spread, norig it contagious; but It roots itselfUke a cancer in the body of' a lodge where it exists, and slowly but surely wastes it away. Some of our lodges are now suffering from it, and from t.he highest enjoyment of health, peace, and prosperity, they have been plunged into the depths of weakness and despondency. Their energy and activity are lost, and they lie torpid and languishing, as it were, pulseless, on the bed of death. All tbib, simply because one member, perhaps, has been disappointed in his aspirations for office; annoyed by the rejection of the petItion of a personal friend or relative; or because some accused brother was not expelled. Forgetful of the high power he wields for good 01" evil; oblivious of his duties as a Mason, and even forswearIng his honor as a man, he resorts to the revenge of the ballot-box, and hides himself behind its unquestionable right and inviolable secrecy. He strIkes at the vitals of Masonic fellowship, and from that moment the lodge is dead. Instances have occul'red in which this destroying spirit assumed a bolder attitude and proclaimed in the lodge and out of it, in private and pUblic, on the btreets and highways, that no more work should be done in - - Lodge, as every application would be black-baIled-the dissatisfied Mason himself announcing that he would do the deed. In such cases there is speedy redress in charges of "gross unmaHonic conduct" and expulsion from the sanctuary so wantonly profaned. There is some merit of' hardihood or even bravery in the latter exhibition of rage, for it discloses an enemy who lays himself open to attack, and challenges combat. It is the covert foe from which the lodge suffers most. He is truly a serpent in a dove's nest, and as he enjoys hls revenges in secresy, wherever he IS, or whoever he may be, he is not likely to cbarge that the epithet above applies personally and particularly to him. He will know It himself, and keep it among his other 1\-Iasonic secrets.

Let him keep the secret, and let him resolve henceforth to be a man and a Mason. Let hiIn realize, ifhe never did before, the essential purity of the thing he has soiled, and the solemnity of the privileges with which he has been trlfiing, and he will not have read these words in vain. He will thereafter use the secret ballot as contemplated in the deSIgn and structnre of Freemasonrythe guard \..>[ purity, the key..note of harmony, and the soul of honor. He will feel hinlself free from the tyranny of petty spite, and once more a reasonable, responsible, independent man. He will realize with a keen seDsibility the truth in these words: "'Tis pleasant to have a giant's strength, But tyrannous to use it like a giant." DECISIONS AND ACTS.

As the plan of reviewing correspondence which I adopted during my first term appeared to be generally satIsfactory, I continued it; and furnished the columns of The Freemason discussions of questions that arose for settlement, rulings under our laws, and decisions, as I believed in accordance with the law. These communications, and the questions of law and usage which they involve, are therefore doubtless familiar to many of you. They grew out of actual swamps into which lodges sometimes get, and their publication in advance of this report, was intended to serve as so many stepping-stones, by which the Grand Lodge might the more easily lay a solid pathway for future safety and bridge occasional chasms in our course. In addition to this, the chairman of the Committee on Jurisprudence, appointed ad interim, has had time and opportunity to consider the various subjects discussed, and decisions made,


1872.J

Grand Lodge of Missouri.

15

and thus advance the labor of the committee in preparing a well digested report for the final action of the Grand Lodge. DECISIONS. FIRST.-VERBAL OBJECTION AFTER RECEPTION OF PETITION.

Question.-After a petition for the mysteries bas been received and referred

to a comlnittee, a member of the lodge informs the Master that he has objections to the applicant. The objector is absent when the ballot is taken, and the candidate is elected. In view of the verbal objection ought the Master to have declared the candidate" rejected "-the clear ballot notwithstanding? Argument.-When the 0 bj ection was made, the lodge had already transferred its jurisdiction into the bands of its committee. A member cannot step in between the lodge and its committee to record an objection. The members of the COlnnli ttee are the proper judges of all obj ections, and should report according to information received and convictions as to the applicant's qualifications. Should the candidate be elected, the l'ight to object still exIsts, and the degree cannot be confe-rred in the face of the objection. Dem.fJion.-An objection cannot be entertained by the Master after a petition is referred to a committee and before a ballot is taken. It is also incompetent for the Master to declare any applicant" rejected" who has been elected by the members present, on the ground that an absent brother has objections to his admission, but the objection must be entertained by the Worshipful Master to prevent the conferring of the degree. SECOND.-OB.TECTIONS TO THE RECEPTION OF A PETITION, VALID.

After a petition for initiation and membership is read, and before a committ~e is appointed, it is the right of a member to object to the application being entertained. The petition is not yet the property of the lodge, &ond it is useless to encumber its proceedings with business which comprises no part of its duty and which cannot result to its advantage. In such a case it is fair to presume that the candidate would be rejected, then Why not reject the petition while it is in the lodge's power to do so? At this stage of the proceedings the Master should refuse to receive the petition and order it to be returned to the applicant without any action whatever. THIRD.-REMOVAL OF OBJECTIONS.

Question.-Does an objection to the advancement of a candidate for degrees

remain valid and binding upon the lodge after the objector has been suspended from the rights and privileges of Masonry? Argument.-It has already been decided that the removal from the lodge by death, or expulsion of the objector, removes the objection so far as he is indiVidually concerned, and the candidate is at libert.y to proceed. The same principle holds good and applies in the case of" suspension." .A suspended Mason is no longer affiliated with the lodge, and his name is accordingly dropped from the roll of members. His dues cease while he is under suspension. He has nothing whatever to do with the business of the lodge, and consequently his objection to any work the lodge may have in hand has lost its force and effect. On other grounds.-Any one who thinks so little of Masonry as to refuse to pay hIs dues, or so lightly as to commit any offense against its regulations requiring his suspension by the lodge, certainly ought not to have the power and


16

Proceedin(qs of the

[Oct.

privilege of objecting to a candidate taking Masonic degrees, or influencing in any manner the work of the lodge. If he wishes to exercise his prerogative of preserving the purity and good-fellowship of the order by interposing his objections to candidates, he must keep in good standIng himself. The fact that he has been Rtlspended is not a good indorsement of his ,judgment as a l\tIasonic Censor. DeC1.$ion.-An objection to the advancement of a candidate is removed by thE' dismission, expulsion, or suspension of the objector, from the lodge. I;"OURTR.-OB.TEC1'IONS TO PETITION OR ADVANCEMENT,

Decision.-Objections to the reception of a petition for initiation or membership, also objections to the advancement of a candidate, must be made in open lodge by the ob1ector, if present, or by some brother authorized to act for him, and in his name, if absent; and that the fact of objection and the name of the objector must be duly recorded in the minutes, to be valid. FIFTH.-EDUCATIONAL QUALIFICATIONS.

Question.-Is a man who can neither read nor write a proper candidate for the mysteries of Masonry? Argument.-It seems singular that this question should arise in this day and generation, and yet it does. In judging of its merits we must consider the general enlightenment of the age, and recognize the fact that the Masonic Order, occupying its advanced position, ought to reflect truly the intelligence of the community at large. By taking this view of the responsibilities involved, every intelligent Mason will be able to decide for himself the standard of intellgence to ,,"hich he is willing to give his sanction. Deci3ion.-By the terms of our law every applicant for the mysteries of Masonry is req uired to sign his name to his petition. His attested mark which is made competent in common law, does not answer the masonic purpose of a signature, and cannot be recognized as valid on a petition for our mysteries. SIXTH.-WITHDRAWAL OF CHARGES.

It often happens that, when the time for trial comes, there is a disposition and a movement among some of the members of the lodge to dispose of the case hyhaving the charges withdrawn without a hearing. This may arise from various causes. The brother at whose instigation the charges were brought, may wish at the last moment to screen himself from the odium and consequences of a malicious prosecution; or the brethren may desire by this short process to avoid the tedium of hearing the evidence, and feel themselves competent to judge the case by what they already know of it. If the first cause were the fact, great injustice would be done the accused, as he would have no opportunity of vindicating his character in the lodge, neither would justice be meted to his accuser. If the second were the motive, the lodge would inflict an irreparable injury upon its own body, upon the fraternity at large, and prove itself unfit to hold its charter. Decided.-That charges brought regularly and in due form before a lodge cannot be withdrawn without a trial, except some palpable error has been committed in regard to the identity of the accused or the fact of the offense, of which error the Master shall be the judge, and in such a case the charges may be dismissed by a two-thirds vote. If the o:tfense be non-payment of dues, only payment of dues disposes of the charge.


1872.J

Grand Lodge of Missouri.

17

SEVENTH.-LODGES U. D. COMPETENT TO T.RY NON-AFFILIA'拢ES.

Non-a:tnliated Masons are subject to the penal discipline of the lodge under whose jurisdiction they reside. Our law is direct and explicit on this point. Our Grand Lodge has decided that lodges U. D. may make Masou8, affiliate members, and exercise acts of discipline upon thei't members charged ,vith :Masonic offenses. They do all these things, of the ver31' first itnportn.nce in. our Masonic economy. '.rhey cannot elect. officers because of the unaccomplished conditions of their organization, but uuder our la\v a nd usages they are clearly competent to perform all the other functions of a lodge of Masons according to the terms of the warrant by the authority of which they work. We have authorized lodges U. D. to do the very highest Masonic acts-make Masons, and take Masonic life. These powers granted, there was no reason ill withholding the right to perform all minor acts consistent with the conditional organization of the body. One question under this head reluains to be settled, ang. it is one out of wh 1ell aribes a great deal ot' uncertainty and confusion.

:flas a lodge U. D. the right by its warrant under our law to try non-affiliated M~1sons?

'Vhy not? We have granted it tIle power to try its own members, who have more Masonic rights at stake and more interest in the fraternity than any non-affiliated Mason cnn have; and we have the law that a non-affiliate is subject to the penal discipline of' the lodge under whosejllrisdiction he resides. The whole theory of the status of lodges U. D. is very plain, if we work. out its legitimate results in practice. Above all, let our usage be harmonious, and perfectly consistent. 路with the law; anel if our law be imperfect., let us mend it or abolish. A late Grand Master's ruling, in a spechtl case, was to the effect that t1 lodge U. D. could not lawfully try non-affiliates, and gave the nearest chartered lodge

penal jurisdiction over them. 'fhis ruling was never formally considered and confirmed by the Grand Lodge, but the fact that it w路ns made, and reported and passed without objection, gave it t.acit sanction, and the rnle became a usage. In severnl cases requiring Its application, I acquiesced ill its force and validity and sanctioned it by practice. But I found its operation to be attended by mal1:\T difficulties unusual in trials, and too much circumlocution to directly reach the ends of justice. The nearest chart~red lodge ,vas not cognizant of the facts; witnesses \vere all at a distance, iLod everything conspired to llliL]te tbe case drag heavily, or perhaps not move at all. Aside fronl the inconsistent feature 01' the rule above noted, it was found t.o be conlplicated in worlting und cumbrolls in management. After submitting it to several practical tests, which appeared unsatisfactory in the general result, I felt bound to render a construction of the law, and Decided, That a lodge U. D. is competent to try non-affiliates who reside within its jurisdiction, as well as its 0''''11 members. EIGRTH.-PENAL JURISDICTION OVER NON-AFFILIA'fES.

Question.-A l\Iastpr Mason residing within the loca,ljurisdic{.ioll of a lodge,

petitioned for membership. He wer.Lt away before a report was rendered, and took up his residence under the jurisdiction of another lodge. The committee reported adversely, and assigned good reasons-reasons sufficient to demand a speedy investigation by the lodge. The Master deemed it his duty to postpone the htl,llot, and allow charges to interYene, that the applicant might be tried in that lodge, lest, if rejected, he might get possession of his dimit, to \vhich he WOllIn be entitled, go f?IR~"Th~r~, and hnpoS'e npon the Frn.tf'rn i ty "Th~re hi::;

B 2路Y"


18

[Oct.

evil deeds and notoriously bad character were not known. It was claimed by some of the melubers that, as the accused had removed his residence into the jurisdiction of another lodge, and was still non-affiliated, therefore the lodge in which his petition was pending had no penal jurisdiction over him, and that only the lodge in whose jurisdiction he lived could try him as a non-affiliate. Others held that, as the accused had lived among them, was known to them as a Master Mason, petitioned their lodge for membership, and committed crimes under their eyes, therefore they had ample jurisdiction, and should try the case Without referencâ&#x201A;Ź' to the removal of residence. A?¡uurnent.-The case presented is a very plain one, as to the duty of a lodge in the premises, although its probable result involves a question, for thede1init~ settlement of which we have no positive law. According to our law a non-affiliated Mason is SUbject to the penal discipline of the lodge under whose jurisdiction he resides. The object of the law is evidently to assert and exercise control over all non-affiliated Masons in our jurisdiction, and not to prescribe the jurisdiction of the various lodges. It contemplates that all Masons within our borders, whether affiliated or non-affiiliated, shall be subject to the restraints and discipline of masonic law, and that is all.

When the application of a non-affiliated Mason for membership is before a lodge, the lodge undoubtedly has penal jurisdiction over him, no matter where the residence of the applicant may be. Even though he may have removed out of our grand jurisdiction after the reception of his petition, he is still subject to the election or rejection of the lodge-why not subject also to its discipline? The lodge to which he has applied for membership has sole charge of his rights and claims as [l, !\fason, and setlS itself to the dutjT of inquiring into his character. In short, he trusts his wilole case to the lodge; he cannot withdraw Ills petition and dimit from the lodge, nor can the lodge dispose of the applicatioll except by ballot, according to onr present law. To that extent he belongs to the lodge. It isjust as certain that the Master ma:r postpone the ballot in any case when justice to the petitioner, to the lodge, to Masonry in general, seem, in hlsjudgment, to demand such delay of action. While the ballot is thus in abeyance, it is competent to bring charges against the applicant, for the same reason that it would also be competent for the lodge to elect or reject him if the ballot were ordered. If the accused be t,ried and acquitted, the ballot for membership must be taken, which disposes of the case tinally. And now comes the question before alluded to, })ot definitely provided by If thp af>cnsed be suspended or expelled, the lodge caullot afterwards ballot on the petition for membership, in conformity to law, because it cannot elect as a memher a suspended or expelled 1\1:ason, and there is no reason in voting to reject one. This peculiar feature of the case is covered by the following: l~t"w.

Decision.-A non-affiliated Mason, when he petitions a lodge for membership becomes subject to the penal jurisdiction at" the lodge which he has petitioned, without reference to a renloval of bis residence. The ballot on his petition may be delayed if charges intervene; the trial procpedings and a verdict of suspension or expulsion finally dispose of the petition, and virtually stand in the place of [l, ballot for ~lection or rejection, as provided by la'w. NIN'l'R.-NEW

'l'RIAI~.

Decision.-When a trial ("ase is, in general terms, remanded back to the lodge by t,he Grand Lodge for a new trial, it is competent in the trial ordered, to introduce new cbarges and Dew evidence, and, in fact, make it an entirely new case.


1872.J

Grand Lodge qt路 Missouri.

19

TENTH.-TRIALS.

Decision.-A trial may take place at either a stated 01' called comnlunicatiol1, so tbat the meeting has been set apart for the purpose. ELEVENTH.

Decision.-All the preliminaries being regular, a trial may take place in the absence of both the accused and the accuser or principal witness, provided witl1esses be present to develop the facts and merits of the case by proper evidence. TWELFTH.-APPLICATION FOR MEMBERSHIP.

Decision.-When an application for membership under dimit is rejected, the peti tion may be renewed at the same or a subsequent meeting, and a conlmittee of investigation must be appointed as thoui'h the petition had not been previously before the lodge. THIRTEENTH.-NO RESTRAINT ON AFFILIATION.

Question.-A lodge has a by-law requiring a Master Mason to live within its local jurisdiction six months befQre he can present his dimit and petition for membership. Is such restraint on affiliation valid? Argument.-Our Grand Lodge constitution and laws are silent on the subject. Such a regulation by a longe is, however, contrary to the spirit and purpose of the laws we have. We have been making laws and regulations to stimulate and encourage affiliation and not to retard it. We have asserted in a variety of forms and phrases, that every Master Mason in good standing ought to be a contributing member of some lodge, and ought not to carry his dimit in his pocket, and clailn to be a worthy Mason in the performance of his duty as such. Thoroughly grounded in this principle, we have carefully guarded dimisslon by positive laws, and have endeavored to remove all stumbling... blocks and hindrances to the speedy affiliation of those who become lawfully dimitted. Therefore, while we have no law in direct conflict with the by-law the lodge above referred to, the operation and enforcement of the by-law are opposed to our cherished principles and established usage. AnJ~ law or regulation restraining affiliation as to eligibility and duration of residence near a lodge, could not fuil to thwart our often expressed purpose of gathering all worthy brethren in to our Masonic fold. Under our explicit regulatlons it would even constit.ute a bar to a brother visiting a lodge for mOll ths, for he is not entitled to visit nlore than three times without petitioning and depositing his dim it. During a probation of six months' residence without l\'Iasonic intercourse, t.he great fear is tha.. t he would lose interest, and at the end of the term make no effort at all to join the lodge; whereas, our aim should be to keep a brother's Masonic zeal warm and in continual living action. He ought, therefore, to be permitted to petition any lodge he may elect, as soon as possible after he bas fixed his residence. Our law, also, gives him free choice of his Masonic horne without regard to localjuri~dictiol1of lodges, his dimit and knowledge of our rites, being the recognized passports to immediate <.'onsideration and fraternity.

of

Decision.-Any by-law or reglation of a lodge which places a restraint on atnllation to a limit of time, is contrary to our usage, inoperative and void. FOURTEENTH. -

RESIDENCE

IN

ONE STATE AND ANOTHER.

MASONIC MEMBERSHIP IN

Our Grand Lodge regulations give the widest possible latitude to Master Masons in the choice of their Masonic home. There are no restrictions whate,"er so far as lo~aljurisdictionswithin the StH,te nrc concerned. lIe llHlylive at


20

ProceedinlJ8 of the

[Oct.

one end of the State and petitition a lodge for membership in the other. There is no excuse for his remaining non-affiliated if he make proper efforts tojoin a lodge. He may reside permanently in one State and hold his lodge membership in any other State; or h~ may hold his Lodge membership in Missouri and live in l\tInine or California, without impairing his eligibility to office in his lodge. He nligh t even be elected Master of the lodge, come and be installed and return to his distant home, bearing the honors without ever being present in the lodge to assume its duties. Such a proceeding would not probably redound to the credit or best interests of the lodge, but the thing could be done. A Past Master of one of our lodges, boldIng his lodge membership here and living pernlanently ill another jurisdiction, would still be a member of our Grand Lodge, eligible to any office 'within the gift of the brethren. Question.-A member of one of our lodges, and a resident of this State, asks for his dimit, for the purpose of joining a lodge in Iowa, which is nearer his residence than his own lodge. He expects to remain a resident of Missouri, Would it be proper to dimit him upon such an application? Decision.-A Master Mason in good standing is entitled to a dimit, upon proper application, for the purpose of joining another lodge, either in the State or out of it, the place of his residence having nothing to do with his masonic rights or privileges, or the location of his masonic home. FIFTEENTH.-LODGE REMOVALS.

It is important that the Grand Lodge should know the location of all itb subordinates, and it sometimes becomes necessary for n lodge to move a short distance, for the sake of better quarters, or the greater convenience of its membership. So many cases of this kind have occurred that I found it needful to lay down rules for their government. Decided.-That a lodge, to remove from one town or place to another, or from one hall to another in the same town, must first decide to remove by a vote of at least two..thirds of all its re~ident membership, the members having been duly notified to attend the lodge at a stated meeting, to consider this sUbject. The requisite vote having been obtained, it is the duty of the D. D. G. M. of the district to exan1.ine the proposed new hall, and, if he approve, recommeud the removal of the lodge. The lodge shoultl then petition the Grand Master (or the Grand Lodge, if in session) for permission to remove, stating its total membership, the vote for and against rernoval, and giving a full description of the proposed hall, as required by law in the establishment ot' ne,v lodges. SIXTEENrXH.

Decision,,-When a lodge moves, the act carries with it a change of juriSdiction, such as would accompany the establishment of a new lodge; it relinquishes a portion of its old territory and takes possession of new that formerly belonged to some other lodge, the new home of the lodge becoming the center of its local jurisdiction. SEVEN'l.'EENTH.-APPROVAL OF MINUTES.

Decision.-The minutes of a lodge are not" adopted;" they are "approved," as a true record of the proceedings. If they do not furnish a correct statement of the business of the lodge, they ought to be revised and made to conform to the fact~. Objections to minutes can only be entertained when they point out errors or omissions in the record, and the lVlaster should give opportunity for such correction; if none is suggested, he should announce the minutes approved and order the fact noted. The minutes must state what the lodge did, so far as


1872.J

Gra1Ld

Lodge oj" MlsSOU1"i.

2l

necessary or practicable. If it did wrong, objecting to th~ minutes being approved, will not correct the error. The remedy mustbe applied in another way. EIGHTEEN'PHâ&#x20AC;˘....:..SUITA BLE PROFICIENCY.

Oandidates for Masonry, when they start into the nlysteries (or their friends for thelu), are often seized wi th irrepressible haste to get tbrough. This may arise from. regret at the long years they have passed in ignorance of the beautiful system unfolding, find a desire to make up for lost tinle; or, more likel3T it springs from a suddenly conceived idea that Masonry lnay be a benefit to theln in some contemplated enterprise. From whatever cause, the tendency to hurry candidates through their degrees is an old evil, which Grand Lodges have found it necessary to correct. Our own Grand Lodge bas done it, by requiring candidates for the second and third degre~s to be examined as to their l~nowledge of what tIley have already received, and forbldding mOl'e than one degree to be conferred at one meeting on the same candidate. It \vas supposed that undue haste would be prevented by these stringent rules. Not entirely so. The desire to make Masonry belld to the pressing necessities of a candidate for its luysteries, if not to evade the law, is still alive, as "rill be seen by the following:

(2u,estion,-Cau a Mason, who takes the second degree at a stated communication, receive the third before the next stated communication of the lodge, provided he is well infoflned in the preceding degree? Argu7nenl.-The question presupposes the possibility of H, candidate being "passed," lectured in the second degree, examined in open lodge, found proficient, and elected to receive the third degree at the same stated communication; for all our brethren kno\v that examinations and elections of candidates must take place at a stated communication, and therefore that no meeting can be called to examine, elect and confer a degree. No\v, there is no law in thisjnrisdiction that prohibits the putting in practice of the above proposition, in so many words, but the intention is evidently and decidedly against. it. If the thing could be done within the letter and spirit of the law, there is no douht it would be lawful. In deciding the point, I was obliged to stand upon a conviction outside of the question itself-that it is impossible for any candidate to become so proficient as our law contemplates and our usage requires, in the very short time implied by the proposition. If there are rare, exceptional cases, they only prove the necessitJr for a rule, founded in the average capacities of Masons, and the tru~ sense of "suitable proficiency in the preceding degl'ee," according to our standard of a candidate's acquiremeu ts.

lJecis'ion.-A candidate cannot receive more than one degree at the same stated communication, llor can he be advanced before the next. stated communication, NINETEENTH.-SUEING FOR DUES.

Deci8ion.-A lodge cannot, in its corporate capacity, sue a brother for the

amount of his masonic dues. TWENTIETH.-SUMl\-IONS.

Decision. - A summons by the Master of the lodge is legal, ordered either at

the session of the lodge or during its recess. TWENTY-FIRST.-LAWFUL INFORMATION ..

Decision.-A., B. and C. meet. A has sat in lodge with C., and C. has sat in lodge with B. It is competent for C. to introduce Brother A .. to Brother B., stating that he vouches for him as a Master Mason, or a Mason of either of the


22

Proceedi1"b,qs Q/' the

[Oct.

other grades, ill which he luay know him. After such introduction, A. can vouch for B. for the purpose of visiting, as though he had sat with him in open lodge. Such a voucher is eqnivalent to sitting in lodge, as required by our law. TWENrry-SECOND.-CROWDING 'VORK.

It often happens that several trials are set for the same COlllm unication, and not even one finished. In cases of non-payment of dues ft nunlber may be disposed of in one evening, out more serious charges require more time, and it is not safe to set more tban one for a meeting No more 'work should be laid onL than there is a possibility of doing in the tilne allowed. (J,'llestion.-Can a lodge, having fixed it communication for trials, and dUly notified the accused and witnesses to attend, continue the trials from time to time by calling off the lodge., and thus keeping it within the limits of one communication '? Decislon.-A subordinate lodge cannot call a coromunica.tion off and on from one day to another. Everyday's communication must be regularly opened and closed. One trial, having been commenced, may be continued from time to time until it is concluded. The minutes must show the progress of the trial at the successive called communications. A trial Juust be comJuenced at the communication for which it is set, or the accused may rightfully elaim the notification prescribed by law. He may however, waive such notice, and agree to a postponement for convenience. 'l'\VENTy_rrHI1tD-E'OR~'EIl'URE,SURRENDER,

AND RES'l'ORATI0N Ob' CHARTERS.

During the civil war a number of lodges were compelled to suspend work, and finally forfeited and surrendered their charters. After the return of peace many of thelu applied for the restoration of their ~harters, and their petitions were granted. Some of these revived lodges have had troublesome questions regarding their membership, in connection \vith dues. Some took the ground that only those who petitioned for the restoration of charter, were members of the lodge when it revived; others, that all the former mern bel's in good stand.. ing, whom the Grand Lodge had not dimitted during the suspension, 路were still members of the lodge. A rUling was necessary to meet such cases, and I Decided, That the restoration of a surrendered charter revives the lodge in its full membership; in other words, its membership consists of all its former members in good standing not dimitted b:}'" the Grand Lodge during the su~pen颅 sion. Under the restoration ot" an arrested charter, all the members are re.. stored SR,ve such as may be excepted by the Grand Lodge. TWENTY-FOURTH-FORFEITURE OF ]'EES.

In the code of by-laws which the Grand Lodge recommended for the use of Subordinate Lodges, there is a provision working forfeiture of fees in case the petitioner does not present himself to receive the :drst degree 'within six months after he shall have been duly notified of his election, unless he renders a suf.. ficient excuse. Under the old rule of the Grand Lodge, there is no reservation by which the lodge may consider and accept a valid excuse for non-appearance. He has paid his money, gets nothing for it, and it may be through no fault of hIs. This is not fair, and is certainly not intentionally unjust. Our usage in such cases is various, and in order to attain uniformity between the Grand Lodge ruling and the SUbordinate, I submit the follOWing Dec.ision.-A petitioner for the mysteries of Masonry, who does not present himself for initiation within six months after he shall have been duly notified of his elecLioD, shall forfeit his initlation fee, provided he does not give good reasons for his failure to appear, and of the validity of his excuse the maJority


1872.J

Gra1~d

Lodge of Mis801.&ri.

2E

of the members present must be the judge; provided, if the tinle exceed one year, a committee of investigation must be appointed, and the case take the regular course of a new petition, already presented, and accomp1:1ln~ed by the fee. '!'WEN'1'Y-}j'IF'rH.-THE TYLER AS A VOTER.

A very large number of ques~ions that come up in conducting the bu:siness of lodges and are finally referred, arise from sonle irregularity in the Tyler's voting, or fail ure to vote, and it has become necessary to define the status of the 'ryler as a voter, in such a luanner that the lodges may settle these questions for themselves, or rather preveu t their occurrence at all. 'Tbere is no doubt that the r.ryler, if he be :1 menlbel' of the lodge, bas all the rights of any other nlember of it. His position is a responsible and honorable one, and does not deprive hiul of the righ t to participate in :Lny of the business of the lodge, so far as be can do it in the faithful performance of his duty as an officer. That is his first care, and he should fully realize this fact when he assumes the trust of gnarding the outer door. His place is ontside of the lodge room, with the door ("loRed and locked. It is presumed, and it otlght to be the fact, that no sound or s~y路llable of the business of the lodge can be heard outside. This expresses the relation between the Tyler and the lodge at work, and the Tyler accepts the situation when he il-l installed. Now, let it be clearly understood that the '.ryler, by H,ccepting his very responsible office, is notl curtailed in his rights as a lIleru bel'. rrhey are- held inViolate, but his position presents an exceptional plu\se, which it is proper ~hould be left open to discretion, as the only lueans of prf:venting the questionR which are constantly springing ont of his vote. Our law is that every member of the lodge, present, shall vote upon the admission and advancement of ('andidates, petitions for affiliations, in trialH, etc., and the Master has no authority to excuse anyone. It is a good law, and should be rigidly observed; but just here conles in a clear margin for the lawful exercise of discretion, in the very nature and reason of the case. A trial is in progress, evidencp is heard, arguments are made, and the voting begins. A brother's Masonic life is at stake. The evidence and the arguments for and against, were requisite in order to develop the facts and give a full and fair understanding of the case. If they were not necessary to serve this purpose, they were utterly useless. The Tyler, ontside of the barred door, has not heard a word of the business which has occupied the lodge 1"01' bours, and yet he is called upon to join in making up a verdict, and is expected to vote understandingly in this very serious cause. Can he do it in the consc:ientious performance of his Masonic obligations? Is he, under the eircumstances, competent to re-uder it true verdict? If he ask it, ought he not, in all reason and justice, to be excused from voting? To answer these questions, it is only necessary to ask and answer another: Is the Tyler present in the lodge, as contemplated by the law, <luring the trial proceedings. Deci8ion.-The Tyler shall by his presence in bis place, assist in forming a quorum. He has the privilege of voting on petitions for the degrees or membership, and also at trials, but upon any of these deliberative or judicial acts, at his request, he shall be excused by the Master from voting, 011 the ground that he is Dot present "during the proceedings," and his failure to vote on any qnestion shall not VITIATE THE RESULT. TWENTY-SIX1.'H.-POSTPONEMENT OF TRIAJ..S.

It ver~T often happens that when the time for trial c0111es, and the lodge meets for this purpose, the accused is not present, or if present, asks for it postponement, or the lodge itself is not ready for trial, owing to the absence of im.. portant witnesses. Then arise the following questions:


lOct.

24

Hus a lodge nt a uleetillg called for trials entire control of the cases before it? and bas it the power to postpone the t,rial? if so, under what circumstances can H, trial be deferred? Deci.\ion.-Ata meeting set for trial, if the accused be absent, the Master has thp right, nnd His his duty to appoint some brother to represent the accused as counsel. If it postponement should be deemed expedient from nny cause, either in the in terest of the accused or the lodge, it. n1. L18t be grfln tf'd and the time agreed upon between the accused or his representative and the lodge, and in such a ease the accused may 'waive lawfnl notice, the TIlutnal ag eenlent between him and the lodge being sufficient. If the accused insists upon going into trial at once, and the lodge is not ready, the l\1aster mnst exercise his right to postpone; and in this case lawful notice must bo given to the accused, as in the first jnst,ance. The l\:faster then sets the time of trial in accordance 'with the law. 'l'WrENTY-SEVENTH.-REs'rOHA'l'lO"K '1'0 MASONIU LODGE.

PRIVIT..EGES BY 'l'HE GRAND

Qu.estion.-An appeal from ~1 penalty or t路wo years' suspent;ion is taken to the Grand Lodge by the accused, 'who claims that he has been uealt with unjustly. The Conlmittee on GrIevance characterize the trial a!:') one that ought never to have come bpfore a lodge of Masons" and in fact virtuall.y路 ignore the proceedings which resulted in the" suspension." The committee recommend that the appellant be "restored to his masonic privileges." The report is adopted.

What i~ the restored brotber's status as a Mason? ...1rgllment.-Now Lhe Grand Lodge by its own law cannot restore to member-

ship in a lodge either a suspended or expelled Mason after it has confirmed the judgment on appeal; or, there being no appeal, after the penalty has become a part of its own records. But it certainly reserves the right to decide in case of appeal, whether a Mason has been lawfully suspended or expelled. It either confirnis the penalty, sends the case back to the lodge for a new trial, or restores to masonic privileges, according to its judgment. When it orders a new trial, the case is reopened, and the acoused becomes a Maf030n in good standing under our law, sUbject to the future action of the lodge, as though no trial had been. He may be acquitted at the next trial, and then he is, without doubt, a member of t,he lodge in good standing, although he had been previously snspended or expelled by it. If, in the case in hand, the Grand Lodge, ignoring the trial proceedings, as it did, and restoring the accused to his masonic prIvileges, as it did, did not also put him precisely in the place he was before any trial proceedings were bad in his case, it did nothing. It could not, certainly, extend to him such cold charity as to make him a Mason at large, without a certificate of good standing-no dimi t, no plaee to get one, with the right of objection to visitation staring him in the face at every lodge door, and bound to remain virtually suspended. the whole term fixed by t he lodge, at the end of which time he becomes a member in good standing, and 1'lrst walks in and takes his seat in a masonic lodge by right, and enjoys his pri路 vileges as a Mason. Several questions of this character have been presented for consideration, and their frequent recurrence suggestf03 to the Grand J.Jodge the duty of defining its own terms. "Itestoration to masonic rights and privileges," a phrase often used by grievance committees, is, under our various conditions of "restoration," too indefinite, when unaccompanied by a declaration of exactly what "rights and privileges" are intended to be reconveyed to the party in interest. Non-affiliates, as well as affiliates, have certain "rights and privileges;" and


25

1872.J

the general construction of that phrase has been that it restores to "good masonic standing~" as expressed in the third decision under this head to follow. When a verdict of "restoration" is voted by the Grand Lodge, it should be de-finite and explicit as to "membership" or "good masonic standing." IDECISIONS.

Our law contemplates three modes of "restoration" by tbe Grand Lodge: .F7:rst.-When a member is expelled, and appeals to the Grand Lodge for a new trIal, and the Grand Lodg-e orders sucb trial, the member is ipso facto "restored to membership" under charges, as he was before the trial took place. Ffecond.- When an expelled member appeals to the Grand Lodge on account of irregularity in the trial, or that there was no such trial as contemplated by the law, and the Grand Lodge upon investigation, finds the ground of appeal correct, and thereupon decides the trial null and void, the Mason is H restored to membership," as though no trial had ever taken place. Third.-When an expelled member appeals to the Grand Lodge for a mitigation of sentence, on the gronnd of reformation, or too great severity of sentence, or any other form of appeal for mer('y, the Grand Lodge may restore him to "good masonic standing," and a certificate to that effect is issued to him by the Grand Secretary, upon which he may apply to his old lodge, or to any other lodge, for membership, as in case of non-affiliates.

Under the plain terms of the law, I have also decided that all reversals by Grand Lodge of verdiots of Sttspension restore to membership, without such restoration being actually expressed. SPECIAL RULINGS. PIRS'l'_-PRESENCE OF CHARTER.

A Senior Warden, in the absence of the Master and the charter, went through t.he forms of opening the lodge, doing the business and conferring a degree. Was the work legal? My own personal opinion is that it was. The lodge was opened by the proper offioer, and did its work by the authority of a charter which did not cease because of the absence of the instrument itself from the lodge. It was a chartered lodge, and a chartered lodge cannot do illegal work. But I found my own opinion had been forestalled in the mattertand reversed. A Grand Master had decided, and the Grand Lodge had approved the decision, that the oharter must be present in the lodge to legalize its work. This is safe ground, there is no doubt about that; and being safe, is probably the best. I rendered my decision accordingly. ..Ruled-The acts of the meeting of Masons, without their charter present, null and VOid, and ordered the business and work done over again in due form. SECOND.-DISPOSAL <iF PETITIONS.

The Worshipful Master of a Lodge asks what to do with a petition for membership under the follOWing circumstan('es: A Master Mason sent in his petition, accompanied by his dimit, and a committee was appointed, as usual. The applicant, it is supposed, left the jurisdiction of the lodge, as he could not be found, and none of the members knew anything about him. The committee, after diligent inquiry, failing to get any information wnatever of the petitioner, refused to make a formal report, on the ground that they had nothing to report,


26

Proceedings of the

[Oct.

for or against. The committee asked to be discharged, and recommended that the petition be withdrawn from the lodge without further action. The Master refused to make such disposition of the case, and he did right. The petition is the property of the Lodge, and must be disposed of by ballot. The committee must make a definite report, in order to arrive at a ballot. If the committee cannot satisfy themselves, after due inquiry, as in this case, they should give the lodge the benefit of the doubt in their minds in a report, that the members may govern themselves accordingly. The committee could do no wrong in reporting" unfavorably," and the lodge no injustice in rejecting the petitioner. Such a proceeding would not impair the standing of the brother as a Mason, and when he reported and explained himself to the lodge, he could apply again. The Worshipful Master was advised to so instruct the committee, insist on a report, and dispose of the petition by ballot in regular form. THIRD.-BLANK BALLOTS.

At elections for officers, in determining the majority of all the votes cast, it has been the custom to count the blank ballots in making up the general result. This is right, because there should be a clear majority to elect, and it would otherwise be inlpossible to control the facetia and vagaries of a few of our brethren, who insist upon 'Voting a piece of white paper, or for some one who is not a member of the lodge, probably not a Mason. All such ballots, if cast by members, ought to be counted, and set down to blank. In trials, a different rule prevails.. Itis a more serious business. Our law proVides that every member of the lodge present shall vote, and vote a written ticlcet according to order,and also that blank ballots shall not be counted in the result. This is a good provision, and insures a termination of the trial without regard to trifling. _.<\. lodge had a trial, at which eighteen voted" gUilty," eight" not gUilty," and two tickets were blank, there being twenty-eight members present and twenty-eight votes cast, counting the blanlrs, which was done, and the accused declared "not guilty," as the result, so computed, lacked a fraction of the required two-thirds vote to convict. A statement of the case, as above, being referred to me, I decided that the accused had been found gUilty, under the explicit terms of our law.

FOURrl'H.-A THIRD BALLOT.

A lodge voted on Hi petition for the mysteries, and one black ball appeared; a second ballot wab ordered, with the same result. An investigation was then made into the mysteries of the ballot-box itself, the members present were counted,and it was found that the members outnumbered by one the white balls in the box. The Master solved the difficulty by producing another white ball, and ordering a third ballot, which resulted in the election of the candidate. The facts being well authenticated, I Decided1 The first two ballots irregular, and t,he third ballot, in this exceptional case, valid. FIFTR.-CARE OF WIDOWS.

II

Our lodges are required to give the widow of a Master Mason who dies a member of the lodge, a certificate of the brother's good masonic standing. It sometimes happens that the widows or orphans of a brother Master Mason can be directly identified and vouched for by some of the members of the lodge. In such cases a certificate is comparatively unimportant. It much oftener happens in appeals for charity, that the claimants cannot be identified by persons, and then the widow's certificate is the only lawful means of recognition in this jurisdiction. It constitutes the link of sympathy, points out a Mason's duty,


1872.J

Gra'lbd Lodge of Missouri.

27

and forms the channel of deserved and well directed charity. Its powerful appeal should never be made to the masonic fraternity in vain, no matter where the hard fortunes of the family of a deceased brother Mason should be cast. The question should never arise in the lodge: whose business is it to take care of the widoW and orphans? The first impulse should be to take care of them. Suppose the widow removes from the jurisdiction of the lodge to which her husband belonged, into the jurisdiction of another lodge in the State, to which lodge may she be said to belong, or whose duty is it to take care of her in case she requires assistance? 'rhe answer is: It is first the duty of the lodge of which her husband was a member to relieve her necessities, if it be able to do so; if not, or if it decline the charge, it is the imperative duty of tp.e lodge under whose jurisdiction she resides, to honor her widow's certificate and see that she does not lack for the necessities of life. SIXTH.-ELIGIBII..lITY OF PAST MASTERS.

Masters of lodges and Past Masters, when they visit lodges, are entitled to certain courtesies, which are suggested by the rank they have attained at home. Past Masters of other jurisdictions, when they move into ours, and beconle :members of lodges, are entitled to all the courtesies extended to Past Masters ot" our own jurisdiction. rrhe lodge elects them members of its own body, but does not, at the same time, elect them melnbers of the Grand Lodge. They thus become entitled to all the rights appertaining to their rank, except membeJ'ship in the Grand Lodge, by reason of their rank as Past Masters in another jurisdiction. We do not adopt Grand Lodge membership; that must be attained by every member, according to our own regUlations. The question has been raised. whether a Past Master of another jurisdiction who becomes a member of one of our lodges, is eligible to the office of Master without first serving as a Warden in this jurisdiction? There is no doubt he is eligible to any office in the lodge. We may fully recognize him as a Past Warden, without implying any right of membership thereby. He must have complied with the old regula1,ions to have become the Master of a lodge, and we recognize this fact in acknOWledging him as a Past Master, entitled to the courtesies due to that rank. We thus fully endorse his eligibility to office and membership in the Grand Lodge, while we do not adopt him as a member. SEVENTH-PEN AL JURISDICTION..

Nothing in the whole adminisl1'ation of Masonic affairs i~ ~o difficult to regulate equitably and justly as penal jurisdiction. Masonic trials are unpleasant at best, and the proceedings are always troublesome. 'l'he spirit of the lodge is to suffer a great deal of annoyance qUlet.ly, before it Is aroused to the duty of exercising its discipline against offenders. The brethren often endure much pain and sometimes incur pUblic censure, before they are spurred to the necessity of vindicating the honor and good name of the Order by the ordeal ot' a Masonic trial. In its penal administration the lodge almost always leans to the side of charity, and from various causes the chances of too light a reclroning or acqUittal, are far greater than excessive penalties or even strict j llstice. This reSUlts, naturally, from the principles of liberality and forbearance which animate our organization, and the essential peculiarities of our fraternal ties.. In our judgments mercy seasons justice, and sometimes supplants it. We should not lose sight of good order and harmony among ourselves, and the duty of presentIng an honest front to the world. Pretensions of purity and virtue and harmony, not possessed, will not stand the rigid scrutiny of the times in. the very prominent position which the Masonic Order occupies. Our principles have elevated the Order to an exalted place among living in.. stitutions. Let not our practice gain for us only the ridicule which is the meed


28

Proceedings of the

[Oct.

of a false position. We should ever be prepared to brave without a blush tIle criticism of the world: "In the fierce light that beats upon a throne." In this view, penal jurisdiction becomes a most important consideration, and it has been treated by the Grand Lodge under the pressure of this necessity. It has been defined as in nearly every particular concurrent. A Mason is subject, first, to the penal Jurisdiction of the lodge of which he is a member, but his own lodge does not have jurisdiction to the exclusion of all others. If the lodge of which a mal:;onic offender is a member, fails or refuses to take cognizance of the case, ~1.ny other lodge may investigate and try it, and the tlrst lodge is boun d to acknowledge and abide by the verdict. On the same principle a non-affiliated Mason is first subject to the penal discipline of the lodge under whose jurisdiction he resides, but in order to secure the ends of justice, he may he tried by any other lodge in full pOl::isession of the facts. In the case of an affiliated offender living outside of the local jurisdiction of his lodge, the plan has been tried of having the charges brought by the lodge under whose juri~diction he resides, and sent to his o,vn lodge for trial. This method, while it is regular, involves the difficulty of getting evidence and witnesses before the lodge at the trial, and causes much inconvenience and delay. At a masonic trial we ,vant all the facts, cir<:umstances and surroundings of the case-nothing suppressed, nothing magni11ed or distorted by quibbles or special pleading, but all fair, and open-in one word-..ilfason'ic. All this can be best accomplished in the lodge in the imnlediate locality of which the alleged offenses were committed. The witnesses flre near, and all the facts are supposed to be well understood. First" the lodge owning the member shoultt be notified, and it has the privilege of trying the case, should it. prefer to do so, it not, it should request the other lodge to do it. If it fail to act at all, then the lodge in possession of the facts rnay legi timately try the case and report the result to the other, which . Dlust be binding upon it as if it had been its own act. We claim the right of thus trying a member of another Grand jurisdiction upon consulting with his lodge as to preliminaries. Such trials have been had even against the protest of the foreign lodge, and the Grand lodge under which it worked, has endorsed the validity of the proceedings and acknowledged the penal jurisdiction of '.)ur lodge over the case. It will thus be deen there is no lack of penal jurisdiction in masonicjurisprudence, and yet in the administration of it Masons make more failures than thej" do in any other department of their system of government. It is necessarily so for reasons I have cited, but according to information received froIn various parts of the State, the Craft are sUffering seriously for want of care and thought in the management of trials, and the judgments they pronounce. A higher appreciation of their solemn responsibilities asjurors, would save them much trouble, and benefit the Order at large. EIGHTH.-MASONIC AMENITIES.

The various Grand jurisdictions in masonic intercourse must admit the legality of each other's usage and work. Each has erected its own constitution on the basis of the old constitutions and charges, and these instruments cannot be so Widely different as to conflict with each other in any of the cardinal points. All agree on the landmarks, and the phrases of interpretation vary so slightly that they all harmonize in a fraternal interchange of masonic amenities. The differences of usage aI'ising solely from local laws are easily recon..


1872.J

Grand Lodge of Missouri.

29

ciled between sister jurisdictions. A case requiring this kind of treatment carne up in une of our lodges, and is here reported to illustrate a general principle. An E. A. of a lodge in Kentucky removed into the jurisdiction of a lodge in Missouri, and wished to receive the remaining degrees and still remain a member of the Kentucky Lodge. The Kentucky Lodge requested the Missouri Lodge in regular form to confer the second degree upon their E. A., stating that, he had been duly elected to receive it. The second degree was accordingly conferred, and the Kentucky Lodge was officially informed of the fact. The same routine was gone over again in regard to the third degree, the Kentucky Lodge stating that their F. C. had been duly elected to receive it and sending the fees that had been paid in to the lodge requested to do the work. Now, the Missouri Lodge knew that the F. C. had not been examined in open lodge a<>cording to our usage, and a question arose npon the right of a lodge in this jurisdiction to confer the second or third degree until the candidate had conformed to our standard of proficiency. All acknowledged the regularity and legality of the documentg emanating from the Kentucky Lodge-, but they were divided upon the measure of their own responsibility to our own regulations in t1'e case. ODe side contended that "proficiency" is a "landmark" which cannot be disregarded by any jurisdiction; and that, although the procedings of the Kentucky Lodge were regUlar. the Missouri Lodge could not confer the degree until it had examined the candidate and declared him proftcieut, by ballot. The other side held that. thejurisLliction of the Kentucky Lodge covered the whole case, and that the Missouri Lodge had no farther interest or dut:r in the matter than to accede to or refuse the request to do the work. They also contended that it was perfectly competent for the lodge under all the circumstances, to confer the third degree for the Kentucky Lodge on the Kentucky candidate, without)l.1bjecting him to our oour5e of lectures . ~\nd examination. The principle at issue is, whether the Missouri Lodge would be lioing right under our law to confer the third degree on any candidate whom the members of the lodge know has not been regularly examined in open lodge as to his proficiency in the second degree, and on this basis elected to receive the third. If the Missouri lodge were doing work for our own jurisdiction, it would not be right. In fact, the question could not arise at all, because no lodge could in this State, under the h1W, elect a ('andidate for the third degree without due process of examination and giving proof of suitable proficiency according to our standard. Therefore, if such a statement of election and request to confer a degree were to COlue from one of our own lodges, one would never think of inquiring whether the candidate had been examined in open lodge. We would take it for granted that the lodge requesting the work done !lad complied with the law. In this case we know that the candidate has not complied with our local law, but we should also bear in mind that we are not doing work for Missouri, but Kentucky. Now, I believe with the one side, that "suitable proficiency" is a landmark; but I agree with the position of the other, tbat the requirements ofpro.tlciency vary, and that any nXf?d standard of proficiency is not a landmark. The Missouri standard is well established by our Grand Lodge law, but the law of one jurisdiction does not define a landmark for anot,her. Whatever the Kentucky standard l:ua.y be, we must take it for granted that the Kentucky Lodge, being a regular lodge in a jurisdiction with which we are in fraternal comn1.unication, has complied with the law of the Grand Lodge of Kentucky, and we should honor the documents before alluded to, as we would honor a dimit fl'om the same lodge, declaring that H, brother is a ~raster Mason in good standing. Such a dimit would be taken without inquiring into the manner of the making of the Mason, although we have a Jaw in force against the work of Army Lodges.


30

Proceedings qf tke

[Oct.

The- dimit from a regular lodge heals such irregularities, ifany previously eXM isted as defined by our law, for we cannot go behind it without disturbing our fraternal intercourse with another Grand jurisdiction. But this is aside from tbe question, and is only introduced to illustrate more fully the principle upon which the argument is based. Say, the candida,te were to be examined by the .Missouri Lodge. Such examination, while the preparation for it might do the applican t some good, would not touch the principle at issue, for the F. C. has already been elected by his own lodge to receive the M. M. degree and by the certificate of his legal election, and that alone, could the Missouri Lodge be authorized to confer the degree upon him.. To sum up: The Missouri Lodge is not bound by any obligation but masonic comity to comply with the request of the Kentucky Lodge to confer a degree for the jurisdiction of Kentucky; but should it do so, it would violate no law of Missouri, nor would it deviate from any landmark of Masonry by conferring a degree under circumstances as herein set forth. PRIVILEGES OF PAST MASTERS.

Those lodges are fortunate, that have a good number of intelligent Past Masters to participate in the work, and as~ist with timely advice and counsel. The knowledge they possess cannot be supplied so well by any other resources of the lodge. The former Masters are always convenient, with their fund of experience from which the lodge can readily draw whenever it has occasion. Past Masters are therefore entitled to dne consideration by the members in conducting the affairs of the lodges, and also to certain courtesies which attach peculiarly to their rank. These attentions ought never to be neglected by their brethren, for, the more honor a lodge legitimately confers upon its worthy and exemplary members, the more honorable does it become, and this reciprocacy is most beneficial all around. There was a time, however, when many of our lodges deemed that if they had just one well-informed Mason they would be fixed forever. They made him Master, and kept him Master, so long as they could; and when they chose another they still expected the Past Master to do all their work, shoulder all responsibilities, and, in fact, constitute the body and soul of the lodge. The Presiding Master was nobody, and the lodge seconded him, and hobbled along on the crutch of the Past Master until it was too weak to move of itself, or even to stand alone. Where was the~dignity and honor of the lodge? And, in such a low state of being, what possible honor could it confer on a Past Master? None Whatever, because it had no life, until bis presence warmed it into a little activity. The Masons he made subsided into a periodical corpse, which revisited the glimpses of the moon, regularly once a month. So the lodge dragged on its ghostly existence, and dreamed of no better life! It made no ditference whether either of the three officers of the lodge were present or not, the body woke up, held a meeting, did business, and again crawled into its yawning crypt. This state of things could not last always, and so the lodges found out for themselves-some of them too late for any hope of resurrection. In groping round for the evil that was destroying them, they at last discovered that they had been disregarding a vital landmark, and entirel~路 ignoring the installation charges, which most explicitly place the warrant to meet and work in the hands of the Master, and the government of the lodge, in the absence of the Master, in the province of the Senior and Junior Wardens in succession. The truth dawned upon them that a Past Master, as such, was not an officer of the lodge at all, and that there could be no lodge, according to the spirit of the installation, without tbe presence, in his proper station, as Master, of one of the three officers of a Master's Lodge, The discovery of the disease was equivalent to its cure, and the Grand Lodge applied the healing remedy in a law, defining, on the basis of the existing charges, more particularly, the d'lltieR of the officers of a lodge, and the true


1872.J

Grand Lodge of Missouri.

31

status and privileges of Past Masters. The law expressly forbids the opening of any lodge in the a bsence of all the three officers, except on funeral occasi ons, when a Past Mflster may open the lodge and conduct the ceremonies. This is plain law and it bas proved a healthy one, as many of our lodges, which suffered from the old system, can bear witness. A much higher grade of honor, also, attaches to the Past Master of a live, self-sustaining lodge of Masons than could accrue from being permitted to galvanize one of the other kind into a semblance of life. Some of our lodges, however, appear not to understand the law, or, understanding it, wilfully disobey. I find it necessary to read the law, that thel路e can be DO lodge without officers, duly installed, and that at least one of these must be present to open the lodge, and transact its business in legal form under its charter. SAINTS .rOHNS' DAYS.

All should know the homely proverb: All work and no play, etc. It applies to men as well as to boys, and its truth is no less substantial because it is clothed in childish words. We have too many working days, and too few holidays in our busy years. Every day taken from the former and given to the latter, might add a year to the score of life, without serious encroachment upon the lawful claims of business. A fixed holiday does not exist, so much in itself as its anticipation permeates the days which precede it, and its brief recollections cast their joy-beams through many more behind it. It becomes detached from the dull lumbering train of the ~rear, like the car which bears a picnic party to some favorite spot, and stands on a side-track for their accomodation. The traffic rolls and thunder$ by, and the contrast thus drawn between the pleasux路e party, and the rest of the working world, heightens the enjoyment of the holiday festival. So it is with our Masonic anniversaries of st. John the Baptist, and St. J obn the Evangelist. They are the especial feast-days of the Masonic Fraternity all over the world. Without inquiring into their origin as Masonic festivals, or tracing their history, and the reasons for their observance, it is enough to know that theRe days-representing the longest and shortest in the year-had special significance in ancient systems of Philosophy and Theology, and have long been regarded by the Fraternity of li"'reemasons as peculiarly Masonic days. Either of them may begin a M.asonic year, and thus become a New Year's Day of our rites. Masons should not neglect to celebrate such an occasion in a becoming manner; they should not miss the holiday train wbich will take them off the common track of business pursuits, and land them in a reigon of social enjoyment. Sufficient unto the day is the tradition thereof-it is a Masonic festival ;-we have few such episodes, let us value and cherish those we have, throw open our houses for the entertainment of our friends, and our hearts to a public expression of those lofty principles and generous impulses which ~"reemasonryteaches by its tenets, and system of secret instruction, signs and symbols. The world, has- a'right occasionally to look in upon us to see whether we hal'lllOnize or disturb the economy of society, and every Masonic Lodge ought tosomanageits internal affairs as to be constantly ready for such inspection. The ver;y fact that it is expected periodically to present its work in open view exercises, in itself, a healthy check upon the material which it draws, and gives a harmonious direction to the secret labors of the Brotherhood. Women have a right to know where their protectors go so many nights, to be locked up from sight, and to see for themselves the kind of company they keep. Saints Johns' Days open the doors and windows of our Lodge Rooms and let the sunshine stream in from the heavens, and the sun-shiny spots of earth beam there in the faces of the loved ones at home. For the love Masons bear thell\, and the Order


Proceedings of the

~"32

[Oct.

of

:M~asonry, let not these bright flecks of sunshine be excluded either from the heavens above or the earth beneath. To secure both these blessings, let the Festival~ of St. John the Baptist and St. John the Evangelist, always be celebrated jn some manner consistent with the objects of the Order, and the spirit of the anniversaries themselves.

(r11e ceremonies may be varied, according to the particular work the Order in any given locality, may have in hand, and all Masons ought to join in them with zest and goodfellowship. It maybe that a hall is to be dedicated, a cornerstone to be Laid, a new Lodge to be instituted, or new officers to be installed; all are pUblic ceremonies, and all lay open to a greater or less extent the principles and designs of the institution. There may be nothing of this character to do, still, the opportunity for doing something pleasant, and rational and beneficial, oug;ht not to be neglected. The old method of celebrating these days was very simple. It consisted of a general assembly of Masons, election and installation of officers, congratulatory addresses, a banquet, sentiments, speeches, recitations and songs. It was the social Masonic event of the year, and we ought not to lose its spirit. Let us carry the bloom of our holidays along with us together with our traditions, and our ancient Order will forever preserve the Vigor of youth, find present the cheerful spectacle of blossoms and fruit on the same bough. DISPENSATIONS FOR NEW LODGES.

Since the close of the last communication of the Grand Lodge, I have ordered the issue of dispensations for thirty-two lodges, upon petitions in proper 1orm, recommended by the nearest lodges, which examined the proposed officers in open lodge, and certified to their proficiency. The petitions were also recommended by the District Deputy Grand Masters of the respectivE' districts in which the lodges are located. 11'571.

Nov. 7 Iron Mountain Lodge Iron Mountain .........Half Way Nov. 8•••.•••.• Cement .........Dauphine Dec. lI. Daupbine .........Macon Dec. 12....•....SHen t Temple .........Maryville Dec. 29•........ Nodaway .........Cave Spring Dec. 30•.•••••••St.. Nicholas

St. Francois Co. Polk Co. Osage Co. Macon Co. Nodaway Co. Greene Co.

lR72. Feb. 3 Lamonte Feb. 7 Tuscumbia Feb. 15 Temperance Feb. 16 Mt. Olive Trowel Feb. l7 Feb. 17..•.•.... Excelsior Feb. 17....•....Mt. Lebanon Feb. 22.•....... Anchor ~"e b. 24 Ada Mar. 9 West Gate Mar. 20 Mineral Apr. IO•..••••.. Pittsville Apr. 20 ..•••.•. Wallace Apr. 23.•.••.... Robert Burns Apr. 24••••••.•. Piedmont Apr. 29•••••••••Belton May 13....•.... Argyle May 20....•.... Verona June 18 Forsyth June 19 Benton June 22 Barnesville

Pettis Co. Miller 00. Clay Co. Webster Co. Bollinger Co. Oa,pe Girardeau Co. Harrison 00. St. Louis Co. Ray Co. St. Louis Co. J asper 00. J ohnson Co. Oooper 00. Ozark Co. Wayne Co. Cass Co. Vernon Co. Lawrence Co. Taney Co. Benton Co. Reynolds Co.

.........Lamonte .........Tuscumbia .........Smithville .........Dallas .........Lutesville .........J ackson .........Mt. Moriah .........81. Louis .........Orrick .........St. Louis .........lVIinersville .........Pittsville .........Princeton .........Gainesville .........Piedmont .........Belton .........Nevada .........Verona ......... Forsyth .........Lincoln .........Barnesville


1872.1 July July July July Aug.

8 13 15 25 12

Grand Lod.qe of Missouri. Pickering Lodge, Melville Lambskin Hazle'voocl Caruthersville

Pickering Melville Roclr Spring Waldo Caruthersville

Noc.1a'vay Co. Dade Co. St. Louis Co. Webster Co. Pemiscot Co.

The above named thirty- t,vo lodges, together with ten dispensations renewed by the Grand Lodge and eleven granted by the Grand Lodge at its lal-lt communication, make fifLy-three lodges in all at ,vorl\: U. D. Several petitions for new lodges which caIne to hand after the tilue I thought it proper to stop issuing dispensations, have been pns'3ed into the hands of tIle (iomnlittee on Lodges Under Dispensation. OTHER OFFICIAL ACTS.

November 16th-I signed ~ deed, attested by the Granel Secretary, to Richard F. Knox, as per order of the Circuit Court of l\!arion County, at the February term, 1867, in Record Book Vol. 15, pages 178 and 174, for the old college t.ract in Raid county. Sent the deed to Rt. W. Bro. R. E. Anderson, attorney in the case. February 14th-Ordered duplicate charter to Oak Grove Lodge, No. 336, to Rupply place of original, ,,,,hlch, wi tIl all the other property of tb e lodge, ,vaR de&troyed by fire on the 10th of same lnon tho :March 6th-Ordered commtssion issued to Rt. W. Dro. George Lee-, Grand Treasurer of the Grand Lodge of Connecticut, us our representntiv'e neal' that Grand body, in place of Rt. W. Bro. Bliphalet G. Storer, deceaseu, and whofo;o loss we deplore, he being ODe of the best and purest Masons of our country. June 11th-Ordered duplicate charter to be issued to \Voodside Lodge, )ro. :187, in place of the original, lost by the W. M. August 31st-Ordered duplicate charter to be issued to Golden Square Lodge, to accompany the original, HO muoh defaced by the elelnents as to be illegible. Septenlber 3d-Ordered duplicate charter to ho iRSUE'(l to United Lodgp, ~o. :), to replace orig-inal, whieh 'was lost. I.EGAL

NOTIC~;.

I have also to report that, as Grand lVIaster, I have been served \vith notices by the second mortgage bond holders of t,he Mt'tsonic Hall Association, that they look to this Grand I.Jodge for payment of said bonds, in pursnance of the resolution adopted October, 1869, and which will be found on page 89, pl'lllted proceedings of that year. I suggest to the Grand. Lodge the necesRity of appointing a committee or counsel to protect its int~l'ests in th~ case. Noth:e~ submitted in package marked " .~." SPECIAL DISPENSATIONS.

Of many applications for l'ipecial dispensations, I have g;rfll1 ted only tlJ0 following for l·~LECTIONS.

January 25th-To Lamar Lodge, No. 292, for the pnrpose of electing officers, the lodge having failed to meet on the night specified in the by.. la,vs for its annual election, on itccount of the unavoidable ftbsence of all the officers. February 26th-1Iarionville Lodge, No, ~90, was without a .funior ""arden. The l\Iaater and Senior Warden proposed being absent for some Inontbs. To save the life of the lodge, I ordered an election for t\i .Tnnior Warden. CORNERSTONES, REnNION/'), R'£(\

August 1st-Dispensation to la;v ("o)'uprstOl1e of :\fflsonic I-InlI, nt Ville.

I(it'k~­


Proceedings qf the

B4

[Oct.

August 22d-Permitted Versailles Lodge, No. 117, to have a pUblic procession, rennion, etl'\. Oration and addresses were delivered . .Tune 22d-Pernlitted Prairieville Lodge, No. Vl7, to dedicate new hall with pnhlic

('erenlonit?~.

Deet:l1nber l;H,b-White Hall Lodge, No. 301, which met near Prairie Park, was permitted to renl0ve to Barnard, two and a half miles distant, on tlw :\Iis~ouri Valley railroad, the old llome of the lodge being deserted. The 10dg~ I::; now fonrteen rnBes fron1 Marysville Lodge, No. 16/3, nearest lodgf>. Fehruary 11th-Granted permission to Otl"k Grove Lodge, No. 336, Oak Grove, to n1â&#x201A;Ź'et in the hall of Christian Lodge, No. 392, Pink Hill; Oa,k Grove Lodg!' room having been destroyed by fire. April 28d-Barl'Y Lod~e, No. 367, one and a half miles frOUl vVashbnrn, hall perlnis:-,ion to remove to WaRhburn for greater safety, and conVenif"lH'e of lnenlbers. April20th-h;sued anthority to West View Lodge, No. 103, to move into a new and better ball, in the same town, Miller~ville. ~ray 2d-Rlddick Lod~e, No. :ltH, was permitted to remove into a new hall at Buffalo.

May:11st-Penuitted "Vest point Lodge to remoye to Burdett, seven from any ot.her lodge.

mile~

CHARTER ARRBSTED.

May 8th-I issued an order to R. W. Brother J. E. Cadle, D. D. G. l\L, tenth

Masonic District, to arrest the charter of 1\;Ii<.ldlebury Lodge, No. 141, the reason for which will be found in the accompanying papers marked B. SURRENDER 0]' Dlt::lPENSA'rrON.

August 29th-The :Master of West Point Lodge, U. P., 'with the concnrrellOO of the n. D. G. 1\1. of the District, offered to surrender the dispensation of the lodge. Under the circumstances which he related, I advised him to permit the lodge to meet no more, and to surrender the dispensation directly to the Grand Lodge, as the time of Its annual communication 'was so clOSt> at hand~ Bad haIl, and want of harmony among the menlbers 'vas tile canso. GRAND LODGE SOVEREIGNTY.

In the various discussions that have arisen from tIme to thue on qne~tions involving jurisdiction, the Grand Lodge of l\tIissouri has been most emphatic and pronounced, for the integrity of Grand Lodge Rovereignty-holding to this principle as the only sflfe basis of individu1.1 prosperity and masonic harrnony between sister jurisdictions. On the question of the recognition of the so-called" Grand Lodge of Quebec," our Grand Lodge has re-u.tIirlned its long eherished doctrine in refnsing to become a party to the disintegration of the jurisdiction of the Grand Lodge of Canada, by recognizing any diviRion of masonic tf"rritory in the clonlinioll /"If Uanada, bv reason of a. political partition in the Rtate. All oCCH,sion came wherein I felt called upon to sustain the principle whieh we profess, and malte an example of our faith ill its justice. Joseph Hay-ward was luade a Master IVlason in a lodge Ulloer thejurisdictiOll of the Grand IJod~e of Canada, 'whieh lodge afterwards tnrned over its alleghLDce to the Grund Lodge of Quebec, so that when Hayward luoved to :Missouri, the doors of our lodgâ&#x201A;Ź's w~rQo closed against hin1. He did not approve


of this action of hIS lodge, nor did he ackno,vledge allegiance to the said Grand Lodge of Quebec. In vie'w of these fucts, he was a<.lvised to cornnlunicate with the propel' officer of the Grand Lodge ot' Canada, state his Cttse, ftll d ask for a certificate of dismissal from that Grand jurisdiction. Correspondence was opened wi th rr. B. Harris, Grand Recrettl,l'Y of Canada, and after an investigation, the facts proved as state.. !. It was fonnd that Hayward had no hand or voice in the ~t1ebec movement, and Fitrongly disapproved ofH, so much so that he never visited the lodge after ih; 1"\(4tiOll, nor had he in any shape or manner countenanced any of the nH~mber8 of the Quebec register. Th~ Grand 8ecretary, according;ly, Sfl'nt Brother .Jos;epl1 Hayw'ard a eertifieate of dismissal, by authority and under the seal of the Grand Lodge of Canada. Here was a case ip point., one that involved our doctrIne, and appealed directly to our sense of ma~onic right and justice, and an opportunity to clinch our adhesion to the great principle of Granel Lodge soYcreigl1ty with an accomplished fact.

On the grounds that the lodges claiming to be under the j ul'isdiction of the Grand Lodge of Quebec, had ('eased to exist as legal lodges, and tl1at it was within the provin('e of the Grand Lodge of Canad~1 to is:::;ue certificates of dismisslil to the forUler m.eIubers of these lodges, such certificates placing' thenl in g'o()(l masonie standing, I Ruled, That the cerLific..l.te in question was valid, find IllllSt be reeognized in thiF\ jurisdiction a:-;; pm~sessing the foree and effect of a regular dinlit. T~ODGE

BETON ZUlVI LICHT.

I received an official circular tronl M. W. WILLIAM E. PINB, Grand l\-faster of lVIasons of Ne,v Jersey, setting forth that an organization claiming to be lnasonic, known as the Grand Lodge of Hamburg, in Etuope, ha<1 invaded the jurisdiction of the Grand Lodge of N"e,v Jersey, hy planting n. body chliming to be Ma~ons, known as Lodge Beton zu?n Licht, No.3, in the city of :Hoboken; 3D(1 declaring said body" professing to be Masons, "Bpurious, ilh~gal and clandestine." I deern it my dut.y to iSf-;110, in relation t.hereto, the followil1~ EDICT.

't

OFFICE OF GRAND l\IAS'.rEH, GRA~n) LODGE, A. F. & A. M., STATE 0]' 1\lrssoURI, I" ST. LOUIS, Oetober, 30th, 1871. ,

To All and El'ery One of Owr lVell-BelO1'ed Breth7'en, Greeting: In accordance with the principles so often ennnC'iatcd, and RO strenuously upheld and observed by the Grand Lodge of l\llsf;ouri, in regnr(l to the inbere11t rIghtslof Masonic jurisdictions, and in view of tbe facts above set fort.h, ftnnOUllCing ttD invasion of the rights and territorv of the Grand Lodge of New Jersey: therefore, I, 'rhos. E. Garrett, Grand Master of t,Ile Grand Lod,l.!e A. F. It A. M. of Missouri, do hereby forbid all masonic comnlunication with ~la~onsprofel-t~路;jng to bail from said Lodge Beton zum Licht, No.3, by our brethren of this Grand Jurisdiction. r:rHOS. E. GARRETT, Orand .J.lfaster of J."llasons Of Missouri. INVASIONS OF JURISDICTION.

The case of St. Croix Lodge, No. 46, Maine, whieh, we claim, invaded our jurisdiction by making a Mason of a citizen of I{ansas City, is undergoing investigation. It was present.ed to the Grand Lodge of Maine, ,vhich referred the c~se to M. W. DaVid Cargill, Grand l\1aster, who is now engaged in bringing to light the fac,ts. Additional papers; are herewith presented, marked C. In the pending question of jurisdiction bet,veell !tUssouri il.lld Ohio, there has been some further correspondflnce. We ('Ininl that Hazen L()oge, Ohio, infringed upon th~ immediate jurisdiction of Cnlifornia Lodgfl, No. 183, of Missouri. Hazen LodgB wrote to :.\f. W. AleXRnclel' H. Neweotnh, Gl':llHl J.\;tUHtf'l'


:-36

Proceed1:ngs if tke

[Oct.

of Ohio, acknowledging the charge, and fault, and the Grand Master inclosed their letter to me. I communicated with R. W. Brother S. H. Owens, Senior Grand Warden, who wrote a full statement of our side of the case, which I sellt to the Grand Master of Ohio. It was his intention to brIng the matter before hi~ Grand Lodge, 'which lueets to-day. Further papers in tIle case which ('arne into n1Y hands are here,vith presented, Inarked D. I have since received the following letter from the Grand l\-Iaster of Ohio which prese-nts tho case in a shape for final adjustment by this Grand Lodge: ' ) OFFICE O:b' THE GRAND MASTER, OF F. & A. MASONS OF THE Sr.rATE OF OHIO, '~ TOI..EDO, October 1st, A. L. 5872. ) To Thomas E. (ia1'l路etl, Gc;'and Master oj Ma.f:/ons, State of ...7JrIissou'J'i: DEAR SIR AND M. W. BROTHER-Your letter of August duly received, and contents lloted in the case of Hazen Lodge, No. 251, Ohio, tor the violation of 1he jurisdictlollofyour Grand Lodge. After all investigation ot' the case, I as Gralld Master ot" Masons in Ohio. can do no less than acknowledge that Hazen Lodge No. 251, con1mitted a great error in conferring the degrees of Fellow Craft and .Master Mason on C. M. Gordon, afeel' having waived their right and consented to California Lodge, No. 183, of Missouri, exercising; jurisdiction over the said Gordon; and in behalf of our Grand Lodge, we apologize to the Grand Lodge of Missouri for the violation. Hoping the most friendly relations may always C'xi~t, hetween the two Grand Lodges, I am, truly and frrt,ternally, your Brother,

ALEX. H. NEWCOl\1.B, Orand ]rfaste7' of r.rHI~

Ma.~ons in

Ohio.

CHICAGO RELTEF FUND.

IIUlnediately after the close of the last Grand Lollge I communicated with )1. W. De"\Vitt C. Cregier, Grand Master of Illinois, in relation to the appropriation of $1,000 made by our Granel Lodge, and placed in my hands for th~ rellef of .Masons who had been n1.ade homeless and. destitute by the Ohicago contlagratioll. It appeared from his letters on the subject tbat the masonic fraternit;y in its organized capacity, and a la.rge number of its menloers personally, had suffered seYerely ill their fortunes. A special masonic relief cOlnmittee had been created for the purpose of aiding those in immediate distress; contributions from the synlpathizing nlftsonic world were coming in and being rapidly swallowed up by the pressing d.emand. As it was probable that many sufferers by the fire would seek St. Louis as a place of refug-e, I suggested to Bro. Cregier the propriety of retaining for n time a portion of the fund here, for the benefit of such cases, and he expressed himself as entirely favorable to this arrangement. I accordingly sent him $500 of the fund. in October last, which was most gratefully ackno路wledged. A~ wab anticipated, several Masons, members of Uhicugo lodge~, Iuade application to the masonic board of relief of St. Louis, and ,~"ere referred to me. When they canle accredited according to a systeln adopted by tile boanl of relief in Chicago, to gnard against imposition, they pl\rticipated in the fund, or were provided with shelter and employment, as their needs required. In tlliE> manner I expended $114.75; and in ~Iarch remitted the balance in IUy hands, $385.25, to Chicago. I supposed this ("losed up the business with which I was charged, but was mistaltell. On the 13th of F5eptember I was both surprised and gratified by the reception of the following letter from the Grand Master of Illinois and president of the masonic board of relief of Chicago: OFFICE OF THE GRAND ])!ASTER,} CHICAGO, AUGUST 24, 1872. To the]t.f. lV. Grand Lodge oj the State of lJ-fissottrl, .t1., F. and A. JJlason.s. TH01'lfAS E. GARRETT, Grand l\1aster, Saint LOUiS, W. SIR AND DEAR BROTHER :-The Board of Relief organized for tbe purpose of distributing the funds, etc., donated by the brethren throughol1t the


1872.J

Gra1~d

Lodge oj"

:frfi88ou/rl.

87

country for Masons rendered needy by the great conflagration of Oetober 8th 0l.nd 9th' last, having transferred the duty of relieving those in distress to the ~everal city lodges, adjourned sine die on the 24th day of June, 1872. In addition to the disbur~emelltsby the Board, the several lodges 'vere apportlioned an amount of the sUl'pluS fnnels in order to enable theln. to lneet. the demands referred to. "' This arrangement left:, a considerable amount offul1ds unexpended. Bf\lieviner that we have earrled ont the instruct.ions of the generous donors, It has be~n deemed propel' to l'f>turn pro 'rata the surplns funds. It would be impl'ilCUcable to malre this return to each lodge; indeed, such an amoun t ,vould be quite insignificant. Hence. the anlount due each State has been aggregated for the benefit of the H Ohnrity ~und " of the Grand Lodge, or to such other use a~ the Grand Lodge may apply It. We a.re persuaded Ihat the several lodges and brethren will heartily endorse this disposition of the surplus. I therefore, in behalf" of the contributin~ lodges of your jurisdiction., take great pleasure in enclosing ft dratL on New York for three hundred and sixtytwo dollars ($362.00). It is not deemed necessary at this time to give a detailed explanation of the basis of our action in this matter. The forthcoming printed report, which will be sent you in due tinlâ&#x201A;Ź', and in which 'will be found a list of the lodges in Y0t11' jurisdiction, contributors to tl e fund, shoWing everything in <'onnection 'Vitll the proceedings of the late Board of Masonic Relief in detail. Sincerely hoping that OUl" intentions and acts may meet the approval of yon and yonr Grand Lodge, I have the honor to be, 1"louly and fraternally, yours, DEwr.rT C. CREGIER, Orand .J.."la.':.lc7" of .I.lIasons, Illinois, late President of the Board oj Relief. In thi~ place must be stated that in addition to the Grand Lodge contribution of $1,000, Kit Oarson lodge, No. 326, New Mexico, contribu.ted $100, and O'Sullivan Ohapter, of St. Louis, $50, making in all, so far as lllad anv knowledge, a total of $1,150, as the Ohicago relief fund contributed by masonic bodies in our Grand jurisdIction. It appeared that about twenty-five per cent. of the whole aluonnt 'was returned. Accordingly I ben t Kit Carson Lodge $25, and O'Sullivan Ohapter $1250 -their due proportion-and deposited the balance, "}32¡.t50, with the Grand rrreasurer. The incident of the return of sll(~h 11, SUIn frolH the Chicago board of relief was a pleasant one, even in masonic deaHngs. It passed the bounds of justice into its own peeuliar l'ealnl of right. It is an example of l'ecti~ude ,vhich strengthens man's confidence in man, and it especially shows the admirable material of which Chicago Masons are nlade. (JORPORA'l'E GRAND

I~ODGES

AND

INCORPORAtl'J~5UBORDIN.A.TES.

There is an important question growing out, of the legal and masonic relations eXisting between Grand Lodges and their incorporated subordinates, that must COlne before us for settlement sooner or later, and we might as well introduce its discussion now. The question has arisen from llece::;~ity in other Jurisdictions, and its legal bearings have been treated by erninent la-wyers, ""hose conclusions are entirely adverse to the incorporation of subordinates-the Grand Lodge, by authority of which they work, being of itself a. corporate bod.v. Without following the arguments ot" these jurists, it is sufficient to state that they exhibit the mORt extraordinary complications that Inay alld do arise between the Grand Lodge and its subordinates, and the lodges and the courts. Some of these may be readily imagined by anyone who is familiar '\vith the responsibilities of c-orporatioDs, the prying inquisitiveness of lawyers, and the accidents of a law snit. A creature might be found arrayed against its creator, Who, in turn, could legally take both its masonic and incorporate life, by arrest of the rnasonic charter, which at one blow demolishes its eXistence and its name. In sucll a case what becomes of its charter of incorporation and its cause before the court?


[Oct. An incorporated lodge could legally sue its members for dues. rl'he Grand Lodge c1eeides this proc~ss unmasonic. A Inenlbel' could institute legal proceedl/lgs t1lgnin~t his lodge upon almost any pretext. The court delnands the records, other evidence as to its proceedings, and even its secret eeremonies and worl\:. Of course the lodge ,vouid not surrender these, but they could be legu.Jly demanded, and their refusal would be punisha.ble by fine and imprisonnlent. These facts exhibit the incorporated lodge in an untenable position. It has a divided duty; it is divided against itself, and according to the old jUdgment pronounced against such divisions, it cannot stand. It is in rebellion against the la,vs of the land, and may become a malefactor. Is it not plain that it ought.never to have beeu forced into this dilenlma? And yet it has been driven into it b.y the n1usonic powers and privileges granted by one of its charters, and the legal obligations imposed by the other. But the masonic charter is suprelue; beiug so, of what vital force is the second? It will be a,nswered: To enable the lodge, as a corporate body, to have and hold propert;r, nutnage its affairs to better advantage than it could otherwise do llntllllakc its fil1uncia1 foundation sale. These are practical reasons, but so far as lodges are concerned, first Masonry a/od then property; and no lodge, certainly no ~lasonic pl:Operty, by reason of a charter of incorporation. All the advantages a lodge ran possibly gain as a corporation by no mflans compensate for the perils incurred, even if the lodge could preserve its existence under its incorporate cbarter, which it cannot, it being solely subject to the supreme power of the Grand Lodge, which gave and can take Us life. The Grand Lodge of :M:issouri is incorporated, together with every article of its constitution, with powers to alter and ameocl the same by express terms of incorporation. It bas corporate capacity to sue and. be sued, make and unmake lodges, and hold the propC;\rty of its subordinates. Its lodges, as fast as it makes them, become menlbers of its corporation, as purchasers of stock become mem.bel's of other corporate bodies for businesH purposes. In its corporate cn.padty, it menus busine~s ftnd nothing else. In its masonic capacity, all the property of dead lodges reverts to it by its special powers and claims. It therefore follows that a body of 1\1asons incorporated as a lodge of lVIasons, can hold no property, except 011 aecount of the Grand Lodge. The Granel Lodge of :Missouri has 110 work or rituals t"ts a lodge. It cannot luake IVlasolls, antl therefore has no use for rituals. r.rhese belong to its lndividual lodges. Neither theE>e things nor matters relating to them could be demanded in a court of Justice, at the hands of the Grand Lodge. All its record:s are printed and therefore publie nlatters. Through legal proceedings in its case then- COLlld be no possible conflict between masonic obligations and judicial acts or requirements. Our Grund Lodge is the natural protector of its SUbordinates, and their legal trustee, without special appointment, for transactions in property. The Interests of the individual are the intereflts of all, in its administration of authority and power. No individual lodge could therefore suffer by committing the management of such business into the han<.lt') of the Grand Lodge. Many of onr lodges have real estate, which they wish to secure to themselves and tbeir ~uccessorR. By far their safest financial basis is to plant themselves directly npon the corporate powers of the Grand Lodge, which can legally perform the office of business agent for all. 'rhese are simply suggestions arising from a belief that I personally entert1tlll, that no lodge, living by the permission and working under the authority of an incorporated Gran~l Lodge, ought to be chartered as an independent eOl'porate bodY,since its existence under the two charters becomes contradictory, ~"Il(l may becorne ftntagonistlc to the spirit and purpose of the Institution of Frt.>ernnsonry. I would recoHlmend that this whole subject, in view of its vital importance, b~ referred to a special committee, with instructions to examine, and report thereon at. our next Annual Communication.


1872.] Should the Grand Lodge adopt this suggestion, I would 1'ej('1' the cornmitt~e to a full record of the n.ction of the Grand I.Jodge of ::iYIichigall upon this question, whicb ,vill be fonnd in the report of the Committee 011 ForeIgn Correspondence. Hl)({HEPOR'!' LODGE.

Troubles and discontent aro~e in Rocheport Lodge, No. 67, which seflorned for a time to deIuand the arrest of the charter, but I felt desirous of saving the Lodge If it could be done with a.l1Y hope that its continuance would subserve the best interests of a I.Jodge of l.\{asous. PaRt Grand lVla.ster, John D. Vincil, and R. vV. Brother Willianl l-I. Ca.rpenter, D. D. G. M., of the District, visited the Lodge by appointnlent, all the twentieth of June. Tb~re "vas a full attendance, and a c(tlm hearing ot grievances, which, I fun glad to Ray, resulted in ~tlhtYlng t,he elelnents of discord, anti saNing the life of the lodge. T'i1e brethren I have named perforlned their duties faithfully as jUdges nnd !Jaciticators. and were able to report the complete success of their rnission. I am much indebted to theIr! for t.heir intel'e~t, and the happy result that attended their labors. OI.b'T CONCERrr AT LArrHROP.

Early in the preS{jllt ~Tear, I \vas questioned bJ-" 5,ome lYlasolls at Lathrop, wbether, as Grand IvIaste-r, r would sanction a " Girt Concert," for the purpose of building 3 lVlasonlC Hall, at Lathrop. I replied, that I could notl do it, I'itatil1~ as reasons, that lottery schemes 'were not only forbidden by the lawH ot' the State but were undoubtedly contr:try to the Inoral sense of a large- portion of the community, Hnd especial1:,-'" of the Grand Lodge. In,justiceto those brethren, I must ",ay they representt'<1 that there ,vaH no shadow offrand or sharp practice in the scherne prop()sed, and I believPd them. Shortly after this correspondence. r ~Lscertained that it " Gift Conc('rt" ~chenle was in operation at Lathrop, and I Inade immediate inquiries whether the Lodge there had anything to do with it. The regpODRe was tha1 it had not,and would not have in the face ofmy prohibition. 'rhis was satisfactory, anci there I let the matter rest. As Reveral communications in reference to thi~ lottery scheme have come to Ine from Val'iOtlR parts of the State, showing comln~lldnhleinterest in the Inasonic H good nanle;' I herewith pass over for the inspection of the Granel Lodge, or any of its members all the papers I have ill relation to the Gift Concert at IJathrop. Package rnarked E. :\fASONIC BOARD 01,' RF.LIElt' OJ!'

~'r.

LOUrl-;.

We hear froln this body, organized under tho all~pices and control of the Grand Lodge, every :rear, through its long-time President, R. W. Brother Mar路 tin Coillns, who would rather do withont his evening meal, than miss a meeting. When I firs t knew the Hoard, a bon t, tell 'j' eart; ago, we often h~td hard work t.o get a quorum. \Ve have no,v a very full attendance, nearly all the lodges being represented ever~'" Saturday evening, and all show a deep H1Lereht in this ver;y' iInportant department of our lnasonic vlork. '1'11e Board has found it necessary to adopt stringent regulations to guard against imposition, for, 1 regret to say, their name is legion '-'Tho assume the mantle of Masonry as a traveling garb, or as every-day rags, for the purpose of begging their subSIstence from masonic door to door. There seems to be a reguhtrly organized system or ilnpositiou, ~1S ,vith signs and word~ of recognition-a society or league composed of wonlell and men for the pu.rpose of preying upon charity funds. Tilis brood of sloth and falsehood b~ame bO importunate, often iInpertinent nnd abusive, that the Board ofReliet was forced to adopt a counter systern of telegrapbing to the lodges front which applicants hail, or upon which they profess to have claims. The \'"01'.",t of these


[Oct.

40

professional iInpost.("rs grew' shy of st. Louis, ,:vhen they became aware of this rule, and we have sd.ved much annoyance and money by the swift '\"itness we have called upon the stal1d. As a 11lem bel' of the Board, and knowing 'whereof' I speak, I \vould suggest this Ry&tem of ascertaining the clailns of applicants for relief to other jurisdictions, and I do it in the interests of true charity, and the much abused mabonic heart and narue. MASONIC :MU'l'UAL

BENEVOLE~'t'

AS:::;OCIA1.'lON.

I ueern it proper to call the attention of the nlembers of the Grand Lodge to the above named association, for two principal reasons: j,.1i1'st.-Beco.ut-.e those who havp the malH1gement of its affairs are zealous ~lasolls, engtlged in a good rna&ouic work, in the prOi~ecutioll of which their U('ts have sornetilues been (lnp~tioned, and their motives impugned. 8econcl.-'Ch0 President of the association, ""'. Brother .Tolln H. Pottinger, has addre~sed a circular to Its members, setting forth some facts worthy of considf:r~l.tion regartling it~ condition and designs; o,lso announcing a new plan of insurnl1ee which he proposeR to lay formall3-", and in detail, before the melnbers during one of the re('esses of the Grand Lodge, when the annnal meeting of the Hs:-.ociation will b~ he-3d. This nleeting ought to }u\,ve, not only full attendance of' nlenlbers of the .a~&ociatiou; but the luattel's to be considered lnerit the attention of members of the Grand Lodge and 1'1a80nS generally. The ('ondition of the association ,vill be exhibited, and profiting by the experience of the past, it is hoped a way will be found to increase its membership ~tnd extend its benefits. A masonic benevolent tl.&sociation on an equitable basis, for the benefit of widows and orphans, ought not to languish in such a jurisdiction as ours. A

~ER10US

.TOKE.

Applieation ,vas made to 111e to allo\v an applican. t fur the nly:-,tel'ies of l\fabonry to ,vithdraw his petition frorn the lodge; he having signed the petition with his e;yes open, and sent it in, fee inclosed, with his purse open, but after~ wards recollsidered, and said It was all done in a "joke." I refllbed his very jocuhtr reqnest, and instructed the lodge to inform binl that Masonry \vas no joke, and could tolerate no levity frotn others. He was said to be it good man, and he l:itood in imminent danger of election. If the brethren took him in, with his jovial procliVities, he ought to lnake it Ii vely for that lodge. GRAND LECTURER'S REPOH.T.

R. \V. Brother Allen l\lcDowell, Grand Lecturer, has presented a well considered and encouraging report of his travels and labors in various sections of our jurisdiction. He is most indefatigable in the perfonnance of his duties. and has been of incalculable benefit to IVlasonry in this State. He has abundftntly proved hIs possession of the three great qualities of a lecturer: Zeal in the cause he espouses, thorough knowledge of his SUbject, and the very rare faculty to teach others what he knows. He is universally pronounced a complete and skillful workman, and enjoys the entire confidence of the craft. He gi ves a succinct account of the state of the work in his report, together with Home practical suggestions, which ought to be passed upon by a committe~ who lo;hould also reC0111 mend a suitable remuneration for the effective labors pe;r.. fOl'1ned by the Grand Lecturer.


1872.J

Grand Lodge of Missouri.

41

DISTRlcrr DEPU'!'Y GRAND MASTERS' REPOR'l'S.

Reports have come in, and are herewith presented, from District Deputy Grand Masters. They are generally brief, and give an intelligent account of official labor in the several districts, together with notes relative to the condition of the craft. I am under many obligations to the District Deputy Grand l\-fasters, as a Lody, for the zeal they have displayed as Masons, and their efficiency in office. These reports contain some suggestions which it rnight be well for the Grand Lodge to consider, and I rec~mmend that thes be referred to a special committee for review. COMMrl'TEES.

During the recess, to E>xpedite business I appoin ted the chairmen of several eOlllroittees. viz: Committee on Jurisp1路udence.-R. \楼. Bro. ~AMUEL H. OW1~JNS. Cbrnmittee on Grievance.-1YI. W. Bro. S. H. SAUNDER::;. Oommittee on Lodges under Dispensation.-R. W. Bro..TOHN W. LUKE. rrhese brethren have the labor of their various departments well advallceu, and aided by the experience of many years, have doubtless prepared their work for its proper place in our structure of constitution, laws and regulations. We alwa:rs expect to see these skillful workmen at their respective corners) watchful, diligent and masterly. We owe them all a debt of gratitude for their untiring zeal and the brilliant a.bility with whi('h they perform the office of director at their several posts ot' duty. COURTESIl;i~S.

In the lnanagmnent of the affairs of the Grand Lodge I hu,ve been the recipient of many marks of favor and esteem from the craft and others, tendered to my official position; also many gratifying personal attentions which were extended to me because of the offire. The cr~l,fL have been uniformly COllrteous, and have generally endeavored to lighten n1.Y labor ttS much as possible. To R. \V. Brother Geo. F'ranlr Gouley, Grand Secretary, I am especially indebted for aid and counsel in much business that came before me. My associations with him, and the other officers of the Grand Lodge, have beeu of the most pleasant charact& throughout the t,wo years that we have all been together.

I Is the smallest word in Ollr language, and they wbo speak it most, are apt to be the sm.allest men. There are positions, however, where its occasional use is imperative, and this is one of them. I have made some effort to avoid it, from a natural repugnance to both its sound and appearance. In my many communications with the craft, we have made a common cause in a comlnon work -the welfare ofthe luasonic order. If the official I has been often used, it was because official dnty compelled and forced it into the expression of a servant who was endeavoring to be faithful to you-hiS master. In this attitude the small word has been inve~ted with nobility, and I can use it once more without shame, in telling you that I have done my very best in the high office with which. you crowned my life, two years ago, in this place. I know that you feel this, and tlhis knowledge brings me a supreme happiness in rendering m.y:tinal a<'count of this stewardship. I feel, that how~ver much ji"OU ma;),T have been divided in the expression of your choice, in my efforts to do my whole duty, I have won the friendship of all. I have doubtless made mistakes, but none that I regret, because I know,and you know, they could not have com.efrom. motives of wilful wrong.


42

Pro(]eedi1~g8

oj' t7te

lOct.

Therefore, in formally surrendering, as I do now, the high charge with which you have honored me, I canllot but feel happier than I did when ;rOtl placed the emblem of power in my hands as a sacred trust. Now, rny brethren, I assure you that DO honors the future can have in store could be prized by me so dearly as those which have already been conferred upon me by the Grand Lodge of Masons of Missouri. CONaLUSION.

It is not enough to be good Masons here. We must go forth from our walli:! and battleInents girt with masonic armor, like an invincible army, to fight the battles of progressive humallit~T. \tVe have been reproached with hiding Our .. selves, and standing Rtill-rusty with disuse, and crippled with age, \vhile all tIlt:' rest of the \vorld is rus}llng past us towards its higher destiny. 'Ve know this to be untrue. Lpt, u..; prove its falsity, and show that the r~proach i" undef:lerved. " To Wllom much is given, from him much ,vill bp required," is as true in nature us it is in go~ppl. It contains the very e~sence, and incentive of effort. It is the golden key which unlocks the gates of successful endeavor. We have lived through ages of idolatry: preserved the name and solen1uized the worship of the one trl1P and living God. In that swallowing darkness we shone as a great light. \Ve Ii ve in an age of unexanlpled activity, and gro\ving infidelity. ~Iall il-. wouuerflllly succe..;sfnl. No obr-;tacle that the stubborn en.rth rolls in his path seenlS to stop or even impede his Inarch towards the infinite. The giant fornlS of rugged nature cannot -;tand a moment before his sine'\.vy arm. He plunge" through mists and mountnins with equal confidence and equal ease. He digs down the E'arth, ttnd he scales the heavens, and hE> makef-l playthings of claudE-. and suns, and farthest stars that tlash on the illiulitable walls of space, and stud 1he unl verbal donte. He performs such wOllderR, and knows bO luuch, that ill) lJegill~ tu :-,("o1'n impossibilities as b:'Lseless fictions, and looks with incredulity upon thl' unkno\vablc and unkno'wn. .A.nu ulun, in the tension 01 his" high-blowll pride," supplants the .AJmight:r. The work of the world is not clone. It may be little more than uegnn, far advanced a:-; it ~eems to bp. The MaRonlc Order has as n1ueh to do in it in the present as it has done in the past. Infidellty is as bad as idolatrY-\VorseI-i"ol', "to WhODl much is given, from him much WIll be required." The world has felt omnipotence. It has seen the light of omnh;cience. It has known omniprel::)ence. It sometinles seerns to have forgotten this threefold Presence. It has overwhelming confidence in its own strength. It would close its c,Yps to any superior lights. It would roll on itR darkened \vay alonl?, The world is proud of its performances, it glories in its man, but it (路annot do without God. What :.1re our duties as men and lYlasons? Plainly these: ':ro participate ill all the world's laudable activity; move in healthy, ~tr::Lightforward currents; a,yoid the roeks and whirlpools; fight the good fight of morality, against disordered pasRions; keep the faith of our prlncipl es, and our hold npOll Everlasting Truth, which has been our guide from the beginning. If tile people will not believe all these signs of our life and manners and mission, let us carry our Book open in the streets and highways of the unbelieVing world, and let us be sure that we are worthy to bear the sacred treftS11l'e in the light of day. We have a whole world of work to do, both in the lodge and out of it. Our work is everywhere, and it must succeed if we apply our principles of architecture truly, and use our implements with master hands. Freemasonry cannot stand still, With its liVing means of movement, it& capacity to lighten the burdens of life, brighten the dark places of the journey, and help the struggling world along. Truth is a beautiful and radiant angel, speeding between the two EternitieA, and its works can never stand still. THOMAS E. GARRET'r. Grand JvIctsfer.


1872.J

Grand Lodge

oj~ Mis8ouri.

4H

Which was referred to Brothers S. H. Saunders, S.. W. B. Carnegy, John D. Vinci!, John H. Turner and Samuel Russell, for distribution. At 1 o'clock the Grand Lodge was called froDl labor until 3 o'clock, P. l\L

TUESDAY,

October 15, 3 o'clock,

P. M.

Grand Lodge was called to labor by the Grand Master. Grand officers in their respective stations. COMMITTEES.

The Grand Master announced the following standing and special committees: Jurisprudence-Samuel H. Owens, WIn. H. Stone, R. E. Anderson, J. A. H. Lampton, Xen. Ryland. Unfinished Business-M. M. Tucker, E. C. Evans, .James Lovern, S. Vetzburg. (lhartered Lodges-I. E. Cadle, W. T. Baird, D. J. Heaston, Lewis Leon, Ahira ~fanring, V. H. Harrison, rrhos.•r. Stark, A. A. LeSueur, G. A. Settle, Samuel Russell, J. ""V. Baldwin, O. A. Orandall, A. L. :McGregor, Jos. R. Il"riend, John W.Dulln. Lodges C. D.-John \V. Luke, O. II. Gee, lVI. Helwig,.J. .l\II. Austin, .John J. HkinD~r.

G?'ievanee-Sam. H. ~R,unders, John H, 'l'uruer, .T. R. 'rodd, Allan lVIcDowell• ...1ccounts-J. E. Carter, ~rartin Collins, J. M. Fox. Ways and Means-Allan McDowell, A. lVL Dockery, J. ~I. Fox. By-Laws-Allan L. McGregor, Morris Jacks, C. W. Sallluel. D. D. Grand Ma.sters' ctndLecturer's Reports-John D. Vincil,J. W. Luke,.Tohn B. Henderson, W. E. Wheeler, W. B. Giddings. ehr:trity-\V. N. Loker, John P. Ravold, John Bonharn, J. M. Oldham. llfasonic Hall Bonds-John W. Luke, James E. Carter, Samuel R. Peters, Ii,., C Gillette, Xen. Ryland. · Incorporated Subordinate Lodges-8. H. Owens, John E. Ryland, John W. LUke, J. E. Cadle, Geo. Frank Gouley. Oollege OZaims-Xenophon Ryland, Paris S. Pfouts, Charles Thaw. Votes of Lodges for Oonstit'u,t'ional Amendment.s-J. M. Fox, James R. Todd, Ahira Manring, Wm. Simpson, Thos. Rodgers.

EXEMPLIFICATION. On motion of Brother A. L. McGregor, the Grand Lecturer (Brother Allen McDowell), was requested to exemplify the work in the 1st degree, this evening.


44

Proceed'i11.,gs of the

[Oct.

PER CAPITA TAX.

Brother R. E. Anderson, offered the following, which was adopted: Resolvecl, Trhat the Grand Secretary be and is hereby required to estimate and report to this Grand Lodge as earl:5-'7'as may be at this Grnnd Communication, what pm' capita tax by way of dues to the Grand Lodge from each sUbordinate lodge is necessary to defray the current expenses of the Grand Lodge, providing only for such surplns as may be required to meet ordinary contingencies.

REPORT ON GRAND MASTER'S ADDRESS.

'fhe Committee reported as follows, which was adopted: 'Po tlle Most lVo1'shipful Grand Lodge 01 Missouri:

We, your COlun1ittee on Distribution of Grand Master's address, beg leave to report as fOlf.ows : That, so mUGh as relates to decisions, be referred to the Committee 011 Jurisprudence. That, so luuch as relates to trials, be referred to the Standing Committee on Grievance. That, so much as relates to Masonic Hall, be referred to a special committee. rrhat, so Innch as relates to incorporation of subordinate lodges, be referred to a special committee. rrhat the report of the Grand Lecturer be referred to the Standing Committee on District Deputy Grand Master's and Grand Lecturer's reports. That we approve the recommendation that a menlorial page be set apart in the proceedings, in honor of our late Brother, Geo. Whitcomb, P. G. M. 1:i'raternally SUbmitted, s. H. SAUNDERS. S. W. B. CARNEGY. JNO. H. TURNER. JNO. D. VINCIL. SAM. RUSSELL. Oomm'ittee.

At 4 o'clock the Grand Lodge was called from labor until to-morrow afternoon at 2 o'clock.

WEDNESDAY, October 16, 2 o'clock P.~l. The Grand Lodge was called to labor by the Grand Master. Grand officers in their respective stations. Prayer by Grand Chaplain. Record of yesterday read and adopted.


1872.J

G'rand Lodge of Missouri.

45

REPORT OF GRAND SECRETARY.

The Grand Secretary submitted the following report, which was referred to Committee on Accounts. [See Appendix.] REPORT OF GRAND TREASURER.

rrhe Grand Treasurer submitted the following report, which was referred to the Committee on Accounts. [See Appendix.] REPORT ON VOTE FOR PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE CONSTITUTION.

The Committee submitted the following report, which was adopted: To the .JIost Wo'rship/ul (lrand Lodge oj MissoU'ri: Your commi ttee, to whom ,vas referred the action of the subordinate lodges upon the proposed anlendments to the Book of Constitutions, respectfully report: That they have carefully examined the returns nlade by such lodges as have reported, and find tlUlt out of four hundred and six lodges in the State, two hundred and t,venty-si:X lodges have taken action and made report thereof. In the examination of the returns, as well as the counting of the Yotes cast, for or against the propose<1 aluendments, respectively, your committee have been guided and governed by that section of the Constitution that makes provi~ion for the mnnner in which the Const.itution s11all be altered or amended. [See. 2, Art. 5, Book of Constitutions.J Your committee find that the returns of one hundred and seventy-seven lodges are in their opinion legal in all particulars, and in strict conformity to the requirenlents of the section of the Constitution to which reference has been lnade. We here present a detailed account of the Yotes, by lodges, cast for H,nd against the proposed amendments, respectively: First Amendment-Lodges yoting for, 145; lodges voting against, 30. Second Amendment-Louges voting for, 157; lod<.res voting against, 20. Third AUlelldruent-Lodges voting for, 100; lodges voting against, 74. Fourth Amendment-Lodges voting for, ]24; lodges voting against, 51. Fifth Amendment-Lodges votingi'or, 101; lodges voting against, 76. ~ixth Amendlnent-Lodges voting for, 82; lodges voting against, 92. Your committel? would fnrther repol路t that the returns from forty-nine lodges being defective, il1suincient, and in their opinion illegal-in that many of the reports lack the signature of tIle Worshipful Master, or that of the Secretary, many of them being imperfect ill the record of th.e votes, and there being absent from all of them, save one or two, a seal or a certificate that the lodge has no seal-they have been omitted from the count, and are herewith returned to you for such action as the Grand Lodge, in its Wisdom, rnay decide to take. Fraternally submitted, J. M. FOX, AHIRA MANRING, WM. SIMPSON, JAMES R. TODD, T. R. RODGERS, Oommi:ttee.


Proceedin.qs Qf the

46

[Oct.

REPORT ON PER CAPITA TAX.

The (1rand Secretary submitted the following report, which ,vas received, and ordered printed: 'Po the JJlostlV01'ship!ul Orand Loclge oj ;."'J!Iissouri:

Pursuant to your order contained in the resolution adopted yesterday, relative to the amount of dues necessary to sl1pport the Grand Lodge, I beg leave to report that after a careful examination of the receipts and expenditures of the Grand Lodge for t,he terrn during which I have served, si nee August, 1866, I find that the present assessment of fifty cents for each Master Mason borne on the rolls of subordinates, has averaged in the aggregate an alilount equal to the annual expenses of the ltrand Lodge, I have found that the present assessment is sufficient to meet the current expenses, and need not, therefore, be increased' also that any appreciable reduction in the dues would not realize a sUfficien~ fund for annual liabilities. I have therefore to report that the sum of fifty cents on each member is as nearly t.he proper estimate as I can suggest. Fraternally submitted, GEO. FRANI{ GOULEY, Grand 8fcretarJ/.

PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO BY-LAWS.

First.-B;l Bro. R. F. Kennedy: Amend Article 18, By-Laws of Grand Lodge, Section 27: In all trials for the violation of any of the By-Laws of the Grand Lodge, or of any subordinate lodge, and all offenses against masonic usagfls, the acting l\laster of the lodge shall dl?cide all questions of law, and the relevancy ofiestimony.

Second.-By Bro. John B. Best: Amend Article 16, Section 21, of By-Laws, by striking ont the word "fifty," and inse-rt "twenty-five."

'l."1i/ird.-By Bro. T. C. Harrison: Aluend A.rticle 16, Section 21, of By-Laws, by striking out the ,vords "fifty cents," and insert in lieu thereof" one dollar. g

Fou'rth.-By Bro. T. E. Shepherd: Amend Artlcle 1, Section 1, of By-Laws, by striking out the words" second insert in lieu thereof, the words" third J\tIonday."

~Ionday," and

The vote of the Grand Lodge was taken on all of the above, seriatim, and lost by a large majority. REPORT ON CHARTERED LODGES.

The committee reported as follows, which was adopted: To the Most It''"orshipjul Grand Lodge of Missouri:

The undersigned, Committee on Ohartered Lodges, would most respectfully and fraternally submit the folloWing report, to-wit:


1872.J

Grand Lodge CIt Mis8ouJr'i .

47

That they have examined the returns of the following lodges, and find tbem correct: Nos. 1, 3,5,6,7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22,25,28,29, aI, 32, 33, 36, 37, 38, 40, 41, -18, 44, 47, 48, 5(1, 51, 52, 53, 54,55, 56, 57, 58,59, 60, 61, 62, 64, 66, rlq 69, 70, 71, 72, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 8.3, 86, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, lI8' IOU 101 103 104, lOl, 106, 107, 108, 109, no, 111, 112, 113, 114, 116, 120, 121, 123, 124, 125, ~if), ri7, li~, viI, 132, 133, 1:34, 135, 137, 138, 13fl, 140, 142, 143, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 154, 15H, 157, 1n8, 169, lUl, 162, 1/:>3, 1H4, 165, 167, 168, 169, 170, 173, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180, 182, IRS, 189, 191, 192, 1BB, 195, 196, 199, 201, 203, 205, 207, 208, 209, 210, 211, 213, 214, 215, 216, 217, 2t8, 220, 221, ~22, 223. ~~6, 227, 228, 230. 235, 236, 238, 240, 243,215, 2.::>0,254,255, 257, 264, 265, 26H, 267, 26S, zun, 270, 272, 274, 27.3, 27~, 279, 28\), 281, 282, 283, 287, 289, 292, 293, 295, 296, 297, 2!m, ::;00, 3'H, ~m3, 300, ;W7, 809, 311, 312, 313, 314, 315, 317, aIR, 2Ifl, 323, 324, 325, 326, 327, 328, :1'n, ;13;~, :134, 3:;9. ;1-12. ;)4:~, ;~41, 345, 340, iH7, 3-1R, a5l, 332, 3f);~, 357, 359, B60, ;365, g66, 367, 369, a7l, :379, 380, 3H:], ;{&6, B89, 3!)3, 400, 101. ~rhe folloWlIlg are correct, except no seal: Nos. 11,42, 46, 65, 67, 122, 128, 136, 144, 1:>1, lOB, 170, ]SU, 100, 194, 199, 212, 22.5, 231, 239, 241, 244, 253, 2.58, 259, 260, 320, 322, 330, 33;), :{;{B, 335, ;3tH, 3US, 37;;,375,376, 377 t 878, aSl, ~B4, :~Ro, :>'87, 388,390, :391, :)f)4, 395, 3Bo, ;309, 402, 104, 40i5, 4013, 107, -lOB, 410, 412, 41:1, 415, 410. The following are correct, exeept names not alphabetically arranged: Nos. 1, 2~ 21l>, 29'3. 'rhe follo,ving n.rp correct, f\xcept no date of charter: Nos. 27, 30, 35, 120, 184, ;330. The following are correct, but not signed by \Vorshipful Master or Secretary: ~O&. 1flO, 174, 273, ;~5H, a70, 3-.19, 3!JH. The following are correct, ~xcept date of charter and no seal: Nos. 2,86,130. No.iI7, not signed by Secretary and no dttte of d"imissions. t

No. 138, nailles of tHroitted given in report of rnembel's. Nos. ~,j and 102 not signed by Secretftry, and no seal. The following haYe 110 sealg, and dates of initiation run back. of the present m~tsonic Yeitl': Nos. 252,262, 2(j3, ~UL No. 2;~, no seal, 110 dates at' initiation~ passing or raising. No. H:J, no date of charter, ~'Lnd F1nterpd Apprentices and Fello'w Crafts given with names of members. No. 73, no d~"tte of charter and no time of m("etillg. Nos. 49 and 340, no time of meeting. No. Zl7, no ~ea1, ~nd not Rigned by Worshipflll Ma~ter or Secretary, and no time of Ineeti ng. No. 251, members' na.Ines not given. No. 246, llames not in alphnbetical order, and names and dates of admission not given. Nos. ::132 and 201, no seal, and names not in alphabetical order. No. 350, no date of charter, no seal, three dimissions and one deceased brotller included in list of memberH. No. 305, no date of charter, 110 seal, and not sign~d by Worshipful Master or Recretary. No. a63 reports seyen iuitiaii<"lls, seven passing~, and one admitted, without giving nalne&. No. 336, charter surrendered and sent up with reports. Your Committee recomrnend. that the memorial of Saint Clair Lodge, No. be granted, the reasons for which will be found in the memorial accompathis report. Memorials [raIn differen t lodges, asking the remission of dUt.. ~, have been considered by this Committee, and, for various reasons, we dec-line recorunlending the granting of anj-" except the above. We would especially call the attention of Secretaries to the importance of haVing their reports sent up to the Grand Secretary in proper time, as some reports have been delayed until the meeting of the Grand Lodge, and come into the hands of the Committee barely in time to be examined. This causes the 'Grand Secretary and tllp Committee a great amount of trouble and annoyance.


48

Proceed/ings of the

[Oct.

We find great improvement in the reports of Secretaries, but still there is room for more. After a careful examination, we find that lodges have done a fair amount of work, and all seem to be in a healthy condition. Respertflllly and fraternally路 suhmitted, J. E. CADLE, W.T.BAIRD, J. R. MIDDLETON, LEvVIS LEON, AHIRA MANRING, THOMAS J. STARKE, A. A. LESUEUR, G. A. SETTLE, SAMUEL RUSSELL, JOSEPH R. FRIEND, O. A. ORANDALL, A. L. McGREGOR, .J. W. DUNN, Com'inittee. OSCEOLA, MISSOURI, September 18th, 1872. To the G?"and Secreta1'Jj of til eA. F. and A. M. oj the Btate oj ...1 tisSOltri: DEAR SIR AND BROTHER :-The following is a copy of a resolutjon passed at a, regular communication of Saint Clair Lodge, No. 273, A. F. and A. M., and ordered to be forwarded to you, for the action of the Grand Lodge thereol1~ to-wit: Where(~s, Osceola Lodge, No. 61, A. F. and A. 1\1., ,vhich has for several yearR ceased to exist, and lVhm'eas, SHid lodge was the owner of an undivided one-half interest in a lot on - - street~ upon which their lodge bUIlding was then standing, to-wit: Part of lots 5 and 0, in block 25, fronting 20 feet by - feet ba<.'lr, known as the old Masonic Lot, and lrherea~, Tile title to said lot under the la'\vs of the Grand Lodge of Missouri, after the said Osceola Lodge, No. 61, A. F. and A. M. ceased to exist, became and WftS vest.ed in the said Grand Lodge of State of Missouri, and Whereas, Said lot is too small to build thereon a commodious and con venient lodge building, for the benefit of this lodge, or any other lodge, it is therefore Ir.esolved, That the Grand Lodge of A. F. and A. M. be and is herebji requested to dispose of the undivided interest in and to said lot acquired as aforesaid, for the benefit of Saint Clair Lodge, No. 37~, in such manner aR the masoni(' law may provide for the disposition of propert,y under such circumstances. I hereby certify that the above is a tru0 cop~" of the resolution passed by Haint Ulair Lodge, No. 273, A. F. and A. M. THOMAS D. HICKB, Sec)路etary. Our lodge is now building a ne,v hall, and needs all the assistance that can be ~iven, and this would be a great help for us. Lodge prospering all the time. Fraternally, yours, THOMAR D. HICI{:S, ~"((>('?路et(()'y.

UNFINISHED BUSINESS.

The committee reported as follows, which was adopted: To the Most lVorshipful Grand Lodge oj Missou'i'i : Your Committee on Unfinished Business respectfully report that they find no unfinished business before this Grand Lodge. E. C. EVANS, JAS. LOVERN 1 Committee.


Grand Lodge of Mi88ou~rf.

1872.1

49

BOARDS OF RELIEF.

Memorials from the St. Louis, St. Joseph, and Kansas Oity Boards of Relief were read and referred to COill1l1i ttee on Charity. PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO CONSTITUTION.

Sundry propositions to amend the constitution were subnlitted to, and read by the Grand Master. [See Appendix.] CENTRALIA LODGE, No. 59.

Bro. A. A. LeSueur offered the following, which "ras adopted: Resolved, That. this Grand Lodge remit the dues of Centralia Lodge, No. 09 ; said lodge baving lost its lodge room by tlre, in March last, and having no funds.

REPORT ON BY-LAWS.

The committee reported as follows, which was adopted: To the .ilt[ost JVorship/ul Grand Lodge 01 .J.WiS80U'I'i:

Your Committee on By-Laws are pleased to learn since the recomlnendaof n code of by-laws by this Grand Lodge for the government of subordinate lodges, none have COlue before them for examination; and would recolumend that all new lodges adopt the code, as recommended by the Grand Lodge, for their governm~nt. Fraternally sUbmitted, tiOll

ALLAN L. McGREGOR, Ohafr?r~an.

REPORT ON LODGES, U. D.

The committee reported as follows, which was adopted: To the 1'r1. lV. Grand Lodge 01 A. F. and A. MasoM 01 the State o.f JJfwsouri: The Committee on Lodges U. D. begs leave to make the follo'wing report:

We have examined the records of lodges, and :find that those of the following named are correct, except the omission in them, in whole or in part, of the names of recolnmenders of petitions for degrees or membership, and omissions also to stx'\te it dimits, "with name of lodge granting them, were presented with petitions for membership. We would recommend that charters be granted to said lodges, with instructions that those omissions in their records be corrected before said lodges shall be regularly constituted-i Samaritan, Big River Mills, St. Francois eounty. Ji~orsyth, Fo]."~yth, Tttney COURty". Mt. Lebanon, Mt. Moriah, Harrisol1 conl1t~r. Newburg, Newburg, Laclede county,

4


50

Proceedin.qs of the

[Oct.

Euclid, Versailles, ~forgan county. Gower, Gower, Clinton county'. Golden Rule, Jonesburg, Montgomery county. Temperance, Smithville, Clay county. ,7'erona, Verona, Lawrence county. Joppa, Hartsville, Wright county. Nicholas, Cave Spring, Green county. Argyle, Nevada City, Vernon county. Excelsior, Jackson, Cape Girardeau county. Trowel, Lutesville, Bollinger county. j\;Iount Olive, Dallas, Webster. Pythagoras, Cassville, Cass county. Star, Tabersville, St. Clair county. Leesville, Leesville, Henry county. Lamonte, Lamonte, Pettis county. Gate of the Temple, Springfield, Green county. Iron Mountain, Iron Mountain, Ht. Francois county. 'Ve find that the follOWing lodges, in addition to the same omissions in their records, as noted in the foregoing, have never adopted any days of regular meetings, as none such appear in their records. Their lneetings have all been Virtually called meetings. As we presume this to have been an oversight, we reconlmend charters to be granted to them: Ada, Orrich, Ra;y' county. Covenant, Carrollton, Carroll county. Cen-lent, Half-Way, Polk county. Hazle",,~ood, Waldo, Webster countJ-. Belton" Belton, Oass county. WE' find the records of the follo,viug lodges aU correct, and would recommend tha.t charters be granted to them: Louisville, LouisVille, J...Iincoln county. Itasca, st. Louis, St. Louis county. Anchor, St. Louis, St. Louis county. Wallace, BUllecton, Oooper county. Benton, Benton, Lincoln county. Barnsville, Barnsville, Reynolds county. West Gate, St. Louis, St. Louis county. CaruthE'rsville, Caruthersville, Pemiscot county. Lalllo-Skin, St. Louis, st. Louis county. Piedr.J.ont, Piedmont, Wayne county. Clear Creek, Clear Creek, Benton county. Silent Temple, Macon, Macon county. "Va would recommend that their dispensations be renewed to the followIng lodges: EYerett, Everett, Gass county. Melville, Dadeville, Date county. Nodaway, MarYVille, Nodaway county. Pittsville, PittSVille, Johnson county. J.\t1ineral, l\Hnerville, Jasper ~ounty. Proctorville, ProctorVille, Oaldwell county. Integrity, Cedar City, Callaway county, with change of name to Cedar City Lodge, and authority to select a Junior Warden in place of Brother M. F. Roberts, deceased; selection to be approved by D. D. Grand Master. The follOWing lodges have not sent up their record book, as reqUired by the instructions of the Grand Lodge. We recommend their dispensations to be renewed. Jasper, Midway, Jasper county.


1872.J

Grand Lodge of Mis80UT i. l

51

pickering, Nodaway, Nodaway county. Border, Gates, McDonald county. Robert Burns, Gainsville, Ozark county, with authority to the D. D. Grand .Master to make any ebange in the selection of a Junior Warden that the memb ers may desire. We have examined the petitions for dispensations referred to us, and recom.. . mend that dispensations be grant~d to the following: Herndon, Herndon Store, Saline county. Anllville, Aullville, Lafayette county. Montevallo, Montevallo, - - county. Pet i tions for dispensations for: Bolckow, Bolckow, Andrew county, Wheeling, Wheeling, Livingston county, Center View, Center View, Johnson county, we would respectfully refer back to the action of the M. W. Grand Master, as they require more information than bas come before us. The petition for dispensation for Lock Spring, Lock Spring, Daviess county your committee must decline to recommend. Your committee would recommend that the dispensation of West Point, Lodge, West Point, Ba.tes COtluty, together with the records and property of the sam~, be taken charge of by the D. D. Grand Master of that district, and sent up to the Grand Secretary to await further action of this Grand Lodge. All of which is respectfully submitted, J. W. LUKE, JOHN J. SKINNER, C. H. GEE, 0on~mittee.

REPORT ON GRAND LECTURER.

rrhe committee reported as follows, which was adopted: To the Most Wo'rship!ul Grand Lodge Of Missouri: The committee appointed to examine the report of our R W. Grand Lecturer, and the reports of t:ile District Deputy Grand Master, submit the following: Grand Lecturer.-Whatever may have been our doubts in the past, as to the expediency of the lecture system adopted by our Grand Lodge~ your committee have no hesitation ill a.ffirming the belief that the system is a success, and gradually developing into great usefulness and e:tnciency. That this is owing to the efforts and invaluable services of our Grand Lecturer, Brotber Allan McDowell, is so obvious as not to admit ofany question. Brother McDowell has rendered a fnll and satisfactory report of his labors during the past year. He has held nineteen Lodges of Instruction, which were all well attended, with one or two exceptions. Great good has been accomplished at these meetings. In addition thereto, many lodges have been Visited, and much private instruction given to brethren. One hundred lodges have been visited or represented in the Lodges of Instruction. A number of lodges have been visited the second thne, and th..., seed sown at the first visitation was found to have brought forth mU('Ih fruit. The benefits of a second visit were very great, ill correcting and perfecting the work so well begun. ,:1'he spirit of opposition to the work authorized by the Gra.nd Louge has given way in a large measure, and brethren manifest a v:illillgne~-; to rc("eivo, and a de-sire to acquire, a perf~ct knowledge of our beautifnl ritunl.


Proceedings of the

52

[Oct.

Tho Grand Lecturer expended much time and labor in developing and enforcing the 'lno'ral teachings of Masonry. 'fhe Grand Lecturer has earnestly sought to U awaken in the lodges a spirit of inquiry in this too much neglected field of labor." Till our members learn to appreeiate the moral excellence of Ollr order, and look below the mere surface for the hidden beauties and truths of :Masonry, our cerelnonies will fail of their design, and be but little more than Hsounding bruss or n. tinkliDg cymbal." The Grand Lecturer notes several drawbacks which hinder the progress of the wurk, and detract from. its influence in some localities. The want of proper working tools, lodge furniture often badly arranged and out of shape. Altars and stands frequently are so constructed as to serve any other than a purpose to illustrate or aid the work of instruction. Some lodges are unable to prepare, in a suitable manner, their candidates. Another defect mentioned, is insecurc" halls. 'rhe surrollndings are snoh that the work has to be performed in a manner greatly detracting from its ilnpressiveness, force and beauty. To render our ceremonies in a hushed or subdned路 voice, for fear of being overheard, destroys the effect and defeats the end of masonic instruction. The Grand Lecturer reports the gratifying fact that improvement marks the history oftha craft, in all the particulars enumerated. Lodges are prOVIding themselves with safe halls, proper furniture and all necessary appurtenanc~s.

The Gl'and Lecturer has traveled nearly six thousand miles the past year, in the discharge of his official duties, and devoted all his time, excepting a few weeks, to tho arduous t.ask undertaken. Those ~vho have been so fortuua,te as to share the benefit of hi'S instructions, need not be told wi th "what earnestnes~, patience and laborio1.1sness he has addressed himself to the work of instruction. Brother McDowell not only hat~ the ,vork, but kno,vs ho'\v to endow others with it. He is apt to teach, be-ing as successful in imparting knowledge as he is cor路 rect in understanding it. His services have been above price, and the craft ill Missouri cannot afford to dispense ,vith bis valuable labors. vVithout seeming to dictate, your comnlittee would recommend his re-appointment for the ensuing year, at the compensation of the past year. The District Lecturers have not reported to any extent, onl~~ four haVing rendered any account of their stewardship. The lecturers fronl the Seventh, Sixteenth, Twenty-first and Thirty-sixth districts report to the Grand Lecturer that their lodges are doing well, and conforming for the most part to the work of the Grand IJodgp.. In conclnsion, your committee recommend the follOWing resolutions: Resolved, That District Deputy Grand Masters be reqnired to report to tbe next session of this Grand Lodge the condition of the various halls in their respective districts, as to their saiety and security. Resolved, That the Deputies be required to urge upon all lodges in their districts, not otherwise provided, the securement of all necessary lodge furniture and equipments, for rendering our ceremonies impressive and instructive; and that the Deputies report to this Grand body at its next session, the condition of said lodges, in all these partiCUlars. Fraternally submitted, JOHN D. VINCIL, Ohairman.

REPORT ON DISTRICT DEPUTY GRAND MASTERS.

rrhe COll1mittee reported as follows, which was adopted: To the Most Worsnipful Grand Lodge of Missou?'i: The Committee on District Deputy Grand Masters' Reports submit the follOWing:


1872.J

Gra7id Lodge oj'

Mi880U1~i.

53

Reports have been rendered by Deputies from the following Districts, viz. : Nos. 1, 4, 5, 6,7, 8, 9, 10, 13, 14, 15, 16, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 26, 29, 30, 31, 32, 34, 36, 37,38, and 39.

We find upon examination of said reports that some of the Deputies have faithfully discharged their duties, while others have offered as a reason for not having rendered greater service, numerous and pressing business engagements, and other excuses for not. doing so. We are aware that the office of District Deputy Grand Master is one of great labor, and often of great sacrifice; yet, when a Mason accepts an office, he should make some sacrifice for the good of the Craft in his district. The labors of 'qome of our Deputies are to be commended, while it is to be regretted that more have not magnified their office. Your committee have not the time, nor have we t.he disposition to discriminate between the efficient and inefficient Deputies. Your committee would recommend to brethren in districts where they have not been. visited by Deputies, that they, as far as possible, confer together during the se~sion of the Grand Lodge, and recommend. to the Grand Master sonle one in their districts who will discharge the duties of District Deputy faithfully, as it is impossible for the Grand Master always to make a judicious selection of Deputies, \vithout advice and assistance. Fraternally SUbmitted, JOHN D. VINUIL, JOHN B. HENDERSON, WM. E. WHEELER, N. B. GIVENS, JOHN W. LUKE, Oomntittee.

REPORT ON GRIEVANCE.

The Committee reported as follows, which was adopted: To the Most WorRhipful Grand Lodge oj Missou,-i : The Committee ofGrievance would respectfully report that they have given to all the cases submitted to them, that careful consideration they demand, and now submit their conclusions to the action of the Grand Lodge. No.8. G. W. Kemp appeals fronl the verdict of Williamsburg Lodge, No.8, expelling him, for two reasons, viz: 1st. "He is not guilty." 2d. H The testimony was not sufficient." 'fhe cliarges were: "Pretending he was drowned;" "de.. serting his family," and "trying to defraud a life insllrance company out of the insurance upon his life, by pretending to be drowned." The evidence shows ne left his clothes on the bank, at the usual place of bathing, and was not seen for four rnontils after. He had the perfect right to live this amphibious life for four months, and the lodge had no business questioning this inalienable right, and probably would not, if he had carried it out in good faith; bnt that insurance company would not pay-and playing :tish was played out. We recommend that the action of the lodge be confirlued. No.9. Jas. C. Moody appeals from the action of George 'Vashington Lodge, No.9, whirh expelled him in August, 1872. He was sumnloned to appear in the preceding May meeting, to show cause why his dues ,ver~ not paid. 'fhis summons he failed to obey. He was then summoned to appear and show caUE-e why he did not obey summons. To this he replies by letter, ,vhich the lodge, by a vote of 28 2, deemed disrespectful. Charges were then :tiled against him, and he was cited to appear at the August meeting, to defend. This he failed to do. He was regularly tried, found guilty, by a vote of 28 to 2, and expelled.

to


54

Proceedil1.gs of the

[Oct.

We recoIllmend that the action of the lodge be confirmed. No. 12. J. R. Arnold appeals from the decision of Tyro Lodge, No. 12, expelling hinl. This whole case belongs legitimately to the courts of the county, as the gIst of the difficulty is disputed title to town lots. The record shows that Bros. Carr & Warren, when commencing to improve these lots, were inforlned by Arnold that he and his wife claimed the lots, and offered to sell or gi vea quitclaim deed for about one-half the value of the lots. They refuse to do this, and Arnold afterwards sells to oue Dell a quit-claim to the lots, and Dell brings suit, and these brethren have to pay the amount speeified on the charges, to compromise and get a clear title to the lots. That Arnold believed that he bad a ju~t claim on these lots when he offered them to tbe~e brethren at a reduced price, is self-evident from the after proceedings in this case, for Dell could only purchase Arnold's interest, and the amounts paid by these brothers tomalre their title perfect, is presumptive evidenceof Arnold's claiIn. The Umight~路dollar" has had luore to do in this case than deliquency of Mason's obligations, and we cannot see the justice of the sentence of expulsion. We recommend that J. R. Arnold be and is hereby restored to his masonic privilege~.

No. 17. Clarksville lodge, No. 17, petitions the Grand Lodge to restore Jas. Thnrmond to his masonic rights. We recommend the adoption of the follow.. ing: Resolved, That Jas. Thurmond be and is hereby restored to his Inasonic rights. No. 19. At the last communication of this Grand body, the appeal of Dan. W. Campbell, from the action of Paris Union Lodge, No. 19, suspending him for twent:y' years, was sustained, and tbe case remanded for a new trial. On June 1st, 1872, a new trial was had in this case, and after a very anomalous and extraordinary proceeding on the part of the lodge, Brother Campbell was suspended for two years and six months. We will briefly give the points in the case, so that the Grand Lodge can be the better judge of the correctness of our conclusions. The gist of the charge is that Brother Campbell sold to a Mr. Prewett, in 1864, a tract of land in Monroe county. Prewett claims that the land was owned by the county, and that j udgments against Campbell in the Circuit Court involved h.im in a loss of some $1,800 or $1,900. Campbell claims that he told Prewett of the claim of the county on 160 acres, and did not demand any part of the payment till he could make the title good, In 1870 he -was charged under five specifications, but at the last trial the first four are withdrawn and he is tried on the fifth. He is charged with "fraudulently concealing frorn Prewett the facts concerning the title to said land." On the 1st of June, 1872, he was tried and on 'the ballot of guU ty or not guilty being taken, it stood, guilty 17, not guilty, 9. The Secretary informed the Worshipful Master that there were 28 members present and only 26 votes cast, and the Master ordered a new ballet to be taken. On motion, the Tyler was excused from voting, (excused from that he bad no right to do) he not being present when the testimony was read. Upon taking another ballot it stood, guilty 19, not guilty 8. The Worshipful Master then declared Brother Campbell guilty, as charged. On the ballot for expulsion the vote stood, 12 for and 15 against. On the ballot for suspension, 20 for and 7 against. The length of time proposed was five years. two years, one year, and one month. The ballot on five years stood 12 for and 15 against. li'or two years, 16 for and 11 against. For one year, 17 for and 10 against. For one month, 8 for and 19 against. The Worshipful Master then stated further suggestions would be in oriler A brother then proposed 29 days, which was declared out of order by the Wor.. shipful Master, when the brother gave as a reason why he made the motion


1872.J

Grand Lodge oj" Missouri.

55

that, as all longer periods had been voted down, he offered this. One brother then suggested six years, and another one year and six months. On ballot being ordered five of the brethren aslred to be excused, as they could not, under the by-laws of the Grand Lodge, vote for a longer period than 29 days, and they were (--:x:cused. The ballot on 6 years stood 15 for and 8 against, and on the final ballot on two years and six months, it stood 15 for and 7 against. Whereupon the Worshipful Master declared Brother Oampbell stlspende<.l for two years and six months, and we are constrailletl to declare that he is not suspended at all, for la wand justice and usage say that no j\Iason shall be deprived of his rights but by a fair trial, and when a Master prebumes he is a higher pow0r than the Grand Lodge, we will protest against it. The Grand Lodge has declared and ordered that in the infliction of punishment by its subordin~"ttes, after the parties have been found guilt:Y' by a two-thirds vote of all the membel'S present, the question shall then be put on first, expulsioll, then on suspension, and then on reprimand; that when suspension shall httve been adopted by a two-thirds vote, the time shall be determined bjr comrnencillg on the longe~t period and ~o on down till some period shall be adopted. But the Worshipful Master in this case decided that 29 days was not kno'wu in the masonic calender, and as five of the 111embers of the lodge presen t at the Ulne could not conscientiously vote for a longer time than 29 days, they ,vere excused, and 15 out of 28 members present declared Brother Oampbell suspended for two years and six months. 'Ve recommend that as the action of this lodge in the trial of Brother Campbell was irregular and not in accordance with usage, Brother Carnpbell be restored to his masonic rights. No. 23. Florida Lodge, No. 23 petitions the Gr'and Lodge to grant it the powerto receive the petition of Alvin Menefee for restoration to his masonic rights, he having been years ago expelled. vVe recommend that the petition be granted. No. 66. George W. Hoplonl:l agftin npp ....als, or rather Inemorializes tIle Grand Lodge to restore him to his masonic privileges, he haVing been expelled by Linn Lodge, No. 66. This case was before t.he comlnittee in 1867 and rema:n<.led back to Linn Lodge for the reason there was not sufficient evidence before the committee to form an opinion in the case. There is no record of the proceedings had in this case before the committee') and they have to draw their conclusions from the appeal and letters acconlpanying it. We <.1educt the following presunlptive evidence of the action taken in this ease: The appell:1nt was the fornler ~ra~tel' of this lodge; his successor, Brother Wheeler, filed charges against him for his official acts when Master; he was tried under these charges and sUbpended. He appealeu to the Grand Lodge and another trial was ordered. III this trial he was expelled, and he avows that his appeal to the Grand Lodge W:lS rnade out, but three days before the time limiting apeals had expired, Brother Wheeler pt'omised him if he would withdraw the appeal, he, Wheeler, would rnemorialize the lodge to restore him. This, he claims, was never done by Brother Wheeler, and he now asks this Grand Lodge to restore him to his masonic rights. This ig but one side of the question, but if the letters accompanying the memorial are the true sentiments of his heart, then he has been very unjustl~T dealt with by the lodge. But the other side of this question is in a very different light, and we do not feel authorized to interfere in the case. No. 85. .James L. Cartwrigh1 again appeals from the action of Potter Lodge, No. 85, expelling him. This case was sent back at the last communication of this Grand Lodge for a new trial, as the verdict then given was not thought to be in keeping with tbe teachings of our order. In reviewing this case one of the committee has .tor years known the" under tow" of prej udice eXisting in this lodge, an d th e result is as it ftl ways will


56

[Oct.

be when Masons fOl'get the use of the compasses and mammon usurps the place of charity. The "mighty dollar" is the foundation in this case. If Ceres had continued to smile on Cartwright these charges would never have been nlade but misfortnne darkened his path and sunshine friends, "like angels' ViSits,,: "were fe,v and far bet'ween." It is true that some of the best members of thi~ lodge are yet his warm friends, but they have not been able to throw back this tide of prejudice. We believe that if this case could be tried in another lodge the verdict would be ditfEJ-rent, ""Ve do not throw the whole blame of this case on the movers in this action, for he is to blanle for letting his passions lead hinl away from the duties be owes to others, but that he merits the sentence of the lodge we do not believe, and we recommend that he be and is hereby restored to his nlasonic rights.

No. 128. Br'other ~am. Holzlnan appe:.tls from the action had in Live Oak Lodge, No. 128, in the trial of Brothers :fIickman and Mel'S, under charge of quarreling and using slanderous language towards each other. They were tried by the lodge, fOUlld guilty, and ordered to be reprimanded. The evi<.lence shows anything else bnt the true spirit of Masonry existing in these brethren, and the lodge should take immediate steps to correct it before it involvesother~in these difficulties. A sUlall misunderstanding which the lVlaster could at, its start have crushed out, if uncontrolled will roll on and eventually crnsh the lodge or cripple its action so as to make it anything else but what it was designed to be, H, band of brethren, among whom 110 contention should exist, or that noble con~ tention or emulation-who can best work and best agree." We think the reasons assigned by Bro. Holzman for his appeal are well taken, but 路will not recommend a new trial to be had, but hope that tIle lodge, knowing its duty, will perform it without the authoritative action of the Grand Lodge. There is shown on the record of the proceedings of this case a violation of the by-laws of the Grand Lodge. It is this: the by-laws of the Grand Lodge require every brother present to vote on the guilt or innocence of the accused and upon the punishmen t; but in this case there is from one to three blank ballots in several of the ballotings. The brethren casting those very intelligent ballots cannot be known under our present system of balloting in trials, but again adopt t,he true masonic cust.om of voting viva voce, and blank ballots will be buried in the rubbish. No. 154. Concord Lodge, No. 154, petitions the Grand Lodge to restore Thos. S. Davis to his masonic privileges. Resolved, That Thos. S. Davis be and is hereby restored to his masonic privileges. No. 114. Twilight Lodge, No. 114, appeals to the Grand Lodge to sustain the lodge in its demand against Jefferson Lodge, No. 43, for re-ilnbursement of amoun t paid in the funeral of Brother Ben. S. Bowden, a member of Jefferson Lodge. We think that Jefferson Lodge, No. 43, should pay the amount expended by Twilight Lodge in the burial of Brother Bowden. No. 233. B. B. Putman memorializes the Grand Lodge to restore him to his masonic privileges, he having been expelled by Bucklin Lodge, No. 233. We recommend that B. B. Putman be and is hereby restored to his masonic privileges. No. 108. Brother E. I. Orn appeals from the decission of Aztec Lodge, No. 108, New Mexico, in the trial of Brother l\f. CorniD, in September, IBiO, for the simple reason that he considered said路trial a farce. We are nluch of the same opinion, but as two years have now elapsed since the trial, and tor fear that the f;;1rce may be again acted, we recommend that the appeal be dismissed. No. 146. C. B. Bastian appeals from the decision of McGee Lodge, No. 146, but as there is no record of the trial-except the evidence-we do not know what the sentence was. The Secretary of that lodge was written to and requested H


1872.J

Grand Lodge of Missouri.

57

to furnish the eOlurnittee with a transcript of the proceedings, but it has never been received. 'ÂŁhis negligence 011 the part of Secretaries ought to be corrected by some action of the Grand Lodge. To them it may be a matter of little importance, but to the accused it is frequently a question of the greatest Importance. We recommend the case sent back for a new triaL ~o. 177. Peter Hoag luemorializes the Grand Lodge to restore him to his Inasonic rights, he having been expelled by Texas Lodge, No. 177. There is no ret.ord of the lodge before us, but from documentary evidence accompanying the rnelnorial we think the lodge acted without a full underbtanding of the case, and we recommend that a new trial be granted hIm. No. 212. Four IVrile Lodge, No. 212, having suspended CharIeR H. McOutchoon for twelve months for drunkenness, he appeals from this action for the reason that the Tyler 'was not invited in to vote either on gnilt or punishment. So far as the question of guilt, ,vas concerned, it was immater'ial, as he plead guilty, as charged, "t,ho excessive use of intoxicating liquors," but upon the punishment assessed by the lodge, it was a vItal questIon to the accused, (provided he knew how the l'yler would vote), for the vote was 17 for suspension and t'l, against, and as 81s not one-third of25, but 9 is a little over the requirement of the law, Brother McCutcheon, knoWlng that our Tylers as a general rule are a set1 of convivial brothers 'who are opposed to a too astringent rule agaillstsuch unfortunate brethren, counted on his vote to save him, forgetting that lega,lly he had no vote. The sentence of the lodge was just and proper, and we hope it may be the lueans of inducing Brother McOutcheon to follow strictly the teachings of the first cardinal virtue of Masonry. No. 223. Some eighteen brethren of Woodlawn Lodge, No. 223, appeal from the decision of the lodge in the trial of Brother B. Million. Upon the trial of the case the lodge did not find him gUilty, and these brethren appeal from the action for this reason,-" Ulat the evidence in the case is clear and pointed a~ to his guilt, given by two reputable Witnesses) and one of them an E. A. lVlason. n We are a good deal like the lodge; they could not see the clear and pointed part either, and did not find the brother guilty. There were only two witnesses, but only one swears to sustaining the charge; the other's evidence is only what be heard between the first witness and the accused. We recommend that the appeal be dismissed. No. 263. '1.'he appeal of Brother Geo. Rice from the action had in Summit Lodge, No. 263, developes it strange state of affairs in that lodge. After he had dimitted from that lodge and placed his dimit in the hands of others petition .. lng for a dispensation for a lodge at Appleton City, he is charged with demanding money for service& which they did not think he was entitled to, and for obtaining a dimit under false pretences. The whole action of the lodge in this case has no sanction of law and usage, and is therefore null and void, and Brother Rice's status as a Mason is not impaired in any way. No. 275. Geo, W. Jamison appeals from the decision of Tranquility Lodge, No. Z75, expelling hirn, for t,he reason that it was impo&sible for him to obey t11e summons. l'11e record shows that he was summoned to pay dues, and failing to do this) he was summoned to show cause why he did not obey. He states in his letter to the lodge that his health is bad, and that he has not the pecuniary means to atteud, and requests the lodge to give him the amount of his dues, and he will try and remit them. If the case is as represented by Brother Jamison, and we have no right to judge it otherwise, we think the lodge acted hastily, and awarded a punishment greater than necessary. We do not wish this opinIon to be taken as 4:'xcusing any brother from disobeying a summons, for we do not; but under the circumstances of this case, we recommend that the lodge grant Brother Jamison another trial, that justice may be done.


58

Prooeed'ings oj! the

[Oct.

No.. 311. w. D. Wright appeals from the decision of Karney lodge~ No. 311 expelling him, for the reason of" want of proof and mess trial." rrhere Inust be something more than the transcrlpt of the proceedings show in this case~ Lo warrant the decision of the lodge. The facts ~1,re these: On March 2, 1872, the Finance Committee report that "they find the reports of the Recretary and Treasurer correct," showing a balanee in the hands of W. D. Wright (Secretary) of $77.70, and recommend the lodge to credit his report with $26.50 for ser\Tlces for 1872. A warrant was ordered for this amount, and $10 paid by Wright at tha.t time, leaving a balance of~41.20 due by him. On the 18th of l\'fay, 1872, the present Secretary of the lodge, Brother .J. R. Green, Jr., acknowledges the receipt of $41.20 from W. D. Wright, of lodge funds, the balance due by hun. On the 23d day of July following, the lodge tries him for embezzlement of lodge funds, and expels him. If W. D. 'Vright had not paid over to the Secretary the balance due by hini at the time of tiling the charge, he did before the trial, and consequen tiy could not be justly found guilty, a~ charged. We are not ad.vocates of Secretaries holding over lodge funds, but it is frequently done, and without an~路 injury to the lodge, and we further think that the lodge did not act wi th that charity that is, or ought to be, a distinctive rnark of our order. We recommend that Karney Lodge, No. 311, give Brother W .. D. Wright a new trial. No. 315. Brother Leland M. Wright very justly appeals from the action had in Altona Lodge, No. 315, in the trial of Brother R. J. Dejarnet, under charges of "drunkenness and riotous conversation to the prejudice of Masonry." The evidence is conclusive of his gUilt, and we think the lodge did not act in accordance with its duty. We recommend tbat the lodge be ordered to try this case again, and hope their decision will be ill keeping with the laws of Masonr:r. No. 28l3. Abram Vanderborge nlemorializes the Graud Lodge to rebtore hun to his masonic priVileges, he having been expelled for drunkenness. The memorial is accompanied by the recommendation of the Master, Wardens, and eleven other Illembers of Hespel'ean Lodge, No. 21:)6. 'Ve recommend the adoption of the following: Resolved, That Abram Vanderborge be and is hereby restored to his masonic privileges. No. 294. J. K. Chamberlin appeals from the decision of J\{ound Oity Lodge, No. 294, expellin~ him for disobeying summons. He claims he did not receive first notice, and had made an arrangement with a brother to pay his dues and render his ex\-'use, but the brother was taken sick and did not get to the lodge till after the tnal. Disobeying summons is getting too conlmon in this jurisdiction and should be stopped, bnt in this instance it appears that Brother Chamberlin did not intentionally do it, and we recommend that the case be sent back for a new trial. No. 53. Western Lodge, No. 53, petitions the Grand Lodge to restore Ben. Wood to his masonic privileges. Resolved, That Ben. Wood be and is hereby restored to the masonic priVileges. No. 144. Jobn Marshall appea13 from the decision of Modern Lodge, No. 144, expelling him for drunkenness. This appeal expresses a feeling of trying to do better, and in hopes that th~ feeling may become a determined resolution, we recommend that the lodge grant him a new trial. No. 300. John M. Hunt memorializes the Grand T odge to restore him to his masonic privileges, he having been expelled for striking a brother, and this brother unites in the petition for his restoration. Resolved, That John M. Hunt be and is hereby restored to his masonic privileges.


1872.J

Grand Lodge oj. Missouri.

59

Brother A. J. Sands appeals from West Point lodge, U. D., suspending him for one year. He is charged with sellillg liquor unlawfully, (charge not sustained) and for "divulging his ballot;" and on this charge he i:::; found guilty, and suspended. He states that he asked the opinion of a brother "that if certain charges against the applicant were true, did he do right in black-balling?" It appears from his btatement that he was ignorant of the law governing fOiuch cases, and thinks the lodge punished him too severely. He being a young Mason, and his duties not having been taught him, we think the punishment sufficient to teach him better in the future, and recommend tbat be be restored to his masonic privIleges. No.I05. I{irksville lodge, No 105, petitions the Grand Lodge to restore Jno. Thomas to his masonic rights. Resolved, That Jno. Thomas be and is hereby restored to his masonic rights. In conclusion we recommend that the Grand Lodge order Secretaries of all the subordinate lodges to forward immediatel~- after trials to the Grand Secretary a full and complete transcript of all the proceedings had in t.rials, charges, specifications, clearly written, evidence, number of members present, the vote upon guilt and upon punishment, so that the future COlnmittees of Grievau(路e of this Grand Lodge may fully and fairly have all the facts before them to make the report. It is important that it should be done, that justice Inay be done not only to the appellant, but to the lodge and to the entire fraternity. Fra ternally submitted, SAM. H. SAUNDERS, JNO. H. TURNER, JAMES R. TODD, . Committee.

At half past five o'clock the (frand Lodge was called from labor until nine o'clock to-morrow morning.

THURSDAY, Oct. 17,1872,9 o'clock, A. M. The Grand Lodge was called to labor by the :VI. W. Grand Master. Grand Officers in their respective stations. Prayer by the Grand Chaplain. Brother James M. Holt, Grand Chaplain, appeared and assumed his station. Brother John E. Ryland, Junior Grand Warden appeared and assumed his station. Minutes of yesterday read and adopted.

ANNUAL ELECTION.

The annual election of officers being the first order in bUilless, the Grand Lodge proceeded to the performance of that duty with the following result, (J. M. Fox and Samuel Russell acting as tellers): .SAMUEL H. OWENS, Oalifornia, Grand Master. JOHN E. RYLAND, Lexington, Deputy Grand Master.


Proceedings

60

oj~

the

[Oct.

JOHN W. LUKE, St. Louis, Senior Gtrand lVarden. J. E. CADLE, Chillicothe, Junior Grand Warden. WILLIAM N. LOKER, St. Louis, Grand Treasurer. GEO. FRANK GOULEY, St. Louis, Grand Secretary.

At one o'clock the Grand Lodge was called from labor until three o'clock, P. M.

'l'HURSDAY, Oct. 17, 1872,3 o'clock, P. The Grand Lodge was called to labor by the Grand Master. G'rand officers in their respective stations.

M.

MIDDLEBURY LODGE. 141.

On motion, Brothers A.~M. Dockery, Xen. Ryland and W. H. McGrath, were appointed a committee to investigate the arrest of the charter of Middlebury Lodge, No. 141. CHANGE OF DISTRICTS.

Brother Allen McDowell offered the following, which was adopted: Resolved, That the following changes be made in the Masonic Districts of Missouri: 1. Abolish the present District No. 42, and place Camden county in District No. 2M, and Dallas coonty in District No. 34. 2. Establish a new district, to consist of the county of Jetfersoll, and to lJp called Dis trict No. 42. 3. Change Pemiscot county from District No. 21, and place the same in District No. 20. 4. Establish a new district, to consist of the county of Bates, to be called District No. 45. n. Take \Vright county from District~No. 29, and place it in District No. 30. 6. Take Iberia Lodge, No. 410 from District No. 27, and attach the same to District No. 28.

REPORT ON JURISPRUDENCE.

The Committee submitted the following, which was adopted: To the

M06t Worship!t(,Z Grand Lodge af ).J;lis80'U/ri : Your Committee on Jurisprudence having carefully reviewed the decisions and rulings of the M. W. Grand Master, as set forth in his very able address, would respectfully subrnit the following report: }1"Tlrst.-The right of objection to a candidate has always been held sacred by this Grand Lodge, and your committee believe this right can be exercised at any time before the candidate receives his degree. We do not, however, think that the objection made after the petition has been referred to a committee, can stop tbe report of that committee. The lodge is entitled to that report for its


1872.J

Grand Lodge of Missouri.

61

guidance; but certainly no degree can be conferred until the objection is withdrawn, or the objector ceases to be a member of the lodge, even though the candidate should be elected in the absence of the objector. We think this is what the Grand Master means in his first decision; and, if so, your committee concur in the decision. Second.-",Ve think the second decision is righ t, except the latter clause,where tIle Grand Master says, "the Mas LeI' should refuse to receive the petition, and order it to be returned to the applicant, without any action whatever." We r~gard this direction as b~illg in conflict with the rule adopted by the Grand IJodge at its last session, in reference to such proceedings. The Grand Lodge adopted the rule. that unless the objector should declare his objection temporary for the purpose of obtaining information, the Master should declare the candidate rejected, and at the end of twelve Inonths he could petition again. Otherwise he would be in a much worse condition than he would be had he been hlack-balled. 'Ve think every act of the lodge should be recorded, and the presentation of the petition and the objection to its reception are acts as valid as any other acts of the lodge, and inasnluch as the Grand Lodge has adopted a rule on that subject, we think it is unwise to change that rule. 1'hi'rd.-There is no reason to review this decision, as in the Judgment of your committee it is good luasonic law, and the argument of the Grnnd Master in support thereof, is conclusive. Fourth.-This decision harmonizes with what we have said under the second head of this report, and of course we fully concur with the ~rand Master. p 1ljth.-We are glad the Grand Master has brought this question before the Grand Lodge. We th ink the time has arrived when a body professing to instruct in the seven liberal arts and seiences, should say that it~ members shoUld at least be able to comply with that provision of the by-laws which requires the signature of the candidate, and not his rnark. We concur in the decision. Sixth.-We agree with the Grand .Master in tIle decision in reference to the withdrawal of charges. Seventh.-The decision that ~t lodge U. D. is competent to try non-affiliates who reside in itsjurisdictiou, as well as its own member/:', is consistent with the action of this Grand I..lodge in reference to such lodges, and is approved by your ('ommittee. Eighth.-This proposition is so fully discussed by the Grand Master that we rnerely allude to the same, and approve it. ~inth.-We agree with the Grand Master in this decision, but would add thereto, lest some may be led astray, that if new c.harges are preferred at the uNew Trial" the accused has the same right of notice and t,ime to prepare his defense to the new charges that he had to the original ones. Tenth.-rrhis decision is almost the very letter of the written law, and of course we concur therein. Eleve'nth.-There is nothing in the law in conflict with this decision. The lodge certainly has the right to proceed with the trial, and is the judge as to whether injustice will be done, even in the absence of the parties, accuser and accused. 'lweifth.-We approve of this decision. Thi7 teenth.-Certainly no lodge can enact a by-law in conflict with the bylaws of the Grand Lodge, and if the same is done, such by-law is null and void. The decision is elnillently right. and proper. lburteenth.-The 'whole tendency of our Grand I~odge legislation and action, is to give the right to a l\Iaster Mason to Relect the lodge he wishes to affiliate With, haVing 110 reference to his place of residence. This is the right ofa Mas011 and not of a profane. We concur in the decision. l!'ijteenth and k~txteenth.-These two decisions in reference to the remoyal of lodges, or the change of their locality, are correct and a.pproved by your commiittee.


62

Proceedings of the

[Oct.

seventeenth.-This decision is right. If a member is opposed to the action of tbe lodge, he cannot object to the approval of the minutes, if the minutes are correct and detail a proper history of the proceedings. His remedy is to undo iihe can, the action, by a proper vote of the lodge, and not object to the approval of the minutes when they are correct. Eighteenth.-This question is so well settled that we do not propose to say anything further than that it is right. ...Y ineteenth.-We believe that each lodge is clothed with all the authority necessar:y- for the collection of dues, and no lodge, whether it be incorporated or not, has the 'Jnasonic right to sue in tbe courts of law for dues. The remedy, and the only remedy for non-payment of dues, is laid down in our own law. This decision is right and proper, and we presume the question was raised by some brother who knew more about the rights of corporations, than he did of Masonic Lodges and their duties to the brethren. We hope we may never hear of a sinlilar instance. Tll'entieth.-This decision is right, and the same principle, though not precisely the saIne facts, has been often passed upon in this Grand Lodge. Twenty-fi1"st.-Your Committee fully cuncur with the decision in reference to lawful information. If a Mason can never be vouched for except by some brother who has sat in Lodge with him, the right of visitation would be narrowed down considerably. \Vhen you corne to draw it down as tine as that, we Inight suggest that the committee of examination themselves have never snt in lodge with the visitot. We believe that lodges should be'l.'erycarejul about strange visitors, but they should not overdo the thing. Twenty-seconcZ.-This decision is clearly the law, and we concur therein wi thout hesitation. 'lTwenty-fhird.-This decision having reference to the resto-ration of a forfeited or surrendered charter, is good law and approved by your committee. Twenty-jou1路th.-The recommendation of the Grand Master in reference to forfeiture of fees, under this number, is practicable and easily understood, and we believe will prove as good a rule in reference to such cases as can be suggested. It is just and eqUitable to the lodge and to the applicant, and works no wrong to anyone. The necessity of a rule on this subject is apparent, and need not bE' argued. We recolnmend the adoption of the suggestion of the Grand !'lnster. TwentY~flfth.-rrhedecision of the Grand Master in reference to the voting of the rryler, is, we believe, the uniform practice of this jurisdIction, and 1s sound and right. It is sanctioned by time and universal usage. Twenty.. sixth.-This decision is intended to protect the ri~htR of an individual Mason under charges, and we concur in the same, though the rule would be different in a civil court. Let the accused l\fason have every opportunit)T afforded him for a defense against the charges. Twenty-se1'enth.-The argumen t of the Grand l\1aster under this head, on the subject of restorations by the Grand Lodge, is clear and eXhaustive, and certainly presents the questions fairly before this body for its action. We have carefully considered recommendations and decisions, and believing that they are in perfect harmony WIth our law, we approve the same, and ask the Grand Lodge to concur. SPECIA.L RULINGS.

Under this head the Grand Master presents a number of decisions and rul. ings, and abl~'" discusses them all at more length than we can give in this report. We have carefully examined each of these rulings and given them that attention that this Grand Lodge would expect we should devote to them, as t,heir Committee on Jurisprudence, and we see nothing- to dissent from in any


187~.J

Grand Lodge of Missouri.

63

of them. They are certainly the result of much thought and study on the part of the Grand l\'Iaster, and are approven by your committee. Respectfully sllbmitted, SAMUEL H. OWENS, WM. H. STONE, XENOPHON RYLAND, Oommittee.

MASONIC HALL BONDS.

The special committee on Masonic Hall Bonds submitted the following report: 'Po the .2JtIost W01'8hipful Grand Lodge of the State of J.Wis80uri: Your committee, to whom was referred the subject of tIle bonds to be issued for stock in the J\1asonic Hall Association, report as follows: We have made as full an examination of the snbject as our time would perluit, a,nd concur in the opinion of the committee appointed at the annual session of the Grand Lodge in 1870, that both contracting powers transcended their legal authority in issuing and accepting stock in said association; but aside from the legal questions involved, there are certain other questions, in our opinion, involving questions of good faith, and in order to bring the matter before the Grand IJodge, we deem it expedient to give as full a statement of facts as is in the power of your committee. At the annual session of the Grand Lodge in 1869, action was taken, assuming the paYlnent of certain bonds, and authorizing the taking of stock, which resolution reads as follows: Resolued, That this Grand Lodge assume the payment of the two hundred thousand dollar bonds, issued by the Masonic Hall Association, provided that stock if:; issued to the Grand Lodge by said association, to the amount of said assumption of payment by t,his Grand Lodge, as the said bonds are paid. Sixty thousand dollars of these bonds were issued and placed upon the market, and upon the faith ot' the action of the Grand Lodge, and the assurances of individual nlembers of that body, were disposed of principally to men1bers of the order. In one insta,nce, at least, a member of the order who had charge of the hard-earned funds of a widowed lady, desiring to aid the order, and considering the investment a good one, purchased two thousand dollars of said bonds, and the remainder of the bonds were disposed of under similar assurances and inducements. We, your committee, therefore think that something mOl'e than the legal question of legality or illegality is involved. rrhe indebtedness of the Masonic Hall Association, is as follows: First mortgage bonds $140,000 00 Six months' interest on same, now due................................ 5,000 00 Second mortgage bonds........................... 60,000 00 Interest for six months, no,v due......................................... 2,400 00 Third Inortgage bonds........ 25,000 00 Six months' interest, now due .. 1,000 00

Making a total indebtedness of ' $234,000 00 The principal of the first mortgage bonds will be due in 1884. The principal of the second rnortgage bonds will be due in 1874, but being owned or con trolled mainly by 111embers of the order, will not likely be demanded at that time, if tbe 3,ction of this body is favorable to t,he holders of said bondf'. The prillcipal of the third mortgage will be due in 1876. The interest on all of these bonds is payable semi-annually. Your committee also find that the aggregate "aluount of the rents for the entire building amounts to the sum of $12.000. The mortgage bonds bear interest at the rate of eight per cent., making the total interest account $18,000 per annum, or leaving in excess of revenue derived from rent, the sum of $6,000.


Proceedin.qs of t7~e

64

[Oct.

The current expenses of the building are as follows:

ig~~~1~::~ : : : : : : : : : : ":": : ": : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :::::::::::::::$i:~g200 ~00 For coal For repairs

1,100 00

Total $4,450 00 rrhis amount added to the interest account requires $23,700, from which deducting the rents, leaves a surplus to be provided for of $11,700. Your c01l1mittee are also of the opinion that by the appointment,ofaspecial agent to look after the renta.l interests, the amount of revenue derived from rents could be greatly increased. By t.he act of incorporation of the Masonic Hall Association, the propel'ty is forever exempt from State, city and county taxation, a franchise considered well worth $100,000. The proposed changes of prejudicial property in the vicinity of the bUilding and the location of the custom house within two squares of the bUilding, have already enhanced the value of said property and will in a short time greatly increase it. Should the bUilding be sold at present it would bring but a small proportion of its actual, to say nothing about its prospective value, or its special value in conseq,uence of its exemption from taxation, a franchise that could not be conferred upon its purchaser. Your committee further ascertain that the act of incorpo ration of the Grand Lodge has been amended so that it can now hold property to the amount of three hundred thousand dollars. Your committee would further state that if the said building should be sold, that body would lose ten thousand dollars stock now owned by it. Notices of protest have been served upon the officers of this body by parties holding these bonds, and the question of the responsibility of the Grand Lodge to the holders of these bonds will be tested in a legal manner, involving considerable expense in defending said suits, as well as the risk of a termination of said suits in favor of that body. Your committe~, therefore., while regretting the action of the Grand Lodge in 1~69, yet recognizing the embarrassing position in which we are now placed as the result of said action, and in vie'w of the fact that an issue of " preferred stock" of the Masonic Hall Association to the amount of $150,000 would be equiYale11t to an issue of the whole, and the vitrtual t?路ansfer of the whole prOpertll, would respectfully offer the following resolutions, and recommend their adoption: liJ'7te1'eas, In order to secure peace and harmony to the subordinate lodges of the State, and to sustain the plighted faith of the Most vVorshipful Grand Lodge of Missouri, therfore be it Resolved, That this Grand Lodge aSSUlne the payment of the two hundred thollsand dollars in bonds, issued by the Masonic Hall Association, P';'ovided, That .. preferred stock" in said association be issued to the Grand Lodge by said association to the amount of one 'hundred and fifty thou&and dollars ($150,000), and that no further issue of stock, either preferred or any other kind, be ever made by said association. Reso17'ed, That an assessment be levied upon subordidate lodges, for each member in good standing therein, of seventy-five cents per annum, to meet honds and interest falling due.. All of which is fraternally Rubmitted. JOHN W. LUKE, XEN .. RYLAND, JAB. E. CARTER, F. C. GILLETTE, SAMUEL R. PETERS, Committee.


Grand Lodge oj. Missouri.

1872.J

60

Which was adopted by the following vote, (Brothers W. H. stone and W. E. Glenn acting as tellers): Ayes.-Lodges Nos. 1, 2, 3, 9, 16, 17, 20, 22, 25, 31,32, 33, 34, 36, 37,38, 42, 43,48, 50, 51, 52, 59, 61, 76, 79, 81, 98, 106, 114, 129, 147, 149, 156, 163, 189, 197, 203, ~04, 208,218, 220, 230, 243, 251, 254, 264, ~65, 267,276, 285, 296, 299, 303, 323, 84.4,353, 355, 360, 375,381, 410.

Lodge vote, 310. Individual vote, 108. Total, 418. Noes.-8, 28, 44, 46, 49, 62, 67, 69, 78, 84, 89, 91, 92, 94, 105, 107, 110, Ill, 117, 125,

126, 127, 128, 133, 135, 142, 143, 151, 154, 160, 161, 165, 180, 184, 186, 188, 190, 194, 211, 221, 236, 245, 250, 260, 262, 266, 272, 278, 287, 292,880, 381, 333, 341, 343,346, 351, 361, 365,369,

371, 382, 886, 406.

Lodge vote, 320. Individual vote, 49. Total, 369.

RECONSIDERATION.

A motion to reconsider the above vote was made and the vote was reconsidered, when Brother Samuel H. Owens offered the following, which was adopted: Resolved, That the report of the committee be referred to the subordinate lodges for their action, and that. the Grand Master be required to instruct the District Deputy Grand Masters of the several districts to bring the whole question before said lodges, and that the Grand Mastel~ furnish the District Deputy Grand Masters with all the facts and circumstances connected with the same; and further, that the bond-holders be requested to defer any lc:gal action ill the premises until the next, meeting of the Grand Lodge.

Upon motion of Brother T. F. Norris, Brother A. McDowell was requested to exemplify the work of the 3d degree this evening. At 7 o'clock the Grand Lodge was called from labor until tomorrow morning at 9 o'clock.

FRIDAY, Oct. 18, 1872, 9 o'clock, Grand Lodge was called to labor by the Grand Master. Grand officers in their respective stations. Prayer by Grand Chaplain. Record of yesterday read and adopted.

A. M.

ABUSE OF BALLOT.

Brother Xen. Ryland offered the following, which was adopted: Resolved, That so much of the M. W. Grand Master's addresR as relates to the

abuse of the secret ballot, be printed in the form of...a circular; and that the Grand Secretary be directed to forward such circular to eaclllodge in the State and that the Worshipful Master of each lodge be, and is hereby orc10red to ('aUHe the same to be read at the next stated communication of the lodge nlter i ls reception.

5


66

Proceedings of the

[Oct.

PROPERTY OF JOHN DADE LODGE, No. 144.

rrhe following petition of Pythagoras Lodge U. D. was read, and the request granted: To the .i..",fost lVo'rshipjul G1'ana Lodge of Missouri: The undersigned, a member of Pythagoras Lodge U. D., to which lodge a oharter has been recommended, would, on behalf of said lodge, respectfully request that the property of John Dade Lodge No. 144, extinct, alluded to in the letter herewith filed, dated Sept. 22, 1871, be donated to Pythagor&,s, when regularlY' constituted. R. R. McGUIRE, Secretary, RT. LOUIS, October 17, 1872, HALL OF PYTHAGORAS LODGE, U. D. } CASSVILLE, BARRY COUNT!1... MISSOURI,

September

~,

1872,

To the Most WorshipjuJl <kana Lodge of J.l:fis80U'/'i:

The undersigned committee, appointed by Pythagoras Lodge U. D. to make an inventory of the property and effects belonging to John Dade Lodge, would respeC'tfully report that said lodge o\vned the following property to wit: Twenty-two feet, north and south, and thirty-two feet, east and west, in the south..east corner of lot No. 56, in the town of Cassville, in Barry county, MISsouri, of the value of twenty-five dollars; one chart, of the value of ten dollars; also one note on Wm. C. Ohristian, for $84.50, dated January 24, 1861, and due 40 days after date, with credit of twentY' dollars, May 16, 1861. They further report that John Dade Lodge went down, and ceased to exist during the late war, and many of its members now are members of Pythagoras Lodge. They there.. fore ask that saId property be donated to Pythagoras Lodge, Fraternally submitted, JOSEPH ORAYENS, GEO. HUBBUT, W. G. TOWNSEND, Committee.

PRINTING PROOEEDINGS.

Brother A. M. Dockery offered the following, which was adopted: .Resolved, That two thousand copies of the proceedings of this besslon printed, for distribution to Grand and subordinate bodies.

be

REPORT ON MIDDLEBURY LODGE, No. 141.

The committee submitted the following, which was adopted: 'lb the Most WO'i路shipju,l Grand Lodge of .2J:fissouri:

Your committee, to whom was referred the arrest of the charter of Middlebury Lodge, No. 141, alluded to by the Grand Master, in his annual address, would respectfully report that they have carefully examined the causes impelling the a.rrest of said charter, and as a result of their investigations cordially (~om.mend the action of the Grand Ma&ter, and recommend its approval by the Grand Lodge.


1872.J

Grand Lodge of Missouri.

67

The strifes and bickerings unfortunately largely prevailing among the membership of this lodge, together with an almost utter Indiffclrence to masonlO obligations on the part of many, are in the opinion of your committee of so grave a character, as to induoe them to the belief that the good name of the order demands that this lodge be deprived of its chartered rights. l1"raternally submitted, A. M. DOCKERY, XEN. RYLAND, W. H. McGRATH, Committee.

CHARITY.

The committee reported as follows, which was adopted: Th the Most Worshipful Grand Lodge, A. F. & A. M. :

Your Committee on Charity, would recommend that the sum of two hundred dollars be donated to the St. Louis Board of Relief, and one hundred and fifty to the Kansas City and St. Joseph Board of Relief, respectively; and further, that your committee report adversely to the petition of Mrs. Sara Allen, widow of D.. A. Allen, late of New Bloomfield Lodge, No.. 60. Respectfully, WILLIAM N. LOKER, JOHN M. OLDHAM. Committee.

GRIEVANCE.

The appeal of eighteen members of Athens Lodge, 127, in the case of William A. Hundley, was taken up, and on motion of Brother John E. Ryland, the case was sent back to the Lodge for anew trial. FRIEND LODGE, No. 352,

Upon motion it was voted to allow Friend Lodge, 352, to move into its new hall. REPORT ON LODGES U. D.-SUPPLEMENTAL.

The Committee reported, supplementary, as follows, which was adopted: To the M. W. Grand Lodge of A. F. and A. M. of the State of Missou/ri:

The undersigned, Committee on Lodges U. D., beg leave to make an additional report: . We have examined the record of Dauphine Lodge, Dauphine, OSAge county, and find that no days for regular meetings were ever adopted by the lodge, ommission of names of recommenders of petitions,:xn.d no instance of a petition everbeing regularly received, and in every instance candidates wC?re balloted for, for advancement, without being previously examined in open lodge. 'Ve would recommend that the dispensation be renewed.


68

Proceedi1~gs

of tlte

[Oct.

We find, SInce our previous report, that the minutes of one regular and two subsequent called meetings of Tuscumbia Lodge, Miller county, were not entered in the record book, because they had not been regularly approved by the lodge; this omission has since been rectified by the Worshipful Master, and we recommend that a charter be granted to said lodge. We would further recommend that as in our opinion the records of a lodge should not be approved until they are properly engrossed in the record book, and there is a ~ood reason for the apparent neglect of Tuscumbia Lodge; that hereafter i Ii shall be the duty of lodges U. D. to have read and approved the minutes of the last regular meeting held uuder dispensation, before the close of the same; that the records may be all signed by the Worshipful Master and Recretary before being presented to the Grand Lodge. All of which if; respe<:"tfully submitted. J.W. LUKE, c. R. GEE, JOHN J. SKINNER, Committep.

PROPERTY OF BOLIVAR LODGE, No. 41.

Brother Washington Galland submitted the following report, which was received and approved, and upon motion it was voted that further action relative to the custodianship of said property, be left to the judgment of the Grand Master: To the .J.1:f. 'ij': Grand Master 01 the Gl'and Lodge oj 2'r.fisso1.tri 0/ A. F. and A. Mason,'(' T. E. GARRETT, ESQ., 1\-1. W. SIR AND BROTHER:-B.V the order of your lamented predecessor, lVl. 'V. Grand Master Dunscombe, made about the first day of February, 1868, I was directed to demand, receive and take possession of the moneys, property, books, jewels and effects of Bolivar Lodge, No. 41, a lodge which had forfeited and lost its charter, and cea~ed to work, and to hold said property and effects sUbject to the order of the M. W. Grand Lodge, or its proper officers, and to report froIn time to time my doings and proceedings. l have hel,'etofore reported the disposition made of the charter, seal, jewels, books and properties of said defunct lodge, and it only remains for me to report the disposition made of the moneys and notes coming into my hands by virtue of said order. The M. W. Grand Lodge of Missouri, at its regular session in October, IH70, ordered that the moneys, notes and effects of Bolivar Lodge, No. 41, sbould be equally divided and donated by the M. W. Grand Lodge in equal parts, one half to Pleasant Lodge, No. - , at l\-lorrisville, Mo., and one half to Bolivar Lodge, No. 195, at Boli val', Polk county, Mo. In obedience to saId order, I have of the moneys received and collected on notes due to saId Lodge No. 41, and of the uncollected notes in my custOdy, made, and delivered to each lodge respectively one-half, as near as the same could be practically done; and for a detailed account of my proceedings thermo, reference is made to the statement accompanying, and made a part of this report. You ,vill observe thn,t Pleasant Lodge has received on its bhare of the notes uncollected, $5.76 more than Bolivar Lodge; this was because the noteH were of such amounts that they could not be more equally divided. I regret to be obliged to report that Brother John E. Rains, the acting' rrreasllrer of Lodge No, 41, who held in his possession the moneys, books and notes of said Bolivar Lo(lge, No. 41, manifested, at the tilne ofpresent.ing to him the order of M. vV. Grand Master Dunscombe for said money and properties, an


Grand Lodge oj路 Missouri.

1872.J

69

apparent nnwillingness to comply with said order by delivering up to the custodian the moneys and effects of said Lodge No. 41, being then the property of t.he Grand Lodge, and it was not un til a new and-peremptory order was made, and not until he had been repeatedly asked and demanded to deliver them up, that he finally complied by delivering up the properties and effects heretofore and herein reported and accounted for. But I have good reason to believe, and do believe, tbat he did not and has not delivered up all of the effects of said lodge, which "vere then, or have since been, in his possession or undE'1" his control; but the fact and the truth is, that he had then, or has had since, according to bis own statement, in open lodge, to wit, in Bolivar Lodge, No. 195, and also to several individual brethr~n out of the Lodge, another note for the sum oftbree hundred dollars, 0)' thereabouts, in favor of Bolivar Lodge, )roo 41, of which he said Brothers John E. Rains, IJeonard West, and Marion Devin, of Bolivar IJodge, No. 195, were and arp the makers and debtors, and that he, Brother Rains, still has continued to hold possession of said note, and has failed and refused to deliver up said note, or to execute another, or to pay any part of said note, and gives no other reason for his said failure and refusal to pay" or deliver up said notE', than that said note has been lost or mislaid since it came into his possession, as he claims and asserts, from the hand~ of a party who was not a Mason, and had no right or busines,,; whatever with the properties or effects of said BolIvar Lodge, No. 41, and who has not for several years been a resident of this town or county", and until quite recently was nota Mason. I hav~ suggested to said Brother Ra ins, that if he \\rould make a satisf~ctory arrangement with Bolivar Lodge and Plea~ant Lodge, in regft.rd to the payment of said note, or if he 'would execute his new not~ for $200, and Brother Devin would execute his note for $100, (Mr. West, the other party to the note, not being a resident of this State,) I would abate all the interest, amounting now to about $400, and give him a clear discharge from said obligation, by reason of said note. But he still declines, and refuses to do anything further in the matter. Not being authorized to do more than demand the delivery of these effects to me, and having done so, without my demand being l'egarded, I await, Sir, your further order or instruction in the premises. Respectfully and fraternally, yours, W. GALLAND, Oustoliian of effects Of Bolivar Lodge, No. 41, of A. F. and .A. Masons. STATEMENT.

W. Galland, as Custodian of the Effects of Bolivar Lodge, No. 41, in accou,nt with the Most Worship/ttl Grand Lodge of MisS01tri, Dr.

To amount of notes re0eived of J. E. Rains, Treasurer of Bolivar Lodge,

No. 41......................................................................................................... $989 76

To cash of same......

70 50

$1,065 31

To interest collected on the bond note..

32 50 114 00

To interest collected on the Mitchell note..................................................

Total receipts

$1,206 81

Contra, Or. By amount paid Pleasant Lodge, cash divided By notes divided By amount paid Bolivar Lodge, cash divided By notes divided

Recapitulation. Total amount received by custodian Amount paid Pleasant Lodge Amount paid Bolivar Lodge

Balance

$253 52 352 76

$606 28

$253 53

60053 --$1,20681

347 00

$606 28

$1,206 81

600 53

.

$1,206 81


Proceedin,gs oj' the

70

[Oct.

Received by Pleasant Lodge on division of notes more than Bolivar Lodge, $5.76, being of such amounts that they cannot be more nearly or equally divided.

ACCOUNTS.

Committee reported as follows, which was adopted: 'Ib the _'lJ.fost

lVo1'8hiPfl~l G~'and

Lodge 0/ Mis80u,ri:

Your Committee on Accounts beg leave to report, after an examination of the books, papers, vouchers and accounts, of the Grand Secretary and Treasurer, from October, 15, 1871, to October, 16, 1872, they tind the same correct, and that the Grand Secretary has received from all sources, the sum of $10,408 80 Which with balan(\e in hands of Grand Treasurer of 7,868 26

Makes a total of The Grand Treasurer paid out as per receipts

$18,276 56 7,875 00

Leaving balance in Grand Treasury of

$10,401 56

Your Committee have also examined condensed l'abular Statement, prepared by the Grand Secretary, in answer to the questions sent out to the subordinate lodges, showing the complete history and condition of each lodge mentioned therein. It has been prepared with great care by the Grand Secretary, and will be very valuable as a matter of reference. We recommend that it be printed with the proceedings of the Grand Lodge. FrateInally SUbmitted, JAS. E. CARTER, J. M. FOX, Committee.

WAYS AND MEANS.

Committee reported as follows, which was adopted: Ih the .J.lIost Worshipful G'l'ctnd Lodge of the State of .J.lf.is8ouri.·

Your Committee on Ways and Means beg leave to report that they find in $10t 401 56 and would recommend the follOWing appropriations: Grand Secretary for services $3,000 Grand Tyler................................... 150

the hands of the Grand Treasurer the sum of

~;f~\~~;rpr~~~e~f~~~~~.::::.·.·::::::.·::::::::.·::::::::::.'::::::.:'::::::::::::::.'::::::::::::::::

1,E88

Rent of office for Grand Secretary...................................................... 600 Contingent expenses (including insurance)............. 100 Care of Pt1.st Grand Master Dunscombe.............................. 600 Expenses in burying Past Grand Master Whitcomb...... 44 For portrait ot' Past Grand Master Penick......................................... 40 For payment of outstanding college claims....................................... 2t 500-$8,834 00 Leaving balance in Grand Treasury..................................... $1,567 56 In consideration of t.he fact thai the outstanding college claims have been reduced in amount, by application to lodge dues, until they can be fully paid olf by the surplus in the treasury, we recommend that they be paid according to their face value, and that the Grand Secretary be authorized to dra,v warrants on the Grand Treasnrer, to the extent of twenty-five hundred dollars, as this amount will most probably liqUidate all such claims, and should they exceed that amount t that the same be reported to the next Grand Lodge.


Grand Lodge oj路 Mi88ouri.

1872.J

71

We would recommend that the sum of forty dollars be paid J. J. Montgomery, that amount being due on a note held by him against Buffalo Lodge, No. 147, now extinct. Tbis amount was paid into the Grand Treasury by the Treasurer of Buffalo Lodge, at the time its charter was snrrendered. Fraternally sUbmitted, ALLAN McDOWELL, A. M. DOOKERY, J. M. FOX, Oommiitee.

COLLEGE CLAIMS. 1'0 thr Most lVo1'shiplul Grand Lodge of Misso1t1'i: The undersigned Committee on College Olaims, beg leave to report as follows We find that the claim of Brother Oharles Sterne of Wakanda Lodge, No. 52, as set forth in the memorhtl referred to the committee, is justly due and owing to hiru, and we recommend that a certificate of indebtedness foL" the sum of ~107.20 in full payrnent of s,tid claim be issued to Brother Sterne by the Grand Lodge. No action oftlus committee is required upon the memorial of St. Louis Lodge, No. 20, as provision for the payment of all outstanding college claims has been made by the Committee on Ways and Means. All of which is respectfully and fraternally submitted. XEN. RYLAND, P. S. PFOUTS, CHARLIE THAW, Committee.

FOREIGN CORRESPONDENCE.

Brother George Frank Gouley, Committee on Foreign Correspondence, submitted the following report, which was received, and ordered to be printed with proceedings. [See Appendix.]

PRINTING CORRESPONDENCE.

Brother A. M. Dockery offered the following, which was adopted: Resolved, That in ord~r to expedi te the publication of the proceedings of the Grand Lodge, hereafter the Grand Secretary be authorized to have the report on foreign correspondence printed in advance of the session of the Grand Lodge.

BRITISH COLUMBIA.

The Committee on Correspondence submitted the following, which was adopted: .Resolved, That the Grand Lodge of British Columbia be, and is hereby recogniZed as the Sovereign and Independent Masonic authority in that Province, as

at present defined.


Proceedings of the

72

[Oct.

Resolved, That such non-concurring Lodges under the Scotch and English Registry he recognized as worldng under their original charters, until such time as they may elect to become identified with the Grand Lodge ofBritish Columbia. Resolved, That the Grand Lodge of ~Iissouri desires for the Grand Lodge of British Columbia, a long continued existence of peace, prosperity, and usefulness.

UTAH.

The Committee on Correspondence, submitted the following, which was adopted: Resolved, That the "Grand Lodge of Utah," be, and is hereby recognized

as the Supreme Masonic authority within the Territory of Utah, as at present defined. Resolved, That the Grand Lodge of Missouri extends to said young Grand Lodge its sincere wishes for a long life of peace, prosperity and usefulness.

PAY OF GRAND LECTURER.

Brother A.IVL Dockery offered the following, which was adopted: Resolved, That the sum of one thousand dollars be appropriated to R. W.

Brother Allan McDowell, Grand Lecturer, for his services as such during the past year.

INSTALLATION.

The officers elect were duly installed into their respective stations, by the M. W. Grand l\'Iaster, Brother Thomas E. Garrett, Brother 8. H. Saunders, acting as Grand Marshal.

OFFICIAL APPOINTMENTS.

Brother Samuel H. Owens, M. W. Grand Master, announced tlhe following appointments: THOS. E. SHEPHERD, La Grange, Grand Ohaplain. JOHN D. VINCIL, Columbia, U JAMES M. HOLT, Canton, C. L. MAYO, Pleasant Hill, JOSIAH McCARY, Knob Noster, ELI OWEN, Maberly, WM. L. GITHENS, St. LouIs, W. E. GLENN, Rolla, Senior Grand Deacon. J. M. AUSTIN, st. Joseph, Junior Grand Deacon. THEODORE BRACE, Paris, Grand Marshal. H. S. WITHER8POON, Knob Noster, Grand Marshal. â&#x20AC;˘T. H. BETHUNE, Charleston, Grand Sword Bearer. H. J. DEMMING, Pleasant nUl, Grand Steward.


1872.J

Grand Lodge of Missouri.

73

c. H. GEE, Savanab, Grand Steward. JOHN D. 'VINCIL, Columbia, Grand Orator. R. E. ANDERSON, Palmyra, Grand Orator, O. A. CRANDALL, Sedalia, Grand Pursuivant. JAMES X. AI.lLEN, st. Louis, Grand Tyler. ALLAN McDOWELL, Greenfield, Grand L~cturer. GEO. FRANK GOULEY, St. Louis, Committee on Correspondence. (Pl'esen t address of Grand Lecturer is, "care of Grand Secretary, St. Louis.") DISTRICT DEPUTY GRAND MASTERS.

1. Lewis, Olark, Scotland and Knox cO'l.~nties-Thos.E. Shepherd, of Lagrange.

2. .Jfarion and Shelby counties-R. E. Anderson, of Palmyra. fl. Ralls, .Pike and 2JtIonroe counties-M. L. Tucker, of Louisiana. 4. St. Oha'rle,'!, Lincolnanr.Z Warrencounties-W.H. Muzzy, of Wentzville. S. Aud'rain and Montgomerv counties-John F. Tippett, of Price's Branch. 6. Boone and Howard counties-Wm. H. Carpenter, of Centralia. 7. Randolph, Chariton and Carroll counties-H. L. Gains, of Brunswick. 8. Linn, Macon and Adair counties-We T. Baird, of Kirksville. 9. Schyler, Sullivan and Putnam counties-J. G. Hart, of Unionville. 10. Grundy, Mercer and Livingston cO~tnties-Alex M. Dockery, of Ohillicothe. 11. Harrison, Gentry and Worth counties-Ahira Manring, of Gentryville. 12. Daviess, De Kalb and Caldwell counties-A. M. Irving, of Gallatin. 13. Olinton, Ray and Olay counties-James Y. Whitsitt, of Rainsville. 14. Platte, Buchanan and And'rew counties-D. P. Wallingford, of St. Joseph. 15. Holt, Nodaway and Atchison counties-Sam uel S. Kennedy, of Maryville. 16. ill. Louis county-Edward Spencer, of8t. Louis. 17. Jefferson and Franklin counties-Samuel M. Davidson, of Was bing ton. 18. Stâ&#x20AC;˘ .Francois, Ste. Genevieve and Madison co'Umties-Cyrus H. Harris, of Knob Lick. 19. Cape Girardeau, Perr.l! and Bollinger counties-Wm. B. Wilson, of Cape Girardeau. 20. Pemiscot, New Madrid, lrfissis8tppi and Scott counties-Robert A. Hatcher, of New Madrid. 21. Dunklin and Stoddard counties-To B. Turnbeaugh, of Four Mile. 22. Butler, Carter, Ripley and Wayne counties-Joel Yancy, of Greenville. 23. Washington, Iron and Reynolds counties-B. Shepherd, of Ironton. 24. Gasconade, Osage and Maries counties-D, M. Caughell, of Chamois. 25. Orawjord, Phelps and Dent counties, and Sullivan Lodge, No. 69-Thomas C. Harrison, of Arlington. 26. Oregon, Shannon. Texas and Howell counties-J. A. Rice, of Alton. 'rI. Cole, Moniteau and Miller counties-L. F. Wood, of California. 28. Pulaski. Camden, and Laclede counties, and Iberia Lodge, No. 41o-A. L. McGregor, of Arlington. 29. Douglass, Ozark, 'laney and Ohristian counties-James L. Robberson, of Ozark. 30. Webster, Wright and Green counties-Noah A. Hampton. 31. Newton, McDonald, Barry and Stone counties-James Robinson, of Neosho 32. Lawrence and Jasper counties-G. M. Robinson, of Carthage. 83. Dade, Barton and Vernon counties-John W. Dunn, of Lamar. Polk, Dallas, Cedar and Hickory counties-B. L. BrUSh, of Half-Way. 85. Henry and St. Olair counties-Benj. F. Quarles, of Huntingdale. 36. 018s county-No M. Givan, of HarrisolTVille. 37. Benton and Morgan counties-J. V. Allee, of Versailles. 38. Cooper and Pettis counties-B. H. Ingram, of Sedalia. 89. Saline and Lafayette counties-X en. Ryland, of LeXington. 40. Jack80n county-W. E. Whiting, of Kansas City.


Proceedings of the

74

[Oct.

41. New Mexico-W. W. Grifin, of Santa Fe. 42. ~Tejferson county-( Vacancy). 43. Callaway county-D. D. Ford, of Fulton. 44. Johnson co'Umty-Geo. R. Hunt, of Warrensburg. 4.5. Bates county-F. V. Holloway, of Butler.

Brother Samuel H. Saunders, Past Grand Master, oftered the following resolution, which was duly considered: Resolved, That the subordinate lodges be and are hereby requested to loan to the Grand Lodge, at least the sum. of twenty-five dollars each, until the next annual convocation, payable to the Grand I.lodge within sixty days.

This resolution was fully discussed by the members present in conjunction with the President of the Masonic Hall Association, and it being positively understood that its~adoption by the Grand 'Lodge would in no wise commit this Grand body as a corporation to any confession of judgment, or of any indebtedness arising fronl any suit now pending, or to be instituted by said Hall Association; but that the loan was asked for to be used only as a temporary com.. promise for staying a threatened suit against the Grand Lodge without being used prejudicial to its interests, it was adopted with but four dissenting votes. There being no further business presented, the record was read and adopted as correct. At twelve o'clock. meridian, the Most WorshipfUl Grand Lodge, Ancient, Free and Accepted Masons, of the State of Missouri, wa~ closed in AMPLE FORM:. Prayer by Grand Chaplain_ ATTEST:

Grand JSecreiary_


PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO CONSTITUTION.

The following proposed amendments were read by the M. W. Grand Master, according to law, and are herewith published and submitted to the subordinate lodges in accordance with Sec. 2, Art. V. of the ConstItution of the Grand Lodge of MIssouri, and to which Section the attention of subordinate lodges is particularly called: pTirst-Offered by Brother Daniel Moody: Amend Section 2, of Article V. of tbe Constitution, by striking out the entire sec-tion, and insert in lieu thereof:-Any alteration or amendment of this Constitntion shall be reduced to wrIting, and read on three several days, and be published with 1.l1e proceedings of this Grand Lodge, and lie over until the next annual communication and shall be again read, and, if approved by two-thirds of the members present, shall become a part of the OODstitution ot this Grand Lodge. Second-Offered by Brother S. B. Pallen: Amend Section 1, Article 2, of the Constitution, by adding the following:U And Past Masters of other j urisdi ctions, who may have become affiliated wi thin this jurisdiction for one year." Third-Offered by Brother N. B. Giddings: Resolved, That the Constitution of the Grand Lodge of A. F. and A. M., of the State of Missouri, be amended by adding the following, Which, when adopted, shall bet:>ome Section 3, of Article IV.: REC.3. Each lodge represented in the annnalcommunications of the Granel Lodf(e shall ann ually reCleve from the GraIld Lodge three dollars for each day the lodge is represented in such annual comrnunlCation, and ten cents for every mile from t.he place where the lodge is held, to the place where the Grand Lodge Ib held.;. the distan("e to be determined by the nearest usual traveled route. Provided, That the amount of such mileage and pe1' diem received by the representative, does not exceed one-half of the amount of dues paid in, The apportionment of Inileage and per diem, and the payment of the same to be arranged and determined by a standing committee, acting under such regulations as the Grand Lodge may from tiIne to time determine by resolution. No representative shall recieve any ap~ortionmentfrom such fund who js not a regular attendant upon the Grand Lodge, or shall be excused by the Grand Master or Grand Lodge. FOlÂŁrtlt.-Offered by Brother Hemphill : .Resolved, That the Constitution of the Grand Lodge of A. F. & A... M., of the state of Missouri, be amended by adding the follOWing, Which, when adopted shall become section 3, of Article IV. : SEC. 8. Each lodge represented in the annual communications of the Grand Lodge, shall annually receive from the Grand LOlige three dollars for each day thelodge is represented in such aDnuRl communication, and ten cents for every mile from the place where the lodge is held, to the place where the Grand Lodge 1s held, the distance to be determined by the nearest usual traveled route.


PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO BY-LAWS.

The folloWIng proposed amendment to the By-Laws of the Grand LodgE: wa~ read on three several days, and ordered to be printed with the proceedings, for the consideration of subordinate lodges. Amend sub-division 1, sec. 1, Article XVIII, ofthe By-Laws by adding thereto as follows: And should any member fail to report to his lodge for the space of thr~ years-peace and harmony thronghout the country prevailing-be shall be considered as either dead or recreant, and may be stricken from the rollh, without formality of trial.


IN MEMORY OF

GEORGE WHITCOMB PAST GRAND

MASTER,

OF THE

GRAND LODGE OF MO. DIED IN CHARLESTON, MISSISSIPPI CO., MO•

.:rULY

1.0, :1872,

IN THE FIFTY..NINTH YEAR OF HIS AGE.

• He was buried in Bellefontaine Ce'1netery, St. Louis, July 14th, withjull Masonic Honors, by the M. w: Grand Lodge j Thos . E. Garrett, Esq., Grand Master, presiding.. Bein.g strongly imbued with the exalted principles of

Freemasonry, he lived a life of sterling humanity, and died deeply regretted by all who knew h.im.


A P PEN D I X.


REPORT ON CORRESPONDENOE. •

I submIt here"with roy Annual Report on Correspondence, which elnbraces a review of the pro<-eedings of forty-tlvp American and Canadian Grand Lodges, and sixteen Enrope~1,n nnd South Alnerjean Gritnd Bodi(?s, the lntt.er being t1. cond(~n"ed revie,v of the report of the New York: CommUt.e-e, to whon1 we are indebted for faithful translations: ARKANS.-\.S, Nov. 6,1872.

ALABAMA, Dec. 4, 1871. BRITISH COLUMBIA, Oct. 21, CALIFOR:NIA, Oct. 10, 187l.

lS71~

CANADA, July 10,1872. COLORADO, Sept. 26, 187l. CONNEOTIOUrl\ MaJr 8, 1872.

DELAWARE,

*

DIST. OF COLU~fBIA, Nov. 8, 187l. FLORI DA, Feb. 13., 1872. GEORGIA, Oct. 13, 187!. IDAHO, Oct. 21, 1971.

ILLINOIS, Oct. 3,187!. INDIANA, l\1ay 28,1872. IOWA, June 4, 1872. KANSAS, Oct. 18,1871.

KENTUCKY, Oct. 16, 1871. LOUISIANA, Feb. 12,1872. MAINE, :May 7, 1872. MARYLAND, May 13, 1872. MASSACHUSETrrS, Dec. 27, 1871. MICHIGAN, Jan. 9, 1872. MINNESOrrA, Jan. 9,1872.

MISRISSIPPI, Jan. 22, 1872. lVIONTANA, Oct. 2,1871. NEBRASI{A• .l; NEVADA, Sept. 19, 1871NEW BRUNSWICK, Sept. Z7, 1871 .. NEW HAl\IPSHIRE, May 17, ]872. NEW JERSEY, Jan. 17, 1872. NEW YORK, June4, 1872. NORTH UAROLIN A, Dec. 4, 187L NOVA SCOTIA. ~ OHIO, Oct. 17, 1871. OREGON."" PENNSYLVANIA, Dee. 27, 1871. RHODE ISLAND. * SOUTH OAROLINA, Nov.. 21,1871. TENNESSEE, Nov. IS, 187L TEXAS, June 10, 1872. UTAH, January 16,1872. VERMONT, June 14, 1871. VIRGIN lA, Dec. 11, 187!. WASHING~rON TER., Sept. 21,1871. WEST VIRGINIA, Nov. 14, 1872. WISCON~IN, June 11, 1872.

In this review 'we have placed nnder the head of MAINE, our report on the case, for the reason that the proceedings of MAINE were t11e first we took up, also because that Grand Lodge, through its foreign correspondent, is most identified with the case; therefore each corresporrdent will find under QUEBEC

that head our replies on that question.

\Ie

No proceedings received in time to report.

Bl


2

Appendix.

[Oct.

ARKANSAS. Grand Lodge nlet in Little Rock, Nov. 6,1871, Samuel W. Williams, Grand :Master, presided. He said: 1. I decided that a man, whose right knee was so stiff that he could not bend it, could not be initiated. 2. .A, man who lives within the jurisdiction of one Lodge, and is froln hOlne, and does business within the jurisdiction of another, must apply for initiation to th~ Lodge within whose jurisdIction his 110nle is situated. . 3. That Sections ;31 and ;J2, of Regulations of Grand Lodge of Arkansas as pUblished in proceedings of 1866, in so far as they might be in conflict, Section ;{2 was law; being last adopteLl by the Gn1nd Lodge. Bnt, for offences under Section 32, unless habitual, nothing fnrther tlH1n private admonition bv the officers, or a commIttee of the Lodge, which should be a,ppointed to adm()niRh. Charges should not be preferred for accid~ntal or single offence. The sections npon which this decision was luade, are found on page HH of the proceedings of 186u, and are as follo\vs: SEC. 31. Intoxication, unless hn.bitu~tl in its character and per~isted in after at lea,st one adrnonitioll, does not constitute a sufficient ground for the intliction of the pun islllnent of expnlsion. 1851, page 20. SEC. 32. Any kind of gambling, profane swearing, or the in temperate use of ardent spIrits, is nnrnasonic; and the Grand Lecturer is requested to give the same in charge to the Rubordinnte Lodges; and I:>uch as arc guilty of liuch unnu1sonic C'ondnct shall be snbject to adnl0nition, suspension or (J.rpul.~ion. Pro. 1853, page 70. It \vill be seen that the apparent conflict here is, that Section 31 forbids expulsion, unless the intoxicatIon is habitual, and persisted in, HJter at least one adrnonltion, while by Section 32, the Lodge is empo,-\yered to admonish, suspend, or e"(路pel for any kind of intemperate use of ardent spirits. I felt it to be my duty to advil-.0 t.he Lodge asking fily construction, that taking both sections together, that it should not exercise its dlseretion beyond adrnollitioll, unless the offence of drunken ness was habitual, or persistently repeated. 4. A Brother applies to affiliate and is rejected, he after\vards applies to visit and was <tenied by the Master~ Held, that In such case the brother was not wilfully non-affilIated, and we could not, 1orc~e H, condItion on a brother and then punish hinl for being- non.affiliated; if otherwise worthy, he had the right of visiting ~hat. every Iuernher III good standing of another Lodge had, subject to the rights find power of the l\:laster to reject, if he saw proper; but in such ease, the .l\Iaster shonld not exercise his dil::lcretion allver~ely to the applicant liinlply because he h non-atfilinted. And here, brethren, penn It 111e to say that we ought to cOluplail1 le~s at non-affiliates or let them into our l.Joclges more readily. If a MasolllS not a good luan, prefer charges against him, and let Masonry be no nlore cnrsed with 111m, holding its rights, sucll as they are in a llon-affiliatt\ and any Lodge in whose jurisdiction he lives can do this. If he be a good man, receive hinl. \Vhen you cast your black ball ngainst. an applicant for affiliation, you virtually give him the benefits of Masonry 'without its burdens, dues and attendance. 5. ...'\ Brother, against Wh01l1 charges are pending, dies before trial. HeIrl, in accordance \vith the decision of this Grand IJodge, heretofore rendered, that his fa.mily have the snme Masonic rights that the talnily of any other :Mason bitS. Every man is presulued to be innocent until hIS gUilt is legally established, and death abates the charges, so that guilt conld never he legally E'stablished.

6. That when a brother is in arrear for dues, the Hecretary, by order of the Lodge, nlust snmnl0n hun for n day certn.in, regular meeting, to show cause whj' he ~lloulll not, be sllspended, and on the day ~et, the Lodge must find his dues in arrear and not paId, and t.hat he had been duly notified, when he wOl1ldstand Huspend~d by the hy-laws, and the :Master should so declare, unless the Lodge finds a satisfa.ctory' excnse a.nd so vote, and in so rleclaring, the MaRtE-r but announced a result of the effect of the by-laws; but the lVIaster has no rigbt to declare a brother sUbpen<1ecl in Ruch case, until he was thus regularly con路 demned as In arrears. That is my cODr,truction of Se<:tion 13 of the Uniform Code. I think, \vhen the fact of being one year in arrears, and notice is established, t,he defaulting brother stands suspended by the law, aI1d the Master must so declare, unless the Lodge affirmatively excuse by vote.


1872.J

Append'ix~

3

7 That a Master has a right to postpone the balloting for initiation after a ~(1vorable report, for reasons lrl10wn to hImself", with or without consent of the Lodge, peill.g: anlenable only to the Grand Master or Grand Lodge for abuse of discretIon, If any. 8 That a Lodge might close at a regular meeting to a day certain, for the purpose of finishing unfinished bUbiness; and such meeUng for that purpose would be a regular nleetlng; but at such second meeting the Lodge should not reconsider ,vhat had been done at the fir8~ meeting, unless the lnotion was then made ~1,nd laid over, hc<?ul1se merubers Inlg1~t be fLbsent at ~ecol1d meeting who bad regarded the questIon DR settled at the first. 9. That a petitioner for a new Lodge after Dispensat,ion granted, who wiRhed to dinlit before ~ charter i~ ~ranted, must applJ:" to the Lodge to which he belonged before slgnIng the petItIon. But such dlmlt would not make the brother non-affiliated, unless he applIed to the Grand Master or Grand Lodge to be striclren frorn the (U8pel1~ation before charter was granted. That the grant of a chnrter would make hiln a nlember of the new Lodge; nnu a Wardell Inust in such case surrender his o4ice to the Graud ~!aster ana let him appoint a new Warden before the grant of ·hE· charter. This question in the forrn presented, is new but I think, it is the legltilnate and rationa,l result of holding that the meIDb~rRhip of one who signed a petition for dispensation, ·was rnerely suspended in bis parent Lodge, to tall back if a chs,rter was not granted. '1'11e only doubt I felt upon the qnestion "was, whether the parent Lodge In such case, had any jurisdlCtion over a. sURpended membership; but in cOl1l::liderat,ion that the "reversion, so to speal{, \vhich the parent Lodge had, could be yielded, and that the <Unlit coulu be given alld would have the effect of so cutting the member loose that. he would not /all back, and 'would beCOIue non-atliliatcd if OJ cbfLrter WfU; llot granted. It is perhaps well known, that il1.y private opinion is t.hai, when 1\ dispensation iR granted, all signers of the petition ought to become ip.so {('teta dilnitted from the old and becorne 11lelubers of the new' Lodge .... but this 'Grand Lodge having pa&t an edict, or regulation to the effect, that in ~uch case, Ule petitioner 1 s luembership st,ood qua8i suspended in the old Lodge, until a ('ha.rter was gntnted, \vhen he becolne a lu6Inbe1' of the new Lodge, and ceu,sed to be a Inelnber of t.he old. ':Phe question proposed to lue, and 'which it beeomc nece&sary to decide, was this: A brother in that situation bad left the country and wished to attach hunself to ft, Lodge where he moved, Qu,estion-" \Vhere ~han I apply for a dinlit "?" lIe was a Warden of the ne'w Lodge. I directed him to apply to the parent Lodge, get a dimit and recolnmend to lue a new 'Varden, and I \vould a,ppoillt him, and strike his name fronl. the dispensation, O!" he could \~rait until a charter was gra.nted to the new Lodge and get a dimit there; Which, I snpI>ose, he concluded to do, as I did llot hear further from him. 10. That a Ineulber of a Lodge shonlclnot RiLY that, he did not cast a blaek ball; becau&e, each nlcnlber \vould ha,ve the same right, and thereby the secrecy of the bitUOt would hp invaded, and that it ,vas nnrnasollie for any Mason to declare openly that he would l>lael;:: ball any and all .Je\vs \vho avplied to his IJodge and tlH1t, to do AO per~istently, \vas a l\Iasonic offence. I hold, that no man- should be proscribl>U for his religlon, provided he believes in God, and the iInmortality of the soul, and if a brother so far forgets 11lmself as to vote against a llUtU. not on aceOl1ut of himHelf, but because 11e is 3, .Tew, a Methodist, it Baptist, or a Presbyterian, or any other religion, and is imprudent enough ~o to d(.lclare, should he at lE'u,st severly repremanded, if not expelled. 11. 'rhat a majority vote \vas sufficient to dilnit a brother applying for it. That while it requires two-thirds to sllspcn(lor expel a, in'other, he may retire voluntn,ril~"',by the consent of the IrUljOrity present at a regular meeting. 12. 'l'hat the fanli1y of a ,vilfnlly non-affiliated lYIason had no l\-fasonic rights

or statuR.

13. That on a ~Iasonic trial, the Tyler waR present, 111USt be counted in deterInining the two-thirds vote, and mu~t vote, and to do so intelligently, Itnu;{, hear 1,he cvidellee talreu, or read; tlnd for this purpose the outer door Rhonld be closed, and he shonl<l come inside and hear the evidence as above bLated, and vote. The Lodge in such ease, \vould only be in the same condition of 11 Masterg' Lodge ,vith three present, or Fellow-Crafts' 1viLll five, or au Entered Apprentices' Lodge with seven. That iR, be for tl1e tilue being, 'without a Tyler, Which is only a precautionary, not an indispensable office, nor is his presence at the uoor necessary to the eXistence of the Lodge, however proper and necessary on ordinary OCciLsions it rnay be, that ht: should be there. 14. Two Inc-nlberfo; of .Tacob Brunlp IJodge, signed the petition, and were nam~d III tho dispensation granted to Hed Bluff· Lodge; Jacob Brnrnp Lodge ('ontlnucd to charge dues, after dnte of dispensation; and althongh the brothers had paid their dU€'8 up to tho dn,te of dlspensatioll, Rnid Lodge proceeded to suspend theIll. I held, first, that eyen if dues where owing Jacob Brurnp Lodge, she had no remedy but to forward the account to Red Bluff Lodge and require it to COllect, or discipline for non-pa,yment. ~econd. That after date of dispensa-


4

A.ppendix.

[Oct.

tion the memberRhip of the brotbers in Jacob Brnmp Lodge was in "abeyance " and 'no dues accrued against thern in that Lodge after that dat.e. ' 15. I was inforlned that certain non-affiliated ~Iasons claimed rights in the Blue Lodge, because they where affiliated intlle chapter. I instructed the Master of the Lodge to treat therrl as non-affiliates, if they where not members of some regnlar Lodge; that the Blue IJodge could kno,v nothil~g a1:?0ut tJ:eir cOllnection with the chapter 01' other orders, and could do nothIng ln reference to such connection. 16. Charges where regnlarly preferred,with specifications, and at the trial the Lodge found not guilty upon the specifications, and on voting upon t.he charge found guilty and suspended the accused. I held the su~pension to be good: the trial was upon charge, the specification 'was, or ought to have been, but elabortion of the charge, shOWing particular facts, and if ignoring them dispORed of the charge, why vote last upon that, as required by the law of trials路 and if the vote when taken, resulted in finding the charge true, 1 know of law to prevent the consequence, although the Lodge might have acted whirnsi('ally in ignoring special facts and finding the general charge true. 17. I decided that for a l\fason to plead the statute of limitation against a debt due another l\1ason, ,vaK not H..Masonic oftence, and for the sanle reason I decide<.l that it ,vas not a MaRonic offence for one nlason to Hue another ,vithout bringing the matter before the Lodge. Because, atthethreshhold of Masonry we tell the Initiate that it is not to interfere with his rights, privileges or opinionR, civi1~ politic-al or religions. flow then can we set ourHolves above law, and abriage the civil rights of our Dlembers, or incumber them 'with conditions. I regarded this question ~ts virtuall;)-" settled by the Grand Lodge at the session of 1868, when it was held that to plead bankruptcy, in such case, "vas not a lVlu/,;Olli(' offence. .A.11 these questions are referttble to the sanle greatJ principle, that Masonry does not assume to be above the law, or to punIsh her menlbers for obeying, or cl~timillg rights under any hnv pabsed by the sovereign power, and it seems to me, that this ought to be nlore impressed upon our Lodges, for repeatedlyh~Ye questions like this COIne up here. lVlasol1.ry teaches patient Rubmission to laws,:::1.ud does not illlpair the civil or political rights of any mau.

an no

18. That ~1 J\iIason who signed the petition for a ne"w Loage, and whose narne appeared in the dispensation, was so far a Inenlber of the Lodge under dispensation, as to sUbject him to discipline therein, although he had never attended or paid d nes. 19. A brother aRked: "\Vha.t is the po\ver vested in yourself, as Grand .Mastel', to make an individual ft, Master l\lason at, sight, fLnd \vhether, if you ,vere ('onvince(l that such au indiVidual ,val') ,vorLhy, I would be 'willing to exercise the power, and what steps it ,vould be necessary for us, the applicant and his friends, to take in the matter?" 1J'he sanle brother informed me that the il1dividual referred to, was an E. A., of unblemh;hed reput~1tion, honorable and upright in every way, and who would lnake a bright, active, working Mason; but being refused the F\ O. degree, It was a source of no little rnortificatlon to him and those of his friends who know there is no ju.st co,use why he should be kept, from advancing. I replied, thf"lJtas I understood t.he powerR and rights of a Grand Master in the premises, it if-t to cOlnmunicate in due forru the secrets of ~lasol1ry, with or wUhout cerem.:>nies, to ~tny male candida.te of lawful age, otherwise qualitied, that he may select, upon his entering into the necessary obligations on bis par~ to make hin1 a JUasoll, and for the purpose of perforrniEg the ceremonies, the urand Master might call to his assistance it Lodge or lVlasons, or may act alone; for if' the power anlounts to anything, the Grand lVIaster III ust be competent to act alone; otherwiRe, it is no po\ver, for he is dependent upon others to assist; and when Masonry began, Granu. ~h1.sters had thus to make Masons, an<.l "in countries where MitSOn~ were few and far bet\veen, it lnight be done yet, with propriety, for the purpose of forlning new Lodg:es. But, in Arl{allSaS we have enough Louges to work. up all onr 111t1terial, and I ,vould not exercise f,l1e power, in any case, except by d.ispensing with time, in favor of a Lodge duly applying, and WOUIUluucn less do it ,vhere t.he ttpplicant has been rejected by a LoClge. To the ./.1fosl TVo?路shiPful G'ran(l Lodge of the Stale of .rl1路kansas:

The Committee on Masonic Law and Usnge have had under consideration so much of the Address of the M, W. Grand Master as relates to the ueci::;ions made by him, and respectfnlly and fraternally report, t,h~1Jt they find it to bo in accordance ,vith settled 1\iasonic la.w, and recolumentl the approval of decisions numhered 1, 2, 3, 1, 5. U, 7, 9,10, 11, 12, 14, 15, 10, 18 and 19. Def'lsion No. 8, the~r believe" to be correct, "when understood as the 1\'1. W. Grand Master douhtless intended it, to be, but to prevent a lnisapprehension of terms used b~" hirn, they recomrnend t.he words H continuation oj the " be inserted


1872.J

.A.ppe1~dix.

5

before the word" regu,la'r," as used in the third liue of the printed decision, so as to make it read thus: That a. Lodge might close a regular meeting to H, da.y certain for the purpose of tinishiug unfinished business, and such meeting for that pu'rpose would be a " continuation of the" reguh\r nleet.ing, etc., etc. With this change of phraseology merely, the Committee recommend the approval of the whole of this decision. The Comnlittee reconlmend the approval of decision No.13;wi tIl a qualifying renlarlr upon one expression used in it. The M. 'V. Grand :t\'faster says that the o:ftlce of Tyler "is only a p'rec(tutiona1'y, and not an indispen,sable office." The Com.mittee beg leave to say that, by the land-nlarks of J\fasonry, the office of Tyler is inrllspensable. That every Lodge 1l1ust be duly tyled. But the duties of th~ office may, and rllust of necessity, be performed by a Brother tilling another office if ther'e are not lVla~ons enoug-h present at any Lodge meeting to fill all the offices. And as well decided by the M. Grand Master, occasions lnay arise when the Brother discharging the dut,ies of'Tyler, must leave his post without the inner door, after Hecurlug the approach ,vays to the Lodge, and be within for the discharge of (ther dnties.

'V.

In derision No. 17 the 1V1:. \V. Grand ~IH,ster ~"'tnnounces as general propositions of Masonic la,v, that it is not a l\1:asonic offense for a J\'Iason to plead the statute of lilnitations against a debt due another l\1ason; and that it is not a 'Masonic offense for one ],1:ason to sue another, without. bringing the matter before the Lodge. These proposi tlOl1S are based on the general rule, correctly ~tated by the M. W. Grand lVlaster, that lYIasonry does not deprive a man of the privilege of availing hirnself of n.ny legal right, or legall'ernedy, secured to him by the civil law. And hence, as general propositions of l\fasonic l~L"w, the Cornmittee concur in them. But there may be instances in 'which it 'would be immoral and unmasonic, though laWfUl, for a Mason to plead the statnte of limit,ations against a debt due bis brother. For example: Where a Ma::;on is justly iudehted to another, a.nd begs for, and obtains indulgence, on faith in prOlUise~ to pay, until the period of limHation runs out, it would be immoral and unIl1nso'nic to fa,lsify his prolnises, and avail himself of the naked legal bar.

So we think that a }\fason should not go to law ,vith his brother, untillle is satisfied by the failure of milder and more fraternal nleans, that his brother will not render to hinl that 'which he elairns to be justly due, \vithout a resort to legal coercion. Having made these remarks upon decision No. 17, the Oommittee recommend its approval as a correct declaration of general principles of Masonic law. In conclusion the COlumittee beg leave to add, that th.e decisions of the M. W. Grand Master have manifestly been made \vith great care and investigatiou, and are so ~eneral1y correct, that 'we have hesitated to differ from him in the exceptional instances not.ed above. Also: In t路his jurisdiction all ballotillg is done in the l\faster's Lodge, a,nd it laity open and work with not less than three members present. No mall can be entered, or adlnltted to melnbership in a Lodge, without t.he unanimous consent of all the IlH--ulbers present when the ballot is taken. When the requisite number of rnembors to open ~t J\.faster's Lodge is present, they Inay legally ballot upon pl-)Utions; but the Master should in the exercise of a sound discretion, postpone the ballot when but fe"w of the nlernber8 are pre~ent. We, however, know of no absolute rule requiring the presence of seven members to authorize tt ballot. If three members can vote, ,ve wonld like to know what the Committee mean by a few. 'Ve should think the door for candidates in Arkansas is left pretty wide open. Bro. O. C. Gray, Grand Ora.tor, delivered a fine address, but our space wiJ.l not pertuit extractB sufficient to do it justice, Bro. B. S.. Johnson sul.nnitted an excellent report on correspondence. Under the head ot' AI,.IABAMA, he ~a;ys: Were ,ve (editorially speaking) the lYIaster of a Lodge, and a candidate foJ:' such degree p~\sscd a perfect exaluination, and 'was on that 1?;round en titled to receive it, bnt ,vas vot<:>d ag~tinst, 'we would require the objector to give his reason for such objection by prefel'riug his charges, and.J.utving them inquired into, and upon his refusal so to do, we would order the cltndidate to be received. We hardly think this is consistent with Arkansug lavv-it is certainly opposite to the decisions of Grand Master Smith, in 1856, aB well as opposed to the


Appendix.

6

well established principles of the "right of objection," Regulations."

[Oct. gu~tranteed by

the" Old

Under the head of KANSAS, he says: "Resolvecl, rrhat the petition of every candidate for the degrees of Masonry contain a statement, that the candidate never h~R applied to any other Lodge for the degrees of :Th.lasonry and been rejected; and if th(\ candidate 'cannot sign such statenlent, the petition shall Hot be received until the consent ot" the Lodge which rejected the candidate shall have been obtained." No\v', 'we deem the intent of this resolution to be ~" ~ood oue, and we COlnluend the saIne to the faithful, wheresoever the same llW.y be, &cattel'ed ttround the habitable globe, and all other places. We 'will then have no such thing a~ men who have-been repeatedly and tilne and again, in fact very often, rejected by Lodges where they are known, coming ftud applying to Lodges 'where they 1.11'e strangers, and, because no one knows anything a!.w,in~t theIn, being received as worthy mernbers. Let this be carried out, and it \vould do much towards lnaintaining the high standard of the Craft. sh~tll

Correct. The Missouri petition requires the same thing. Under the head of MINNESOTA, he says: Under the review ofMIOHIGAN,

\VB

find the following:

"The following resolution, reported from the COlnmittee on Masonic Lnw, adopted: " Resolved, That it is the right of a subordinate I..lodge to require of a lHembel' suspended for non-payment of dues, as a COll(fition of l'estor~l,tion, the payluent of a sun'l equal to the ~UllouUt of dnes durIng the term of suspension, in addition to his dues at the time of his suspension." Concerning which the Committee remarked: "This strikes us as rather queer. ~Iichigan stands alone in this proposition." Ob no, brethren! not alone now! The G. 1\.1. (Which lneans "good Tuan") of .t"\.labanu1J, has tak.en the Michigan vie'N of the ca:.-.~, and see our review of Ala bama \vhere we have added the enclOl'8ernent of OUR opinion to t,he Alabanla decision, and that settles the quest.ion. So not. alone now, brethren, not now!! wa~

M

We must sa:}'!', also, H this strikes us as lather queer." 'Vo cannot for the life of us see the justice of luaking a man pay for ti Iue of suspension, when he is deprived of all bmll:>fits. We do think that suspeubion is for the purpose of punishment, and 110t for revenge. Under the head of l\IrsSIsSIPPI, he refers to a decIsion which t-:.llo\vs the "V. M. to decide upon the !l1erits of objections by a member against a vi::,itor, and Brother Johnson trnly says:

We differ with Bro. Fearn upon his first decision, because, on the genel'u,l Masonic principle that it is the special duty of the l\fagter to preserve the h~tr­ Inony of the Lodge, tho deciAion \vouid be that, he cannot; nor call he tlf'nlanU the reasons for sucll objection, any more than in case of rejeetiol1 on ballot; 1.1.&, in either casâ&#x201A;Ź', the right to demand thenl presupposes t.he 'right to f)et Hsiue or overrule them, 'which it is eoncl?decl, neither the Mastc'!' or the Lodge possesseb. Objections belong to the individual, and not to the Lodge.

We find no reference to QUEBEO, and refer hirn to onr report, under the head of J\:1AINE, on that subject. Samuel W. Williams, Little Rock, Grand Master: Luke E. Barber, LU,tl'e Rock, Grand Secretary.

ALABAMA. Grand Lodge met in Montgomery, Dec. 4,1871, Joseph H. Johnson, Deputy Grand Master, as Grand Master, presided. He said: Brethren of the G'rand Lodge: . I. \.ssembled again, in the providence of God, in Grand Annnal COlumunication, we cast our eyes toward the East but to find the Light extinguished, and


1872.J

.Appendix.

7

the seat of Ollr GrHlld Master occupIed by another. Sumrnoned by an inscrutable decree of the GREAT I AM, he obeyed, and ,ve are left in darkness. How we shall miss his eonlIl!~tncling presence,11iH words of wisdom, his skillful guiding hand in our deliberations! Eulogy w'ould be on t of place here, ,vhere 11t' ,vas so well known and so 111U('11 beloved. That we loved bim, and delighted to honor him, we have manifested in the strongest nlauner possible for us to do. Grand Mast(~r Willlanl P. Chilton "ras first elect,ed to preside over this body in 1869, was re-elected in 1870, and died on the 20th day of Januar~?, 1871. Imnlediately upon the reception of the tidings of his death, I assumed the prfOrogatives of Grand Master, in obedience to the requirementsofthe (1onstitution and issued a circular letter, notifying the subordinate Lodges throughout the ,'urlsdiction of his death. and suggesting tl1at suitable action be taken by tht..in in reference to the sad event. I presume that in the archives of every Lodge in the Rtate may be found a testimonial to hiR nlemory. Ccpieb of resolutions passed by many of the Rubor.. lUnate Lodges, have been sent ~o me, and many to the Grand Secretary, and several fronl other Grand Lodges, It is eminently proper and right, ho,vever, that this Grand Lodge should testify, in so:ne suitable ~"'a;r, our keen sense of this sad and afflictive dispensation of PrOVIdence. ~YNOIJSIS

OF DECISIONS.

During the year I have lnade the following dcclsionb on questions pre~ented to me; and I trust, if in <.tny decision I have erred, that the Grand Lodge will prornptly correct me. I h~1ve bad nothing elE-,e in viEYW but to do ll.ly duty to the Craft, an'd see the law vindicated: 1. ]-feld, that a Lodge lUtH no right to refuse to entertain charges against one of its Iuenlbers, preferred by a member of another Lodge. 2. That Mason~ made in ~'\.rnlY Lodges stlRtain the sanle relation to the fntternity that other non路affilitttl'd ~ft-l.SOllS do; a.nd that if they desire to affiliate with anothpi Lodge, they III ust produce the best evidence in their power to prove thnt they ,vere mnde J\Iasons in an ArrnJ>'I" Lodge, and subn~lt the same with their petition for affiliation. 3. That the edict of the Grand Louge in reference to Dimits, passed at the annual ('omlnunication in IH69, is in C"ontiict with our own code f Sec. 12, Art. VII, F]dicts and Decisions. See lJ,lasonic Code of Alabama. 'rhat a din1it is simply the l:leVerallce of Lodge Inclnbership, and is complete when the brother has paid his indebte(lneRS to the Lodge, und the Lodge has by resolution consentpd to Huch severaIlCe. The act of the Lodge severs the nlernbprRhip, llot th~ issuing of the certi1icate by th~ ~ecretary. 'rhat the edict of 1869 Is illegal, null and void. "Of conrse there is no Masonic duty more explicitly laid down in the Ancient Constitutions, than that '\vhich requires eyery Mason to lx> ~t rnernbcr of SOlne Lodge; but I call not deny to any man the rIght of withdr~nving, ,vhencvPl" he pleases, from a voluntary association. The laws of the land would not sustain the MaRonic authorities ill the enforcement of' such a regnlation, and our o,vn self-respect, if t.here were no other nl0tive, should prevent us frotn attempting it. '" Freelna80nry is, in all respects, a voluntary association, and as no one is expected or pel'nlitted to enter Its folds, unless it be of his own fref~ will and accord, 80 no one should continue in it, except by tbe oxercise of the same volnntttry disposition." "TIH~re is no law in the ancient Constitutions, 01' in the old RegUlations Im路ced. If a :Ylason viola.tes it, all that can be done is to visit him with the penalties which fall upon the unaffiliated Mason." I quote froIn ~Iac1tey's Jurisprudence. Th s one snbject of dimission has created Inore confusion, and given rise to more dis/:o\~ttiBfaction,since the passage of tbe E::'dict in 186H, than any and all subJ~('ts in connect.ion ,vith the Kovernment of subordinH,te Lodges. I earnestly recomlnend, thprefore, that the edict be repealed, or declared nnl1 nll<l void, by the Grand Lodge. 4. rrhat a Grand Otficer is not eligible to office in a subordinate Lodge. See Art. XVII, Regulation,,? 0/1721. ... 5. rrhat it is not ulllnasonic to require a bond of the ~ecretary or Treasurer ofa subordinate Lodge. 6. As all my predecessors have held, and as the Old Regulations teach us, that a one-armed rnan cannot be luac1e H, Mason.


8

Appendix.

[Oct.

7. That" ten white families within a mile, and enough Ma:"ons within two miles to constitute a Lodge," do not constitute a to\vn. 8. That a Lodge has a right to remit dues on account of poverty or distress. 9. That an expelled l\fason can only be restored by petition, its reference to a corumittee. a favorable report thereon, and its unaniulOus acceptance by the Lodge. See Woodruff' 8 J.'Wa80nic Code, p. 99. 10. A Mason must have served as a Warden before he is eligible to the office of Worshipful :Master. II. A Lodge has the right to confer degrees on festival days. It is better, however, to regard the advisory Edict of the Grand Lodge.

12. It is 1a,vful for any subordinate Lod,ge to confer any or all the three degrees ofl\:Iasonry upon a candidate resident ,vithin thejurisdictioll of such subordinate Lodge. See Jl:fasonic Code of Alabama, p. 81, Sec. 21. No length of residence is pres<:'ribed in this State. 13. A Lod~e cannot take o.dvantage of its o\"n \vrong. If a Lodge grants ~t cli?nit at a special cornmunication, and fails to collect dues, which the dimitted brother claims to have been remitt~d, (be being ::t ministc:>r,) t,11e Lodge cannot refuse to recognize the dinlit nnd suspend the brother for N. P. D.

14. That a candidate who can pert'ornl and teach the ritual, is eligible to receive the degrees in l\1:asonry. A slight larnene~s does not disqualify an applicant. 15. That no appeal lies fron1. the decision of the l\1:aster of a Lodge to the Lodge. The appeal must be taken to the Grand Lodge. Also, that the J:\1aster of a Lodge has the rigbt to postpone a trial, if, in his opinion, the Lodge is not ready for trial. 16. That a vote to move H, Lodge must be taken at the IJodge rooIn, at ~t regular communication, and at no other time or place; and thttt the permission of the Grand l\1aster or of the Graad I..todge is neces~ttry to authorize the removal. 17. rrhat all trials for offenses against ~rasonic lavl and usage, must be helel strictly in accordance wi th the requirements of Article VII. of the Constitution, and in no other ,vay. 18. rrbat the law is full and explicit as to suspension for N. P. D.; and that u brother under slulpension for non-payrnent of dl.lJe8 may be tried just in the sarne manner as non-affiliated Masons are tried. 19. That a Lodge has the right to forgive an offending brother before cOllviction. That it is the duty of a Lodge to use lund means, and to do all in its power to reclaim an erring brother, before exectl ting thE' pennlties of the law upon him. Of course, the character of the offense, (of which the IJodge is judge,) must be looked to. If it is of such a nature as to bring llishonm' upon the order, then, of course, no Lodge would think of trying to screen the offender. In section 19, page 81, of the l\![asonic Code, we find tllat a Lodge cannot forgive a brother for an otlense conlmitted, AFTER he has been tried. and found guilty.

20. That any uumber of brethren may join in, or sign the the S~1me petition fora dimit. 21. That a Lodge can arnend its by-Ia'ws in accordance with the provisions of its by-laws, at a regular comnlunication. As to the good taste or propriety of amending or repealing an old established law, when only ~t fe,v of the rnemlJers are present, is a matter for the consideration of the Lodge itt the time. 22. That the widow of a man not a Mason, not,vithstallding her first busband was a ]\tInson, cannot claim the protection and charity of the traternity; but that the children of the first marriage are E'ntitled to its protection and and charity. 23. That an unaffiliated Masoll, however worthy, is not entitled to, and should not be bnried With, Masonic honors. 24. A man who is near-sighted may be made a Mason.

25. That a Worshipflll Master cannot reRign. 26. That a vote to expel, or to suspend for an indefinite tirne, cannot be reconsidered. A t\vo-thirds vote is suffi<:ient to restore to the rigbts and privilegeb of Masonry; but a unanimous vote is necesl:$ary to restore to membership. Proceedings oj 1869.


.Appendix.

1872.J

'Yi 'l'hatl a ballot mU6t be ha,d on petition of the c~tndiuate for each of the""three degrees, at u. regnlar cOIlul'.lunication, but that the vote as to proticency may be taken at any meeting of the Lodge.

'>8 'rlIat it is the inalienable right of the Senior War<len to succeed to the duties powers and prerog-atives of tIle Worshipfull\laster, in case of his death, inability, or absence.-Lockwoocl's ...l fasonic Law, p. 32, Sec 6.

a:

29. Tbnt a F. C.l\~ason has r~g.ht to a certificate in the natur~ of a dimit frolIl the Lodge in WhICh he \vas InItIated and passed; and that l1otwltbstandill~ he nlUY have been rejected for the tlJird degree, he is a F. C.ln good stn,nding until chargBl::l are preferred agH,inl::lt hin1.-S~e Edict 17. p. 80, of the lrfa"l)onie Code. And, furtherl110re, he has the right to petition directly to the IJodge in whieh he WfLB pahl:letl allcl to ,vhose .juriRc1iction he "belongs, for a certificate as above stated, n.nd the Lodge is bound to grant it, or prefer charges against hiIn. The sanctity of the ballot is not involved in the Inatter at all. REPORT ON

MASO~IC

JURISPRUDENCE.

A I.rellow-craft ,vho has lost his left arln cannot be made a M. }Ilasonic Code, p. 58, Sec. 16.

M.-l~eo

If one residing in Alabama should, through ignorance of the Masonic law', 1)(' initiated in it Lodge in another State, the certificate of the Lodge in whicb he was initiated 'w'ould not be good in this State to the sanle exten.t as if it was frOIn a Lodge in tilis State. If it lVlaster Ma~on leaves his wife for S0111e cause for vvhi(;h 11(\ could not get u divorce, and the legislature pa&ses an act relieving hiln froul tIle painl::l and penaltiel::l of bigamy should he Ularl'j" agaiu 1 but not relensing hin1 front ::l..ny obligation to his 'wife, and he does marry aga,lD, the Lodge to \Vhich he belongx, or in whose jUTiRdict,ion he resides, rnust jUdge whether or not he lu1s vlolate<.l the nlorallaw, and ifhe has, proceed accordingly. It' one is granted a dim.it, but leaves the jurisdiction of the Lodg(' th~Lt gn1Ilted it, \vithont obtaining it, and before he does obtain it, the J..Iodge that grunted it comes into the possesRioll of evidence that he was gUilty of nnlnaHonie conduct about the tim~ of, or just before, the order for his dimit waH p~l,ssed, the Lodge that passed the order for his dimit has Jurisdiction of his ..:t\.se, and not the Lodge into whose jurisdiction he has removed. A ballot for passing or raising a brother ItlUst not be had uefore he has undergone H, sutisfactory examination as to his proficiency III the preceding degree. Before ft ballot is had, it is not inlproper for the n16Inbers of the Lodge to dh;cuss the chanl.cter and qualifications of a candidate for Mabonry, but such discubsion is not allowable after the ballot.

It is not unmasonic for tl Mason to plead the tlta tu te of limittttiolll::l in any case in which it is allowed to be pleaded by the la\vof the State; but it is unluasonic for it IV{al::lOll to refuse to pay his just debts when he has the ability to do

so.

Bro. Richard F. Knott subnlits an elegant report on correspondence. We regret thnt the extract:::; ,vere not printed" solid." and the original relnarks "leaded," as it would assist the reviewer very ruuch. What we have to say relative to Quebec, will be found under the head ot MAINE.

JOseph H. Johnson, r.ralladegit, Granel l\{nster; Dluliel Sayre, lVlontgonlery, Grand Secretary; Riehard F. Knott, Mobile, UOlntnittee on Correspondence.

BRITISH COLUMBIA. We have the pro~eeuings of the Convention, in which was organized the Grand Lodge of BRITISII OOLUMBIA, and which Il1et in Victoria, Vancouver's Island, Oct. 21, 1871. Great care was ti\,kell, as we learn from the. re(;ord~ to secure the co-operation of all the Lodge:::; in the provi nce, and from it circular vote It was learned that the proposition to organize all independent Grand Lodge was carried in the afilrmati ve by 194 to 28 of the English and Scotch registry.


10

.Appendix.

[Oct.

r1'ho votes taken in the Convention were all I.G1utnirnous. All the proceedings neee~sary for the fonnation of H, Grand Lodge 'vel'e had; and, having proceeded to au elcetioll, Il'jrael \V. Powell, of 'Victoriu, was ~hosen Grand Mn~ter, with a full corps of other officers, A constit1.l tion 'V1ts atlopted, and every prospect of perfect harmony wns presented. GRAND LODGE.

(-frand Lodge nlet in Victoria, Dec. 26, 187l. '1'ile Grand 1\taster elect was duly installed. A letter from the Grand 8ecl'etar,y of Englana wns read, annoullcing a favorable jnlpression H$ to recognitioll, and tha,t what fow Lodges chose to reIna-in with their mother Grund Lodge, would of COlll'~(-' be rot~tined, ,vhich is usual HInd right. Only one English Lodge declined to take part in the fornlt"ttion. 'rIle entire proceecllugs evince great care and intelligence, anu froIn the fact that Brit iRh Colurnbia wa~ "unoccupied territory," no one Grand. Lodge ever llnving been granted by other Grand Bodies, eXQlusive and suprerl1.e sovereignty thE'reil1, and wherctl,s the rigllt~ of the few non-concurring Lodges are guar~tllteetl ulldut' their origiuitl charters, and that no ne,v Lodges will be planted, exeept l>s the new Gnl,IlU Body, therefore we f:,ubmit the following resolution to t he Grand IJoc1ge at' l\IlHsouri :

Re"nlved, Tbat the Grand Lodge of British Columbia. be and if:, hereby recog.. nized as the Sovereign and Independent ~Iasonic anthority in that Province, a~ at preHen t <letiuE'Ct. Re~olt'e(l, That such non-curri ng Lol.1ges under the Scotch ~1,n<l EngliHll Beg.. btr.v be recognl~cd as \vorking ul1(ter their original charter, uutil ~u('h tiIne as they lnay eleet to beeorne IdentIfied with the Grand Lodge of British Uohunl>ia. J?l!~()lved, 'rh~tt the Grand. Lodge of Mibsouri desires for the Grand Lodge of British Colurubia ~t continued existence of peace and prosperity.

Israel \V. Powell, Victorh"t, Grand ;:;ecl'etary.

~laster;

H. B\ I-:Ieisternlan, Victoria" Grl:Lnd

The next cOlnillunicailon will take place at VIctoria, Dec. 7, 1872.

CANADA. 'rIle 17th Anuual Conlllluniot~tionof the Grand Lodge of Hanliltoll, July 10, 1872.

Cant~da was

held at

rrwo hundred and t\li"enty Lodges represented. Froul advance report in the Orajtsnutn we cOlllpile the following review: :VI, W. Bro. Jas. He;yrnour pre~ideu. 'rile Board of General Purposes report/ed receipt:-, for tllp year nt $lO,H-1H.G4, and the expenditures at $9,802.1k. r1'l1e invel-tted fund of the Graud Lodge is ~17,680.bU. 'l'he ~nrn ot" ::lio50 Wlts voted the Grund ~f)C颅 l.'etary 101' an n.~~.ri~tal1t. 'rhe 1YIa~onie A~yluln 'l'rust Jj'und anl0unts to $5,808.00. The reports of the D. D. G. IVI. show a general hoa.lthy and prosperous conditioll of the craft throughout the whole coun tr;y路, fl,nU a lu,rge increase of Lodges. Four hundred copios of tbe proceedings of the G}'and Lodge f:,ince its forIna.. tioll, were ordered to be reprinted, to be bold ~tt $1.25 per volurne. The G. L, sub.. ~cribed for one hundred copies. 'fhe Grand .1\faster's address is a clear t\nd able business document. He reports haVing granted dispensatiol1b for twenty-one ne,v Lodges, two of Which (Olive Brandl) is at \V. ~hefford, ~\l1d (Pontiac) at Onslow, Province of QUEBEC; thus ~ho\ving t,llat he still recoglllzed that Province as part of' the origillnl terntory of the Grand Lodge. Relative to that question, he says: In this lnatter the resolution passed by the Grand Lodge last year h~tS been faithfnlly acted upon; hut I have to regret t,hat the efforts rnade by our brethren to bring about a favorable solution of existing difficulties have so f~"tr proved un.. snccessful. I had hoped that your Depu ty Grand Master, who had t~1ken special charge of thlS SUbject, would have been present to afford the fullest explana..


1872.J

Appendix.

11

tions regarding the overtures made to solve this difficulty, out alU sorry to heal' that urgent. business prevents 111m from so doing. I have, ther~fore, to refer ou to the protocols, copies of ,vhich have already been furnished to every Lodge and which fully set forth the overtures nlade, and the abrupt and unsu,tisfltCtory terlnination of the negotiations, and leave the matter in your handb for any further action that may be deemed advisable."

What we have to say relative to Q,UEBEO, will be found under the head of .MAINE.

The Grand Lodge of BRITISH COLUMBIA was re(>ognized. Itelat i ve to UrrAH the Committee reported: "'Vith reference to the circular received from the Grand Lodge of Utah, whi<'h appears to have been formed by only three subordhHl.. te Lodges, the Board reconl111ends that in the absence of inforIuation as to the CirCUll1stances ~tttending its erection into an independent Grand IJodge, and as to ,vhether the~e Lodges cornpose the whole or a majodty of the Lodges 111 that territory, Grand Lodge for the present defer taking any action in the Inatter." We can inform our Canadian brethren by saying that the Grand Lodge of UTAH was forn1cd by all the IJodges there, viz., three. Relative to Foreign affairs, the Board report 1d, as follovvs: "The Board regrets to learn t'rom the circular issued by the Grand Lodge of the ~tate of NEW JERSEY, that the Grand Lodge of l-IAMBURG has institut,ed n Lodge within the jurisdiction of the former, without its consent or concurrence. rrhe Board is of opinion that the action of the Grnnd Lodge of Hambnrg iM iUl illegal and nnrnusollic intrusion into and upon the jurisdiction of the Granel Lodge of NE'V JERSEY, and 1hey feel as;sured tht1,t this Grand Lodge ,vill unite with other Grand Lodges in any proper Inea:sures for the purpose of resisting such invasion and preventing any such action in the future. " With refGr~nce to the circular received fronl the Grand Lodge of Lonil:dalH1, the Board dee111 it nl1neces~ary to refer to the resolution adopted b;yr th~tt Grand Lodge in the nUl.tter of the QUEBEC difticulty, any further than to express their regret that they s11on1<.1, in conllllon v/ith sorne other Grand I..Jodges, lU.tve taken btwh action on ,vhat the Board canDot but regard as insufficient and imperfect information. "'YVhiIe concurring wi th that Grand Lodge in the opinion that the e~tablibll颅 Uleut by the Grand LodgE' of Hamburg and the Grand Orient of Franee OfSllbor~1jnate L()dge~ within th~ ,inrisdiction of othe~' independent Grand Lodges, is hoth illegal and unnULS0111C, and Rhonld be resIsted by all proper mean~, the Board cannot but protebt DloSt enrneRtly a~ain~t the ~tgsumption that there is any" Am,erican " as di~tillguishe(lfronl " ~l1asonic" cloct,'ine, 'which can be at ~l.Jl binding on tbiR or all;Y路 other independent Grand Lodge, and tile attenlpt of the Grand J../odge of LOUISIANA to coerce foreign Grand Lodges into a recognition of' l:mch ., Ame'l'ican doctrines" under the threat of an interruption of friendly I'elations and it breaking np of :Masonic intercourse with such i'oreign Grand Lodges III the opinion of this Board, a most unwarrante<l interference ,vUll the acof independent Grand Lodges, and one 'which they :feel assured will be disapproved of even by their sister Grand Lodges in the United States. "The Grand Secretary read a let.ter received froln W. Bro. H. Oliphant, of Levaka, Fiji, anllouncing the formation of a Masonic Lodge at that place, nanled "Polynesia," and seeking recognition frorn the various Grt.\Ild Lodge~ throughout thp ,vorld. 'rIle Grand I.Jodge deCIded to seek fllrther inforlnatlon before taking action on the luatter-inasnluch H,S the mode adopted in the formation of the said Lodge, which was very briefly set forth, appeared to be at variance ,vitl1 the well recognized principles of the Or<ler." Testinlonials were ordered to be prepared for the P. G. Masters A. A. steven~on and James Se~rlnour. JYI. W. Brother W. M. Wilson, of Simcoe, was elected Grand Master, and R. W. Bro. Thomas B. HarriS: of Hamilton, was re-elected Grand l::5ecretary.

COLORADO.. Grand Lodge met, in Denver, Sept. 26,1871. Henry M. Teller, Grand presided.

M~~<:;ter

He says: In this jurisdiction Masonry has becorne popular; good nlen are seeking adruission to our Lodges, desirous of uniting with us in the pursuit of knowledge.


Appendix.

12

[Oct.

But, rny brethren, all our applicationB are not of this character. 'Vith the O'ood come also the bad; 1ne11 who are not in pursuit of knowledge; men who al;e not ttttraeted b:y the love of virtue; IIl€n who 'will never know the meaning 01 brotherly love, relie.t and. tr1.~th; 111611 who seek to unite with ns because we arc Tei:->pectable; because they tlllnl( SOIne ·worldly ftd van tage may be gained by aumisbion to our Lodge~. It is ilUpossible to always delernune the Inotives of the Hpplicant. V't'"e IUU/:,t scrutinize his character; must inquire into his past conduct, and if his character and pabt ('onduct are not a good guarantee of hib future, we nlust bId him ·wait. 'Ve Il1Ust be active, Vigilant and cautious, if we Iuaintain the character we profesb ::tS frIasons. I anI happy to report to you that the fr~tternity is in a prosperou& condition Dnring the past, year there has been 110 discord alnong the brethren that I anl of. 'The IJodges, tlnan<:ially, are doing well. I believe itS great H, uniformity of \vorl\: exist& among the varIOUS Lodges a~ we have a.ny reason to expect While it is unportant that the worlz should be llniforul throughout t,hejurisdic: tion, yet it IS not best to lay too 111uc11 &tres~ on that. Far better to see that there exibts n true ~faf;()l11C spirit illnollg the brethren of the jurIsdiction' that Wt> iLre l\IR~ons in act and deed, and not in words. '

t~ware

'rho Grand Secretary fraternitlly aCkllO\vledges all donntions to the Grand Lodge Llbrttr,Y.

Bro. 'V. D....~nthony, the COilllnittee 011 Correspondence, wa:-:; excllsed from report, OWIng to the great. arl10unt of personal busine:-:;s. \Ve regret this,al'3 we shoul<..1 hn'\~e been pleased to have heard from hiru.

<l.

Proceedings brief and local. Henry 1\1. 'reller, Central City, Grand l\Iaster; Ed. C. Parmlee, GeorgetOWll, LTl'and Secretary and. Corumittee on Correspondence.

CALIFORNIA. Granel Lodge l11et lVlaster, presided.

III

San Francisco, Oct. 10, 1871.

Leonidas E. Pratt, Grnlld

'1'11e annual addrebs is a mastorly production, a,nd opens with a review of tho prostra,ted condition of the State financially. politically ftud rnorally, arib" lUg t"roI11 official corruption and mistaken theories of governrnent. He is evi· ucm Uy endowed wi tIl decision of chn.racter, and governed by high Illotives, Ub the following cabe Will exhibit; he bays:

But it is the right of this Grand Lodge to kno\v to what extent I have exercised the prerogative of a Grand Master in enforcing these views and purposes; and that WIll perhaps be best, exhibited by pr~sentiug a, case or two of actua,l oc· curronce. ~on1C Inonths since I \VfLS advibed that a luenlber of {L certain Lodge was living in the very shadow of its ternple in open proHtitution with a vile and abttndoued wom::tD. In another instance a rncmber \vas the proprietor of a gaInIng 1.10U8e, hiln~elf, the dealer of the ganles, corrupti"'1g the morals of the conlillunity nnd luring bis o\vn brethren to destruction. I directed the Mn,sterh of the~e Lodges to deruand of these brethren the inlmedia,te n.bandonrnent of these sharneless practices, and, unless these demands ,vere promptly and fully cODlplied with, to proceed as speedily as possible to the expulHion of the offenders. To this they l'e11lied, ,vitl1 eviden t ~orrow and regret, that though the ac.. cusntiolls ·were concede<1 to be true, and the offenses public and notoriOub, yet l::>l1ch was the condition of the Lodges, and such the personal popularity of the ol1t~n<1ing brethren, thn,t trial commissioners \vould certainly be electell who, in spite of the obvious facts, would pronounce in favor of the accused. To tbis 1 replIed in turn: that, though the cOlumissioners ·who would return such aver· diet, \vould be proluptly dealt with accordingly, yet there was an ultinlate re8ponsibility on the part of the Lodge which I should neither ignore nor forget; that, in IllY Judglnent, a Lodge which ,vould or could ele(:t trhLl commissioners who 1 upon such R ~tate of coneedod facts, would perRIst in acquitting the gUIlty partIes, waR hardly \\~orthy of its charter; an<1 1 directed t,henl again to proceed at once, ana exhaust every relne<.ly againi::it t he accused, and If the OCNtsion arose, against the trial conlmissioners as well, or surrender into my hands the charter so unworthily held. In brief, that the Lodge ?nust properly punish the otlenders, or be puuished itself for the omission.


1872.J

13

Appen,dix.

It may be urged that this would have been an extraordinary exercise of ower and a dangerous precedent to establish-an attempt to coerce the judgRlent and destroy the independence of the trial conlmisRioners, and practically to pass upon the guilt of the accused by the Grand lVlaster, rather than by the le v Itimate tribunal. Concede all this to be true; and still, \vllen the u&ua,} m~thodS of discipline thus fail, through the obviQUS indifference or culpable.> necrlect and connivance of those charged in the :ti.r&t instance with that duty, there mnst be some ulterior resort, or a complete and shameful f~l,ilure of justice. This Grand Body must. reserve, ~n<.l in my juc1gment .has l'eserved, to j Lself, whIle in session, and to Its executIve heitd at all other tunes, the power to COlnel its subordinates to properly <.liscipline their recreant members. And, unless gtl1erWiSe Hlstructed by YOU I should In all cases of such open n,nd fiagran t disreo'ard of those virtues whic1111e at the very root of the 1fasonic structure, and COIlstltute all its grandeur and excellence, the facts being ObYIOUS a.nd concedeu, do again as I have done in the past. I should exercise this power of &uRpen~ion and arrest, when luilder IUeo,l1S had failed, as often as the occasion for it might ~riNe unless interdicted by you; and I report these cases as illustr:.ttions for your' consideration, that I and Iny successorR in this office nlay kno\\-" bo'w far we are to be sustaIned in such proceedings. l\fy badge of IHasonry is it tuocl1:cry MHI a cheat if it Implies nothing. It is worse than idle to befir thnt name, unless the obligation it. inlposes can be always enforced by 80m(} po"wer prolnptly flind effectually. Other cases less flagrant than these, but still involving moral turpitude, have conle to my knOWledge during the year. But in most of there it has only been necessary to advise Masters how to proceed, and they have h~lstened wi th ('heerful alacrity to the performance of their dutleB. ~rhese reported case~ are of course exceptional ones, and genorally there i& ~1 gro,\ving dL.;position to exact from all a rigid conlpliance with the ethics of l\1nsonry. 'l'11e moral advaneement of the Fraterlllty at large has Dlore than lrept. pace "with it~ n1.aterial progress; and it is on this fact tllu,t I tender you to-day my lllost cordial COllgratulations. The special Con1.mittee, to whonl the address was referred, reported above portion, as follows:

011

the

To suppress, in the Craft, the spread of the contagion of prevailing Vices, the Grand Master has seen fit to exerCIse his power to enforce subordinate Lodges to apply discipline to offending members. While we fully concur in the vie,vs presented by hin1 in regard to the scope of his ("xeentivc authority, yet, as H, question concerning the ext.ent ot" the Grand Master~s pl'erogative is presented, on which he himself desires a judicial definition, we recornmend that so rnuch ot" the a.ddress as relate::; to direct action by the Grand J\Iaster to cOlnpel trIal and punishment by subordinate Lodges for breaches of moral or :Mosonic law by their members, be referred to the Oomrnittee 011 Jurisprudeuce. The Committee on Jurisprudence submitted several reports, but we can find nothing on this particular question, from which we judge that it ,vas as m ucll in a quandry what to say as was the special Oornrnittee, and we do not blame them much for saying 11othing, as it is one of the most difficult questions ever presented to a Grand Lodge. On one side stamds the moral \velf"u,re of the craft under the guardianship of the Grand Master; on the other, stands the cOllstitutional and inalienable right of the craft, in Lodge assembled, to vote as they see proper. rro have endorsed the action of the Grand lVIaster, ,,"ould have robbed subordinate Lodges of a sacred right, and reduced trials to a farce; to have condemned the Grand Master, would have given a license to iInmorality-ancl right in this dilemn1a waf-; tbe Grand Lodg~ placed, by the action of Bro. Pratt, basing his action as 11e cUd. Now, we propose the only escape we can imagine from such tight places, viz.: For the Grand Master (upon information before him) to order a trial to be had upon charges preferred by the lUenlber who makes the complaint, (or any other,) and after trial examine the eVidence, and if he is perfectly satisfied from it~ from the vot.e, and fl"Oro the character of the members, that, such n. Lodge should not have a charter, then arrest it, not because they did not find [L certain verdict, hut on the grol1nd of general worthlessness. Report the matter to th(> Grand Lolige, ,,,ith all the evidence he has procured, and let them decide the question~ lfor ourselves, 'we can never endorse the practice of it Grand Master threatening a Lodge with arrest of charter in advall~ unless it either acquits


A.ppendix.

14

[Oct.

or 路condemns a member by trial-that is a "prerogative" not given to any Grand Master in the 'world by any law we ever read. The foUo"\ving noble resolution was unanimously adopted: RC'sol1.'ea, That five thodsand dollars, in coin, of the funds of this Grand f.Jodge, now in the hands of the Trustees of the Reserve Fund, be donated and irnmediately forwarded to the Grand Master of Masons in Illinois, in aid of the ~nfierers by the late conflagration in Chicago. Bro. \Villiam H. Hill offered the following resolution:

Resolved, That, as further evidence of our practical sympathy, the box of the ,'Masonic (-hnrity be placed upon the altar at t"\vo o'elock this afternoon, and that the breUlren be requested then to cast their offerings therein, as God has blessed and favored th~m; and tbat the llloneys thus contributed be also transmitted by our Grftnd :Master, without dela:Y', to the Grand Master of Illinois, to be dislJl.ll'Red, according to his own judgment, for the relief of destitute MaRons and their ialnilies. Which resolution was adopted. Bro. Juo. W. Bro'wue, Grand Orator, delivered a very eloquent address. Grand orators in

CALIFORNIA

are facts, and not figure heads.

'file Chairman of the Committee on Jurisprudence submitted an exhanstive report a~~tjll&t the recognition of QUEBEC. What we have to say on that Hubjeet will be found under tile head of l\IAINE.

The proeeedings are 'well printed, il"nd we have bnt one suggestion to offer, viz., that the Graud Secretary in getting them printed, have inserted SURHEAD::; for each subject Inatter, which ,\\"ill relieve the laborR of correspondentl'l. \Ve would fUl'thel'lIl0re suggest putting reports of Foreign Correspondents in an ".\ ppendix," instead of in the body of the proceedings. Bro. Wm. H. Hill again submitted a splendid report on correspondence. Under the head of GEORG lA, he sa:rs : Perhaps, if very hungry, we should concur, both theoretically and lwa('ticn,lly, particularly if the o:ysters were cooked to suit us. But here, as it seems to us, is the inherent vice of the practice, and "\ve do InlOW that serious evils havp rt\,;ultpd. Though all is sceminglJr a voluntary act all the part of the brot.her pa~,-;ed or raised, (geut:rally the latter) it is very easy to have it generally underRtootl that a supper WIll be expected, and that none but H, mean or parsiInoniouh fellow would refuse. Hence many are subjected to a large expense, when their own farnilies IlPeded the money. Cert~{,inly these H oyster suppers" are no part of :Masonr;y or the third degree, do no one any good, and we side rather with onr brethren in Montana, than with our Georgia friend. We will take a nliddle course, and say, that if the supper is got up by the members on subscriptioIl, we want to be '~counted in." As for the candidate'R heing ~errynlanderedinto the job, we have seen enough of that to know that in . too Jnany cases it is a base fraud, and had the pleasur~ as D. D. G. ~r. of putting it ~top to it, for 011 one occasion we had lent a ne"\vly raised candidate money to go to nUlxket With, after he had spent 4li80 for a supper, "for fear the melnberR nlight think he was a mean OUSR." I.lp.onidas E. Pratt, San Frttneisco, Grand l\faster; Alexander G. Abell, Snn FranCISCO, Gl'and Secretary.

CHILE. Grand Lodge met in ,ralparaiso, June 30, 1871. The proceedingl'l are c-arried forward, containing spechtl meetings till Nov. 9, IS7l. The proceedings are elegantly printed and contain full tables of tbe craft in that jurisdiction.


187'2.J

Appendix.

15

Javier Villaneuva, Valparaiso, Grand Master; Jose Maldonado, Valparaiso, Grand Secretary. The Commission from Grand Master Muir to the latter officer, as representative of this Grand Lodge, is published in full, and the annonncement Inade of the ttppointment of the undersigned as representative near the Grana Lodge of Missouri.

CONNECTICUT. Grand Lodge met in New Haven, May 8, 1872. Jamefo:: L. Gould, Grand Master, presided: Resaid: 1 I decided in Fieveral cases, that a candidate, who had not been a resident of the Rt~Lte one :rear, could not be received, and that the Grand l\1aster could not properly dh-:;penso with ajurisdictiollal requirement of 1.he Grand Lodge. 2. Severa,l questions relating to the proper course to be pursued, in the caRe of petitions of previously rejected candidates, have been submitted to me, :tn<1 I tlecided that when the petition ofa. candidate rejected in another IJodge il::l pregented it should be received and laid upon the table, until the consentJ of r,lle ~ejectihg Lodge lw.s been obtained, nnd then })l'oeeed as in other caR~R. If Huch ~onsent is refllsed, the Lodge acquires no jUl'1scIiction, and has no right to consider the petition, which should then })p returned with the fee. :3. I also decided that ~ection 28 of our by-lawR does not npply to the case of a non-affiliated Mason, who lUHy be employed as counsel by a brother on trial, the right to have counsel being only restricted, so far that such COlUIRel IUUHt, be H Mason. 4. I also decided that a brother who diInit.tecl fro1l1 a Lodge in 1868, und~r the by-laws of the Grand Lodge then existing, but who nevor H,tfilinted \vith another Lodge, is now a non-affiliated Mason, and must purRue the ordinary course to regain melubership in the Lodge from which he diInitted. . I have been called upon in a very great, nUInber of cases to give decisions, or Instructions, in reference to subjcctr;; which were so clearly covpred by our bylaws, and the adrnirable system of .l\tlasolllc .Jurisprudence, conlpiled by VV. Bro. Lock.wood, that their st,atelnent here \vouid serve no purpose, except to tire :your patience. But I would take the opportunity to comn1.end to the Frftternity, a more careful study of our rules and reguhtt.ions and to cOllfirnl tIle opinion of my predecessor, tlutt our laws are now" so simple and plain, that It appearR to me almost impossible for anyone to go astray." As Iny predecesRors, as weI I as myself, ba.ve, however found it necessary to (~Ollstrl1e the h1.w路 in numerous instances, and as these decisions are scattered through the different volumes of our proeeerlings, it would, perhaps, be of very great (~onveniel1ce to inexperienced brethren, and also tend to a unIformity ot" construction of the law, on t.he part of the officers of the Grand Lodge, if all decisions which have been !tpproved, and are now in force, could be collected, and pUblished with our by-

laws.

MASONS AT SIGHT.

In the month of July last, the officers, and several members of St. John's TJodge, No. 3, repl'e~ented: to Ine that two gentlernen of '\vorth and high social standing, whose temporary residence was in Connecticut, but wllo were If-gal residents of Ne'w York. Messrs. Henry C. Baldwin and Robert LiVIngston, were desirons to receive the degrees of Masonry in that Lodge, and had procured the regtllnr consent of tbe proper authori t,:y~ therefor; but t1:lat, o\ving to a by-la",~ of St,. John's IJo<1ge, snspending its meetings during the sumnler, no stated COlnmunication could be held to receive or act upon their petItions until so late that business engagements 'would prevent their obtaining the degrees. rlaving made thorough inql1iries into the faetH, and the characters ot the pl'oposed candidates, anq. becoming entirely satisfied that the brethren of St..John's Lodge were unanlmonsly desirous that they should be made ~rasolls, and beCOUle members of that Lodge, I determined, at. the request of the officers of the Lodge, to exercise the highest and most responsible prerogative of the office with which you honored me, itnd make these gentlemen Masons at sight. AccordIngly, I in~ited the brethren to meet me at l\1nsonic Hall, in Bridgeport, on the evening ot" August lIth, A. L. 5871, ~hen and where I opened all emergent Lodge of Master Masons in ample form, the Grand Master presiding, and assisted by the necessary officers, and a large number of brethren. The object of the meet-


A.ppend1~X.

16

[Oct.

ina \vas stated, and a Lodge of Entered Apprentices waf': th~n opened, and the

t\\-~ gpntlemen 111entioned \vere initiated in due and ancient form, after which the Lod<ye ,vas closed. On the afternoon of the 15th of August, 1 again met the brpthren ftS bf'fore, and, having opened a Lo(lge of Fellow Crafts in ample form

by various officers of Ht.â&#x20AC;˘John's and Corinthian Lodges, and about twJ hundred brethren, Bros. Baldwin and I..livingston "were duly passed, and the

HK";lbted

Lodge closed. On the evening of t~e same day, I~ opened in the same place a Lodge of Master Masons, agaIn assIsted by the officers and brethren aforesaid, in the preSience of a very large number of the Fraternity, including some

~tllct

twenty Masters and Past Masters of Lodges within, and without thisjurisdiction i~ros. Baldwin and Livingston were raised to the sublime degree of iL Mus. tel' .Mason in due and ancient [orIn, and in the most solemn and impre~sive Inanner. 'I'he record of these proceedings, duly kept by my direction, is here. \\7ith Rubmitted for your approval. and for a place in the archives of the Grand r..lod~e, that due record of t.he same Inay be preserved. The two brothers H.R ~onn aR the~r could do so, affiliated. with St. John's Lodge, No.3, and are n'ow worthy and respected Dlenlbers thereof. As the ,york was done at the requm,t oftbe~officers of St. John's Lodge, and with a view' to their membership therein I directed that the fees fixed by tbe by-laws of that Lodge, and also an affiliation fee, should be paid b~T the candidates, and this sum, by my direction, was paid to that Lodge. RelatiYe to this strange proceeding, we \vill commence by quoting the G. L. la\yof Connecticut about" non-residents." SectIon 14 of by-laws, p. 362, sa;y's: "No eandiclate shall receive the degree in a different Lodge from that Within "whose liInits he aCLuallj-T resides, without the concurrence first obtained of "Ruch IJodge, which concurrence HUlst be signified by unanimous ballot in the "sanle way as balloting for the admission of a candidate; and every Lodge "vio18ting this ordinance shall forfeit and pay to the Grand Lodge the surn of ".J:20 for C'Y('ry such offense, and to the Lodge against 'which the offense is com"mitted, the full amount of fees received for such degrees." flere \vas a plain law of his own Grand Lodge Violated, unless the consent was given to the Grand Master of Connect.icut, instead of to St. John's Lodge. H

Again, section 15 says: "None shall be admitted but by unanimous ballot, nor shall a. ballot be taken for either of the degrees, except in a Master 1J.fa.~on',l{

"Lodg(>."

Here is another direct violation of his own law, for \\re have no eviden~ t.hat St. John's Lodge ever took a ballot. We can find no\vhere any law of that Grand Lodge which authorizes .:\fnster to set aside or repeal a law-in fact it is otherwise, as follows:

~1 Grand

Hection 43 says: "No part of these by-laws shall be repealed, aUered or "amended, unless at a regular annual communication of the Grand Lodge, two"thirds of the melllbers present shall vote in favor of such repeal or amend" nlent." No'w, in order to get at these citizens of New York, the Grand Master had to override his own law, and under the baseless fiction of a "prerogative," he did by his o,vn voice that which the law says requires two-thirtls of the whole Gra nd Lotlge. Again, one of the standing resolutions of Connecticut, says: ,. That this "Grand Lodge hereby forbids the subordinate Lodges within its jurisdiction to "initiate, pass or raise more than one candidate at the same time:' Here ,ve have two candidates put through at once. If these two" temporary citizens" were so valuable to the FraternitYr a~ to call forth the exercise, the high plenipotentiary powers of the Grand Master, and about t\VO hundred Witnesses, we do not think they would have spoiled by being keI)t over snmlner., until St. John's Lodge was" called 011," and the Masonic world nlight have been relieved from wi tnessing the farce pf Ruoh an ex-


Appendix.

1872.J

temporaneous degree mill, wherein I.;odge rwithont dim its.

t"WO

17

MasoDR ("?) ,v"'e1'e ground out to join a

We rather think there w"as a little of the defiant. s})irit nllxed up in this perfornlance, which renders It worthy of thE" condelnnatioll of the craft, for if constiLutions and la"ws are not to be obeyed b~r Grand ~Iast(?rR, then we had better repeal them. As fo1' the" prerogative" assertIon, we now offer a liberal reward in gold to Bro. Gould, or anybotly eh,e, to produce a ~ingle ancient law for it. It is the merest nonse11se to clainl it, and "ve are astonished that in this age of enqu iry and intelligence allY Grand l\laster should so la,y himself open to beC0111e the laughing stocl{ of the \vorid. \Ve repel every violation of the law, come whence it may. The lJuRiness transactetl was of a local nature, and the proceedingR are well prepared. Bro..ros. K. Wheeler as usual preBented the report on correspondence, and it if; a good one.

Under the head of II..ILINOIS, he

Hay~ :

If the brother is laboring uuder tJhe delusion that it IH the pra.ctice in ConnerLimlt to strlke frolH tile roll of nlembership, for the 1l0n-lJayment of dneR, If,Uhouf due llotice, ::tud gl\"ing the brother a tull opportullIty tor defcl1Re, \ve wlr;h he would speedily rIll hi'--. Inll\d of" ~1ny such idea; for snell i~ not our praeti('e. ""'"e also conctu' Ul his opinion, that a brother, when strucl( fron1 the roll, ha~ been deprived of a .l~ortion of hIS Masonic rights; and that IS .in::.,t \vhai. i~ Intended. '1'his ueprnnttlOlL, ho"wever, does not operat,e any further than the rights which inure to a brother, in consequence of Lodge nlernl>er:-,hip; antl hi:;; Masonic standing is not interfered. "vlth. It seems to tl"3, there en.n no In()l'e harm grow out of the pract.ice, than that of a voluntary dirni..-;sion, \vllich is so prevalent in many jurisdIctions; ainu, oftentimes, for the 11l1rpo:--\e of not being obliged to pay dtH.lb. 'Yo think, niter nIl, that strilring fronl the roll, when dne l10tiee has been given, ~l,nl011nts to nothing luore t,hHn voluntary (llmi~sion. One goes ont becH,w;;e 11(-' don't wish to pay dues, and the other l.>ecause he WOll't. Vle fully agree "with llinl.

Under the head

()f

,:rENNESSEE,

he

SH,yS:

He is of opinion that this prerogative of Grund l\Iaster should be exercised with grent cautIO!), becH/usc of the clltfiCUUy exibtlng ill beIng lunde acquainted with the ntcts rplati'\'e to the re~tl necessity of the tornuttion of the now {l~~f:l~. the re~),sons why it Hhoulcl not be formed rarely ever reaching the Grantl vVe have had Occn,Slon to :-,pcalr npon the subj~ct of' starting LodgE'S, U. D., in a previous rf'port; and th<? 1110re we see in reference to the llltttter, the nlore we are ('ollvincc<1 that tlH:'y bhould never be started, unlesB they can enjoy the Mtme privIleges that (1, lJodgf' would uuder a charter from the Granel 'Lodge; u,nd, wlH-re they cannot, 'VP ttl'e Rtrongly in favor of sta.rting no Hew Lodge, except by charter. 'rVe ttre oj)posed to est~tblislllng Lodges pos~essingno l)owe~', except actIng upon the appllC,ttion of candidn,tes, ~"l,nd non-aitiliated lVIa,sons. In Missouri our J.Jodges, U. D., have nearly all the powers of chartered Lodges-affiliation, dirni~sion, trials, etc., etc. We agree with Bro. vVheeler. Relative to the Qnebcc case, \VP have replied under the head of J.\tIAINE.

We regret that tiIne {liud space compel ns to dra\v to a. close. Luke A. Lockwood, GreenWich, Grand MaHLer; .Joseph !{. \Vheeler, I:Iartford, Grand Recretary and Uonl1nittee on OorreRpondence.

DISTRICT O"F COLUMBIA. Grand Lodge Inet in Washington, Nov. 8, 1871. Chas. F. Stal1RUllry, Grulld

Master, presided.

B 2


18

Appendix.

[Oot.

From his address we extract, as follows: In my semi-annual address I referred to the reception of the Grand l\fflJster of Masons of England by this Grand Lodge. The occasion \vas one of rare interest in every point of view, and I have pleasure in Btating that its resnlts have been most happy in their bearing upon the relations of the Masons of the two countries. I have the pleasure to present to the Grand Lodge, elegantlv engrossed, the resolutions adopted by the Grand Lodge of England at its Q,uarterl;y Communication, held June 7, 1871, in reference to the 'welcome accorded to tIle Earl de Grey fLnd Ripon, as representing the Grand Lodge and ~Iasons of England. I recoruluend that they be spread upon our minutes. The large party of Masons which visited Europe during the past summer \vere met in England with remarkable nttention and courtesy by our l\1:asonic brethren there; and I have been informed, by a member of the party, that frequent allusion was ma<1e to the cordial reception of their Grand Master by the Masons of the District of Colutubia. I congratulate the Grand Lodge on having, by this act of courtesy drawn more closely the bonds of union between the Masons of the two cOlln~ tries. A copy of the resolutions of the Grand Lodge of England has heen officially communicated to every Grand Lodge in the United States. We lUUSt here beg the Grand Secretal'Y's pardon for cOlnplailling that. he flll'M nishes no SUB-HEADINGS in his proceedingR. '1'11e Grand Master's address closes Imnlediately upon the top of other matter, without any distinguishing liue or word, except change in size of type. Foreign correspondents cannot be expected to read evm'y word of over 10,000 pages of printed n1.atter, in order to find out when the Gra,nd Lodge did" something else." The" Installation Communication" was held Dec. 27, 1972, when Bro. l'. .£1\ Stansbury was installed Grand ~Iaster.

The use of the words" Installation Conlmunicatiou," we must suy, is a misnomer, for the reason that \ve find it to be an " .A.nnual Ooulmunictttiont or something equivalent to it, for all the business in the proceedings which amounted to a.nything, was done at that" ComulUllicatioll." As we were """,,,fasonically born in that Jurisdiction, about fifteen yearrs ago, we clain1 the right to give them fits, if they do not do right; hence \ve do not hesitate to haul the Grand Secretary over the coals, if he eonles short of doing things aR well as anybody else, notwithstanding he 'was presented by the Grand Lodge with "a beautiful cane.~' We hold the right to do SOlne H CiUlil1g" too, and we t€.·ll hirn right here that he luust look nfter hIS printer better, and furnish copy with SUB-HEADINGS, and must Dot coin any new words for annual cOIllIDunications. We do not know whether to blame Bro. Larner, the ex-Secretary, or Bro. Hancock, the present one-if the latter, we beg pardon, as this is hiH first blo,,~ at the bellows. We want to suggest another thing to him, viz.: To put reports, etc., of that kind in an "appendix," just for the sake of convenience, "you kno,v." The report on correspondence is uy Bro. VV. R. Singleton, covering 14H page~, which certainly does 11in1 great credit-i t proves hiln to he n close reader and a careful reviewer. Under the head of IV[rssouRI, he says: Missouri was the very first Sto.te in which a Grand Lodge elubarlrerl in this educational enterprise. The wrUer of this \vas one of the corporators, and the inducements offered were sncb that the Grand Lodge could not resist t,hern. The College at Marion, established by a Christian denomination, had til.<iled in its efforts, and \vas compelled to dispose of its property at a very ~reat. sacrifice; and Judge McBride, the then Grand Master, and Bro. S. W. B. Carneg;yr, P.·. G.·. Master, and a host of influential l\'Ii1sons of that region, ,judged it tl.d· visable to make the purchase and to establish an institution of learning under the auspices of the fraternity. Its renlova.l to Lexington, and the sale of property in Marion, wa~ a necessity. The result of this enterprise proved dISastrous in one sense, but to our judgnlent, was one of the Jnain caUSt'S of the growth of Masonry in Missouri, and brought into its raults some of t.he best and most influential material in the State. '1'11i8, as \vell as other folinlilar failures in other jurisdiet.ions, proves condllsively that it is not the legitlnlate nlission of Masonry' in this countrv, ~t least, to establish collegeR, "rhere edu~


Appendix.

1872.J

19

cational advant~ges are so great, and where the common school system so generally prevaIls. His head is certaillly level, so far as our State is concerned. Lodges can certainly do more good, ·with limited means, through the luediulu of pUblic schools, than they can by running n. college, in which about half n dozen parties swallo'w up the entire income. Under the head of

MONTANA,

he says:

If 1rfasonry is to commend itself to the practical nlind of the pure ...' \ryan race, it must be through this means, and not by being cOl1fin~d to the too rigid eonformity to mere formula. The landmarks and established forms prescribed by the Grand Lodge, and t("tught by the Grand Lecturer, must be observed in so far as they are concerned, but there are points and happy occasions \vhen the W.·. M.·. and the S.·. D.·. may, if of highly cultivated rnlnds, and with an appreciative candidate, so far improve the opportunity of fixin~ forever the Illost valuable and bet"tutiful lessons of our system upon those who will grow up iLlS ornaments to the institution and blessings to the world. In contrast to this, ·we can cite rnany inst~l,llCeS 'where the degrees hn,ve heen so tamely conferred, by f1 strict, cold, and formal adherence to the rituftl, that the initiate never returned to receive the tinal aegrees. Under the head of

NEVADA,

relative to "Conscientious l\1asollR," he says:

In his review of Florida, referring to Bro. Da1vkins' rem::"trks of Arkansas, that "they decide that ,vhen the rules of it church lead a l'rfaRon to renounce Masonry, as a matter of conscience, it is not a matter for It-Iasonic discipline. We think IVIasonry should renounce hiJn. If a Mason renounces Masonr~- for Whatever cause, what claim has he upon the society? vVe think he should he indefinitely suspended, which of course can be easily removed upon his return to his Masonic allegiance." Bro. Taylor conlments thus: "We fully agree with Bro. Dn;wkins, so far as renunciation is concerned, but for our part wonld be in no haste to reUlove sllspension." That, perhaps, is true, Bro. Taylor; for in all cases of suspension "we should be fully satisfied that a delinquent brother has become "all right in the courts," before a reinstatelnent; but we mnst exercise charity towards it ·weak brother, particularly those whose position in the church nlay render their lives uncomfortable. We canllot always Judge how nluch preRRure a rnan can be able to stand, frOIn home and social influence, to nUl.ke him. clloose between the church and the Lodge. 'fherefore we say, that each indiYidnal cnse must stand or fall upon its o\vn nlerits, and 110 general rule can be made to meet all CASes without exception. This is a vexed question continually arising, H.nd one often presented in our own jurisdiction. We \vill cite the lllost recent one, viz.: A judge of oue of our courts, and member of a Lodge in St. Louis, oecanle convcl'ted to the Roman Catholic church. He is a conscientious man, and }\:now·ing that his church is opposed to all secret societies, he failed to answer a sunlnlolls, except by oftering to pa~r up dues and get a dimit, without any other reason for dimit except that his religious views conflicted with Magonic duties. liiR faiiing to obey SUlnmons brought him up under t.rial, and he was expelled. The Grand Lodge of Missouri says, that 110 Hlen1.ber can dirnit except to leave the Jurisdiction; join another Lodge, or to assist in forn1.ing a new Lodge, ilind he not presenting any of these reasons, was expelled. He appeals to the Grand Lodge on the ground that Masonry iR not to interfere 'with his religion, his duty to God, etc. We hold that his appeal is not well founded, u,lthough we do not l{.uow yet how our Grand Lodge will decide the question, as it comes up at this S'ess:ron. Knowing that what we shall say here, will in no 'wise affect tllejudgment; we give our opinion on the general '[l18't(,e. This Brother was initiated with all the light of the law before him. Our Grand Lodge law compels those who propose candidates to show them a copy of th(l' by-laws, etc., before presen ting the petition. He ,vas assured at the first step of his proceedings what he was to expect-and he accepted the responsibilityof the la,v, and obligated hilnseH to it. Freernasonr~T is a Inuual1 institution, ha''Tlng a cIa/iln in conscience ~"tnd COnll1l011 sense upon her nlernbers,


20

Appendlx.

[Oct.

and so is the church outside of the Grf\at I.Jight of l\'1asollry, which in thi~ COuntry is the Holy Bihle. There is not a dogma or n, rule of discipline E'stablished by any Church in this country outside of that Great Light, which is not of human invention, just as Freelnasonry is; hence we have the t,vo brought ftLCe to face, so :fill' as discipline is concerned, upon a pm1ecl equaNt/J. \''''e challenge the world to show one single ,vord in that I-Ioly Bible which conde1nns our institution, or ,vhose precepts are in conflict ,vith it. Therpfore, we la~r dO'Wll the broad and universal principle, that whatever there is in the ROnlal1 or any other ('hurch of whatever religion or creed that condemns Freemnsonrsr, is merely a hun13.n institution, and in opposition to those laws of God upon which a Freenlason pledges his solemn covenant. When it C0111es to putting the rights, powers and. dignities of a Masonic Lodge in opposition to an~y other human institution on earth, we will Rtand by the Lodge. We do not include the Governlnent as a hunuln institution, for the pO\VerR that be fire ordained of God, and t.herefore every citizen in the country in which he mtlY live, is lVIasonically bound 10 be an obedient subject. COIning now' to the en,se before us, we emphaticallj-'say, that ~LS between U10 dictum, of the church to \vhich the accw.;ed belongs, and his solemn obligtltion as a lVlason, his punishment iH ,TUB'f. ,. Once a, Mason, always a Mason;" hence \ve do not believe in l\Iasonry ., l't'nouucing" anybody; she ma~y snspend, expel or reprimand, and ye1. hold by the ~trong bands of 11r-1' powE?r those ,vhom she disciplines, bU1, she cannot condescend to H renounce "-that is a damnable- demand, worth~'T' only of those sects who clainl the patent right to dictate la\vs for God Almighty. Fremoasol1ry ha~ "never yet gotdO\Vll to the contemptible level of asking anybody to renounce hi~ religion, his polities, his country, or his falnily. She stands to-UfLY, not, as theVi('(:Gerent, but as the child at" God. In defiance of all sccts, sections or nt1tiOl1ft:Iitic~, she steps to thefrontrnnksofhun1.an institntionsanc1 deposit~ '\vithout n word at self-praise, her sncred otfBrings of love and charity. She Inay di~cip1ine and yet forgive her children, but neve?" renounce thell1. r.rhe Roman and SOUle Protestant cll1.11'C11e8 \vollid to-day raise alll1eeesF-ary 111oney, and freely pay 11 out, if they could by it in any ,vise hire or bribe FreelUt1Sonry to be as uUjm;;t toward their people w'ho are Freelnasons as the3-'" are to,va,rcl us, btl t tllank GOtl the pur€' o,nd noble cosmopolitan fonndations upon which 'we rest \v'ill not allow it, hence our very benevolenc€', ltindness, goodnes~ nnd trnth is a ship111 of strength that no lance they have can penetrate. "Ve are in favor of f'xecnting our law!'. to the letter unless t,lle la:~v of God forbids it. What Brother Singleton has to say relative to Qnebec he ,viII fInd referr~(l to undE'r the head of MAINg. We find a "Htated COlumunicatioD," held .Jauuary 10, 1~72, but nothing of importance trausacted. We agree with 1\1:1's. ToadIes t 11at it is a good thing to have a Grnnd Lodge in the fanlily, where it. can h~ held abont eVf:IT ot11f'1' 111onth, were it not that it puzzles the Grand Recretary to find nanle~ for all of the-ill. Chas. F. Htansbury, 02H E street, Washington, Graud l\fnster; C. \V. 11all cock, 507 Reventh street, WnshillgtOl1, Grand Recretar:r. M

FLORIDA. Grand Lodge met ill .Tadrsonville, Feb. 1:1, 1872, Hnmnel Pfl,8CO, Grand .rvfnstf'l ~ presided. . We extrnct the follOWing froln his adclresl'; : I submit for ~rOl1r exalnination the follow'ring abstract of rulings nnd d€'clRiol1R nHtdp durIng the paRt Masonic year: BALI~OT.

1. If the \V. 1\1. should be satisfied that a ('an(lidate for th0 degree is liltely to be an e]f\ment, of diHcord in his Lodgp, or that he is objectlollftble to nn absent


1872.J

AplJe}~(lix.

21

brother who inten<lb to oppo:::;e his ac1nli:::;:::;ion, he should not permit any undue advantage to be tak.8n of tbe accidental 0.1.' tE'lnporary absencE' of such brother or of thp.. . Lodge IJeing thinly attended, but Rhonld po~tpone tIle bttllot until rea~onnl)le opportunity Ib given for a full ballot.

a

2. The secrecy of th~ bnJlot :::;hould never be violated, If a. l\Ia~on abcerta,iu:-) by aecident ho,v a partIcular brother hns voted, he has no right to divulge it· fts a: gf'neral rule it is reprehen~ible for a, brother to proclairn how he llinlbelf voted. 3. If fL brother n~es Ius privilege improperly vvhen ~l, ballot is taken, and proclaiIns his act so that the Lodge can take cognizance of it, charges should he preferred. But !tS a general rule thE' brother must be tried at the bar of his own conscience. CANDIDATE-PHYSICAL DIHQ,UALIPICA'rIONB.

1. 'rile ('al":ll1ultif'H of 'VfLr .are no reason for cllang-ing the ancient landnH.tl'k~ of Freell'uu,onry. '£11e candl<.late nUlst be hale and sound, not dofonned nor dismernbered, Hnd rHnst be able to perforrn the 'work required in the tln~t three degreeb of IVrasonry.

:2. An nl'tificial 8l1ostitute ,vill not qua.lify a dismernbered a.ppliC~:tllt.

a.

After a, candidate has been dnly elected to take ft degree he shonld not b~ 4:~toppeu for ligbt rea:-)ons. and the Lodge has a right to hear and consider those l'ea~on~ and decide vlllether they are sufficient. The Lodge ma.y waive this t'i~ht and aceept the statel1lellt of an atlicer or brother, or of a con:uuitLe8, that

the objeet,ions are 'well founded but are of such H, nature that they shot:.ld not

be rnalie known in the body of the Lodge.

-.I. It is a sn,fe rnle in tllelSe days, though I grea.tly doubt it:::; antiquity, that a c:antUdi'Lte ':::lllo111d be able to rend and "write. ::YIEMllERSHIP•

. .\ brother belonging to a Lodge 'when it beCOll1,eS dormttnt doe:::; not as a matter of eonrse regain his nlelnbership when the Lodge il::; revived, a,uti if 11e w!hllP~ to join nnother Lodge he lllUSt, obtain frOlll the Granel :-:;ecretary a certIficate of hi:::; l\Iasonie ~tnncling. 'l'U.IAL~.

1. ...\.. Lodge does not possel":ls any summary power to expel

:J, brother for can.. teIllpt. Its Juribdiction in such cases is acquired from the Constitution, and the provisions there established must be ca,rried out.

2. A brother under charges should not be excluded from the Lodge room while the (·hurges H.re pending, in cases where there has been no gross violation of Masonic hLW. .A.. proper discretion should be exercised in such cases. ;L In this Ktate the t.}rand Lodge has concurrentjurisdictioll over its nlerIll)Pl"R with the Particular I;odge, but no Lodge can try its OWl1 W. M. while in oHice....\n appeallie~ in all cases to the Granel Lodge from the finaljudgmellt or' the Particular Lodge. UNIFORMITY 01,' 'YORK.

I Horn not prepared to propose any steps to render our systenl of wOl'l{ UllitorIU throughout th iH Urand .Juris<hction, but 1 see plainly the necessity of SOIrlP l·t!ort to bring about such H. rebul t. Those traditional teachings that have open !lauded down from lUOUtl1 t,O ear for centuries, are like the holy tires whith the ves1al virgins of ancient B,aIne kept forever bl1rnin~ on the altars raIsed to their gods: t,hey lUust bH kept pure and bright by individual etfol't frorn generation to gpnerHtion. 'rhose rich lessons of the past n1l1st never be forgotten, or obS(·url),.d nnd 11lal'red by dirnillutiol1 or interpolation. We labor uucler rnan:v ditl1c111tie~ in thIS respect; our territory is large and our Inean~ are "luaH. \Vo cn..nuot (..lstabli:::;h onr schools of instruction, ana support brethren of known skill "while they give their whole time to the work, nor can we have tnlqHl'nt Lodge visitation;.:; to see how' a sister IJodge works. A {'omlnittee to tl~Hn{' thf? unties of District Deputy Grand M~tsters waH appoillted last year, to Hit during the r~ces:::; of tho GrftJud Lodge, fLnd [ trust then attention has been directt'd to this subject. I Gall only nl'ge you to heed. ,veIl the ,york you see here; (~ornpare it with ;y6ur O\V11, and, In your pr,rvatt} conversations, e(;tch with one ~tnother, and when you go back to your Ptl,rticlliar Lodges, cUsseruinate what you learn here !l,mong your bretl1ron, and try to stimulate Que <'1Juother to greater elfort and. higher degree of perfection.


[Oct.

22

All of which arc certainly good decisions. The proceedings were chiefly of n1local nature, and they evince an hone~t deN"otion to tile interests of the craft. Brother D. C. Dawkins presented again a very judicious and intelligent r,.e.port on correspondence. Under the head of .ARKANSAS, he says: It was decided, we think correctly, that "the Grand Lodge will not pay the I.lodO'e dues of a brother whose membership i~ transferred to a new Lodge by Cha~ter." They should all pay such dues before applying for the Charter. As a matter of course. Who ever heard of a Grand Lodge paying dues for a member in order that he might join another Lodge? . Under the head of CALIFORNIA, he says: l'he Annual Address of the Grand Master Leonidas E. Pratt, is somewhat lengthy and quite interesting, much of 路which we ,vouid copy if we had not concluded against taking long extracts in this report. He takes the space of nearly a whole page in the printed proceedings in inviting the Grand Lodge to say ,,;hat is to be done with a petition for initiation after it has been ascertained that for want of sufficient time of residence the Lodge has no jurisdiction-a subject wliich any Mason in Florida can settle for himself, without error, in less than one minute, by referring to our regulations, 1870, under the head of " Abatement." He is of opinion that no ballot should be taken after nn unfavorable report and ably argues thE' position, and his arguments against the recognition 01l Quebec, until harrnony is re~tored at hOIne, seems to us to be able and conclusive. Brother Dawkins is sound on both. The year before he asked the California Committee what they meant by aTrial Commissioners," and they replied as follows: Instead of trying a brother before the entire Lodge for alleged 1\ilasonic crimes, which experience has taught us ,vas little better than a broad farce, each Lodge, when charges are brought, is to elect a comn1.ission of Master Masons, not less than seven nor more than.....---in number, over which the Master is to preside and decide questions of Mttsonic law that may arise. This commission bears all the teRtimonyand arguments itnd renders the verdict, and also fixes the punishment if found guilty, a majority 0f the whole number determining the result. This is reported by the Master to the Lodge, and a record made, which is all the Lodge has to do with the matter, An appeal of course lies to the Granel Lodge. This is our California institutIon of ,. Trial of Commissioners," and practically it has worked well, so that we recommend our Florida bret/hren to adopt the same method. On this Brother D. makes no comments. We cannot refrain from saying that we believe California is entitled to the p:.ttent for a short way to l'elieve IJodges from a sacred responsibility. How in the name of Heavens that accused and convicted brother can take an appe~l,l to Grand Lodge from his Lodge is a mystery to us. The Lodge might as ,veIl leave the election to the committee on investigation and merely record the result. We can well understand the propriety of haVIng ~t "Trial Commission" to take all the evidence and submit the record of it to the Lodge, and then let the latter vote on it, but according to the California rule we dont want any trml in ours. If they prefer theIr practice, we would offer the suggestion that they change the election of the Commission by ballot to a lot cast among the Inenlbel'S, so that a fellow might at least have the chances afforded by the jury system, and an irreverant .Judge once said that even" God could not tell what 路would be the verdict of a petit Jury." Under the head of IDAHO, he alludes to the recognition of Quebec and says: They were eVidently led into the error, by the assertions of others, that the Grand Lodge of Canada did not have the jurisdiction of the Province ofQuebec, which we conceive it did; a few Lodges therein adhering to England, SCotland, and Ireland, by consent of Grand Lodge of Canada.


1872.J

Appe1~dix.

23

It iH astoni~hillg that thiH "consent" by C~1nA.da has been overlooked or else \vilfully ignored by all the adherents of Quebec. We however refer so much of

his report as relates to (.~uebec to our review under the head of MAINE. Under the head of IV[ASSAOHUSETTS, he says: Brother B. charges that we maintained in our report on Foreign Correspondence that" an officer of a Lodge lUfty dimit," and that we furnished no proof for the pm:;i tion, which he vehemently calls for. Well, if we must we must, so here it is: Our Constitution says: "Any member of a Lodge who is not in arrears or under charges may dimit," and every officer is a mernber of the Lodge, ~o of course, if the Constitution is to be obeyed, the officer can" dimit," when his membership and official relations simultaneously cease. A lVlaster or Warden cannot resign, because our Oonstitution says so; but being a Inember he can dilnit, because the same law says so. We think our proof is conclnsive and not inconsistent with any known Masonic law tht1t can overrule it. In this \ve cannot agree with Bro. Dawkins, for the reason that his reason is Ilot good and his conclusion il:) against general usage, as well as against his own Oonstitution, ,vhich say~, Sec. 5, Art. X., thus: "And the officers so elected and installed, shall continue in office one year, and u,ntil their S~tCCe880rs in office are elected wnd installed." Now if they dimit how can they serve out the term for which they were obligated? Oome, Bro. D., "own up to the corn," and reverse your decision. Under the bead of MISSOURI he says: Bro. Geo. Frank Gouley, Granel Secrettlry, and our highly esteemed Grand Representative in proxy, supplies us with another one of his masterly reports on Foreign Correspondence, in which Florida, for 1871, is fairly and fraternally revie'\ved. A long extract is taken from Grand Master Pasco's address, and the decisions copied in full. H:e is sound on the Canada and Quebec question. Our Hrand Jurisdiction embraces what is called East,l\riddle,West, and South Florida, tl nd if a bunch of tIle Lodges in one of these sections of the State should get into a broil against the constituted Masonic authority, and like Quebec tei~n to Ret up a Grand Lodge, somebody might recognize It as regular, and haii It spunl{y little flowery Queen, and a grand banquet might be given to the charnpion advom"tes. But we set it down for certain, that Brother Gouley and the Grand Lodge of Missouri would not thus take part in the utter destruction of the legitimate body. We quote this to say that we feel assured ofthe stern adherance of our Grand Lodge to the constituted rights of Grand Bodies. For ourselves we would not expect a banquet from the "little flowery Queen," even if the State was cut into the four parts by Congress, unless the " Grand Lodge of Florida" said so. We are some,vhat surprised to find the following from him under the head of OHIO: He don't like our rnle 1,,8 to "jurisdiction of membership," and urges three rea~ons against it. 1st. Civil law has jurisdiction where crime is comm.itted. 2eI. rrhe evidence is easier of access. 3d. The character of witnesses is better known. These objections we think are successfully answered in our former report, but the Ohio COlumittee completely dodged the questions we propounded, and the reasons given for our rule, which we still think is the only rational and practical solution of tbe subject. Membership is a local investment in a PartlCulfltr Lodge, and is tIle result of a compact or agreement to which the luember and the Lodge are the only contracting parties, and made independâ&#x201A;Ź>utly of any other Lodge or Lodges. Now it is true that l\:Iasonry is a mystenons sciencej but the mystery that a IJodge in Ohio can expel a Mason from his lnenlbership In a, IJodge in Engla.nd, BraZil, or Florida, is beyond our power to reconcile WIth any rule of practical utility or common sense. We ackno'wledge the compact of membership with a Particular Lodge, but LodgeH arc not independent. They are parts ofa Grand Lodge,and Grand Lodges arepa,rts ofa universal Masonic family, and as far as we can learn all, or nearly all, have agreed that every Mason is subject to the penaljurisdiction of the Lodge in whose lirnits he may reside, '\vhether he is a member of it or not, and, if we ln1stake not., Florid~l, according to Brother D., is the only one in the world which denies tha,t accountability. If a Florida lodge expels a nlember of our Lodge and reports the fact, Brother D. can rest assured that the verdict will be


Appendix.

24

[Oct.

fInly recorded and btand a~final, unless the accusf:'d on appeal to the Grand Lodge is restored to good ~fasonic standing, and he then ca.n only rechtim rneruberMhip by onr unanhnous vote. The intelligence and care exhibited in this l't2IJort rnakt·~ nH regret to lay It dOWll, bnt the illexorrLl>le ('omnuL1Hl, "Tirne!" eonl pels us to close. ~~tInuel Pn~co,

Grand

l\fonticello, Grand :Master; Dt.nvitt C. DawkilH:;, Jacksonville, Committee on F'orei~n Corre~pontlellce,

~eeretnry ~l,l1cl

GEORGI,A.. Grand I.lodge IHet in J\facon, Oct. 31, 1871. presided.

Sarnuel La,vrence, Grand .Master,

'rhe Annual ..~ddress is n, good one. "'rVe extract aH follow~:The olel mistuI{e, or at least confused idea 01' the objcl"ts of 11'reernasonry, I", nearly pa~sed awns, aud the light is being seen and acknow"l<>dged by the brethren, and by the ,vorld, in itK bright!H?H8, nnll in its fullnesl4, and iu itl-, truth. No longer do Tnen point to our Institution w., a rnere Hocial, or pleE'mu~yna.rySOClf't~T, hut re('ugnize find own in it 1)11' nohler and granupr Jects-object~, in the nttnilunent of whieh a.ll tho~p are added. It shonl(l bl'OUl prIlle, IUY urethren, to be privileged to contribute to thj~ result.

A few, in their blindnes:-:l, are y'et heard to grurnuJ(", and ol).ip(·t that tlll:-; elevated view of l~l'eC'n)asonry baR a tendency to eVftl1gplb.p It. rrhey ~eem aHUpted 'with SOHle terrihlfl dread of that word ecangelfr..-e. But they are yet in darltne~~ and Inlo,y not of 'wha.t the;y" span,}\:. 1..]( (df,:7eliz(' Fr':::eIl1Ui-,Olll'Y' ! Why, it i~ already evangt·lizfld to 111pir han(!. '\Vhat is It ill its inception, in itR Objects, in its work, but a.n RY.. lI'I:E.II()~r, a good Jnessage of gootl tidings to luankind -the gi'Yi ng of light to the blind ~ .A.nd wlutt are \\Te, 111;\" brethren, €tctch and all of UI:;, evpry one who has tr111y receivetl our InysterjPH, out EvftngelH in tlw beBt sense 01' the word. m0~sengerb of good tidings, beari ng 011 nud spreading ever, as on the winged 'winds of heaven, 10 the foul' coruet'S of the earth, tho good message: '~Glor;y to God in the highest! On ea.rth pegce, good will towardb

Inen."

DEOISIONS.

2. A brother who has never served as Wardell, except in the case of H. 'new Lodg-e, is ineligihle ns l'rInster. r:ehis ngttlU overrnle& ~t decibion of Brotbpr RoC'kwell. but I eauld not ~lvoid it, as such iR IUy reading and construction of the IV. Old (1harge, 'which is the Constitutional law of Pre0nlusonry. No brother C'l11 hp H a l\Iuster until he bas acted as a \Vardcn." To my rnind, no retinenlcnt, in u,l'glunen t CfLll gf't over the plain nleaning of the~e words. ;:to None but a present or acting l\Iaster has the 1 ight to claim a jury of Past l\[ustt>rs on a charge touching lnoral ('har<L('ter or standing. And this h only allowed in con,,;hleration of the probability that Where suell a, dignitary thllb HO fur below the dutie& anel re(luiroments of his positIon as to jl1stify or cull for charges ngainst hin), there ruay be too Inuch prejudice exifo;tent in his Lodge to t:>URure hirn OJ fair trial. A Grand l\1:aster hirnself, on general )Jl'lnefples, is subjef<t to trial Hurl disciplll1e by the I..lodge of v'lhieh he is a Dlelnber,foJ" flro,,<,'.; immoral OJ' Ilnma80nic condllet. Otherwise, when the ('barge involvE'S otrlciallniscontlud. Then he can only bp tried by his peer& in the GI'and Lodge. But on the broull platfbrm and basis of moral and l\fa~onic behu,vioul' and ('oudl1ct, we ar(~ all peers. ret in consideration of the high dignity ofbis office, he can only be trit'll before Ius Grand IJodge. -i. A brother objecting to a visiting brother mu~t do so in person. :He can not do it by proxy, hiInselfbeing absent.

5. Thouf4h the Iuiul1tes once conflrrned cannot be a).uended, yet in the case ot a trial, ,\vhflore thfl Hecretal'Y fitils to record the charge, ple~\;, etc., on Inotion, at 0.. sUb~equen.ti luee-tJng, tt fnll statelllcnt of the charge&, plea, etc., nuty be entere,l on the Inlnlltf'S, nunc ]J'l"O tunc.

6. ()ne blcl,Uot 1110re th~in the lluruber of brethren votIng nppefLring in the box, and there bein~ only one blnck ball against. the c~tndidftte, the ballot lnay be retaken though declared, the fact being discovered after it wa~':declared.


20

1872.J

To all which of we agree except the 3d, and rela.tive to tbat we know no law for it, unless in the constitution of that Htate. We bold that n, W. 1\1. Inay })e deposed and cited to appear before Grand IJodge for trial. We canllot understa,nd how a Lodge of Past Masters 1'1'011.1. various lodges could be called to try a Master, except in Grfl,nd Lodge assembled, tl"lld when ill Grand Lodge we hold that every men~ber, including the 'wardens, bas a, right to vote. We hnd thought that the" Peer ,. business had been about exploded. ...\ l\ffLstel' is not tried in Grand Lodge beml"use the lnernbers thereof Hre his ., peers," but beCt1.use he is a membe''t" of that body and cannot be tried by his own Lodge. 'rhe proceedings of the Grand Lodge ,vere brief. We here"rith &uggest to the Grand Secretary to insert in the published proceedings 8CB-HEADING::i to the subject ruatter-they will be a great aid to the reviewers. One hnndred and sixty-seven pages is taken up with the roll of meulberl;, Brother J. Emmett Blackshear submitted us usual a tine report on corre~poudeuce.

Under the head of . A.RKANSAIS, he says: This sing1lla1' decision ""vas singlllar1iJ modified a~ .tollows: ,,~\. citizen of another state, residing in the Htate \vhere his dtizent;hi!J IS ~h0111d not be permitted to affilia,te with ~t Lodge in this Htate; bnt wherc-' ~~ Mason, who has his citizel1Rhip in ~lnother ~:~Hatp, is cloIlliciled in thi::; State, he may ,"Yell be permitted to nffillate here, to enjoy the benefit of Lodge-fellow~hip whHe dornieiled among us." 'Ve ettnl10t nnderstand \vhy a brother should not be pel'ltlitted to affilin,te with an~: Lodge he chooses, (provided he is found ,vorth.y), regf\,l'itlebs of Hinie boundaries. vVe agree 'with Brother Blacl\:shear. 'Vhat he has to say relative to the C1uebec he~td

Cttbe

we refer to onr report under

of MAINE.

:~amuel Lu.,vrence, .A.tlant~t, Grand Master;.J. Emrnett. Bln.cli&lleur, :Macoll, Grand Secretary and Committee on Correspondence.

IOWA. Grand Loc1geluetin Davenport, June 4, IH72, Ozias P. presided.

W~tters,

Grand l\lasier,

lIe reports having issued the following sellbi ble circular relative to ne,,,," Lodges, and after quoting the law says: The wuut of a proper observance, or ratHer the violation of the ahove provil:'}ions of the Grant! Lo<lge, re-lati ve to " the fonun.tion of new Lod~es," ~1S <:011U:1ined in ~ectiollS XV"II.. X\TIII. and XIX., of the By-La\vs, have lJccorne so frequent within the past fe\v years, and the evils r('sultillg therefroln so great, thnt I have thought it best to direct your especial Hnd COll~tant a,ttentioll to theIn. The responsibility of refusing H. dispen~atioll to petitIoners ,vho do noL come within the requirements of the law, rests, and must Test, l.oith lhe Loc[fju tJ}hose re('omrnendatlonthey seek; and they cannot be perlnittet1 to thro,v it. oifa:nd cast it upon the Gru,nd l\faster. .

The law requires you, before recommending the petitioners, to be satisfied on the following points, viz: 1. That if there is already a Lodge in the town, "the popula.tion must exceed. thirty-five hundred," or you will refuse tbe recommendation.

. 2. That the" proposed Lodge is N"or.r u'itllin rl'EN rniles of a Louge a.lready exl~ting." If it is, you ')nu~. .路t refu.'?e the rel."Ollllnendation. This is oftentimes VIolated, to the great anlloyance of the Grand Master, and upon his refusal causes n:l.ucb. v~ation to the petitioners.


Appertdix.

26

[Oet.

3. There rnus! be SEVIiJN, and it 'We'i'e bette')' to 'J'cq u11"e ten petitioners,. the htw does not say that a dispensation shall issue to seven, but "nay. The history of the past fe,v yei'trs shows that oftentimes seven cannot be present, and the Lodgp ~rorks wfth a less number, and is telnpted to get in1,p'roper 1nate?'ial to make th.e n'll?nber.

1. You m~/;st frequi1'e the proposed Master of the ne,v Lodge to appea'J' in your IJo<1ge and exe'tnpli/.lJthe 'U)ork in the three degrees to your sn.tisfaction. 5. You must be satisfied that they have secured a suitable and safe Lodge

OPEN )'OOJn

in which to meet.

6. You must require the dirr"it of each pctitione')' to accompany their l)etition. If any ONE of these frequirenwnts is ,vanting, 1'ejuse the application. I therefore order that this circular be read and kept in the Lodge for reference and future guidance; and request that you obey the laws of the Grand Lodge. ...<\.ttest: o. P. W.A.TER~,

T. 8. PARVIN,

Grand .J.traMer.

Grancl Secretary.

Rela.tive to insurance he is again very sensible, and we recommend the renlal'ks to our own Lodges. Fortunat.ely, as I learn, they were insured-whether fnlly or not I do not know-and I would earnestly urge upon the other Lodges in this jurisdiction t.he sanle wise action. No business man can lay clainl to comnlon prUdence, or aslt for sympathy, if he neglect.s to insnre; and I have always thought it came with an ill grace from Lodges to teach that prudence is a cardinal virtue, and then when they suffer loss, see thenl begging of others, and undergoing a htlmill~ ation which the simplest exercise of common every-day business sense would have made unnecessary. Since writing the foregoing, I learn from the Grand Secretary tbat the brethren of Benton City Lodge, No. 81, at Shellesburg, have also lost their hall. I do not know whether they were insured, or what the amount of their loss. It has been customary heretofore, in similar cases, to relinquish Grand Lodge dues t'or the year, and grant a ne\v charter free of expense. It may be well, if you think proper, to exercise the same charity in either of these cases, to couple it with the distinct assurance, that for the futnre no snch grantH will be made, and that a resolution be passed requiring all Lodges to insure their property, and ~lso to require, in the annual returns, a staternent of the amount insured for, ~o that the Grano. Lodge might know who obeys and who disobeys this requirernent. DECISIONS.

"Is it lawful for a Lodge to charp;e a dimitted brother a fee lor rnembership? Our Standard By-Laws say no fee for membership bhall be charged. '1'11e question arose wether that llleant a newly-made Mason or a dimitted Mason applying for membership?" Q7.W"I"JI.

.A:nswer. "The clause in Section 12 Chapter V. of Standard By-Laws, refers only to Masons,non-affiiIiated by dinut. Without considering \vhat the ruling or impression may have been heretofore, I decide that when yon elect a lnan to the third degree, you also, by that vote, elect hiln to nlembership ill your Lodge; and it is his duty, which he cannot avoid any more than he can obeying snm.. lnons or any other dut.y, to sign your By-laws, and his failure to sign thelll as justly subjects him to punishment as any other masonic delinqnency. You art' not chartered to make non-affiliated Masons, and jf he is not \vorthy ofnlCunbership in your Lodge, he is not worth~" to receive the degrees of ~1asonry. He knows, or should know, before he petitions, what your by-laws reqUIre, and it he does not, he has no business to pronl1se obedience in his original appliciltion. You will, therefore, see that this clause can apply only to'dinlited Masons.' Those raised by you are members by the act of raIsing." Qum路y. "Please grant permission to confer the degrees on an applicant who has not yet resided one year in the state of Iowa. As I understand the law, we cannot confer the degrees upon him without a dIspensation or permit from you. He is a good man, and will make Olle of the best of Masons; and if not incon.. sistent with your views and against masonic usages, will you grant us a permit to confer the degrees upon him? I will vouch th91t he is all right. 77


1872.J

AppencZix.

27

1n~wer. "The applicant not ha ving l'esIded in the jurisdiction of this Grand Lodge one year, his petition is not legu,lly before the Lodge, and shouid be returned without action. Yon ask 111e to do what is not in IllY power, 1101' even in thatl of the Grand Lodge, viz: To set aside a positive by-law. See page 50, last clause of first paragraph of section 28, By-Laws of Grand Lodge, Ed. 1866. The Urand Lodge can only set that aside by regular action, and I certainl~y" have no power to do what it cannot do." Query. "Is it the duty of the Worshipful l\faster of a Lodge to rebulre a brother for unmasonic conduct t,'wice in open Lodge, before preferring charges? Doef:, not a private rebulre from the Worshipful Master, or any brother, fill all the ~equirements of the law? Is it necessary for all cases of unmasonic conduct to be referred to the Committee on Grievances before charges can be preferred?" Answer. "Unless the by-h1ws of your Lodge require these fOl'ms, nothing of the kind is necessary, See Compend of Masonic Law of Trials and PunishIllents." Query. "Can the Senior Warden of a Lodge (the l\faster being absent) call to the chair a Master Mason, ODe who is not a member of the Lod~e and not under our jurisdiction, and one who never was Master of a Lodge? Oan such an one act as Master pro te'ln., and do work legally?" Answer. "In the absence of the Worshipful Master the Senior Warden is Master of the Lodge. He may congregate his Lodge, and then ('all to the East a Past Master, or any expert~_at his option. He must, of course, remain present in the Lodge; then the work is nis, no matter whose mouth pronounces the words." Que1路Y. Would it be in accordance "with masonic usage to O'rant a dinlit to a brother \vho has been for several years a member of our Lodge, and is yet, but says the whole thing (meaning Masonry) is a Myth, and that, too, in the presence of those \vho where not Masons? Also, please state \vhetller there are any instructions in granting dimits? " An.rwer. "There wonld be no impropriet3rin granting hilnadimit, providing he is not uuder charges, and is free of all d nes. We cannot preven t some men from mnking fools of themselves, and the easier we can'get rid of such material the better. The bestplan V\Tith such is to prove to them, ifthey are able to learn anything by good actions and pure lives, that lVfasonry is not a IJnytll, A brother Master Mt"Lson in good and regnlar standing" and dues all paid to date, is entitled to a dimit; application, of course, to be maue at monthly meeting, and grallted by vote of the Lodge. Read your by-laws. n Query. "vVill you be kind enough to give me your opinion as to w nether a MaBon is entitled. to the ballot who is in arrearage 'with his dues? Can he vote for candidates for initiation or for any other business of his Lodge?" Ansu:e?路. "No men1.ber of a Lodge can be deprived of the rights and privileges of men1bership, except by a reguhtr trial. So long as he is under no chnrges he is en titled to a vote, Page 68, Compend of IVfusonic Law, says: 'Every men1her present is bound to vote.' If he is in arrears, and will not pay, prefer charges; if he cannot pay, ren1.it. See By-Laws Grand Lodge:edition 1860, page 62, 'Substitute lor Section 25, old,' etc., Clause 1. If this law is obeyed, yO'll will have no such trouble."

QltBr,IJ.

~fason?"

"Is an Entered Apprentice subject to pay dues the same as a Master

Amwer. "Entered Apprentices, not being members of the Lodge, are not liable to pay Lodge dues."

Query. "A question has arisen in our Lodge, \vhether the decision, page 155 Constitution and By-Laws, in relation to t,he number of members to open Lodge' means seven actual Inembers, or would adlnit visiting brethren of the COl1l1t? Also} if actuallnembers are necessary, and LoLlge had been opened for work with less lilu\n the reqnired uumberof meluberH-the deficit being supplied l>y visitors-whether tIle proceedin~would be considered void, And all work during the cOlumuuicatioll irregular, although the required nluuber of n1.embers should be present before beginning work'!" .An..~'wer. "lV拢y decision (or rather my interpretation of the decision) would be, that thel'<?' lill1St be seven acluctl rnernbe'rs of the Lodge present, in order to open a legal Lodge. Any Lodge Violating as plain fl> regulation of the Grand Lodge would (shOUld it come to my knowledge) subject itself to censure, if not to arrest of charter." Query. "Is the protest of a brothel', not a member of the Lodge, billdillg on the Lodge to prevent advancement, when the brother objecting gives no reason?"


.L1P1Je?tclix.

28

[Oct.

AnSl(l£i''. "I think not; nncl I do not think ft, Ineruber of fL bister Lodge hab a right, of protest without !?iving his reason. Really, the. 'practi<:al working ot this proleMt) matter is, that the l\1[Lster, or some brother, If he thlnl:r the rea~on o'ivell hya brother frolH a neighboring l~odge (or b,y" <lny body el~e'l reasonable ~n'tV ob'jE'ct to the ad vftncGll1enL; therefore the objection of allY brother llot 't nl~i1l1wi' of the Loclgt' ('an etfect nothing ullles~ he give...., ~uch rpu:-:;ons as t"l,r;. eOllvillcing to ~oIne lueIUbL'1'.of the Lodge acting, beca,u~e his objection ~a.n only he-eolne ol)el'atlVt~ ,vhen consIdered, by sonlC rnembers 01 tho Lodge, Sll.fhclent to justify hilll 111 voting against the applicant. In other 'words, the mernber~ 01 the r~odu,e u,etll1g, decide v;ho shall be admitted and not !uernbers from other Lodges." (Juer,tJ. hrrhe Lodge whd.lCS Ule t~) inquire \v!lethel' ;v'"~u haye.unthority and Inclination to grant us a chspensatlon to eleet ~1 new 'W ()l'~ll1pful .l\Iaster anti. Junior '\Val'derl, these ofticers having renloyed from our jurisdiction?" A nsll.'e I'. "1'hel'e i~ 1H~ law, \v1:ittcn or llnwrit~en, 1101' precf:dent, giving Ute a,uihority to issue I-luch (:lIspE'llsatlon as yon ask for. The BelBoI' 'Var(lf'll 1n1l8t ..,ueceed to the office in abbel1Ce of the l\Iastel', and there is no power to prUv0nt." ()Ilerlj. "' ~\. eandirlate has been elected to initiation in our Lodge. At the tllue 1iX(j(] 1bl' initiation, one of the brethren-,,,'"ho ,vas also present at tl1~ Iml.. lOLing-raiRf'tl ob.ip~tiOll to his lULV.illg the degree cOl1f~rred upon hinl. MUl:,t the bruther give Ius reasons? and If so, what mnst thell' nature be to exdudt' thp candHlate? Or, Inu:-.t chan~eR be preferred the same a~ if the eleeted eandl(late wel'f' already tl, nlenlher? If a candidate has the fir~t degree conferred and a hallot is taken 011 him for the &6concl <..legree, can he be rejected for un}: other rea~on than want of proficiency in tIle preceding degree'! Or, in otht:;t, worth; dop'S the (.)leetion to init.iation entitle lliu1 to all three degrees as soon a~ he is protident and ha~ paid his fees?"

.llnsu'e,·_ "The right ot' a meulber of your Lodge to object to the initiation of the candiclatp after his election is undoubted. Of course you conld not 'prefer (llla,l'geH.' \Yhat 'would be the effect of ~uspellMi()ll or expulBion on it IHy>!anet Election to il1i Lia,tion. does not entitle the caudidate to H,ll three degrees. A dear ba110t is lH~ce~sar;v to each degree. He rnaJT be stopped by a black baH (without reason given) at any ti1110 before the degree is conferred." (Jllery. ., ...<\.t the ltl.'-,t l'eguhl..l' conllnUllicatiol1 of our Lodge, all au-;enl broth('l' :\la~ter ~fason applied for tt, diulit, \vhich, 011 fL motion (\vitholltl any diseu~sion), wn~ gl'ulltE'd,Oll n.. "hovv of hands, ,vith t\\'o or three negative vote~. In tho IUe~Ll1tilnt:\ I have l'oceive(l a letter f'roln a very ,vol'th Jr brother, Il1Pluuer of said Lodge. 'fhe cf\rtificate of clirnit lU1S not been issued, fLlHl I have ordered the Rcc'" l'etarv to hold it till I hE',u' fr0111. yon. Can we reconsider the vote or receive charges, find cxereisL' jnrisdiction '? 'fIle dilnitted hrother ha.~ renloved out of thejnrisdietion of this Lodge." ...:tnswc1'. "If, at the tinlc the vote ,vas taken, you l:::1.H ~Iaster) decided the diIuit gran ted, the hrother is entitled to hi~ certificate of dinlit. Charges, howeYPl", CU.tll of course be prefl~!"reu in. thE: Lodge under ,v!lose .iuri~<licti()n he may l'e...;ide, ,vhether he waR nffilw.. ted ,vIth It or not." Query. HOur IJouge hl.:l.H made nn alnendl11.en t to the by-laws, 'thttt aIl1HE'rnO""'1'H one year in nrren.rs.with dues shall not be allowed to vote .011 an;vr question hefore the Lodge.' I danll that as long at-. a Inernber's name IS on the record, and 110 chal'ge~ l.:Lgninst hiIn, he is privileged to vote, except it be on the elec·Uon of o1ficer~ of the Lodge, concerning ,vhich there iH a regUlation in the bj.T-htws.' .d.. ltM('cr. "See page 133 of the ConstItutIon of Grand Lodge, bottOIll 01 page; and page f):!, ..;uhstitute for Rection 8f>, a~ to the duty of the Lodge and l\.laster Ub to brethren In arrears for dues: 'vVhen any lnernbf'l' neglec·ts for six rnollths to pay dneH, unle~s t bey shall have been reulitte<l by a vote of the lodge, It ~hall bt' the DU'I'Y of the \Vorshi pf111 MUBter to cau:.;e prOee(Kl1ngs to be in..;tltuted ugnlubt hun for such llpgleet, in the lua.nner prescribed Ul ~eC'tion :3 of the Digest of LRW of 'rrinls antI punishments, appended to Grund Lodge By-Laws.' Also, &I:'e pag(:> 68, Uornpend: l!.'very rnenlber present is hound to vote;' ,vhicn is the rulp In all meetings. Obey the law, and you \vill hu.ve no trouble; but rernember no l\Ia.son <-an be deprived of Lodge privileges withont due trial and. a vot(~ of the Lodge." (JuCrll. "Ca,ll a Lodge do anything ,vith a petition for nl.eulbership upon!~ j'('f/ular cthnit, properly attested, when the applican t cannot prove hilnscH to 00 and ha~ no t'oue!ter t " A Jl81cer. "The applicant lnubt prove hilnself:1 l\Iason, either byexamina· tion or the avouchment of sonlO oue 'who has sat in Lodge WIth him, beiore he C~l.l1 be fLtlUllttud."

l.:L

~lason,

(Juery.

H

C~Ul

\ve (a Lodge U. D.) ballot on a candIdate the first nIght

open the Lodge? "

we


"You cannot, legallJ/:' (Juery. ., Can we receive melubers by dimit "while under dispensation '?,. Answer. r~odges U. D. are only authorized to do such things as fLr(?- Ret forth in the dispensation; therefore you cannot rpceive menlherR on diInit." QneJ'lj. "Aboutten years ago::t Ulan petitioned for inithttion in --Lr;ige, was dl1iyelected, and rec~ived the firs~ degree, iffiJn.Nliat(']:r after which be ('HIXle to tbiR place; but oWIng to some IUls1orl,uneR he dId not lee1 able to go on and take-> the ot~ler degrees. fIe is. nov;"" in prosperous circulnspances and wall ts to be atlvanceClIl1 the Lodge III thjS place. - - Lodge certlBE'H that he was duly initinted there, and .reeom.mends. him to this I.Jo~ge. He is an hone8t mall find it. good citlzen, but hIS havIng "val'lied so long, I dId not know exactly whut ;tction-w0l!ld bH proper and have applied to you for direction. Arunver as I-\oon An.<f70er.

H

a~

ronVenIE'nt,

Answe'r. "A nH1tn under these circumgtan~cs luust prove to you, eitllf'r by Htrict trial, due eX~llnination, or lawful inforlnatioD, tluLt he iR an FJntE'red ...~p­ prf.:'ntke; then h~ Juu~t peti~lOll., and be reeoIl1.mended ~1tn(.·w .f01' the remaining df'lrrtleS P~1~~ a prop("r examlllation as to protieleney, and havIng pa~sed through n,lC'Uw t'ornl~ of r0terenCE". l'f"l)Ort, and ballot-and having been, by its letter of re<,ommpIHlutiol1, passed to ~?our JurIsdiction by the Lo(lge in WhICh hewH,f'; Inade, yon ran ('onter the ren1.ainlllg degrees upon hin1." (;W'rl/. "",rill a t"wo-thirds vote of the nlelubers of the Lodge prm.;;ent re!'tore n pptitioner to nlen1 bership in the Lodge., or wHllt rcqui rp a elpa,r brtlIot?" ... lnRl{'(l)'. "It, requireR a clear ballot. See Constitntion of lR{}u, page ()~." (illerll. "Can a brother, "vhile under clutrges, n,ncl before he- ha:.; had a t.rinl, prE'tt'r dHlrg-es against a.notherbrother'! ,. jjfunl'cJ" "lIe 1nay,. but under such cireumstanc0::; a shade of Rur-,picion nHlS reFIt upon either the motive or upon the case itself, ftnd proper <liscretiol1 Rhonlc! be pxercised.'· QI/(>tj',lI. "Htts the Tyler the right to ballot in subordinate LodgeH '!" .An8'We1'. "Being a member of the Lodge he has the right. to ballot. H (~lte'rlJ. ".A nULll 'waH elected to receive the first degree of l\!asonrv. 01JjcrtlOl1S were rna(}e to his receiving the degree:. \Vhat course Rhoulcl the IJodgc' takf' to prevent his reeelving theIu, a,tter being elected'!·' Aril?lreJ'.

nud

'''rhe objection is as effectual as "voulll have },een the blncl~ ball, in the :-,arne ruanner. It the object/ionf~ are not ,\vit,lldrn WD, 1he

opl'r~1te::;

Master shonld declare hinl rejected."

(~1terl/. ,. All Entered Apprentice preRents hhnself at a statrcd lilE'eting for pxarninatiol1,ft fnll quoI'un1. of l\1aster Masons being pr<:>sent, waH eX:lrnined 1n protic'iency, balloted lor and elected, but t"or S0111e enuse is not paFl~e(.l. At the next rpguiar Dleeting the l\laster and ~enior ~Tarden are abscut. rl'he .lulllor \Varden congregates the Lodge, and callR a lJrother to the C'lH1ir. 'l'lli~ l-\aU1E" ('nn-

di(htte is used to open Lodge all the fll'Ht dpgree, Lhere oC"ing but seven prcl-tcn t, him ine1nded. He then retires, and Lodge opened on seconcl dcgTeE', with five Mabter lVIasons; opened on thnd degree, and resnmeR on Reeond, f1nd (~~l,n<.liclat(: pa,;sed. Would H, trausH,cHon or thir-. l~ind be legal'?" Arz..swer. H As it requires seV€'ll 1Vra~ter lYInsons to ballot, and at least 1he custmn of our 'working requires seven for quorum, I thinl\:. there should he heVf\n present, eertninl,Y' ""hen tltllJT "vork il:> done. In the o)'i{/inal Pl'efiton ritnal we are tanght tba.t a Lodge is an assmublage of brethren, met to enlighten the luemherR of the craft. It i:-, nIndc Just by the Holy Bible, and made lJm:(ect by seven or lllore regnhl,rly lnade l\{asol1s. There should, therefore, he seven MaRons present 1vhen any 'work is done." Qu,erl/. "A brother l\1n.ster l\fasoll petition~ for lnenlbcrship, ~tnd nrter tlJD prescribed ('ourse 1s declared duly rejected. U~tn thIS petitIon be again pI'€'fiented and receiv0d by the J.Jodge the saIne night tht? ballot is tal{€'n (as in the order of busine~s balloting preeede~ re("eptionR of petitions), or does he hnve to wait a certain tinle betore he can petlt,ion a~ain? If ~o, how long?" .A7l$WM". "fIp can petition again t,he same evening, and nt ever~r Rtated rneoting of the Lodge, hi::; petition, of course, CODling In allew·, all(l 1~1kil1g the regular 90nrse. It l~ hiR duty to a1filiate, and t,he Lo<.lge Bl10nld either reeeive him or prefer chnrgPR ngnil1Rt hilu, Ifthcre lRjuSt. cause for hi:-; rejection. It has no right t.o COIn pel hinl to !lve as ft non-ftffiliatc in good sta.n~ing."

Query. "A luan proposes for nlelnber&llip in our Lodge 'who wa& raiRed and has lived in this state for a DUDlber of year~, uDtil the last few years he has


Appel1ldix.

20

[Oct.

lived in Minnesota. Some two months since he came into our state, and sent in his petition to our Lodge for initiation. It was referred to a committee. But since that I learned the particulars of the case, and no\v I want to know if we call consider the case further, and if he is elected can we make him a Mason? I clailned that he has not complied with the Grand Lodge by-laws by liVing the jurisdIction of the Grand Lodge one year. Please let us hear from you soon." Answer. "The meanIng and intention of the by-law of the Grand Lodge evidentlY iR, that the candidate shall reside under its j llrisdiction one year continuously, imnlediately preceding the offering of his petition. The petition referred to is, therefore., not regularly before the Lodge." Qnm'lj. I am requested to ask you for a dispensation for my Lodge to <1iInit the Senior Warden." Answer. "It is not in my po\ver to grant such a dispensation. Masters and Wardens cannot resign or din1it during; their term of 0111ce. They must occupy the title and relnain Iuembers of the Lodge until their successors are elected and installed. Qnery. "When charges have been preferred against a brother, and a motion has been made to receive them, and not to place t,hem on file, has the Lodge the right to appoint a cOIDlnittee to settle the uifficult:y'r?" .Answer. "The charges are before 1,he Lodge, and are its property. With the consent of the accused, the Lodge would have the right to appoint such a cOlnmittee, the~r to report to the Lodge, and it to ratify or reject their decision." Query. "Has the Secretary the right to hold his office after charges have oeen preferred against him? "

in

U

Answer. "Proper delicacy 'would prompt an officer to ask to be excused froln the clutieR of his office, pending the investigation of charges against him. Should he, however, not do so, the J\Iaster should appoint a Secretary l)ro tern., and not permit him to act in that capacIty until after the investigation, when, if acquitted, he would of course reSUlne his station. Que/路y. "There are three Master 1\Iasons in this town who have been absent froln their home Lodges for 1"roln ten to seventeen years. In order to be made ~rasons in good standing in the ordinary \vay, they would pay their dues to their home Lodge. Oannot they petition and be made J\tIasons here? Or, if they become petitioners, and were made charter members of a new Lodge, would it not restore them to good standing in J\lIasonry? They are residents here of several years standing, and are upright men. 'rheir dues willaIDount to lnore than their fees for membership. They are good bright Masons now." ...t1nswer. "They are either members of the 'home Lodge,' or have been suspended for nOll-payment of dues. I know of no other way in 'which they can be placed in goocl standing, if they are members, except by paying, honestly, their dues. I m"tn recommend no way for theln to avoid paying their honest debts. In order to sign a petition for a new Lodge, the Lodge recommending the petition must certify that' each one of the petitioners has presented a re~ular dilnit from the Lodge of which he was last a member, where such Lodge is In existence.' If they have dimits, or if they get them, t,ha't fact wi1:l place them in good standing; and if, after obtaining dimits, they petition, they can then become members." The report of Grand Secretary is very complete, and among other things alludes to a "safe." No provision has been made for the more secure preservation of the valuable papers than a desk in the office, oftentimes not even covered by insurance. Would it not be good policy to procure a safe for such a purpose?

We answer" yes "-it is criminal negligence not to get one. PRACTICAL MASONIC WORK.

The following were referred to the subordinate Lodges for action:

Resolved, That the Grand Lodge of Iowa hereby formally approves and adopts the report of the comulittee on the Masonic Home for Widows and Orphans. 路 Resoll)ed, rrhat ilnmediately after the election for Grand Officers shall have t,he Grand Lo<1g~ will proceed to elect five Directors, as proposed

~een .concluded, III saId report.


31

1872.J

Resolved, That the said Board of Directors shall receive as present instructions the suggestions for their action contained in the said report, sUbject to such necessar~r amplification and revision as full consultation among themselves and as experIence may prove to be required: It being understood in the ~rticles of'incorporation secured by said board, notbing shall be included which ~ball take from the Grand Lodge its pO'wer to make and unmake said Directors or which deprives it of its supreme authority in all matters appertainin~to the duties devolved upon that Board as its proxy, in founding and mainliaining said HODle. Re.r:fOlved, That the Grand Lodge hereby appropriates and sets apart as a fund to be held in trust by said Board, the sum of six. thousand dollars, and forInallyagrees to set apart and appropriate to said purpose the further sum of three thousand dollars per annunl for the space of at least five years. Re80ll'ed, That the Grand Lodge hereby formally and affectionately urges upon the attention of its subordinates the proposition to subscribe to t,he Home .Fund the slllall SUIn of at least twenty dollars per annum the said sum to be annually sent up ,\>"'ith the Grand Lodge dues. To the end that this SUbject may nlOre directly be brought under their notice, the Grand Lodge hereby decrees thnt the said report, and these r~solutions, together ,vith the action of the Hruud Lodge, be printed in panlphletform and sent to each subordinate Lodge, accompanied by an edict of the Most Worshipful the Grand Master, under his otficial seal, requiring these docl1mentR to be read in open Lodge, and urging ilnnlediate action thereon. :Re.solved, That in consideratioll of the increased labor of the Grand Secretary under his appointment as secretar~y of the said Board of Directors, the said officer shall receIve in addition to his salary as Grand Secretary of the Grand Lodge, the sum of two hundred dollars per annum, to be paid out ot"the funds of the Grand Lodge. "Brother U. D. Taylor again submitted a very interesting report on correspondence, which does one good to read.

Under the head of

NEBRASKA,

he says:

"A brother is expelled by a subordinate Lodge for unlnasonic conduct. He appeal8 to the Grand Lodge. The action of the Subordinate Lodge is reversed.

What course is necessary to eutlJble the brother to affiliate? "The committee, in due tilue, reported, ,vhich 'was adopted: "We answer: It is necessary for the brother to obtain a dilnit froln the Grand Secretary." Now, our question is this: If the Grand Lodge reverses the action of H, Kubordinate Lodge, does it not amount to saying, You were all wrong-your action wrong-therefore, null and void?" . A. nd z if so, is not the"brother who was unconstItutionally expelled by ~the Lodge In good standing in the Lodge from the moment the report of the committee ,vas adopted? If so, why add insuit to injury, by sending him off to the Grand Secretar:y' fora dinlit? H

In looking over many such cases we are satisfied that many mistakes occur by the use of wrong words. We hold that a Grand Lodge may reverse a

(lecision, and that places the brother back \vhere he was before the trial was had. The salne, also, \vhere the Grand I.Jodge sends the case back for a "new trial." The Grand Lodge may" restore to good masonic standing." In that case the brother goes to the Grand Secretary for certificate or dimit. Again he says, under the same head: And again we ll'lUst quote another of their decisions, and again differ with theln: "If a Conlpanion R. A. :1\1. visits a Chapter of R. A. M., is a Companion who sat wit,h such visitor in the Chapter thereby qualified to vouch for such visitor in a Blue Lodge? "The committee reported in the affirmative. Report adopted." Please inform us what a Lodo-e, as such, knows or cares of or for Royal Arch Masonry? We say unhesitatingly, that this decision is entirely wrong, and we hope our Nebraska.. brethren, for their own good, \vi11 see to it that it is soon reversed.


IOct.

32

Under the head of NEW YORK, we are somewhat surprised at the following: A IJodgeuufler dispensation brings up her dispensation to Grand Lodge alld ~urrenller8 it. 'Vell, to all inte~ts and purposes, from ~l~at mOlnent till thoy l'peeive a clUtrter, tl~e Inenlbers of th:'lt I.Jodge are non-atf1llated Masons, and a,s Mleh have no voice In the Grand Lodge. ....\..8 soon, however, as the charter is gra.ntecl then1, they become affiliated members of a chartered Lodge. Now what M1YS the law? "rrhe Grand Lodge h; eonlposed ot,. (its officers, past present, :\:e.) "amcl the ]J!'asters rt'iLCZ rVa'l'Clens, JOt' the tirnu' being, of the .~eve'r(l{ Lndges under tllejuri.~dictionoj this Grand Lodge." There IS the whole thing in H llnt~hell. 'rIle law doe~ not require that the Lodge shall be dUly and solemnly constituted; nor should It. rrhe ceremons· of constitution has reference to tlie ft<'ts and ·workings of the Lodge ~tS an individual Subordinate Lodge, while H.tt(,J.l1cllng to Its own local nlat,ter~, and 110 further. ,Ve know that many, very many, ,veIl inforrned, well educated Masons, think differently. And they rnay be right. \Ve onl;y"" state the case, take Ollr seat on the stool ot convIctioll, put on our eftr trumpet, and await the argunll'llt 01 the parties of the other part. vVe ,viII look at this question by the la\v of Iowa. Section 22 of G. L. By-Laws, says: "The Grand Lodge will reqnire n. brother to have the so-called Past :Master's degree before he can be installed as Master of a Particular Lody,' nuder this jurisdiction." rl'hroughout the whole la\,,"" ,ve find chartered Lodges called "Particnlar I,lodges,·' and LodgeH 'C. D. as U I.Jodges U. D." Now Section 23 defines the man1101' or returns and (lue~ to be paid in, and says, "and the Master and \Vardeus or representative of any Lodge shaH not take their seats in the Gran<.l IJod~e nntil after said clues are pt1id," and we can find nothing ·which says that IJodgefS F. D. shall pay dues. Again Section 38 Sfl,YS that" representativesfronl I.Jodgeg U. D. /o,hall be allowed to tak:e seats in Grand Lodge and participate in tliR('ns~iol1s, hnt not to vote, or serve 011 comnlittees, or hold office therein." This would seem conclusive to almost any mind, but we will clinch the nrgumel1t hy quoting section 40, viz: "The election of officers in theparticultv' Lodge under this jurisdiction shall Hheannual,and 011 the stated nleeting in the month of May, preceding the lneet" i ng of the Grand Lodge, tlud the installation of such officers elect shall tt11\:e "1)1I1ce on or before the 24th day of June tollowing, but after the close of the "Grttnu Annual Uonlmunication of the Grand Lodge." Here, without any argunlel1t of our OWll, \ve find a chain of laws which em.. phaticall~? rules out the representatives of Loclges U. D., until after the eleetion anftl in,trtllrttion of their officers as Particular Lodges, and ·we find no law which auth()rizp:~ that election and installation until they get home and are set to

work. 'Ve would us soon think. of giving them a vote in Gl'and Lodge, simply on the vote ordering a Charter, as we would of le1,ting Lodges go to work simply bf'CnUke the Grand l\Iaster ordered it letter of Dispensation. It seems to us that there is no show for argument in the case-there is but one side to it, anu we suggeHt to Brother Taylor to get off that" stool " and" OW)l up to the corn." He submitted a very valuable and able conlpendium of decisions for the year, and thank hin110r it. Ozias P. 'Vaters, ~luRcatine, Grand Master; rl'heodore S. Parvin, Iowa CIty, ttrn,nd Secretary and Committee on Correspondence.

IDAHO. Grand Lodge met in Silver Oity, Oct. 2, 1871. Ra.muel B. Oonnell~'r, Grand MfLE'lter, presided. The Annual AddreRs is a practical business paper. He report,s the Lodges in good condit.ion and amply prepared to meet the deluan<.ls of charit~"". He argues the Quebec case at SOIne length, and we refer


33

1872.J

him to our reply under the head of lVrAINE. Among his deci&ions ,ye notice one that we hold to be wrong, viz: t,hat" an active elected officer of the Grand IJodge is not disqualified to be elected Master of ~1, Lodg~." It is ill directconfiic1, with Sec. 3 of the Constitution of Idaho, which sa;)'rs that none of the elected officers in Gr~nd Lodge shall be elfl'cted MaRter or Warden in his suborclinatfl' Lodge during hi~ terrn of office. That section is in full harnl0ny with Art. XVII., "01<1 RegulatiollR," t.o which it referR. We are somewhat surprised at the decision. The Committee on JuriRprudence in reviewing the decisions, concurred in the above one alluded to, by nlodifying it to restricting only the Grand Master and Deputy Grand Master 'fronl serving as \Vorshipful Mal3ter or Wn.rden, in the face of their o\vn expressed law, which certainly cannot be repealed by a mere resolution. On motion of Brother Ooe, ho,\vever, the report Wit'> u,lnended to conform to the Constitution.

We n,re somewhat surprised to find in Sec. 1, Art. II., of their Constitution, that all the elective Grand Officers have to be Past lVlasters, "except the Most Worshipful Grand Ivlastel', who mH,Y be electecl.frorn the bodJj of the Ora!f." So far as 0111' information goos this is the only provision of the kind that we have evpr noticed in :1 lVlasonic Constitntlon, and "would be please<1 to get some light on tho canses ,vhich produced it~ adoption. The reasons may be good, but f1'on.1 our standpoint \ve eanllot appreciate thenl, and frnternallyask for" more light." We fintlno report all Correspondence. Jonas 'V. Bro'wn, I<19.ho Hecl'ctary.

Cit~'r,

Grn.nd

~1tv;;ter;

L. F. U::u路tee, Boise UHy, Grana

INDIANA. Grand Lodge :Mastor, pref';ided.

1l1Ct

in In<1iauflpolis, May 2H,

187~.

The Annnal Address is u good bURiness paper. quote as follo\vs :

l\IarUn H. Rice, Grand From his decir-::iollR we

RUI.lES AND REGUI.. ATIO~S.

In an experience of four yeftrr-:: as Grand Master, I have been enabled to ftC-quire a thorongh l~nowledge of the practical 'workings of the Rnles and Reg111atlOnf-l adopted by this GrfLnd Lodge for the governlnent of Subordinate Lodges in this jurisdictioIl, and ,vhilc I believe that. as a 'whole they will compare favorably with t.hose of any other Jurif';dict.iol1, Hind are sufficiently explicit t.o bfl' rpndily understood in lllost cases, I am of the opinion, that a tew alnendnlents, in the way of additional sec'tions H.nel defining CIRl1SeS, would. be of great benefit, in preventillg errors and confnsion in our Lodges. The Regnlatlons to 'which I shall call ~l'our attentioll, have been the source of more tronble among the Craft, and caused the Grand lVIaster Inorc correspondence, than haR arisen from a.ll, other sql1I'ces; consequently 1 deem them 'worthy of your cttref1.11 and ReflOllS conSIderation. 1. In the provisions nladc for the organization of Lodge8 under diRpensation, W~ find that H the signing of a petltion for a new Lodge dimits the peti.. tiO!ler if the Lodge of ,vhich lle lR a member recomn1.ends the petition, hnt fo1Uf'h dinlit shall not tn,}~e effect, nor releaRe the pet,itioner fron'l <lues to hiR Lodge; until the ne'v; Lodge shall have been chartered and constitnted. All other petitioners shall renuLill Inernbers of, and pny dues to their respective LodgeH until regularlJ'I' llilnitted thel'efrorn." (Se~ Rule 7.) Reven or luore l\IaRter l\{nsonR petition t.he Grand ~laster for it d.iRpOl1Sation to o,rganize a new Lodge. Having required thenl to t::tkc 11.11 the nec~Ksary" preUUlll1tny steps, he iSRueR th<." di:,,;pC>ll.RH.. tiOll, they org~tni1.e the-ir ne'\v Lougc. and go to work. B~r that <11spenHution they are invested. with ttll the rights and

B3


R4

Appe11.ilix.

fOrt.

privileges of a chartered Lodge, except. the right to elect officers, and to be represented in the Gr~1nd Lodge. (See Rule 10.) rrhey are even required to pay dues to the Grand Lodge as men1be-rs of the new Lodge. Thus we find thenl vested 'with a double meIUUE-rShlp, and al1sw~r:J,ble to two Lodges for dues; for under the rnle which I have just road, t l~c peti.tionl'rs who were n1e?lbers of a LodO"e recolllnlellding theIn, are not dlmltted from that Lodge untIl thE" new Lodge is constituteq. under a char~er, and <1,11 ot.het petitioners are still members of their reRpectlve Lodges nutIl rcgularl;y dnDltted. But .we find bJ'~ auother rule. (see Rule 59,) that a l'rlason CHllnot be a luenlber of 1110re than one Lodge at the same time, except a.s an honorary rnernber, and no b~'other should occupy a position, where luore t.han one Lodge can la'wfully claIm dUE1S from

in-

him.

There have been several instan<>eR in 'which melnbers, holding; the position of 'Vorshipful :.Mastel' ill a new Lodge, have ueen snspended for non-payment in their former Lodge.

oJ~ dues

r recomlnend, that the rules of our Grand L~d~e.be.so an1ended UH ~o r~quire the petitioners for :1 ne,v Lodge to present thell' dlmltF; at the organizatlon of the same, ~"hich Rhall be filed and pre::;erved by the Rec'retary, and the samp noted on the minutes of the organization, to go upon the records of the Lodgp, and that no brother shall be entitled to nlenlberbhip in the llew LouS5P, until h/' shall have deposited therein his dimit from his lornler Lodge. 2. I find a different practice existing in our Lodges in regard. to the uumber of members required to be present to constitute a quorum for worlr in each degree. The question having been submItted to Ine, and there being no rule ot this Grand Lodge covering the point, 1 held that seven melnbers of a Lodgp werp required to be present to constlttlte a quoruln for thE." tranRaction of bnsinex8. This opinion was based upon the gronnd, that as it re--qulred seven melDbel'toto hold the charter of a Lodge, a less nunlber should not at any tirne be allowed to transact the business of a Lodge. If t.hey can do it once: they can fL second time, or any indefinite 11tl111ber oftill1eS, l\Ijr experience ha~ fnlly :-atiHtied me, that the ~oocl of :ftfasonr.r requires at lea~t seven n1embers of ft Lodge to be present when an~'" business is t,ral1sacted, or 'work done, and I recon1mend thf udoption of a rule requiring itt least that nunlber to eonstitnte a lega.l LodgE> 111 each of the three degrees. 3. {Tnder t.he regulfttions of this Grand Lodge, governing the reception of petitions for the degrees in subordinate LodgeH, a petitioner who has bf'en l'Pjected may again petition at an~'" stHte<.llneE'ting of the Lodge. MallY of our brethren hold, that ,vhen a petition is presented it lllust be re~ ceived, referred, and the ct\ndidate balloted 101'. Kome with seelningly a greatfl' interest in the welfa.re of a particular e~1ndidl;l,t,e, t ha,n in that, of their LodgE", or Masonry in general, haNe persisted in renewing the petition of their favorite &/'1 soon as hE' was rejected, thus keeping his petition constantly before the Lodge, and cansing a ballot to be taken at, every stated comn1unicatiou, until the lnck)' time arri ved, when, in the absence of those opposed to 11is fl'lection, th~y have succecdeu in acconlplishing their objc("t. III this Innl1ner ill feeling& hnve bptm engendered, and the usefulnesR of many of our I..Jodge::; seriouRly impaired. I recommend the adoption of a Rule providiuQ7 that when a petitioner ha:-, been rejected upon his petition to be lntule a, :\{aRon, the Lodge so reje('ting him shall not be permitted to again re('eive a.nd act upon hi:') petition in less time thn.n six months from the date of its rejection. , 4. I tind that a difference of opinion exists In regard. t.o t,he penalty that should be inflicted for the non-pft)-Tment of lodge dues, and in the absence of any established regnlation upon the subject in this jnrisdiction, the practice of our Lodges has not been the sarne in all cases. TIH~ nature of the offells~ is tt£-' Harne in one Lodge as in another, and the penalty to b~ inflicted should be thp same. Many Grand Lodges have adopted it Regnlation, fixiug indefinite st1sp(~n8ioIJ as the penalty for non-payment of dues, and os i t i~ genel ally r€>~arded a."J l:l. proportionate punislunent for this offense, 1 recommend that. it be adopted as such by this Grand I.lodge. 5. Under the head of ...<\.ppealR. a Rule has been adopted by this Grand LodgE' that" an ~tppeal from the decision of the Worshipful lVIaster, or from the action of the Lodge, ("au only be taken on error.'· (See B..u le 157:) This Rule is roanife~tly unjust, anta~onistic to the principles of l\1:asonry, and to the rights and prlvlleges conferred upon every Mnson. ~o evident, to everyone has thIs been heretofore, that our Comnlittees on Grievances, in the discharge of their duty, have utterly disreg-ardefl it sinco its adoption, and the Grand Lodge, in adopting their reports, has done the same thing. I recommend that, Rule 157 be repealed.


1872.J

Appe'l1,drix.

30

'fhe Grand Lodge of Utah ,va.s reco~nizf'd. 'Ve :trf' sonlewha t, snrpri~ed to notice the adoption of the follo'wing: "1. The jurisdiction of Lodgefoi shall ~xtend to the g:eographical center between cont.iguous Lodges, but no part of a county, havlng a Lodge located therein, shall be claimed by any other Lodge without the said county. "2. The several Lodges of a COUllt~,. shall.have ('oequal jurisdiction, f0r the ptlpOses of initiation and membership, within the limit~ of snch county. "3. An:r lVIaster Mason in good standing, within the accredited jurisdiction of any subordinate Lodge, and not a xuember thereof, or of an;r other Lodge, may become a member of an)'" Lodge in hiH own or an adjoining county within the"jurisdiction of this Grand Lodge, if the Lodge applied to shall see proper to receive him." By this rule, Lodge lines are determined by count~" liues, ,,,,hich places Masoni(" jurisdiction at the mercy and caprice of poUtiCH,l ftnd legiAlative action. We find that the Grand Lodge still adheres to the unanirnou8 vote for restoration aner su,spension, as follows: "Your committef' believe that Section 140 of the Rllies luay be rendered morf' intellig-ible by a slight amendment. And therefore reCOnlmel1<l that HecUon 149 of the Rules be so amendp.d as to read as follows: u Rule 14~l. Hrlle payment of all dues, for which a member is &uspended, or a maJority vote of the Lodge inflicting the penalty of suspension or expulsion, for that or any other cause, shall restore him to the rigllts and privileges of a non-affiliated Mason; but it shall require H.. unallimous vote to restore to membership a member who has been indefinitely sllspf'nded or f>xpelled for an~· cause whatever.' " Here a ma.im·it.l/ may indefinitely suspend, R,11d yet l'f'qniring tli unanimous vote to restore. .A.gain we sa~·, thi~ is t.h~ heavie-st thing Wt" have seen in t.he business. Interconrse with the Grand Lodge of Ralnburg ,vas rightfull:r cut off on aecount of her invasion of N€,"\\" .Jersey. :\tIissonri cut oft' cOIUlnUni(·at.ion 'when she invad~d Ne\\r York many :y"€'H,rs ago. Brother J. CAiven submit.ted a masterl~" report on correspolldenct~. Relative to Q,uebec he sends a crush i ng solid shot into the sophistry of that ease in his unanswerable reply t.o Connecticut, ,,"hieh will hf' t'otlnd in otlr report under the head of MAINE, to which we refer. Brother Caven is ::t ne,v member of tbe "Corps Reportorial,-, bnt from the manner in which he ~ets his lance and the ability with which he sits his steed, we are satisfied that ordinary stock had better clear the track. He seems to know what he talks about, and we congratulate IndIana, tlHl:t although she hesitated long to furnish a report on correspondence, when she did, she selected a warrior worthy tbe steel of veterans. We regret that our space ,vill not permit a reproduction of the Committee's perfect annihilation of the LonishtDit strictures on the Scotch Rite question, so far as it related to Grand Lodge sovereignty. Bro. Scot of IJouisiana awakened tllP wrong pa~~enger on that train, sure., He concludes that portion of his report thu~: The resolution of the Grand Lodge of Louisiana, renouncing juriHdiction to constitute u any Symbolic Lodges, other than as Ancient, Free and .A.ccepted Masons," and addressed to the Grand Consistor~", is dated March 5th, 18:50, and the address by the Grand Orator to the Grand Orient. of France, is dated August 18th, 1852. The Indiana Committee can of course have no other purpo~e than to be oorreet\,.&nd their position is fully sustained by the extracts from Folger's History. J.t i~ inlmaterial for what purpose the book was written, or what his prejudices may have been. The extracts which he recites from the records of the Grand Lodge of Louisiana, the Grand ConslS'tory of Louisiana, and the Grand Orient of France prove our position without on~ 'word of comment from the author. We took it for granted the book was true. It <,ontains three hnndred and sixt~"-one pages of discnssion, and four hnndred H.nd seventeen ot' what purports to be copIes from authentic records. 'rhe documents we have


36

A.ppendix.

fOrt.

copied from his book bearing upon tl1iR case, it ,vill be observed, purport to be literal transcripts, reciting even t.he formal parts. such as the addresseR of the different bodies, with exact dates and the signatures of the officers. If Folger is correct in his quotations from the records, then the Indiana Committee werE>correct. We cannot be in error, unless these extracts, so circumstantIal and consistent in all their details, are entire and absolute forgeries and inventions It seems scarcely probable that the author of that book would publish in book: form.: under his own name, and attach thereto amass of absolute forgeries, which coula so easily be exposed and overwhelm him with shame. To sustain our position we have quoted from what purports to be an authentic history-making no statement which is not accompanied with the proofs to sustain it, those proofR being all the time literal copies fom the proceedings of the bodies 'whose histor.y it purports to relate, and upon this we rest our case, believing we are correct, and anxious to be set right if in error; and have only written thus at length, hoping to aid in eliciting the truth. We can say that we have read Folger's History from beginning to end, and have publicly in the Masonic press challeng;ed a denial of the truth of any part of it, and have waited for five years for a response, offering to pay one hundred in gold to anyone who could prove thcln false, and have waited in vain. Referring to our proceedings, Brother Caven quotes the correspondellc-c relative to Alsace and Lorraine, also the report of our Committee on juriRprudence, and says: These provinces formerly belonged to Fran~e, but in t.he recent war between France and Germany, the latter tooIr and annexed thern by conquest. According to the principle which seems to be recognized, that Masonic Grand I.Jodg~ jurisdiction is co-terminous with political boundaries, AIRace and Lorraine now being within the political boundaries of the German Empire, the Subor(linate Lodges within those provinces are now within the Grand Lodge jurisdiction of that Empire. There are in Alsace and Lorraine seven Subordinate Lodges. There arfl within the German Empire eight Grand Lodges. Of date May 15th, 1871, the Emperor Wilhelm addressed a communication to the Grand Masters of the three Grand Lodges in Berlin, enquiring how the Grand I-Iodges in Alsace should dissolve their relations with the Grand Lodge of Paris and become incorJ?orated into the German system of Free-Masonry; and on the 25th of May a seSSIon of the Grand Masters' Union "was held, and a reply prepared t1ud transmitted to the Emperor, in which they recommended that the LodgeR in those provinces be required to dissolve, without delay, their connection with the Grand Orient of France, and to unite themselves wi th some Gernlan Grand Lodge. In this he is undoubtedly correct as to the facts in the case, but we must demur to his acceptance of the doctrine" that Masonic Grand Lodge jurisdiction is co-terrninous with political boundaries." His own reply to Connecticut, which we have incorporated under the head of MAINE, is a sufficient answer to that theory. Should such a doctrine prevail, then could neither M:issonri or Indiana or any other State plant Lodges in any "unoccupied territory,"-New Mexico for example. We do not agree that the Grand Orient of France lost any of her Masonic rights on account of political or military conquest, or change of lines. We have no Masonic affiliation with France at present, and look upon her Masonic government as being sunk beneath contempt, yet w"ithal we shall resist to the last against being birds of prey, or to countenance a ravishment of consti tutional rights and jurisdiction. If the Lodges of Alsace and LorrailH' 0,1'0 to beeome a part of the German Grand Lodge, they must become so in the l'Pgular MASONIC way, and not by the dictation of political or military power. France has done wrong and forfeited our respect, but two wrongs never lnade a right. "Let justice be done, though the heavens fall." Under the head of VIRGINIA he flIlly expresses our vie'ws about Grand Secretaries not furnishing proper statistical tables. We regret thnt Brother Cnven was not continued as, Foreign Correspondent, as we should have been delighted to hear from him again. However, the pang is softened by welcoming to the corps so able a writer as Brother Martin Rice, Past Grand Master. Brother Isaac M. Stockhouse, of Renssalaer, was elected Grand Master, and Brother Jno. M. BriUU'v ell, of Indianapolis, ,vas re-elected Grand Secret.ary.


1872.J

Appe'}~dix .

37

ILLINOIS. Grand Lodge lllet in Ohicago, October 3, 1871. l\!abter, presided.

Dewitt O. Creiger, Grand

The AnnnulAddress is a clear business document. He reported having issued twenty dispensations for new' Lodges, and snbmlts therewith the following sensible and practical rernarks: I have granted these dispensations with sorne degree of reluctance, for the one reason that I regard the number of Lodges in our State disproportionate to the total mernbership, and yet r could neither discrilninate nor refuse when the petitioners had fully corn plied with all t11e requirements of the law of our Orand Lodge governing the Inatter. Surely the Grand l\-Iaster is not wiser than the lYIaster, 'Vardens ~1nd Brethren of at least two chartered Lodges who reconlmend the petitioners. It cannot be expected that he should be familiar with every locality, nor whether there is a necessity for the establishment of a !.Jodge at the point proposed. If he rofuse to grant the prayer of the petitioners, Masonry may ~utfer. It is obvious, therefore, that the creation of new Lodges is mainly in the hands of those already chartered, and it is npon their reCOlnrnendations and declarations that the Grand Master must depend for information as to the necessity or propriety of issuing the dispensation. Lodges should rernember, that in giving their consent to the fornlatioll of new Lodges they cede a portion of their territarial jurisdiction and may thereby cripple their resources, and seriously effect their prosperity. Lodges should also remember that it is the welfare of Masonry in their midst that should be considered before recommending a new Lodge, and not the accomlnodation and frequently the gratifI&1.tion of mere caprice on the part of it few Brethren. I would fraternally but earnestly urge upon Lodges to weigh well the text of their recom.mendatIOns, and not subscribe to them unless they are fully convinced of the truth and propriety'hf the matters and things therein set forth.

He reports the following case: CornplfLint 'vas made to me that Ashton Lodge, No. 531, had conferred the degrees npon an applicant ,vilo at a previous Ineeting was rej ected by ballot. r visited the Lodge, sunlmolled its members, and upon investigation found that tL randich1te had been black~balled, but the master failed so to declare. At a gllUs.equent, meeting, in the abRence of the rejecting member, a ne'w ballot was had a.nd the candidate declared elected, and immediately thereafter the degrees were conferred upon him. The menlber casting the negative vote was obliged to rnake known his action in order to secure protection in the legitimate exercise of his rights. These facts being proven without a dOUbt, I geverely reprimanded the Master, deposed him from office and placed the charter and government of the Lodge in the hands of the Senior Warden. But even so, the potency of the ballot had been disregarded, the rights of a member had been

itl~O~~~t~\~;:!iiggl~;e~~do~e~~~n~~~;t~r~a~g~~:o~~r~~egl~ni:~\~~f~:i~~~~

attach to the member thus admitted, who is a 'worthy and highly respected I desired to Inantain and enforce the law to the extent of my power. I therefore ordered his name eraseCf from the roll and declared him to ht~ a Master 1\1:o.son in good standing, but non-affiliated.

(~lergyman, yet

In approving this ::'Lction, we desire to call attention to the difterence between this case and the Pennsylvania case referred to under the head of Maine. In the latter the Brother was unanimously elected; in the Illinois case the oandid~Lte was rejected, and therefore could not be a member. DECISIONS.

During the year I have been called upon to decide many questions of Masonic law, most of them, however, are well settled by common usage, or have been ~lt>lotofore decided by this Grand Lodge. I deem it proper to subrni t the follOWing for your consideratioll : ]tllrst. Applications for dimits must be made in writing at a regular communication of the Lodge, and may be granted, tor good reasons, at a subsequent meeting, by rnajority vote of members present, and compliance with

S~~~~

. 8econtl. When H, petition ft'om H, non affiliated Mason for membership is it IXlay be received by allY other Lodge without the consent of the

l'eJect~~d,

reJootIng Lodge.


38

[Oct.

Third. The removal of E. A. or F. C. to a distant State or Territory does not affect the jurisdiotional rights of the Lodge in which they may have been initiated. .FOlJ/rth. Whenever E. A. or F. C. have been duly elected to advance and fail to come forward for a period of one year or more, theIr character should again be subjected to investigation by Committee. A llew ballot is not. necessary. If reported or otherwise declared unworthy, charges should be preferred. ffijth. Lodges are not reqtlired to give notice to neighboring Lodges of the ')"ejection of E. A. or F. C. . 8ixth. H Written notice and fair trhtl" t~eo. 69.) of a Brother for non-pay.. luent of dueR, is due and timely notice of the amount, an official demaud for same and subsequent notice to appear at the Lodge and show cause, etc. The officiitl records and accounts of the Secretary are sufficient evidence against a delinquent. S(3'venth. CIHtrges C~l,nllot be withdrawn after the accused plead~ gUilty thereto. jf}ighth. Oha.rg~s H.. nd counter-cbarges may be received at the ::,ame time. The Lodge will decide which shall have precedence• ...¥ inth. ...-\.. ~uspended Mason ma~r be tried upon newcha'rgelJ and expelled. 1"enth. A Brother objecting to the initiation or advancement of a candidate in any Lod~e except his o,vn, bbould give his reasons therefor. The W. l\tI. or Lod~e shotud decide as to their validi ty. /fJZec(mth. When an applleant h~t~ been lluanimouHlyelected by it Lodge and afterwards object-ed to b J" a nlenlbel', h~ shonld not be recorded nor published as rfJ,jected.

1.Twelfth. 'Vhen a petition is received and referred, and it is sUbsequentlJ~ found that the (>andida.te does not reside within the Territorial iurisdiction of the Lodge, the Committee should report the facts, in which case, Sec. 37 is inoperative by force of Sec. 36. The petition and accolnpttnying fee should be returned 7.uithout balloting. Thirteenth. A suspended ::Ylason is not liable for Lodge or Grand Lodge duel-. during term of suspension. F01trteentlt. Every Brother raised in ~1 Lodge is expected to become a member thereof. If By-L"twsare not convenient to sign, it should not debar him the rights of membership. If he refuse to sign when called upon, his rights as a member should cease. Fifteenth. When two or more nega,tive ballots appear against a candidate, the W. M. cannot order a new ballot tInder the provisions of Sec. 42, unless a corresponding nu'mber of Bretnren declare as therein set forth. 8ixteen:tll. A Brother who cOlumits suicide does not thereby affect the claims of his widow or orphans upon the fraternity. Seventeenth. A W. M. nor the Wardens of a Lodge cannot resign or dimit during the term for which they are installed. Eighteenth. Officers of a Lodge lnust be installed as often as re-elected. Nineteenth. .\. summons need not be signed by the lVlaster, but requires the seal of the Lodge, and signature of the Secretary. Twentieth. It is the right of a Brother against whom charges have been preferred to testify upon the trial thereof. Pwent.lJ-jirst. No pUblicity should be given to the expulsion or suspensiollof a, member pending an appeal.

Twenty-second. .A.. Lodge cannot enforce a. "tax" upon its Inembers beyond the amount prescribed by the By·Laws.

Twenty-third.. It is improper to use the seal of a Lodge upon papers or letters of a personal character. Tu.'entY-fourth. The right to visit a Lodge is not absolute, it may be refused for good reasons.

Twen;ty-fifth. A visiting Brother is not obliged to exhibit a u traveling certifI· cate" from either this or any other Jurisdiction. No amount of documentary evidence is alone sufficient to prove one a mason. Twenty-sixth. .A.. Lodge granting :perJU,ise>ion (upon request) to another, to


Appendix.

187~.J

39

oonfer the Second or Thud Degree relinquishes Jurisdietion, and the Lodge recelving such permission must cast the ballot for the candidate. Twenty-sevell.th. 'rhe nHt~ter of a Lodge is entitled to vot,e as a lnernber. In the event of a tie it would be proper for him to cast ~tn additional or deciding vote as ..J.1Iaste)". 1'wenty-eigllth. Hinl})ly depoHing an officer of a Lodge from office does not affect his standing in his Lodge, nor hIS rights as a !naSOll. :J1u路enll/-ninth. Lodges U. D. have Territorial .Jurisdiction co-equal with other Lo(:iges, which in effect i.~ ceded to thenl by the Lodges recommending their formation. Thirtieth. It ilo) irnpruppl" to permit the use of a Lod~e room for a public lueet.ing. 'l'hiI'fJJ-jf? st. ~rhe tlnle for holding regular Ineetings of a Lodge is fixed by htw and as a Lodg;e cannot suspend or annul a By-La'\T, it cannot therefore close for it period beyond the tinlc thus pre~cribeu without a dispel1Hn.tion froln the Grand

~IaRter.

Thirll/-second. 41-11 otltct' is not va.cated by perIna/nent. rernoval of the In<-ulnbeni froln the jUrIsdictiCJl1.. 'Po accept resignation of an elected officer of a Lodge and hold spechtl election to fill Va<kttDcy l'equires authority of G. lVI. :Phirlu-tlllrd. VV"hen a, Lodgp reeei ves a petition frOtH au a.pplicant who resides beyond its _~urisdiction, without consent of proper Lodge, and the saIne rejected, the Longe having lau:fuljw路f,I.;dietion ought 10 dnly consider the fact, but is not bound to ask COIl&ent of said rejecting Lodge in order to receive and act upon petition of said applicant. 18

NO'l'E.-All

~ectiollS referred

to are Grand Lodge By-Laws.

FroIn the report! of the Conulli ttee on Chartered Lodge/:) we gather SOlne 1actoR which bho,,~ gre~1t irregula.rity ttlllong HOUle of the Lodges. ~

2

., .)

1

Lo~geH

"

"

1

1 1 I :~

presented.

elt?cted

Call(\~dates

~p

t~ d~ts fr~r.u d~te ~~. pet~pon.

17

:n

12

'8

13 t)

4:

on the sarne nigh is that the petitions were

We allude to thi~ nU1.Uer not with speciall'eference to Illinois, for that,State iH not an exceptional one in this matter, but use it as an illustr~'ttiou of the very loose manner in which busil1e~K is done b,y" young Lodges in a growing jurisdiction, for all tile guilty Lodges mentioned by the COlumittee hH,ve high nUlnThe Cornmlt.tee in referring to the lnatter says: TheOoffiInittee hnve been led to the opinion that some of the irregularitie~ above named have occnrred in consequence of the regular Communicat ions of the Lodges being on or before the full of tht' mOOD, and two U Regulars" happening in a less tirne than four weeks, while the Lodges have received petitions at one Regular and balloted t,hereon at the next, thus. unintentionally no dOUbt, violating thc> B,y-Laws by balloting on petitions within the proper time. YOLlr COlnrnittee vlould therefore respectfnlly reconlmelld t,hat the several Lodges thronghout this Jnrisdiction 1:)0 u.mend their By-Laws tha,t their regular CQmnl'unicatiollS shall be held on a day certain, withollt any reference to the full of the moon. ThiH edict, 'which rules ont, the t"tlll moon fronl MasoniclBy-I.ltt"'w路s, is certainly ~~ vflry sure way of remedying the evil cOluphtined of, yet ,va doubt the justice ot su<,h a surnmary "vay of doing It, for no doubt the great majority of Lodges Hct faithfully on this question b;}T holding over the petition for two meetings instead of one, \vhen tbe~nlooll fails to conle to time. 'rhe By-La'ws should have beetl amended by deciding that ,tIl petition~ should lie over for 30 days, whether tbe nloon fulls or not. rrhe following; resol ution WftS (-~,(iopted =


40

Appendix.

rOet.

Ru,oll'ccl, That no re~()lutloll, luotlon, 01' or<1e1', cOlltf'lUpla,tlng the appropriation or expenditure of nlouey, ~ha.ll be put upon ItH tinal pasHage nntil It I-lhall have been l'pferrel1 to H,lld n'portec1 upon by ~Olne (Jollnnit tee, Plther Standing or Spechtl, or the Grand Louge. rrhe Committee 011 Lodges U. D. reported aB f'ollo,\vs: Your COIumittee to 'Wh01U was l't'tel'red tlutG part of the add.re~s of the M. W. Gra,nd :Master relating to Lodges IT. D. <lbk leuse to report: 'l'!Utt they fnll.y couenr in the l'eeommendation~therein contained, a.n<l i 11. the opinion thatl greater eare is needed 011 the part of Lodges recomluending petitions for dispeubaLioll and that gr~ater restraints are needed to eurb the eviuently too rapid Inultil)li~ eDition ot Lodge/:;. Your Committee is infornled that the New Constitution has been adopted the provi8ions vf vvhich require the three ne~trest Lodges to recornrnend in case, ~"'hleh proviHioll nleets the vH,lu;:lJble snggestion of the M. W. Grand Master. Yet yonI' Connuittee regret that the nUluber required ,vas not IHade tive instead of three. Ado})ted. It ,vill tInts be seen that Illinois is about putting down tho brakes 011 new Lodges, and we recolumend the saIne to the consideration of our OWU Grand Lodge. The following bensible resolution \vas adopted: ]?-csolvcd, '.rhat it is the duty of eVf'ry Subordinate Lodge to keep its property fully insured, and that in caRe of loss 'when inbured, thero is no justice or occasion for applying for a return of the Grand Lodge clues. Whell \vithout insurance, it is their ow'u fault; and if in such cases this Grand Lodge ::tbsists thenl, it should be clearly understood that it is a charity. Brother Joseph Robbins, of Quincy, subluitted ~l. full report on correr:;pon.. dence. Relative to his repol't on Quebec, we refer to our reply under the head of

any

MAINE.

Under the head of l\fISSISSIPPI, he Sfl"YS: Why busy itself at all with revie'wing the action of its constituent Lodges. if. in the face of the luost flagrant inju-:-,tice, it :tinds itself powerless to act? When the decision of a Lo<1ge is ')'eve'l'sed it i~ because the action of the Lod~e has been wrong. This wrong action is the poisoned fountain \VhellCe flow Hill the evil consequences which inure to the brother, and against this whole train of consequences the Grand Lodge is bound to afford cornplete protectioll. A reversal IS not a restoration of lost rights; it i& simply a declaration that the rights h1l.Ve never been lost. Ifa Grand Lodge cannot ruake such a declaration valid, it had better abdicH,te; for if t,here is a landnlark about which there is substantial unaninlity of opinion, it is the right of each individual l\!ason to appeal to the Grand Lodge, and to that protection which HJone makes the right of appeal valuable. This is all very well in the abstract, but he fail~ to draw the distinction between suspension and expulbioll, and also between reversal of verdict on account of informal or illegal action by the Lodge, or insufficient testimony to convict. 'Ve agree that the Grand Lodge can restore a f,uspendecl Ma~on to meIn路 bership-also that it can set aside the verdict of explll/:;ion and order a new trial, which leaves th\p party again a melnber; but we do nOl, agree that the Grand Lodge can without cause put an expelled Inelnber back into his Lodge over the unanimous voice of the members. It may restore him to good Masonic st~Lnd颅 ing only. Relative to the recognition of all sorts of 50-called Masonic (?) bodies, he produces the following under the head of NEW YORK: ~T e trust this example will not be lost on those who 11ave a sort of mania for missionary work for the establishn1ent of diplomatic relations with every pseudo-:Masonic body that may, pel'chance, have a Representative's conlnlission to offer. At the risk of gentle hints to mind our own business, 'we venture ~o ~ugge~t that they ~an best tierv~ the craft at hl.rge, as well as in their respective JUnSdlctlonshb Y lettIng these Ol'lents and Supreme Councils, 'whether In Europe or ill t is country, entirely alone. Whatever relation we Inay sustain toward!"; theln as indiViduals, as Gra.nd Lodges ,ve c~\n have nothing to do with them, unless they meddle with s;}"'mbolic Mnsonry.


1872.J

41

A~ the erilninal1aw is not felt by the citizen until he vIolates It, ~o the law ot ~tb~olute and exclubive sovereignty of the Grand Lodge over allluatb'rs pert'tillino- to the three degrees of l\lasollry, does not toneh the Supreme COtll1CiJ, o~ '1nyOother hody clailning to be Masonic, 80 long us &uch body does not trench u ~n it. Just so long, too, will it be true that the proceedings ot' these bodies Ilfust be to us, officially, devoid of interest. If, however, in an evil hour, ~-1ny of them &hould atten1.pt the practical assertion of fL claim incompatible with Grnnd Lodge sovereigntj,T, the short shrift accorded to the Grund Orient of {<'rance and its Louisiana bantling, sufficiently indicates the swift and snre resnlt that would follo,v.

We have been led to this hl.st remark by noticing that severa! Grand MastN'S and Committees have laid stress upon the fact that the Suprenle Council which has invaded the JuriRdictioll of the Grand Lodge of Louishtl1fL, is Hi ,. SpllrlOllS and illegal body." This in no \\Tise strengthens the e~se of the Gnl.nd IJodge. It is cOlnplete without it. We do not object to a mention of this facL when put forth as it disclaimer by those in authority In t.he rite of which it assunles to form a part. On the contrary 've think it an act of' Hinlple justice, at' which they shol1.ld have the benefit. But when it is put before Grand Lodges in suell shape as to convey, whether unwittingly or not, the impres~ion that had 'it been a regular itnd genuine body the merits of the case would ~olnehow hnve hN'n changed, ",Te cannot pernlit the insidious doctrine to pa&s unnoticed. Viewed from the standpoint of the Grand LOdge-its o\vn plenary and exclusive sovereignty-the case ,vould not have been a \vhit altered if the pedigree of the in vnding body had been suscep1able of unquestioned dernonstration in unbroken succession down from Chevalier Ramsey, J:1'rederick, or any other put,ative father of the rite it acln1inisters. It would llave deserved t"tnd received the same prompt and general reprobn,tion. We had the pleasure in our last report (HITl) to commend the address ot Grand l\Iaster ..::\..nthon, of New York, on this subject, and are right glitd now to welcome Brother Robbins as a fellow laborer in the interest of pure Ancient Craft Masonr~y路. If there is any institution on the face of God's earth that should bhun all "entangling alliances/' itis pure Free-Masonry. Here is our ~ dear Brother Robbins, and God grant that the Grand Lodge of IllinOIS may never dept"Lrt fronl the sound doctrine you have expressed. Under the head of OHIO, relative to installation, he says: The Code provides that neither the Master nor Wardens can resign during their term of office; also, that. a brother elected. to ~'Ln ofrice cannot decline to be Installed unless he has served in the same station the yeHr precpdil1g. .Just what principle this latter pl'ovision is based on is not phtin to us. \Ve imagille the brother elect is generally the better judge wh~tl1er his bu&iness engagement.'\ or his abilities ,vill perrnit hiul to accept an office, MasoniC' or otherWise, and that by the light of common sense this provision must be relegated to that class which Brother Langridge, of Iowa, thinks are designed "to make gronndlings stare at our cuteness." Under the head of rI'ENNEssEE, relative to jurisdiction over candidates, he bays: Until all Grand Lodge5 agree not to snap up unwary sojourners froln other States the moment they cross the Hnes of their dominioll, if, is idle to expeet that for two mortal years, ,vith watering mouths, they will restrain themselves in the case of a bonct,jide Citizen. The law of Illinois, which forbids the receptJion of a petition from one who has not resided in the state for one year, doef:! all that legislation can do to prevent infringement. For the rest, legislation never did and never will keep unworthy men ont ot" the ,'B'l'aternity. The stream will not rise higher than the fountain. As the tone of the subordinate Lodge is high or low, so ,vill it be difficult or eaRy 1'01' men of qneHtionable character to beconle Masons. To elev~1te the stand~l,rd of requirement in the Particular Lodge all our ener~ies should be directed, not wasted in passing resolutIons. It was demonstratea as long since as the days of old Oanute that edicts were vain as against natural forces. Under the head of VIRGINIA, relative to trial of Past M~lsters, he says: Brother \Vf>llford spe~tks of the decision by a Grand Lodge (M:ississippi) tha.t a Past Master is su.bject to trial by his Lodge, as "remarkable," and says: "' If the like can be found ttnywhere else we would be glad to know it." We do not remelnber ill t,}le proceeclings of any GrH.,ud Lodge, save that of Virginia, a denial of the full jurisdiction of the Lodge over Past Masters for any alleged offense except otlicialluisconduct as Master; and we were as mnch surprised to find it denied there, as he seems to be to find it. affirrn.ed elsewhere. In this jurisdiction a Past Maf:!ter is amenable to his Lodge for unmasonic eon-


Appendix.

42

[Oct.

duet likf' any other Master l\lason. and if this view does not obtain generally elbewhere ,\vp ~ho111d be glad to be inforlued of it. \V(' cannot give the inforrnat,ion for ,ve do not think that Brother Wellford's /loc-triup holds an:rwllere except in Virginia. We believe it is universally con.. pedetl that Mastel'b cannot be tried by their Lodges, (except in Indiana) for r~a:-,on~ well understood by alll\fasons, but we know of no ancient law, usage, or precedent, ,vhich sheds around the Past Master buch a balo of glory as to pxeulpt hiln from aUJT of the liabilities of a member of the Lodge, unless we in.. trodu/'e u, ne"''' doctrine, viz: tha.t the bIrth of tt Past l\faster is equivalent to inunnculatE' conceptIon. \Ve \yollid be 'Pleased to quote furth~r from thi~ Jrlost excellent r~port, one or the very hest, npon our table. It is ,"vritten \vith. so ruuch freshness and fair.. nes~ tbat \v(' hesitate to bid farewell to the author. I )cwi tt C. Cl'egler, Chicago, Box 375, Grand :Nlaster; Odin H. J\iliu("'r, Springfh"ld, Grand He('retar~r; .Tm~eph Robbins, Quincy, ComInittee on .B'oreign Cor.. l'eRpoudenct-

KENTUCKY. (-.~rau<l

Lodu;e Hlet in Louisville, Oct. Hi., 1871, Chal-l. Egintoll, Urand Ma.ster,

}Jl路e~ideu.

'Phe proeeediugs contains narn es 01 members of Lodgeb.

u:~t:i pa~es,

of ,vllich 413 are taken up with tlw

\Ve regret we find tl.gttin this year that we haNe but one cop~r and will therefore lut\ E' to be brief ab we can cut no extr~tcts. 'f'he . A .nuual Address il-l a very fine one. and we regret '\ve have not tiule to copy luneh of it. Hu~ decisions are briefl;\-" t1,nd soundly rendered. He granted dispenbatiOl1b 1'01' n 111e new Lodges. \Ve fin<lllllwh delay in revie\yillg tille proceedillg~, as they contain no sub.. headingb ot ~ubject nnttter. rrhe report on correspondence is f1'un1 the Gl'u.nd ~ecretary, Brother J.lVI. t;, :\1<:( 路orltle, and d.oes hirn much ceedit. }1Jd\val'd D. Jones, Padueah, Gr<:tud ~Iaster; .J. ~1. ~. l\IcUorkle, Louisville, Gl'Hlld ~ecl'etary.

KANSAS. Hl'H,lltl

Lodge lllet iu Topeka., October 18,1871, Jno. H. Brown, Grand ,Master,

presidt>l1. Addl'e~l:l is good and offers many vttluable sllggestiollb. Relati ve to (li~Clplille he says: I am cOlupelled to announce that the hu,rmony and peace \vhich should prevail in our rank~ ha~, in some cases, been disturbed, and so tumult and confUbioll 101' a Ulne prt?vailed ftIDong the Craft. In some cases, I presumet.-.it hn~ been caused by :'1, nece/:,sary ~tnd proper a.dministration of disCIpline. .t5ut, ill lllost, ("iLses, it ha~ been procluced hy an :;1,tfair too triVial, if properly estiInatE"d, t,o merit the . . lightest attention. For instance: H, Brother, forgetting his duty ;;LIllI obliga,tiolls, perhaps has on ~on1e occasion expressed himself too freely con.. cerning a, fellow craftsman. His statements in ptiSsing from person to person IHl"Ve not dpereased, and after::"li time acquire prominence. The party thus assailed, looking, as it ,vere, through a microscopic eye, spes all the wrong, but is LUnd to any palliating Cil'CUIDstanC'es.J and cornes to regard himself as an InSUlted man :1,11(1 an outraged .l\IHson. Instead, however, of seeking Ollt the offending Brother, and delnanding the redress which? as a M~tson he has the right to expect, he goes into hIs Lod~e and institutes a M~'tsonic trial. It is safe to affirlll that ninf'-tenths of ,\11 the troubles which atfiict our Lodges are the inlInecliate result of personal misunderstanding during warm d.iscl1ssion. Let our friends remember that ca'U,tion in all cases, espeeially in warm debate, is illdi:-;pensable, and these SOlll'CeS or uis(Ooru will eease to exiRt.

'rhp ...\..l111ual


1872.J

ilppenrlix.

43

There is another and very nlj~chievous elem~nt finding Itl-> way anlong thp Craft-that of politics. None other is so fraught ,vith evil, ancl it is not tlO hp that where tolerated there is nothing hut confusion. If pro~perity be desired, if peace be expected, let this elenlent be left outside the Lodge rooJll and fostered only around the" stulnp" and at the polls.

"ainsa~ted

I am Inclined to believe that nearly all difticu]tie~ luilrht and would hp avoided were there a proper exercise of J\tlasonic charity una Inanly forbearance. Again, there seems to be ~t lack of vigorous discipline and a stern enforcplnent of the law. Pass these by and it will be a wonder if tumnlt nnd mischi('f do not ensue. CONOL USIO~.

Bretbren, HOOll the labors of this Annual COIUmU1l1cation will be OVtll'. Hoon sht111 we turn back to our homes. May we not return empty and unilnproved. May 'we not feel that nothing has been gained 110 new idea secured, no fresh light shed abroad, no higher standpoint tl,ttained. rrh~ LodgP& 'we repl'Psent t.he communities of which we are members, have n right to expect otherwise if our professions are not false. Let them not he disappointed. Let them see by our future work and orderoflifet.llat a new and potent enthusi::"tSl11 for humnnity has sprung up in our souls; for without this we shall fail to w~\rm any discouraged heart into new life. ~o wrong will be righted. No old path will be cleared of protane obstaeles; no new one opened for the fl1tnre. OUl' landmarks are plain, our principles clear, our dllties lllanifebt, and the till1ef-., auspicious for improvementl-for an onward march. .A.nd pray, w!U1,t, is to hinder that onward Iuarch, if ,ve had not stnmbling blockH in oUl~ o\vn path~? Sectarian persecution sought our overthrow, and fell the victinl. Politic-ians planned our subordination or destruction, but were alone crushed in the contlict. TyrannYl,relying- on its abso!utiRln, attelnpted Ollr extermination, and today we till its naIls. We alone can destroy our~elves. No earthly power, or combination of powers, can work our ruin. Be Wt> then wise; be we then obedient to duty; be we self-sacrificing ,~tS our ancient Brethren; whereupon their rewards shall be our rew"ards, th~lr honors our honors; anu finally, thp reward which t,he Grand }\{aster in Heaven bestow~-}jfe f'verlasting. GRAND l\IAS'I'Ea's

DECISIONS FOlt IH71.

1. A certitlcate or dinlit froIn a Military Lodge (.if-., to good standing, &e., is not admissible in this Grand Jurisdiction. The app1ic~tnt l::lbould fir~t, be formally healed before he can be admitted into u. Lodge as a visitor. 2. No I..lodgehasa right to denland that a si~ter Lodge should ('oui"er clegre('"'s for them, even though theypnyall the fees therefor. Ho,vever, iti~often dOne~L!'l a Inatter of courtesy. in ca&es where it is done to accomnlodate the applicant. 3. The W. M. cannot dislUiss proceedings in a caKe \vberein a Brother iH ~ltrraigned for unmasonic conduct by reason of the faJilllre of a conlmitt,pe appointed by W.·.M.·. to do their duty, ~Ll1d carry out the order of the Lodge. 4. I am of the opinioll, a Lodge has the right to extend the honors of a Masonic burinl to a deceased Brot.her, known to the I.lodge to be in good standing, though not affiliated at the tiIne of his death with any Lodge. There is a difterence of opinion on this quesiol1. :Humanity requires, if there be room for doubt, that we take such a course, tlHLt our error, if we err, be in the right direction. 5. A Master Mason who signe<l a petition for a Dispenl';;H,tion to fonn a ne'w l"odge, and failed to produce it dilnit, and the- recolumending Lodge neE€lect to demand it, may at the organization under the Charter, if one iB granted, become a oharter member b~" producing a dimit. Not otherwise, unless by petition.

6. No Brother has a right to demand the reconsideratioll of a b~l,llot. Th iH prerogative alone belongs to the W. M. It is getting to be quite a practice in Lodges in these latt,er daYR for some Brother, when a friend is black-balled, to olalm he cast the negative vote, and demand a reconsideration of the ballot, in hopes the real Brother might change his mind. ~uch proeeedingb are irregllhl,l' anil out of order. 1. Under Section 21 of our Grand Lodge B,y-Laws, page ]2, :.t ca,ndidatc fOl' ~dvancement must pass through the ordeal. of tl, second b~tllot, precisely the same as a profane for the mysteries of Masonry. 8. In the caJ:;e of a Masoll who hab been suspeuded indefinitely t'or unma,sonloconduct, it is not necessary that he l>e reinstated ill order to try hhn for m.isdemeanors committed during his ~:n.u~pel.1l:)ion, The proceedings should ho


44

Appen(lix.

[Oct.

had before a conlIuittee, appointed by the \,y. l\J1. for the purpose of takIng the tcstiInony a.nd reporting to the Lodge for its nction. H. rrIle aetion of the Grand Lodge ill re~tol'ing an expelled or suspended .Mason uoe~ not thereby reinstate birn io membership in the Subordinate Lodge that suspended or expelled him. He rema-ins a- non-affiliated l\JIason. 10. The W .. 1\1. and \Vardens, after they have been elected and duly installed cannot resign nor tlilnit [rOIn their Lodges nntil the expiration of the term f01: \vhich they were elected and installed. 11. I anl of t.he opinion it is ~be universal praC?tic~ in all Jnrisdictions to ClOI:Hl. a Lodge 011 the same evenIug or day on 'Which It was convened; never callIng otf froHl day to day, or f'rorn one week to H,notller. Snch H, pl'ttctiee would prove exceedingly dangerous. l~. Under our regnla.tioIlb, no Lodge ettll be opened and bt1~ine~~ transacted, ":Inch a~ balloting, 4.tc., wIth a le~s lluHlber thau sevell M. J\,i'/:;. and lnembel'b of the Lodge. lao '.Phe Grand l\Ittster may have the power and :;1,uthority undor our regnla~ tiollS and tll'iages to grant KpE'cial c.li~pensa,tion/:; to set aside n. pOHitivelnw. I am ('lc~tl'ly of the opinion that the exercise ot such power nnd t1.uthorlty wonld be fraught with ruany evil con!':)equences. rrhe proceedings are well printed 011 tinted pa.per, bnt we regret that tllp Urand Secretary has not furnished asub-heac1ings" to each subject lnatter. Brother E. T. Onrr ~ubmits a ehabte ttnd intelligent report on corre~ t...pondence. So much of his report as relates to Quebec is replied to nnder our review of l\laine. to which we refer. Under the head of l\fISSOUltI, for 1~70, he says: 'Va notice the follo'wing ttmong the decisions of the Grand l\faster: "A Brother 'who has not been elected and installed Warden of a Charterell Lod~e ig ineligible to the office of lVlaster of' a Lodge, although he rutty hn.ve aeted as Worshipfull\1aster of a Lodge U. D." What hair splitting. If COlupetent to tal\:e charge of a Hew Lodge, nurse it III its infancy, and succeed in its matnrity so far as to be able to stand. the test of the Grand. Lodge when a Ch11rter is asked for, 'why ~hould he not be eligible? He certa,inly would be competent. If it was right for the Grand lVlaster to appoint hinl to the office of Master of a Lodge U. D., it IS,jUSt as right that the Brethren Int1y eleot hinl as Master. It 'w'ould be a rare occurrence, that tl Brother appointed to preside over a Lodge U. D. w'ould not be inst1111ed its Master before he got through with it; bnt such cases might occur, and if the party had been successful, he ,vould certainly better serve the Lodge than a Brothel' who, perhaps, had Inerely been elected and installed Juuior Warden. 'rile Grand Lodge of !{ansas, as ,veIl as Missouri, holds that a Brother lllust be elected and installed as Warden before he is eligible to the offiee of Master. We have only to reply by saying that if the appointlnent by a Grand Master is eqUivalent to an election by the Lodge and inst3,Uation, then there is no use of elections or installations-the whole business of Lodges rnight as well be left to the ipsi dixit of the Grand l\JIitster, and let the lalldmarlrs go to grass. Under the head of NEBRASKA, he says: He decides that where a brother Entered Apprentice applies for the re!n~tin.. ing degrees to another Lodge tban the 011e which entered him, and having ob路 tallled perrnissioD, upon receiving the degrees he becornes a meluber ot the Lodge conferring those degrees. Sonnd. We think the "soundness" depends very n111ch upon the forrn of" pennis.. sian." If an E. A. from Missouri (where we require ballot for each degree) were to apply in Kansas for the F. C. and M. M. degrees, (where but one ballot is had for all ofthern,) and our Lodge should grant" permission" to the Kansas Lodge to confer the other degrees, we hold that the party wonld remain a member of the Missouri Lodge, unless there was a clear waiver of jurisdiction. "Waiver of jurisdiction" and upermission" or "request" to another Lodge, are very different ~hil1gs, and it seems strange that the proper distinction is so little un.. tlel'stood. There is just as much ditferellce as between u, lHIHlhold.er giving ~~


40

1872.l

neighbor permission to raise a crop on one of his fieids, and giving hin1 a clear titlE' to his real estate. .Tno. M. Price, .Atchison, Grand Master; Jno. H. Bro'wD, Leavenworth, Gi'and Recretary.

LOUISIANA. Grand Lodge met in Ne,v Orleans, Feb. 12, 1872. Master, presided.

Ro,1l11.1el

M. Todd, Grfl,nd

The A nnnal r'\ddress is lengthy and very interesting. In speaking of the difficulty bet,veen Louisiana and the Grand Orient of PrancE', he says:

I regret to sta1e tlutt the Grand Lodge of Canada has not yet, decided whether I'lhe is for or against this Grand IJodge in its quarrel with the Grand Orient of France, although the ne\v Grand I.Jodge of Quebec has come out boldly n.nd decidedly in our favor, and declared non-intercourse with that offeucUng body.

As the Grand IJodge of Louisiana at the same session recognized the" new Orand Lodge of Quebec," ,vhich infinitely more invades thejurisdictioll of the Orand T.Jodge of Canada than does tbe Grand Orient of France that of Louisiana, we: rather iInagine that the sting in the Grand Master's remark, quoted, is taken onto It looks to us very much like an even game, and th8refore there should he no cOlnpln.int. The report of the Grand Recretary as usual is great care and industr 3r â&#x20AC;˘

ver~y

elaborate, and evinces

Among thâ&#x201A;Ź' Rtates mentioned by the Relief Board, to whom aid waR granted,

we are gr:J,tified that Missouri is not inclUded, her Visitors to t,he Crescent Cit.:r ha,ving evidently been supplied ,vith the" needful."

The "Quebec case" ,vas referred to the Committee on .Jurisprudence, which Chairn1an, Brother :T. Q. A. Fellows. submitted tl, report recommending recognition, which ,vas adopted. We cannot for the life of us see the correctness of the prenlise he laid down, but, having laid it do'vn in a shu.pe to sulttbeconclusioll H,rrived nt, \vearenot surprised to find the argumel1t, running very smoothly. We refer him for our reply on this sub!ect to our review under the head of MAINE. The proceedings contain a full report of the Special Comnlunication called to lay the corner stone of the new Masonic Temple. The address of the Grand Master is anlost elegant produ(ltion, and we regret that we cannot give it entire, aR it is worthy of a place in any Masonic record. We notice that the Grand I..Jodge on this occasion was opened in "AMPJ.JE FORM: in the E. A. degree," to perform this duty. We do not pretend to interfere with the regulations of sister Grand Bodies, bnt beg thp privilege to say that we do not see where the E. A. comes in as a participant in the \vorl{: which none but Master Masons ('an appreciate and perfornl. Of eourRe there can be no ohjf'ctiol1 to their being present, as all others 111ay be, aR witnesses of the (~t)remOl1Y, but to have them on a perfect equality 10 assist in the pronunciat,ion that a stone is perfect, when they never vvorked on it., is like having t.he student. from a primary s<'lloo1 called ill to vote on the profIciency of professors for a position in n college. We do not think that a so(~iety of professional archit.ects and art.izans would call in the cellar diggers and q uarrylnen to take part or give 'Voice in the solemn conseerat.i~ of a perfect and finished temple. throu~h its

We nlerely throw Ollt these ideas as suggestions. In Missouri none but Master Masons lay corner stonos, Masonic boo1:;: makers' forrnulaH to the contrary l1otwithstandiug.


Appen,dix. Rfl'lative to tllissubject, we would like to be informed where iF\ the prooedent, "Grand Lodge of Ent~red Apprentices?" Brother .lanle/-' B. Hcot, for the Committee, submitted as usual a verSo able ~tnd interesting report on correspondence, in which we tInd Missouri unfortunatel~~ onlitt.ed, nWillf,;, doubtless, to some accident in the mails. Undpr thE" head of .ALABA~rA, he Rays: A lUl'gl' portion ofllis tilnp had been consumed in replying to communica1ion~ froln l~odges ~'tnd mernbers thereof on questions of Masonic law, most of \vhich coulclllave been solved by reference to the Code published by the Grand Lodge. The tilne thUR clnployecl, and that which was necessarily bestowed upon his profession, prevented him from visiting the subordinates,l which he O'reatly (leRirect to do. His reported decisions, :fifty-five in numoer, are in ~ceorcial1("e with "well eRtabli:-;hed principles or local regulations. Among th~m i~ the following: When the widow of a Mason to wholn Masonic assistance is being rendered Inarries a profHlle, the burden of her ~upport, is lifted from the- fraternity and imposed upon hoI' husband. This is undoubtedly correct, and ;yet we do not understand the Alabama rllie in such caReR, as according to a decision of Grand Master Norris, reported in It-:6B, it the F\econd hu~band is a profane, and he dies, his widow "has lawfnl ('laimR upon the fratf'rnity a~ the widow oia Master l\!Iason! ,.

for

ft

We fully agree with Brother S(Oot, for the reason that the only allianC'e het"ween ~t Loc1~c and a WOlnan is ba:-;ed entirel~'" upon the Masonic relationship ofherhu:-;band; as long ftS she is hiR widow, she comes under our obligations ot l'C?lief-\vhen sIl(> becomes the 1f'ije of a profane, ~he ceases to be a U Masonic wido'w," and there the a.lliance ends. When her husband was alive f-lhe shared his l\1agoni(' benefits-,vhen he died, she was Masonically married to the Lodge, aucl ~"'hen she- married a profauflo she ipso facto WttS divorced from the Lodge, and l'mbsequent widowhood wns no r(-'uewal of that, firgt M~l,soni(" marriage. UncleI' the head of ...\..RKA~SAS, he truly say:,;: 'The query is solved by the Committee on Foreign Correspondence, Who, in their review of Georgia, say if a petitioner is not able to write himself, H a cros~ nl~1rk, a~ in the eivillaw, in ouropinioll, is sufficient?" or a 1nere acquiescence on his part, to the signing of his naille by a prox:r;" ana add that, it is "an innova tlon upon the old rules" to require a candidate to be able to read and write. \Vh0n we conf-lider the praiseworthy efforts made by the Grand Lodge in the cause of education, we are at a loss to understand the Arkansas rUling on this question and surprif;ed that such opinions should be promUlgated by a Comulittpe, the Ohairman of which is a learned professor in St. John's (Jollege. But if the requireluent is an. "innovatioll," so also is the present Lodge system. '","pbb, the founder of the . .~lnerican Rite, in his Freemason"s Monitor, says Hall applicationR for initiations should be lnade by petition in writing, .ngned by thf (l,pplicanf,.¡' and the Constitution of the Grand Lodge of England expressly l'â&#x201A;Ź,quireg it to be done. Besides, in the presellta~J"e for anyone to arrive atman hood. without being able to read and write-, anC'f then remain supinely in that state when in a short time he could learn to do both, proves that he has no aesire for self-improvt~rnent and, cons~quentl'y-,he ought not to be admitted arnonguK. R

R

This js prett;y rough 011 the Arka,nsas Professor, but it is nevertheless correct }lnd coincides with our views heretofore expressed. To take in a man in the 19th century, who can neither read nor write, with the thousand opportunities before hin1, would be like a builder putting a common brick stairwa~'" in front of a rnarblp front house; it would 80 disfigure the whole appearance of thE" Rtrueture, that even vagabond beggars would hesitate to step up and ring the bell. Under head of the salne State, he says: To the question whether a negre's testimony was admissable on a trial 1Jetwe~ll two brethren, I replied: that the colored population of the country are competent Witnesses, by law~ before the civil courts of the country, and 1 know no reason why they shoulu not be equally competent as other profanes in Masonic trials-their credibility, however, is alwavs a quest.ion for the tri bunal before whom their testilnony is to be used. .R

This decision was a})proved by the Committee on Masonic Law, but reversed We agree with the Grand ~Iaster and the Committee, a.nd

by the Grand Lodge.


1R72.J

Apl?endix.

47

regret that the Grall~ ~odge has placed it~E'lf in a falsE' position by allowing prejudice to controllts Judgment. We reiterate the regret of Brother SC'ot. TeF;timony is "testimony," even jfH is got from the speechless rocks or the actions of a dumb anilnal. Truth i~ the grand thing to be desired at Masonic trials, and all the qUirks of law and personal prejudice should be ignored to get at it. \Vhat our goo<l brother ha~ to say relative to CLuebec, will be found replied to nnder the head of MAINE. Under the head of Ir.lI.. INOIS, he sa,:rs: We also hold with Brother Reynolds that a brother made in a regularly con8tituted louge, is it regularl:r made l\fason, and that b~~ no principle of l\1asonie law or COlnmon justice can he be conRidered as <:landestine 2 it there has been any irregularity in the n1.aking it does not affect hi:-; stancllng, but. the ~uilt.y party is suhJect to cenRure or cliseiplille. We agree with Brother Scot. 'Vle cannot understand how a clande~tinf? MaRon ('an be lnade in a legal I.Jodge-he- ma~· be called "irregularly lnacle-;' but not ehl.udestine. Under the hend of NE'\T JERSEY, relative to making 1\h\sons "at sight," he properly saVf-.: Brother I-Iough is it strong believe-r ill the prerogative of the Grand 1\'lastel' to make Masons at sight" which, he says, is H older than Grand Lodge~ and beyond the reach of Grand Lodge legislation:' '\Ve WiRh our brother lU.td cited eVPll one ense in which the so-called prerogative 'was exerclsecl previous to the tormation of the present Lodge system. '.rhe words 4' lnaking l\1H.sonsat sIght" ::ll'P not, found in any ot the constit,utiolls or records of the Grand Lodge of :b;ngland, and were fir~t used by tbe irregUlar body, known as the Athol Grand Lodgp. In the R€'cond edition of Anderson's Book of Constitutions, the right of ttHA Grand ]'1:aster to lnake Masons in au occasional lodge" ib Inellt loned, and Brother A. G. Mackey claims that" the two expressions mean eX:::lctly the sallle thing:' We think differently, but do not discuss the qU€Htion, itSlU the United States the Grand Master is a constitutional otncel', and is governed by the eon~titut,ion of his Grand Lodge. Some consti tutions concede the prerogative, others deny it, and a Dumber are silent on the subject; this, in our opinIon, iH sufficient to show that thp so-called prerogative 18 not 4' o(o.yon<.l the rf~ach ot Grand Lodge legislation." We have had out a public ehallel1ge for five yearR for anyone to cite the ancient law an<1 authority for such so-called prel'ogatiye of Grand lYlasters a~ above stated, but can get no reply. RelaUve to the attempt to paRs ofr an "oocasional lodge" for the prerogative is in our humble .judgment too far fetched and unreasonable to be seriously discussed. The whole report iR excellent, and we regret that we cannot, give it rnOl'rspace. We know our orother Grand Secretary will excuse us for suggeRting; the us~ of sub-headings in t.he proce~dillg!:) for each subject lnatter. It will be u greitt. aid to the reviewerR. We notice a peenl iarity in the La. Proceedings, viz.: thH,t E3'ach d ay 1 s pro('eedings nre signed by all the electi ve Grand OfficerR. vVherefore? samuel Manning Todd, New Orleans, Grand ::\ra~ter; J amUR C. Batchelor, M. D., (L. Box 872), Grand. Se(>reta.ry; James B. Root, \Box R52,) Chairnlan Comm.ittee on Correspondel1ee. H

MINNESOTA. Grand Lodge met in Rt. Panl, Jan. Hth, 1872, C. W. Nash, Grand .Master, presided. He issued dispensa tions for nine new Lodges. DEOISIONS.

During the past year I have received numerou~ conlmunications, relating to questions upon Masonic law and usage. On account of the great labor imposed,


48

[Oct.

I have only answered those coming direct frOln the Ma'Ster of a Lodge, or from the Secretary, by order of the Lodge. I need not assure you, my brethren that to answer these questions imposes a great tax upon the time and patien~e of tIle Grand 1'laster; and this is made 11lore annoying, when he knows that a ver~r large Infijority of the questions asked, are answered in the proceedings of our Grand Lodge. I again earnestly urge upon the Masters, Wardens, and Brethren of LOdgflS to read and examine more thoroughly and considerately-and to read or cause to be read to their respective Lodges, the Proceedings of our Grand Lodge as is required to be done by a positive edict of this Grand body; also the An'cient Landmarks and regulations, and snch standard works on Masonic .Turispru* dence as are within the reach of all. If this where done, the Craft at lal'ge would be better informed-Lodges would be governed with more wisdomH peace and harmon~"" would prevail to a greater extent-and the Grand Master would be relieved of OJ vast amount of correspondence. Tho follo,ving decisions, made by lne during the past year, I presf'nt. for your conRideration : Question lst.-In a Lodge of Master Masons, during the time thE' Lodge is at. refreshment, fi, brother has obtained permission from the Junior Warden to retire, has the Master the power, or the right, to prevent him?

An,swe?·.-Yes. Question 2d.-An R.·. A.'. or !P•.• C.'. desires to be advanced-a brother MaRter l\1asol1, a member of another Lodge, objects to said advancement, Wotlld it he proper or lawful for the Master, under such state of facts, to advance the E.'. A.'. or F.·. C.·,? A?'l,swer.-Strietly it would be laWful, and he has the power; but it would not be showing a just respect to the member objecting and to the interests of the Order generally, to do so, till a proper investigation had been made. 3d. When the Master of a Lodge is re-elected, it is necessary that he should be re-instt111ed. AllY Past Master can perfoI'n'l the ceremony. The former Master presidIng, has the right to install the newly elected Master, then the newly i nstalled ~fast,er has the right to install the remainder of his officers. Hp may, however, if it is his will and pleasure, request any Past Master, or his predeceRsor in office, to perform said duty. 4th. It roquires a convocation of at least three Past Masters to confer th." degree on a Master elect. 5th. A subordinate Lodge has jurisdiction over all MasonR residing within its jurisdiction, whether members of said Lodge or not, subject to Rule 15 of the Trial Code. 6th. Fi:rst.-A decision made by a "ViI" orshipful l\-laster on a question of Ma~onic law, is not a subject to be discussed by the Lodge or its members, without his perolissioIl, or by his request.. Breond.-There; can be no appeal to the Lodge from the decision of tbr MaRter, or the \Vardens occupying the chair in his absence. Such appeals from the decision of the l\1.aster of n Lodge, are unknown and unauthorized by the usages of Masonry. Third. A ~laster of it Lodge clearly has the pO'weI', and it is his bounden duty to pref;erve order, peace and harmony in his [,odge, and all confusion among t.he worknlen should be suppressed. Hp m'l..t..~t prese1·ve m'der in the Lodge, and flu' {/(wel m'lu;t be obeyed. If a brother refuses to obey the gavel, the l\faster can' reprimand him if he seeR proper, and if the necGRsi t;r of the' case regUire, can 11ft ve the brother led "wi thout the body of t,he Lodge. 7th. A Lodge under dispensation, can not ac1n'lit memberR-can not try members for unmasonic conduct-in short, can onl;Y' enter, P:l.AS and raise l\I:1ROlls-in accordance 8tr'irtly with the letter of di:.,penRation. 8th. rrhe officers acting nnder a dispellsntion are not ,/'equi1·ccl to be i'l't8taZlrd, llC'ither can such ~1, I.Jodge be dedicated, until a charter haR been r~gt11arly obtfLiu0d from the Grand Lodge. 9th. In accordance with ~fasonic law and usage, during the time that charp:es are rnade and are pending against a member of a Lodge, he is not prohibited or debarred from his rights as a ulenlber of said I""odger-such illR voting, or b~tlloting, except upon his o'vn case-as to his guilt or innoeencp of the cha.rges Iuade againRt him. He has all the rights of fl, member. "HE' is innocent until proved guiltj'"/' 10th. If n Lodge confers degrees-at the request 01 H,llotl1er Louge-thc


.Appendix.

1872.J

49

IJodge conferring the degree~ does not acquire jurisdiction of the nlember; and the fee for the work done, belongs to the Lodge requesting, nnless it relinquishes the same. In many Lodges the fee is equally divided. 11th. In case a brother wilfully neglects, or fails to obey a summons, lawfully issued, it is an act tha~ demands M~sonic discipline, and charges should be preferred, and the offendIng brother trIed. 12th. Can an E.·. A ..·. or F.'. C.·. be triE'd for unmasouic conduct? A Lodge of Master Masons has the undoubted right to try an E.·. A..·• or F:. C.·., and their duty to do so ilS obligatory and imperative; and if found guilty, he should be suspended or expelled from the rights and benents of Masonry. He c~"tllnot be suspended or expelled from the Lodge as a member, for neither an E.'. A.·. or F.·. 0.·. is or can be a member of a Lodge of Master Masons. Bro. A. rr. C. Pierson submitted the report on Correspondence, and got as far as Ohio-when the following addenda by the Grand Secretary will explain the matter: The printing of the Proceedings of the Grand Lodge of Minnesota has been delayed l,lntil this date waiting for the Chairman of the Committee on Correspondence to finish his Reportbwhich he has neglected to do. On this aocount the report for this year has to e published incomplete.. Fraternally, WILLIAM S. COMBS, Grand Secretary. ST. PAUL, September 1st, 1872. We are glad Missouri got in before the Committee broke down, for he gives us very fraternal notice. Grove B. Oooley, Manterville, Grand Master; Wm. S. Combs,St. Paul, Grand Secretary.

"MAINE" AND" QUEBEO." We preface our report on Maine by saying that we have associated Q,uebec with it, for the reason that Maine was the first State proceedings we took up in our review. and as"Brother Drummond has been the chief exponent in the U. S. of the ne,v Grand Body, we replied to him at length. and as we passed through the proceedings of other States, we found that it would only add to the oonfu&ion of the subject by separating it under the head of each Grand Lodge-hence, in order to keep up a connected chain, we have included all under one head, and referred the other States to it. Grand Lodge met in Portland, May 7, 1872; Jno. H. Lynde, Grand Master, presided. He paid a proper tribute to the memory of Brothers Abner B. Thompson, Ed. E. Wiggin and John P. Boyd.

He granted eight dispensations for new Lodges. Relative to a long delay in the trial of a Brother, he says: Upon investigation I ascertained that the principal reason urged for the postponement was, that our obligation required us to give a Brother our support and assistance until the civil tribunal had disposed of the case, no matter what the circumstances, or how great the law's delay. I was then, and am now, fIrm in the belief thu,t the doctrine thus enunciated is most pernicious, and calcnlated to bring the institution into merited disrepute.. Once thoroughly eonvince the community that our mission is to protect our brethren charged with the commission of crime, no matter whether gUilty or innocent, and none bnt those who require such protection will knock at our doors for admission. The honorable and the upright will turn/rom us, and additions to our numbers must come from the wicked and the vicious. Unless Masonry tends to make us w8:1k more uprightly and circumspectly before God and man, makes us kinder !H?llghbors, truer friends 'and better citizens, it is not worth maintaining, and the labors of the great and good founders and patrons of our institution have been for naught. ... Had the communication of the Grand Lodge occurred before the time &ppointed for the trial in Court I should have referred the matter to you with~ out &etion, but as it did not, I feIt compelled to give it attention.

B4


[Ort.

50

Firlnly convinced that the welfare and perpetuity of our institutioll can only be maintained by proDlptly purgiJ.?g our Lodges of all unwort!lY mem .. bel's' t,hat such action shonld be taken ,vlthout regard to any other trIbunal or socletj'"' that we should not be haulpered 'with the uncertainties or delays of the la,,;' and that the proDlulgation of the doctrine that we are obligated. to snstnin brother, ,vhetller guilt:y or in~loce:n~, would c0D:vey.a \v:rong and Inibchievolls impression, and result III lastIng In Jury to our InstItutIon, I set a~ide the action of the Lodge, and ordered t,hem to proceed with the trial \vithollL unnecessary delay. The nlatter 'will be before you upon an appeal from the r~~mIt of that trial.

a

DECISIONS.

I. A. candidate who bas been accepted bJi'" a Lodge and afterwards gains a MaAonic re&idence in another jurisdiction, may apply' to Lodge at new' home,

without consent of the former. A rejected candidate must have consent of Lodge which reJected him. II. Charges are filed agaillRt a brother, and he is acquitted. The Grand Lodge review the evidence and suspend him. Subsequentlsr he is r~stored bv Grand Lodge. He is therebj" restored to rnembership in his Lodge. III. Charges are tiled against a brother and he is suspended. Previous to action of Grand Lodge he is restored by a two-thirds vote of his Lodge. An appe~11 is taken to the Grand Lodge, but not acted upon. He is H, menlber of th~ Lodge. rrhe action of the Lodge l'eRtored hiln to all the rightR he ,vas deprivNl of, and the appet\l does not a1tect the case unless action is had by Grand Lodge. IV. ~one but actual Past Masters should be present when the instnlling officer is communicating the secrets of the chair to an elected l\f:aster. V. Applicationb fronl candidates over whom the Lodge has no .iuriRdictioll, or who are physically disqualified, should be returned '\vithonta ballot, and the facts entered upon the record. V'!. If two or more black balls appear, the Master must declare the candidate rejected, even though a brother believes that he threw one by mistakE'. VII. A ~Iason elaims to be a m6ln bel' of a Lodge and proves that at a certain date he ,vas actually a member. The books are iost~ and the Lodge has no rec'ord evidence that he was ever dimitted or deprivea of melubership. ThE' burden of proof is on the Lodge, and they must show that he is not a member. 'rhe fact that. he has neglected to pa~'" dues for nlany :rears is not conclusive ~vi足 vidence that he is not a member, but would be entitled to considerable weight, especially if supported by other facts pointing in the sanle direction. VIII. In waiving jurisdiction over a rejected candidatp, the vote Rhould show to what lodge jurisdiction is transferred. IX. A stated meeting must be held at some clearly defined time. A bylaw which allowed the l\tlaster to call it either on or before or 011 and anal' tilt' full of the moon should be changed. X. It is not illegal or improper to prevent the admission of a ('andidate at the request of a brother \vho cannot be present. The venerable and very able Grand Secretary, Brother Ira Berr:y, reported having arranged the archives Which had accunlulated for morp than 50 years, RO that the papers of any Lodge can be overhauled in a fe"\\'" TI1inutes. \Ve can appreciate the toil and patience of that work. The Grand Lodge of Utah was recognized. Relative to the Grand Lodge of British Columbia, the Conunittee reported: The~'" have also exaulined the proceedings at the organization of a Grand Lodge in Bri tish Columbia. They find that all the Lodges in the Province, save one, took part; that thp proceedings were regular, and the Grand Lodge of Briti8h Colnmbin is entitled to recognition, and the;y Rulnnit the nccompa,uying resolutIon. The;y regret to perceive that the Gl'und Lodge of England proposes in her recognition of the new Gl'and Lodge, to allo\v the Lodge \vhich did not join in forming the llew Grand Lodge to continue fts Old allegiance; the mattc"r, however, has llot been acted upon by the new Grand Lodge. In reconlmending recognition, your Committee assume t.hat the new Grand Lodge will assert and maintain e.rclu.~iveJurisdiction in thAt Province . .JOSIAH H. DRUl\f:MOND,) T. J. l\IURRAY'J(~Oommittee. F. BRADFORD,


1872.J

.Appendix.

51

If tthe Comlnittee will take the trouble to examine all the precedents on this question of the formation of new Grand Lodges, they will find that England did no more than ,vas her right ill the premises, and that their recommendatioll to tlhE' new Grand Lodge to Inu.,intain an exclu.nve jurisdiction will be mighty bard up-hill work in theiace oful1iversal Masonic usage. This" recomluendntion" may have been thrown in as a sort of a "feeler " in future Quebec tronbles, btl t the support is too thi 11 to bp of practical service. Relative to the l\'llssouri case l'eported by our Grand

~faster at

last session,

the Grand Lod?;e of Maine took tho following action:

1.'he speeial cOIUlnittee to WhOIn. was referred tho cOD'lplaint of the Grand IJoug(' of ~Iissouri, against St. Oroix I.~odge at Calais, for invasion of jurisdlcHOll have attended to their duty, and beg leave to report, by referring t,!le matt(>f to thp l\Iobt \Vorshipful Grand ~laster, requesting him to make investigtl,Hon and ifbe llnds the candidate ,vas guilty of duplicity, to order the Lodge t.o tIle ;'harges and (le~tl with him f\.(¡cordingly; if he finds individual meluhers lyuilt,y, to tilâ&#x201A;Ź' charges and deal 'with thenl; if he finds st. Croix Lodge to bln.Jne, to arreRt thpil' chartf'r until the next coulmunication of the Grand Lodge. .fOSEPH GOOOH } (JEO. M. HOI.JMES, Oorn1nitlN'. W. H. H. WARHBlJRN,

'1'he report on correspondence is i'l'orn the ever interesting pen of Brother J. H. Drulumond, and the one hefore ns iH one of the best he has ever written. ...'\.$ a matter of courRe, we are not. expected to coincide in all his views, bnt he is

such a faithful reporter finel so thoroughly examines the proceedings before him, that we love to read his report froIn he[J;inning to end. " With all t.hy faults, we love thee still." Prefatory to his work, he says: \iVe IUay be allowed to say" that it is all easy thing to take the proceedings and string together extrficts to flll up a report; but to exa"lnine them, condense the action, tl..ud criticise what of general interest seems to challenge it, requires a lnrge amonnt of time and labor; and when one is obliged to find that time and expend that labor after the ordinary duties of the day are performed, it is not wonderful that that fact is shown in the st.yle of the report. No one who reads the following pages \vill fail to perceive that never before in her history has Freemasonry been so great a power in the world as she now 18. Her history, her jurisprudence and her fundamental principles are examined in tbe light of reason, philosophy and religion, and the manner in which she bears this test strengthens her power and influence. If she is not an immense power for good in the world, the fault lies not in her, but in her followers. This has been often said, but the lesson continues to be taught in each year'::;; history. Our Brethren of this OOIumittee in other jurisdictions will not, because we have not noticed their kindly expressions in relation to us, think that we do not appreciate their friendly words, or reciprocate the feelin~s which prompted those words. The comlnunication with them through theIr reports till they seem like life-long friends, has often lightened OlU" labors and renewed our courage, when ,ve have been almost ready to succumb to weariness, both of body And mind. Whether we ever Ineet them in the flesh or not, they may be assured that we shall gratefnlly remember them. We fully appreciate these sentiments. vVe believe ,ve have not in a single instance quoted the kind words said of us by our Brethren in their reports, for two reasons: First, we claim a certain amount of modesty, and second, we have always been in fayor of preserving the" Reporters' Corps" from the charge of being a "l\1utual Adrniration Society." 'Ve nevertheless cherish a fond remembrance of the fraternal encouragements \ve have received to pursue the good, yet laborious work of trying to faithfully present to the craft an epitome of general Masonic information, derived from a careful analysiR of current ~vents and decisions. "'1'he good that a man d.oes shalllive after hiln," is the strongest incentive of the human heart. Under the head of CALIFORNIA, he says:


Appe1zdix.

[Oct.

The COlumittee on Jurisprudence SUbluitted an able report to establish th~ propositions: 1. That if the report of the Committee of Inquiry is unfavorable no ballot should be taken; and 2. That in no case can a petition, after it referred, be returned 'without a ballot. "\Ve d}ssent from b.oth of these conclusions, as thus broadly stated by the CommIttee, and beheve the rule and practice in Maine are correct. 1. The names of the Committee of Inquiry are matter of record, and when they present an unfavorable report, if that is recorded, or the candidate declared reJected in conse9.uence of the. report, there is made a perpetual record that the brethren composIng the commIttee reported against the worthiness of the candidate. This places those brethren in an unpleasant position, that may be avoided as well as not. The report should be made as inforluatioll, but the cha"l'acter of it, whether favorable or u,njaL'o'f'able shoulcl not be "I路ecorded. After the infornlation is received, the petition is readily disposed of by the ballot, and nO one brother is obliged to sustain the onus of It. This course is sustained by the same reasons 'which exist for having the ballot seC?'et. 2. We hold that when the committee find that, for any reason, the Lodge has no jurisdiction over the candidate, they shonld so report, nnd the petition be returned for that reason; the Lodge should not assurne the jurisdiction in such a case even to reject the candidate. The same remarks, we think apply to eases in which it appears that the candidate is absolutely ineligible ~ there is a ,vide margin between ineligibility and 1tnfitness. The committee also conclude that a Mason may be tried for an;y act wrong in itself, committed before he was a l\fason. We have heretofore discllsRed this question, and will only say now, that we do not see how he can be, unless he fraudulently concealed it when he was made, \Ve think if the Oommittee should undertake to frame a charge to meet such a case, they ,vould reverse their conclusion. We regret to perceive that a committee decide that a brother who is tried and sentenced to be reprilnanded, and appeals to the Grand Lodge, mu.st still receive his punishment in spite of his appeal! The Grand Lodge, by giving an appeal, recognizes the fact that Lodges are liable to commit errors and do injustice in such cases, and provic1esa remedy. But ,vhat a mockerJo" it is to say to one complaning of the injustice of the Lodge, you have a remedy but must still endure the punishment! What ,vould be thought of a law giving a man an appeal from a lower to a higher court, against a death sentence, but requiring hinl to be hung at once, in pursuance of the sentence? In Maine we have no SUCll barbarous laws, civil or masonic: in cases of expulsion and indetinitp suspension, we, by express con~titutional provision, give the sentence of the Lodge the effect of suspension until the case is finally decided; but in all other cases there is no punishment till final conviction. We agree with him that the ballot must be taken. We al~o agree that u petition should b~ returned after reference for informality or ineligibility, but we also hold, that unless these reasons are given, the petition cannot be returned. Relative to trial for acts before initiation we agree with our own State decision, viz. : that it is entirely a question of fraud in concealing facts. Relative to his position that an appeal vacates a judgment by the subordinate we cannot agree, and Brother D. himself yields the case when he allows the suspension to hold good till after final action by Grand Lodge; as for" all other cases," there are none in the Masonic criminal code except expulsion and reprimand. There is no h~1nging in a ~fasollic IJodge, hence no llAe for tlle application of the illustration he draws from the civil code. Masonic laws are based on common sense, hence all extraneous or enforced illustrations are out of place. After reading as much as we have of Brother D.'s writings, we must honestly say that this point of ~pecial pleading in creating Inen of straw to knock them down in order to serve the" liVing issue," is about the only fault \ve have to find with him. He, howe,"er, does not stand alone, hence ,ve have alluded to it at present in a general sense, in order to try and correct tbe almost inherent com~ plaint of ~rasonic writers a,nd speakers in debate, to force conclusions from false premises. To say that a simple appeal vacates a jUdgment of the suhordinate Lodge, is simply to say that subordinates are but grand juries to prepare cases for trial in Grand Lodges, ab initio. Under the head of CANADA, he says: Brother Mi tchell thinks our position that a visitor should not be allowed to unseat a member of a Lodge, and, therefore, that the objection of a member is sufficient to prevent his admission, is ridiculous. Well, as long as what either of us thinks about it does not change the law, it is of little consequ~nce.

is


1872.J

Appendix.

53

We tbinka member has greater rights in his own Lodge than a visitor' Brother Mitchell does not, but tliinks a visitor is a brother, and a member an l'individual." He in~ist~ that a visitor must first be examined before he has a right to inspect the charter of the Lodge he visits, but 'we have always understood that the Illinois practice, which he condemns, is the correct one. A Mason has no right to be exarnined till he know8 his exalniners are lV[asaus. The charter is no part of our secrets, and may be submitted to the inspection of a profane' the exhibition of that is sufficient to jUBtify him in provIng, in the usual WaY7' that he is a Mason. In both cases we agree 'with Brother Drummond.

QUEBEC. Again, under the head of CANADA, relativeio Quebec, Brother D. sa~rs : In his argument against the legality of the Grand Lodge of Quebec, he refers to OUf forUler reports h' and he admits that our argument is conclusive" if it had a souud bottOln," but e denies the correctness of our pl'enlises. He adrnUs our first one, however: that every sovereign, independent state is, as it were, constitutionally e;ntitled to have a sovereign, independent Grand Lodge. Admitting this, and admitting that it applies to the states of the United States, he adrnits the whole case. :fIe argnes as if the several states were absolutely sovereign and Independent. He probably never read the Constitution of the United States, Which declares that it, and the laws made in pursuance thereof, "shall be the $~[,­ pNme law oj the land." The states are SUbject to this Constitution and the laws made in pursuance of it. The idea, then, tnat the Masonic 'law in question applies only to absolutely independellt states, has no foundation whatever: for every case in which it has been applied in America has been one of qualified indepeudence,in which the state was subject to a superior law. The question then arose, what degree of qualification of independence may exist consistently with the right to form anindppendent Grand Lodge? When the question firstarose,mallY thou~ht that as (in the wordR of Bro. M.) "Great Britain, with all her territories, 15 only one sovereig'n, independent state," and her territories were dependenc'ies, she was entitled to exclusive jurisdiction in them, and they were not entitled, as of 'right, t.o form a Granu Lodge. And if Quebec was a new case, there would be force In the argument. But the question was settled the other 'Way, years befO're the Gra'nd Lodge oj Quebec was d1~eamed of, and the GRAND LODGE OF CANADA GAVE 'I'HE OCCASION FOR THUS SETTLING 1'1'.

In this quotation Brother Drummond aSSUlnes the United States Government to be the supreIlle law in defiance of all the reserved rights of the States expressed in the Constitution. By reading that antiquated document over again he will find that nothing is granted to the United States Government except expressed powers, and what are not so expressed "are reserved to the States," respectively, as the sovereign and coniponent parts of the Republic. We only allude to this at present because it 1s brought in as a part of the argurnent of the other side, and we desire to show, that if it has any bearing at all upon the (~tlel>ec case, it is against it. The initial and guaranteed structure of onr government is one of absolute states' rights, and although those rights and guarantees may be subverted by the usurpation of military authority, just as a woman may be conquered by the bludgeon of a ruffian, yet the letter and spirit of the law still exists. Upon this same idea was the formation of Grand Lodges, and as one State could not infringe itpon the sovereignty of another, so neither can one Grand Lodge curtail the recognized rights and jurisdiction of a sister body. rIlle ~~ederal Governlnent has no authority in constitlltionallaw to divide or segreg~tte a State once recognized a:3 such, without the consent of that St.ate, and if Brother Drumlnond can fnrnish any such right allowed by the Constitution, we will make him the best present he ever received. In violati-on of tbat sacred Constitution, the reserved rights of Virginia were violated by Congress; and the Supreme Court of the United states has not to this day dared to make itself the laughing stock of the judicial world by confirming that act, Yet this wanton violation of civil rights is the only precedent that can be produced by Brother Drumlnond as ajustification for the segregation of thejnrisdiotionall'ight~of the Gr~~nd Lodge of Canada, in pursuan<>e of the diVision of


54

A.ppendix.

[Oct.

that territory. Our good Brother has been driven from one horn of the dilemma to another, but in each retreat he pleads the same exploded theory that" governments, state or national, define ~Iasonic boundaries." These are llot his exact words, but they contain the entire eRsence of them, although he trif'R to show that he does not argue with the theory, yet acknowledges it by practife. We do not blame him for trying to escape the odium of such a miserable heresy for it is unworthy of the sovereignty of his o,vn Grand Body, but we do b]a~~ him for making use of sucb means to acconlplish an end that he cannot but know is destructive of all that is solid and safe in Masonic governlnent. He says: "The Grand Lodge of Canada gave the occasion for thus settling it:' Kettling what? We can find nothing settled in the efl,rlj"'" recognition of that Grand Body, except that a Grand Lodge formed in H unoccupied" territory iR supreme over all Lodges that adhere to her, and that those which do not adhere are still the subordinates of their mother bodies, as in this case, of England, Ireland and Scotland. That case also settled the fact that those Grand Lod~es named could establish no new Lodges there, notwithstanding they could control their old ones. This settlement of the Canada case in 1859, by the Grand Lodge of England, is a snfiicient answer to.Brother D.'s recommendation to the new Grand Lodge of British Columbia, relative to exclu.sive jurisdiction, alreadj~ referred to. We hold that Gri1nd Lodges are sovereign just as the states are, and that '\vhen once recognized as such, no other pO'wer, state or national, can interfere to destroy their liruits, no Inor6 than Grand Lodges or the government can destroy the boundaries ofa State. We are opposed to brute force of all kinds, and we only look upon the exercise of it as ,vorthy of the dfLrk ages. "Might is right," is the mostinferna,l dogma ever issued, and the time will come when the advomttes of such a barbarous doctrine will be properly appreciated. Sucll a dogma should have no place in Mnsonic councils, and is unworthy of the nineteenth century, even in the profane world. We are, therefore, pained When we see such intelligent brethren as Brother D. sit down with a self-complacent smile, as much as to say, "we have won it by FORCE; what have you to say about it?" He quotes as precedents the recognition by Oanada of New Brunswick anti Nova Scotia, totally ignoring the fact that both of those independent provincPb were" unoccupied" territory. He determines to forget the fact that when th(' Grand Lodge of Canada was recognized t her boundaries were fixed. Be persistently calls her jurisdiction "uDoceupiecl" simply because by a cornproInise, founded on ancient usage, she all ()\vpd certain old Lodges to nlake retnrns to their original pa.rents, but prohibited theln from forming any new onah, in her limits. ..::\.s asovel'eign and independent body she was the equal of all otlwr Gra.nd IJodges, and therefore could exercise the SilJme right to plant Lodgf's Hl New Bruns\vick and Nova Scotia until those provinces should have Grand Lodges of their own, and when they did form them she pron1ptly recognizfld them. This simple compliance with the e~tablished principles of internutional Masonic law, Brother D. tries to turn to her disadvantage, a~ precedents aga,inst herself. He nlight as well arraign her for recognizing NE~vada, Washington '.reritory, &c., &0. To t.ell the truth, we confess we do not !rnow \vhat fratermtl words to use which could do justice to Buell &ophistry. Our good Brother c~tn always get up an ingenious ~rgument by referring heavily to dates, histor;y',and all that sort of thing, (and all good in their way,) but he seems determinod to ignore altogether the fundamental principles involved. We could hunt up and get precedents to justify anything, however wrong, but we ignore all precedents when they do not justify the principles of right and truth. West Virginia can be twisted into a precedent for Quebec, but we :find no precedent to justify Weat Virginia, except the opinions of those who justify a violation of the princip!(1S


1872.J

.Appendix.

5b

whi<;,h underlie a sound and conservative Masonic Government. 'rhe value of truth and justice is infinitely superior to all the recorded rubbish of error, by whomsoever committed. "Tw"o wrongs never yet made a right,," is a proverb too old, too valuable to be ignored-in fact, we may take all the wrongs of ages and pile them up as precedents, and they do not amount to a mole hill on the side of Mt. \Vashington. We do hope Brother D. and those wh') follow him may condescend, for even a mornent, to study Masonic usage from the standpoint of logical investigation. It is pitiable to see a great and important issue covered up by such special pleading~ as instanced in the Quebec ('ase, and especially so by the flimsy arraignment of Canada for rec06ni~ing Ne"w Brunswick and Nova Scotia. Whenever we shall be ~o blinded by partizan pride, or anlbition for a cause, as to shut our eyes so that "ve cannot soe the difference between" occupied" ~11ld "unoccupied" terl'Hory, nor draw the distinction between the vested rights ofjurisdiction and the wandering clahns of lVlasonic Arab:;;, poaching on other people's propert~y, then "we want to resign our place and leave the discusHioll to tbose of better balanced heads. 'Ve do not suggest this course to Brother D., for we still have hopes of him, that he may return to sound reason. 'rVe also have hopes that Grand Lo<.1ges which have recognized Quebec, may determine to take a more impartial review of this very important question, irrespective of the isolated blunders of a few who have gone before us. Stud3-1' this Quebec case froDl every point we lua:y, yet the palpable result is tbat by recognizing her, we acknowledge that political action regulates :IYlasonic boundaries. By this view sovereignty of Grand Lodges, supported by obligations, becomes u pile of saud to be scattered by the changing windB of political legislation. No advocate of Quebec has yet been able to deny this issue. They have dodged it and bushwhacked around it, but it stands there still. In the preceding rernal路ks we have made the serious charge of " special pleading" against Brother D., and to show that we are Justified in it, we will quote what he saJ~B under the head of FLORIDA: The Grand Lodge of Canada ,vas recognized by F\lorirl~ at the time the Grand Lodges of :BJngland, Scotland and Ireland exercised concurrent, but together e:rclllsive jurisdiction in the territory. No other Grand Lodge could plant a Lodge there. We hold that under these cirCl.lInstances, the principle is the saIne as if one Grand I.lodge was exercising exclusive jurisdiction there. But if not, and if the forluation of the Grand Lodge of Oanada isjustified on the gronnd that three Grand Lodges were exercising jurisdiction, then a fO'rtio1"i, is the fonnation of the Grand Lodge of Quebec jnstified, because, at thu,t timei/our Grand Lodges Wf>re exerci&ing jurisdiction in the Province,-Canada, Eng and, Rcotland and Ireland-a, fact which Brother Dawkins seems not to have known. Almost anyone casually reading the above would infer that !ouJr Grand Lodges had concurrent juriSdiction, when the real f~"tct is, "the Grand Lodge of Canada" had alone exclusive jurisdiction. It was in this wise: When the Gr~\nd J..Jodge of Canada was recognized by England, Ireland and Scotland, it was stipUlated th~"tt a few of the Lodges of each, ,vhich did not see proper to Join in the formation of that grand body, were allowed to remain as daughters of their original parents, which was perfectly legal and proper; but it was also ~tipulated that neither of the foreign Grand Lodges named, nor any other in the world, could plant a new Lodge there, because tbat was the reserved and exclusive right of the Grand Lodge of Canada, and Brother D. knew it when he wrote the above, but he so shapes the matter as to build up a false premise, and a!ortiori draws a false conclusion. We have made our charge in the most fraternal spirit, and leave our intelligent readers to determine whether we were just or not. While upon this subject, we will explain what we understand as '"'unoccupied" and '"'oecupied" territory. The former is a Btate, Territory or Province Wherein there is no established Grand Lodge, but in which all Grand Lodges


[Oct.

56

near or relnote may plant Lodges, all hnving concurrent jurisdiction over the ground, but not over the Lodges, as per exaluple, the present rreritol'Y of New l\>Iexico. By "occupied ,. territory we understand any State, Territory or Province wherein is established a regular Grand Lodge having sole and supreme 1Ia~onic allthori ty to establish Lodges. In the organization of GrH,ud Lodges, it often accurs that all the Lodg~s do not see proper to enter into the organization, but prefer to remain with their mother bodies, as instanced by several Lodges in Illinois in 1840, which remained for several years after the organization of that Grand Body, with their mother, the Grand Lodge of l\fisSOl1ri. This was a rnatter of mntual understanding between the two States, in accordance with established usage. At'tpr the organization of the Grand Lodge of Illinois, as a matter of course, :lYIiSROt1l'i nor any other Grand body could plaut new IJodges there, because that body had exclusivejurisGliction. So 'with Canada and the English IJodges. She consented that they might remain, but they must not bring in any of their sisters. 'fheir rooms were assigned them and there they lnust relnain till they die. The 11PW Grand Lodge could plant Lodges of her o,vn in every pn,rt of her territory, and she alone could do it, and now to call that" unoccupied" territory, or shariug "collcurrent" jurisdiction, is a bUl'lesque upon the English language and a refiection upon the common intelligence of the Oraft. Under the head of MISSOURI, he says: We are informed that the lines of Missouri have been mor~ than once changed by law, and that the Grand Lodge as a matter of course conformed lwr jurisdiction accordingly! ARE WE NOT RIGHT? We answer that he is "NOT RIGHT." The lines of Missouri have never been changed since it was a State or Territory, which affected in any wise the jurisdiction ofa single Lodge under her control. Again, he says: Grand Lodges adopted the civil htw to establish their boundaries, without fixing their limits independent of the civil law. Having adopted the civil law, they are affected by changes in their civil law. Suppose the Grand Lodge of Missouri should declare tbat any person entitled to vote under t,he laws of .Mi&" sour! should be an eligible candidate; that when that law was adopted, twelv~ months'residence was necessary to qualify a voter; that the law should after" wards be changed so as to require a t'woyears' residence; would not the 1\tIasonic law be changed accordingly? When Grand Lodges are formed they fix their limits with their state or territorial boundaries, and when once fixed they remain unaffected by any snbsequent State action, just as they fix the term of Masonic (-itizenship, Home at one year, some at two years, some six months, etc.; but ,vhen once decicled on, the term remains, and the one year clause in our Grand Lodge Constitution 'would stand, even if the St,ate changed its time of citizenship to one day or a hundred years, unless the Grand Lodge sa"w proper to change her own law, au(l this she could do, whether the State changed its law or not, and 'we are aston" ished that Brother Drummond ShOtlld ask so sin1ple a question. Brother D. is a great hand at" assulning" favorite premises, Hlnel thenargning from them without any reference to the facts in the case, and as almost anyone can build a house to suit himsel:f, it is not surprising that Brother D. should bt> so well satisfied with his own conclusions. He says: Now, assumin~ that it became H, part of the COIDlnon ]:::1JW of ~IasonrY,J that the Lodges in an lndependent State ShOlllu have the right to fornl a urand Lodge of their own, without the consent of the motber Grand Lodge, wherein does this destroy" Grand Lodge Sovereignty?"


1872.J

Appendix.

57

We have here a little mOl'e of that" special" business already ~tllllrled to, for he had no right to assume anything of the kind without giving the whole Cilise. It' he assumes that it is a common law that Grand Lodges may be t'ornled in independent states where therre are no regular Grand Lodges, then be assumeb what nobody ever denied, and it is simply childish to argue from such a preInise ~ but when from that premise he assump-s that it is common law or l.lsage for Lodges in an independent State, wherein exists a Grancl LocZge, having 8upre'Jne atttlwrity, to establish another Grand Lodge without the consent of that body, then he ~tSSl1nleS a position that has never had a foundation in fact in the Masonic usage of the world, and he should have known it. It seems almost ridiculous to argne bO plain a question, and we would not do it now were it not that so many have titken Brother Drummond as a sort of "headlight" to their IOCOluotive, ftnd occl\sionally thereby run their train into the diteh. Under the head of CANADA, he again acknowledges that that Grand Lodge had a recognized jurisdiction over both Canada East and Canada West. He says: Tn 1859 the Grand Lodge of England recognized the Grand Lodge of Canada. It had previously (in December, 1858) recognized it as the Grand Lodge of Canada lVest stipulating that Canada East, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia, (" Provinces now 'under the jurisdiction of the Grand Lodge of England.") should form no part thereof. The Grand Lodge of Canada admitted the claim of'the Grand Lodge of England to NOV~l Scotia and New Brunswick, but showed that Canada EfLst was included in its jurisdiction, and the next year Hngland corrpctC'd her error. But before it was recognized by Engh1nd all the American Grand Lodges, save three or four, had, after a very full and able discussion of the question, granted re('ognitioll to it, and one of those which had dela:y"ed to do so formerly admitted its error. Thus we have the Grand Lodge exel'cising its supremacy over two provinces by universal consent, yet Brother D. now tries to carry out the destruction of that sovereignty by aiding a rebellion. Under the head of NEW BRUNSWICK we find a little more special pleading, ~1H follows: He announces that the Grand Lodge of Scotland (Which had cha.rtered several of the Lodges in that Province) has not yet extended to his Granel Lodge official recognition. We regret this, as we must look to see the Grand Lodge of Missouri, nuder the head of Brother Gouley, revoke its recognition of the Grand Lodge of New Brunswick, because that Grand Lodge never recognizes a new Grand Lodge until it is recognized by the parent Grand Lodge. The Board of General Purposes announces that every Lodge ill the PrOVince recognizes the authority of the Grand Lodge. Brother D. knows that New Brunswick was U unoccupied territory," and tfherefore had no parent Grand Lodge, hence had none to apply to for reoognition, and if he can find anywhere in the proceedings of the Grand Lodge of Missouri anything that we have ever said or written which justifies him in charging that we ever held to the doctrine that a new Grand Lodge in "unoccupied territory" had to get the reoognition of the parent Grand Bodies, w'e will give him one hundred dollars in gold. Such sort of inversion of facts ma,y be called smart in legal gerrymandering, but we look upon it as rather thin in the face of intellIgent Masons. It is unworthy of his fame as well as his good heart. Oonle, Brother D., stand square up to the front, even if it is to get shot down. Never shirk a fact-the Craft expect more of you. He quotes the following from the address of the Grand Master of Quebec: "A Grand Lodge thus regularly formed in unoccupied or <'l'i8severed territory, possesses tbeinalienable right of exclusive jurisdiction overall symbolic Lodges of Freemasons within said territory; and no other G)路and Lodge can lawful1;y form new private Lodges, or reconstruct old ones, from and after the formation of the new Grand Lodge. We quote this just to show the key which unlocks the cause of all these troUbles, viz.: d'i8severed territo'ry. Without the invention of that term the whole claim of Q,uebec would fall to the ground, and yet that claim is .perfectly


58

Appendix.

Oct.]

worthless, for the reason that no such tel'm has ever had a place in Masonic nomenclature except in defense of Masonic revolution. We ask in all candor what constitutes a "dh;severed" . JI'asonic territory? \Ve can understand a "divided" territory, by action of a Grand Lodge having supreme authority and power to divide itself ,vhen assembled, but to "dissever" ajul'isdiction ca~ onl~" be done by SOlne po,ver outside of itself. The Federal Governlnent m~ty dissever, either legally or vi et armis, the territory of a State, but to claim that disseveration as binding upon Grand Lodge jurisdiction is to claim that States and not Granel Lodges, are the arbitersof~fasoniclines. This,vecallalVlasOni(; hel'e~y, yet the Maine and New York Committees repndiate itny such result and at the sanle tiIne act upon that theoryUntIer the same head, relative to the duplicate charters issued in the PJ'ovinc~ of Qnebec, by the Grand Lodge of Canadu. Brother D. says: .A.s we have already remarked, the duplicate Lodges were the cau~e of the refllsal to ~1dopt tbe report of the coullui ttees 011 conference. It is alleg-ed, and we are satisfied that in Iuany cases the allegation is true, that the Grand l\{aster of Canada luade eitbrts to induce members of Lodges ,vhich had given in their adhesion to Q,u€'bec, to apply for a duplicate charter with the same nalue and unmber as the old Lodge; that. in such cases, he granted a dispensation, which was followed by the issue of a duplicatewnrrant by the Grand Lodge. In some cases rnembers took dimHs and then had a charter issued to thern as being the V€'f'jr Lodge frOIn which the'j"'" had taken dimits! Of course, wherever the~e tlnplicatC'Lod.geH exist, there is an intense feeling in relation to them. \Ve have no donbt but that the Quebec brethren got very mueh excited over this action, just as disobedient and untrustworthy agents would feel when the principal would cancel their powers of attorney, and issue new ones instead, to those ·who could be trusted. Suppose, for instance, that certain Missouri Lodges on the bordors of Iowa were to persist in lnaking returns to that Grand Lodge instead of ours; we hold it ,vould be perfectly proper for our Grand Lodge to declare those original charters, and all the powers conveyed by theIu, nnll ancl tlOid, and to issue to the true and faithful Craft, hO'wever few, new charters of the same name and number, to takt:'). the place of the original ones illegally retained, and to declare those who retained thelli as "clandestine." We hold this to be the true solution of the case, and that we would be justified by every Grand Lodge in the world except those who think Quebec is right and Canada wrong. Brother Drummond insists that our charge against the Quebeo theory of annihilating State lines also annihilates Grand. Lodges theluselves, is not true. \Ve stated that the recognition of Quebec Wiped the old Grand Lodge of Can.. ada out of existence, and he denies it, but we will now bring upon the stand hiH strongest ally, viz., Brother Scot of Loui&iana, thus nIluded to by Brother Rob· bins of Illinois: ~ He ably argues the right of Quebec to recognition, and meets the argulnenL that if the principle which governs the precedents cited in its favor is carried to its logical result, the present Grand Lodge of Oanada would be "annihilated" s(luarely, thus: "We accept the argument. If a Grand Lodge exercises jurisdiction over an extensive territor.y, and from any cause that territory is divided into two independent States, a new name given to each, and the original nalne of the terri~ tory erased from the map, we hold that the original Grand Lodge is virtually in a condition ,vhen its existence may be terminated at any moment; not tha,t it would cease to exist by the mere geographical and political diviSIon of the territory into separate and distinct States, but the right ,vould ilnmediately accrue to the Lodges in each new State to form a new Grand Lodge for therll~ selves, with a jurisdiction co-terminous with their State lines." We thank Brother Scot for his candor, and ask Brother D. whether he is willing to accept the" logical conclusion? " If this is not putting" Grand Lodge Sovereignty at the mercy of political organizations, what is it'? Please answer. Brother J. Oaven, of Indiana, in replying to Uonnecticut, l:;ays:


1872.J

A.ppendix.

59

That. Committee censure the Indiana Committee of 1870 on the same subject for recommending a postponement of the question of the recognition of the Grand Lodge of Quebec until the next Annual Oommunication, and say: "'Vhat there is to be gained by postponing the subj ect we are unable to determine, for the proceedings, as have been reported on both ~ides in referent'e to the matter, are sufficient to settle the case, and we believe that action 11-, necessary, and should be taken by every Grand Lodge that considers the &ubject. The Grand Lodge of Quebec is a legal Grand Lodge, and entitled to l'ecog'nition by every Grand Lodge in the country; or it is not, and should be denounced; and it is the dt1t~.,. of existing Grand I..lodges to decide the question either one way or the other. Perhaps the committee were a, little modest, ana did ltot wish to repo'rt a.s theJJ actually thought proper and 'right, in tllepre.'~e'llceo.fth(' second the Gl'and Lodge Ql Canada, as we ob.<.:erve hp was present clwrin.q the COJJlJlwnication, Ctnd the Grancl Lodge oj Canada 7,s st'rongly opposed to 'recognition."

OtllCf>1'O/

Here is an insinuation that the Indiana Comluittee, through cowardice, made a dishonest report, and of course embraces in its censure the Grand Lodge which adopted it. We admit that the members of the India,na Committee were modest men, but not affi.icted wUh that ldnd of modesty which feared to perform any duty 01' would prevent theln from reporting" as they actually thought proper and right in the presence of" anyone. 'Ve think our Connecticut brother, had he heen governed by that CHARI'I'Y ~tnd JUSTICE 1vhich we are taught should govern l\lasons, might have conceived some other motive as influencing the Indiana Committee in their report than dishonesty and eo,vardice. 'rhe fact that the Grand Lodge of Canada, ,vhose jurisdiction it ,vas proposed to destroy, and with whonl we were holding fraternal intercourse, and which we lutd for fifteen yearN recognized as the supren1(~ Masonic ttuthority over that territory, was prote-sting against it, and that since the organization of Quebec, Call9da had held 110 regular communication, but would do so in about one month, would alone seem sufficient reason for at least a,f-lhortpostponelnent, inthe hope that the parties dirf'ctly interested would be able to reconcile theirdifferences as Masons and brothers. To have recognized Quebec ~\t that tilhe, we think, wOl11<l have been a m.ost ,vanton disregard of the feelings of our Canada brethren. WaH it cowardly or dishonest to express the hope that the Brethren of Can~tda and Quebec would decide their own differences in a fraternal spirit, and wait a ~hort tin'le to gIve them an opportunity? If Quebec ,vere wrong it ~hould not have been recognized at all; and if rightt.-could have ,yell afforded to wait a few 'weeks rather than to force other Grand Lodge:-:: to net .vith almost iudfcent, haste in s8netioning a despoilment of the territory of an old and esteemed ally, and over her earnest protest. The IndianH, Oommittee presented some reasons why the divisioll proposed by Quebec mip;ht be exp~dient, but opposed the doctrine that a change in political boundarips should ipfW facto reduce" occupiecl" Masonic tel'ritor~" to the C01Hlition of "unoccupied." If this doctrine is to prevail, tllen the act of Parliament of JuIJ'l' 1st, 1867, severing the Province of Canada, as then existing, "into two separate and distinct Provinces," called the" Province of Quebec," and the HProvince of Ontario," formerly "Upper and Lower Canada," had this effect, that the moment that act passed, the Grand Lodge of Canada ceased to exist, and had the Grand Lodge of Q,uebec not been formed, then both Ontario and Quebec would be "unoccupied" territory, and although all the Lodges and lnenlbers formerly owing allegiance to the Grand Lodge of Canada wished to remain true to that allegiance, and that the Grand Lodge should be undisturbed in itfi ,jurisdiction, yet. without the formation of a new Grand Lodge, or Lodges, hnth On t~rio ftl1d Quebec would be and forever remain" unoccupied" terri tor~y. The coutllluance of the old Grand Lodge to assume control would not avail. It vlonld be but a pret~nder. That act of Parliament strucli: it out of existence, and on this theory Ontario is to-day" unoccupied" territory. It is trne that flU:' old Grand IJodge of Canada is claiming to exercise jurisdiction over it, but ~tS the act of Parliament abolished the Hold Grand Lodge," and no new one has been formed for Ontario, it is to-day" unoccupied'~ territory, and is open to any Grand Lodge which may choose to issue charters. rr!J.e Grand Lodge of C~nada bei~g dead, and yet the old material of which it was 1orrnerls-'I' composed stIll assumIng to be such Grand Lod~e, when it is not, ~nch present pretended Grand Lodge is clandestine, and if :itssociating with clandestine Masons ipso facto makes the one so associating also clandestine. 'l'heu, as we all recognize and hold fraternal intercourse with the Grand Lodg;e of Canada, then are we all clandestine, except, perhaps, Q,uebec; and lfit should l.>ecome reconciled to and associate with Canada, then there would not remain an ~nclandestine Mason on the American continent. Our only safety seems to be In Quebec remaining true, and issue new ChJLrters to establish Lodges in the United States, Canada, Great Britain, and the rest of the world, and thus put Masonry on its legs again. If the act of Parliament abolished the Old Grand Lodge, then, of oourse, the concern is as dead as a doornail, and yet does not seem to know it,nor do we, and


60

Appendix.

[Oct.

are thus ignorantly destroying the Institution which had survived so long to be, alas! in this de~enerate day, smashed to smithereens by running against "unoccupied" terrItory. Could I{ing Solomon have foreseen this, he might llave been discouraged. Instn,nces mIght occur where a political change nliO'ht render expedient a corresponding Masonic change, but to hold that such politiCal change ot" itself and absolutely, Inakes all the territory embraced within it Masonical1:y· "unoccupied," is to hold that after such political change, althouO'h all interested might prefer to remahl precisely as they had been Masonicalfy yet, they cannot; but to gain their exact fornler status, must reorganize, and in the meantinle, be unoccupied territory, open to invasion from every quarter It is to hold that Grand Lodges have no inherent power or aut.hority-no inherent tenacity of life or self preservation, but are liable any da Y without a rnoment's notice, to be stricken out of existence by a power entirei y without themselves-drawi ng each breath of life at the s utlerence of a body foreign to thelnselves. It is to hold that after the passage of that act of Parliament l:'tlthough the Grand Lodge of Canada had desired to retain jurisdiction just before, and this was also the desire of every Lodge Hnd individuH,1 Mason in the entire jurisdiction, the" Old Grand Lodge" could not thus preserve its jurisdiction, nor even its existence. The act of Parliament struck it dead-unconditionally dead, ,vithout regard to the wishes of the Masonic Fraternity however unanimous, the territory would be "unoccupied" until the formation of a new Grand Lodge. If this theory of unoccupied tel ritory is correct, then the Grand Lodge of Canada is clandestine, and the only Grand Lodge in the two Provinces is the Grand Lodge of Quebec, and it may of right charter Lodges in Ontario. It is clear then that Quebec must be saved for seed. But we ,vould like to ask our Connecticut Brother what he thinks ot" the 1011ovving Grand Lodges which also postponed recognition, viz.: Alabama, California, Colorado, Florida, LOUisiana, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Brunswick, New Jersey and Rhode Island, and of the following which refused to recognize, viz.: lVHnnesota, Missouri and \Vashington Territory. Werethese also cowardly and dishonest? But what shall be said of the Grand Lodge of Connecticut? r.rhe Connecticut Report on Foreign Correspondence, which condemns the report of the Indiana Committee of 1871, was written by Brother Jos. I{. \Vheeler. In 1870 Brother Wheeler was chairman of the same Committee in the Grand Lodge of Connecticut, and in his report on Foreign Correspondence for that year to the Grand Lodge he recommended the recogni tion of the Grand Lodge of Quebec. He was also Grand Recretary, and in his report as such, on the subject of Quebec, reiterates that" my views are fully expressed in my Report on }i"oreign Correspondence, but as there is a matter of jurisprudence involved in the case, I respectfully suggest that the SUbject be laid before a proper committee." It was referred to the Coromittee on Jurisprudence, who promptly reported the follOWing resolution:

as

" Resolved, That the request of the Grand Lodge of Canada, now made through its dUly accredited Grand Representative, that definite action upon the matter of the bQdy claiming to be the Grand Lodge of Quebec be deferred nntil the next Annual Communication of this Grand Lodge, and that this Grand Lodge expresses its earnest hope that before that time the unhappy differences in the Fraternity of Canada may be satisfactorily and amicablyadjusted."

Thus it will be seen that even Connecticut postponed the recognition of Q,uebec, and if Indiana was dishonest, how much more aggravated the dishonesty of Oonnecticut. In Indiana we did not claim to be infallible. We were groping along in darkness, haVing but three great Lights, viz.: the Holy Bible, Square and Oompass-while in Connecticut they have four, viz. : the same three great Lights, and also Brother Wheeler, bein€5 thirty-three per cent. luore light; and yet, after haVing been shone upon ana illuminatE'd by thia fourth H Great Light," the Connecticut CommIttee on Jurisprudence over Brother Wheeler's recommendation recommended just the contrary-that W8I8, to do just ,vhat clishonest Indiana has done-postpone; and the Grn,nd Lodge of Connecticut approved and adopted that report to postpone. If Indiana in her darkness has done so wickedly, how much more so Connecticut, who has thus sinned against Light, "Great Light!" It is due to the Deputy Grand Master of the Grand Lodge of Canada., R. W. James Seylnour, to state that the report which was sublnltted and adopteti in the Grand Lodge of Indiana, was written before any ODe of the commltttt·{· had even been introduced to him. He met the committee but once, and then but a few moments, and did not attempt in the slightest degree to in:tluence them. The committee were impressed, and so expressed themselves to each other, with the extreme delica.cy of his conduct in the matter. He handed the


1872.J

Appendix.

61

Iumittee some printed documents (copies of all of which the comlnittee ~?readYhad) and stated that was all he wished to do-that he did not intend to, nor did he say anything touching the merits of the question; and it is further true that some time before that interview the report had been written and ag;reed upon by the full committee, and was not after that interview changed in a single ord The writer of this knows from personal knowledge, for he w'l'ote that ~poit and read it before the Grand Lodge t and read and corrected the printed roof. ' Any intimation that Deputy Gral~a. Master, James Seymour, exercis.ed ~ny improper intluel?-ce over th?st commIttee, or that he attempted to exerCIse any, either proper or Improper, IS wholly untrue. To show how easily a conclusion can be arrived at upon a premise or platform built for the purpose, we quote the following from the report of the Jurisprudence Committee in Louisiana, and which led that Grand Lodge to adopt recognition, viz. : Grand Lodge organiz3 tions, as at present constituted, afre '/?'i'incipally for mntters 0/ convenience, and in order that harmony may prevail-In the community as well as in the Order-eve7~YMason, whenever a change or division OCCU')'S in the political bottndCl'ries of States and nations, should take immediately the necessary steps to make the corresponding changes in their own Grand Lodge organizations. N othing deleterious can possibl;Y路 result from the adoption, in practice, of this principle, and many benefits would follow~ if carried out in the proper spirit. We have italicized certain portions for convenience. Here is a premise, in the first place, that Grand Lodges are merely organizations for convenience, etc. 'Ve have always been taught that Grand Lodges were organized as the aggregated power of the Craft and were constituted with all the power of sovereignty. If we are right, then the Louisiana conclusion does not go far enough, although sufficiently far for so limited and weak a basis. Another premise laid down, is that Grand Lodges have no jurisdiction or limit except that granted by politicaZ boundaries, therefore whenever political parties choose to change their lines.of action, the Masonic government must follow suit and by sacrificing all sovereignty, dance attendance in the lobby of it Legislature, in order to find out where their Lodges stand. As for the adoption in practice of this principle on the idea that it will always (or ever, in fact) be "carried out in the proper spirit," is simply ridiculous, as every case that has come up under it fully testifies. The only two that have come squarely up to this new fangled doctrine 1\,re West Virginia and Quebec, and God knows the result on the harmony of the entire craft has de.. monstrated anything but the" benefits" promised by Louisiana. As a further illustration of the ease With which premises are built to suit conclusions previously arrived at, (just as a preface of a book is the last thing written,) we quote the following from the same report in Louisiana: We think the principle has been too well established to require further argument, and, therefore, we simply state it to be, that th.e Masons of every political state or nation haVing a legislature or government of its own, are entitled, whenever there exists therein three or more legally organized and regularly chartered Lodges, to have its own Grand Lodge; and that, when such Grand Lodge is regularly organized, it should have exclusive control over all Masons and Lodges within its territorial jurisdiction. To illustrate: we mean by political States or divisions, sucb as the States and organized Territories of the United States; Ontario, Quebec, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswiclr, in Oanada; Ireland, Scotland and England, in Great Britain; the various Duchies in Germany; but not the various arondissements or departments of France, etc., because in these there is no separate legislature or government of its own. Conforming to the laws of the coun try in which we reslae, we should make the extent of our Grand Lodge organization conform to the political divisions and changes which may from time to time be made. Now if anybody wants to find a bolder declaration of a fact that has no existence, he will have to go to Gulliver's travels or the Reports of Maine to get them. In the first place, thep'rinciple alluded to has never been established atl aU; it is now in its chrysalis state, presented for the first time in all its naked deformity by the rebelliot?- of Quebec. It stands alone in the world, struggling to become a precedent. From this untenable and undemonstrated "precedent"

~


62

Appendix~

[Oct.

aR a preluise, the Louisiana Committee had no trouble in finding a proper place

t.o put in the" Therefol'e" as a preamble for the declaration of facts that have nev'er })f"pn denied, viz.: that" all States ~tnd TerritorIes wherein three or more I.J()dg;f'~ are located, may organize a Grand Lodge;" but the prime and funda~ nlenta1 principle which underlies that right, is wholly omitted from. tIlt: Louisiana report, viz.: That t,11e three or more Lodges mURt exist in "unoccupied territory," to do this act. The conclusion drawn frOln the false prelnise is eflua1l3'" erroneous, yet consistent, viz.: That Grand Lodge Sovereignt:y' is the meTe puppet of political ~wtion_ Brothel' .las. B. Scot, in his report to the Grand Lodge of Louisana, under tbe hflad of QUEBEC, says: He answers the second question by assuming that the Grand Lodge of Canada had exclusiyejurisdiction over that portion of Canada, now embraced in the Province of Quebec, and that the operation of the Act of 1867 did not rendor it unoccupied .l\laHonic territory. He quotes liberally in support of thlb opinion, the views advanced by Brother Goule:r of Missouri, Pratt of California Nash of l\IillneHota and Peters of Nova Scotia, and refers to the ar~UnlE>nt:-; OIl the other side of t i10 question as a '" puddle of inconsistencies." But, Uannda never did exercise exclusive jurisdiction in Quebec. On the 20th Octobee, IH/)lJ there 'were thirtY-nine Lodges in the Province-thirty-two under Canalla, tlv€" under England and t,vo under Scotland. In the convention which farrned tIl(' Grand Lodge of Quebec, t\venty-one Lodges were represented, viz: eighteen on tIle Registry of Cn,nada, two on that of England, and one on that of Scotland. This, in our opinion, effectually disposes of the assertion that the Grand Lodge of Cannda is, or ever was, "the original and supreme Masonic authority In the Province of (~uebec." Here \ye have agaill the same old mistake as to what constitutes" unoccupied territory," in reply to which we refer him to the foregoing part of this review. We quote the above in order to reply specifically to the last sentence thereof. He, like Brother Fellows, lays down a false premise, and consequently draws a false conclusion. He assumes that because England and Ireland bad Lod~es, that, fhr'rejm·e, it was a free territory, when he should have known full well that after the final recognition of the Grand Lodge of Canada, no Grand Lodge in the world, except her, could plant a Lodge in what is now Ontario and Quebec, or what was then Upper and Lower Canada. If this was not "suprellle l\-fasonic authority," what was it? If Brother Scot can show that an)'" Masonic power on earth did or could legally plant a Lodge in that HOC_ cupied territory," (not excepting even England, Ireland or Scotland), we will eat; this cop~r of proceedings. Not being able to show that, why continue this bushwhaeking process to violate a fundamental principle of Grand Lodge Sovereignty? vVhy attempt, under the :flimsy screen of "tolerated Lodges," to escape the inevitable truth and logic of" supremacy"? Brother D. C•.Dawkins, of Florida, thus replies to Brother Drummond on au important point, and it is incontrovertible:

He copies our resolutions of 1870, as to Quebec, and says: "In the very able report by P. G. :M:. Thomas Brown, accompanying the resolutions by which Florida, in 1857, recognized the Grand Lodge of Canada, it is said we have proven by authority and usage, from the formation of the Grand Lodges in England, in 1717, to the organization of the Grand Lod~e of Kansas, that in no instance ha.f4 the consent of the parent body been obtaIned, and the Grand Lod~c of Florida then endorsed it:' In point of fact, there was evidently a slight mIstake in the above quotation, for it seems that the consent of Massachusetts, the parent body, was obtained as to Maine; but we admit now, that it was not necessary, for Maine was, 1st, an independent state; 2d, had the requi::;ite number of chartered Lodges, and, 3d, unoccu,pied by any Grand Lodge haVing exclusive righi. Quebec had only one, the second of those reqUisites, the others wanting. One by one the sophistical guns of Maine ~re spiked, and by the time this question is fully under~tood, even Brother D. will abandon the barracks. Under the head of NEW YORK, Brother Dawkins says in his reply to Brother Breed: He re<:ommended the recognition of Q,uebec upon a basis which we must somewhat criticise:


1872.J

Appendix.

63

1st He alleges that the Grand Lodge of On,nada did not exclusively occupy the Province of Quebec, because it permitted some of the old Lodges to retain their allegiance to England and some other antecedent authorities, and says (p 104) "that such act is at variance with the U.S. doctrine ofG.L. occupation." Does the Brother not know that there are Lodges now in West Virginia that by mntual consel1t still adhere to Virginia? And there are other casef';. Again he says, (p. 101,) "that a proposition was pending and undetermined in the Grand Lodge of Canada to dIvide the jurisdiction." Does not that fact amount to a conclusion that the Quebec movement was passionate and turbulent, (using luild terms,) and therefore in conflict with Masonic harmony and propriety? We D:eed go 110 further to question the consistency of Brother Breed's recomluendatlon. Under the head of TEXAS, he thus replies to Brother Elgin: Now we ask in fraternal candor and kindness, if the Masons of Ontario had the right then, haven't. the:y got it now? And if they have it and choose to exerci&e it, what becomes of the Grand LodgE" of Canada? There is but one answer: UttrrllJ destro.1Jed as {( 1'esu,lt Qf civU legislation acqLtiesced in by the hast]! legi.~lation of foreign .L"lIasonlc powers. And we also ask that Bro. Drummond, or some ot.her one of tho foremost nags on the turf, give us a good precedent of sncb a Grand Lodge expulsion to which we may surrender wi tIl ~1 good grace, for reallJ'" our fraternnl habit of thought haR prompted us to look upon the organization and penual1ency of Masonic Grand Lod~es as being something more than a mere bubble in the air; and hence our l'efusal to encourage the turbulence which so formidably threatened the continued existence of the Grand Lodge of Canada, whose juriRdiction has long been ","ell defined and universall:y' recognized. We candidly believe that if others had kept qUiet, as we did, leaving our Ca.nadian brethren, at least for a reasonable time, to settle their own fa.roily difficulties, they would in due time have been adJusted upon the principles of Masonic" prudence and justice," surrounded by the great mystic pillars of Hwisaom, strength and beauty." But, alas! When in 1865-'66 we laid down the proposition that the recognition of West Virginia, without the consent of "Virginia, and in 1869 that the recognition of Quebec, without the consent of Canada, was equivalent to aclr.nowledging that Grand Lodge ~overeignty was merely dependent upon political sufferance, and that all Masonic Sovereignty was destroyed, Bro. Drumnlond and others utterly repudiated any such inference and denied complicity with any such scheme. The war was begun, and through the smoke of the first skirmish we saw the logical conclusion to which they would all be driven when the battle got red hot,-we knew a few years would develope the whole plan of campaign. It has been developed. Every intelligent ally of Quebec and its opponents have accepted our first declaration, and there does not live to-day an American cor~ respondent but has been compelled to accept the inevitable conclusion which we then set forth. Not a single Grand Lodge in America to~day that has recognized Quebec, has been able to give any other solid reason for their action, except that political Silbdivisions annihilate Grand Lodge Sovereignty. The claim by Q,uebec that she was "unoccupied" territory is utterly quashed b~1" all the faets in the case, and the forebodings which some of the oldest and ablest Masons of the land have expressed to us by official reports and private correspondence, are very well set forth in the following report from Florida: While we rejoice that we are at peace with all the regular Grand Lodges of the world, we entertain, against our will, some serious forebodings ofa dark day in the future, not far distant; for in the day when the American Grand Lodges, or any number of them, shall atteulpt to force others into a recognition, as a regular Grand Lodge, of any organization which they believe to be irregular, under the pretense of: enforcing their pe.~uliar views of Jurisdictional rights, a cloud will arise which will soon grow into formidable dimenRions. We sound the alarm now, and caution brethren everywhere, that they may guard against the impending danger. A respectable minority lnust be respected, and the benefit of every doubt should be given in favor of fraternal harmony and against any applicant for Masonic honors, in every caseiWhere differont opinions arise. At least such is our opinion, and we have yet to earn that any given number of Grand Lodges have the power to force recognition upon others; but on the other hand, we entertam that every regUlar Grand Lodge, by virtue of its


64

A.ppendix.

[Oct.

Snpl'enlacy, has the absolute right to choose its own associates and peers, of like qualifications, where mutual friendship and brotberl3-1" love exist. We hope that our brethren everywhere, who have ~Lssumed or been led into the error of recognition, w路ill re-examine and reconsider their action, and thus drive the Quebec organizers into proper terms of Masonic propriety and regularity, whereby true fraternal harmony may once more be restored anlong all t,he Craftsmen of North America. We comnlend these remarks particularly to Vermont and New York, who are threatening to cut off communication with Canada unless she recognizeR ttuebec, or unless she does the same thing, viz.: surrender that territory. A great burly giant may crush down and outrage a helpless and delicate girl, and so may the aggregate strength of many grand Lodges crush the very manhood and life-blood out of Canada, but history will record the fact, that in tbls instance, as in others, "curses, like chickens, come home to roost." The Committee 011 Jurisprudence in the Grand Lodge of Oalifornia submitted the following majority report, which we hold to be unanswerable, and to which we ask the careful consideration of this Grand Body: Brother William O. Belcher, from a majority of the Committee on .Jllrisprudence, presented the following report: To the M.'. If':路. Grand Lodge of California: In the matter of the formation of the Grand Lodge of Quebec. and its proposed recognition by this Grand Lodge, your committee respectfully report that they have carefully examined and considered all the documents placed in their hands under the order of reference, including all circulars and proceedings of the Grand Lodge of Canada and the Grand Lodge of ~uebec, in relation to this subject, forwarded to this Grand Lodge; and have availed themselves of all the means of information at their command, to be able to arrive at the facts of the case, and to present them in such wise that the Grand Lodge may take such nction as it shall deem just in the premises. Through the courtesy of the Chi1irman of the Oommittee on Correspondence and the Grand Secretary, your Committee have been furnished with and have consulted the reports made upon this subject to almost all the Grand Lodges of the United States and the Dominion of Canada. SOIne of these reports exhibit very thorou~h and careful examination of the questions involved, and among those eXhibIting most careful research and study luay be named the reports of Brother Drummond, of Maine+.. Brother Gouley, of Missouri, and Brother Peters, Grand Master of New .t:Srunswick. Your Committee here acknowledge their obligations to the Brethren named, and to those of other Jurisdictions, for they have availed themselves of the fruits of their labors, and made free to use the facts found and arranged by these Brethren, and of their arguments and conclusions as well, without other acknowledgement than this.

The Grand Lodge of Quebec bases its claim of right upon the political subdivision of the territoryfol'ming the Dominion of Oanada, under act of the British Parliament, called "The British North American Act, 1867," which went into effect on the first of JUly of that year. Hence the statement of facts should properly con1mence with some facts relative to the political history of the ProvInces. In 1791, by an Act of the British Parliament, Oanada was divided into two Provinces, then called Upper Canada and Lower Canada. The river Ottawa was the di viding line between the two provinces. Under that act each province had it~ own governor, appointed by the crown, and its own Legislative Assembly. The lower Province then retained and still retains French institutions, the-larger portion of its peopLe being of French origin and speaking the French language; while the upper Province received and still reuains English institutionR. In 1841, nnder another Act of Parliament, a Governor General waR !)Jppointed, whose authority extended over both PrOVinces, and the legislative power for both was vested in one legislature. Still each Province retained its o"wn territorialliInits and its own peculiar institutions, religious, educational, and judicial; and the legislation for the Provinces was, for the most part, as distinct as if there had been a legislature for each. In 1867, by another Act of t.he British Parliament, the Dominion of Canada was created, composed of Upper Canada, (called Ontario,) Lower Canada, (called Quebec,) Nova Rcotia, and Ne,v Brunswick. Under this Act a Governor General is appointed, in whom, as representative of the Queen, is vested the executive authority of the Dominion; while the legislative power is vested in a Senate, appointed by the Governor General, and a House of Commons, elected by the people, a certain number of the members being apportioned to each Province. For each Province


.A.ppendiaJ.

1872.J

65

a Lieutenant Governor is appointed by and holds at the pleasure of the Governor General. Each Province has also a Provincial Legislature. That of Ontario consists of the Lieutenant Governor and one House of Assembly, elected by the people路 while that of Q,uebec consists of the Lieutenant Governor and two Honses-a 'Legislative Council, appointed by the Lieutenant Governor, constituting the Upper House, and an Assembly, elected by the people, constituting the Lower House. The Parliament of the Dominion has exclusive legislative authority over most of the subjects of legislation, including the raising of money by any mode or system or taxation; banking, and the issue of paper money; savings hanks bills of exchange, and pl.omissory notes; interest, marriage, and divorc'e ~ criminal law, except constitutions of courts of eriminal jurisdiction, but including criminal procedure; penitentiaries, and in fact, all subjects, except such as are expressly given to Provincial Legislatures. To the Provincial Legislatures is given authority to make laws on certain enumerated subjects, which are: 1. Amendment of its own Constitution, except as to office of Lieutenant Governor. 2. Direct taxation for revenue for Provincial purposes. 3. Borrowing money on the credit of the Province. 4. Establishment of Proyincial offices, and payment of officers. 5. Management and sale of public lands belonging to the Province. 6. Establishment and management of public and reformatory prisons for the Province. 7. Establishment and management of hospitals, asylums, and eleemosynar;Y' institutions in and for the Province. 8. Municipal institutions in the Province. 9. Licenses of shops, saloons, etc., for raising revenne. 10. Local works and undertakings, other than lines of ships, raiLways, telegraphs, and canals, connecting the Proviu<>e with other Provinces, or extending beyond its own limits. 11. Incorporation of companies for Provincial objects. 12. Solemnization of marriage in the Province. 13. Propert:.y路 a.nd civil rights in the Province. 14. Administration of justice in the Province, including the constitution of oourts and ci viI procedure. 15. The iUlposition of fines, penalties, and imprisonment for the enforcement of Provincial laws. 16. Generally, of all merely local or private matters in the Province. All the judges are appointed by the Governor General, and the Q,ueen retains an absolute veto over every legislative act. Provincial legislation is confined to the subj ects specified. The range of SUbjects is a littlet.-but only a little, greater than that conferred by our own Legislature on the tioard of SuperVisors of the City of San Francisco.

Previous to 1855, the Grand Lodges of England, Ireland and Scotland had established in the two Provinces of Upper and Lower Canada a considerable number of Lodges, and at least three Provincial Grand Lodges. In October of that year, the representatives of forty路one of t,hose Lod~es-twenty-seven from tbe Upper and fourteen from the Lower Province-met In convention at Hamilton, and, after preparing a sort of declaration of independence, in which they SE't forth their grievances, resolved tbat it was expedient, right, and our bounden duty to form a Grand Lodge of Canada;" and they dId form such Grand Loage. Within two years, the new Grand Lodge was reco~nized by the Grand Lodge of Ireland, and by a considerable majority of t,he u-rand Lodges of the United States. At our Annual Communication, in 1856, the circular of the new Grand Lodge was presented in this Grand Lodge, and was referred to a speeial coulnlittee of which Past Grand Master Curtis was chairman. Brother Ourtls, on behalf of that committee, presented an able report, recommending that no action be taken at that time in the matter, which was adopted. The proceedings of t11e Canadian Lodges were revolutionary, and the Grand Lodge of Canada was then in oren revolt against the mother Grand Lodges, and at war with the Provincia Grand Lodges of Oanada, holding under the Grand U

Bo


66

Appendix.

[Oct.

Lodge of England. If the revolution should prove successful, and the indepenfl~ ence of the new Gra nd Lodge be acknowledged by the mother Grand Lodges then we Inight and ought to re?ognize it" but not b~fo~'e, unless the best iute;; ests of MaSDnry should require It. In 1857, the ProvIncIal Grand Lodge of Upper Canada, over which Sir Allan N. McNab presided as Provincial Grand 1\{aster renouneed its alleghtnce to the GraJ?-d Lodge ~f England and ~orme.d the H An~ cient Gra~d Lod~e of Canada"-all Its .su1?ordInates, twenty-eIght In Dumber surrenderIng theIr charters t.o the ProvI neHtl Grand Master and recei''tlino- new charters from the" Ancient Grand Lodge." The next year, a compromis~ Was effected, and the" AnCient Grand Lodge" united with the Grand Lodge of Cll,nada. By that union, all the Lodges in the upper and lower provin~es except two or three in Upper Canada, and seven in Lower Canada. (five of En:Y~ Usb, ~tnd two of Scotch register,) were united in the Grand Lodge of Canad~ In 1859, a compromise was effected between the Grand Lodge of England and that of Canada, b~'I" which it was agreed that the Lodges at that time holdIng charters under the Grand Lodges of Engh1nd and Scotland should be allowed to continue work under their original charters, so long as they should choose to do so. Upon the consunllllation of that, agreement, the Grand Lodge of Oanada was recognized by the Grand Lodge of England, and from that tunp to the pfissage of" The British North American Act, 1867," it was recognIzed by all the MaHonic world as having exclusive jurisdiction over all the territofJr embraced in the two provinces of Canada., and over all Masons within that terri.. tory, except the Lodges which, under the compron~ise of 1859, were allowed to continue to work under their original charters. No place had ever been established for the permanent meeting of the Grand Lodge, and it had held four of its Annual Comnlunications at l\Iontreal in tIm Lower Province, and ten at SIX different towns in the Upper Province.' Of its tour Grand !1asters, two have been elected from each Province, and Brothf'f Stevenson, the Grand ~IaBter in 1869, was a resident of the lower Provlncp. It seems to have been understood anl0ng the brethren that whenever thf' Grand Master ,vas elected from one Province, the Deputy should be selected from the other. In the month of September, 1869, the movenlent towards the formation of the Grand Lodge of Quebec seems to have been inaugurated by a Ineeting held at Montreal, at ,vhich it ,,,,as re::,olved to call a Convention of the Lodgeh In the Province of Quebec, to meet on the 20th of October, for the purpoBe of torming a Grand Lodge for that Province; and a comrnittee was appointed with authority to issue a cIrcular to the Lodges, requ~sting their attendance at the Conventioll. A circular was issued, signed by four Past District Deputy Grand Masters, and thirteen ot.hers, officers and past officers of Lodges, five of them bei ng members of Lodges holding under the Grand Lodges of England and Scotland. As soon as this circular came to the knowledge of Grand 1faster Stevenson~ he requested those of the signers r~sldent in and near Montreal to mf'et him, to inquire whether they bad been authorized b:r- their Lodges to take such pro· ceedlng~, and to endeavor to dissuade them from proceeding further. With single exception, they declared their purpose to proceed, and to form a new Grand Lodge. Thereupon, the Grand Master issued edicts of' suspension against all the persons who had signed the circular, except the one. These suspensions were Issued on the 15th of October. Prior, also, to the 20th of O(·tober, the Grand Master arrested thE' charters and suspended the members of two of the Lodgef) which had, through their officers, pa,rticipated in the movement. On the 20th the Convention was held, and twenty-one of the thirty-nine Lodges of the Province were represented, il1cluding the two Lodges whosecharters had been arrested. The. Convention disregarded the suspension of in.. dividual Masons and the arrests of ehart€'rs made by the Grand J\laster, and received all the supellded brethren and the Lodges whose charters had been arre&ted. At that Convention the Grand Lodge of QUE-bee was organized, and J. H. Graham was elected its first Grand lViaster. Of the first four officers of the newly-formed Grand Lodge, it is worthJ'I" of note that, the Gntnd Master~ Deputy Grand ~{aster, and Senior Grand Warden were signors of the circular, and had been suspended by edict of Grand Master Stevenson on the 15th of October; and that the JunIor Grand Warden was not only a signer of the cIrCUlar, but Ma&ter of one of the Lodges whose charter had been al'rested and 'whose members had been suspended. There can be no doubt that Grand lV!aster Stevenson had authority to arrest the charter of any Lodg;e owing allegiance to his Grand Lodge for any cause that to him seemed sufficient, and to suspend all its memberl::l"until the matter could be reported to and acted upon by his Grand Lodge. Thi::) being so, J. P. Pe~1vey, Who, as representative of Kil'winning Lodge, No. 124, participttted in the lJfoceeding& of tbe Convention, and was elected and installed Junior Grand \Vn,rden, was, at the tiIne of his election and installation, a suspended Mason. If it be conceded, and your committee are of the opinion that It must be, that


1872.J

Appendix.

67

Grand Master also has authority to suspend temporarily, by edict, any Mason ~eSiding within his jurisdiction, for caus...e; then J. H. Graham, Grand Master, J S Bowen Deputy Grand Master, and

lVle R. Meigs, Senior Grand Warden, w~re at the'time of their election, suspended Masons. During the recess of his Grand Lodge, the Grand Master possesses all it~, executive power. O~r own Constitution Sec. 1, Art. 1., Part II, declares that the Grand Master, durIng the Interval between the Communications of the Grand Lodge, may exercise all its executive powers, as defined in Sec. 3, Art. III, Part I, except the granting of charters" and, in Sec.路 3, Art. 111., Part I, the executive powers of the Grand lodge are declared to include the revocation and suspension of charters, "and lie exercise. generally, of all such authority as may be necessary to carry i.ts ~wn legislation into effect." Whether Grand Master Stevenson acted wIsely In arrel::lting the charters of the two Montreal Lodges, and suspendIng their inerobers or in surspending the signers of the circular, your committee have no oc(>usion to express an opinion, but they do not doubt his authority to do as he did nor do they doubt that, at the time the Grand Lodge of Quebec was 01'g~n'ized in October, 1869, it elected and installed as Grand Master, Deputy Grand Mt'tster 'and Senior and Junior Grand Wardens, persons who were, and were known'to be, suspended at the time. In the judgment of your committee it was at least, irregular for a Convention of Masons met to form a Grand Lo(ige to ahow anyone to participate in its del1berations who was at the time suspended whether justly or unjustly; and still Inorc irregular for a Grand Lodge of J\fasons to elect and install as its Grand Master one who was known at the time to its members to be under the ban of suspension. But, passing all irregularities in the organization of the Oonvention and of the Grand I.. odge, the question of most serious importance for tIle considel'ation of this Grand Lodge is, whether or not a new Grand Lodge can be lawfully formed within any territory over which an established Grand Lodge has long; claimed and exercised exclusive jurisdiction, without the consent of the latter bodv' and, if one can be so torrned, were the circumstances of t,he case such as justify the formation of a new Grand Lodge within the Province of Quebec, without the consent of the Grand Lodge of Canada?

to

Your Committee are of opinion that a new Grand Lodge may, under certain conditions of political affairs, be formed, rightfully, in territory over which another Grand Lodge has exercised exclusive jurisdiction, but that the circumstances in this case did not justify the iorm~ttion of t.he Grand Lodge of Quebec. Prior to the Revolutionary war, the Grand Lodge of England had established Lodges and Provincial Grand Lodges in many of, if not in all, the thirteen Colonies, and had ~xercised exclusive jurisdiction over most, if not all of them. The people of the Colonies revolted against the Governn1.ent of England, and, after a long war, were acknowledged by it as independent and sovereign States. Then it was proper that those States should, as they did, declare themselves Masonically independent, as well as politically so. If the Province of Quebec had revolted atld secured its political independence, and organized a ~overn颅 ment for itself, then its Lodges might very properly have said that in Masonic, as in political affnirs, the ties that formerly bound them were severed. But the Province of Quebec was not, in 1869, and is not now, any more an independent State than it was in 1855, under the name of Canada East or Lower Canada. The British Parliament, in 1791, made it a distinct Province; in 1841, united it with Upper Canada, under one Governor and one Legislature; and, in 1867, united the two Provinces of Canada with New Brunswick and Nova Scotia, under one Governor and one Legislature, giving to it legislative power restricted to certain local matters. Next year, .01' at its pleasure, the same Parliament may take away the names OntarIO and Q,uebec, unite the 'two provinces into one, and call them Huron-or by another narne. It stands in much the same relation to the British Government that one of our counties stands to the government. of the State-liable, at any time, to have its name or its boundaries changed, or to be consolidated with another county or to be SUb-diVided, at the pleasure of the Legislature; and possessing just such legislative power over its local and domestic concerns as the Legislature gives it-and no more. It woUI~ have been much more reasonable for the Grand Lodge of Canada to have claImed that by the Act of 1867, creating the Dominion of Canada, it had the right to extend its jurisdiction over the two new Provinces, and over all the territory ~mbraced in that Dominioll, than for the Lodges of the Province of Queb~c to qlainl that, by reason of the Act, they were at liberty to throw off the!r .aIle-glance and torm aNew ...Grand Lodge. If the A ct of Parliament dLivldln g Canada into two Provillceswouldjustifythe formation ofa new Grand odge in Quebec, it would equally justify the format.ion of one in Ontario; and if it could absolve the Masons of Quebec from their allegiance, it equally absoiyed th<;>se of Ontario; and if it could absolve them of their allegiance by di'Vlsion, lt could certainly compel them to return to their allegiance by uniting


68

.Appendlx.

[Oct.

the provinces again into one. But that is not good doctrine. The political changes effected by tIle Act of 1867 in no way affected the standing of the G~and Lodge of Canada-npither restricted nor enlarged its territorial jurisdiction It acquired jurisdiction over the territory now composing the iSrovinces of Ontario and Quebec by the consent of the brethren residing in those Provinces and by the recognition and acknowledgment of the whole Masonic world, it has the absolute right to retain that ,jurisdiction, if it so desire to do" and Ina other Masonic Power can lawfully interfere therewith ' Your committee think that the Grand Lodge of Canada has the right to maintain its authority over the Province ot" Quebec and overall Masons there and to enforce the obedience of its subordinates in that Province, except so as to permit the Lodges yet holding charters under the Grand Lodges of England and Scotland to c.on tin ue their labors; and they propose and recom. mend the adoption of the following resolutions: Resolved, That the Grand Lodge of California recognizes the absolute ricrht of the Grand Lodge of Canada to maintain its jurisdiction and authority in the territory over which it originally assumed jurisdiction, and that its jurisdiction is exclusive within that territory. Resolved, That, in the judgment of this Grand Lodge, the Act of the British Parlianlent, k;nown as "The British North American Act,1867," creating the Dominion of Canada, did not in any way restrict or affect the territorIal jurisdiction of the Grand Lodge of Canada. Resolved, rrhat, in the judgment of this Grand Lodge, the Province of Quebec was not, on the 20th of October, 1869, territory then unoccupied by a Grand Lodge of Ancient, Free ~l,nd Accepted Masons; and that the Grand Lodge of Quebec on that day formed without the conseUli of the Grand Lodge of Canada, was not lawfully formed, and is not entitled to recognition by this Grand Lodge as ajulilt or legal Grand Lodge until it shall have been recognized by the Grand Lodge of Canada. All which is respectfully submitted by WILLIAM C. BELCHER, } GILBERT B. CLAIBORNE, Ojthe Committee. WILLIAM A. DAVIES,

far

all

Brother Jas. H. Hough, the able Chairman of Committee on Correspondence, of New Jersey, under the head of NEW BRUNSWICK, says: The address of the Grand Master contains a very able and elaborate dla. cussion of the difficulties existing between the Grand Lodge of Canada and ~he so-called Grand Lodge of ~uebec. The Grand Master concludes that the institution of the Lodge of Q,uebec was irregular and unauthorized, and that such Grand Lodge should not berecognized. The argument of the Grand Master is clear, and to our lninds, irresistible. It confirms us in the Gpinion we have always entertained upon this question, since we gave it. the necessary examiwvtion. III our opinion the recognition by many of our Grand Lodges, of the Grand Lodge of Quebec, has struck a severer blow against the great American doctrine of the sovereignty of Grand Lodges, than anything that has happened in our recollection, not excepting the irregular Grand Council of Louisiana. We regret to see a great Masonic principle struck down in the house of its friends, and rejoice to know that the Grand Lodge of New Jersey has ranged itself upon the side of the inviolable sovereignty of Grand Lodges within their jurisdiction. Brother Drummond has invariably kept a battery on hand which he ron' out on all "Quebec reviews" with a great flourish of trumpets, as though those guns were loaded to the muzzle with nitro-glycerine and a shot..tower, viz.: the argument that because the Grand Lodge of Canada allowed certain Engl1&h and Scotch Lodges to remain on her soil, that therejor'e she was "unoooupied territory." Now, we propose to uspike" the whole battery from his favorite arsenal, viz.: West Virginia. Brother O. S. Long, the very able Chairman of that Committee says: For the information of brethren in other jurisdictions who may be at a loss to understand the €tatus of such a Lodge, we may be permitted to say that 1n: the formation of the Grand Lodge of West VIrginia no const-rained interft1f8IfI,M with the 'rights vested u,nder old charters u)as intended, no'r has it ever been ~ We do not wish to bear sway over any unwilling subjects· we do not desire to bear upon our roll the name of a Lodge WhICh has not voluntarily asked to be :sO recorded. As a consequence there are two or three Lodgesr-and only two or tIl ree-'within the te'rritorial limits oj West Virginia who continue to report k; tAl Grand Lodge oj Virginia. Between them and us there is no strife, no oontro-


1872.J

69

Appendix.

versy no lack of that fraternal cordiality which should always exist among Masons Should they at any time desire to become constituents of the Grand L d e of West Virginia, they will receive a hearty welcome; but if they still p~ef~r to retain their allegiance to the Grand Lodge of VIrginia, they have our less hearty consent. In the formation of new Lodges" West Virginia will :rrictlY maintain her legal rights, and the Grand Lodge oJ Virginia 'Will doubtless be the lcut to countenance any i'llfringernent 'upon our domain.. but in the case of Lodges chartered prior to the formation and reco,qnition o.f the Grand Lodge of West Virginia, the fullest and most absolute liberty of choice is freely accorded. This extract proves that the Brethren of West Virginia were well informed at least upon this great and fundamen tal principle of sovereignty which Brother D. RO persistentlY ignores. We will use no unfraternal language towards him, (if for no other reason) because we love bim personally and appreciate his f?minent abilities, but must say that, with all his learning, we are perfectly astonished at his inabili ty to comprehend what constitutes" occupied" and "un.. occupied" territory-but rather than disparage his ability we will oharitably call it the persistant ignoring of a demonstrated fact. Even vVest Virginia, with all the faults that surrounded her organization, comes to the front in true, intelligent, Masonic style, and acknowledges the reserved rights of subordinate Lodges to adhere to their parent authority. Will Brother D. dare to say that \Vest Virginia is unoccupied because she allows those Virginia Lodges on her soil '/ He cannot-all precedent and law forbid it. Yet he attempts to crush poor Canada because she did the same thing. "Oh! Oonsistency, thou art a jewel !"

Brother B. G. Wellford, Jr., the Virginia Committee, says truly under the head of MAINE: We beg him to review the positions into which he has been uncautiously betrayed, and to disclaim the logical consequences of his argument. "The bâ&#x201A;Ź'ginning of strife is like the letting out of water," and the most mischievous precedents have originated in a too ready anxiety to stop controversy, even at the sacrifice of principle. This may account, for the hasty l'ecognition of Q,uebec by many of our Grand Lodges. But there are still some others which have withheld recognition, and will continue to do so until the crack of doom, while the principle of SllDordination to the authority of Canada is in issue. Brother Drummond may perhaps accommodate the lnatter. When he takes a pinch of snutf~ all Quebec will sneeze, and if he suggest an atonement, on her part, which will be acceptable to Canada, and will relieve the fraternity in t,he proximate future from the otherwise ioevitable result of her success-another manifestation of insubordination in some of our Grand Lodges, it may be his own-be will accomplish a work of which he may be Justly proud. But let the closing of this wound be accompanied by a solemn covenant engagement between us all that hereafter we will discountenance and discourage the formation of any Gr~bnd Lodge, without the previous consent of the ~Iasonic authority in recognized ~ontrol of the territory, and that we will equallY discountenance and discourage the intrusion of any Grand Lodge into territory once recognized as in exclusive occupancy of a sister Grand Lodge. IJet these covenants be made and kept, and harmony reigns forever through the household. Fidelity to the landma.rks of Masonry is all that we need to extort from the world the exclamation, U See how these Masons love one another! " Brother Robert J. Fisher, Foreign Committee for Pennsylvania, in reviewing our report of 1870, says, under the head of MISSOURI: The Grand Lodge unanimously refused to recognize Quebec. Brother Geo. Prank Gouley, who presented the Report on Foreign Correspondence, gives a

f"ull and correct view of this matter.

The Special qommittee in Grand Lodge of

MISSISSIPPI

reported:

The Com.mittee to whom was referred that portion of the address of the Worshlpful Grand Master in ref~rence to the differences between the M.¡. W~tost ... Grand Lodges ot' Canada and Quebec, beg leave to report: Tthat these Grand T..Jodges are sover&tgn and independentband there is no u bl er to whom they may appeal. Advice from others might e officious. ~n

CommIttee are satisfied that longer canten tion is not desired by either, d~ohur at these eminent and distinguished bodies, in a spirit of mutual conces.. if


70

Appendix.

[Oct.

sion and enlarged charity, will soon attain a settlement of all their difficulties satisfactory to theltLselves and gratifying to aU Masons of every clime. ' Respectfully sUbmitted, H. W. WALTER, Oha.irman.

\\7"e do not exactly understand this decision. If both "these Grand Lodges are sovereign and independent," then why not recognize them ?-or is this

intended as a recognition? If so, we must say that we think it looks a little "leil-handed." We admire the amiability which kept Brother Walter out of the fight, but it does nothing towards settling the difficulty, unless he intended to adopt the course which should have been followed by all Grand Lodges, viz: Let Quebec alone, without recognition, till she could settle her statm with Canada. That is right. Brother A. H. Barkley, the Chairman of Foreign Correspondence of MissIssippi, also, under the same head, says: That convenient season is offered when the organization of the Grand Lodge of Quebec is brought under reVle,v. It is not to be presumed that any Corn.. mOllvvealth, or even the United States Government, will ever claim the right of passIng ordinances, with a view to compelling any Grand Lodge to change if,~ boundaries, or powers over its Subordinate Lodges. But the right is claimed and exercised by the Congress of the United states, of diViding Territories and 8tates into two or more Commonwealths, for purposes which in a political and civil point of view, will best subserve the end contelnplated by such division and we raise the question without any desire or intention of discussing it now' Does not the change in th e boundaries of a Oommonwealth necessitate a like change in the boundaries and powers of the Grand I-lodge over its Subordinate Lodges, and would not the interests of Masonry be best subserved by coniining the jurisdictional limits and powers thereof, within the limits of' the State or Provi nciallines ? In reply to the first premise, that the United States Government will not pass obligatory laws relative to Grand Lodge boundaries, it is answered by his second premise, (an incorrect one) that the jurisdictional limits of Grand Lodges must of necest:Jity change with those of States, and puts us in mind of an incident in France. A distinguished bishop of Paris Visited his suburban chateau, and while walking out with his devou1. and simple-minded gardener, he stumped his toe and let loose a moderate sized oath. The gardener stood aghast and mustered courage enough to remind the bishop that he had always heard him preach against swearing. crYes," replied the bishop, "but I swore as a citizen of France, and not as a bishop." "But," replied the gardener, "suppose the citizen goes to hell, where will the bishop be?" So with the Q,uebec case. We say that while the State passes no law" relati"tJe to Masonry," yet if Masonry renders herself subservient to political changes, her sovereignty as a Grand Lodge over subordinates, will go where the" citizen" of France did. That is aU. The Committee on Jurisprudence in Grand Lodge of West Virginia re路 ported as follows: We have read with much interest the documents subm.itted to us in relation to the formation ot' the Grand Lodge of Quebec, and have perused also with no little care the reports made to and the action had thereon by several of our sister Grand Lodges, because the subject is one that has awakened unusual interest in the Masonic world, and has called forth a great deal oft at times somewhat heated, controversy and debate. The facts in the case seem to us to be, briefly, these: For several years prior to July 1, 1867, the present provinces of Ontario and QU~bec were one province, but on that day by Act of Parliament they were severed into two separate and distinct provinces, each having its own legisla... tive body, though subject to the general jurisdiction of the "Dominion of Canada," and more remotely to the English Government. Masonic jurisdict拢(JII, in Oanada has never been exclu,sive, there haVing been in that country, with con" sent of the Grand Lodge of Canada, a number of Lodges owing obedienoe to th e Grand Lodge of England and governed by a "Provincial Grand Lodge," and t.here were also certain other Lodges reporting to the Grand Lodges o+t Scotland and Ireland. The question of the formation of a separate Grand Lodge for the new province of Quebec having been under discussion for some


1872.J

Appendix.

71

time and the consent of the Grand Lodge of Canada refused thereto, a Oonvention of delegates from a number of the Lodges in the province of Quebec was held in the city of Montreal on the 20th day of October, 1869, and the Grand Lodere of Quebec formally constituted and opened, notwithstn.nding an edict hadbeen issued by the Grand l\iaster of Canada forbidding the assembling of tl;e said Convention and claiming to suspend the Masons who attended. These are, in brief, the facts in the case, and the only inquiry to be determined is whether the political severance of the provinces of Quebec and Ontaria is such a division as, in accordance with the well settled doctrine lin this ('ollnfry and heretofore in Canada, car7路ies1.J.:ith it a ,~epcu'ation of Masonic .in1"isdiction. 'rhe best light we have been able to obtn.ln upon the subject convin{"es us thatit ilUHWh a separation, and that the Lodges in the new province of Quebec had~ therefore, a right to meet together and form a Grand Lodp:e, without having rp<'eived the consent. of the Grand Lodge of Canada, and wIthout being in any W'ay amenable t,o that Grand Lodge or to its Grand Master during vacation. We have italicised certain words to which we shall briefly reply. In the first place, H Masonic jurisdiction in Oanada" has been" exclusive," a~ we have plainly proven in the foregoing portion of this report. What the Oommittee call a "well settled doctrine" has never been settled at all; the very case before us is the one ouL of \vhich it is attempted to make a "precedent." We thank the Committee for their candor in saying, in so many words, that "political subdivision annihilates Grand Lodge Sovereignty" by the simple act of 7egislati1'8severation. Brother Drummond and the New York Comnlittee repudiate this heresy und say they cannot adopt it. Yet we here summon another witness to the stand to look them in the face, and say, "this Is the result of the doct,rineyou taught us, therefore we have recognized Quebec." One by One we are getting the witnesses which we foretold three years ago, but have had to wait till the disease took root and developed itself in the body politic of our jurisprl1dence. Those who in 1868-69 and '70 opposed the premise luid down by the Grand Lodge of J\Iissouri, and denied the conclusion then foreshadowed, are now Hclriven to the wall." Year by year the progeny of their own doctrine riE;e up in condemnation against them. What will they do? Will they allow onr interuutional comity to be forever haunted by this ghost of murdered 4.,overeignty-slain in the person of "Canada," or will they, like men and Masons, call down that spectre by recalling their recognition of Quebec? We know that human pride is a strong element of opposition to magnanimous acknowledgen1.ents, but in FREEMASONRY, such pride is criminal when it stands in the way of perfect Masonic harmony and life. So far as the Brethren of "Canada" or "Quebec" are concerned, we have nothing to say; as far as we learn they are mostly of the san1.e Masonic birth and blood-they are as (路itizens and legal Masons the same to us-we have no personal preferences-we hav~ been treated b,Y both 'with the greatest court,esy and consideration, both in personal intercourse and correspondence, private as well a,s official. We are perfectly satigfied that there is not an intelligent Mason in the Quebec district but who gives to Missouri the fnll recognition of candor and honesty in her intentions, governed solely as she is, for the best interests of Masonic harmonyand principle. This whole trouble has been caused by but a very few men. Some wrong has undOUbtedly been done b:y' both sides, and unwise councils have sometimes prevailed, whereby passion and selfish interests have overriden the right. It is also undOUbtedly true, that the territorial jurisdiction of the "Grand Lodge of Canada" was very inconvenient, being about },500miles long, and about 150 miles wide, although this is not such a faJtal obje('Uon when we consider that the whole territory lies upon the line of a Railroad and the grand highway of the lakes and t.he magnificent St. Lawrenee. ,\Ve- also grant that there is not a homogenity of sentiment between the Upper and Lower Provinces on account of language and customs. Yet all these have nothing to do' with the great question at issue, although they have been used as side arguments. We have no doubt but that the Grand Lodge of Oanada would have ultimatelybeen willing to divide her own terrltory in Grand Lodge assembled, and


72

Appendix.

[Oct.

such an act would have been legal and wise, but when it came to a minority rebelling, and, in violation of solemn covenants, setting up a new Grand Lodge upon the territory covered by the supremacy of another Grand Lodge, then it becomes a question affecting the vitality of every Grand Lodge in the world. The Brethren of Canada knew this and at once prepared to defend, not so luuch herself, as the principle of sovereignty involved, by arresting the Charters of rebellious Lodges and suspending from office the officers implicated. This action she announced to the Masonic world by circnlars and pUblication. 8he appealed to her sisters who had heretofore recognized her jurisdictional limits. These circulars were either never read by the proper officers, or if read, ignored. The new Grand Lodge of Quebec was organized, and made a bold and systematic appeal for recognition. As is too often the custom with American Grand Lodges, they recognized her as a matter of course and of courtesy. By the time that the Grand Lodge of Maine met, about three or four such bodies had extended recognition. Brother Drummond became interested on the same side, and actually, by a lot of sophistical premises without any foundation of precedent, (except an asserted one,) reasoned himself to a conclusion. On account of hi~ prominence as a reviewer, his conclusion was accepted without examination of the "other side." Hence, one by one, Grand Lodges, through the recommendations of one or two officers, fell into the trap. ThIS isjust how the thing was done, and just how too many such things are done, for want of a proper consideration. FroIn the first we still had hopes of the" sober second thought." It is beginning to dawn. The Oraft, the great rank and file of the fraternity, have been reading up this mat.ter and begin to understand it. From many letters we receive, we are satisfied that this great case will yeL be unearthed, and that it will not be long before many Grand Lodges will follow the example set by noble Minnesota, when she manfully acknowledged her error, and Withdrew her 'recognition, on as sound grounds as were ever presented to a Grand Lodge. We commend her action to others; we ask that both sides be heard in all the recognizing Grand Lodges. Let no personal pride of reputation, or acknowl.. edgment of an error, deter any Grand Body from adhering to the right by un.. doing a wrong. We do not expect to have much more to say on the subject. We have patiently waited for the results of the fearful heresy promUlgated by the recognition of Quebec, viz.: that Grand Lodge Sovereignty, powers, and covenants, together with all their jurisdictional rights, are prostrated and made subservient to merely political legislation. These results and evidences are before us. The logical deduction has found its existence in facts, and none can deily them. We cannot better close this report than by reiterating what the Grand Lodge of Missouri unanimously endorsed and resolved in 1870, viz.: Certain parties carried away by sophistry and special pleading held, that because two provinces were created out of one, that therefore there must be two Grand Lodo-es; but they forgot to carry their reasoning a little further to see that their Yogic would not only divide the Grand Lodge, but annihilate it, for if the Grand Lodge of Canada was not a Grand Lodge for Quebec, it could not be for Ontario; therefore it could be for nothing. We have but one c?urse to adopt in tblS unpleasant difficulty, viz.: to deoide, that under Hll the CIrcumstances of the case, the Grand Lodge of Canada is the Supreme Masonic Authorityover the territory assigned it, for the past fourteen years, wbich jurisdiction she has refused tolyield ; therefore, a rival power within her liIUitS can notbeconsidered by llS in any other light than an illegal and cl~ndestine power. WHEREAS, The Grand Lodge of Missouri has for many years recognized the supreme control of the terri tory heretofore known as Canada, and is at present in fraternal correspondence with said Grand Lodge, and WHEREAS, The Grand Lodge of Missouri does not recognize the right of any power, civil, religious or masonicrt. to divide its legit.imate and original jurisdiction, except by its own act in \=trand Lodge assembled, and WHEREAS, The Grand Lodge of Missouri cannot encourage the spirit of rebellion or revolution against a regularly constituted Masonic authorIty, and


1872.J

Appendix.

73

WHEREAS, rl'he Grand Lodge of f'1anada has, by a large majority, refused to divide itb original juri~diction with certain LodgeR in the Province of Queoec, au(11H1s placed those ~odges in su~pension for d.l;:,ol>~dience of its lawful com-

mands. Therefore, be It

l-lesu[vecl, That, the Grand Lodge of Missouri cannot extend to the so-called Grand Lodge of Quebec, any Masonic recognition, until it shall first have received the approved recognition of the Grand Lodge of Canada, it being the original and supreme Masonic authority in the Province of Quebec, and be it Resolved, That the Lodges in this Grand Jurisdiction be and are hereby forbid.den to hold Nlasonic intercourse with any brethren of Lodges holding under the jnrisdiction of the so-called Grand Lodge of Quebec, untIl it shall first be recognized by the Grand Lodge of Missouri, and be it Re:wlved, That the Grand Lodge of Missouri regrets the action of the brethren in (~uebec, believing they have been misled as to the position they should occupy, and It fraternally and earnestly requests them to return to their proper Masonic obedience, feeling assured that they will be fraternally provided for by the Grand Lodge ofUanada.

We thus leave'the subject of Quebec and return to the more pleasant one of reviewing in general the report of

MAINE. We agree with him, under the head of

IDAHO,

when he says:

The new路 Constitution has some peculiar features, and one in our opInIon very objectionable one. All the elective Grand Officers must be Past Masters, except that the Grand .J.7Jllaste')" may be electedf'rom the bodJ,lJ of the eraft. It seems to us, that the Grand Master, more than any other officer, should be a Past Master: otherwise, he could not install the Master of a subordinate Lodge, and therefore could not constitute a new Lodge, in spite of the other provisions ot" the constitution, which expressly confer these powers upon him! Relative to" tinted paper," under the head of

KANSAS,

he says:

rrhese Proceedings are printed upon beautifully tinted paper. This is getting quite common. But we prefer white .. because, although tin ted paper n1ay now be tasty, we are not sure it will continue to be so, 'while we are sure that white willalwa~~s be in good taste, We entirely concur with our Grand Secretary (whose opinion in this regard is founded upon practical knowledge and elninently sound sense,) who, when consulted upon the point, replied "We don 7t need anything to gi'L'e color to our Proceedings." Our good brother evidently mistakes the "motive" of using tinted paper. It is not to nlake the proceedings more tasty, for nothing is prettier than pure white, but it is an aid to the eyesight. An old Brother WIth weak eyes ean read a hundred per cent. more pages on tinted paper than he can on White, with less fatigue. It might as well be said that a man can travel under a blazing suo, over a large city, in which every house and the streets even, are whitewashed, with as much ease as through'a city wherein the colors are softened. We rather suspect that the above extract was thrown in to "give color" to the witticisms of the Grand Secretary. Relative to the standing of a Mason under charges, under the head of MISSISSIPPI, he says. We dissent from so much of this as holds the accused to be "in good Masonic standing;" and y~t we presume our dissent is based on the meaning of the term H good Masonic standing." We hold that this applies to character:: a ma.n indictfAd for an offense is presumed to be innocent till proved to be guilty 8() f(zr (Ui; the trial is concerned; but who would think of giving him a certificate olgood character? A Mason under charges is not Hin good Masonic standing路" h~~ would not be entitled to a dimit, could not be installed into office, and would bo under other disabilities in all those cases in which character is involved; in other respects he would lose no rights. We are somewhat surprised, and yet gratified, that he has come so near the position we took on this case two years ago, when he arraigned us so severely for our course. He now only differs from us as to oertain rights, but to draw the


.Appendix.

74

[Oct.

distinction between one right and another is what we cannot understand. If tue accused has not all his rights, he has none. Relative to Lodges surrendering original Charters and taking in lieu therefor Charters from the Grand Lodge they have just formed, he says, under the head of NEW JERSEY: The thirty lodges which formed the Grand Lodge of Maine are still working under the charters gran ted by the Grand Lodge ot" l\Iassachusetts; do thf'~r f'.till U hold their authorIty from and owe allegiance to ,. the Grand Lodge of J\,fussachusetts? The idea of surrendering cba,rters and taking u. ne,v one, upon change of allegiance, is absurd. ThE?' lUOTnent the old charter is surrendered the body ceasE'S to exist, for it Cftnnot eXi~t, an instant without a c1;tarter, in for('o. The Grand Lodge creates a lodge, \vhwh then becomes an entlty which liV6b withont any sustaining !orce of the Grand Lodge. Indeed, it has been practically held that the Grand Lodge may become extInct, and yet its ~ubordinH,tes COll¡. tinue their existence, and even forIn a ne,v Grand Lodge; and the doctrIne is sound. 'Ve cannot see the absurdity". When the Lodges in New ~Iexico shall proceed to form a new Grand Lodge, by virtne of being regular chartered Lodge~ of Misssouri, and as such will assemhle and organize; and when the Grand Body is thoroughly at work, they cease to be Lodges under .Missouri jurisdiction, and as such ought to surrender their Charters to the new Grand Lodge, and enrol themselves under her authority; for without her Charters they are not her lodges. They cannot serve two masters. The Charters which theJ1' surrender into the archives of that Grand Lodge are its testimonials that she was fornlCd by regular Lodges. The fact th:--\t Lodges continue to exist after the death of the parent, and may form another Grand Body, has no bearing in the case whatever, for it is not a condition entered in any Charter we ever saw. ':r11e en<.lor~e­ ment by the new Grand Lodge is a virtual surrender. of

Relative to the status of an ineligible yet initiated citndidate, under the head he saj1's :

PENNSYLVANIA,

.A.. lodge neglected to do this, and initiated a candidate so markedly deformed that he was, as could be seen at a glance, no fit person to be received into a masonic lodge. The Grand Lodge declared the action irregular and directed the lodge to " erase his name from the list of n1embers." ~o far as we have noticed, but one of our confreres has noticed this actioD, and he made no comnlents. We understand hy this action that the initiate is not to be recognized as a Mason. The statu8 of one absolutely ineligible \vho hUb been initiated bas not been much discussed. It is universally conceded that ,vhen the candidate is himself eligible to our mystel'les, but he is initiated in a lodge not h~tvingJul'ii';­ diction, he if'; a Mason; but we do not remeluber that the question as to the the effect of 1he initiation of an absolutely ineligible candhhtte haR been formally decided. But we have been accustomed to consider that \vhen a candidate has passed through our mysteries, all questions as to his eli~ibility are foreclo~ed, 80 jfW as he is ('orlcerned, and the punishment falls on the lodge, unle~s the candidate was guilty of fraud, and then he is treated as a Mason until h~ can be tried and expelled. The question is an important one' has arl~en many times; but so far as wehave observed, in every case except the one nnder consideration, it has been asslllued that the initIate is a regnlar l\JIason. We hope our Pennsylvania Brethren will favor us with their views sustainill~ their action. We agree with him in his views on this case, and can only account for the fact that such an anomolous case has not been more frequently diHcllssed because, we presume, it is the first case of the kind in which any Grand Lodge ever made such an anomolous decision. We rather think it stands alone, of' its genus, in the cabinet of" Masonic curiosities." there are such things as "irregularlymadeMasons," "clandestine l\lasons," &c., but" ineligibly made .iVIasons" is a new one in the list, and to the old Keystone State bE-longs the honor of finding him out and how to deal with bim. Our Grand Lodge haR a law that deals with Lodges ","hieh confer degrees on ineligible candidates, but is pet'fectly dumb as to what. to do with the initiate, except to let, hiIn alone. If any sort of degree-pump could be invented whereby the mysteries could be pumped out, or if some antidote or cathartic could be applied, then we could understand how the Granu Lodge might eiert suell a candidate and shnt. the door on hiro. and


1872.J

Appendix.

75

~"et hold the Lodge harmless; bnt without thIS new mechanical process, we cannot perceive how Pennsylvania got elea,r of thai MASON, unless her edicts Rre sufficiently powerful to decide that a man with all his senses shall not see, feel or hear. That man got the degrees in a regular Lodge, in a regular way, under all the rights and powers of the warrant to make M_asons; got all without any fault of his own, and for the life of us we can see no justice, law or usage whereby he can be deprived of any acqulred right by initiation, except by due trial. Relative to publication of names of members in proceedings, he says truly:

We have done so, and we have" ciphered" a little on it too; the cost of pUblishing; the list of names and the increase of postage amount to $2,000, and that sum i~ ten times as large an amount as ever would be saved in a year by the publication of the names; and besides, the publication aids impostors in giVIng themselves "a habitation and a name;" while we have no disposition to i nterfere in other jurisdictions, we are more than ever convinced that the pUblication H does not pay," pecuniarily or in any other manner. A few dollars a year expended in telegraphing are more potent in detecting impostors than all the pUblication of names in the country. We have thus devoted much space to this interesting report of Bro. Drummond, because of the many important points considered, and principally so, because we intend to dispose of all we have to say on the Quebee case under this head, as he is the chief supporter of that unfortunate difficulty. We thank him again for his valuable table of statistics, of which we shall avail ourselves, giving due credit. David Cargill, Augusta, Grand Master; Ira Berry, Portland, Grand Secl:etary; Josiah H. Drummond, Portland, Committee on Correspondence. NOTE.-We would fraternally suggest to the Committee to put the date of the proceedings which they review at the head of the report of each State-it would save us the trouble of" back references." G.

MISSISSIPPI. Grand Lodge met in Holly Springs Jan. 22, 1872. George R. Hearn, G. M., presided. He granted eight dispensations for new Lodges. He pays a deserved compliment to the memory of the venerable Brothers Geo. H. Gray, Sr., and Giles .M:. Hillyer. DEOISIONS.

1. The Worshipful Master of a Lodge ought not to entertain a resolution pro-

viding for a division of the property of a Lodge for the benefit of a conteluplated new Lodge; it is not in the power of a majority of the Lodge thus to dispose of its property. 2. A J\1:ason dies under suspension for non-payment of dues. His friends propose to ~ay thern, that he may be reinstated and receive Masonic buriaL Answer: The brother died under suspension, and must so remain; reinstatement of one dead is an impossibility. But, by a decision of the Grand Lodge, in 1870 (page 255), he may be buried Masonically. 3. A brother dies while under suspension from the Lodge, but in good standing in the Chapter. Is he not entitled to Masonic burial? Answer: He is not. Membership in the Chapter confers no rights in the Blue Lodge. Bu.t reference is made to proceedings of 1870, to determine whether or not he may he buried with Masonic honors. I call your attention particularly to the last two decisions. The law is, that a suspended Mason is deprived of the right to masonic burial; but an exception is made in favor of distinguished Masons. This, it occurs to me, is atvariance with the whole spirit of our institution. We are taught that, as Masons, we meet upon the level of equality; and yet, in death, that equality is


Appendix.

76

[Oct.

uestroyed, and a beautiful and high]y~prjzed0erernonial is performed over the remains uf one, which is denied those of <Lllothel', Who, aI though in the hlunbler walks of life, may have been pOi::lsessed in a higher degl'ee of those internal qualifications which should recommend a man to be made a Mason. I suggest that you declare that in no case ca.n a suspended Mason receive l\1asonic burial. No discretion, no exception, shoulC!- be allowed in phiS j~risdiction, where, it' a brother is unable to pay dues, he WIll be excused; If he 1S able, and refuses, let him sutter the consequences, whether he be distInguished or not. 4. A Lodge cannot entertain a petition for menlbership until it is satisfied that the petItioner is a Master Mason. It is, therefore, no part of the duty of the cornrlliltee to examine into ~l,nd report upon that fact, for this must be fully established before the appointment of the cornrnittee. 5. On trial, when the evidence is closed and the accused and prosecutor have WIthdrawn, no further testimony can be admitted, unless, for good cause the cabe is re-opened, in \vhich event they (the accused and prosecutor) must be invited to retnrn; and all comments must be confined to the charges and the evidence before the Lodge. 6. A menlber is charged, pleads guilty, and promises amendment" can the Lodge forgive him without some punishment?" Answer: No. If the offense were of so grave a character as to demand a trial, some punishment must be inflicted. The plea of gUilty only dispenseR \vith the necessity for proof, and does not shield the accused from such punishment as is adequate to the offense. 7. I decided that when a Lodge, for any cause, became extinct, its property escheats to the Grand Lodge, subject to any outstanding debt against it. This question arose out of my action with reference to Cooper Lodge, and I mention it because it was questioned in that case. It is, however, too well settled to admit of argument at this late day. 8. Soon after the close of the last Grand Lodge, repeated inquiries were made requiring a decision upon the latter portion of Section 9, Rules and Regulations for 8ubordinate Lodges, relative to fees for degree of l\Iaster Mason. The Grand Secretary submitted a very full and business-like report. From the report of the Committee on Appeals, we extract the following: RIPLEY LODGE, No. vs. S. R. SPEIGHT. This case comes before this Grand Body for its action the second time. At a regular meeting of Ripley Lodge, No. 47, held in the month of A u~ust, 1870, Brother S. R. Spei@;ht was convicted of unma&onic conduct and indefinItely suspended. FroIn which decision Brother Speight took an appeal. The case was reviewed at the last Grand Annual Communication of this Grand Body, and the action of Ripley Lodge reversed, and the case referred to Baldwyn Lodge, No. 108, for a new trial, which resulted in the acqUittal of the accused. From this decision Ripley Lodge, No. 49, takes this appeal. Your Committee have carefully examined the record in this case, and find that the trial was in all things conducted strictly in accordance with the Rules prescribed b:r'" this Grand Lodge, and that the a,ction of Baldwyn Lodge, No. lOS, was fully justified by the eVidence. Your Committee would therefore recon1mend the adoption of the following resolution: Resolved, That the action of Baldwyn Lodge, No. 108, in the case of Ripley Lodge, No. 47. against S. R. Speight, be and the same is hereby ratified and contirnled. This is a case that has created a good deal of discussion throughout the country owing to t.he peculiar cause of the appeal by Ripley Lodge. We hold that the suspension of S. R. Speight by Ripley Lodge was final, unlesR reversed by the Grand Lodge,. and furt.her, that the Grand Lodge had no authority under its own Oonstitution to send the case to another Lodge, (Baldwyn, 108,) or any other, for new trial, unless the change of venue was made before the vote was tal{;en in Ripley Lodge. We hold that the Constitution does not empower the Grand Lodge to surrender or transfer its appellate powers, by proxy, to a Subordinate Lodge. She must either decide for herself, or send the case back to the original Lodge for a new trial. We venture the assertion that this case stands without a precedent in the Masonic jurisprudence of the world,

47,}


1872.J

Appendix.

77

and hope to see it reversed. We have exam.ined the entire law for that jurisdiction and can find no authority for violation of the inherent and chartered rights of Ripley Lodge, viz: to be the judge of its own membership, except on appeal to Grand Lodge. The idea that a neighboring Lodge shall be a better judge of the membership of any Lodge, is too absurd for discussion. We wiil cite a parallel case to show how ridiculous it is. Lodge No.1 tries Jno. Smith for something and he is acquitted-some member who thinks Jno. Sm.ith~ ought to be expelled, appeals to the Grand Lodge against the decision as being too mild in face of testimony, etc., and the Grand Lodge sends it to Lodge No.2 or 3 or 4, or any other Lodge which chooses to be bothered with it, and Jno. Smith is expelled. One case is just as legal and equitable as the other, and either of them is unworthy of the proud name, history and jurisprudence of Mississippi. We know nothing of Brother Speight, or any of the parties in interest, but we have spoken thus frankly in vindication of the sacred rights of subordinate Lodges. S. R. Speight stands suspended by the Lodge of which he was a member, and yet stands restored by a Lodge of which he was not a member, and the Grand IJodge accepting the verdict afthe latter, as much as says, that it, as an appellate court, is not competent to act impartially, but must delegate its powers to some subordinate. Suppose Baldwyn Lodge had also suspended S. R. Speight, then we presume the Grand Lodge, in order to follow up this principle, would have sent it around the State until Bro. Speight got restored, or shot on the road. We hold that there are but two bodies that can try a Mason, viz. : the Lodge in which the case is planted, or the Grand Lodge on appeal. The law of Mississippi allows a" change of venue" before any trial is had, but not after verdict. For ourselves, we are opposed to the principle of any change of venue at all in Masonry. It is inconsistent with the profession of honor and truth between Lodges themselves, as well as between Lodges and their members. A Lodge might as well have a change of venue to decide who shall be initiated into its membership, as to who shall be suspended from it. The follOWing is from the report on the death of Brother Gray: The late Geo. H. Gray, Sr., Grand Treasurer of the Grand Lodge of Mississippi, who died 3 t Clinton, 12th October, was a native of Southampton county, Virginia, and was born on the 9th January, 1802. He came from Virginia to l\Iississippi in the year 1832, and located at Clinton. Although quite young before he came to Mississippi, he filled high Masonic positions in VIrginia. On his removal to Clinton, he at once affiliated with Clinton Lodge, No. 16 and the next year (1833) was elected Wor.路. Master-a station which he occupied for several years. As a Masonic wI'iter and compiler he obtained wide celebrity, his "Mystic Circle H being among the standard Lodge text-books. His able and exhaustive reports on Masonic Law and Jurisprudence, as submitted annually to our Grand Lodge, attracted very general attention, and won for him the reputation of being a learned and safe counsellor. His was a useful life, and he " still lives" in the conspicuous personal virtues and beautiful Masonic character which he has left to comfort the bereaved and to encourage and guide the Craft. The follOWing amendment was adopted: 5th. Alter Sec. 5, Art. 1, (as last published,) so that it shall read as now prin ted in Section 1, of Article 2, page 6. The amendment provides that the letters R.路. W.路. shall precede each Grand Officer other than the M.-. W.-. Grand Master; that it shall be Senior Grand and Junior Qtrand instead of" Grand ~~~~~_alld "Grand Junior" Wardens; and dispenses wi th the office of Grand We would like to have heard the reasons for this change-not that we disapprove of the titles adopted, but because we think one just as correct as the other-it is" tweedledum " and" tweedledee " over again. Bro. A. H. Barkley submitted:a very interesting and masterly report on correspondence, and we sincerely regret that the features of it in the proceed-


78

Appendix.

[Oct.

iugs are so much marred by printing his original reviews " solid," the same as the extracts. The report shows him to have been a diligent and faithful reviewer and reader of all the proceedings before him. It is worthy of the noble reputation his Grand Lodge has earned. Under the head of MISSOURI, he says: Fifty years have passed stway since the Representatives of the Subordinate Lodges w'hich gave it being, assembled in convention and organized the Grand Body, wbich is now known and recognized by the Grand Masonic Powers t.hroughout the world as the Grand Lodge of Missouri. If memory serves us correctly, the fires of persecution were at one time kindled against her, and strenuous efforts made oy those of whom we were persuaded better things, to blot out all trace or remembrance of the Order from her soil, but contrary to the expectation of her persecutors, their :tiery tria18 only served to purify and elevate her membership, and to hring within her tiled limits of sUbordinates, the noble, good and true of the land. Her mar('h has been ou'ward and upward, and the cords of her goodly tent, lengthened, and her stroke strengthened, until to-day she boasts a membership of over eighteen thousand, with three hundred and sixty-eight Lodges on her roll. Truly we might say of her, "How goodly are thy tents, 0 Jacob!" He quotes in full the Oonvention called by Palmyra Lodge, 18, and the edict of Grand Master Muir in the case, and says that he doubts if such an act of presunlption is recorded in the annals of Masonry, and endorses the action of the Grand Lodge condemning the convention. Under the head of OREGON he says: REIMBURSING THE GRAND MASTER. This subject is one that is occupying the attention of the Craft in more Jurisdictions than one. It is true that the services of a good Grand Master canllot be estimated by dollars and cents, but when the duties of his office are such as to make heavy drafts upon his time and purse, it is but just and right that such an allowance should be made to him as would reimburse him for expenditures made in these respects. Grand Masters are tiesh and blood like other men, and they have to live like other men.. and hOn01"S alone are a poor compensation tor precious time and money expended by them in the interest of the Craft. The same time which is cheerfully given by the Grand Master exclusrvely to the cause of Masonry if devoted to professional duties would amount, no doubt, to thousands of dollars during the year, and :.ret it is held that all this has full compensation in the honors of t,he office. We are far from advocating any system which would have the slightest tendency to corruptthe office, or to make the compensation such that tbeofficew'ould besought atter for the emoluluents which it afforded, but we are free to advocate a systenl which will renlunerate the Grand Master for time and money spent in promoting the welfare of the Craft. This we deem to be nothing more than an act of simple justice. "\\Te fnlly agree with him. Under the head of WASHINGTON TERRITORY, he trUly says: The Committee on Lodges U. D. reported, recommending that a charter be granted Waitsburg Lodge, which was accordingly done; and Brother vV"ait, who 'was in attendance, was admitted to a seat, and accredited the representative of Waitsburg Lodge, No. 16. This Lodge had never been constituted. nor its officers installed, and bo\v Brother Wait could represen t something that had no legal existence, is a little beyond our comprehension. When the Grand Lodge lliet the dispensation expired. A charter or warrant was issued for tlw Oonstitution of the Lodge, but this had never been effected, and without this there was nothing for him to represent. Sueh a procedure is contrary to all established usage and without law. He seems a H little mixed" on the Quebec case. He will :tind our review on the subj ect under the head of MA.IN E. The report is good throughout, and it is with great reluctance that we confess our space will permit no further extracts. w. H. Hard 3-'", PaUlding, Jasper Co., Grand Master; J. L. Power, Jackson, Grand Secretary; A. H. Barkley, CraWfordsVille, Committee on Oorrel:lpondence.


1872.J

Appendix.

79

MONTANA. Grand Lodge met in Deer Lodge City, October 2,1871. Grand Master, presided.

Cornelius Hedges,

He referred feelingly to the destruction of the 'entire property of Red Mountain Lodge, No. 12, and gratefully to the aid they received. He says, beautifully and truly: I trust, in what I have said, that no one will infer that I estimate the power of any IVlasollic body or individual Mason to accomplish good by the amount of mOllfjy in their possession, or at their disposal. I would diso,vn such a sentiment ~as the mo~t vicious of all Masonic heresies. The pages of history brighten to refute such an ill-jndged estimate of the sources of beneficent po\ver. One human soul, firm in the faith of man's Divine origin and great destin3-T , and afire with thnt charity, without which Inau is but" sounding brass and a tinkling cymbal," can do nl0re than the richest fund ever gathered. Especially do the written and un \vritten annals of our Order bear 'witness to tIle wealth of achievenlent that 11e& funded in the humblest of human hearts when Love Divine has a"wakened it to love of human kind" Who can count in coin or currency t,he 'worth of cheering ","'ords, or even kindly looks, to a despondent or despairing brother? 'Vho can estimate the value of little acts of helpful sympathy, encouragement, and self-denying kindne~s, which can do more to d"evelop SU"ltaIn or restore failing and imperIlled manhood, in their recipients, than any gift of eold, coined, lifeless charity, which always weakens, and often degrades, lt beneficiarIes. rrhefield and the/u,nd co-exIst and are co-extensive. Wherever there is suffering, sorrow or want; wherever there is weakness, inexperience and ignorance, or Vice, there is field for l\1asonic effort. Like all gentune charity, ours should begin at horne, and in the household of the f~lithfllli l)ut to the soul once opened and expanded "with charity, all lines ot distinctIon soon fade from sight, and all human interests will appear so nicely and intImately blended that the existence of sorrow or sufferIng anywhere, will be a call OJ:' eommand for sympathy and relief. A warm, sympathizing human heart, 'with a qUi(jk foot and a willing hand to do its bidding, is the richest and surest fund for all the demands of charity.

Reh'ttive to powers of Lodges U. D., he says: SEC. 4, ;-\.rt. 5, provides that not less than seven members shall constitute a quorum for the tral1S~tctlon of the regular business of a subordinate Lodge or a I.Jodge U. D. I l'ecei ved a communication from the W .. M.. of Silver Star Lodge U. D., pertinently inquiring what construction was to be given to this provision filld who 'wer~ lne:rnbers of a Lodge U. D. Were they simply the eight pnelnbers) required to be named in the dispensation? Would it include those Inade in snch Lodges U .. D.'s? Would it inclnde those ready and desirous of joining when it became possible, and who were aiding by their contributiolls to sustain the Lodge? I replied that, ~trictly speaking, there was no &uch thing as membership in Lodges U. D. ; that the W. M. and Wardens appointed ",,~el'e ~olel~'" responsi ble for the work done and the character of material u~ed : that by courtesy it was customary to extend the pri vilege of the ballot to all others named in the dispensation, or who had received tlhe degrees in such Lodge, or had signified their intention of becoming members and contributed to the support of the Lodge; and that in the absence of some of those nanled in the charter it would not necessarily suspend the working of the Lodge, but that it wns a ~ufficlent cOlnpliance with the intention of the law if there were seven present of either of those clas~es tu whom custom extend~ the priVilege of the ballot. I think, however, that so much of the Section as applies to Lod~e~ U. D. should be stricken out, as founded upon an erroneous theory of the natnre of Lodges U. D. a.nd the rights and powers legitimately pertaining to them.

We are satisfied that all Masons 'Inade in Lodges U. D. should be considered members, as they are in this jurisdiction. If a Lodge U. D. has been endowed with the highest Masonic powers on earth, viz., to make Freenl,ason..s, we do not see why it could not be allowed to do the small job of making them members. The fallacy of the assertion that they are merely" inchoate bodies," is about exploded under the friction of commolJ, sense and logic. On foreign affairs, he says:


80

Appendix.

[Oct.

Poor France, torn, bleeding, and impoverished, is Masonically cut off from intercourse ~ith all American.Gr~ln9-I.:0dges, and: ju&tly so, too, :for ~er unwarranted invaSIon of the slster JUl'lSdlctlon of Louunana. The meretrICious alliance formed between French Masonry and Communism during the late devil's rpign in Paris was very damagIng and degradill~ in the estiInatIon of all good Mil,sons and decent men the world over. Yet.l cannot doubt that unhappy Franee has thousands of worthy brothers, innocent of all that has brouo"ht upon their Grand Orient alienation an9- dlsgrac~, W!lOm we would delight to hail as hrethren and to know for theIr MasonIC VIrtues. We hope yet and soon, to see Masonry in such bands rise to honor and power in France. ' 1"Iasonry among all the Latin nationalities is ill uch the same as in France' an object of persecution by Pope and eecle~ial::ltIcs, by kings ~n~l nobles, it ftnclR itb frIends and supporters among those llberal, unquIet spIrIts that sigh iLnd struggle for freedom, but too often mistake the rneans ot" reaching their en<ls rl'hey l1ave ha.iled Masonry as the foe of bigotry and oppression: they will tind it, too, a. friend of order, enlight,enmellt, and self-control. We believe Masonry has a great and glorious ml~sion to these nations in the brighter future now dawning for them. Bro. Hez. L. Hosmer submitted a full and ex.cellent report on corresM pondence. Under the head of CALIFORNIA, he says: We doubt if the decision, 路which denies advancement to an applicant becau~e he has lost a leg, after receiving the first degree, wIll be gt'llerallj~ approved. His initiation has made him a Mason. He has satisfied the brpthren that he possesses the internal qualifications. Shall an external disqualifiM cation, happening through misfortune, impede his progress? Rhall it deprive hinl of the right established by his introduction to the Order, to full fraternal recognition? Initiation makes a "Mason," but it is an "E. A." Mason, and if his initiation gives hiln a carte blanche to take the other two degrees after the loss of a leg, it also gives him the right after he has lost bis character. If a I.Jodge cannot reject for the second and third on accouut of the first, it cannot on account of the latter disqualification, for moral character is no more a question before initiation than is the fact that the candidate is hale and whole" as a man ought to be." rrhe question of his recognition }."fter introduction is one t.hing, and his advancement is another, unless you have but one ballot for all three degrees, and Brother Hosmer tells California that they will "regret it" if they do away with the triple ballot. We hold that an E. A.. is only one-third of a "Mason H in the true definition of the word. He favors Quebec as a matter of harmony, chiefly, and we refer him to our reply under the head of MAINE. Jarnes R. Weston, Diamond City, Grand Master; Hez. L. Hosmer, Virginia City, Grand Secretary.

MARYLAND. Grand Lodge met in Baltimore, May 13, 1872. Grand Warden, presided.

L. A. C. Gerry, Senior

The address of the Grand Master, Jno. H. B. Latrobe, was read. It is brief and practical. He pays a fitt4ng tribute to the memory of late Brother Benjamin C. Howard, who died March 6, 1872, in the 8Ist year of his age. He was Gr~tl1d Master from 1824 to 1842. The Trustees of the Grand Charity Fund for the relief of indigent widows and orphans of .l\fasons, reported on hand $78,358.92. This looks to us something like practical Masonry. The Grand Lodge of British Colulnbia was recognized.

Vvr e find no report, on correspondence. Jno. H. B. Latrobe, Baltimore, Grand Master; .Jacob H. Medairy, 6 N. Howard street, Baltimore, Grand Secretary.


Appendix.

1872.J

81

MASSACHUSETTS. The Grand Lodge met in Boston, March 8, and December Zl, 1871, being its 138th anniversary. Brother Wm. Sewell Gardner, Grand Master, presided. The proceedings are handsomely printed and substantially bound in heavy cover. They contain 758 pages. It is the first time, we believe, that we have ever seen the proceedings of one year of any Grand Body goL up in such elaborate style. At the March Communication the Grand Master delivered a very lengthy and interesting address. Relative to "Female Masonry," called the" Eastern Star," he speaks very strongly against it, and charges that those who are propagating it "either as traitors or impostors." He decided that there was nothing of Masonry in it, and forbid the Lodges allOWing the use of their rooms for conferring the degrees. lIe referred to the complaint of the Grand Lodge of Chili against the Grand Lodge of Massachusetts, relative to the establishment of a Lodge nt Valparaiso by the latter body. The matter was referred to an able comnlittee, who reported in substance that the Grand Lodge of Massachusetts had in 1862, recognized the Grand Lodge of Chili as the chief body of the Scottish Rite there, but in doing so, did not recognize its right to control the establishment of York Rite Lodges in that Jurisdiction, as they are separate and distinct Rites and Powers and cannot interfere with each other. Upon this clear ground the Grand Lodge dismissed the complaint, and decided to continue her right to plant Lodges in Ohili, until there is a York Rite Grand Lodge established. We look upon this decision and the reason for it, as eminently sound and jnst. Our own relations with Chili rest upon the same basis. '1'he Grand Master, in reference to making Masons at sight, reported that it had never been uoue in that State but once, (viz.: 1827) and says he very much doubted whether the craft would sustain its repetition, unless it ,vas done in a regUlarly organized Lodge, according to the forms and ceremonies required by our ritual. We think the Grand Master is in error in speaking of this one nlnkillg in 1827 as a precedent to govern fnture Grand Masters, for the reason that he says" the records of the Grand Lodge contain no reference to this proceeding." If there was no record of it, there was evIdently no action had by the Grand Lodge, hence no precedent established. The Grand Lodge adopted the report of its Committee, to the effect that Masons must be made in. regular Lodges and in constitutional form. At the annual session, the Grand 짜aster's address of III pages is wholly taken up with a biography of Past Grand Master Henry Price, who served in 1783, and died May 20, 1780.

Bro. Sert>no D. Nickerson, Grand .i\-laster elect, was installed into otIice, and deUvpred a very fine address. The banquet on the occasion was a very elegant affair. The proceedings are interspersed with fine illustrations. Brother Ctlas. H. Titus was elected Grand Secretary.

NEW HAMPSHIRE. Grand Lodge met in Concord, May 17, 1811, Jno. R. Holbrook. Grand Master, presided.

Al1nual Address brief and local.

B 6


82

Appendix.

[Oct.

Vte find tnirty-one pages of fine type taken up with the report of the Corn~ mit,tee on Appeals, twenty-seven pages of which is devoted to find out whether Brother .A... B. Currier should be restored. The report of course is a very able one but ,,"e think that about a dozen such cases a year would bankrupt the Grand Lodge in printing, as "well as cause that body to sit six months out of twelve. We think the whole trouble arose from the fact that the Lodge considered by sub(livisions all the specifications, and tried too nearly to imitate the "rounu~ about" formulas of military courts martial. We agl'ee with the sub-conlmittee that the report could not be abridged without spoiling the whole, but for the life of us \ve cannot see the necessity of reporting all the reasons to the Grand LOllge. Brother .Jno. J. Bell submitted an excellent report on correspondence, but we regret that, as over seventeen months have elapsed since its pUblication, all the points have since been reviewed by others and liberally tl.'ansferred to Ollr last report. What he has to say relative to Quebec will be found reviewed, under the head of ~:1AINE. Under the head of ARKANSAS, he says: Brother Pixley, Grand Orator of Oalifornia, in 1869, in his address, claimed t.hat Synlbolic 11asonry, in its three degrees formed, with the Royal Arch a con"lplete s;ystem, and was rather bard on the high degrees. The Arkansas Co.nlluittee of Correspondence take a dift'erent view, and defend the hiO'hf'f grades of the (so called) Scottish Rite. That these degrees contain nluch Wllich every Masonic student would do well to know, and contain much but diml~r slw.dowed in the Bl ue Lodge, is true; Jret, ,vith all the light we have been able to obtain from theIn, we are forced to the con victioll that ancient, pure ~\l'e~~ masonry consists of three degrees, aud three degrees only, viz.: E.'. A.'., F.'. C,路. and M.路. :\1.'., including in the last the completion of the legend first separated by Dermott to nutke the basis of his R. '..A.. '., and now found with additiong in that and corresponding degrees of other rites. Upon these, in less than a century t"nd a halt',ba.ve been engrafted innurnerablerlte~,degrE"esandI:lysterns l unLil It may well dm;erve con8iuer~"tion ,vhether the cra,ft 'would not he benefitted by their entire abolition, were that possible. John R. Holbrook, Portsmouth, Grand Master; Abel Hutchins, Concord, Grand Secretary.

NEW JERSEY. Grand Lodge met. in Trenton, Jan. 17, 1872. Wm. E. Pine, Grand Master, presided. Resays: On the eyening of t.he 27th of January, assisted by several of nlY associate Grand OffieerH. I constituted and installed the officers of Alpha Lodge, No. 116, at the city of Newark. On the 24th of the Irlonth :following, complaint was made to rne, by Brother David I.J. Garrigus and many menlbers of the Grand Lodge, setting forth-among other thiugs-that, the W~ltrrallt. of ..t\.lpha Lodge 'V~1S obtained at the last Annual Oommunication through deceit and rniltrepresentation, and that certain proceedIngs of st1id Lodge had a. tendency to di3t~'Tb the peace and har7nony of the Craft in thi~ jurisdiction. After \veH considering the nature and eause of the complaint, I arrested the warrant of said Alpha Lodge.

r subsequently received apetitioll t'rOln Worshipful Brother Robert DillgWE!ll and others, requestlng restoration of the \van'ant, and ill the event, of refusal to reRtore the saInt'. to call a special Uomnlunication of the Grand Lodgp, fot' thB purpose of inveRtigating thecornplaint as set forth by petitioner~. Beiug unauthorized by the fa.cts before rne to accede to the fir~t, request, and unwilling to c::lll yon togetber for the purpose ot considering a coulphllllt, which, at that tiInt::', becanle a Inatter of reference to a cOIUlnlttee, I declined to asseulble the GrHnd Lodge, bu t l'eferrBd both petitions, and all matters relating thereto, to the COHunittee on Petitions and Grievances for investigation and report. Upo. receipt of the report and evidence, I cn,refully reviewed. the same, and decided. to ,vithhold tbe ,varl'unt of Alpha, Lodge, No. lIB, until the present session ot the Grand Lodge. 'rhe \varranthas been returned to the Grand Secretary~sub颅 j e(,l, to such order as the Grand Lodge shall make. 1 recommitted the eviaence


1812.J

Appendix.

83

to the Committee on Petitions and Grievancest with instructions to report at the lJresent Communication of the Gra,nd Loage. The 'reports and evidence I subruit herewith. The Committee reiterated their former report to the Grand Master, viz: that Alpha Lodge, 116, had procured its dispensation by a fraud, in tbis, that a certain number of men joined together to get up a Lodge purely for the purpose of negToes, and that after it got to work it devoted itself entirely to that object, initiating candidates who could not be admitted in other Lodges. r.rIle Cornmittee was composed of able and impartial members of the Grand Lodge, yet the Grand Lodge by a close vote restored the Charter. Such a Lodge, founded upon such a fraud and eXisting solely as a "class Lodge," is a stain upon the fair character of that jurisdiction. We hope to see it 路wiped out路. Of the many decisions called upon to render, I submit the following: 1. Where Looges hold concurrent jurisdiction, it iR unnece5lsary for a Lodge out of such jurisdiction to obtain the cousen t of' more than one Lodge, to receive and act upon the petition of a candidate residing therein. 2. A Lodge has the ritsht to retur~ the petition fee of a candidate. after elect,ion, before a degree IS conferred, if by vote they so determ i ne, and such CH,ndldate nlay present his petition to any Lodge in wbose jurisdiction he may reside, and such Lodge can act upon the petit.ion 路without the consent of the first nanled Lodge, all claim between it and the candidate being dissolved. 3. It is unlawful for a Lodge to suspend a member for non-payment of dues at a Special Communication. 4. A non-affiliated Mason in good standing may petition to any Lodge in New Jers~;lY for affilia,tion, without the consent of a particular Lodge in whose jurisdiction be n'lay reside. 5. The evidence of an expelled Mason cannot be received in a Masonic trial, neither ean be act as counsel in such a trial. 6. The Grand Master cannot by dispensation, authorize a particular Lodge to use the material belonging to another. 7. No member of a Lodge can legally delnand of a brother, his reasons for voting against a candidate for initiation or melubership, and no attempt should be Inade to discover the brother who shall have ca.st a negative ballot. 8. The ballot should be strictly secret; a brother violates the secrecy of the ballot by stating how he voted, and shouid not be permitted to give his reasons for so doing. 9. Upon the rejection of a candidftte, the Worshipfnl l\faster should permit no discussion. 10. If a candidate is proposed and rejel~ted, and subsequently becomes a re~ident of another jurisdiction, the Lodge wherein he was rejected does not losejurisdiction on him. Such Lodge would be authorized to receive and act upon his petition, although a non-reSident, which could not be acted upon by any other Lodge without consent of the Lodge wherein he was rejected. 11. A candidat~ rejected in a Lodge in this jurisdiction, and subsequently made a :Mason in another jurisdiction, withoutthe consent of the Lodge Wherein rejf'cted, is illegally made. 12. Subordinnte Lodges have exclusive control over the material residing wit,hin their particular jurisdictions, and have the right to grant permission to act upon petitions of candidates residing therein. . 13. No officer of a Lodge C~ln resign or dimit during the term for which he was installed. 14. When a brother, who has been suspended for non-payment of dues, tenders to the Secretary the amount. of his indebtedness, the mon~y should be reooived, and receipt given for the same. It would not be proper for the Worshi~ful Master to order the money returned in case the Lodge refused to reinstate the brother. A Subordinate Lodge has the right to prefer charges, and try a member also a meln bel' of the Grand Lodge. All of which were approved by Grand Lodge, except the second one. Brother James H. Hough, as usual, submitted the report on correspondence,

and we find ita very fine one.


Appendix.

84

[Oct.

Under the head of ILLINOIS, he says: The doctrine contained in one of the decisions quoted above, to the effpct that" no brother has any rigbt to disclose how he voted on the petition of a candidate, for initiation or affiliation, and that any such disclosure should he followed by effective dis<:'ipline," we have always supposed to be as well ~ettlod as any principle of JVfasonic Jurisprudence. Yet, notwithstt'tnding its distilH·t r-nunciation by the Grand Master, we find the following statement in his address: "Wesley B. Lucas was rejected in Venice Lodge, No. 621, upon ~t supposed state of facts, which proved to be untrue. Thereupon, I set aside the ballot. and granted leave to spread the ballot again." How the Grand Master can reconcile his action in this case, ",'"itll the principle stated in the decision above particularly referred to, we cannot easily St'e Before the Grand Master could be informed of the state of facts, which proved to bE' untrue, it was necessary that some one should disclose how he had voted and the state of facts 'which had influenced the nlember in voting as he dirl' But: apart from this glaring inconsistency, the action of the Grand MaRter it; setting aside the ballot in a Subordinate Lodge, strik.es us as being a Inost f'Xtraordinary and dangerous exercise of the Grand l\faster's prerogative. Even Subordinate Lodge is the sole judge of its o'w'n material. Neither the Graull Lodge or Grand l\Iaster is olunipotent in Masonry. In the matter of thr sf'lpcHOll of its material by a particular Lodge, the subordinate is independent of the Grand Lodge, and the latter body has no right to interfere, either to llUlk(' or unmake a candidate for our mysteries, so long as the landmarks are complie(l with. If it bE' admitted that the Grand Mu'ster has the power, ,vhenevf'I' he ehooseR, to cross the threshbold 01'31 Subordinate Lodge, and set aside the hallot.. ing for a candidate at his own will and pleasure, all the reservod and indppl'll(lent rights of the Rubordinates will be swallowed up by the Grand IJodgp, It will not do to say that, in the ca.se in question t ..the candidate was imprOI)f'rlv rejected, and that the action of the Grand lVlaster was at the request of nip Lodo-e. "VVhat we object to, is the principle of the thing. We obj~ct to finding the Grand Lodge of Illinois, in the person of its Grand ~Iaster, where it had nn business to be. In the case in question, the action of the Grand Master maJr have been, and undoubtedly was, induced by the best of motives. But aU Grand ~Iasters are not as wise and prudent as Brother Reynolds; and we protest against vesting in Grand Masters the extraordinary power exercised by Brother Reynolds in the case in question. ' H O. K.," Brother Hough. Under the head of NEW YORK, he quotes: They refer to our remarks in the report of 1871, criticising the use of the figures 32° and 33°, and the prefix" Hon." in Grand Lodge r~ports, and add that wP., quite as improperly, speak of a "Rev." Brother. We stand correcterl. Vole admit that the prefix has no business in a report of Masonic proceedings, So say we. We hold that any prefix, except a Masonic one, is wrong. Brother H. holds the same views as to Quebec that we do, and they will hEi found under the head of l\fAINE. Wm. L. Pine, Newark, Grand Master; Jos. H. Hough, Trenton, Grand SecretarJ and COlumittee on Correspondence. T

NEW BRUNSWICK. Grand Lodge met in St. John, Sept. 29, 1871. Wm. Wedderburn, Grand Master, presided. He says: Turning from. the inviting field of Masonry, as revealed to us by the proceedings ot other Grand Lodges, t,O the equally pleasant suI've,Y 01' our own jurisdiction. it will be found that Freemasonry in New Brunswick is increHHtng and advancing. And this is the more an earnest of the high character of thf' institution, because our doors happily are not thrown open to the worldhttnd whoever seeks to pass the outer door of our Temple must conle with a eart already prepared for the service and its sacrifices. This speaks well for New Brunswick. On the Quebec question he recommends that it is the duty of the Grand Lodge to "make haste slowly." We have reported on Quebec under the head of MAINE.


1872.J

Appendix.

85

He gives the follOWing scathing rebuke to those who seek the columns of the secular press to ventilate their Masonic grievances, every word of which we endorse: Before leaving this topic, however, I cannot refrain from adding a general observation, partly suggested by the occurrences and circumstances connected with. the unfortunate rupture among our Upper Oanadian Brethren. I say "partly,"-certainly not wholly suggested by them. For many years I have noticed with pain and mortification, that every disturbance of the harmony of ~asonry is pUblished to the world in every form, and by every means. And thIS, my Brethren, not" by cowans and eaveS-droppers "-nor yet by unworthy and unfaithful Brethren; but often under the sign manual of high officials and the solemn seal of a Grand or Subordinate Lodge. In view of such facts, I wish to speak with becoming respect; but to my mind they are painful manifestations of the greatest indiscretion,-to use no harsher wo'rd. Edicts of suspension and expulsion, (sometimes against ill ustriotls Brethren, and issued on a disputed basis,)-votes of censure and condemnatIon, -reports of internal discussions and dissensions?,.-:;proceedings which display bitterness and acrimony as if they were choice lYlaSonic virtues,-and all the untoward and unfortunate at.tendants upon rupture, schism and dispute, are published to the world by Masons, in Masonic and secular papers, to the seandal of ~!asonry and the gratification C!f the profane. All old ::tnd tender associations,-years of fraternal fellowshlp,-and the past communion of the Brethren in the legitimate paths of the Craft, are forgotten in the general turmoil" and the pen of every writer seems prepared to chronicle deeds which should never transpire, or which, if unavoidable or necessary to the good disci路 pUne of the institution, should be held sacred from the gaze and the contemptuous caviling of those beyond our pale. Surely there are avenues of communication within the Craft by which its orders and decisions and proceediugs can be communicated, without recourse to the public newspaper. And when the day of rE-conciliation cornes,-as come it always does in our institution,how all desire that many things said had not been said; and how soon would all be forgotten, as it has already been forgiven, but that the printed page preserves it to the memory even of those most sorro\vful for the past.. The case of the ditlerences betwef'n our Upper Canadian Brethren affords a very forcible exaruple of the evil I deplore. And to add to the disputes, already sufficiently angry, we found volurnillous and often anonymous letters of the bitterest corresp{~)lldence, not only in the daily papers, but in magazines professing to be devoted to the interests and care of the Craft! It will be a happy hour for Free路 masonry when there is less publicitY,-indeed no publicity atall,-given to these matters when they unfortunately arise, and when newspapers and periodics,ls are only recognized as channels for that pure Masonic literature which may be perused with protU, and preserved without pain, to the Craft. The proceedings were brief and local. We :find no report on Correspondence. Wm. Wedderburn, St. John, Grand Master; Wm. F. Bunting, St. John, Grand Secretary.

NEVADA. Grand Lodge met in Virginia, Sept. 19, 1871. George Robinson, Grand Master, presided. Resays: I see by the proceedings of several American Grand Lodges that they have arrested the charters of constituent Lodges for initiating maimed candidates. In this jurisdiction, questions have been propounded to some of my predecessors as well as myself, touching the qualifications of persons who had lost, some one, and SOIue another joint of a :finger, and the like. It seems strange. that at this day there should be any difficuUy in determining the question of physical fitness for our mysteries. This Grand Lodge has determined to adhere to the ancient Landmark whir'h requires that men made Masons must be hale and sound, Dot deformed or dismembered at the time of their making. 'rhe candidate must be "as a man ought to be;" he must have absolut,ely whole limbs, which includes every joint of every finger and toe; he must have his eyesight." &ud bis sense of hearing, unimpaired. He must be without maim or markea detect. Nor will artificial members or appliances stand in place of the lost or m~lmed member or organ. It is well that this requirement of our laws should he known to every Master Mason in the juriSdiction, that he may not propose a candidate for Masonry unless he be elig1l)le. Too much care cannot be exercised in the admission of ca.ndidates, though th ey may come up to the physical standard which our laws require. Every


86

Appendix.

[Oct.

man proposed should bave those qualities of mind and heart which fit him for MasollIc duties. If he be of a morose and uncharitable disposition, it were better not to admit hiu1.. If he have any positive vices, and this be known to the Il1en1bers of tbe Lodge which he petitlons, no considerations of former personal friendship, nor any consideration 'whatever ought to Intervene to prevent an unfavorable ballot. Again: There is another matter which, to a certain extent, is a blot upon our escutcheon; I allude to the unmasonic practice of speaklng evil of a brother Slander is a vile thing. If there be anything in the life or conduct of a brother which is unworthy, we should notreveal it as a matter of scandal, but should endeavor to correct it as ,ve have been taught; we should whisper good counsel in his ear, ttnd it' he will not heed it, and his conduct is such as to bring; reproach upon our insii1 utIon, then prefer charges, try him upon them, and mete out justice to hirn and to the Craft. We agree fully. DECISIONS.

Pirst.-The question ,vas asked: "If a brother d ulJ路 elected and installed as \V'orshipfullVfaster of a Lodge should, at the end of the year, be re-elected, is it necessar:r that he be re-installed?" I decided that he 'must, for the reason that the election and covenant are for a specified tern1., and that ,vith the expiration of the term the obligation ends. An election is for a new term of office, and therefore requires a new covenant, With the corresponding installation. In my opinion, such brother is his own successor to a new term, and stands as tbough he had not occupied the station before. Second.-The question ,vas ~isked: "Cana Mason who has committed suicide be buried with Masonic ceremonies ," I decided, that if the Lodge of which he was a member, or within whose jurisdiction he reSIded, were satisfied that the brother was not in the full pos路 session of all his faculties, or, in other words, was insane at the time of taking his own life, yel::,. but that were it apparent, on the contrary, that he was at th~ time of sound mind, no. The question is of considerable importance, and is, I think, now for the first time called to notice within this jurisdiction, although it has been a subject of considerable controyersy elsewhere. My respon~e to the query WftS desired in answer to a telegram, and th~ time was insu:ffi.cieut for that full con~ideration which its importance would seem to require. 1 think t howeYer, that such cases can with propriety be left to the discretion of the Lodge. If t,he suicide be the result of insanity, I fail to see the impropriety of burying the brother with Ma.sonic honors. If the insanity be the direct result of licentious or vicious hitbits, my opinion, notwithstanding, IS that, if the Lodge haVing jurisdiction over 111m shall have allowed him to go on in violation of the laws of God and the teachings of Masonry until such a resnit succeeds without adnlonishing him of his faUlts! or endeavoring to bring him back to the paths of rectitude, or (in case of hIS faIlure to work the desired reforJuation,) enforcing the discipline which our regulations require,t the brother i~ entitled to Masonic burial at the hand of the Lodge, though his lire may have beeu taken by his own act. Third.-" Can charges of unmasonic conduct be preferred against a brother who is uuder suspension for non-payment of dues 1" I decided that charges could be so preferred and triedbwhatever might be the cause of suspension. The membership of a suspended rother is not severed, but placed simply in abeyance. Where the cause of suspension is unmasonie conduct, charges cannot and ought not to be preferred again for thf\ same offense for which the brother is already suspended. But charges which con路 tnmplate another offense may be preferred, and if proven the suspended brother may be again suspended or expelled, as the facts may warrant. }l'ourth.-" Can a brother who has been elected or appointed to an otfice in a lodge, and duly installed, dimit before the expiration of the term for which he wa~ elected or appointed, in a case where such brother actually removes beyond the jurisdiction of the Lodge?" The answer was, that the brother in such case could dim it from the Lodge. I know oino rUle prOhibitIng any brother from changing his residence. Whel'esuoh rernoval is to a place beyond the jurisdict,ion of his Lodge, and the brother is there1J:yullable to perform the duties of his office, it would seem that the offIce is virtually vacant. Suppose both Wardens should so remove. This would, of it~elf, be sufficient cause for the Lodge to apply fora dispensation to elect others to fill such vacancies. The vacancies beIng so filled, the former Wardens would


87

1872.J

beno longer officers of tIle L<?d.ge, and w~ulc't be entitled to. dilnit .if they should so dE'sire. But the nlorp ~lf>CISIVe ::tl~th~rltyIn such fl, ease IS SectIon 4, A l'ticle I, Part V. of our OonstitutIon, whereIn It expressly appears that a member of a Loc1tte being in good standing and not in arrears tor dues, may wi thdra\v路 therefrom at any time by giVIng notice of his intention to do so at a stated COlurnunlcation etc. To this provision no excf'ption appears. If it were intended not to apply'to officE'rs of a Lodge, th.e language would bave been different. In Iny opinion theretore, any meruher In good standing is entItled to be dimitted frorn bIS Lodge, and this will hold good until the rule IS changed within t.his jurisdiction by an aluendment to Lhe section above quoted.

The Commi ttee.on Jurispl'udence reported. as follows: Your Conlmittee on Jurisprudence, to \\"hOlll were ret'errE'd the decision& Oll Masonic law, made by the M:. W.-. Grand Master in his Annual Address, have had the same under consideration, and report as follows: QUl:8fion 1. If a brother duly elected and installed as 'V.'. M.路. of a Lodge should, at tIle end of the year, be re-elected, IS it necessary that he be re-jnsutlled'! Answe1.. We approve the decision of the M.路. W.路. Grand IVrt't~ter; although we find the deCIsions on this point contradictory' the Grand Lodges of Rhode Island and Ohiollolding that" a lVIaster re-electedmust be re-installed;" while the Grand Lodges of I..louisiana, Arkansas, and Kentncky hold re-installation " to be unnecessary and superfluous; " yet, as we can cOllceive of no ha,rm to reHult fronl re-installation, \ve therefore recorl1.mend it as the practice of this jurIsdiction. <:;u,esflon. "Can a Mason, who has committed suicide, be buried with 1\1asonie hOllors? " An811 1e7". The Comlnittee is of th~ opinion that in such cases a masonic burial should be left to the disc-retion of the lV[aster of the lodge under whose jurisdiction the deceased was at the time of his death.

Question 3. "Can charges of unmasonic conduct be preferred against a brother who is under suspension for non-payment of dues? " Answer. The Committee, from the preponderance of the authorities on this subJect, b~lieYe that a brother's connection with his lodge is not severed while under suspension for llon-paymen t of dues, and &tlch lodge has the undoubted rIght to prefer charges against hirn for unmasonic conduct. Qne.~tion 4_

"Can a brother who has been elected or appointed to an office in

a lodgf>, and duly installed, dilnit before the expiration of the term for which he was elerted or appoin ted, in a case where such brother actually removes

beyond the jurisdiction of the lodge? " Answer. The Committee consider Section 4, Article I, Part V, of the Constitution conclusive on this point, whi ~h :prOVides, v;ithout any exception or rel-t~ ervation, that H a member of a lodge, In good standing, and whose dues are paid, may withdraw therefrom at any time by giving notice of his intention so to do at a stated ('omlllunication," &c. Brother R. H. 'raylor submitted as usual a very able and full report on 001'reRpondence_ Under the head of CONNECTICUT, he says:

We" rise to explain."

In the first place, we think it the duty of each Chairman of Comlnit,tee on Correspondence to give the proceedings of every Grand Lodge a "thorongh perusal," so that nothing of ge-nerft,l interest may escape him. In the matter of "liberal comments" we have only to say t.hat when the subject treated of requires comment, the reviewer's remarks s;hould be given with sufficient fullness to allow the reader to know his opinion. It luay, or Inay not, be of some utility. If it provoke~ thought upon .a disputed point" it is of service. These reports should have an aIm, and that aIm sbould be to increase the stock of masonic knowledge. By courteously discussing the qtH~stl0ns which arise, we shall arrive more nearly to uniformiL~r in matters of rnasonic jurisprudence and usage; we shall obtain a better knOWledge of masonic landlnarks, and we sball help to elevate the standard of masonic intelligel1ce. These dist-ussions often times require" liberal extracts," that we may fairly prf'folcnt the views which we at,tack or endorRe. Even in matterFl of mere ornament - th(ll graces of language applied to speculaUve topics-the poetry of l\Iasonr;y ; wberever we find passages which in our judgment will tend to withdraw the mind of the reader from the dull, ploddlng actualities of every-day life, and give new scope and strength to his imagination, we luust confess it is difficult


Appendix.

88

[Oct.

for us to refrain from quoting them. We trust that Brother Wheeler will not consider our explanation too prolix. " Go for him," Brother Taylor, we want all the light ,ve can get. Under the head of MAINE, he furnishes valuable information on the ques tion of O. B. by "affirmation." "We have been quietly making some investigation into the matter referred to in the last two paragraphs! a~d ~3;y hereafter ~ive the res?lt. SUffice it to say here that in some of the.Jurl~dIctIo~S affirmations ,vere In use fifty years ago nnd had been for a long tIme (IndefinIte) before that. Of how recent origin are 'they in courts, etc.?" Our statement was "modern" not "recent." Now, a brief reference to history will show that we ,"-rere COl'rect. In the latter part of the reign of Charles I namely in the year A. D...16·i7, George Fox founded" the Society of Friends" in England and they were called by that name until the year 1650, when, Fox being brought before the Inagistrat.es of Derby for preaching there, and telling them to H quake at the name of the Lord," Gervase Bennett, one of the magistrates caught up the word, and called Fox and his friends Quakers, by which name'the "Friends" have ever since been known to the world. From the time they were founded un til after the accession to the throne of James the II Februar:v", 1685, the Q,uakers were subjected to many disabilities and persecu: tions. Their evidence was held inadmissible. For refusing to take a legal oath they 'were treated as obstinate offenders, and subject to penalties. James in IG87 is . . ued a proclamation by which he declared his resolution that, as he wo'uld not' force the conscience of any man himself, neither would he allow any nlan to force the conscience of others. Still, the persecutions and the disabilities of the Quakers, and other dissenters, con tinued. In 1688 he ordered the proclamation to be republished, and appended to it an additional declaration, btating his unalterable resolution of securing to the subjects of the English crown "freedom of conscience forever," and of renderlng thenceforth merit, and not oaths, the qualification for office. That this declaration might be more generally known, an order was sent to the several bishops, enjoining that it should be read by the clergy in their respective churches, at the usual tin1e of divine service in London on the 20th, and in the country on the 27th of May. The bishops disobeyed the order, for which they were tried-seven of them-at Westminster Hall. Great public excitemen t prevailed. Multitudes came from the country to the metropolis to attend the trial. Within the court the officers were unable to maintain the usual forms of decorum. The feelings of the audience bUrfojt through every re:::,traint, and repeated cheers of approbation encouraged the witnesses and the counsel for prisoners. The jury were out all night, WhICh they spent in loud and violent debate. In the morning they return€'d into court and pronounced a verdict of not guilty. It was received with deafeniDO' shouts of applause; t.he enthusiasm conlmunicated itself to the crowd without the hall; it was rapidly propagated to the extremities of the Inetropolis. ThiH contest with the bishops it was, which, more than anything else, led to the revolution, by ,vhich James was compelled to abdicate, to be succeeded by Wi!.. linm a.nd Mary, Prince and Princess of Orange, who began to reign February 13th, 1689. But the entering wedge had been applied, and a part of the hardships which the Quakers had been compelled to undergo were removed by the Tolera.. tion Act, which was passed in the first year of the reign of William and lVIary, (1 Wm. & M. c. 18, 13,) whi("h first allowed the Quakers to make a declaration (or affirmation) of their fidelity to the State, instead of taking an oath of allegiance, and exempted them from all pains and penalties on their making, if re.. quired, certain other declarations there prescribed. By another Statute, which passed about six years after, (7 & 8 Wm. ]11, c. 34,) their solemn affirmation in courts of justice was admitted, in civil cases, to have the same effect as all oath; butt thel. still continued to be excluded from giving evidence in crirninal cases until18~tI, when by the Act of 9 George IV, c.32, Quakers and Moravians were allowed to give evidence upon thE!'ir solemn affirmation in all cases, crintinal as well as civil. Still later, in 1834, by 3 & 4 Woo. IV, c. 82, a similar statutory provision was made in favor ofa sect called" Separatists." "Ifany person called as a witness, or required to make an affidavit or deposition, shall refuse or be unwilling, from alleged conscientious motives, to be sworn., it shall be lawful for the Court or Judge, or other presiding officer or person qualified to take affidavits or depositions, upon being satisfied of the sincerity of such objection, to permit such person, instead ot" being sworn, to make his or her solemn affirmation or declaration." So much in support of our statement; and now, granting that. "in some of the ju risdictions affirmations were in use fifty years ago, and had been for a long tune (indefinite) before that," does that fact tend to prove that this is not an innovation? Does our brother think that at the time of the promUlgation of the Gothic Consti tutions, A. D. 926, J\.fasons were allowed to be obligated by affirmation? Is it permitted in England-from whence Masonry was trans·

*


1872.J

89

lanted to this country-even now? This is an interesting question, and 'we ~ope Bro. Drummond will not fail to give us the result of his investigatioll, as he intimates he may do. In the meantime we refer him and others who may feel an interest in the matter, so far as the history of the in trod uction of affirnlations in courts and legal proceedings is concerned, to Hume's History of EllO'land vol. vi, p. 316, et seq.,. Lingard's History of England, Reign of James II, pas,~;n; Encycloprodia Britannica, article" Quakers;" 1 Phillips on EVidence, Ch. III. Under the head of MISSOURI, he says: In his notice of Florida he says, U we have yet to see the first argumen t based on common logic which justifies the right of a Grand Lodge to confer degrees." Oannot the Master of a Lodge legall.v invite another Master or Past Master to confer degrees upon a candidate regularly elected? If so, where is the impropriety of inViting the Grand Master to do so in Grand Lodge? 'Ve have no objection to a Worshipful Master asking a Grand Master to do the work for him in a Lodge, but we deny his right to give permission to anybody to confer degrees outside of a Lodge charte'red for that special purpose. We think this the weake&t point made by our good brother in his entire report. We do not agree with him on Quebec, and he will tind our report on that case under the head of MAINE. Under the head of OREGON, he says: He combats the doctrine enunciated by Grand Master DaWkins, of Florida, in his address in 1869, and the decision made by the Grand Lodge of Illinois in 1869 that when a Mason is raised to the third degree he becomes a member of the 'lodge, without signing the by-laws. In his notice of };'!orida, he says: "When a brother stands out a newly made Mason, he is at liberty to connect himself with a lodge or not." For what does a prof~tne petition? We think it is for membership as well as for degrees, and that every candidate so understands it. He wishes to join the lodge to which he applies. In his notice of Illinois, Brother Ohadwick says: "Can a brother be tried for violating a by-law ne-vel' signed by hin1? No person is bound by a by-law until he signs it, or adopts it in some binding form." "Ve ask: Has not a brother, without signingthe by-laws, adopted them "in some binding form?" In Nevada be has, and if not. in Oregon, then we would like to ask whence our Oregon brothers received the obligations in use there? We would like~to know too. Under the bead of TENNESSEE, he "bits t.he nail on the head" thus: One of the decisions rendered by the Committee on Jurisprudence, and adopted by the Grand Lodge, is to the effect that a Senior Warden can <1irnit, if he applie~ for the same for the purpose of joining another lodge, in to the jurisdiction of which he has removed, and his office has been declared vacant by the lodge on account of such removal. This is something new to us; declaring the office of a Warden vacant, or the removal of the incumbent to another jurIsdiction, must be an "importation" from some of the new-fangled "Orders." He submits a very thorough digest upon the decisions of the year, for which please accept thanks. The following is his report on LANDMARKS, which we beg the privilegE' of republishing on account of their great value to our readers. In the Masonic Oode of Alabama, collated in 1868, under the authority of the Grand Lodge of that jurisdiction, the OLD OHARGES, as published in ANDERSON'S Book of Oonstitutions, are inserted under the caption of urrhe Ancient Landmarks, or The Old Charges of the IPree and Accepted Masons." Now, in those Chalges, under title IV, we find the following: " And for the better and easier and more honorable discharge of his office, the Grand Master bas a power to choose his own Deputy Grand Master," &c. Yet the Constitution of Alabama, Article III, Section 2, declares tha,t the Deputy Grand Master shall be elected by ballot at each annual communication, and in Article I, Section 6, directly recognizes the obligation, "in no case to Sliter, remove, or displace the ancient and established landmarks of Masonry." In all ihe Grand Lodges of the United States, With, we believe, one exception, (the name of which Jurisdiction we cannot now call to roin9.J) tbe otftce of Deputy Grand Master IS elective. It cannot be that all these ~rand Lodges are openly violating an ancient landmark. Nor is this alleged power claimed as a landmark in any of the works from which the above table is com-


gO

ilppe7tdix.

lOct.

piled. Our opinion, therefore, is that the Grand Master has not the inherent power to appoint the Deputy Grand Master. And this lea, . us to the remarK that, in our jUdgment, nelther the CHARGES OF A FREEl'tIASOl\ or the GE~E.RAL REGULATIONS eontained in ANDERSON'S Book of Constitutions" nor both combined are to be consIdered as constituting the Landmarks of Masonry. Neither of thes,B are there so designated. On their face, the former purport to be extracted from ancient records, "for the use of the lodges in London; " and the In.tter to be {'ompiled "for the use of the lodges in and about London and We~t­ minst~r." The latter contain matters purely local, as for instauce, Regulati;}n XXII: "ThE' BRETHREN of all the LODGES in antI about LONDON and Wl<~T­ 1\fIN.s'l'ER 5ball meet at an ANNUAL C01\IMUNIOA'l'ION and Feast," &c. And the former (s~e DIvisIon VI, SubdiVIsion 2,) seem to contenlplate the existence of an eating and drinking-saloon within the lodge roon).; evidently Ule ~allction of a purel~' local custom. Both contttin, it is true, certain landnlarks; but both con~ tain nuttiers wrhich arE' not landmarks. Regulation XXXIX, and last, itself excludtos the idea that said regulations constitnte the landmarks, for it containsa provision silnilur to that found in our Aluerican Oonstitutions, namely: "EVERY ANNUAL GRAND LODGE has an inherent power and authority to make NEW REGULATIONS, or to alter these, for the real benefit of this ANUI.F;NT FRATERNITY: Provided always that THE OLD LANDl'IARKS BE CAREFULLY PRESERVED," &c.

What are the Ancient Landmarks of Masonry? We think they may bp. defined as those characteristic marks or fixed principles by which, time oilt ot mind, F'reelnasonry hus been known and preserved; which have distingulb!lpd it, as :M.asonry, und which must forever remain inviolate and undisturbed. Wfl> have seen, however, that the authors fronl wbom we have collated the foreg-oiuO' table, differ, each fronl the ot.her. In the words of Brother Simons, (Pril1ciple~ and PractIce of Masonic Jurisprudence, p. 13,) "paradoxical as it may appear that there should be any uncertainty about that which is, in its nature fixed and unchangeable, it is nevertheless quite true that scarcely any two Inasonic authorities of eminence agree as to what are, and what are not, Landmarks." Pursuing our inquiry, we shall endeavor to keep in mind our definition. We shall difter froul each and every auth we have quoted, both as to the number of the Landnlarks, and. the principles embodied in them; for vYl1ih~ we do not arrogate to ourselves any superior wisdom iu masonic rnatters, J-"et W p clainl to have exan1ined the subject in hand with conscientious care; and we now pro~ ceed to present the result of our iuqulries in relation thereto. In thE' first place, let us see upon what points all the sour('~s of our infonnation are agreed. for these we accept without argnment and without conlIDent; only premIsing that when, at the close of this report, we shall corne to mal\:E' up our final list of Landnlal'ks, we may change the order in which they are st~ted, and the wording in \vhich sorne of them are couched. The points of agreelnent, then, are-

,1'

1st. A. belief in the existence of a Suprerne Being. 2d. The modes of recognition. 3d. The legend of the third degree. 4th. Every person, to be made a Mason, must be a man, of lawful age, free-born, and ha.le and sound. .5th. No one can be Master of a warranted lodge but a Master .l\fason, who shall have served as 'Varden. This is a short list, but is absolutely all upon which all the four authoritIes in the foregoing table agree. We next consider some of those principles which are omitted from one 01' more of the authors cited in the table, but which nearly self-assert their character as landmarks. 1. MACKEY does not include "obedience to the moral law." Yet ev~ry Entered Apprentice knows that this is one of the p'rinciples upon which our Fralierl;lity is based. The very first one of the charges to the Master elect, previous to his investiture is, "you agree to be a good man and true,and strictly £'0 obey the nlorallaw." So, also, the very commencement of the OLD UHARGbJ:j is, "A l\fason is obliged, by his tenure, to obey the moral law."

II. MAOKEY also omits Hobedienc~ to civil law and ~overnment." Possibly he does so b~cause every citiz~n, whether Mason or profane, is bound to that obedience. But the test of a Masonic landmark is not thus restricted. What~ ever has been taught and enforced in Masonry, froln time imm~morial, as a duty directl~r resulting from our relations to Masonry, is a Masonic- landmark. At the tim.e of his initiation every Mason is charged in these terms:


91

1872.J

"In the State you are to be a quiet and peaceful citizen; true to your government and just to your countrJT; you are not to countenance disloyalty or rebellion, but patiently submit to legal authority, and conforlll with cheerfulness to the governHl.ent of the country in which you live." The IV[ast,er elect. before he can be installed, agrees to a si~ilar charge, and also promise~ h to pay a proper respect to the civil Inagistrates." And the OI.. D CHARGES require the same ubservance, in these terms: "A Mason is a peaceable subject to the civil powers, wherever he resides or worlrs and is never to be cOlleernE'd ill plots and conspiracies against the peRre and welfare of the nation, nor to behave himself undutifnll;y· to inferior mn,giRtrates." III. The "secrecy of the ballot," upon applications for initiation or n~~nl­ bership, is also omitted froIn l\lackey's enumeration. Nevertheless, in the work already referred to, he says, on page 138, "It nlust be secret." . .L\.lld on pag€' 143, he ~ays: "'fhe secrecy of the ballot is as essential to its perfe('tion, as its unanimity or independence. If the vote were to be given viva voce, it is impossible that the improper influences of fear or interest should not sometimes be exerted, and timid Iuelnbers be thus induced to vote contrary to the dictates of their reason H.nel conscience. Hence, to .:;eC'U1·e this sem'ecy and protect the purity of choice, it has been 'Wisely E&'l'ABLISHED as a 'usage, not only that the vot.e f:lball in these cases be taken by a ballot, but that there shall be no subsequent dlScussion of the sUlljecL"

'1'l1e ilaUC8 and SMALL OAPITALS in the last sentence are ours. We agree to the corrE'ctness of the statement nlade in that sentence; and we think that what is "estabiished " as a principle peculiar to .u.lasonry, is one of its Landmarks. The pr<:servation of this principle, as such, is essentia,l to the' upholdlng ~1nd COll tinuance of brotlherl;y' lov€', and the avoidance of wrangling and private piques and quarrelb, so pointedly enforced in our Old Charge&. IV. For SImilar reasons, we accept as a Landmark "the unanuuity of the ballot," ornitted in Mackey's enunleration, but insisted upon by him as a governing principle on pages 138 to 141 of the saIne work. The principle is very dIstinctly enuueiated in the GENERAL REGULATIONS, found in i\.NDERSON'R rONSTITUTIONS, page 59. rrhus: VI. "But no lnan can be entered a brother in any particular lodge, or adlnitted t,o be Hi In ember thereof without the UNANlivIOU8 CONSEN'!' OF ALI.. THl<~ Mli:MBERS OF THAT LODGE then present when the CANDIDA'I'E is proposed and their consent IS 10rlually asked by the 1\1.ASTER." Ii * :1 Nor is this inherent privilege subject to a dispenbation? becaw::.e the MEMBERS of no parti<.'ular lodge o,re the bef:lt judges of it; and If a fraetious Inernber should be Imposed on theIn, it rnight spoll their harmony, or hinder their t"l"eedorn:, or even break and ulsperse the LODGE; which ought to be avoided by all good and true brethren." Snrely ~t privilege which, as stated in the above Regnlation, is "inherent," mnst be a Ln.udmark. H

V. That the twenty-second of the Landmarks according to the New York Const.itution, "r£hat Masonic intercourse with a clandestine or expelled Mason is a breach ot' duty and an offense against Masonic law," is, andnl..l1st have been "since the time \vhereof the menlory of man runneth not to tlle contrary n a vital principle in our organization, is so obvious, that we accept it as a Land~~f~c\~il~7~\~~Sil~~~ioll,though neither MAOKEY, SIMONS n~r LOCKWOOD has VI. The principle that ,. every Mason is amenable to the ~lasonic Laws and Regulations of the jurisdiction in whicll he resides," though omitted by LOCKand left to be iuferred from the frame of Landmark 24, in the New York OongtituUon, is one Which, from the very nature of our insti tution, nlust have prevaIled froIn the beginning. The Mal:;on is one 01 a great family, \vl!ot:)e mernbers are disper~ed in every quarter 01' the globe. They owe 1,,0 him, anu. he to them, great and responsible duties. He owes no n1erely local allegiance; he has tak.en upon hi Inself obligations which no change of locatlon can cancel or impNoiir; obligations which are imperative upon him everywhere. He lllHy not imp(~ril the honor of Masonry, or bring the brethren to shame by his shortcomings, anywhere; if he offend the Masonic law in any place 'where he lnay sojourn, there must 11e atone to that otfeuded'la,,". VII. That "the obligations, means of reeognition, and the i'ormb alld ceremonies observed in conferring degrees are secret,'T 18 an axiom; and l:;0 evidently lies at the very foundation OfOUf B'1 raternity, that we wonder it finds no place in the list of..JSew York, or in the wOl~k of SIMONS, as a Landmark. WOOD,


92

Appendix.

[Oct.

As belonging to the class of Landmarks we are now considering, namely those which seem on their face to assert themsel ves a,s such t we accept without discussion or further comment, (for we think they need none,) the following: VIII Belief in the Immortality of the Soul. IX. Charity to all mankind, and more particularly to a brother 11ason, is a Masonic dutj7'. X. No visitor, unknown to th~ brethren pres~nt. or to sOl?e ~ne of theIn, as a 1fason, can enter a Lodge wIthout first passIng an exarrlluatlon according to ancient usage. XI. All Masons, as such, are peers. XII. All constituent Lodges are peers. XIII. All Grand Lodges are peers. XIV. Every Lodge has power to make Masons, and to arlminister its own pri va te atfai 1's. XV. Every Lodge, when congregated, must be duly tiled. XVI. The government of the Craft, when congregated in a Lodge, by a Master and two Wardens. XVII. A Grand Lodge has suprenle and exclusive jurisdiction, within its territorial limits, over all matters of Ancient Oraft Masonry. XVIII. The Ancient Landmarks are the ~upreme Law, and can not be changed or abrogated. We enter next upon the consideration of certain principles which we believe all will concede to be Landmarks, though they are perhaps not so apparent as those already stated. A. Belief 'in the Resurrection of the Body. This is contained in the first Landmark of the list of LOCK'VOOD. The twent,ieth Landmark, according to MACKEY, is H rfhe belief in a resnrrectil;)n to a future life." In the text he does not inform us whether he intenLls to eOllvey the meaning of a corporeal resurrection or not. But in the following foot-note he renders his meaning clear: "The whole scope and design of the third degree is to teach the resurrection from the dead, as that of the Royal Arch is to inculcate the rew:'1Jrds of a future life. If the doctrine of the resurrection were false, tilen would the cerelnonit)i') of the third degree be simply a farce; ana hence HUTCHIN:-30N, who bad profoundly studied its symbolism, says, that the Master Mason's order 'testifies our faith concerning the resnrrection of the body.' "-,spi'l'it of .Jlason'J"Y, page 101. B. It is the duty of every lrfaste1' Mason to be a member of a Lodge. This is contained in the New York Constitution and in l\IACKEY, but is omitted by SIMONS and IJocKwooD. Its necessity is thus iuculeated in the OLD CHARGES, Division III: " A LODGE is a place where Masons assemble and work: hence that assembly, or duly organized Society of Masons, is called a LODGE, and everji brother ought to belong to one, and to be subject to Its By-La1-vs and the GENl<JRAL REGULATIONS."

O. "A BODle oj the Law" shall constitute a part of the .furnit~(,re Of every Lodge. Of the four lists In the foregoing table, MACKEY'S alone has t.his set down as a Landrnark. It should include the" Square a,nd Compasses," and will then be a ritualistic Landmark, the authority for which will be apparent to the l\lasonic mind. D. 'rhe sixteenth of the Landmarks, according to MACKEY, is that" rw Lodge can interfere in the business of another Lodge, nor give degrees to brethren who are members of other Lodges." As thus stated, it occurs to us that the latter part of the sentence is meaningless. A member of a Lodge must be a Master Mason; he already has all the degrees which any Lodge can confer; therefore no other Lodge could possibly give him any degree whatever. Let us use a sonlewhat different expression, when we shall doubtless reeognize an Ancient Landmark: No Lodge shall supplant another Lodge of its work. E. l'路to appeal can be taken to the Lodge from the cleci8ion of the Master, or the Warden occupying the chair in his absence. This is in the New York list and that of SIl\'rONs. It is omitted by MACKEY and LOCKWOOD, unless intended by the latter to be deduced fro~ his statement


1872.J

Appendix.

93

"That the l\Iaster is the head of the Lodge." But although MACKEY omits it as

a La.ndmark, he states on page 240 ot路 the same work we have heretofore quoted from that" the highest Masonic authorities" have H denied the power in a Lodge to entertt~in all appeal from any decision ot the presiding officer 1-" and turtller on, upon the same page, that" it is admitted to be the settled aw of

Masonry that no appeal can be taken from the decision of the Ohair to the LodO'eo" '1'he Committee on Foreign Correspondence, Grand Lodge of Ohio, 1848,l:'page 93, expressed our view in these emphatic words: . " It is not, in accordance with ancient Masonic usage to allow an appeal to be taken from the decision of the Worshipful Master to the Lodge which he governs, upon any question whatever. ' F. The right of every Mason to appeal/rom the d~ci8ion oj his brethren 'in Lodge con/vetted, to the Grand Lodge or Gene-ral .Assembly 0/ Masons. Of the four authorities fl'om which our table is compiled, MACKEY alone btates tlllS pl'oposi tion as a Landmark. But both the old Oharges and General RegUlatIons ellUllciate It. asaright, and it is so manifestly necessary to preserve the tlveu balance of justIce and fair government, that we have no besitation in setting It down asa Landmark. G. Eve1'Y .J.IJtIason must be tried by hispee1's; and hence, a Lodge cannot try its Maste'r. This is not stated as a Landmark by MACKEY or LOCKWOOD, but we believe the principle in volved 1S recognized by all Grand Lodge Uon::3titutions 1 and we hUNe no doubt that, both MACKEY and LOCKWOOD WOUld, upon retlection, agree with us that it is a Landrnark: 1:'01' the former, 011 page 307, states as one at the prerogatives of the Mtistel' of a Lodge, that of exemption t'rom trial by his Lodge, on clul,rges preferred against him; and the latter. on page 30, states the same thing in number 1o, at" the enumerated prerogatives 01 tue Grand Master. H. The office oj G1'o/ltd Master i8 elective, and should be jilled annually by the Grand Lodge. Of this Landnlark, MACKEY (Text Book, p. 20) says: ",Many persons ignorantly suppose that the election ot' the Grand Master is held in consequence ot a law or regulation ot' the Grand Lodge. SUCh, however, IS not the case. 'l'he office is indebted i'or its existence to a landmark of the Order. Grand ~Ia8ters are to be found in the records of the institution long before G-ralld LodgeH were established." And the learned Committlee of Oorrespondence of the Grand Lodge of New York, in Itl51, said: "'rhe Granu Master is not a creation of the General Regulations, the Ancient Oh~l,rges, or WrItten Constitutions. He existed When all those that we know anything of were ruftde." '1'0 all ot which wengree, though both SIMONS and LocKwoonare silent upon the point. 1. 'Phe pfNfrogative of the Grand Master to preside over every assembly of the OraJt w~thin his jwrisdiction, wheresoever and whensoever held. This is found in MACKEY and SIMONS, and omitted from the Constitution ot" New York and the work of LOCKWOOD. 'l'he tlrst of the GENERAL REGULATIONS, compiled by PAYNE, and found in ANDERSON'S Constitution, reads as follows: "The GRAND ~r.A.STER, or his DEPUTY, hath authority and right.. not only to be present in ~"\'ny true LODGE, but also to preside wherever he is, with the MAS1'ER of the LODGE on his let路t hand, and to order his GRAN)) "tVARDENS to attend him, who are not to act in particular LODGES as WARDENS, but in his Presence and at his Oommand; becau~e there the GRAND MASTER may comInand t.Ile W ARDFJN/$ of that LODGE, or any other brethren he pleaseth to attend and aet as his WARDENS PRO TEMPORE." We have no doubt that such was the immemorial usage. Our Grand Lodge ha~ reaffirnlE~d t,his prerogative of the Grand Master, in the constitution, Part II, Article I, ~ection 1, Subdivision 5th. J. The ploe1掳ogative oj the G'l'and Master to grant Dispensations jor opening and holding new lodges.

'l'his undoubted Landmark is omitted in the New York enumeration,asalso LOCKWOOD; but was re-enacted in Part II, Article I, Section 1, Subdivision ll:>t. of our constitution. K. 7'he P1oerogative 0/ the Grand Master "0 g1'ant DUpensations to lodges to ballot for and confer degtrees at ~rregular tinl,es. lU


Append'ix.

94 or

[Oct.

This is found in MACKEY, but not in the- Ne\v York Constitution, or SIMONS Our Grand Lodge has re-affirmed it In Part II, Art,icle I Section

LOCKWOOD.

1, Hnbdivision 3d of the con&tltuLion. But thougl.l. we esteem it as a LanUnlal'k

we deprecate it~ use. ' L. The P~'e'rogative Of the G'rand J.lfaster to [J'rant Dispensations to Lodges to elect officers afte',. the period pl'ese'I"ibed by law. 8ee our Constitution, Part II, Article I, Subdivision 2d. M. The Prm'o,qative Of the Grand J.l1:aster to A?"rest the Wan'ant or Dispen-8ation (~f any Lodge, ltntil the next ...4 nnual Com'munication 0/ the G1'and Lodge. Kee our f1onstitutioD, Part II, Article I, Section 1, Subdivision 6th. N. The Prerogative oj the Grand Master to suspend the J.1f.'aster 0/ any Lodge from the pxel'ci,(]e of the powers and duties ol his Office, unlJil the next Annual Comm'lln'tCrttion oj the Grand Lodge. See our Constitution, Part II, Article I, Section 1, Subdivision 7th. O. The Prerogative of the Grand :b:faster to 'requi're the attendance of, and infm malion jr01n, any G-rand Officer respecting matte1'S appertaining to the d1ftit',r.; of his office. See our Constitution, Part II, Article I, Section, 1 Subdivision 8th. P. The duty as well as the 'tight of every warranted lodge to be represented in thp Grancl Lodge at its AnnuJal Com'lnunwation. Charge XII, of the serie}oi of charges to the 1Ia~ter elect of a Lodge, previous to hb Illvestiture, contains this obligation, to which the Master must give an affi.nuative response: H You promis~ a regular attendance on the committeesand cornmunlCutions of the Grand Lodge, on receiving proper notice." Regulat ion X, of the General Regulations of 1721, reads as follows: H ThE" l\L\.TORITY of every particular Lodge, when congregated sball have the priVllf>ge of giving INSTRUCTIONS to their MASTERS and WARDENS, before the ~~~pmbling oi the GRAND CHAP'l'ER,Or LODGE,at the tJhree QUARTERLY COM~IU­ NICArrIONS h€'reafter mentioned,and of the ANNUAL GRAND LODGE too; becau~e thf'il' J\.lASTER and WARDENS are their Representatives, and are supposed to r-:;pealt their mind." . rrhis Landrnalk is omitted by SIMONS, and by MACKEY is stated much more broadly than we have put it; possibly because, as he says," In forrner tinles every :Mason, even' the youngest entered Apprentice,' had a right t,O be present at the Ge-neral ARsembly of the Craft, whieh was annl1ally held; " and because H as late as 171i, on the re-organization of the Gra,nd Lodge ot" England, we are informed by PRESTON that the Granel Master bunlrnoned all the b'reth'ren to meet him and his Wardens in the quarterly communications," Allofwhicb, though quite true, did not make the right, of every Entered Apprentice or Brother so to attf'nd, a Landmark. We have followed the New York ConstitutIon III Rtating the right of representation, and, 8S thus stated, we believe it to be a Landrnark. And in passing, we beg to sa.y that, in our humblejuclgrllent, tho~e Grand Lodge Constitutions which restrict the representation in Grand Lodge to the Masters of Lodges, violate a Landmark. Q. The right of every Lodoe to inst?"Uct its Representatives in the Grand Lodge. This is found in MACKEY and SIMONS, but omitt~d by LOCKWOOD, and also froul the New York Constitution. We think that the right must co-exist with the right, to representation, which latter right no one will denyo In fact, the only hesitation we have in stating it as a separate Landmark, JR, that it might, with some show of reason. b~ insh;ted that it is already inclnd€'d in that aftlrming the right of representation; because there could be no represpntntlOn,propprly l-l0 called,-unless the representati ves spoke the understood or expressed will of the Lodges. See Regulation X, quoted in our remrtrks under SnbdIvision P. R. Every Master, before closing his lodge, mu'st give, o?· cause to be gi'lJen, a lecture on J."ll'a"sonry, or a pa'rt the'reoj. The rationale of this l~ndrnark is apparent to any on€' 'who has been regularly elected and installed, and has served as Master of a lodg~. S. Rest01'ation to the p'ri1,ilege.s Of Mason'ry by the Grand Lodge does not re8to're to membership in a constituent Lodge. We copY' this from the New York Constitution, save and except the substitution of the word "constituent" for ,. subordinate." A" particular" or u workin~" lodge is in some respects superior and not subordinate to the Grand Lodge of which its representatives are constituent parts, and the very principle o•


1872. ]

A.ppendix.

95

enunciated in this landmark is an evidence of our assertion,l.-if it is a landmark -because if so the constituent lodge can do what the \.:trand Lodge has not power to uo. Neither MACKEY, nor ~IMONS, nor LOCKWOOD enumerate this in their list. But Brother lVIACKEY says in chapter III of book VI, (which chapter is Wholly devoted to the subject ot' restoration~, that

"On an application for restoration by petition * * * the Grand Lodge may, px gratia, in the exercise of its clemency, extend a pardon and rernit a penalty, so f"ar as'it reters to expulsion from the order. But in this case, as there is no question of the original justice of the sentence nor of the legality of the trial, the pardon of the Granu Lodge will not aD d cannot restore the brother to membersl1 ip in the lodge." We agree with him, (in all save the use of the word" order," which we do not like as applied to Ancient Craft Masonry,) 'but pray, why cannot the pardon of the Grand Lodge restore to membership in the lodge? Because such an attE'mpt upon the part of a Grand Lodge, either by constitutional provIsion, regulation, edi<lt or otherwise, would be an attempt to abrogate the Ancient Landmark, namely, the inherent right of every lodge to accept or rEJject those who seek to become ne'w mernbers. Brother MACKEY is therefore inconsistent with hilllself when he tells us, (page 17,) that the Landmarks of Masonry "anlount only to twenty-five in number, and are as follo~"s:" and yet omits the one under consideration from his list. The chapter of Bro.- MACKEY'S book above mentioned, discusses what he is plased to call" the two methods" of restoration, namely: "rest07'ation on petiWith all deference to our learned brother, we think he has fa11en upon a confusion of terms which has led him into a confusion of idea$. There i~ but one method of restoration; which is that whereof we have, quoted him and in which we agree with him. On a1>peal, there is no such thing as restor路alion. If a constituent Lodge has pronounced judgnlent of expulI':lion or suspeut-don, from which an appeal is taken, and the Grand Lodge reVf1',rres the j udgmen t for errors or irregularities in the trial, sending the caBe bat'k for ne,," trial, that action of the Grand Lodge leaves the accused preci~ely as hE' ,vas hefore trial' if, when the charges were preferred, he was a ulero路 ber of the Lodge, he still is and so remains!.- (so far as the charges and trial affect hirn,) until ajinal judgment ag~1illst hirn. .if the Grand Lodge deem the charge unfoullued, and without evidence to warrant a convictiou, or that the matters charged do not constitute a lVIasonic offense, and therefore annuls the sentence, that a.路non of the gr~tnd Lodge leaves the brother accused in statu quo ante bellum; Ins nltHnbersllip (if he w'ere a memb(-"r when charges were preferred, and he yet live,) is intact, because in either of these latter cases, the judgment is, antl}5l, b;y th'e action of the Grand Lodge declared, void. And. a void judgment afteets not the status of man or property. The brother is, in such instance acqUitted by the Grand Lodge, not restored, either to the rights and privileges of Masonry, or to men1.bership-for these rights have never been legally disturbc(l-there never has been, in law, any conviction. We shall speak of this matter further hereinafter, in considering what we shall claim as a companion Landlnark to the one no"r under cOlnment; closing our remarks hereupon by calling ~),ttpntion to the fact that our Constitution, Part VI, Article IV, l:::5ection 8, haSTe-affirmed this undoubted Landmark: tion and restoration on appeal."

T.

The bI(fster and U'"ardens of every warranted lodge must be chosen annually the Evangelist,. and if installed

bV it.":> membe1's,- on or before the festival of St. John

cannot regign tneir offices clt!Jring the te'rmjor which they were elected.

rrhis is included in the eighteenth Landmark, according to the New York Constitution, except the reference to st. John's Day. MACKEY., on page 839, says: "All OffiCf'S in Mas,onry are held by annual tenure, which is perhaps derived from the fact, tlutt the general assembly of the Craft was anciently held annu.. ally. This election. nlust also be held in subordinate lodges on the festival of St. John the Evangelist, or at some meeting immediately previous to it." In relation to the other proposition contained in our statement of this Landmark, he says, on page 341 : " It is now held by ~11arge majority of authorities that an officer, after having once aceepte<l of installation, cannot resign the office to which he has been elected. And this S(::,elUS to be in accordance with reason; for, by the installatiOll, the officer promises to discharge the f"unctions of the office for the consti.. tutional period, and a resig:nation would be a violation of his oath of office, whieh no lodge should be willing to sQ.nction." We do not fully endorse this last quotation; for we think that the Secretary or rrreasurer of a lodge, though elected, ma,y resign without Violating any Landulark or gC?uerallaw ot' Masonry.


96

.Append'irt.

[Oct.

"'8

U.. In case of the death, inability OT absence of e Maste1· of. a lodge, if;: is the pre'rogative of the Seni()1' Warden, and in case of hw ciileath, inabtl~ty or aosc:nce, of the Junior l1'arden, to preside over the lollge. None of the autborities from whIch we quot'€ state this as a, Landmark· but it is as fixed and as ~ncient a princnple of :rnasoll:::::l.ic law as some whjcb. nl0st authorities clailn to be Landrnarks; and Bro.. MI!I.....CKEY, on page 372, says: H In the absence of the Master, the Senior Warden governs the lodge. This is his inherent righ t." And on page 373 he says: H All the dutIes that devolve upon the Semo::r Warden, in the absence of the Master devolve in like luanner, an.d precisely to the same exten~, upon the Jutllor'Warden, in the absence of both the Mast '€r and Senlor Warden." It is somewhat remarkable that MACKEY sr-..<>uld talk thus of the inherent right of Wardens, and yet not have placed italt:n.ong the Landmarks.. SIl\IONS, too, on page 11, speaking of vacan~y in the office of Na.ster, says: "It is the admitted prerogative of the Semo::r Warden, in the eve:nt of such vaeancy, to succeed to phe chail:, and, ~n his a.usence, ~he Junior W;arden succeeds by irnmemorlal rlght-a fIght WhICh eveJ::L the edwt of the Gra.nd Master cannot abrogate." Surely, such a right must be a Landmark, rn fact, it is a duty a..s well as a . right. In the-charge to the Senior Warden ele~t, h~ is told: "In tbe absencf' ot' the Master, you are to govern this lodge." V. A G'rand Lodge mu,st meet at least once tn each year, to cO'7.$Ult G"1id act con.. cerning the interests of the Frate'rn~t'J/ in its jurisdict ;;ion. This is, in subsittnce, the thirty-first and laa:...st Landmarl:c, according to the New York Oonstitlltion. Such meeting is in :accordance with ancient usage. And it is necessary, in order to pf€SerVe other Landmarks. The offioe of Grand l\faster il:; to be filled annually. The Master an.. d. Wardens of a 10<1ge- must be elected an nually, and they are bound to rep:JE::.-esent their lodge in the Grand Lodge; it is their right as well as duty. And, 11. nless the Gralld Lodge rneetR at least once in each year, the lodges are deprived of the oPPol·tunity of beIng represented and '" speaking their mind" in tbe Grand Lodge, ac~ordiDg to their inalienable right. The rights and privIleges of individual Mft~ons might also be kept in abeyance, and they practIcally cI:eprived of the inest1J:uable and inherent right of appeal, by a failure of the GrCiLud Lodge in this l'esp.ect. We now propose to examine, as brietly as m~y be, a series of prin~iples npon which there is considerable confllct, but which in our judgment :are Landmarks. a . .A. petition to be made a Mason, after being ~;n'esented and re!er'l'e.ci" cannot be withdrawn, bu,t must be acted upon by repo'rt of Con--;;;o...mittee and ballot~· pro-vided, iJat any time before the balloting have commenced, 'Lt be discovered that the pet£tioner doe:; not live within thejur"zsdiction of the Lodge~ or i8no~ ()f lawful age, the petit,ion must be disn~ll:/sed for want qf jwrisdiction, unless it be showr;;r:,. that at the time of maiking the petition, the petitioner had knowledge of the law,r; of tlt-e Oraft respecting localjurisdiction or laWful age, as the (lase may be; ana the petition ~U8t be dismissed wherJ, the death oj the l)etitioner is made known bejo1"e ballot. Down to the word "provided," this is copIed from the New York Constitution. No part of such rule is found as a LandInL~rk, in either MACJi:BY, SIMONS or LOCK'VOOD. But MACKEY says, ('page 130,) the: petition having been once read cannot be withdra.wn. It must go through tbe ordeal of investigation and ballot. And SIMONS (page 52) says: ,. If it is decided to receive the petition, His then entered upon t.he record, and referred to a committee for investigation, lt has now becorne th.e property of the Lodge and cannot be withdrawn but rJnust take the usu:al conrse by report of committee and ballot.. " To the same effect are quite a number of deCisions to be found in the proceedings of American Grand Lodges; in others;, however, are fOUlld qualitlca.. tions of the rule. Thus, in the proceedings of'" Maine for 1866, page 156, it was decided that H A Lodge havi ng received the application o:C a candidate on wblcn the committee reports that the Lodge has no jurisdicti<::>n, can neither acc()pt nor reject the candidate, but should grant hiro lea.ve tow- ithdraw." This decision, we presume, was a sufficient <>ne for the case whi~h called it forth, and is perhaps not intended to restrict such action to cases where like report is made; for it admits a principle whicbL (if well founded) sh.()uld not be so restrict.ed in its <lperation. In the Vermont proceedings for 1868, page 22:, we find this decision:


Appendix.

1872.J

97

"When a petition has been received, acted upon favorably, but before degrees conferred it is ascertained that the applicant belongs to another jurisdiction all further proceedings should be suspended, and the petitioner notified that the degrees cannot be conferred in the Lodge which has so acted upon his petition." In the New York proceedings for 186(j, page 20, there occurs this decision: "If there should be proposed in a lodge the rGsiden t of a foreign jurisdiction, and the fact should be discovered previously to the report of the Investigating Committee, a ballot is not necessary." Which is directly in the face of the Landmark as laid down in the Constitution of that jurisdiction, and :WPich." goes to show that we can't be too careful." 'The constitutIon, not the decIsIon, IS wrong. In Iowa, (see Iowa proceedings for 1867, page 509,) it was decided that " When a petition from a person not resident within the jUl'isdiction of a Lodge ha5 been received and referred to a committee, the comnlittee should report the facts, and for wnnt of jurisdiction the petition shonld be returned." In Alabama it was decided in 1868, (see Alabama proceedings路 for 1868, page 22) that a petition, after being received by the Lodge, cannot be withdrawn, only in case of the death of the applicant. In the proceedings of North Carolina for 1868, page 14, is this decision: There are but two instances only 'when the ))iIaster may permit the petition to be withdrawn : 1st. If the petition of a person living be~"'ond the jurisdiction of a Lodge should be received, and the Lodge was not awart~ that the applicant was not in bel' jurisdiction" then it nlight be returned if no ballot had been taken. 2<.1. If the petition of a person physically disqualified should be received, and the lodge was not aware of his disqualifications until after the petition was received, that also migh t be returned if no ballot had been taken.

According to this decision a lodge might be called upon to commit the manifest absurdity of voting for or against the admission of a dead man to the rights of l\fasonry. And if it be proper not to compel a ballot U pOD discovery of physical disqua1ification, why is it not equally proper to return or dismiss the petition of one disqualified by reason of nonage? Now, for the reasons whicb we shall advance hereafter, we hold that in case ofmaitns, the petition sbouldnot be dismh;sed, but a ballot had; and that where the applicant is not of sufficient age, no ballot should be had, but the petition should be dismissed. The conclusion arrived at in lVIil1nesota, as found in its printed proceedings for 186G, page 47, is that "If an applicant reside out of the Jurisdiction of the Lodge in which bis petition is offered, the petition should be dismissed as soon as this fact is made known. It is not necessary (nor proper) to have a ballot." In JYlissouri it has been decided, page 70 of proceedings for 1869, that " It is proper to ,vithdraw a petition of one totally disqualified to receive the mysteries of l\tlasonry, as all such petitions are ipso facto null and void."

The proposition is altogether too broadl;}'!" stated. A man not free-born, or one who does not come under the tongue ot good report, is totally disqualitled; nevertheless, should such apply, it ballot should be had. In the Maine proceedings for 1870, page 22, we find it decided that if a candidate dies, deposit fee should be retnrned to his legal representatives, and no ballot should be had. A few words more as to our ideas upon the question involved in these contradictions. We think the impression is pretty general that a petition for the degrees once presented to a Lodge cu,nnot be withdrawn, and that this is a Landmu.rk. We believe it to be one. We can readily understand how l\1asons, -and snme eminent ones-have d'ropped to the conclusion that a ballot must foB~)w the presentation of such petition. They have thus reasoned: it is a Land!nark that a petition for the degrees cannot be withdrawn; all business lawful to bring before a Lodge must be finallY dispoSE'd of; therefore a ballot must be had upon a petition. The 'word "withdrawn" has proved to be the stumbliug block. Now, we believe that Masonry neither contemplates nor tolerates the doing of wrong in its name to any portion of the Craft or to any human being; nor does it require the perpetration of an absurdity. If, when the petition of a worthy man, of proper age and physical qualifications, is pre-

B7


98

.A.ppendiaJ.

[Oct.

sented to a Lodge in whose jurisdiction he does not reside, the Lodge must ballot upon the petUion when it is known he lives beyond its jurisdiction' and his action has been innocent, because of want of knowledge of our rUles; 'then several wrongs would occur. First.-The members of the Lodge would be placed in a false position Knowing that the Lodge has no right to make Masons of men not within its local jurisdiction, yet knowing the applicant to be every way worthy and well qualified, no matter which way they ballot, they must vote against their conscience. Secondly.-If the candidate be elected he cannot be legally initiated. Thirdly.-If the candidate be either elected or rejected it deprives the Lodge in whose jurisdiction he lives of its material. Fourthly.-A wrong is done to the applicant. If rejected, it leaves a stigma upon him without fault of his. If elected and initiated it involves him in difficulty in the jurisdiction to which he belongs. So also, in the case of one worthy and physically qualified, but who has not reached lawful age, if the Lodge must ballot, although the petitioner be igno.. rant of the requirement as to age. First.-The members of the Lodge are compelled to the same alternative as in the other case. Secondly.-The candidate, if elected, can not be legally initiated. Thirdly.-If the candidate is initiated he can not legally be recognized as a brother. Fourthly.-If the candidate be rejected, it wounds his feelings, not,withstanding the cause may be explained; it possibly cOlupels him to wait for re.. applicatIon a long period beyond the time at which otherwise he might lawfully petition, and it possibly subjects him to a second rejection at the hands of brothers who simply remember that he has once before been rejected, but do not remember or did not know the cause of the first rejection. But, of course, either in the case of want of local jurisdiction, or of wanto! lawful age, where the petition has been presented with a knowledge on the part of the petitioner of the requirements of our laws, a ballot should be had, and with an unfavorable result, because the attempLed wrong of the petitioner renders him unworthy of our mysteries. It luaybe asked why we have not included in our proviso the case of physical disqualifications. We would answer, because a ballot in such case does no wrong to the petltioner2 and is a protection, and no harm to the Fraternitj"'. A man out of the jurisdictIon may become a Mason, in the proper place; and the disability of a minor may be removed by 'waiting a proper time. A maimed man can never legally become ~'t l\:Iason anywhere. And his re.jection might operate as a safeguard to other lodges against receiving his petition and acting upon it in ignorance of such disqualification. In the case of the death of the petitioner, no one will say that he can see ~ny propriety in proceeding to a ballot. Masonry, like the law of the land, does not command or pernlit absurdities. Lex nnn cogit ad Ivana. For the reasons 'we have given, there must be some way of finally disposing of a petition without its being withdrawn and "without a ballot. We reverence the Landmarks, and we will not admit that injustice lurks in them; hence we believe that the one now in hand necessarily exists, with the qualifications we have stated at the head of this subdivision of our report. b. Initiation 'makes a man a Mason, and when he receives the degree of Ma;~ter Mason, he becomes a me'fnber of the lodge confe?'ring it. This is substantially in a<>cordance with Landmark 8, in the list of SIMONS. The point is not touched in MACKEY'S or LOCKWOOD'S list of Landmarks. The 15th Landmark, according to tbe New York Constitution, directly contradicts SIMONS, holding that membership cannot be acquired without signing the By.. Laws. Our Constitution, Part V, Article I, Section 1, declares that, among other methods, ".M:eulbership in a lodge may be acqUired-1st, by baving regularly received the degree of I\-Iaster Mason therein." Are we right or wrong? MACKEY says! (page 108) that the fact of a Mason having received the third degree "makes hIm at once an inchoate mem.ber of the Lodge." On page 182, he says:


1872.J ~~ But

AppendiaJ.

99

this inchoate membership is to be perfected, it will be recollected, by

the initiate, only upon his affixing his signature to the By-Laws. He does not, by l1is mere reception into the third degree, become a member of the lodge."

And SIMONS, although his Landmark at least very strongly implies the con-

trary, intima,tes, on page 177, though he does not aver, that it is requisite to sign

the By-Laws. In the proDeedings of Alabama for 1868, there is a decision, on page 19, to this effect: "A brother initiated, passed, and raised in a lodge, becomes a member without signing the By-Laws." The proposition is thus stated in the proceedings of Illinois for 1869, page 23: " An applicant for the honors of Masonry petitions for membership as well as for the degrees, and when raised to the third degree, he is a member of the lodge which eleeted him, without signing the By-Laws."

It i~, in our jud~ment, more in consonance with reason to say that when a man is raised to t,11e sublime degree of Master l\fason, he is a member of that

lod~~ which conferred the degree, than to affirm that he must perform some additional act before he shall beconle a member. The idea of inchoate membership sounds strangely. He either is or is not a member after he receives the dl?gree. By the cerernonies of the degree he is by his o'wn consen t adopted into the family, and is in full fellowship ,vith it. He is bound tlO the Fraternity by a three-fold stronger tie than a luere signing of his name imports. He is ~tfilia颅 ted. Must it not grate harshl~'" on the ear of the neWly raised brother to be told: U You are t), Master Mason; you have received all that you have asked and all that we can confer; but you are a waif; you are not bound to us, nor we to you; sign your name in that book, or go hence a masonic nullu.s jUlius, belonging to nobody in particuhtr." Such, in effect, is he told in lodges where, following hard upon the solenlD cereluonies and iInpressive charge, he is told by the JYlastel' (generally with a sang froid which is a sufficient damper for any temperament) that he can become a member of that lodge only by signing its By-Laws. How su('h an announcemont must cool his ardor and blunt the effect intended b3''' and nlalle upon hiIn by the ~ublin1.e scenes through which he has just passed! Until, tlherefore, we shall be shown son1.e authority older than that presented to us, we shall believe that in this nlu,ttel', as in all things else, Masonry presents a con~istf>nt harmon~y路, which ,vould be, but must not be, marred by any RtH'h discordant requirenlent as that contended for by the inchoatists.

c. The Riglltoj e1.'ery .J..1fa.~on to vi.Y:it and sit in every ?'egnZar lodge, except when such visit is likely to disturb the harmon.lJ 0''1" inte'iTupt the wo'rking of the lodge. :MACKEY sayR, on page 29: "The right of every Mason to visit and sit in every regnlar lodge is an unquestion~:LbleLandmark of the Order." Further on be says that" rrhis right may, of course, be impaired or forfeited on special oc-

casions by various circumstances." The New York Constitution and SXMONS state the right with similar qualitlcations. It is altogether omitted from the list of LOCKWOOD. In the Grand f.Jodge of Iowa, it 'waR decided in 1865 that a Master has a right, on his own motion, or at the request of any brother of his lodge, to refuse to admit a visitor; and tha.t he need not give his reasons unless he wishes to do so. To the like effect rnay he found decisions in the proceedings of Tennessee for 1866, page 588; Nebraska for 1867, page 357; Kansas for 1868, page 19; Missouri for 1869, page 70; Oregon for 1869, page 12; and Vermont for 1869, page 21The Grnnd Lodge of California decided in 1867 (see proceedings for that year page 115) that the right of ViRit is not ~tbsolt1te and indefeasible. The Grand Lodge of Louisiana, 1870, (see proceedings, page 20) decided that a Mason has not the inherent rigl.lt of visitation, (so ealled,) nnd that tJhis is a courtesy extended to the visitor by the Worshipful J.\ilaster and the lodge, and may be refused by either if they see proper. To the same effect see proceedings of Nebraska for 1868, page 11. The Constitntion of the Grand Lodge of Minnesota declares that" The right t<> visit nll1sonically is an ab~olute right and duty of 1YIasons." But. M.路o W.o. C. W. Nash, Grand lVIaster of Minnesota, in his address to the Grand Lodge in lR71, in reporting a contrary decision for review, said: "But, after a careful exalnination of the subject, my opinion is, that a Mason has not an inherent ~ri~ht of visitation.'" That part of bis address was referred to the Committee on Masonw .Jul'i:-;prudence, who, in their report, (page 2.5,) endorsed the decision &~ "in conformity to the usage in this and other jurisdict.ions," and proposed a resolution amending that part of the 'Constitution above quoted, RO that it should read, "That the right to visit masonically is an absolute right, but may be forfeited or limited by particular regulations." The resolution was not


100

.Appendix.

[Oct

adopted and the subject was reoommitted to the committee to report thereon

at the next session of the Grand Lodge, to be holden in January, 1872.

Your committee are of the opinion that one of the reasons why a luan becomes a ~Iaster :Mas~n is that he may trave~, e,:en into foreign countries, and The Idea thata lVIason In good standing is subject to have" an absolute right" forfeited by "partIcular reguhttions," or otherwise, is repugnant to our sense of masonic justice. \\1'e could not believe it, though all the masonic jurists in Ohristendom were at our ears. In short, we are, by our masonic teaching in the work, as 'well a~ from reason anu upon the weight of authorit:r, led to the conclusion that the right of visitation 1S a Landmark" subject only (for the protection of that. nlasonic harmony which must not De disturbed) to the qualifications we have above

be received by the faIthful as a matter of strIct rIght.

D~tIlled.

d. The disciplina'ry powers of a lodge may not be exercised/or a Violation of the moral law (as distinguished from the law of the land), unlil the 01!ende1' has been twice adrrLOnished by the .i.vIaste'r or Wardens of his lodge.

,Ve foIlo,Y the Constitution of New York, SUbsUtllting only "twice ,. for "thrice," so as to accord with the Old Regulation eited below.路 In the foregoing table it will be seen that our other authors omit mention of the necessity of ftdmonition as a Landnlark. But let an:y Mason can over ,vhn,t he has been ttlJught in the third degree, and if he has had lOan attentive ear" he will agree with us that ad1110nition ought to precede discipline. As nlatter of pra,ctice it iR very usual to prefer charges without t~ny warning or Cl;1.ution as to the moral delInquency, Ulereby practically disputiJ.?-g our point. We .shall be happy, if in this instance only, our labors result, In some measure, Ul a return to the Ancient LandmarkB. vVe believe this one to be correctly stated in Reguln,tion IX, of the General Regulations of 1721, ~tS follows: H But, if t~ny brother so far misbehave himself as to render his lod.ge uneuBy he shfLll be t,vice duly admonish'd by the Master or "''''ardens in a form.'d lodge ~ and if he ,vill not restrain his imprudence and obedientlJ submit to the ad viee of the brethren, and reform what gives them offense, he shall be dealt with t1.ceording to the By-La,vs of that particular lodge," &c. 7

T

e. The reversal by c(; G)'and Lodge Of a judgrnu;nt of suspension or expulsion by a con~~tituted lodge, leaves the pa'rly accttsed in the sa1ne 'relations oj 'membership WJ be/o're the charges were tried. Under subdivision 8 7 we referred to the misuse of the word" restoration." That lnisuse has, we think, given rise to most, if not all, the discussion in which the LandllJ~trl{ju~t stated has been denied or disputed. r:rhis understanding about terrns or words being borne in luind, we agree with the principles stl:tted bJ-"lVIACKEY, commencing on page 547, and ending on page 552. On page 3-17') he says: "rrhe principle whioh I lay down on this subject is, that when a lodge has wrongft1llJ~ deprived a Mason of his membership, by expulsion from the Order, thp Grand Lodge, on his appeal, if it shall find that the party is innocent, that \Vl'ong has been inflicted, that by the sentence the law's of the institution as well as the righLs of the Indi vidua,l have been Violated, may, 011 his appeal, iuterpuse ttud redress the wrong~ not only by restoring him to his rights and privileges as a Maf'lOIl, but also to membership in the lodge. This, it seems to tUt', is the true principle, not only of masonic law, but a.Iso of equity. If a brother be innocent, he must be restored to evetyth'ing of which an unjust sentence had deprived p him-to membership in his lodge as ,vell as to the general rights of l'tlasonl'Y. We say that iu the given case the unjust sentence did not deprive the party of membership, and therefore lnembership cannot be rrest07'ed)' but thnt such deeision of a Grand Lodge necessarily deciues that there has been, in law, no deprivation. You cannot restore what has not been taken away. The ,il1dg ment of the lodge wou,ld have deprived the accused of membership, if not reversed; the judgment being annulled, nothing exi.sts which stood in the ,\Ya;y' of membership. Since Brother MACKEY wrote, his ~1.nd our view of the principle-but with the saIne error as to the word" restoration," which he fell into-has been affirrned by various Gril"ud Lodges. Thus, in the Grand Lodge of California, in 1865, (see Proceedings of that year, page 14,) the Grand lVlaster, ~lI.路. lV.路. \Vm. C. Belcher, said: N

U Arnong a good many, th~ opinion prevails that if a member is once suspended or oxpelled, bis melllbership with the Lodge is forever severed, no matter what action the Grand Lodge may take in the case 011 appeal. Ca~t.1s have been brought to my notice where Masters have so held. In all such cases I have instructed the parties interested that the reversal by the Grand Lodge of


1872.J

A.ppendix.

101

the judgment of a subordinate Lodge restored the party to all his rights, and left hiIn 111 precisely the same relations of membership as before the charges were preferred." Here the worshipful brother fell into the same error that has perplexed others in assuming that the judgment of suspension or expulsion necessarily de riv'ed tIle accused of melnbership; it does not, any more than by the law of th~ land the judgment of a nisi prius court against the a.ccused in a capital case ~ecessarilY hctngs him. And if the reversal "left him in precisely the sanle relation of nlenlbership," the natural conclusion is that those "relations" had not been disturbed. It is marvellous that, this distinction did not strike the 3c11t,e mind of Brother BELCHER, as well as his eye, immedia.tely after placing ~pon paper two such contradictory ideas in juxtaposition, as are conveyed by the words" restored" and" left," in the paragraph we have quoted. The Con1.nlittee on Jurisprudence :fell into the same groove, in their report, found on page 99, wbich report was concurred in by the Grand Lodge: H In the matter of the effect of a reversal by the Grand Lodge of ajudgment of suspension or expulsion, your committee agree with the Grand Master, that the accused is at once restored to the standing he had before charges were preferred." Yet some dozen lines fnrther on they quote with entire approval fron'l tIle report inade in 1854, to the Grand Lodge in Arkansas, by Brother ALBERT PIKE, the t'oll(HVing: "The aC'cused is not resto'red to the order, or to membership. The effect of reversal is that he never was suspended or expelled at all, in law." The Grand Lodge of Illinois, in 1866, (see Proceedings, pages 12 and 39,) decided that: "When the Grand Lodge, on repeal, reverses a decision of expulsion, its decision restores t.he brother to all the rights and privileges of the Order, including membership in his Lodge." In the proceedings of Iowa, for 1867, page 510, there is a decision to the effect that:

"A Mason is not really expelled from a subordinate lodge until its act is ratified by the Grand Lodge, although t,he o.tlender is, for the time being, divorced from all the rights and benefits of the Order." It was decided in . .~labama in 1868, (see Proceedings, page 70,) that: H When a nlember of a lodge has been suspended or expe lIed, and the sen tence has been reve'rsed by the Grand Lodge, the reversal does not restore him to menlbership in the lodge, but when the entire proceedings are declared to be null and void, his membership has not been disturbed or lost, and restoration is not necessary." That is all true; yet the author of it doubtless thought he had decided that in one case the party accllsed had ceased to be a member, and in the other he had oontinued to be a member. But he had not so decided. When the sentence, or rather judgment in a case is simply reversed, the case must be tripd de novo. Suppose that the second trial the accused is acquit.ted, what becomes of biln? Has he been acquitted and yet deprived of membership? A member of a lodge, a~ainst whom charges are preferred, does not from the force of that fact lose hIS membership; if found guilty, and the decision is sinlply reversed, the case is to be tried anew. What is his status then, before the new trial commences? That, eVident.1y, of a member of tIle lodge under charges. The proceedings, intervening the charges and judgment, are seL aside; they no longer exist. The Lodge of the Conlmil:;sioners must comn1.enee in the trial where they conlmenced at the first trhl.l; they must take testinlony to ascertain whether the acrused is or is not guilty. If he is found not guilty, his mem.bership has not been disturbed. f. .A Zodqe u,nder dispensation is a temporary body, and is not entitled to relyresentation in the Grand Lodge. Of the works from which we have prepared the foregoing table, the Canst,itution of N~w York alone has this; with this additiou, that" those who work it do not forfeit their menlbership thereby in any other Lodge, While it so continues, but such menlbership is thereby suspended." This latter clause we omit, bfcause we conceive that to be purely a matter of local legislation. 111deed we adopt that, portion we have placed in italics, only because t.hat, as su(1) Lodges exist" we must define their status so as to pr~serve the Ancient Landmarks. As is remarked by MACKEY, (page 300,) " The ancient records do not. throw any light on this subject of Lodges under dispensatdons." /::iuch Lodgf:l:'\ are of modern origin. But, according to the Ancient Landmarks, the Grand

at


102

Appendim.

[Oct.

Lodge was composed of " the Masters and Wardens of all the regular particular Lodges upon record, with the Grand Master at their bead and his Df:\puty on his left hand, and the Grand Wardens in their proper p j aces." See General Regulation XII, of 1721. Now these "regular particular Lodges" ·were all warranted Lodges, and consequently permanent ones. A Lodge under dispensation IS a temporary one, holding its authoritsr to work from a different power than that under which warranted Lodges work. The:y are not the pt'f'rs of warranted Lodges; and all representatives in Grand Lodge, as such, nlust be peers. MAOKEY says, on page 301, that" A Lodge under dispensation cannot be represented in the Grand Lodge." To which we agree. He also says, in a footnote to this passage, that" It will be unnecessary to cite any au thorities in support, of this principle, as the uniform usage of ever;y Grand Lodge has always been in accordance with it." This may have been correct when it was written, but is not no,v; for it is the practice in some A.merican Grand Lodges to admit representatives of Lodges which have been ''Working under dispensation, on the instant the cha.rter is voted, and before it is issued, and therefore of course, before the Lodge is constituted under a legal ,varrant; ·whereby .Ancient Landmark is disturbed. We therefore conclude that Lodges under dispensation are not entitled to representation in Grand Lodge, and that this is a landmark. We come now to speak of certain propositions claimed by some to be Landmarks, but which our judgment compels us to reject: a. The third Landmark, according to the New York Constitution, is, "That obedience to Masonic Law and authority, being voluntarily assumed, is of perpetual obligation, and can only be divested by the sanction of the supreme government in MaAonry. " To begin with, the sense of this is somewhat ambiguous. "To divest" means" to deprive; as, to divest one of his rights or privileges;" or it means " tOlodeprive or strip of anyt.lling that covers, surrounds, or attends; as to divest one of his glory, to divest a subJect of deceptive appearances or false' ornaments." Put either the word H deprived" or H stripped" (the only convertible ternls in the definition) in the so-called Landmark, and it sca,rcels· luakes respectable English. "Vhat does it IDef\;n? If you transfer tbe act from the object, namely, obedience-to the sUbject, namely, a Mason-then you have this proposition: A Mason cannot be deprived of, or ~trippel1 of, hi~ obedience to ~fasonic authority, except by the sanetion of the suprerlle government in l\:lasonry. What does that mean? Either way it seem& unmeaning. No supreme government can deprive obedience of anything; that is, take away anythIng from obedience; and no supreme government can deprive a ~:iasoo o(obechence. The act of obedience is the act, not of the supreme government, but of the individual ~Iason. The suprenle masonic government may deprive a Mason of all masonic rights and privileges, but not of obedience. Is it meant that no Mason has a right to withhold obedience to masonic law and authority, except by sanction of the supreme government in l\lasonry; and that if that sanction is not given, he mnst obey forever? If so, ,ve say, in th~ first place, that the supreme government in Masonry has no right to absolve a l\1:ason from his obedience to masonic law and :.1uthority ; and, in the second place, that it has no right to compel him to exercise that obedience perpetut'Ll1;y". It rna;}'" expel him for not yielding that obedience, but that is the extent of its power. So far as he himself is concerned, he is a free agent; he may obey, and he may cease to obey. We are quite aware t.hat in hig;h quarters, and even recently, (see a decision in the Georgia, proceedings for 1868, page 75,'> a contra,ry opinion to tha.t entertained by us has been pronounced; bnt we have no reverence for error, come it either from antiquity or high places. \Ve are dealing now with a queHtion of powe')", not of ethics. We ourselves consider our obligations to the Craft sacred, and hope to yield willing obedience to masonic law and authority so long as we shall live; but these matterB rest ,vith us, and between our consciences and our God; not with the supreme governn1.ent in 1vIasonrr. b. The fifth Landmark, according to the New York Constitution, is "That contention and lawsuits between brethren, are contrary to the htWB and regulations of Masonry," We are not surprised at the absence of this so-called Landmark from the lists of MACKEY, SIMONS, and LOCKWOOD. It seems to us that a Iuere statement of the proposition is its sufficient refutation. We do not forget that, as Master Masons, we "vere taught the use of the t'rowel in speculative Masonry-that among friends and brothers "No contention should ever exist, but that noble contention, or rather emulation, of who best can work and best agree." 'l\Te do not think that the word H contention," as first employed in the explieation of the symbolic use of the trowel?, is intended to convey the same 111€'aning HR is intended by it in the New YorK Landn1.ark; but rather as a caution against a too ready spirit of contradiction, wrangling and quarreling in persOIHtl relations. For who will pretend to say that a Mason may not contend, even with a

an


1872.J

Appendix.

103

brother Mason, for his rights, or if need be, go to law with him? And who will pretend to say that he could be disciplined for so doing? Is it against the moral be engaged in a lawsuit? If so, what are you to do with one of {ihis committee whose whole business is oeing engaged in lawsuits? It certainly is not a ainst the law' of the land, for one co-ordinate branch of the Government is e;peeially devoted to it路 courts are erected that the people may go to law. Nothing is contrary to t he laws and regUlations of l\:1asonry save what they have ample power to punish; they cannot punish a brother for going to law. Whattheu, becomes of this Landmark? Simply tais-it does not exist. The Old Charges do not forbid, but expressly tolerate lawsuits, even between brethren. (For which, see the final masterly and love-breathing charge.) la~ to

c In the New York Constitution we find it stated as a Landmark, "That a ballot for each degree separately is an undeniable right when demanded." We reject this because we believe it to be a matter within the province of every Grand Lodge to adopt a regulation governing in its own jurisdiction. In point of fact, in quite a number of jurisdictions, there is but one ballot for the three degrees; and we cannot think they are either wilfully or blindly disturbing an Ancient Landmark. Of course we concede that any member may object to the advancement of a candidate, in his own lodge, although the candidate may have been elected to receive all the degrees; but so, we believe, he can where a candidate is elected to receive but one degree. d. Of those authorities from which our table is compiled, the New York Constitution alone claims, (Landmark 29.) "That no appeal lies from the decision of a Grand Mastel' in the chair, or his Deputy or Warden occupying the chair in his absence." We know that many eminent Masons entertain this idea; we are sorry to be compelled to differ fronl then1. Among them is ~IACKEY; the gist of what he gives us on the subject is copied from the Report on Correspondence of New York, in 1852; see pages 466 and 467. Why did he not put it among his Landmarks? If such a principle is correct, it certainly must be a Landmark. Yet he f!lliled to state it among the "twenty-five," "than '\Yhich there are no more." Where shall we find any ancient authority for it, Landmark or Dogma? We have sought, and found not. The reason given by the New York Committee why no appeal lies, is: "Because he is, in his official position, required, like the Master in his Lodge, to see that the Constitutions and laws of Masonry are faithfully observed. He cannot do this if his opinion or deeision may be instantly set aside by an appeal to thatluajority which is about to violate t,hem." Here are no less than four false hypotheses; and so self-evidently such that it would be a waste of time and labor to reply to then1. : 1st. That the obligations of the Grand Master are superior to those of the majority. 2d. That the Grand Master's decision will necessarily always be right. 3d. That the majority will necessarily always be wrong; and therefore, 4th. That if an appeal be allowed, the decision of the Grand Master will always be reversed. MACKEY gives neither anthority nor reason, save in the quotation mentioned. But he says: HI kno,v that a few Grand Lodges, or rather their committees of correspondenee, have censured views like these, [i. e. those of the New York Oommittee,] and declare them to be investing a Grand Master with what they call' the one man power.' It may be so; ana in like manner the undisputed power of the Worshipful Master over his lodge may receive a similar designation." Well, and what then? Your smutched pot brighteneth not himself by calling your sooty kettle swa,rt. But, really, the cases are not alike. The very reason why an appeal .should not lie from the decision of the "\Vorshipful Master to his lodge, furnishes a good, if not the best, reason \vhy an appealsho'l."Zd lie from the deClsion of the Grand Mast.er to the Grand Lodge. If a \Vorshipful ~iaster decides wrongfully, there is the Grand Lodge to appeal to, and therefore the time of the constituent lodge should not be taken up or its harmony possibly disturbed, by allowing an appeal. The Worshipfnl Master is accountable to the Graud Lodge for his errors. But if the Grand Master err, (and H to err is hu~ni~)t~~e~:and I..Iodge has no power higher than itself, to which an appeal

Row is it with decisions ma'tle by the Grand Master in vacation? He reports them to the Grand Lodge; if that body approve them, they become the rule of


104

.Appendix.

[Oct.

action wi thin the jurisdiction; if not, the rule laid down by the Grand Lodge is the one that governs. If such a. decision, luade when the Grand Master ha~ ample time to consider, may be re'Versed by the Grand Lodge, why may not a hasty decision from the U chair" rneet ~ li~e reversal, If in the judgment of the Grand IJodo-e it is erroneous? The majorIty are not a rabble, as the New York CommitteeOseemed to consider them; they are supposed to be "picked men ." the Grand Master has no natural or reasonable right to. arrogate to himself intellio-ence superior to theirs. Has he, then, any conventIonal right? Again o we ask where may we find the evidences of it? On the contrary, does not this alle~ed' landmark conflict with landmark 28, as promulgated by the Grand Lodge of New York itfo;elf? "That a Grand Lodge has supreme and exclusive jurisdiction, within its territorialliml ts, over all lllatters of Ancient Craft l\tlasonry." e The NE'\V York Constitution states, as a landmark, number 26, "that a failure to meet by a lodge for one year is cause for t,he forfeiture of its warrant." MACKEY and SIMONS also, though they each omit this from their list of landmarks, speak of it as one 01 the laws of Masonr~:"; but l\1ACXEY merely copies from the New York Constitution, without comment or reference to other authority; and SIMONS, thimself a Past Grand ~Iaster of New York,) states it without saying where he got it, and also without a word of cOlnment. We agree that the faIlure of a lodge to lneet for one ;year is cause for ttl€ forfeiture of its warrant, provided such is made the law by the Grand Lodge; but that Is not the way· anClent landmarks can be set up. We have failed to. fin~ authority for it as a landrna1·k. Even the framers of the New York ConstItutIon seem to have wavered; because, although it is there stated in the 8th section as a lnndmark, in the 18th section, where the acts by which a warrant may be forfeited are enumerated, we find: "2. Departure from the original plan of Masonry and ancient landmarks; "3. Disobedience to the Constitutions; and, H 4. Oeasing to meet for one ~i"ear or more." In our own Grand Lodge Oonstitution, Part III, .l\.rticle IV. Section 3, Sub.. division 4th, the failure to meet during a period of six successive months is made a ground for forfeiture. If it be a landmark that" one year" is required to elapse, then the Constitutlon of the Grand Lodge of Nevada violates a landmark. But we are well satisfied that this is a subject upon which each Grand Lodge has a rIght to legislate in its own way_ I. 'Ve have, lastly, to discuss a question which has, of late, been much and warmly debated, namely: Has a Grand Master the prerogative to make Masons at sight? This alleged prerogative is included in the list of landmarks in the New York Oonstitution, and by MACKEY and SIMONS; t7Lnd, although not so inclUded by LOCKWOOD, is in another place (page 28) enumerated among the prerogatives of the Grand Master, as follows: "6. '£0 make Masons at sight-this power being, however, restricted to the oonferringof the degrees according to the ritual, in the presence of a lawful number of Masons, and of all the necessary elements of a regular lodge; the presence of the Grand Master supplying the warrant." The present advocates of and apologists for this so-called prerogative, per.. haps, without exception, limit their endorsement of it in this way j SUCh, however, was not the manner of the then Grand Master HYAM, of Calirornia, when he "made Masons at sight" in 1852. If we mistake not, he would take a man privately into a room by himself, and without other assistance make a fullfledged Master Mason of him. This led to a serious disturbance of the prior harmony b(:'tween Grand Master HYAM and the Grand Lodge of California. At the Annual Oommunication of that Grand Body, in May, 1853, the Committee on Correspondence, in relation to the matter, reported, among other things, as follows: "The Grand Officers are but constituent parts of the Grand Lodge, and it would be denJring an axiom to assert that the Grand l\1:aster, or any other member thereof, possesses powers superior to the whole body, collectivel:r. It needs no argument or proof to show that the whole is greater than a part, or that a part is less than the whole. Then, if there be no power 'Vested in this Grand Lodge by implication, apart from the strict letter of the Constitution, how can it be urged that the Grand Master, a constituent part thereof, possesses such implied powers ?" "The ancient Constitutions grant to the Grand Master the power 'to assem.. ble a lodge and Inake Masons at Will,' which with the most liberal construction can only apply to time and place-a power which none ,vill deny, either to the


1872.J

A.ppendix.

105

Grand Lodge or Grand Master, in cases of actual emergency, all other requisites being satisfactory. But the ancient constitutions point out the requisites which a candidate for Mason.ry must possess; one of which is that' no man shall be made a :Mason without the unanimous consent of the members present of the lod e to which he may petition.' The opposi tion of one member is sufficient to rej!ct a candid::tte, and, say the ancient constitutions, 'this is a.n inherent right, not subject to a dispensation.' " The committee also reported the following: "Resolved, That it is the sense of this Grand Lodge that the Grand Master is but the creature of the Grand Lodge, with no implied powers, inberent or divine-." The report was concurred in, and the resolution adopted. The Grand LodgE' of C}1lifornia did not limit, its disapproval to the manner in ""vhich Grand Master HYAM made Masons at sight, but denied the existE'nce of the prerogative.

At the Annual COIDmunication of the Grand Lodge of Indiana, in lR68, Grand .Master HARVEY G. HAZELRIGG, in his Annual Address, presented these views on the subject: "After a close and laborious examination of all the old constitutions, charges l'E'gulations and landmarks-I don't mean those of the present century _-I find 'not one word about Grand Masters making Masons at sight, as I understand the words t.o m~~n; I aln therefore forced to the conclusion that such a power does not now nor ever did exi,st, except when given by the Grand Lodge itself from which the Grand Master derived his office, and not believing t.hat G~and Lodges are omnipotent, Ivery much doubt whether they are, as "~e now understand the relation between Grand and Subordinate Lodges, cOlnpetellt to grant such a power. "It may be well here to define what I nnderstand to be meant by making Masons at sight. I understand it to be the Grand Master taking the candidate to some appropriate plaee, and there, either alone, or wi th such aid as he ma~T summon or be able to procure, make him a Mason. Am I correc-t,in this ~uppo足 ~ition? It can't be simply going into a regularly constituted lodge and there making it a case of 'emergency,' by dispensing with the' previoul:; notice and due inquiry into his character.' In some jurisdictions Rubordinate lodges are, bY a unanimous vote of its members, authorized or permitted to declare A case one of emergency; but this power is derived from the Grand Lodge ,vho CreaiE'S them and is the exercise of a right the proprIety of ,vhich is very doubtful, particularly 'when we talte into consideration the sol~mn plf\dge of every Master of a lodge at his instHllation. And if we hRve that l'pverpO('e for old l'Pgnlation which we ought, and all profess to have, a Mason can be mac1e no where by Grand Master or anyone else, bnt in a regular Jodge. In 1663, uuder the Grand Mac;;tersllip of the Earl of St. Albans, it was solemnly declared, 'That no pE'rson of what degree soever, be made or accepted a Free Mason, unless in a regular lodge, whereof one to be a Master or a 'Val den in that limit or division where such lodge is kept, and another to be a craftsman in the trH,de of Free Masonry.' .Again:' That no person hereafter who shall be accepted a {i'ree Mason, sllall be admitted into any lodge or assembly, until he has brought a cel'tlticatf' of the t.ime and place of his acceptatIon from the lodge that accepted him, uut,O tlhe Master of that limit or division where such lod~e is kept.' Not only this regulation, but the organization of grand aud suborainate lodges, as it now exist" throughout the h~Lbitable globe, forbids the making of l\fasons in any other place, or by any" other power than that of a regularly organized lodge. The power to grant dispensations to organize lodges and therein' to receive and enter Apprentices, pass Fellow Crafts and raise Masters,' does not carry with it the power to lnake Masons at sight. These lodges when organized have powerb which a Grand Master has not; they can mal\:e laws, admit members (though this is controverted by some), and try to expel theIn, none of which can a Grand Master do, though it is by the authority of his dispensation that they do it, and that is because he is authorized by the Constitution to grant suc'h power~ to be exercised by others, while the right to do it is not granted to him 1 and before a dispensatIon for orga,nizing a lodge is granted, certain prerequisltf'S are ncee~足 sary, without whiph, I apprehend, a Grand Lodge ""Yould, in the prudent exereise of its power, declare thf' dispensation void. If it be true, and I take it for granted that it is, that every Mason should be a member of some lodge, what becomes of your Masons made in lodges under dispensation, if they don't thereby become Inembers of it? Where are your made-at-sight l\1asolls? Straggling through the world with that masonically worthless army of n011atIlliates. It can't be consistent with any well defined ideas of organized Masonry that t.hey are made non-affiliates at their making. A Mason made anywhere but in a regularlY organized lodge, comes nearly up to my notion of a , clandestine made Mason.' ,


106

Appendix.

[Oct.

"It is true that a chartered lodge can't exist without a charter signed by the Grand Master, as it is that one under a dispensation cannot without a dispensa.. tion signed by him; his signature is as necessary to the existence of one tlS the other-it gives him the same power over both; he can arrest or SUspend the functions of the one just as he does the other; the power to do Which 1s granted by the Constitution, by and under which and wIthout which he can't exist, and I believe no one claims that a chartered lodge is the mere creature or agent of the Grand l\f~1ster. Both lodges derive their vitality from the Grand Lodge. The instrument by and from which both derive their rights and powers is granted to certain brethren therein named, 'Together with all sucb brethren as are now or may hereafter become mernbers.' Hence the rule that these grants of po-v~~er can't be surrendered ,vhile seven members, the original num.. bel', are opposed to the surrender. "Grand ~fasters doubtless are possessed of large and extenRive powers but making' Masons at sight' is not one of them. Since 1717, and I suppose before they have just such powers as are conferred upon them by law). and I doubt whether any more; they can't exist in this country "'''ithou~ a lirand Lod~e足 they are made by them, and from them, the Gen eral Re~ulatlonsand Ancient Landmarks, they derive their authority, and no ,vhere else. They can neither make nor nbrogatealaw, unless they are authorized by the htw itself to dispense wtth it, and 'where this power is not given it can't be exercised; thus, when the regulation of 1721 declared that no man could be made a Mason in any Lodge (and he can be made in no other place), wit/hout due notice being given, it also provided thttt the Grand ~faster might dispense with this due notIce; but the very next regulation declares that no man can be rnade a Mason without the unanimous consent of all the members present, and t,hat the unanimity could not be dispensed with; and so sacred have we in this jurisdiction held this doctrine of UDftnimity, that we forbid the making \vhile a single member objects, whether present or not, if he makes his objection known. It is of all ideas 1,he most absurd to suppose that he, who is under the most solemn obligation not only to obey the law himself, but. also to see that others do so too, can dispens~ with that obedience. The power to dispense with a law can only' be done in pursuance of law; and where no provision is made for that purpose there is no power." , That part of the Address was referred to the Committee on Masonic JurisprUdence, who endorsed it and supported it by citing historical facts; and the report was concurred in by the Grand Lodge. Grand Master Er.JIsHA S. FITCH, in his Annual .l\.ddress to the Grand Lodge of Kentucky, at its Annual Communication in 1868, used the follOWing language: "This 'sacred and indefeasible prerogative' of the Grand Master is, in our judgment, 'next of kin' to the' Divine right 0.1 Kings' and the 'infallibility of the Pope.' Belonging to the same category, and liable to the same abuse, we have about as much faith in the one as the other, especially since the 'prm'ogaiive' has usurped a power unknown even to the Grand Lodge itself, of making Free.. masons at sight." In a letter to us from the Grand Secretary, he says: "The Grand Lodge of Kentucky has never expressly recognized or denied the right of the Grand Master to make Masons at sight. But the right to do so has never been exercised in this jurisdiction. Our various Grand Masters, however, in their Annual Addresses, have repudiated the doctrine." The Grand Lodge of North Carolina, at its .l:\.nnual Communication in 1869, adopted the follOWing resolutions: " Resolved, 1st.. That this Graud Lodge cannot, hereafter, recognize any other mode of making Masons than the one sanctioned by the imluemorial usage of the Craft, namely: 'In a regular Lodge,' after previous notice and due inquiry into character. "2d. That this Grand Lodge cannot, and does not recognize any inherent right or power, or prerogative in Grand Masters to make Masons at sight or will, out of a regular lodge; and must regard the exercise of such power not only as arbitrary, but in violation of the plain and unmistakable provisions of the ancient chargeS and constitutions of Masonry." By. the Constitution of the Grand Lodge of Michigan, Article IV, Section 1, the Grand ~laster "is prohibited from making Masons at sight." The Grand Lodge of Missouri never recognized the right (so called) to Inake Masons at sight, and in 1850 adopted the following resolution: "Resolved., That" under the present system of Grand Lodges, the Grand .Mas.. tel' has not tne right to make Masons at sight, nor convene a lodge for that


..Appendix.

1872.J

107

purpose, unless said power is given him by the Grand Lodge over which be presides." In Illinois it has been held that this prerogative of the Grand Master is fulfilled in the making l\1a~ons in lodges under dispensation; whicb. is, practically H. denial of the preroga,tlve; and the Grand Secretary of that jurisdiction writes to us: " I am unaware of any making of Masons at sight by an Illinois Grand Master, except through the operation of dispensations to new lodges." In Colorado, Florida, Minnesota, Montana, New York and Pennsylvania the ri~ht thE; Grand Master to make Masons ~t sight is re~ognized in the CODstltut.l0n of the Grand Lodge; though we thInk the q uftllflcation in the Florida Constitution destroys the prerogative. It is found in Article VI Section 4: ' "lIe can make a Mason at sight; but he ml1st be made in the body of a regularly constituted lodge, and by the trial of the ballot."

.of

In Apl'illast we addressed to the Grand Secretary of each American Grand Lodge a circular, inqturing if any action, and if so, ,vhat action had been taken in each Gntnd Lodge, upon the question of making Masons at sight. The replies"are not as numerous as ,ve had wished; but such as have come bring to us SOUle curious inforrnation, to copy al~ of which would. undnly extend this already lengthy report. We cannot refraIn, however, from quoting at full the subjoined Interesting letter: " GRAND IJoDGE OF MASSACHUSETTS, June 1st, 1871" To the Oornmittee on Ancient Landmarks of the Grand Lodge of .1Vevada: "I am in receipt of your favor of April 15th, 1871, asking for the position of the Grand Lodge of Massachusetts, upon the right of the Grand Master to make Masons at sight. " The only case, so far as I can learn, of tl).e Grand Master of Massachusetts making a l\'!ason at sight occurred in September, 1827. This was at the time of the an!Ji路1fa~onic excitement. It became necessary, in the judgment of the Gl'nnd ~faster, to confer the degrees upon a gentlenlan in a sumn~ary manner. The circumstances are detailed in Past Grand l\'Iaster John T. Heard's' Historicul Account of Columbian Lodge,' pp. 456-9. The dist.inguished author states that' The occasion was deemed an extraordinary ono, as may be inferred froru the fact t.hat the degrees were conferred upon him (the candidate) ill the presence of the officers of the Grand Lodge-the Grand Master presiding.' The record of Columbian Lodge, Sept. 8, 1827, states simply that a dispensation was received froIn the Grand Master to confer on - - the degrees. aRe was ba.lloted for admitted and duly initiated, passed to the second degree, and raised to the t]lird. It was then voted that the fees be remitted, in eonsideration of Important services rendered to the masonlC family. "The records of the Grand Lodge contain no reference to this proceeding. "From alII have been able to gather from living witnesses familiar with this transaction, I have no doubt that this meeting of Columbian Lodge was made use of by the Grand l\iaster for the purpose of making a lVIason at sight. There 1s no evidence of any notice to tb e brethren of the lodge. There was no petition, no reference of a petition to a comrrli ttee, no report thereon. There appears to be a, ballot by the lodge record. The Grand Master may have submitted this question to the brethren, or it may be a record made by a Secretary who supposed it to be absolutely necessary. " 'l'he record does not sho,v that the Grand Master presided. EVidently the record was prepared sO as to cover up the actual truth of the proceedings. They were aU sUIDlnary, and ordered by the Grand Master. "As thil-3 is the only precedent to be found in the history of our Grand Lodge of the exercise of this prerogative of the Grand 11aster, it is not at all improbable t,llat the lodge record was made up under the Grand Master's direction, so ttS TO conceal the precedent from ~Iasonic observation. "At the Annual :Meeting of the Grand Lodge, beld December 9th, 1863, a committee consisting ot" R.路. lV:'. brothers Benj. Dean, Uharles C. Dame, Solon Thornton, S. P. Oliver, and Clu."trles Levi Woodbury, 011 the subject of the powers of the District Deputy Grand Master, made a report which was adopted. From this report I take the following: "'This prerogative' (making Masons at sight)' empowers the Grand Master to enter any lodge within this jurisdiction and make MaRons of persons into whose character no in~uiry has been made by the Lodge, and whose name has


108

Appendix.

[Oct.

not been placed on the notices for the meeting, and of whom no member of the lodge has ever heard., and without any ballot whatever. " 'Without a furt.her examination of this power, now rapidly be-comin'l obsolete, it surely requires no argument to show that its exercise is a very dit~ ferent thing from nlalring Masons after notice to all the brethren, a strl(~t Inquir;r by the lodge into the candidate's rnoral character, and a clear ballot none of which can the District Deputy dispense "with, nor have they ever attemptf:\d to usurp tbis hlgb prerogative of the Grand Mast(>r.' " These extracts, and oth~rs of the same import, contained in this report are the onlJ-"'" reference~ to making Masons at sight to be tound in our proceedl'ngs so far H,S I am able to learn. ' "There can be no doubt of the existence in the Grand Master of this ri~ht and power. FrolIl necessity, it must have been practIsed, when required to introduce the Rite into foreign countries. It is said that FrederIck the Great wab made a Mason in this luanneI', and it is probable that the King of Sweden eXflfcised this right, "when, as Grand Master, he recently made the Prince of Wales aMason. ' "Necessity may arise for the exercise of this prerogative \vithin thejl1ris. diction of this Grand Lodge. As already statetl, so far as I call learn, it never has arisen but once, SInce the Independence of our Grand Lodge in 1777 to the present tilllE'. The prE-cedent establiRhed in 1827 would doubtless govern the action of any fut.ure Grand Master in the exercise of this power, shouldoccabion ever require. "I doubt very nluch whether the Craft in Massachusetts would sustain a Grand l\Iaster in the exercise of this prerogative, unless it 'V'as apparent that an absolute necessity existed therE-for, and not then unless the' n1aking' was in a l'pgularly organizecl Lodge, and according to the forms and eeremonles required by our ritual. " Fraternally, "WILLIAM SEWALL GARDNER, Grand

lIaste:r."

With nlany thanks for tbe patient research which onr 21£.'. lV.·. Brother has madE' into the history of his venerable Grand Lodge, in answor to our request, we must be permitted to observe that the only preredent he has been able to discover seenlS to us rather a slim one. The Grand l\Iaster in 1827 could not have had an~l great faith in the "prerogative," or hE-' w0utd not bE' careful to have the lodge record made up "so as to conceal the precedent from Masoni0 observatioll." 'Ve had intended to make a complete list, showing the position of ea(lh American Grand Lodge upon the proposition, but as a long tIme has elapsed since our circular of pnquiry Wf>ut out, and there are many jurisdwtions which have not been heard from, we can present only a partial list. Of the jurisdictions heard from, the following have acknowledgf'd thl?' right of the Granu 1\JIaster to malre MaE,ons at sight, (but in some instancf~s with ~uch qualifications as to destroy the eHsel1Ce of the prerogative; ") namely, Colorado, Connflcticut, Florida, Massachusetts\ lVHnnesota, Montana, New York, and Peuns:flvania. The followIng Grand Lodges have denied the rifo?;ht; uamely, California, Illinois, Illdiana, l\1ichigan, Missouri, and North Carolina. 'l'he following named Grand LodgeR have not acted upon the question; namely, Alabama Arkan&as. D~laware, District 01 Columbia, Georgia, Kansas, Kentuck~rt Maryl and, Mississippi, Rhode Island, and 'rexas. Our Nevada Constitution, in enumerating the powers and authority of the Grand Master, <.loes not include the power ot" making Masons at sight. By the ordinary ruleR of construction, therefore?, our Grand Master \V'ould not have the right to exercise any power not conferrea by the Constitution. Btlt the Conl:\tit,UtiOll itself recognizes the Ancient Landmarks as of binding force; as indeed t.hey must be, upon all 11asons, irrespective of such prOVision. No history of the so-called prerogative that. we have spen will warrant the aRsertion that it iH a Landmark. 'rhe accol1ntgiven of it by MACKEY, for instance, is far from sati",.. factory. Indeed, although he insists upon it as a Landmark, he ~ays : "The words 'making Masons at sight' are not to be found In any of the UonRtitutions or records oftbe legitimate Grand Lodge of England. 'rhey wer€' first used by that schismatic body known in history as the Athol Grand Lodge." He then goes on to cite cases of making ~Iason~ in occasional Lodg~s. unci says "the two expressions mean eXHctly the same thing." And ne coneltulr;& that making IVlasons at sight, or in occasional lodges, by the Grand Master, H 1~ the necessary result of, and indeed is the same thing in it modified form, as hh prerogative to open lodges by dispensations granted to otherl'=." With all due deference to so distInguished a Mason, we think it a ver~"'" different thing. A H


1872.J

Appendix.

109

lodge under dispensation is a formed lodge, having its specified, regular officers.

It cannot make a Mason save upon application, due inquiry into character,and

the scrutiny of an unanimous ballot. The Grand Master grants dispensations to open new Lodges by virtue of positive Masonic law. He can not grant to them dispensations to make Masons at sight, because no Masonic la.w or usage authorizes hiul do so. Then his making Masons at sight is not the same thing as granting dispensations to open new lodges. Lo<.lges under dispensation are n~ot occasiont.:tllodges; they a:r:e na'Yfl'ed lodges, a9ting under a 'Written dispensation, and having regularly recurrIng tImes of meetIng. An occasional lodge, forsooth! What, then, becomes of your sight-made Mason? He is a member of an occasional lodge l isn't he? It ~eems to us he must be like the offsprIng of a \voman who has an occasional husband; he is a Masonic ntf-lZus jil~'ll8,-Anglice, a bastard son of-light. As for us, and our house, ~e want no illegitiInate children in the family. It is adlnitted that the old Constitutions nowhere nlention the right of the Grand J.\.lastf'r to make 짜asons at sight. Has any higher authority given him tIlt:' rlg-ht? If so, where IS the evidence of it? Ours is a speculative science,

founded upon an operative art; and we are su pposed to follow the analogie& of that art. Could I{ing Solomon, H in all his glory," make an operative ~Iason at sig-ht '? rrhe fact ~hat Grand .Th'Iasters have as~u~ed so to act do~s not prove. that th~v had the rIght to do so. On that prInCiple, mU7'der mIght be ju&tltied. sovereigns have comluitted murders, for which they were not, bemlJuse they could not be, punished or called to account; ergo, the sovereign has a right to comrnit mnrdE>r. The tendency of unchecked power has always been toward ago-resSlveness; a,nd the tact is.that those who aforetime exerCised the so-called power of malting Masons at SIght took advantage of their soch1l and political prominence, as well as of the absence of any power to punish Grand ~Iasters, to do such act ,vithout warrant ofJ\1asonic authority. 'rhey nswrped the powpr, as many a magnate had grasped unwarranted powers before their time. In some Constitutions of the present day the power of the Grand Master to make l\fasolls at SIght is conceded. But where, by H,ny authority of Masonic law or usage, did they derive the precedent? And who has proven it to be a Landnlar!t'? It is our firm convicLion that the fram ers of these Uonstitutions have accepted this so-called prerogative on trust. It has slipped in unquestioned, like dead-h~ads into a crowded theatre. Let us now" su&peud the free list." Let us lop otf' this parasite. Let ,vell-infonned l\tla&ons, in each jurisdiction where the Grand Lodge Constitution enunciates this baseless l)rerogative nlovean an1endment, and, pressing it to a pabsage, purify our institution of thil.o; abuse. Freemasonry has assumed vast proportions. \Ve must be cautIOUS in adhering to Landmarks, or tIle fabric will fall into ruin. We have said tha,t this power of making Masons at sight has been usurped. Now, in the full tide of our buccess, and ere it be too late, the time has arrived when the sturd.y baron~ of the Craft. IUust demand at the :M:asonic Runnymede a restoration to ancient rights, and guarantees against the perpetration of hoar:y ","rong We insist that. it is a landmark, that" No one can be made a Mason except In a lawful lodge, duly convened, acting under an nnreclaimed warrant or di~pem;;atlon, and at a place therein named, after petition presented at a regular meetinf(, and acceptance by a unanimous ballot." After tt pat ient and laborious examination of the subject, we present a list of what we consider landmarks of Masonry, being those to which, in the conrse of thE' argnmE-nt in this report, we have given in our adhesion; but we here present theln arranged, as we think, in more logical"order: I. Belief in the existence of a Supreme Being, the Great Architect of the Universe. II. Belief in the immortality of the soul. III. Belief in the resurrection of the body. IV. Obedience to the moral law. v. Respect for, and obedience to the civil hnv and government of the country where a Mason may reside. VI. The legend of the third degree. VII. The modes of recognition. VIII. The obligations. IX. The obligations, means of recognition, and the forms and ceremonies observed in conferring degrees are secret. X. Charity to all mankind, and more particularly to a brother Mason, is a masonic duty. \


110

Appendix.

[Oct.

XI. Every person, to be made a Mason, must be a man, of lawful age, .free.. born, and hale and sound, as a man ought to be. XII. The ballot for candidates is strictly and inviolably secret. XIII. No one can be made a Mason except in a lawful lodge, dUly convened actIng under an unreclaimed 'warrant or dispensation, and at the place thereiu named, after petition presented at a regular meeting, and acceptance by unanimous ballot. XIV. A petition to be made a Mason, after being presented and referred cannot be withclra,,"n, but must be acted upon by report of committee and ballot· provided, if at any time before the balloting have commenced it he discovered that the petitioner does not live within the jurisdiction of the 'IOdO'€'> or is not of lawful age, the petition must be dismissed for want of jurisdiction' unle~s it be shown that at the time of making the petition the peti tioner had knowledge of the laws of the craft respecting local jnrisdiction or lawful age as the case nlay be; and the petition must be dismissed when the death of the petitioner is made known before ballot. XV. The duty of e,,"ery Master Mason to be a member of a lodge. XVI. Initiation makes a Ulan Us Mason, and when he receives the degree of Master Mason, he becom.es a member of the lodge conferring it. XVII. The right of every Mason to visit and sit in every regular lodge except when such visit is likely to disturb the harmony or interrupt the work~ ing of the Lodge. XVIII. Masonic intercourse with a clandestine or expelled 1Iason is a masonic crime. XIX. Every Mason is amenable to the Masonic laws and regulations oftha jurisdiction in which he resides. XX. The disciplinary powers of a lodge may not be exercised for a violation of the moral law, (as distinguished from the law of the land,) until the offender has been twice adnlonished by the Master or vVardens of his lodge. XXI. Restoration to the privileq;es of Masonry by the Grand Lodge does not restore to membership in a constit~ent lodge. XXII. The reversal, by a Grand Lodge, of a judgment of suspension or expulsion by a constituent lodge, leaves the party accused in the same relations of membership as before the charges were tried. XXIII. No appeal can be taken to the lodge frOln the decision of the .l\!astel' or the Warden occupying the chair in his absence. XXIV. The right of every Mason to ~1ppeal frou1 the decision of his brethren in lodge convened, to the Grand Lodge or General Asselnbly of Masons. XXV. Every Mason must be tried by his peers; and hence a lodge cannot try its Master. XXVI. The government of the Craft, when congregated in a lodge, by a Master and two Wardens. XXVII. No one can be Master of a warranted lodge but a Master Mason who shall have served as War~en. XXVIII. Every lodge, when congregated, must, be duly tiled. XXIX. A" Book of the Law," the square and compasses, shall constitute a part of the furni ture of every lodge. XXX. Every lodge has power to make Masons and to administer its own private affairs. XXXI. No Yisitor, unknown to the brethren present, or to some one of them, as a Mason, can enter a lodge without first passing an examination according to ancient usage. XXXII. Every :Master, before closing his lodge, must give, or cause to be given, a lecture on Masonry, or a part thereof. XXXIII. The 1\faster and Wardens of every warranted lodge must be chosen annually by its members, on or before the festival of St. John the Evan.. gelIst; and, if installed, cannot resign their offices during the term for whieh they were elected. XXXIV. In case of the death, inability or absence of the Master of a lodg€\ it is the prerogative of the Senior Warden, and in case of his death, inability or absence, of the Junior Warden, to preside over the lodge.


1872.J xxxv.

Appendix.

111

The duty as well as the right of every warranted lodge to be represented in the Grand Lodge at its Annual Communication. XXXVI. A lodge under dispensation is a· temporary body, and is not entitled to represen tation in the Grand Lodge. XXXVII. The right of every lodge to instruct its representatives in the Grand Lodge. XXXVIII. All Masons are peers. XXXIX. All constituent lodges are peers. XL. All Grand Lodges are peers. XLI. A Grand Lodge has supreme and exclusive jurisdiction, within its territoriallimits, over all matters of Ancient Craft l\lasonry. XLII. A Grand Lodge must meet at least once in each year, to consult and act concerning the interests of the fraternity in its jurisdiction. XLIII. The office of Grand Master is elective, and should be :tilled annually by the Grand Lodge. XLIV. The prerogative of the Grand Master to preside over every assembly of the craft within his jurisdiction, wheresoever and whensoever held. XLV. The prerogative of the Grand Master to grant dispensations for opening and holding new lodges. XLVI. The prerogative of the Grand Master to arrest the warrant or dispensation of any lodge until the next Annual Communication of the Grand Lodge. XLVII. The prerogative of the Grand Master to grant dispensations to lodges to ballot for and confer degrees at irregular times. XLVIII. The prerogative of the Grand Master to grant dispensations to lodges to elect officers after the period prescribed by law. XLIX. The prerogative of the Grand Master to require the attendance of, and information from, any Grand Officer respecting matters appertaining to the duties of his office. L. The prerogative of the Grand Master to suspend the Master of any lodge from. the exercise of the powers and duties of his office, until the next Annual Communication of the Grand Lodge. LI. The Ancient Landmarks are the Supreme Law, and cannot be changed or abrogated. Here are fifty-one distinct propositions, one more than double the number stated by Brother MACXEY, and twenty more than are embraced in the New York Constitution, though we have excluded several points which those authorities, respectively, have included. Yet we feel assured that we have not included any proposition in our list that is not a Landmark, though we may have (doubtless have) omitted some things which are Landmarks. Our labor has been performed at intervals snatched from active business, and WE' have done it as faithfully as we could, under such circumstances. It is too much to hope that we have not e1'1'eo.. With more time and more light we might have done better work. If our conclusions are, at some points, erroneous, they at least have the merit of having been honestly formed; we have not rejected any conclusions of others from caj)tiousness or caprice; nor, on the other hand, have we been awed by the weight of great names into acquiescence with what our judgments could not sanction. The subject matter of our report is of the first importance; we therefore hope that our work will be thoroug-bly inspected. Deal with it rigidly; but deal with it in tbe same spirit in 'which we have wrought; that is, with an earnest desire to uphold true Masonry, and to discountenance and discard that which is spurious and untrue. All of which is most respectfully and fraternally submitted. R. H. TAYL0!tJ Ohairman,} HORATIO S. MASON,

OJ the Oommittee

Bro. WH. A. M. VAN BOKKELEN, from the Committee on Ancient Landmarks, presented the following minori ty report: Th the M:'. W: •• Grand Lodge F. &: A. M. of Nevada: Not being able to endo.rse nIl the arguments and conclusions of the majority of your Committee on Landmarks, and believing the subject to be one of con-


112

Appendix.

[Oct.

siderable importance, upon which no one should hesitate to express his views I would respectfully submIt the following report, restricting myself to tho.~e points on which we do not agree: iYlasonic Laws naturally divide themselves into three great classes1. LANDMARKS. 2.

GENERAL REGULATIONS.

3.

LOCAL REGULATIONS.

I would define the Landmarks as those characteristic marks or fixed princi.. pIes by which, time out of mind, Freemasonry has been un~ver$ally known and preserved, which have distinguIshed it as Freemasonry, and which must for.. ever remain inviolate and unchanged. The requisites, therefore, of a custom or rule of action to constitnte it a Landmark, are: fl1~8t, antiquity; second, that it was universal from. tIme 1mmernorial; third, that in its very essence it is essential to the preserv~ttionof the principles of the F"raternlty, H and of that general uniformi ty of character anf1 design which constitutes the true universality of the Institution," and is t.herpfore, unchangeable. ' Applying these tests, we will be compelled to exclude several of those or rules to which the majority of your committee have awarded the honor ot' being landmarks. XIII. If this is a landmark tIlen, verily, are we all clandestine Masons for prior to 1718, warrants were unknown, and "Lodges were empowered by Inherent privileges vested in the fra.ternity at large, to meet and act occasion~ n1l3,r, under the direction of some able architect, and the acting magistrate of the county; and the proceedings of those meetings, being approved by tht:' 111.ajorit;y- of the brethren convened at another lodge assembled in same district were deemed constitutional."-Preston, old ed., p. 66, note. ' The first 'Vttrrant was issued under a regulation adopted June 24th 1717' from that time, and not before, were lodges restricted to certain localities.' And eVt->ll to tlllS day, t'wo e:1L least of the four lodges which organized the Grand Lodge of England continue to exist and work, m~1.king Masons without any 'wurr~1nt or other authority than the "inherent privileges vested in the traternity.'路 Yet we are all sprung from these old lodges, which had none and still refuse to have warr'au ts. I admit the first clause-" No luan can be made a Mason except in a lawful lodge ,路-to be a Landmark, and believe that it should be clearly set forth as definIng the Grand Master's right or prerogative of h making Masons at sight" which I hold simply means the power to grant the autbority to a 'regu,lar lodge to receive a petition out ot' tilne, and act upon it immediately, without due refer~ ence to a committee and report thereon, as is usually required. No. XIV. While I endorse the arguments and conclusions of Bro. Taylor on this subject, I am forced to rank it as a RegUlation, it wanting the two e-Iements of antiquity and universality; the doctrine of the jurisdICtional rights of Lodges being a rnodern invention, and one which until recently had never been recognized outside of the United States. No. XVI. Is deficient in universality; the Grand Lodge of Scotland having never recognized it, but, on the other hand, requires a separate ballot for membership. And Scotland is not alone in this requirement. No. XX. I find this, as No. IX of the General RegUlations of 1721; the thirty-ninth or last of which expressly declares that any or all of them may be altered or repealed, therefore it is wanting under the test of being unchangeable, No. XXI. Our present system of lodge organization and membership is subsequent to the revival of Masonry in 1717, and therefore everything bearing upon the relation existing between a lodge and its members properly comes under the head of a RegUlation-it being deficient in antiquity. No. XXII. This, with all the arguments brought to its support, is the mere logical sequence of the fact that Masonry IS based on justice, and it would have been better to say" Justice should be the peculia!' characteristic of the relation between an accused brother and his lodge." It should be excluded for the same reasons as No. XXI. No. XXVII. On this question I have never been able to come to any con~ elusion satisfactory to my own mind. The only mention of it which can be found in the earlier writings of the Craft is in the Charges prepared by ANDERSON in 1721, and approved by the Grand Lodge in 1722, and Which were Hubsequently altered and amended in the second edition in 1723, and again in the edition of 1738, thereby proving that these Charges were deficient under the test of being prin~lpl~s


Appendim.

1872.J

113

unchanO'eable. This one was altered both times. And, again, the same parawhich ihis principle is laid down contradicts itself. It says, U All preterrnent among Masons is grounded upon real worth and personal merit only, therefore no Master or Warden is chosen by seniority, but.for his merit."

graph

to

No. XXXIII. This should be classed as a Local Regulation. In the first clause '~the Master and Wardens of every warranted lodge must be chosen annually by its members," I concur, but dissent from the remainder for the following reasons: In some jurIsdictions the elections are held on or before the festival of st. John the Baptist; in others on or before the festival of either of the Saint& John, leaving it to the choice of the particular lodges. Again, if Masonry was established, as claimed by some, under the shadow of the rising walls of Solomon'S Temple, at what season of the year did our earl~'" brethren hold their elections, from that time until the time that June the twenty-fourth and Deceruber the twenty-seventh were selected by the Christian Ch.urch as the festal days of those truly great men? In many jurisdictions it has been decided that an officer can resign, the only argument to the contrary being the installation obligation, which we find varies in nearly every ceremony, as given in the several text books and monitors which we have examined; in some of the earlier ODes it being entirely omitted; and we cannot tind any mention of it in the Anderson Constitutions. No. XXXVI. Lodges" under dispensation" is an invention of the last one hundred years, and therefore nothing appertaining to them can be classed as a Landmark. No. XXXVII. The present organization of Grand Lodges, consisting of the Master and Wardens of particul:tr lodges, originated about 1724, prior to which Ume all the brethren, Entered Apprentices, and F'ellow Crafts, as well as all Master Masons, were entit,led to be present and vote in Grand Lodge on all questions; therefore this principle is deficient in antiquity, and, as it is denied by some Grand Lodges, it wants unIversality. No. XLI. The American doctrine of Grand Lodgejul'isdiction is the growth

oftha present century, and is denied by nearly all the European Grand Lodges;

therefore, deficient in antiquity and universality, and every princlple based on it must be denied the bonor of being a Landmark. No. XLV. The Grand MastE'r can only issue dispensations for new lodges on st1ch conditions as his Grand Lodge may see fit to pre~cribe. What, then, becomes of his prerogative if the Grand Lodge should see :fit to impose some condition with whicn it would be impossible to comply? The Grand Master owes his very existence to the Grand Lodge, and derives all his powers from it, the Grand Lodge being the legislative and. he the executive brancb of the government, and has only such powers as the Grand Lodge may see fit to attach to the otnce. And the body WhiCh creates an office and invests it with power can most certainly increase, decrease, or entirely change those powers. Under whicb oondi tions, what becomes of official prerogatives? Therefore I am compelled to pronounce against XLVI, X LVII, XLV lIlt XLIX, and L, being classed as Landmarks. I would therefore reduce the number of Landmarks, as reported by your committee, from fifty-one to thirty-three, as follows: Reject Nos. 13, 14, 16,20, 21, 22, '2:7, 33, 36, 37, 41, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49 and 50. Whenever a doubt has existed in my mind I have allowed it to be overruled by tlhe judgment of the chairman ofthe committee, who has devoted much time to a very careful and laborious investigation of the subject. All of which is respectfully submitted. it

lS,

WM. A. M. VAN BOKKELEN,

of Committee. We hardly think it necessal'Y to ask pardon for the introduction of these two reports from as able brethren as there are in the United States, as they will repay perusal by every Mason in Missouri. We do not endorse, individually, all that is set forth, but we believe in our in telligent Craftsmen havi ng an opportunityof getting all the light they can, especially upon so important a SUbject. The table alluded to includes the thirty-one Landmarks enumerated by New York-25 by Mackey, 15 by SimonS and 19 by Lockwood, which we do not republish, as they ean be readily referred to. Geo. Robinson, Washo City, Grand Master; .T. C. Currie, Virginia, Grand Secretary; Robert H. Taylor, Virginia, Committee on Correspondence.

B8


114

.Appendix.

[Oct.

NORTH CAROLINA. Grand Lodge met in Raleigh, December 4, 1871. Chas. O. Olark, Grand :Mastel', presided. The annual address gives anything but a flattering state of affairs in that State, unless the Grand Master has overdrawn the picture, and judging from the manner in "\vhich he speaks of non-affiliates (per example) we rather think he has taken a morbid view of things generally. No decisions reported. The following extraordinary resolution was adopted: No.2. Resolved, That the Masters of all subordinatE' lodges within thejurisdiction of this Grand Lodge, be required within three months after the close of this Grand Lodge, to give notice to all non-affiliated ~1asol1s within their jurisdiction to ~onnect thernselves With some lodge, and if after such lloti('(.\ they ~hal1 for twelve months fail to do so, said subordinate lodges shall expel such Masons from all the rights and privileges of l\1:asonry. This is somewhat in accordance with the ultra views of the Grand :Master, and apart from the palpable injustice of such a law, it is bound to react upon the Craft at large in the State. In the first resolution we find that l\tlasons have had the legal right to din1it without giving any particular rea SOD , and now because th€'J" exercised that right they have got to be" expolled." The edict, it will be seen, leaves no opt/ion to the lodges in the trial, but" shall expel" not.. withstanding the poor vIctim may hitve tried every month to get into a louge. Snch a law is too absurd to discuss, and it only proves the inevitable result of ultra legislation. In taking the vote on report, the" Previous Question " was called-the admis5ibility of such a call was disputed, and the Grand Master decided the" call " as admissible! His decision was based on Sec. 7, Art. 2, of Grand Lodge By-Laws, which, by referring to our copy, we find saying, "on all other matters the rules which generally govern deliberative assemblies shall be observed." It is the first time we have ever heard of the" Previous Question" in a Mabonic Body, and we trust that "Sec. 7" will be repealed if it justifies any such decision. It overrides every right, and the justice belongIng to a minority-and it was in" vented for that purpose. Brother Donald W. Bain, Grand Secretary, submitted another excellent report on correspondence. Under the head of COLORADO, he says: He refers to our action in passing the resolution forbidding what are called Mock Masonic burial services, and remarks that he sees no objection to a lodge of sorrow, and faUs to understand by what. process of Masonw argurnellt we took such action. 'l'hat our position may be understood, though it is not a very important wH,tter, we state that tlle resolution did not prohibit lodges ofs0rrow, but \-vas intendeu to prevent lodges gOIng through the forlH of burial a,t the grave of a brother prevIously buried WIthout lVlasOIllC hOllors, neither did it prohibit lodges haVing juu.e1·al services at the grave, whenever they thought proper to have the tuneral.

We have heard of SOlne of these second-hand burials before, and we fl1 11y agree \vith N'orth Carolina on the subject. God knows ,ve have actual funerals enough without hunting thl'ough a cemetery to tind some brother wbo was buried ,perhaps years ago) without the" honors." Such" honors" are" too easy" to be counted in a straight game. Under the head of LOUISIANA, he says: Brother Scot dissents from our Grand Master Vance's derision that an offieer can be iust ·!led by proxy. He considers 1t radically wrong and remarks that H i1 a brother can be installed by proxy, why may not the degrees be conferred by proxy." He, however, does not state his reasons for his opinion.


1872.J

Appendix.

115

As we presume Brother Scot's reasons are the same as our own, we will advance them. viz: that no installation is worth a cent without an obligation, and if the officer can take that O. B. by proxy, sQ can he the degrees. That is all路 He seems to favor the recognition of Quebec, and relative to that subject we refer to our report und er head of MAINE. The whole report of Brother Bain is good and evinces great care. Chas. C. Clark, (no residence,) Grand Master; Donald W. Bain, Raleigh, Grand Secretary.

NEW YORK. Grand Lodge met in New York, June 4, 1872. John H. Anthon, Grand Master, presided. A very large Dumber ,of lodges were represented. The Annual Address is a brief, practical document. The following are his" parting words of advice:" 1. The prosperity and honor of tbe fraternity cannot be maintained solely by Grand Masters or Grand Lodges; it III ust be sustained by the temperate, upright, pure lives and conduct in and out of the lodge of all the brethren. The conduct of brethren in leaving the lodge, or elsewhere, may do more injury to the fraternity than any outward assault. 2. In lodges perhaps the two most potent evils are: The misuse of the black ball. In either case by ballot for an improper candidate or black-balling a proper candidate, and in all cases where a ballot is cast with an unworthy motive, the lodge is defrauded by the act and the obligation of a Mason violated. The second great evil in a lodge is electioneering for office. Masonic office, to be honorable to the holder or useful to the craft, must come unsought, certainly never intrigued for. 3. In the election of officers, and especially of Masters, there is a definite compact made. If the Master is bound by the charges of his office the members are bound to love and respect him, to trust bim, and above all things to go to him with all their grievances as the first and best counsellor. 4. In the Grand Lodge: 1. Keep quiet :'lnd obey the gavel. 2. When business is going on, don't expect to be allowed to go in and out. 3. Don't debate any question unless you understand both sides of it. 4. Refer to the second rule for lodges as to the election of officers. Among the standing committees appointed, we find twenty-seven members on "Exemplification of Work." If that committee is not large enough to set a Grand Lecturer crazy, it is because he has a cast iron head. . The Grand Lodge recognized the Grand Lodges of "Utah" and "British Oolumbia." The Committee on Correspondence submitted the following, which was adopted: 3. Re8olved, That the Grand Lodge of New York again asserts its adherence to the doctrine of the supreme and exclusive jurisaiction of every regular Grand Lodge within the territorial limits of the State, Territory or Province wherein it is located; and therefore it will under any and all circumstances assert, and aId in asserting, the rights of every such Grand Lodge, whenever its jurisdiction shall be infringed. This sounds a good deal like theatrical tin thunder, after reading the follo"ring in their report on MISSOURI: Rig.ht Worshipful Brother George Frank Gouley presented the report of the Commlttee on Foreign Correspondence, in which he makes fraternal mention of New York, and argues over again the Q,uebec question. We disposed of that


116

Appendix

[Oct.

matter last year, so far as our own Grand Lodge is concerned, and we can :see little use in discussing it again. But we must quote Brother Gouley's last paragraph on the subject, to-wit: "There is but one conclusion of the New York Committee which can be arrived a1 viz.: That political subdivision is subversive of Grand Lodge Sovereignty. ,tl"or one, we cannot endorse any such heresy." And we say we cannot endorse any such nonsense, and never did-and we didn't arrive at any sucb conclusion. Let us " put this and that toget!J.er " and see how it looks. In the first place the "Grand Lodge of Canada" had a certain detlned "supreme and exclusive jurisdiction" within the territorial limits of the the State, Territory or Province wherein it [was] located, viz: The Province of Upper and Lower Canada, and so recognized in years gone by, by the Grand Lodge of New York; but because a "political subdivision" took place and cut the jurisdiction of that Grand Lodge in half, the Grand Lodge of New York in 1871 recognized the two halves, and thereby recognized the rebellious Grand Lodge of Quebec, which recognition we then said, and say now, wasa heresy of "political subdivision" which subverted Grand Lodge sovereignty, and saId we could endorse no such heresy. The New York Committee say the~T cannot endorse it either, and never did U endorse any such nonsense." Here we have:the magnificent spectacle of the same committee being able to say that they will sta,ud by and die by, if necessary, Grand Lodge sovereignty, and yet in the same breath cut that sovereignty in half, simply because a political power in the Legislature says so. If this is not a clear case of "soft shell crab" going back on itself, then we do not understand anything about" sea sickness," and are not, therefore, surprised that the committee decided that there was "little use in discussing it again." Had we been caught in such a" double" mouthed trap as that., we should have come to the same conclusion. The following petition was received: 'lb the M. ~~ (}rand Lodge of F'ree and Accepted Masons of the State of ...7\r.. ew York: We, the undersigned, l\1aster Masons in good standing, and under the jurisdiction of the M. W. Grand Lodge of the State of New York, respectfully beg to call your attention to the discontent prevailing among the fraternity in relation to sectarianism in Masonry. Repeated complaints against the pr~sent !llode of dedicating lodges to the Uhrist.ian Saints, and other Christian allusions, in the ritual, have been luade. It is alleged that those practices are not only con~ trary to the pledge given at initiatiou, and in direct opposition to the well known oosmopolltan principles of the institution, but t.hat the St. John'H Legend is a very recent fabrication of some over..zealous sectarian, based u~on a so-called tradition, without the slightest evidence to substantiate it. flhis question has been extensively discussed in the Masonic Journals, both in Europe and America, and it has been also shown that the Grand Lodge of England had alread;v" made the concessions due to truth and consistency, nearly sixty' years ago. \Vhile this Grand Lodge, with commendable promptness, had repeatedly complained against the nnmasonic conduct of the Grand Lodges of Prussia, on account of their refusal to admit Jews Into the fraternity, it appeal'S strange and inconsistent that it should at the same time have suffered cO,mplaints of sectarianism in Masonry to remain so long unredressed or disregarded, upon the specious pretext of inexpediency. We therefore respectfully petition your honorable body to appoint a COlnmittee to examine the points complained of, who shall invite the aggrieved parties to presellt their caste before them, and who shall report thereon at the meeting of the Grand Lodge in 1878â&#x20AC;˘ .i\..nd we further respectfully beg to suggest that t,he report or reports of the said committee shall be printed and circulated among the members of the Grand Lodge, at least thirty days before its meet.ing in 1873. so that all n1ay know the natnre of the grievances, and be better prepared to act understandingly. Which ,vas referred to t.he Committee on Work and Lectures, who submitted the following: "Resolved, That the prayer of the petitioners be granted." Adopted. Brother Enoch P. Breed submitted the report on correspondence, which is well pl'epare'd and is a very interesting document.


Appendix.

1872.]

117

We agree with him that the W. M. should not be clothed with the power to postpone a ballot on his own discretion; also, that a lodge cannot adj ourn ; also, that it is better to fling the landmarks to the wind thaln not to stick up to them. He expresses the hope that the Grand Secretary of New York be allowed to send more than one copy of proceedings to each Grand Lodge, and we hope so too. It is childish to talk about saving fifty cents, in order to compel foreign correspondents to do fifty dollars worth of transcribing. Come," New York," give us duplicates, for we have cut into our single copy and wl.ll tak~ the chances whether we ever get another one or not. In looking over t.his report we have become almost cross-eyed in trying to find out original matter from quotations. The latter should be printed" solid." We give up in despair. Weare under obligations to the committee for European repo~ts, which we shall use with due credit. " Christopher G. Fox, Bu:ffalo, Grand Master; jas. M. Austin, M. D., New York, Grand Secretary.

OHIO. Grand Lodge met in Mansfield, October 17,1871. Alexander H. Newcomb, Gra.nd Master, presided. He issued dispensations for three new lodges. Among his decisions we notice the following: Duri.ng the month of May I granted permission to seV"erallodges to turn out a..~ Lodges on the 30th day of May, to assist in the ceremony of decorating the graves of our fallen heroes. The italics are ours. So far as paying respect to the memory of" fallen heroes" we abate nothing in our respect with anyone on earth, but we want the term fully defined from a :Masonic standpoint. A ,. hero," says Webster, is U a man of distinguished valor, intrepidity, or enterprise in danger; as, a hero in arms:" also ., a great, illustrious, or ext.raordinary person; as, a hero in learning," &c., &c., without, any reference to nationality or the cause in which he died. '.rhe Grand Master in his decision says" our" heroes. Who is meant by OUR in this instance? Did the Grand Lodge of Ohio ever equip regiments to :fight for anything? If she did, then she bad he1~ heroes, if they died in a good cause and died like brave men. If Dot, then she has paid homage by that decision to somebody else's heroes. Whose were they? We presume of the State. If of the State, then in what conflict did they fall-in 1776, 1812,1847,1861, or in Indian Wal'fal'e? From the day set apart, (30th of May) we judge it was of 1861-65. Every citizen of Ohio, as such, felt all interest in the matter, and it was beautiful and proper for them to pay reverence to their fellow citizens who fell in any struggle in which the state was interested. Where the Grand Lodge comes in as a party, we can not find out by any Masonic law or usage we ever read or heard of. Supposing Ohio had a giant (who was not a Mason) who gave a challenge to a pugilist in Kentucky and they got into a :tight, and the giant got killed; it would be ,just as proper for Masonic lodges to decorate his grave, as of those who fell in the late civil and bloody struggle between profanes o~ politIcal issue. We ~old that no Grand Lodge has any right to identify itself with any such performance outside of the fraternity. If the Grand J.\tJaster had allowed lodges, as such, to turn out and cast immortelles upon the graves of the pure and poor orphan girls and daughters of Master Masons, who sacrificed their lives by the midnight lamp, to support widowed and sick mothers and little sisters, rather than yield to temptation, then we should have honored him-as it is, we must condemn the decision. NE~

FEATURE AS TO DUES.

Brother George Rex offered the following, which was adopted: Resolved, That the several lodges under the jurisdiction of this Grand Lodge be and they are hereby authorized to so amend their by-laws as to receive


118

Appendix.

[Oct.

:trom their members a sum of money, not less in amount than fifteen dollars in lieu of annual dues; and to provide for the investment of the funds received. in lieu of such annual dues. Resolved, That any subordinate lodge adopting sucb amendment shall no.. tify the Grand Master an d Grand Secretary by mail of such amendment and thereafter such amendment shall be in force in such lodge. t MASONIC JUJ:USPRUDENCE.

Bro, ASA H. BATTIN, from standing committee, submitted report as follows: The Committee on Masonic Jurisprudence having discharged the duties assigned them, now report: 1. 'Ve have examined so much of the annual address of the M, W. Grand Master as relates to his action in arresting the work of Locust Grove Lodge, No, 36.5.

In view of the fact that the object which he had in view in arresting the work of Locust Grove Lodge bas been fully accomplished, and the lodge having sent to the Grand Lodge a delegate and its charter, as required by the order arresting its work and believing that the brethren composing the lodge are active, zealous anaJ devoted Masons, who are anxious to preserve our ancient tenets unsullied, we recommend that the charter be returned to them, and that the lodge be authorized to resume work under the officers who were elected and installed therein in 1869, who shall continue as such until their successors shall be elected and installed according to the provIsions of Rule 1 of the Oode or :Masonic Jurisprudence: P'l'ovided, that before resuming work the lodge shall pay to the Grand Secretary its annual dues for the year 1871, for which it is now in arrears to the Grand Lodge. 2. We haye also considered the letter of Bro. John Gwynn, of Tiffin, the accompanying papers, and the resolution offered by Bro. Pike, of Toledo, together with so much of the address of the M. W. Grand Master as relates to the manufacture and sale of intoxicating liquors. So far as we are adVised, the manufacture and sale of alcoholic liquors at wholesale, and under certain restrictions at retail, are not prohibited by the statutes of Ohio or of the United States. So far as the sale of such liquors isnot prohibited bylaw thetrafIic therein is legal; and 'we are clearly ofopinion that being engag~d in a legitirnate business should not subject a brother to masonic discipline. vv'l"e are as clearly of the opinion thaL a Mason should not be permitted to habitually, willfully and knOWingly violate the provisions of any statute of the State of Ohio or of the United States, and that such violation on his part should subject him to masonic discipline. By the action of this Grand Lodge, at its annual communication in 1866, it declared that" a person who is engaged in any business or OCCU.. pation which is forbidden, and against the exercise of which penalties are denounced by any law of this State or of the United Rt.ates, cannot be made a Mason." We think that a doubt as to the exact condition of the laws governing the subordinate lodges within the jurisdiction of this Grand Lodge, upon this subject, cannot reasonably exist in the mind of any well-informed Mason, but to make assurance doubly sure, we offer for adoption the following resolution: Resolved, That a brother who is engaged in any business or occupation which is forbidden, and against the exercise of which penalties are denounced by any law of the State of Ohio or of the United States, is for such act properly SUbject to Masonic discipline. This presents another feature of the arbitrary exercise of the powers of Grand Masters. Here was an instance in which a lodge composed ( as the com.. mittee say) of "active, zealous and devoted l\Iasons who are anxious to pre.. serve our ancient tenets unsullied," elected a Warden in good standing to the office of Worshipful Master, in pursuance of chartered rights to elect whom they saw fit, but because he sold liquor, the Grand Master arrested the Oha'rter 01 the Lodge. The Worshipful Master was under no charges, and there is nothing in the report to show that he viOlated allY law of the State or of the Grand Lodge, yet by a simple movement of the hand with a pen in it, a live and good lodge is Wiped out of existence. If the WorshipfUl Master did wrong, he should have been suspended from office and tried by the Grand Lodge, and for aught that we can find in the law of that. Grand Lodge (and we have examined the whole of it,) there is nothing that would nOli as fully justify the G. M. in arresting a Charter for the initiation of a man who made clothes lines whereby other people might hang themselves. We would be the last to reflect upon any Grand Master for maintaining the moral integrity of the Oraft, but we do not hesitate to


1872.J

Appendix.

119

enter our protest against such a summary proceeding as the one before us. It is not the right way to do it, and only causes a reaction which must eventually defeat the object aimed at. We insist that lodges have rights which eyen Grand Masters are bound to respect. SoIDe good brother, whose name we cannot find, submitted a most excellent report on correspondence. We regret that it is all printed in "solid" type instead of setting up quotations" solid" and original matter" leaded." It is almost inlpossible to get" head or tail" of the t'wo classes of matter, and this will be 0111' excuse for not giving it a more extended report, as we have not time to read every word. Under thE> head of MISSOURI, be quotes our Grand Master's reference to Hazen Lodge, No. 251, of Ohio, and California Lodge, No. ISS, of Missouri, and says: The Grand Master is right, and it is the duty of this Grand Lodg~ to inquire into this nlatter. One part of the decIsion of Grand l\1aster l\luir we disa... gree with; that is, " the recipient of its favors can not, under such Circumstances be recognIzed as a Mason." The "recipient" ~"as duly and legally made a Mason, so tar as any act of his was concern ed. He possesHed all the q ualificaMons requll>ed by our ancient landmarks. Jurisdiction is only a modern invention. J{ossnth, a fe\v years ago, received the Blue Lodge degrees in CinC'innati, and no object,iol1 was made. Masons of thirty ;y'ears' standing will renlember that thejurisdiction of a Lodge was "from east to west, between the north and tIle south," with height and depth to the extent of our imaginatioll. But Grand Lodges in their wisdom, and that we may be fairly understood, let us add very wisef.lJ, Hdopted a modern jurisdictionallal1dmark, and it should be rigidlyeniorced. California Lodg;e, No. 183,1\10., is entitled to the fees of passing and raisIng the "recipient;" willIe the" recipient" must depend upon his good Illoral and masonic character with the brethren of California Lodge, No 183, ~10.,forbis membership there. If the recipient miRrepresented the facts to Hazen Lodge, No. 251, Ohio, Hazen Lodge ought to expel him; and even then, such action should be taken against Hazen Lodge as the Grand Lodge of Ohio sees proper. And if the recipient fairly represented the nlatter to Hazen Lodge, its charter should be declared by the Grand Lodge forfeited. The recipient, however, at present, is as much entitled to be recognized as a Mason as any Mason in Ohio. He is opposed to the recognition of ~uebec, and we refer to so much of our report on that case as we have submitted under the head of MAINE. Alexander H. Newcomb, Toledo, Grand Master; John D. Caldwell, Cincinnati, Grand Secretary; Allan T. Brinsmade (no residence,) Committee on 001'respondence~

PENNSYLVANIA. Grand Lodge met in Philadelphia, Dec. 27, 1871. Grand Master, presided.

Robert A. Lamberton,

From the report of the "Committee on Landmarks" we extract the following: A. B - , residing at C--, nearer to D-- than to E--, presented his peti-

tion for initiation and membership to J-- Lodge No. - at E - . Tl'aat lodge

made inquiry of - - Lodge No. -

at D-- whether there was any lVlasonic objection to receiving his petition and making him a Mason and member of said Lodge No. -. After "consideration and discussion," both as to "jurisdiction and the mau," the SeC'retary was "directed to transmit a negative answer properly authenticated." Lodge No. - at E - , app't'oved the candidate and initiated bim. - - Lodge No. - at D-, complain/:; of this proceeding as an invasion of her jUl~isdiction, and asks the Right Worshipful Grand Lodge to ndjudicate the question of a lodge's territoorial jurisdiction, that the harmony which ought to exist between neighboring lodges may not be disturbed. The principle ofjurisc1iction as assumed in the question presented b y - - Lodge is founded in misapprehension. rrl1ere is no law In this jurisdiction obligatory upon H,n applicH,ut for initiation and mernbership requiring hiln to present his petition to the lodge nearest his residence. The notion is based $


AppendiaJ.

120

[Oct.

upon regnlations which obtain in other societies of a bene:tlcial character. and which quietly and gradually has been gathering strength among certain of Our brethren until they could enforce it as a rule of Masonic practice. It is a growth of later years. It never has existed as a regulation in .this jurisdiction. He who believes himself possessed of the necessary q1?-alifl~a~lons,and has the earnest desire to become a Free Mason may present hIS petItlon wherever he will. In this he is controlled by the wish to become a meruber of a lod~e wherein may be his friends or associates, or from motives of personal convenIence. The nearestl lodge geographically might require a journey of hours over a country road, whilst a half hour by rail might carry him to a lodge at a greater distanc"e from his residence. .. But whilst this Grand Lodge bas expressly held that" there is no landmark or positive prohibition against a lodge conferring Masonic rights and prifvileges on tho.<Je who are worthy and cornpetent to receive them," who may reside nearer to other lod~es. ".tIet the 'Propriety of .~trict inqtlJiry and d'7.!Je examination in regard to an applicant .~eeking these benejlf.rs," is also so distinctly recognized, that noMce to the lodge, within the conventional bounds of which he 'inay reside" has been declared t,o ba'V'e grown almost "into a Masonic custom." It will be observed that there is a marked and emphasized distinction between an exclusive territorial right to receive and act upon a pE'tition for initiation and membership, and the positive duty of making due inquiry into qualifications. U

When a lodge receives snch a petition, which must distinctly state the resi.. dence of the applicant, from one who resides nearer to another lod~e, it shoUld inquire of the lodge nearest the place of residence of the applicant, whether there exists a Masonic objection to his being: made a Mason. 'l'his objection mnst be a Masonio dIsqualification. Residence nearer another lodge is not such a disqualification. As your committee is not ,,' invested with powers of an appellate jurisdic~ tion," bllt are simply to pass upon questions "touching the Ancient Landmarks, Customs, Usages, and the Constitution, Rules and RegUlations of the Grand Lodge of Pen..lsylvania/' we here might rest this report, bnt for the purpose of providing rules for the guidance of the lodges, so that while ancient custom is not infringed, there may be due comity observed, your committee present the following, in the nature of reg:ulations to be obeyed in cases where a petiti 0 n for initlatiol1 and membership is presented to any lodge at a greater distance than another from the petitioner'S place of residence: 1. The lodge receiving such a petition shall inqUire of the lodge nearest the residence of the applicant if there is any Masonic objection to his being made a Mason. 2. No lodge shall ballot upon a favorable report of a committee of inquiry in such a case, until the lodge to which the foregoing inquiry has been addressed shall have replied that thoce is no such obJection, or until a full and sufficient time has elapsed to enable a reply to be received. 3. If the committee shall report in favor of the applicant, and there shall be received from the lodge nearest the place of his re~idence a reply t,hat there is a Masonic objection, no balloting shall be had, but the applicant shall have leave to withdraw his petition. Provided, That in any city or town in which two or more lodges may be located, a resident of such city or town may apply to either of such lodges. If any lodge located outside of the city of Philadelphia shall receive a petition from a resident of said city, the lodge shall forward the inquiry whether any Masonic objection exists to the applicant beIng made a Mason, to the R. W. Grand Secretary, who shall refer such inquiry to such lodge or lodges in said city as he shall deem proper. Your committee, therefore, oIfer the following: Resolved, That the foregoing recommendations be adopted as rules to be observed by the Lodges in all cases where they shall receive a petition from an applicant for initiation and membership who resides nearer to another lodge than the one to which the petition is presented. Resolved, That as it was tlae question of territorial jurisdiction which was asked by - Lodge at D. to be decided, and as it does not seem to have been any wilful violation of Masonic propriety on the part of the lodge at E. in approving and entering A. B - , the restriction against his advancement be removed. We have given this report in full for the benefit of our Missouri craft, in order that they may know how to transact business with petitioners from Pennsylvania. A citizen from Pennsylvania may apply wherever he pleases,


1872.J

Appendix.

121

but they expect us or others to get a recommendation from his nearest lodge, (Dot a waiver of jurisdiction,) and any Missourian could apply at any time in Pennsylvania, and all they ask is a report as per Resolution 3. It will be observed that this entirely ignores the universal American idea of Grand Lodge jurisdiction. It, is unfortunate, because it is an exception to the best rule of international harmony. For the sake of the perfect harmony and brotherly love which now and ahvaYR has existed betwe-en l\1issDuri and Pennsylvania, we sincerely hope that none of their lodges will put through any Missourianf' until they shall have acquired a bona fide residence in that State, otherwise there" might be trouble in the family," an event which none would deplore more than ourselves. Our law prohibits any of our lodges from receiving ::lny petition from one who has not acquired an actual citizenship of twelve months at least. Out of the 190 applicants for relief we find none from Missouri. The Building Committee, of which Brother S. C. Perkins is the very abl~ Chairman, rendered a very full and encouraging report. The following was adopted; Resolved, That the action and operations of the Building Committee up to this datiâ&#x201A;Ź' be approved. Resol?1ed, That in addition to the unexpended balance now in the hands of the Trustees of the Building Fund. the sum of $300,000 be and the same is bereb)r appropriated for the use of the Building Committee during the coming year. The building is not onlya monument of the generosity and sagacity of the Grand Lodge of Pennsylvania. but a national masonic glory, as we can well testily, after being shown entirely through it by the present, Grand Master and his private secretary, in July last. The outgoing Grand Master reflected great credIt upon his State, and that he was a close observer of " matters and things," the following, which we extract from his address, will prove: But there are other duties equally plain and which 0-0 sOlnetimes unnoticed. When a visitor enters his lodge the Worshipful Mftster should see that the Junior Deacon ('ourteously provides him with a seat. That code of politeneSR orgood manners Wfi,S framed in no Masonic school, which permits a Visiting Brother to look helplessly around in search of some vacant spot in which he roa~' place himself. The visitor who is lawfullyadIuitted to a MasoniC" lodge bears with him his letters patent entitling him to a fraternal welcome. ..."\.1though his eountenance is unfamiliar, he is no stranger. A mer.aber of our great family, he should be the recipient of hospitable greeting, and be not perlnitted to depart without some cordial word of welcome. An opportunity should be afforded him, privately if he will it to state whence and why he came. If he need it, a~sistance by counselor otherwise must be given. It is. a very ancient charge" That every Mason receive and cherish strange Fellows when they come over the countryhand set them on work, if they will work as the manner is; that is to say, if t e Mason have any mould stone in his place, he shall give hIm a mould stone and set him on work i and if he have none the Ma~on shall refresh him with money unto the nextloage." Very important duties also rest upon the Tyler. and these the Worshipful Master should also require to be well performed. Compensated for his services, besides guarding the lodge against improper intruSion or disturbance from Without, be must see that the lodge room is properly prepared for the meetings. This duty in some parts of this jurisdict,ion is slovenly or negligently attended to; for there are Tylers who seem ignorant of the blessing of the vast bel t of fresh all' which encircles us. Atthe close of the lodge, when the Brethren have departed, the door is shut to be opened a month afterwards, when the time for another meeting has come. In the mean while there bas been no ventilation, and from month to month the Brethren are assembled in a room fetid with foulness, reeking with sickening odors, to inhale an atmosphere charged with impurity, and pregnant WIth disease. If, making their escape when the hour of closing is reached, they are not in the condition of the traveler in the Highlands, two cent,uries ago, as d~scrjbed by Macaulay's" half poisoned," half blind," and" halt" mad," it is through no good works of the Tyler. The lodge should be made anq kept clean. 1t should be well aired before and after each meeting. It should always be well lighted, and in winter comU


122

Appendix.

[Oct.

fortably heated. And if a Tyler fails to have it in this condition, the Worship.. ful1rIaster should know the reason why. There is a vast amount of good sense in the foregoing, and we commend it to all our lodges. We regret that our space will not permit further extracts on other subjects. The present Grand Master, Bro. Perkins, in his inaugural address, says: It is appropriate at this point to refer to the practice of electioneering for of.. fice, WhICh is a great and growing evil. The Grand Officers have been aston.. isbed to learn that it has been carried to sucll an extent that printed Ci1"Culw',1l have been sen t O'ltt soliciting for the senae?" the 1:otes of the b'rethren, with ticket.s en.. closed. Tllis is unmasonic and wrong, and will not be tolerated in this juriRdiction. Every brother should feel bound to serve his lodge in any office to which he may be chosen or appointed, unless prevented by good andsufIiclentreason!'.l And a quiet and prOulpt discharge of his duties as a member of' the lodge-a diligent attendance upon the meetings,and a careful attention to thework WhIle it is going on-a zealous and watchful regard for the interests of the lodge, added to the proper capacity and intelligence, cannot fail in due time to receive t.h~ merited commendation of the brethren, and their unsolicited mark of appro.. bation by election to office. We think the "Grand Officers" may well "have been astonished." We never heard of such a thing before, and those guilty of it should be expelled if found at such a trick after due warning. Bro. Robert J. Fisher submitted the report on correspondence, but in accordance with the views of that jurisdictioD, he unfortunately confines himself to extracts, and gives no views of his own, with but very few exceptions. We wish it were otherwise ordered. For ourselves, we do not consider the decis.. ions and reports of other jurisdictions so immaculate that we cannot criticise them. Samuel C. Perkins, Philadelphia, G. M.; John Thomson, l\lasonic Temple, Philadelphia, G. Sec.; Wm. Aug. Atlee, Lodge No. 43, Committee on Correspondence.

SOUTH CAROLINA. Grand Lodge met in Charleston, Nov. 21, 1871. Robert S. Bruns, Deputy Grand Master as Grand Master, presided.

Wm. K. Blake, Grand Master, submitted his address. Of the condition of the Craft, he says: Our information from the various sections of this jurisdiction affords satisfactory evidence of increasing prosperity; not so much from the number of new lodges or the increased number of applicants for the degrees of Ma~onry, as from the intelligent, zeal and active efforts put. forth in many places to guard well the door of the lodge-room-to insist upon a more strict observance of the cardinal virtues, and a more fai tht"ul practice of the noble tenets of our pro.. fession. This we are glad to learn from a State that has suffered all the tortures of an inquisition. DECISIONS.

1. It is unmasonic for any member of a lodge to inform another how he

balloted on any petition, to ask to know how another has balloted, or to communicate such knowledge if possessed. The secrecy of the ballot being obligatory upon all. II. There is no obligation to prefer charges against a brother who petitions for affiliation and is rejected, as his masonic standing is not =:'t1fected by such rejection. Neither is a member voting against a candidate for the 2d or 3d degree under obligation to prefer charges against the petitioner. III. A Master may preside over a lodge under dispensation without having flrst received the degree of Past Master. IV. l\!embers of lodges under dispensation must pay dues to parent lodge until dimitted, or constituted into a new lodge. V. Candidates for the degrees of Masonry must be able to read and write and sign the petition in their own handwriting.


1872.J

Appendix.

123

VI. A lodge should not receive the petition of a candidate under the age of twenty-one. VIr That charges against a bI'other do not, before trial, render him ineligible to office or suspend him from office, he being entitled to the presumption of innocence till the charges be proved. VIII That an abuse of the right of ballot for candidates by a brother is a disciplinable offense; and if a brother waive his privilege of secrecy, and avow an unworthy motive for balloting aga~nst a candidate, he is subject to charges. IX That the obligations of all Masons require them to abstain from gambling, 'profane swearin~, intemperance and evil speaking t a!1d ,that the habitual practice of these VIces demand of tbe lodges prompt dlsclpl1ne. We flnd nearly eight pages devoted to an appeal case with all the charges and evidence in full. When they get as m.any lodges as we have, the committee and Grand Lodge will be satisfied with printing the "conclusions." We regret that the Grand Secretary did not have SUB-HEADINGS inserted in the proceedings. It is an awful task to ha.ve to read a whole page to :find out what the committee reported. Relative to Q,uebec, we refer to our report under the head of MAINE. Brother B. Rush Campbell submitted a brief report on correspondence, giving merely a summary of events. We think a right good book-printer could find a place in Charleston, judging from the SUb-heading in this report. States and" SUn1mary" are all in the same type. Robert Stewart Bruns, Charleston, Grand Master; B. Rush Campbell, Charleston, Grand ~ecretary and Committee on Correspondence.

TENNESSEE. Grand Lodge met in Nashville, Nov. 13, 1871. Jno. C. Brown, Grand Master, presided. We flnd no decisions reported. We find the follOWing extraordinary action taken between Tennessee and Kentucky. The flrst quoted is the edict No. 24 of the former State, and the Grand Master says: "That this Grand Lodge freely concedes to the Lodges in all the adjoining States, upon our borders, the right and privilege of receiving and initiating iuto their lodges citizens of Tennessee residing on our borders, whose residences shall be nearer such lodge than to any lodge in Tennessee, or who may choose to apply for the t:;ame, in as full, free, and ample a manner as they receive the citizens of their own States respectively." Receiving no reply to tbis letter and regarding the matter as very important to our subordinate lodges on the border I commissioned our Grand Secretary, R. W. John Frizzell, who was going to Louisville, to visit the Grand Lodge of Kentucky. then about to hold its Annual Communication, and endeavored to BE-CUre an amicable and just basis of settlement of the question. His efforts resulted in the follOWing proceedings and resolutions by that body: M. W. GRAND LODGE OF KENTUCKY FREE AND ACCEPTED MASONS, LOUISVILLE, KENTUCKY, October 18,1871. At the seventy-second Annual Communication of the M. W. Grand Lodge of Kentucky, October, 1871, the follOWing proceedings were had: The Special Committee, to whom a portion of the address of the M. W. Grand :Master was reterred, submitted the I'ollowing report, whicb was adopted: The Special Cornmittee, to whom was referred so much of the address of the M. W. Grand lVIaster as relates to H territorial encroachments,n have considered the SUbject, and submit the following as the result of their conclusions: While the conlmittee are of opinion that, as a general rule, State lines should control the territorial jurisdiction of the subordinate lodges, yet, in consideration of the fact that, many years ago, the M. W. Grand Lodge of Tennessee adopted an edict by whi'Ch It concedes to the lodges in all the adjoining States upon its borders the right of receiving and initiating citizens of that


124

Appendix.

[Oct.

State, whose residences shall be nearer such lodges than to any lodge in Tennessee; a:n.d as under this action many of t~~ lodges in Kentucky have received petItIons from, and made Mas.ons of, cltlz~ns of Tennessee-, and as a reciprocal arrangement upon such a baSIS seems equltable, and wIll accommudate those residing upon the borders, we recommend the adoption of th~ following resolutions: H 1. That any violation of territorial jurisdiction heretofore COIDlnitted by lodges on the borders of the two ~tates be not inquired into, and no farther 3('tlon upon the sUbject be taken. "2. That this Grand Lodge concedes to the lodges in Ten nessee the ri~hl receiying petitions from, and makin~ Masons of, citizens of this State resIding on our boruers, whose residence shall be nearer such lodge than to any lodge in Kentucky." J. M. S. l\IcCORKLE, Grand Secretary. This action evinees a fraternal spirit fUlly in consonance with the liberal provisions of Edict No. 24 of this Grand Lodge, and I commend it to your favorable consideration. It is the only case of the kind that we know of and certainly evinces a most remarkable spirit of compromise and fraternity. Brother George S. Blackie, as usual, submitted a very intelligent report on eorrespendence. He gives a very interesting and truthful report of the" Reporter's Oonvention," at Baltimore, in September, 187l. We regret that q notations are not printed "solid" and original matter H leaded;' as it would be a great aid to the reviewer. Under the head of ARKANSAS, he says: "A member appointed on a committee refused to act, stating that owing to his religious views he could no longer remain in a Masonic Lodge, and asking to be expelled and published. Expel him." And serve him rh;{ht. Under the head of QUEBEC, he says: _\.s this body occupies so much of the attention of the ~Iasolls of AIUf'rica and as the probability is that ere long there will be a settlement of the diffic\11~ ties existing between it and the Grand Lodge of Canada, we feel that our record would be incomplete without some further notice of its proceedings. But in the present state of affairs, we cannot recommend that the Grand Lodge of Tennessee extend its recognition to it as a Grand Lodge. What we say on this subject will be found under the head of MAINE. Wm. M. Dunaway, Jackson, Grand Master; D. R. Grafton, Chattanooga, Deputy Grand Master; John Frizzell, Nashville, Grand ~ecretary; Georgp S. Blackie, Nashville, Assistant Grand Secretary and Committee on Correspondence.

,e It is wi th great regret that we received a circular announcing the death of the Grand Master, Brother Dunaway, on the 22d of August. It is the first death of a Grand Master, while in office, in that jurisdiction. The subordinate lodges were directed to be draped in mourning for thirty days. We express our sincere sympathies to the craft of Tennessee.

TEXAS. Grand Lodge met in Houston, June 10, 1872. Wm. Bramlette, Grand Master, presided:

One hundred and nineteen lodges represented.


1872.J

.Appendix~

125

Eight dispensations issued by Grand Master for new lodges. Thirteen dispensations refused. Four dispensations issued to revive suspended lodges. DECISIONS.

ftlirst.-Case: Paris Lodge, No. 27, suspended Samuel J. Johnson for unmasonic conduct. An appeal was taken, and the Grand Lodge sustained the action of Subordinate Lodge. Rome months after." a motion was entered on the minutes of the lodge to reinstate the suspendea party. After laying over the uired time, the ease was called up for action, and pending discussion, a i:&nd of defendant withdrew the nlotion to reinstate, and requested the lodge to petition Grand Lodge for authority to re-try or re-investigate the case, as new evidencE' had been developed, that would probably relieve the party, to SCfIDI?' extent from the stigma of former findings. The lodge, willing to give defendant every 0;l?portunity to vindicate. hirp.self, c~mplied with the request; and ~1t the last Grand A.nnual CommunIcatIon, Parls Lodge was granted permission to re-try, etc. \Vhen the case was set for trial, the question was raised as to 5'\ald Johnson's status-whether the action of the Grand Lodge restored, or wht=>tlH).r the ban of suspension still rested upon hIm. The questIon being presented for roy official answer, I rendered the following: DECISION -New trials are usually based upon the action of Grand Lodae, reversing the decision of the subordinate, upon appeal, and remanding- lhe case for re-investigation. Such an order of Grand Lodge places the appellant in the same condition as before trial-merely under charges; and he has the rluht to be present in lodge during said ne"w trial; provided, a brother under charges ('an be considered in good standing-a question which is doubted bY some eminent Masonic 路writers. But the case before us is a peculiar one, in~olving a very delicate point in the Masonic code, which must necessarily diverge the line of our action from that pursued by other bodies, ~tnd the courts of the country, in similar caQes. Paris Lodge suspended baid Johnson for unmasonic conduct ~ on appeal, the Grand Lodge sustained the action of the }Subordinate. At the next Grand Annual Communication, by request of f:.o,id iodge a new trial \vas permitted. The question for Ollr consideration is: Does this act ion of Grand Lodge" reve'rse 'its fO'i"mer decision, and revoke the action of YO~l1路

lodge in the premi.~es ~

Without going back into the merits of the case, and discovering errors not noted before, the Grand f odge certainly co'u.ltl not do so without. great viol~)nc~ to her former deciRion, and n total disregard for t.11e judgment awarded by her subordinate. By reference to the proceedings of Grand Lodge in 1871, it will be f,een that that Grand Body did not re-investigate the case, but silnply acted upon the request of your lodge, asking new trial. As there might be some new d~velopments calculated to mitigate the offense, the Grand Lodge merely granted permiRsion to re-try, that allY new evidence might be considered; and should jnstice <.lernalld the comll1utation of the penalty, or even the acqUittal of defendant, that he should be so dealt with. The act of Iuerelv granting a new trial, either by Grand or Subordinate Lod~e, does not restore the former standing; there must be, either a reversal of the JudgIuellt, or ~t ~pecial provIsion of restoration. The Grand Lodge haVing laid down just and equi table rules governing trials, etc., her action must not be ronstrned a1'erse to t.hose rules, without a special provision or enactment thereon. Hence, it occurs to me that the status of defendant, as heretofore fixed by your longe, and confirmed by the Grand Lodg~, has not been disturbed, and will only be affected by the result. of the trial now on hand; and, as t hiR new trial is based upon the origiual charge au.l specifications, of course that status will be controlled bY' the action now pending. In this new trial, your lodge may increase the penalty-may mitigate, or may decide that defendant is not guilty of the charge; but until that is done, I conclude that Samuel J. Johnson stands in the s~'tme relation to Masonry that he did before the Grand Lodge ordered this new trial-a suspended Mason; and I80 decide.

Second.-In petitioning for new lodge, it is not deelned necessary to forward dlmits of non-affiliates tlO the Grand Master, or Grand Lodge, but to the lodge recomnlending the petition, which lodge should certify to the existence of the same, and carefully file them, that they rnay be returned to the brethren, should dispensation or charter not be granted.

Third.-Lodge No.1 erred in receiving and acting on petition for degrees, from a person residing within the jurisdictional limits of lodge No.2: and its action in the premises may be regarded as void; ~ret, if lodge No.1 acted in good faith, belieVing petitioner resided within its jurisdiction, Masonic courtesy, a.t least, should prevent lodge No.2 from any hasty action in the matter. WonLd suggest that lodge No.2 do not receive petition from same ~arty until twelve months shall have elapsed from time of rejection in lodge No.. l.

,


126

[Oct.

Append'iaJ.

Nevertheless No.2 can receive and act upon such pe~ition at any time, without reference to the action in No.1, as said lodge No.1 dId not acquIre jurisdiction nor control by its action. Fou'1路th.-Lodge dues run against a Mason, under s~spension for: non-payment of dues; but, if suspended for aIJy other cause, t'g e.re IS no regulatIon authoriz路 ing it. Being deprived of all the benefits al?-d pr~vlleges Mas~nry, we cannot, on reinstateluent, demand dues for the perIod of suspensIon, wIthout a special regulation by the Grand Lodge.

or

Fifth.-Q,uestion: "Is there any law to prevent lodges having called meetings for wO'1'k on the Sabbath day?" The vE"ry language in which this question is expressed,seems to indicate the answer thereto. The Great Light by~which we profess to be guided, requires us to rest on the seventh day from our labors, and to dedicate that day to the exclusive service of Him, whom we acknowledge and claim as our Supreme Grand Master. IJodges should not have" called meetings for work'~ on the,Sabbath day" except to perf9rm those ~olemn rites of deposi ti~g the remains of a deceased brother in theIr final restIng place. A great portIon of the work of lodges Is typical of manual labor and we should obey its symbolic teachings, else ~lasonry becomes a mockery, and lts holy precepts "as sounding brass or a tinkling cymba!." The Grand Lodge has, on more than one occasion, expressE1d disapprobation of the practice of working on the Sabbath. Would it not be well to prohibit it by edict? Sixth.-A Past Master or Past Warden of a regular lodge,"under the jurisdiction of any Grand Lodge recogniz~d by us, is elIgible to the Mastership of the lodge of "which he is a member, within this jurisdiction. Seventh.-The "side degrees," as they are usually called, are not recognized by our Grand Lod~e as being any part of Masonry; hence no control is exercised by the Grand Lodge of Texas over said degrees. They are entirely under the supervision of the individual Masons instituting the same. Eighth.-Case: A brother is charged with defaming the character of a ladysister'of a M.l\:L; the 'witness against defendant i~ not a Mason, but his evidence is positively sworn to; witness has resided in vicinity of lodge, and personally known to most of the members for eighteen months; the trial is postponed f.)r the defendant to have time to get evidence from another State, by which to invalidate the testimony of witness. Q,UERIES BY D. D. G. M.

Ist.-" Can either party take the testimony of a lodge in another State?" 2d.-" How will they proceed to take evidence outside of Masonry, of a witness in another State?" 3d. "Can the deposition of a witness, residing in another State, be used to invalidate the testimony of a witness without identifying witness?" Argument.-The great objects of Masonic trials are to mete:outl"fulljustice to the ac("used, and to uphold the banner of our order, and preserve] unsullied, the bright escutcheon of Masonry. Hence, all evidence bearing on the case in band should be elicited if possible, thoroughly Rifted and investIgated, that every truth brought to light may have its full force, either for or against the accused. Whe-re a te<.'hnicality would interfere with the attainment of this ohject, it must be discarded and the truth attained if possible. Therefore, if on the trial of a brother, a question of vital importance to the accused, or to Masonry, should flrise, that could not be determined without the assistance of some other lodge, however distant, the trial should be postponed, and that lodge requested to furn ish the required testimony. The duties of Masonic reciproca<.'y would require said lodge to act in the matter, and if possible, to furnIsh the t~stimony asked for. In Masonic trials, truth should never be smothered under technicalities, nor justice defeated for want of Vigilance and energy in developing important facts bearing upon the case. But is the plea in the case before us sufficient to demand such action? Lf't us look into the merits of the case: We :find the testimony has been regularly taken. according to the regUlationa of the Grand Lodge; the witness has lived in jurisdi<.'tion of lodge tryin~ the case, and has been known to most of the members a greater length of time than our Grand Lodge has fixed for the determination of Character, even for material to be incorporated into the Temple, twelve months being deemed sufficient for that purpose. Hence, the lodge has certainly known the witness long enough (eighteen months) to be enabled tojudge the credibility of his testimony.


.Appendix.

1872.J

127

Decision.-As a general rule, such a plea, under such circumstances, should not be entertained by a lodge, but regarded as a subt.erfuge to delay action. When such a plea is made under such circumstances, it should charge the witness with specific offenses, or with such general bad character, that he would not be believed on oath where he is well known, and which can be established through the medium of a certain lodge. If the charge against witness is deemed sufficient, if established, to invalidate his testimony, the trial maY,and erhaps should be postponed; and the lodge named by defendant should be fraternally requested to furni~h the required testimony, which should be taken in accordance with the rules governing in our jurisdiction, a copy of which should be forwarded to said lodge, together with a request that a minute description of the party be given in the testimony, that the lodge trying the case may be enabled to recognize and identify the same party, in tlie witness. Ninth.-There is a difference between a black ball and a protest. Notwithstandin~ the l05tb Regulation says a protest "is equivalent to a black ball," yet this construed as referring only to the effect for the time being. The brother protesting may withdraw his objections at any time, and the candidate will then stJand elected. The difference between a protest and a black ball is obvious. In the former cas~ the objecting brother is known; in the latter he is not.. In the former, a brother might, very properly, withdraw bis objections, should he find them erroneous路 in the latter case, to allow the withdrawal of a negative vote would place in 'the hands of a.n over-zealous brother, who has the interests of the rejected candidate more at heart than the principles of Masonry, the power to unveil the secrets of the ballot box; any re:tlecting brother can easily discover wherein. Tenth.-If there is no doubt of the identity of A. D. P.; if be is the same person who was expelled in Tennessee, you will have the communication from Secretary of Linden Lod~e, No. 210, Tennessee t noted upon your records; notify the Grand Secretary of tne facts, and request hitn to publish the said A. D. P. as au expelled Mason and an impostor. If he cannot be fully identified as the same person, you will have him notified of the suspicions against him, and that he will not be allowed to attend the lodge until these suspicions are removed. Should all doubts be removed, and he prove to be the same person expelled in sitid Linden Lodge, you need take no further action than that indicated above, except to strike his name from the roll of members, and in your returns to the Grand Lodge report him as having been expelled in Tennessee, etc. Eleventh.-A suspended Mason bas no masonic rights whatever; yet he may make complaint against a Mason, and if the lodge or officers deem the charge sufficient to bear an action, the J. W. should prefer charges. The suspended member may be a witness, but his testimony must be sworn to, as that of others not M. M's, and it should be carefully weighed by the lodge.

is

Tweljth.-If a brother is guilty of unmasonic conduct, and he makes acknowledgment and promises reformatIon, and the offense is not too heinous in its nature, we should deal charitably and kindly toward him, and redeem him if possible. But should reformation not follow, cut him oft: There are masonIC offenses, however, of such nature as to preclude leniency under any circumstances.

17l,irteenth.-Decided that the 64th RegUlation merely authorizes, and does not require,louges to charge eleven dollars for each degree. (For the argument I refer to accompanying papers.) Fourteenth.-Twelve luonths 'residence in the State, and six months in the juri$diction of the lodge is required of applicants for Masonry. A temporary abode for the time is not sufficient, but actual citizenship is necessary. A solourner's petition cannot be received in a lodge, though he tarry theconstitutional time within the jurisdiction of a lodge. Pifteenth.-The following resolution was declared out of order by the presidin~ officer: "Resolved, That from and after this date all dues to this lodge be paId in currency at its face value." Q,UERY BY SECRETARY.-Is the ruling correct? ANSWER.-If the resolution was intended to include fees for degrees as well as quarterly dues of members, the ruUnD" was certainly correct; and if it only referred to lodge dues, the correctness of the decision depends somewhat upon the provisions of the By-Laws.. The Gl'and Lodge hasflxed the luinimum for the three degrees at thirty dolIa.rs, and has also made specie the basis of all her financial transactions; hence a lodge cannot receive less than, that amount in specie.


128

Appendix.

[Oct.

As the Grand Lodge has made specie the basis of all her financial transactions between the Grand body and the subordinate lodges, it would be advisable to adopt the specie basIs in all our lodge matters; yet a lodge has the right to regulate the amount and mauner of payment of its quarterly or lodge dues even to receiving depreciated currency at Its face value. This, however, would be more properly regulated by amendment to the By-Laws than by resolutIOn. 8ixteenth.-Case: .A.. petitioner was elected to first degree in Masonry' he W~ sent for to be initiated, but had retired, and, on being found, compl'ained of syrnptoms of pneumonia; he was advised by a ph~"~ician, and member of the lodge. to take a drink of brandy; he did so, and on being introduced into the lodge was found to be intoxicated, staggering considerably. rrhe W. l\:I. after consulting: with the S. 'V. and otllers, ordered the candidate out of the lodO'e. but, after inquiring into the circumstances, consented to confer the degree "if the lodge ,Yould so instruct him by a unanimous vote; there being one bla'('k ball ca~t, the degree ,vas refused him. The candidate is conSIdered by SOine perhaps all of the mell.1bers, as being a sober, moral man, and his condition at the Lime as being H purely acciden taL" QUERIES.-" Did the W. M. act correctly in the preluises? Could the officers and memberlO) of the lodge refuse to confer the degree, after election and partial initiation? Was it necessary and right to takp the vote of the lodge; whether the degree should be conferred, under the circumstances; and iI so was unanimity necessary, or plurality vote sufficient? Can the lodge proceed' with the case till the expIration Of twelve months? If so, should another ballot be spread? " DECISION.-Tho W. ~r. acted right under the circumstances. Any member of the lodge has the right to object to the initiation, and for good reasons, even after the candidate has been prepared for, and "partially initiated." It certainly was the duty ot the W. M. to refuse to confer the degree, and to order the candIdate out of the lodge, he being intoxicated at the time; and, it may be that the S. D. is culpable, and should be dealt with for introducing a candidat~ in such condition; his conduct and motives should be inqUired into. The subsequent ballot ordered by the W. M. was outside of the law controlling ballots, and, I presulue, ordered nlerely for his own satisfaction and inRtrnction; hence the law governing ballots does not bear on this case, and only the law of protests is involved; therefore, if the condition of the candidate 011 that occasion is found to be "purely accidental, and he is strictly and scrupulously temperate and moral in his habits, I see no reason why he should not be initiated at any time, provided the objections are withdrawn. Entire unalumity, however, is absolutely necessary before conferring the degree; and to detern1.ine the fact ot' unanimity, in this particular case, the ballot-box should be used, and at a stated meeting. Seventeenth.-On the 26th of November last I received a communication from R. W. Bro. E. D. Porter, S. G. Warden of the M. W. Grand Lodge of Minnesota, propounding certain questions in jurisprudence, and requesting the law in this jurisdiction. "1st. After a candit:ate has been duly elected to receive the degrees, can he be estopped bJ-" the objection of a member of the lodge, made either in fjpen Lodge, or privately to the W. M., no reasons being given by the objecting member? " 2d. "Has a subordinate lodge the right to prefer charges and try a member who is also a member of the Grand Lodge, or has the Grand Lodge exclusive original jurisdiction? " ANSWER. I answered the first question in the affirmative, enclosing l05th Regulation of this Grand Lodge. In answer to the second question", informed t,he R. W. Brother that there had been 110 direct action by our Grana Lodge, but referred him to page 203 of printed Proceedings of the Grand Lodge tor 1871, a copy of which I had forwarded to his address, where he would find a P. G. M. of the Granel Lodge of Texas had been suspended by Euclid Lodge, No. 45, which action had been recognized and passively approved by the Grand Lodge; and as Sec. 3d, Chap. 1st, Art. 1st, of the Constitution, makes P. G. M.'s permanent melnbers of the Grand Lodge, the right of subordinate lodges to deal with members of the Grand Lodge is therefore conceded. I suggested!. however, that perhaps it would not be considered legitimate for subordinate louges to try an officer of the Grand Lodge. Several other decisions have been rendered by me, but being based upon some principle heretofore decided, more or less definitelY, by this Grand Lodge, I have deemed it advisable not to embrace them in this report, but refer to accompanying papers, where the committee will :tind them conveniently arranged. for examination.


A.ppendia:.

1872.J

129

THE NINETY-THIRD REGULATION

Prohibits affiliation in more than one lodge. This regulation is somewhat defeetive and should be amended, defining the status of members of lodges who petition for and are incorporated into new lodge, either by Dispensation or Charter Would sug-gest that the org-anization of the new lodge severs memb€lrship ·in olcllodge; yet reserving to the old lodg-e disciplinary control over such brethren unt~lllodge dues shall be fully paid therein. INCORPORATION OF LODGES.

I notice an act. pa~secl at the laRt session of the Legislature of the State of 'rexas incorporating W~'tco Lod~e, No. 92, into a bod:y politic, with powers, elc., etc it occurs to me tba.t this is inlproper, as lodges can thus hold property, ::lnd do acts adversely to the interests of the Grand Lodge. A lodge iR thus indel?endent to a great, extent, of the Gland Lodge, and may force the Grand Body In to th~ courts of the country to lllaintain its supremacy. Is not the act of incorporation of the Grand I.Jod"ge of Texas sufficient to enable all her subordinates to purchase and hold property? We fully agree with the latJter opinion, as elsewhere expressed. He pays a high tribute to the memory of Brothers J. H. Anderson and Wnl. M. Taylor-the former the Grand l\faster, and the latter the Past Grand Master. We were present at Brother T~:llylor's funeral t1t Baltimore. SPECIAL REPORT OF COMMITTEE ON MASONIC .JURISPRUDENCE.

'Po the M. W. G'rand Loclge Qf Te'l'as: The Committee on Masonic Jurisprudence make the following special report: On the subject of negro MaRon A, and the admission of negroes into our 01'dpr upon which the Grand 11aster bas RO fully and ably expressed his sen ttmflnts~ your C'ommittee fully ('onC'ur in the jndgln~nt. that the negroeR of this generatIon and community are not :tit material for the bui1din~ of our masonic' edltic(;'; and we deprecfbte the o('ca-;ion whi(~h has called for the expression of our sentiments. If inde-ed the true spiri t of Inasonic charity and hannony shall prevai I arnong Anleri<'an ~fasons, the anticipH,ted evil will not practically preR~ upon UR for H,ption. But while WP concnr in the judgrnput thftt negroes are not lit m"terial for l\r1asonry, yet, the question arises, how far has t,llis Grand Lodge the power and jnrisdiction to enforce any re-gulation on tho sllbject? The resolution of January, 18;>2, (168th Reg.) was adopteu during the exi'-itence of slavery, when negroes were almost universally slaves, or born in slavery. 'fhey were then obnoxious to the ban of our ancient Landmarks, which prohibIt th€" adlulssion of any who are not free born. Oertainly nei ther a 'Ybite man nor a negro, who was born n slave, iR admiRs:ible. Of this there can be no queRtion; and any lodge that has or may admit :-.nch bondman born, vlolates the Ancient, Landmark~. But can tbe Grand Lodge adopt and enforce new restrictions or prohibitions upon itH SUbordinates, not }'(:J.cognized by thp Landnul,rks? If it ~an, whf"r€" is the line of demarkat.ion to bf" drawn? and what stnndard of rac"G, ocoupation, or condition in life, shall we adopt? Masonry knows no distinction of religion, nationality, politics or race, or occupation. It is universal in these partieolars; and it is equally true that it recognizes no right in any race, religion or nationality, to demand admission into its portals. None have any claim of rJ~ht to demand admission. All without. arp anlong the prof'alJe. They cannot be admitted arnong the children of Light, 1vithouL thE' free and unaniInous consent of all, gIven according to the rules generally established for the government of the Craft, and eaeh branch of it. The guardiansh ip of the portals of our Order has, by general usage and consent, been committed to the subordinate lodges. It is for them to decide and act upon the fitness of the material prpseuted for llSB. 'I'hE'y nlust act within the lin1its preRcribed by the La.ndmarks, H,nd in case they wilfully err, or ftr~ grossly neglig~),nt in performance of their duty, it is in the power of the Grand Lodge to revoke their Charters. If we assume the ground tha,t the Grand Lodge may irnpose restrictions 01' limit~ttious, not ilnposed by the LandInarks, then the converse of the proposition may he insisted upou, that the snbordinates shall admit btlch cla~s~s and per~ons at:l the Grallu Lodge may decide to be tit ma.terial, and not proillbited by ~he Landma,rks. This is precisely t.he ground of the Gr{tlld Orientof France, WhICh assumed thatthe Grand Lodge of Lonisiana had been derelict in its duty, ~ecause it did not affirmatively declare that negrof's should be adTnitted into lts lodges, and authorized the eRtablishment of lodges in Lonisiana for that pnrp,()se. Against this action of the Grand Orient, our sister Grand Lodge of LOUIsiana protested before the masonic world, and we havejoined in that pro-

B9

'


130

[Oct.

test along with most other of our sister Grand Lodges. We cannot now consistently assume any other ground, if we would; bU~ it was the right, true and masonic ground, and therefore we should adhere to 1 t. While we cannot rerommend positive legislation on the subject by the Grand Lodge, we repeat that we cordially unite with our Grand Mabter in his earnest protest against the admission of negroes into our Order; because we helieve thenl, by their general condition and natural i.nferiorlty, wholly unfit for the society of our membership, and for the promotIon of the principles of Masonry. We ~re .sure that their adlnission w~uld te;:Hi. to discord and strife instead of unanimIty and concord, and that theIr admiSSion would deteriorate instead of elevating the standard of practice of masonic principles and virtues: We are emphatically in favor of leaving the whole subject to the unanimollS ~tnd secretl ballot of subordinate lodges; if 'We cannot trust that on the ql.le~足 tion of qualification, then all the laws in existence will not reach the object aimed at. We think legislation unwise and inexpedient on this subjeet, as well u.s in violation of the Landmarks. With us, we hold adverse to any Grand Lodge legislation as to color, occupation or class. Brother M. F. Matt, Chairman, submitted a very full and interesting report on correspondence. He does us the honor of quoting entire our review on the" Reporters' Convention" at Baltimore. Under the head of NEVADA, ile says: With r~gard to Lh~ Masonic burial of snicides, he decided that "if the lodge w~re satisfied th~t the broth~r was not in the full possession of all his fn,cultit'S or in other words, was in~ane at the time of takIng his own life," he could b~ buried with Masonic honors; but that were it apparent, on the contrary, that he was at the time of soun~ mind, he could not be so buried. Now, we think it would be very difficult in any instance, to make it apparent that a suicide "';vas "of sound mind" at the time of taking his own 11fe. 'Ve are incliued co the opinion that there is more or less insanity in every sucll instance. However, we think that the Grand l\Iaster, after all, comes to the l'ight conclusion whell he sayR that he thinks H that such cases can with propriety, be left to the diRcretion of the lodge." We think that is the properplar8 where the matter should be left; and that t.he establishment of an unvarying rule by the Grand Lodge, prohibitin~ the Masonic burial of suicides, UnaffiJlallM, and all such unfortunate and misgulded brethren, would be harsh and uncharitable. ! et the Master and Wardens of the lodge, In whose jurisdiction the case may arise, decide the matter, applying the eternal principles ot Justice and Charity, as tar as human infirmity will allow, to the circumstances of each case. They are supposed to know the brother, and the circumstance& of his death, ~'tnd all the surroundings of the case; and if, while alive, he was considered a worthy brother, letthom not jUdge him too Reverely whE'n beis gone. His last act in life may have been wrong, but it is bard for us to say how far he was responsible. " What's done we partly may compute, But know not what's resisted H1 He pays attention to the Quebec case, and for reply we refer bim to our report, under the head of MAINE, and especially to that part which refers to "unoccupied territory." His whole report is one of the most complete upon our table, and we regret that the space we have already given t.o Texas will not permit further ex.tracts. Wm. Bramlette, Paris, Grand Master; Geo. H. Bringhurst, Houston, Grand Secretary; J. W. Speight, Waco, Committee on Correspondence.

UTAH. Convention for Organization of Grand Lodge met in Salt Lake Oity, January 16, 1872.

The three lodges of the territory, viz: Wasatch, No.8. Mount Moriah, 70, and Argenta, 21, were represented, the former chartered by Montana, the second by Kansas, and the last by Colorado.


1872.J The regular and necessary Utah" regularly organized.

Appendix. proc~edings were

131 had, and the" Grand Lodge of

O. F. Strickland was elected Grand Master, and Joseph F. Nounnan, Grand Secretary. The constitution was read and adopted by sections. In view of the fact that Utah was" unoccupied territory," and thai all the lodges were parties to the formation of that Grand Body, and the proceedings regular throughout, we submit the following:

Resolved, That the "Grand Lodge of Utah" be and is bereby recognized as the supr~me Masonic authority within the territory ot Utah, as at present deflned. Resolved, That 1he Grand Lodge of Missouri extends to said young Grand Lodge its sincere wishes tor a long life of peace, prosperity and usefulness.

VIRGINIA. Grand Lodge met in Richmond, Dec. II, 1871. Thos. F. Owens, Grand Master, presided. He says: I have made

g, nUluber of decisions upon points of Masonic law submitted to me. l\1"ost of them, however, had been previously decided by the Grand Lodge; but upon the follOWing there has been no legislation by your body:

1. A suspended Mason, whose petition for reinstatement has been acted on in eonformity to the law of the Grand Lodge, and rejected, may, nt any subsequent nleeting, again preRent it for the action of the lodgt'; but if new facts can be added which were not before the lodge at tbe first consideration of the petition for reinstatement, and if the petitioner doE'S not allege that he did not have ll,n impartial trial, it is the prerogatlve of the Mastel' to refuse to allow it to be reconbi<1ered.

2. A lodge can legally summon a delinquent memb