1876.J
JlplJendix.
5
With relation to deoision No. 14, it seems that a brother who had been absent for thrE'e months was notified to attend and render hIS excuse therefor, which he fd.iled to do. Thereupon the Worshipful l\JIaster declared him suspended for non-payrnent of dues. This was wrong In the Master, because he d been surnmoned to ans,ver for non-attendance, and not for non-payment ~f dues In this condition the brother died; and the lodge ascertainIng- that he waR si~k, and ~ould not attend, had the right to reverse its action, and bury him with MasonIc hODors. Decision No. 18 is correct, with the qualification that an officer of a lodge under dispensation cannot be installed. Only officers of chartered lodges can be installed.
Also the following: To the llf. lV. Grand Lodge: We your Committee upon Masonic Law and Usage, to whom was referred the foliowing coromunication of the Worshipful Master of Belle Point Lodge No. 20: " To the M. W. G'J'and Lodge, State of A1'kansas: "Mt.. - - - - - , a former resident of Fort Smith, Arkansas, applied to Belle Point Lodge, No. 20, A. F. & A. M., under the jurisdiction of the Grand Lodge of Arkansas, for initiation, and was rejected. He sUbsequently moved to St. Louis, Missouri; and after residing there for twelve months, applied to a lodge in St. Louis, Missouri, under the jurisdiction of the Grand Lodge of Missouri, for initiation, was accepted, initiated, passed and raised, without the knowledge or consent of the aforesaid Bel~ Point Lodge.
"Question.' Did the lodge that made him a Mason violate the jurisdiction
of Belle J:>oint Lodge, .No. 20?
"The person above referred to returned to Fort Smith recently and ap!>lied to Belle Point Lodge to visit tbe same. The.committee appointed for the examinatIon reported him to be a well informed Master Mason. A brother and Eli member of the lodge objected to bis admission, on t,be grounds that 11e was unworthy of a~sociatioD, and that his presence would create discord and confUsion ani ong the Craft.. Deeming his reason sutliciellt, I, as Worshipful Master, decided not to admit him as a visitor.
"Question-Did I do right? H
"w. WORTH BAILEY, W. M., Belle Point, A. F. & A. M."
Report, that, in our opinion, the St. Lonis Lodge, ill making a Mason of Mr. - - - , did violate the jurisdiction of Belle Point Lodge. Yet, we are constrained to believe it did it innocently. 'Tis a well-settled principle of Masonic Law and Usage that a candidate râ‚Ź>jected by a lodge cannot b~ accepted by another lodge without the consent of the lodge rejecting him. The action of the Worshipful Master in declining to permit him to visit Belle Point Lodge, upon the remon~trance of one of its members, was rigl1t, and in accordance with the edict of this Grand Lodge. In noticing the last decision of the committee, we agree that the St. Louis Lodge acted innocently in the matter, as it was not aware of the rule of Arkansas on this question. We agree with the first decision of the Grand Master (as quoted), but as the Grand Lodge overruled that, we must abide by it, although we demur to the principle of putting it in tbe power of one man to reject a candidate for life, no matter where that candidate may remove to, nor bow long he may live abroad. It is a well-settled law that a member cannot reject acandidate who does not apply to his lodge, and even in his own lodge his black ball ceases after one year, and yet the committee here say: "'Tis a well-settled principle of Masonic Law and Usage, that a candidate râ‚Ź'jected by a lodge cannot be accepted by another lodge without the consent of the lodge rejecting him," whereas the very opposite is almost the universal law throughout the Masonic world, exoepting only Arkansas, and a few other states. It is a law in violation of every principle of Masonic equity and justice. We agree that where a candidate has been elected and then objected to before initiation, or during his progress through the degrees, no other lodge can take him as a candidate with