View source for MassachusettsEdicts MFM1856 1860

== ADVICE FROM MOORE'S FREEMASONS' MONTHLY MAGAZINE ==

Prior to 1875, a considerable amount of Masonic jurisprudence was based on the advice and direction published in ''The Freemasons' Monthly Magazine'', published in Boston and edited by one of the foremost Masonic authorities of the time, Rt. Wor. [http://masonicgenealogy.com/MediaWiki/index.php?title=GSCWMoore Charles W. Moore]. While not established as edicts or rulings by Grand Masters, they were consequential in the establishment of precedents and contributed to the decisions made in later years.

Comments and views in the publication were often lengthy, but were generally based on sound reasoning that the author provided in response to inquiries from many Grand Jurisdictions.

=== [http://www.masonicgenealogy.com/MediaWiki/index.php?title=MassachusettsYear1856 1856] ===

==== Withdrawing Petitions ====

''From Vol. XV, No. 3, January 1856, Page 71:''

''An intelligent correspondent at Worcester, sends us the following inquiry;-''
<blockquote>
I wish to inquire, if a candidate who has been regularly proposed, and a committee bas reported adversely to his reception without giving to the Lodge specific reasons for such report, (or with) - can then be allowed to withdraw his application without being balloted for, the candidate not assigning any reason for such withdrawal, (or rather his friends for him,) other than that of saving him from the consequences of a rejection? I was of the opinion that it could not be done. I however submitted the matter to the Lodge. Am I right in my opinion?
</blockquote>

Although we have heretofore discussed this question, both incidentally and as a direct proposition, we think it of sufficient importance to justify an occasional recurrence to it, so long as there shall be a single Brother among us, holding the responsible relations of Master of a Lodge, who shall feel himself at a loss as to what his duty may be under the circumstances stated by our correspondent. The question involves a rule of practice, having an important bearing on the welfare of the Institution at large, as well as on the proper government of the Lodges. And if there has ever been a time when those in authority should thoroughly understand the laws and legitimate practices of the Order - or if there has ever been a time when, more than at another, a rigid and persistent adherence to the established usages of the Craft, was demanded of the officers of our Lodges, that time is the present. 

Our numbers are increasing with a fabulous rapidity. The Lodges are literally deluged with petitions for admission, and candidates are rushed through the degrees with ruinous haste. Too often the old conservative barriers are either evaded, or deliberately broken down, as things too antiquated and cumbersome for the present condition of society. They stand in the way of "progress" - or in truer words, in the way of a reckless career, which, if
permitted to go on, can scarcely fail to involve the whole Institution in consequences disastrous to its fair fame. Men, unworthy to wear the "badge of a Mason," too easily and too often gain access to our Lodges, through the partiality of friendship, or the indiscriminating zeal of inexperienced Brethren. 

In times like the present, when the rush of work has created a kind of excitement, with its attendant carelessness, in the Lodges, even old and usually cautious Brethren may be led to propose persons whom, under a calmer state of things, they would not consent to receive among them. If a candidate, thus incautiously proposed, is successful, all is well; but if, on the contrary, he fail to satisfy the committee and the Lodge as to his moral fitness, the eyes of the Brother proposing him, are at once opened, - he becomes alarmed, and evinces his anxiety to extricate his friend from the dilemma in which he has inconsiderately placed him, by asking permission of the Lodge to withdraw his petition, before the ballot is taken. Then comes up the inquiry of our correspondent - Can the Lodge grant this permission?

The petition, when presented and accepted, becomes the property of the Lodge, and is beyond the control of the petitioner. Under the common
parliamentary rule, it would be competent for a majority of the Lodge, at any stage of the proceedings, to grant him leave 'to withdraw it; which, in legislative practice, would be equivalent to a rejection. But this is not the law of Masonry, nor is it in accordance with correct Masonic practice. The petition having been presented and received, the next step is to refer it to a committee for consideration. This committee has nothing to do with the question whether the petitioner shall or not be allowed to withdraw his petition. Such a report, though entirely proper in legislative proceedings, would be an anomaly in Masonic practice; Their duty is restricted to an investigation of the matter committed to them, and their business is to report on the facts as they find them, without favor and without prejudice. On this report the Lodge predicates its action, and determines the admissibility of the petitioner. This is the only question before it. And however unpleasant it may sometimes be, it owes it to itself and to the whole Fraternity to meet it boldly and promptly. 

If the candidate be worthy, no harm can result to him if the Lodge give him the benefit of its endorsement of that fact, though he should have previously determined not to avail himself of the privileges it opens to him. On the contrary, if he be unworthy, the Lodge is not at liberty to smother the fact under a timid silence, and leave him free to impose himself off upon others to whom he may be less thoroughly known. It is unmanly, nor is it Masonic, to force others to assume a responsibility that we are ourselves unwilling to bear, While every Lodge is bound to protect itself, it is also under a high moral, if not a legal obligation to protect its sister Lodges, to the extent of its ability, from the intrusion of`the unworthy. And it can do this only by performing its whole duty, as occasion may arise. 

This it does not do when it allows an unworthy candidate to escape the consequences of a negative ballot, or, in other words, when it allows his friends to withdraw his petition after an unfavorable report from the committee. If a petition may ever be withdrawn, after it has been committed, it should never be under such circumstances. But the only proper way is to let it take its legitimate course and go to the ballot. We know of no other rule in Masonic legislation. We are aware that a different practice has obtained to some extent among us, but it is a wrong one and should be discarded . Let the members of our Lodges take the trouble to ascertain the true character of their friends before they propose them, and there will seldom be occasion to ask leave to withdraw petitions.

==== Widows of Masons ====

''From Vol. XV, No. 3, January 1856, Page 73:''

''Plymouth, N. C.''

''Br. Moore:'' - For the benefit or information of the Brethren here, who entertain opposite views, be pleased to give us your opinion as to the following:-
<blockquote>
If the widow of a Master Mason marry again, is she (according to ''Masonic Law'') still retaining the character of a Master Mason's widow?<br>
<br>
If her husband dies (who is not a Mason) and during his lifetime she lost her relationship to the Fraternity, does she resume it upon his death, as before the second marriage?<br>
<br>
In the 10th volume of your Magazine, page 29, this matter is understood to be decided in the affirmative.
</blockquote>
''Yours, fraternally, J. R.''

There are some titles and honors, which once conferred, will last for life. They become annexed to the person by public courtesy. Once a ''Squire'', always a ''Squire''. But it is not so in every case. Once a widow, may not be always a widow. For when a widow,
<blockquote>
''Si non pertæsum thalami tædæque fuisset,
</blockquote>
again marries, her widowhood certainly ceases; for a widow must be a single woman, and not, as the lawyers would say, a ''feme-covert''; and she
must have been legally married, and then bereaved of her husband. And while in this lonely condition, she is a widow indeed: and if her partner, when alive, was a Brother of good standing, she is a Mason's widow, entitled to the sympathy and charity of the Fraternity everywhere, but more particularly of the Lodge to which he belonged.

But, when she marries again, can she be called a widow? True it is, that by law she loses no legal rights by such second marriage; her dower, allowance by the Judge of Probate, and other privileges -s uch as her apparel, and furniture of her bed chamber, (in London called the widow's chamber,) and her quarantine, or forty days residence in her husband's mansion immediately after his death - are vested rights; and if she should marry seven times, they might accrue seven times, if there were estate left in each case.

Suppose, as a Mason's widow, she marries again another Mason: Does she retain her claim on Masonic charity as widow of her first husband? If so, when her last husband dies, she might be entitled to a double portion. Extreme cases prove principles; and this last point of view, it would appear, must settle the question. On her second marriage, she ceases to be a widow, and therefore it would seem that her claim on the Fraternity terminates. 

In the case of Orphans of a Brother Mason, there can be no doubt. For what is an Orphan? Orphanage, according to Lexicographers, applies to a child deprived of either or both parents. Therefore, when the mother marries again, the orphanage still continues, and as such there may be a claim on the Fraternity.

Therefore, the widow's claim on Masonic charity, when her husband was a Mason, must cease on her second marriage. But is Masonic charity bounded by the narrow girdle of strict law? By no means. Our charity is the noblest privilege and most glorious mark of our Institution; it has no bounds in our hearts, and is only limited by our resources to help, aid and assist the unfortunate; and if the widow of a deceased Brother of regular standing, whether single or again married, should become desolate and distressed, she would find relief, beyond doubt, in the hearts and hands of those, who never forget the memory of a worthy and departed Mason. He was once our Brother, she was once his widow, and let that never be forgotten.

==== Balloting for Candidates ====

''From Vol. XV, No. 3, January 1856, Page 74:''

Among the most important, and consequently the most responsible, duties which a member of a Lodge is called to exercise, is that of voting on the admission of candidates. The character of the whole Institution, in the popular mind, is determined by that of its members. The uninitiated will accept of no other standard of judgment. They will give no heed to our professions, if the conduct of our members does not square with them. It is in vain to proclaim our principles as virtuous, if our practices are vicious. It will not serve any useful purpose to point them to the moral teachings of our ritual, if they may turn and point to the immoral practices of our members, as a sufficient answer. Nor will it avail us to say, that though we have a few bad men among us, we have a very much greater number of irreproachable character. The distinction, however just, will rarely be made by the popular world. 

The consequences of admitting unworthy men are very far therefore from being confined to the Lodge room. They spread themselves out over the whole community, to the great prejudice of the Institution. The remedy against this is in the ballot; and it is to be found nowhere else. Every member
should feel that he is personally responsible for the character of each new accession to his Lodge, and deposit his ballot with a realizing sense of this
responsibility - not under the influence of prejudice, nor yet of partial friend ship; but according to the dictates of honor, and a high moral sense of duty.  "I would deprecate," says a distinguished foreign Brother, "in the strongest manner, the practice, in balloting for new members or applicants for initiation, of voting in their favor, despite the knowledge possessed by the voter, of their moral unfitness for so eminent an honor.

Too commonly, indeed, has such an infringement of our vital principles brought our venerable Order into dis repute, by encouraging scoffers to
point to the profane and the licentious, as admitted in to Masonry, as promoted to its various and honorable distinctions, nay, even, alas! as advanced to the position of leaders of the Craft; and to utter the plausible though untenable assertion that, if such be the fruits of our boasted teaching, our system can only, in the words of Shakespeare, be "a goodly apple rotten at the core." Still, however, let us guard against error in an opposite direction, by never forgetting that nothing short of moral unfitness should influence a member in recording his vote against an applicant. Personal antipathy, unsupported by grave and weighty reasons, cannot justly affect us in such a case. We should vote conscientiously; but always with a due regard to the rights of the candidate. We have no right to avail ourselves of the privileges of our position as members of the Lodge, or of the protection of the secret ballot, to gratify personal prejudices or revenge. Such a practice is neither Masonic nor manly, though we fear it is sometimes indulged in.

==== Lodge Punishments ====

''From Vol. XV, No. 5, March 1856, Page 149:''

'''PUNISHMENT FOR INTEMPERANCE.'''

''Elkton, Tenn., January 30, 1856.''

''Bro. Charles W. Moore,—''

''Dear Sir:'' — I take the liberty of asking your opinion in regard to a case that a short time ago occurred in our Lodge. One of the resolves of the Grand Lodge of Tennessee reads as follows: "That the habit of drunkenness, unfortunately indulged in by too many Masons, is at variance with the tenets and teachings of our Order, and well calculated to bring it into disrepute, should not be tolerated among the members of any subordinate Lodge; and that suspension for minor offences, and expulsion for a confirmed habit of drunkenness, be invariably adopted.'' 

Some little time ago a Brother under our jurisdiction was charged with the offence of drunkenness, and cited for trial. He made his appearance, and in the presence of the Lodge acknowledged his guilt, threw himself on the charity of the Lodge, and solemnly promised never to be guilty of the like offence again. He was a man, somewhat advanced in life, in every other respect of irreproachable character. A difference of opinion then arose in the Lodge as to the disposal of his case. I believe it was the unanimous wi;h of the Lodge to pardon the offender, but there was the edict staring us full in the face, positively declaring that for minor cases of drunkenness, suspension must be invariably adopted. A vote was taken on the question of suspension and lost by a small majority.

These are the facts of the case, and the question that I wish to ask you is this:  Were this majority justifiable in thus nullifying the resolution of the Grand Lodge?  They thought that the enforcement of it would, in this case, have been very unjust and uncharitable, and so, placed between two evils, they chose what they conceived  to be the least.	

''B.''

If our correspondent will carefully analyze the resolution of his Grand Lodge, we think he will agree with us, that it is of the nature of a ''recommendation'' to the Lodges, and not mandatory, and therefore binding on them as a law of the Grand Lodge. It starts with a declaration that intemperance is an evil that ''should not'' be tolerated by the Lodges, and then goes on to say, that "suspension for minor offences, and expulsion for a confirmed habit of drunkenness," [should] "''be'' invariably adopted." Thus leaving the whole matter to the judgment of the Lodges under the  recommendation, or declared opinion of the Grand Lodge.    

If the Lodge, in accordance with this recommendation, has adopted a special law on the subject, it is of course binding on it. But even in that case, the right to determine when the erring Brother has arrived at the precise condition of a confirmed drunkard, is in its own hands; and this leaves a large margin for the exercise of a very charitable construction. We think the Lodge decided rightly and Masonically in giving the delinquent another opportunity for reformation. It may be, as we most earnestly hope it will be, the means of saving him ; while a more stringent course would probably have crushed him at once and forever. ''— Editor Magazine.''

==== Initiation of a Minor ====

''From Vol. XV, No. 6, April 1856, Page 177:''

''Our Lodge desire your opinion on a question pending before it. Our late Master presented a petition from his son, stating him to be of lawful age, — he was accepted and received two degrees — when it was ascertained that he will not be 21 till June. So matters now stand. Every member of the Lodge supposed him of full age. The father, on being inquired of, says he had emancipated his son, who was about going to California, and considered him of lawful age. Can the son go further without violation of Masonic law? — and ought not the father to be dealt with?''

The above is an unfortunate case, because the presumption is that the father, being Master of the Lodge, could not be ignorant of the law which governs the admission of candidates. He must, in the necessary discharge of his official duties, have been frequently, not to say constantly, reminded that he was not at liberty to countenance or aid in the initiation of any person "under age." And to suppose that he did not know the true import and meaning of these words, would be to impute to him a greater measure of ignorance than he would probably care to acknowledge. They are household words, and no person capable of distinguishing between rain and sun-shine, may plead ignorance of their exact meaning. 

It might happen, that a thoughtless and profoundly ill-informed man might be deceived as to the precise meaning he should attach to the words " lawful age,'" and suppose, that as he had given his son his freedom, he had thereby placed him in the condition of one who had legally attained to his majority; though this would neither be Masonically nor legally true. Such a freedom would simply be a contract between the father and his son, and might, or not, be binding in law ; but it would not change the relations, or affect the civil obligations, of either. But if the legal rule were otherwise, every Mason, and especially the Master of a Lodge, must know that it could not, either directly or indirectly, affect the established law of Masonry. If the Masonic rule could be thus evaded in the case of one twenty years of age, the expedient would be equally available to one of sixteen; and boys of any age might thus be rendered eligible.

The plain truth of the matter is probably this: The son was going to California; and the father supposed, that if he could go as a Mason, it would be of service to him; that he would thereby find friends, who, if need be, would take care of him. His anxiety as a parent, prevailed over his duty as a Mason, and led him to do that which he could not otherwise have been induced to do. We sympathize with him in his affection for his son, but we condemn his conduct as unworthy of his Masonic character, and as a betrayal of his Masonic duties and obligations. Had the deception not been discovered, harm might not have resulted from it, except as to his own conscience. But as it now stands, he has at least embarrassed the son, (if nothing worse comes of it,) and Masonically jeoparded, if not ruined himself.

The son can be regarded in no other light than as an irregularly made Mason. He has been unlawfully initiated; and cannot, therefore, under the universal law of Masonry, be recognized as a Brother of the Order, until he has been healed and regularised according to the usages of the Institution ; and this cannot be done until he has attained to the full age of twenty-one years. The father has rendered himself liable to expulsion ; and unless he can offer some more satisfactory reason than that intimated by our correspondent, in mitigation of his offence, we do not see how this result, sad and unfortunate as it may be, is to be avoided.

The names of the parties have been very properly withheld from us, and we suppress that of the place.

==== Appeals ====

''From Vol. XV, No. 5, September 1856, Page 337:''

''Dear Br. Moore'' — If you have a copy of Bio. Mackey's work on "Masonic Law" please refer to his article on ''appeals'', which you will find on page 341. He says there that, "During the pendency of an appeal the sentence of the subordinate Lodge is held in abeyance and cannot be enforced. The applicant in this case remains in the position of a Mason undercharges." With all respect for the intelligent source whence this rule emanates, it cannot be viewed otherwise than as new, erroneous and inconsistent with the teachings and spirit of Freemasonry. Were it a trivial matter it might be unheedingly passed with impunity, but it is a subject rendered worthy of notice because of its grave consequences and of its universal adaptation to every trial.

By giving this subject a moment's reflection, you will readily comprehend its bearings and be enabled to trace the pernicious tendencies of this strange rule through all its ramifications. It is however a matter of some interest to know, that although this may be the theory of Bro. Mackey it is not the practice in his own jurisdiction. Indeed, it is doubtful whether it is practised in any jurisdiction in this Country, or whether there is an old rule or precedent to be found, whereupon to predicate a justification for its introduction at this time in our penal code; hence there appears to be a manifest inutility of setting forth and promulgating a doctrine which is at variance with the common usages and customs of the Craft. It is difficult to perceive by its operation, how the designs and purposes of the Institution can be carried out, — in the punishment of offences against moral and Masonic Laws, or in making- effective its disciplinary regulations.

The rule which has heretofore been taught, and by which the Craft has generally been governed, is that the decision of a Lodge is final, unless an appeal be taken therefrom to the Grand Lodge, and that the party appealing does not thereby change the position assigned him by the court. He is, certainly, a condemned culprit, suffering the penalty inflicted by the Lodge; a Mason who is under punishment; one deprived of certain rights and privileges. As such, he comes before the Grand Lodge, praying to be relieved from the disabilities imposed upon him by his Lodge, under which he may feel himself aggrieved or wronged. He does not possess the privilege of approaching that body in person, demanding admission as a Mason in good standing; he is excluded, his grievances alone find access there. This—as the Craft have been hitherto taught, is the condition of the Mason under expulsion or suspension, and who is seeking redress at the hands of the Grand Lodge.

If Bro. Mackey is right, a Lodge — so far as it regards the purification of its membership — may be viewed as a mere cypher, a sinecure, a body without a soul, perfectly powerless, incapable of punishing a delinquent member, or of enforcing a salutary discipline to ensure its peace and unity. If this practice should prevail, what will be its tendencies? Can any one conceive the extent of the deleterious effects resulting therefrom? There is not a convict who would remain under punishment a day; all, whether guilty or not guilty, would unhesitatingly appeal from the action of the Lodge, forthwith, and thus reinstate himself to membership in the Lodge, and to good standing in the fraternity. How lamentable would be the consequences of this state of things ! In all probability, discord and strife would take the place of harmony and love ; gentlemen of respectability and refinement would soon abandon the Order; Lodges would be in constant conflict with the Grand Lodge and its Grand officers ; many would return their Warrants; and last, but not least, the time of the Grand Lodge, at its annual session, would be consumed or taken up by these appeal cases. It would be far better for the Grand Lodge to claim original penal jurisdiction, and resolve itself into a Court; the Lodges would then be relieved of the excitement and the disagreeable incidents consequent upon these deplorable "Lodge trials," and suffer no more detriment therefrom, than they would by the appeal of the delinquent.

But this rule sets forth that the appellant remains in the position of a Mason under charges. The question naturally presents itself, what is the position of a Mason under charges? If there is any change in his position simply from having charges preferred against him, it is not generally known or understood, nor is his position defined in the book referred to, under this head. Is it to be understood that the position is that of suspension.Is it the opinion of the author that the appellant is suspended, ''ipso facto'', when placed under charges 1 If so, then it makes the labyrinth still more perplexing and is another strange doctrine, with which we shall have to contend.  

It is true that there is an odium attached to a Mason under charges; (here is an inference of guilt; the eye of suspicion rests upon him; and such like impressions, as are produced by outside influences and personal prejudices; but in point of law, he is a Mason in good standing, and may be received and acknowledged as such. He is to be held innocent of the crime alleged until the contrary is made evident; no Mason can consistently hold or practice an adverse doctrine ; it is one of the principal components of charity, and bears a conspicuous position in the pure principles of our Order. In accordance with the common rules of justice, a Mason should not change his relationship to the Lodge, either as an Officer or private Member, simply from the fact of being under charges! If this was the case, there is no telling to what extent the abuses of this privilege might be carried; no member, officer or Lodge, would be exempted; either might be disgraced by a premature or preliminary punishment, inflicted without judge or jury, at the option or caprice of a malicious enemy, or to carry out unholy ambitious aspirations. It is only necessary to prefer charges — it matters not how frivolous—and the end is accomplished. But even should the charges be just and proper, the effect of a suspension, ''ipso facto'', would, — to a greater or less degree,—be taken, ''prima facie'', as evidence of guilt, and in that way, calculated to prejudice the cause of the accused. All or either of these things would be unmasonic, because they are unjust towards the Brother under charges, who rightfully claims and should receive a fair and impartial trial at the hands of his Brethren.

''Yours, with high respect and in fraternal love,  ____.''

=== [http://www.masonicgenealogy.com/MediaWiki/index.php?title=MassachusettsYear1857 1857] ===

==== Restoration ====

''From Vol. XVI, No. 4, January 1857, Page 111:''

''Boston, Jan. 2, 1857. ''

''My dear Sir and Bro.:'' — An expelled Mason cannot, under any Masonic law or usage with which I am acquainted, be restored on his mere verbal application to a member. His only remedy is to send in a ''Petition'' to the Lodge; and his petition should be referred to a committee, with instruction to report in writing, in order that the record may clearly show the facts in the case, and the reasons for the restoration.

Your second inquiry is — "Can a Lodge restore to membership one they had ''expelled'' (from Masonry,) but subsequently restored, without a ''ballot?''" The expulsion terminated the membership; and by a wise provision of Masonic law, the restoration does not renew it. The Brother, therefore, stands to the Lodge precisely as though he had never been a member of it; and his application for membership must take the course pointed out by the By-Laws.

Fraternally yours, ''C. W. M.''

==== Failure to Collect a Fee ====

''From Vol. XVI, No. 4, January 1857, Page 128:''

''Inquiry'':- "If the officers of a Lodge should be so remiss in their duty as to confer the third degree on a man without collecting the fee, can he be charged with having wronged the Lodge; or must he be dealt with as one who is charged with non-payment of dues?"

''Answer.''— The Lodge alone is at fault. It was the duty of the Master to know that the fee was paid before giving the degree. No blame can attach to the candidate, though he can of course be held to pay the fee.

==== Membership in Grand Lodge ====

''From Vol. XVI, No. 6, March 1857, Page 167:''

''Mansfield, O., January 5, 1857. ''

''Bro. C. W. Moore.'' — At the last meeting of our Grand Lodge, there was a proposition made so to alter our Constitution, as to make the Grand Lodge consist of Masters of Lodges only, instead of Masters and Wardens. This question is submitted to the subordinate Lodges for their approval or rejection. It is contended by some, that this is an innovation. Now we, or at least I, would like your opinion upon this subject. Is there anything in the Constitutions of Masonry, Ancient or Modern, that will prevent a Grand Lodge, when too large and unwieldly, to reduce its members in this manner? Or, is it a conventional right, inherent in all Grand Lodges, to increase or diminish the number of its members, as occasion may require; provided it has the consent of the subordinate Lodges? Our Grand Lodge, if fully represented, would amount to near nine hundred — generally six or seven hundred, in attendance.

Grand Lodges, in modern times at least, are created, not by the Masters alone, but by the Masters and Wardens of a definite number of regularly chartered and constituted subordinate Lodges. These Masters and Wardens meet in convention, choose a Grand Master and two Wardens, and such other officers as may be determined on, to preside over and manage the general affairs, and to direct the general operations, of the Fraternity within a given jurisdiction. For this purpose, the parties named, are, by the inherent customs and usages of the Craft, invested with the powers and prerogatives of Grand Lodges. We are not acquainted with any other method of forming such bodies. Nor do we understand how a Grand Lodge can maintain its vitality under the loss of two-thirds of its organism, and without which it could never have been brought into existence. Such a thing may be; and perhaps some future discoverer may be able to show us that the organic principles of vitality are not essential to continued existence, either in Grand Lodges or any thing else; but as our philosophy does not teach us how this is to be done, our judgment tells us that it is safer to follow the wisdom, and to abide by the experience, of the past.

It would doubtless be competent for any one, or all the Lodges in any jurisdiction, to decide, each for itself, that it will in future bear the expense of but one delegate to represent it at the annual communications of the Grand Lodge ; but it is very questionable whether the Lodges, or the Grand Lodge itself, would be justified, in view of the laws and usages of the Institution, as everywhere recognized, in denying to the Wardens of any lawfully constituted Lodge, the right to appear in the Grand Lodge to whose authority they are immediately amenable. The G. Lodge doubtless possesses the power to pass such a regulation, and it would probably be submitted to, ex necessitate, by the Lodges; but it is very doubtful whether such a measure, as the act of a majority, however large, would be the best adapted to promote the peace and harmony of the jurisdiction. But the strong objection to it, in our mind, is, that it divests the Grand Lodge of one of the original and essential elements of its organization; and, to this extent, changes the form of Masonic government. Our Brethren in Ohio can find an easier and much less objectionable remedy for the evil of which they complain, in another way. Let them vote in Grand Lodge to abolish the milage and per diem of the representatives, and leave these to be paid by the Lodges out of their own treasuries,— reserving to each Lodge the same numerical vote it now has. We apprehend the number of delegates would be materially diminished by the measure ; and though the Grand Lodge would probably lose in numbers, and perhaps in speeches, it by no means follows that it would lose in either wisdom or efficiency.

==== Non-Affiliated Masons ====

''From Vol. XVI, No. 9, June 1857, Page 271:''

''The following is from an intelligent  correspondent, who has held eminent positions in the Institution, and whose suggestions and opinions are entitled to much respect:—''

''Marshall, Texas, May 19, 1857.''

''Comp. C. W. Moore'', — Masonry in Texas is believed to be in a very prosperous state. But I think its prosperity here, as elsewhere, more apparent than real. I think its condition very like that of this country, when Gen. Jackson declared, "I leave this great people prosperous and happy." But there are things here that especially conflict with my conceptions of genuine Masonry. 

Our Grand Lodge have recently adopted a constitutional provision to the effect that no Mason shall be permitted to visit a Lodge under its jurisdiction, more than three times, unless he petitions for membership. If he petitions, and is rejected, he may visit the Lodges for a year; at the expiration of which time he must again petition. This regulation seems to have originated in a misconception, or perhaps a misapplication
of a recommendation of the ancient Constitutions, that every Mason should be a member of some Lodge. I say, a misapplication, because in England every Masonic body was under the jurisdiction of the Grand Lodge. There was no such thing there as a Grand Chapter, Council or Encampment; consequently a Mason who did not unite himself to some Lodge, was, so to speak, unchurched. He was, in the most comprehensive sense of the phrase, "unaffiliated." Here you may be a member, nay, the presiding officer of a Chapter, Council and Encampment, and still subject to the operation of the rule of the Grand Lodge of Texas. In this country, under our system of Masonic government, is not such a regulation at war with the true principles of Ancient Craft Masonry? If such a regulation be admissible at all, ought not various classes of Masons to be exempt from its operations — such as P. G. Masters of this or any State — Masons of thirty years good standing — members of other Masonic bodies, &c, &c.

I would propound another question to you. Ought the trial of a Mason, against whom charges are preferred, to be postponed, to await the action of a court of justice on the same charges, say for nine or twelve months?

Yours fraternally, ''J.''

We presume our correspondent's doubts as to the actual prosperity of the Institution, rest upon his fears that it is progressing too rapidly ; and in this he is by no means singular. There are aged and experienced Brethren in all parts of the country who sympathize with him in this opinion. Our hope is, that the result will show they were mistaken.

The rule to which our Brother takes exception, is not a new one ; nor is it peculiar to the Constitution of the Grand Lodge of Texas. We are not aware, however, that it has ever before been made to extend over a whole jurisdiction. It is usually limited, as in the Constitutions of the Grand Lodge of England, to the Lodge or Lodges in the place where the non-affiliated Brother resides, — leaving him free to visit all other Lodges, at his pleasure. And this would seem to be sufficient for the purpose contemplated by the rule, namely : The Brother who would enjoy the privileges of the Lodge in or nearest his place of abode, shall, as a condition of such privilege, connect himself with it as a member, and thus contribute to its support. We think this an equitable requirement, and therefore regard the rule as a proper one. We should not however favor any proposition to give a wider scope to its operation. But our correspondent suggests that Brethren belonging to Chapters should be exempt from its operation ; probably for the reason that he regards such Brethren as contributing as large to the support of the Institution as those who are only members of Lodges. And this is doubtless true ; but the difficulty is that the Grand Lodge can legislate only with reference to its own affairs. It knows nothing of the Chapters, and cannot therefore make laws with reference to them, or their members. Probably four-fifths of the members of every Grand Lodge are wholly ignorant of the character of the Chapters, and know them as Masonic bodies only by report.    

We do not see, therefore, that they can probably be asked to make exception in favor of their members. Past Grand Masters may, with great propriety, be exempted from the operation of the rule, if they desire it. Their past services should secure them any reasonable privilege or indulgence at the hands of their Brethren.
In answer to the second inquiry of our correspondent, we need only say, that we do not think the Lodge, in the case submitted, would be legally bound to regard the action of the court at all. It would be fully competent for it to proceed to examine the charges at once, and to expel the accused, if found guilty. Still, circumstances might render delay altogether proper, particularly in a difficult or doubtful case. Conviction on the part of the Lodge could hardly fail to prejudice the accused in his trial before the court. This the Lodge would have no moral right, as it could have no desire, to do. But no precise rule can be given for such cases. They must be determined according to the facts and circumstances under which they occur.

==== Balloting ====

''From Vol. XVI, No. 10, August 1857, Page 289:''

A Candidate is rejected — probably for sound reasons. Another, against whom no objection is known to the Lodge, is balloted for, and also rejected.

A friend of the first, in speaking of the action of the Lodge, uses language which gives the Brethren who hear it, the impression that he will black-ball all applicants who may apply to that Lodge for the degrees.

At a subsequent meeting, a candidate of excellent character and standing is balloted for, — a negative appears — a second ballot is had, with the same result. After some remarks by the Master on the impropriety of voting against a man, unless for some cause which renders him unworthy to be received into the Order — and from others, in testimony of the moral worth of the candidate, a third ballot— (the last permitted by the By-Laws) is ordered; and a black ball still appears.

So strong and so general, is the opinion that this is done from improper motives, and that some protective action should be taken by the Lodge — that it is on motion voted, that the question be put to the members present, individually, whether they know aught against the candidate — the names are called by the Secretary — the first man replies— "I voted for him" — a few more answer to the same effect; when the Brother who previously used the threatening language, rises, and states that he cast the negative — that he did so, (believing that candidates had been rejected improperly) to show the Lodge what harm and wrong might be done in that way — that he has no objection to the candidate — ''does not know him'' - and requests permission to withdraw the negative, and have the ballot declared unanimous.

''Query'' — Is the action of the Lodge, in the case here stated, in your judgment a violation of the right of secret ballot—or within the proper limits of self-protection?

What better and more proper course could be pursued on such an emergency?

Assuming the  facts in the above case to  be as our correspondent states them, both parties were wrong. The admission of the  dissenting member is, that he cast the  black-ball without any justifiable reason ; and on this admission the Lodge might properly have held him to a strict accountability. We are not certain that it was not derelict in duty in not doing so. A member has neither a moral nor legal right to abuse his privileges, or to trifle with the character of candidates before his Lodge. On the contrary, he is under the highest obligations to judge every petitioner fairly and impartially, without prejudice or malice, and according to "that standard, or boundary of right, which enables us to render unto every man his just due, without distinction." And when he departs from this rule he forgets his duty as a Mason, and becomes an unsuitable and dangerous member of the Lodge. It was mean and pitiable in the Brother to endeavor to excuse himself by saying, that he black-balled an upright and unobjectionable candidate, in order "to show the Lodge what harm and wrong" a bad member could do. He was actuated by no such consideration. He had previously threatened to do just what he did do, and he did it out of malice and revenge — not against the candidate, but against the Lodge, which had properly rejected his friend, having found him, on the usual inquiry, to be unworthy of admission. Revenge was the motive,and none other. Had not the Lodge taken the extraordinary step it did, the objector would have remained concealed perhaps forever, and the candidate's name would have gone out of the Lodge with an undeserved and unrighteous stain upon it, — a stain placed there by malice, for purposes of revenge ! If this be Masonic, it is not Masonry as we have learned it; and if such a Brother be a fit member of a Lodge, we desire not to be associated with him in that relation.

We are favorable to, and would encourage, a free and fearless use of the black-balls on all proper, and even doubtful occasions. The condition of the times and the welfare of the Institution imperatively demand it. But when used except from a high and honorable sense of imperious duty, the use of them is an abuse of privilege. Jealousy, malice, and revenge, are not Masonic attributes, nor are they consistent with the principles of Masonry or the teachings of the Lodge-room. They are there out of place; and the Brother who cannot resist their influences, or consent to leave them behind him when he enters the Lodge, has forgotten his earliest Masonic lessons, and is in a proper condition to be divested of his Masonic privileges, and thus relieved of his Masonic duties.

We know nothing of the party in the case before us, nor are we concerned to know him. Our business is with the act, not with the individual. If his Lodge has seen fit to receive his apology and overlook the delinquency, we are not inclined to question its wisdom, while we cheerfully concede to it all credit for the exercise of a charity "that passeth all understanding." If however the delinquent were our intimate friend, and  we were called upon as now, to speak of the offence, we could not hesitate to characterize it in terms  measured by its own quality. And we are perhaps less inclined to select our words or shape our phrases, with reference to the sensibility of any individual, in a case of this kind, for the reason that such a consideration does not  enter into the mind of the offender when he strikes in the dark; or else it is found to be wholly insufficient to restrain him  in unjustly lacerating the feelings and the character of his innocent and powerless victim. Such a deed is not to be glossed over with soft words and musical phrases.   

Certainly not by us, while we have reason to know that the practice is not confined to an individual case, but is fast becoming a thing of common occurrence, to the prejudice of our Institution before the world, and to the severance of that unity in our Lodges on  which their prosperity so much depends. When gentlemen of character and position apply to be admitted into our Fraternity, they have a right to demand to be dealt fairly and honorably by, and not turned away as unworthy of confidence, simply because they may not sympathize with us in all  matters of great  public concernment, nor because they may move in a different social  sphere, whether higher or lower, than that in which  our lines have  fallen. They freely offer themselves; and they ask, as they have a right to do, to  be tried and judged by the known  laws and usages of Masonry. If,  when so tried, they fail to come up to the required standard, they have no just cause of complaint, and the Lodge stands exonerated of all blame. On the other hand, if rejected from political prejudices,   malice,  envy, or jealousy, or other reasons not affecting the moral and social character of the individual, nor essential to the interest and security of the Institution, they have rightful cause  of complaint, and the Lodge and the whole body of the Fraternity are made to suffer for the unjust act of an individual member. Against such conduct we enter a solemn protest.

The course adopted by the Lodge, to relieve itself from the unpleasant embarrassment ill which it was placed by the conduct of the dissenting member, — though perhaps natural enough, and certainly less censurable, because dictated by higher motives,— is hardly more defensible as a rule of action. If there is any one thing in Masonic polity more essential to the reputation and purity of the Institution than another, it is the entire immunity and sacredness of the secret-ballot. Without this personal security, our Lodges would be constantly exposed to the admission of persons wholly unworthy and unfit to become Masons, or else to continual strifes and angry outbreaks among the members. It is a delicate matter, and one for which few have the necessary moral courage, to oppose the admission of a candidate, in the presence of his friends, and perhaps against a favorable report from the committee of inquiry, even for reasons which, in view of the public interest of the Lodge, should clearly justify his rejection. There is in every man a natural dislike to incur the displeasure of those with whom he is associated, either in business or otherwise; and there is a still stronger disinclination to oppose the wishes of our personal friends; and rather than encounter the natural or possible consequences of such a course, we will often consent to do that, or, at least, allow that to be done, which, freed from any such restraint, we should feel bound by our obligations or duties to other parties, to condemn and oppose. 

All this is cured by the secret-ballot. Under the protection which it affords, each member of the Lodge in balloting is left to the full and free exercise of his own judgment; and if he keeps his own counsel, he is responsible only to his own conscience for the integrity of his act. He is not required to disclose his vote or to give his reasons for it. These are his own secret, the sole possession of which is sacredly guarantied to him by the laws and usages of the Institution ; and there is no power in Masonry that can lawful wrest it from him. If there were—if it were competent for the Lodge to require him to disclose the character of his vote, then the secret-ballot would be a misnomer and the rule establishing it a fraud ; for to guarantee to a member the secret exercise of a privilege, under a reservation that he shall disclose his act at the pleasure of the Lodge, is not only an absurdity, but a deception. Such is not the character of Masonic laws, nor is a Masonic Lodge a college of Jesuits. The rule of the secret-ballot means something or nothing. If it means anything, it is designed to secure to each and every member of the Lodge, the right to cast his vote on the admission of candidates, according to the dictates of his own judgment, without the liability of exposure to censure or prejudice in any quarter. And so important is this rule to the peace and prosperity of the Lodges, that it is held by experienced and intelligent Brethren, that a member is derelict in his duty when he voluntarily discloses the character of his vote to another. The guarantee of secrecy afforded by the rule, implies an obligation on his part to keep it. It is given to him for grave and important purposes, and he is not at liberty, by any disclosure, to endanger the peace of the Lodge or the friendly relations of any of its members. This would be a frequent result, and the object of the rule would be as frequently defeated, if the practice of communicating their votes to each other were to obtain among the members. By the same law one member is not free to question another as to the character of his vote. No rule in Masonry is better established or more generally conceded than this ; and no well-informed Mason will allow himself to be questioned, either by an individual or the Lodge; for in this matter the Lodge possesses no power above that of the individual. Neither has any control over the vote, or right to question its propriety. Hence the course adopted by the Lodge in the case given by our correspondent, was unauthorized and improper.

==== Discipline ====

''From Vol. XVI, No. 11, September 1857, Page 321:''

''Plymouth, N. C, July 22d, 1857. ''<br>
''Bro. Moore.''

''Dear Sir,'' — Several years since a member of our Lodge ran away, and, in leaving, defrauded several of the fraternity, for which he was regularly tried and expelled from " all the rights and benefits of Masonry"; but the Secretary of the Lodge neglected to give the usual notices to other Lodges, and also to send up the case for confirmation to the Grand Lodge, and so the case now stands. In the meantime, the person expelled has returned. At our last meeting a member moved a reconsideration of the matter; the Master ''pro tem'' (I was absent) refused to entertain the motion, but the matter again comes up at our next meeting.

Will you please give me your opinion as to how I ought to act as Master, and the Lodge, so as to place herself right. Please write me if not asking too much, and if so, answer through your Magazine.

Fraternally yours, ''H. B. S.''

In answer to the above inquiry we addressed a private note to the writer, intimating, as the result of the slight consideration we had then been able to give to the subject, that the legal effect, of the sentence of expulsion by the Lodge, until confirmed by the Grand Lodge, according to the provisions of its Constitutions, was to suspend the delinquent from his privileges as a Mason, the Lodge not being invested with the absolute power to expel. It may pass a sentence of expulsion, as in the present case, on an unworthy member ; but until its action is approved and confirmed by the Grand Lodge, the member is not expelled from the Institution. The rule now most generally recognized in such cases, is in the following words :— "A sentence of expulsion shall not take effect, until confirmed by the Grand Lodge; but shall operate as a suspension of the delinquent in the meantime." The Lodge, therefore, did all that it  had power to do, and its action was full and complete. It arraigned and tried the accused on the charges preferred against him. The result of the trial was conviction, and the sentence was expulsion. Here the duty of the Lodge and its jurisdiction over the case terminated, unless remanded by the Grand Lodge for some informality in the proceedings, or a modification of the sentence. Whatever else remained to be done to give effect to the action of the Lodge, lay with the Grand Lodge, alone. The Lodge itself had nothing more to do with the case. The transmission of the necessary papers to the Grand Lodge was simply a clerical duty of the Secretary. This it appears he did not perform ; but his neglect of a clerical duty cannot be allowed to vitiate the proceedings of the Lodge. Such a precedence would be fraught with incalculable danger. The neglect, however, by leaving the sentence of expulsion unconfirmed, and therefore incomplete, left the accused under the minor sentence of suspension. In this condition he still remains, and from it there is no lawful way for him or his friends to extricate him, but through a petition to the Lodge for restoration to his Masonic privileges. Hence we think the presiding Master was right in refusing to entertain the motion to reconsider the previous vote of the Lodge.

Such is the substance of our answer to the preceding inquiry. Since its receipt however by the Brother to whom it was written, another correspondent, and a member of the same Lodge, has addressed us the following note, which we very cheerfully give in this connection, though we are at a loss to perceive that it proposes any point of inquiry, not answered, either directly or impliedly, by what we have already said :—

''Plymouth, N. C., Aug. 5, 1857.''

''Bro. Moore'' — I would be pleased to know your opinion as to the following point :—

At a stated meeting a resolution was passed expelling a Master Mason — no notice being given, nor the proceedings in the case, being sent to the Grand Lodge, In the meantime, a motion to rescind (at a subsequent meeting) is moved and the motion is not entertained by the Master.

Under these circumstances — has not the Lodge jurisdiction in the case, and does she not retain it, till due notice is sent to the Grand Secretary with the proceedings?

The member being only suspended, and the Lodge, for valid reasons, either from informality of the proceedings, or ascertainment of the innocence of the accused, or he having made amends for his conduct towards the aggrieved Brother, &c, — could not the Lodge at a subsequent stated meeting, after due notice to the members, take the matter under consideration and reverse its decision, at any time before the usual notice and proceedings in the case had been given to the Grand Lodge? This is the point I desire your opinion on. I am aware of the case cited in volume 7, page 321 of your Magazine, as well as your letter to our W. Master. This point does not seem to be clear.

Upon the ground that notice had been given to the Grand Secretary and the papers in the case forwarded, then the case would be clearly out of the jurisdiction of the Lodge.

The case referred to has been of about five years standing—four meetings of the Grand Lodge have taken place, and neither the notice nor papers in the case have been forwarded.

''Yours fraternally.''

As we have already said, the  jurisdiction of the Lodge over the case terminated with the verdict. It then, by a Constitutional provision of the Grand Lodge, passed into the jurisdiction of that body. The Lodge had nothing more  to do with  it, — it was then beyond its control, and could come before it again only by order of the Grand Lodge. But, says our correspondent, the papers were never sent up to that body. And this is true; but the omission affected the case only as it modified the verdict, in the manner indicated. It did not  restore or continue the jurisdiction of the Lodge, or invest it with any power which would authorize it now to re-open the case. If this were otherwise, then it would be competent for the  Secretary, or the Master, by withholding the papers, to defeat the purposes of the Lodge, in any case, requiring the confirmation of the Grand Lodge for its perfection. This would  be opening a wide door to abuse.    The Secretary may be held to a rigid accountability for neglect of duty, but  the action of the  Lodge must stand. Besides, we do not understand by what rule of proceeding a vote of suspension or expulsion can be reconsidered after the lapse of five years from the date of its passage. We repeat, the only proper way is for the suspended Brother to petition to be restored to his privileges. If he is found worthy his request will doubtless be granted by the Lodge.

===== Moral Fitness of Candidates =====

''Moore's Freemason's Monthly, Vol. XVI, No. 355, October 1857, Page 355:''

''The following judicious and seasonable remarks on the qualifications that should be exacted of candidates for admission to our Lodges, we extract from a report adopted at the late quarterly communication of the Grand Lodge of this Commonwealth; and we recommend them to the careful consideration of the Lodges and Brethren everywhere :—''

"The words of caution, which the Grand Master was pleased to offer, respecting the qualification of candidates to our Order, are wise and timely; and it is devoutly to be hoped they will be duly heeded. That the moral and social fitness of candidates is too often overlooked, cannot be denied. The hot haste with which they are sometimes passed through the various degrees, induces the belief that the ''fee'' is regarded as paramount, and all other qualifications as of minor importance. Such practices are the bane of the institution, merit the severest reprehension, and, in fact, justify the revocation of Charters. 

The investigation of character is frequently so imperfectly performed, that it is of no practical use whatever. If nothing is found in the character of the applicant decidedly bad, — although there is nothing known to be positively ''good'' — he is recommended as a suitable person for the honors of Masonry. And oft times when there are some glaring defects of character, he is introduced into the Order, in the hope that the moral influence of the institution will reclaim him, and lead him in paths of virtue and innocence. Although a reformation may sometimes be achieved in this way, yet it is a dangerous experiment, and should be wholly discountenanced. The Lodge was never designed to be a hospital for moral delinquency. None should be permitted to pass its threshold whose moral character will not stand the test of the severest scrutiny. No defective material should be used in the construction of our Masonic Edifice. Your Committee would therefore recommend, that greater care be enjoined upon the working Lodges, in the admission of candidates to the Order, and that the term of probation be scrupulously observed."

==== Membership ====

''From Vol. XVII, No. 2, December 1857, Page 33:''

''Chas. W. Moore, Esq.''

''Dear Brother'' — Ought Masons who have been admitted members of Lodges and subsequently moved away to other towns, where other Lodges are located, and perhaps into another State of the Union, and have not signified their withdrawal of their membership, and have not attended the Lodge meetings of their respective Lodges for ten, twenty, and even thirty years, to be returned to the Grand Lodge annually, as members of the Lodges in which they were admitted?

Is it not virtually deceiving the Grand Lodge as to the number of members of the Lodge, by so returning them as members? What is the duty of such Lodges towards such members?

I have been led to ask these questions for the sole purpose of ascertaining who are and who are not members of Lodges, agreeably to Masonic law and usage. We have quite a number (who pride themselves in being members of our Lodge, and reasonably enough too,) who have not been inside of our Lodge for ten, twenty and thirty years, and are all good mm and true, so far as we are acquainted.

By giving us your opinion in the Magazine, which is always considered ''Masonic  law'', you will oblige perhaps many. ''A. S.''

Membership in Lodges is so much a local matter, and, consequently, so entirely subject to local regulation, that it is difficult to determine any question affecting it, without a full knowledge, not only of the By-Laws, but of the general practice, or usage, which has obtained in the Lodge. We think, however, it may be safely assumed, that a Brother having once acquired membership in any Lodge, retains the connection, with all its rights and privileges, until he voluntarily surrenders it, or it is terminated by act of the Lodge. This being true — and it is too plain a proposition to admit of doubt — it follows, that incase a member has neither resigned, been suspended, nor discharged, his membership continues and holds good, even though he may not have been present at a meeting of the Lodge for "ten, twenty or thirty years" — provided, there is no provision in the By-Laws, or regulation of record, which would, on the occurrence of certain described events, discharge him from membership, without the intervention of the Lodge, or its Master, — as, for example, a provision making a continuous absence and neglect of duty, for six months, or a year, operate as a forfeiture of membership, without notice. Such a regulation, not requiring the act of the Lodge to give it force, would, per se, discharge the delinquent, and the Secretary, under the direction of the Master, would be fully authorized to erase his name from the books, there being no cause of action against him. In the absence of any such provision, the membership remains as stated.

A rule of practice holds good until it is changed or repealed by the competent authority; nor is it subject to any limitation, or diversity, in its application to different parties. It must be equal in its operations, or it is unjust, and therefore, masonically, inoperative and of no binding force in the Lodge. Hence, if neglect of attendance at the meetings of the Lodge for one year, does not, of itself, vitiate the membership of the delinquent — and in the absence of any regulation, written or otherwise, to the contrary, it certainly does not — then, neither does absence for " ten, twenty or thirty years;" for the same principle obtains in either case. Such long neglect of duty would doubtless be received as a sufficient justification for erasing the name of a member; but until this is done,—until the name is stricken from the roll by vote of the Lodge,— the membership remains intact, and the Secretary has no warrant for omitting it in the annual return to the Grand Lodge. The return should give the exact number and names of the members of the Lodge, at the time it is made. If it does this faithfully, it cannot be said to be an erroneous representation, though it may not discriminate between the actual and nominal members, nor indicate the true numerical strength and condition of the Lodge. To this extent it may be deceptive, though not in an offensive sense, — the element of intentional wrong being absent. It would, nevertheless, lead the Grand Lodge, or any other party, to false results, in any general estimate, predicated on the return so made, of the number of affiliated Masons residing within the jurisdiction; and so far, also, it would be deceptive in any practical application of the information furnished by it. This is certainly a condition of things not to be desired. The returns should show precisely what they are designed to show, neither more nor less, namely, the actual work and numerical condition of the Lodges. When they fail to do this, or do it in an unreliable manner, or in a way calculated to lead to wrong results, they become of little value.

The class of members in question, is not probably a very numerous class, as it certainly is not a very useful or desirable one. Our correspondent does not inform us whether, in his own Lodge, the members are required to pay annual dues ; but we infer that they are not,—the income of the Lodge being sufficient to defray its ordinary expenses. If such were not the case, these quasi members would probably resign, and connect themselves with some Lodge in the place of their present residence.

It is a mistaken policy that obtains in some of the Lodges in this jurisdiction, not to require a membership-fee, and quarterly or annual dues, of their members. This should be done, if not for the support of the Lodge, for the benefit of the charity fund. We cheapen Masonry when we reduce the admission-fee to a nominal sum, and we destroy the dignity and value of Lodge-membership when we offer it for the asking. The privileges which it confers are such as should commend themselves to the favor of, as they are important to, every Brother; and the duties and responsibilities which it imposes, are such as every Mason, who values his connection with the Institution, should be, not only ready and willing, but happy, to assume and perform. In the Lodges in all our larger towns and cities, a considerable fee for membership is exacted, and the regular payment of annual dues demanded. It should be so in every Lodge, however independent its pecuniary condition may be. There is little danger of swelling the charity fund of any Lodge to an inconvenient size ; and every Brother, of competent means, should be willing to contribute to it, for the benefit of others, less highly favored than himself. In many of the Masonic jurisdictions in this country, the Lodges are required to pay a capitation-tax to the Grand Lodge for every Brother whose name is borne on their respective rolls of membership. Whether this be the most desirable method of taxation or not, it compels the Lodges to look after their ''drones'', and might at least work well in its application to the class of members described by our correspondent, — many of whom, .doubtless, besides shirking all dues, shield themselves, on the plea of their quasi membership, from the operation of the stringent regulations in force in many of the States against non-affiliated Masons; and they are thus enabled to enjoy all the privileges, without bearing any of the burthens of the Institution. Should misfortune overtake them or theirs, they will not be found backward in pressing their claims, as members, on the private funds of the Lodge, to which they have contributed nothing, for "ten, twenty or thirty years."

Our correspondent asks— "What is the duty of the Lodge towards such members?" And it may also with equal pertinency, be asked, in connection with this inquiry — What is the duty of the Lodge towards itself? — for these members are hardly more at fault than the Lodge. If the latter has seen fit to continue on its roll, year after year, for ten or twenty years in succession, the names of Brethren who have not paid it the doubtful compliment of an occasional visit, or contributed anything to its support, or to its charity fund, during that length of time, it may properly take to itself a considerable share of whatever blame attaches to the fact. It is not very surprising that selfish men, or indifferent Masons, should be found willing to accept of indulgences, or exemptions from cares and responsibilities which confer neither honor, distinction, nor emolument. This is all very natural, though it may exhibit a weak, and perhaps not a very creditable, trait in the human character. The reformation then should be the joint act of both parties. Let the Lodge take the initiative, by requiring its non-resident members to withdraw and connect themselves with some Lodge in the place, or immediate vicinity, of their respective residences, and thus become active and useful members of the Institution ; or else, to contribute annually to the support of the Lodge and its charity fund, a sum equal to the expenses and labors sustained by the active members in maintaining and carrying it on. The choice may well be left to themselves; but between the two they should be required to choose. Masonry is a live Institution, and it demands live members to sustain and carry out its active principles. Without vitality it is nothing, and its vitality is in its members.

The duty of being enrolled as a member of a particular Lodge, is too often either imperfectly understood, or too lightly appreciated, by our younger Brethren. It is true that by his initiation the candidate becomes a member of the Fraternity, and is thereby invested with certain privileges, — such as are common to all Masons, of all countries. But if he stop here, he is much in the condition of one whose home is nowhere, save where chance may throw him, — a cosmopolitan, having indeed a name, but without a local habitation, or the rights which belong to citizenship. A Brother so circumstanced may claim recognition as a Mason; but he is not in a condition to claim to be admitted to any participation in the government of the Lodge; to share its honors; unite in its pleasant ceremonial labors ; or to enjoy the privileges and advantages of its social re-unions. He must be as a stranger, in the home of his Brethren. If he visits the Lodge, it is as a spectator; if he shares in its privileges, it is through their courtesy. He is a recipient, without being a contributor. Hence his condition to this extent, is one of dependence on his Brethren. And this is a relation which he should not allow himself to hold, except from the clearest necessity.

Rebellion was not the remedy. The true course for the Cody was that suggested by their Grand Commander. They should have appealed to their Brethren of other States — laid their grievances and their wishes before them — and with them instituted and matured such measures as, at the ensuing triennial session of the national body, would have secured for them the needed relief, or resulted in its dissolution. And if it were proper, our suggestion would now be, that they reconsider their late action and adopt the course here indicated.

==== Honorary Membership ====

''From Vol. XVII, No. 2, December 1857, Page 44:''

''R. W. Brother Moore,'' — Will you do me the especial favor to give me, in writing, when convenient, your views upon the rights, duties and privileges of honorary membership in Lodges? I mean, of course, other than such as may be specially conferred and imposed by the By-Laws.

There are two classes of honorary membership. The first comprises those cases where distinguished Brethren are complimented by election to honorary membership in Lodges, other than those with which they are at present affiliated; and the second, of those where aged Brethren are placed on the roll of honorary membership, in their own Lodges.

The first confers the privilege of attending the public and private meetings of the Lodge, of occupying the honorary seats, and of uniting with the members in their social relations, on more equal and familiar terms than are usually accorded to ordinary visitors. The recipients are also privileged to speak to the character and fitness of candidates for the degrees, and generally on all subjects affecting the common welfare of the Fraternity, — in respect to which, from their long experience, they are presumed to be qualified to give safe and wholesome counsel. In the strictly local proceedings and government of the Lodge, they are not expected, nor would it be deemed courteous in them, to interfere, unless at the special invitation of the Master; and then, having stated their views on the matter in hand, their duly and privilege cease. They would neither consult their own happiness nor the welfare of the Lodge, by allowing themselves to become a party to any controversy before it, were such a course permissible. They are not required to sign the By-Laws of the Lodge, or to assume any of the liabilities or special duties which they impose on actual members; neither are they required to serve on committees;  nor are they eligible as candidates for office.

Such we understand to be the privileges with which, as a general rule, Brethren are invested by election to honorary membership in Lodges of which they were not previously members. There are, however, exceptions to the rule; and it is not uncommon lo find in the By-Laws of Lodges, a special  provision, conferring on this class of members, all the privileges of actual membership, except those of holding office and voting in the financial concerns of the Lodge. The second class differs from the foregoing, in that, the honorarium carries with it certain exemptions from duty, without impairing or deducting from the privileges of full membership. These are reserved to the recipient of the honor, intact. The compliment is usually conferred on aged Brethren, and after long years of faithful service in the various offices and duties of the Lodge. It exempts them from all obligation to take any part in the active labors of the Lodge, or to sustain any of its ordinary liabilities. They are not, for example, required to fill any of its offices, serve on executive committees, or to attend its meetings oftener than may be convenient to themselves; neither are they subject to the payment of the annual, or other assessments, except so far as to meet any capitation-tax that may be assessed by the Grand Lodge, and which has not been specially assumed in their behalf, by regulation or vote of the Lodge. ''(In many of the States the Lodges are required to pay to the Grand Lodge a capitation-tax on their members. Where this is the case, the exemption of this class of honorary members, by the Lodge, would constitute a direct tax on its Treasury.)'' But, as already intimated, these exemptions do not deprive them of any of the privileges with which they were previously invested as active members. They are still eligible to office; may serve, at their option, on committees; and vote on all questions before the Lodge. In fine, they enjoy all the privileges and may exercise all the rights of full membership. Were the opposite rule to obtain, and honorary membership construed to deprive the recipient of his privileges as an actual member, he would hardly esteem the change a compliment, or an acceptable compensation for long and faithful services.

==== Qualifications of Candidates ====

''From Vol. XVII, No. 2, December 1857, Page 58:''

''Mr. Editor'': — Both in private circles, and in the Lodge of which I am a member, a question has lately been under discussion, upon which some remarks from your pen would be of interest to many readers of your Magazine.

An application is received for the degrees from a candidate who possesses a good moral character, has visible means of support, and would doubtless conform to all our ancient usages. Yet on the other hand the candidate is one of those persons, who, while they bear a good moral character in the eyes of the world, may be said to have no character at all, so far as positive qualities are concerned. Nothing can be said against them except that they live and die leaving no mark behind them. The world is no better off for their having lived in it. They take no decided stand in life, and were they seen in one of our processions, if any thought was taken of them, it would be "O! He is nobody." How ought such persons to be admitted to our fraternity? Ought not there to be something more said in favor of an applicant for the degrees, than that he is "a clever fellow, of good moral character, and we find nothing against him?'' Ought there not to be something in his favor, to secure him admittance among us? We confer on him privileges of value. We endorse him as a man, in the highest sense of the term, throughout the Masonic world. What does he do for us? Has he that stamina which would be required in a time of persecution, to stand up against the maligners and opposers of the Order, and do battle for the right? Will his general bearing, and his personal character, tend to elevate the fraternity in the minds of. those who are not of us? Ought not the stand ing of the applicant, in the light of questions such as these, to be considered? It seems to me that there is a tendency to lower, rather than to raise the standard, to which every applicant should attain. ''Lambda.''

''It is hardly necessary for us to say, that the views indicated by our correspondent meet with our concurrence. They are such as have been frequently urged iu our pages upon the consideration of the Lodges; and they raise the standard of admission no higher than is demanded by the present condition of the Institution.''

=== [http://www.masonicgenealogy.com/MediaWiki/index.php?title=MassachusettsYear1858 1858] ===

==== Withholding of Degrees ====

''From Vol. XVII, No. 5, March 1858, Page 145:''

''Is it legal to withhold the degree after a candidate hat been balloted for?''

The Grand Master of Texas argues the question in this manner: 

"One question has been so often submitted to me, during my term of office, in different forms and from different quarters, that I consider it proper to present it to the Grand Lodge, that it may be finally determined. It is this: If objection be made, after a candidate has been balloted for and elected, but before a degree has been conferred upon him, should he receive the degree, and, if not, is it, or not, the duty of the Worshipful Master to withhold its conferment? I have uniformly decided that, in such a case, it should not be conferred, and that it is the duty of the Worshipful Master to refuse it. 

"I maintain that 'peace and harmony' lie at the foundation of all Masonic association and intercourse. Equally elementary is the rule that the 'consent' of a Lodge, to the 'making' of a Brother, must be unanimous. These principles will not be disputed; nor should they be evaded or overruled by quibbles or technicalities. The ballot is but the evidence of the consent of the Brethren. At the time when taken it is final, as it evidences the consent then given. But if time elapse before the candidate is actually inducted into the portals of our temple, some subsequent reason may induce the withdrawal of the consent. And, whenever the Master of a Lodge is made aware that the unanimity of the consent, first given, is broken, he is out of the line of his duty, if he suffer a degree to be conferred. The only limitation upon this rule, which our Grand Lodge has established, is this: That when a Brother, who was present and voted affirmatively, afterwards objects to the admission of the candidate, he should state his reasons for objecting, that the Lodge may judge of them. I doubt whether this is the old rule, strictly. It is, however, judicious, and its effects will, doubtless, be salutary. But if a Brother be absent when the ballot is taken, yet, before the conferment of the degree, signifies his objection, it is manifest, not only that the degree must be withheld, but that he cannot be called upon to disclose his ground of objection. The reasons for such a rule are numerous and satisfactory." 

"The practice of conferring degrees against the wishes of members, (say the committee of correspondence of the Grand Lodge of Illinois) is a growing evil. The ear of the Master of a Lodge should ever be open to hear the objections of members, in confidence, and if the objection be either reasonable or tangible, the degree should be withheld. True it is, that many are rejected upon frivolous grounds, yet, where one is improperly rejected, five are improperly admitted, and those who never should have been made Masons, are the very ones to reject good men, and they often do it as a matter of retaliation."

==== Discipline By A Lodge ====

''From Vol. XVII, No. 6, April 1858, Page 178:''

___, N. C, March 5th, 1858. 

Charles W. Moore, Esq., Boston. 

Dear Sir, — An unfortunate difficulty exists in our Lodge at this place, in relation to the offense of evil speaking among Brethren. An attempt made last night to investigate it, resulted in numberless disputes on points of Masonic law, and although authority was produced from your Magazine on some, the authority of Brother B , (a Mason of some eminence in N. C.,) on others, together with the oldest and best Masons in our Lodge, mostly all concurring, yet the difficulty has assumed so much of bitterness and panyism, that many are disposed to over-ride them all. Wishing to have the very best authority I can get, by our final action at the next regular communication, I make free to address you this for the purpose of eliciting answers to the following questions. I will state the case briefly first. 

A. and B. fall out, (both members of the Lodge,) and A., for the space of some eighteen months, denounces B. before Masons and the public at large, for a villain, and in all sorts of terms, and avows his determination to drive him from his position (as president of a school) and this section of the country. On being remonstrated with, he refuses to stop doing so, and declines to prefer any charge against B. in the Lodge, and continues to visit the Lodge, of which they are both members. A. is finally charged for this evil speaking, admits the truth of said charge, and justifies, by alleging that B. is an unworthy Brother, and goes on to offer proof, &c. Now for the queries : 

* 1st. In his justification can A. show facts of which B. had been guilty before he was made a Mason ? (1) 
* 2d. Can A. have the benefit of those facts to justify himself, if those facts were known to him for several months previously to the falling out, and during which time he was the ardent friend of B., and recommended him to the position which he now occupies ? (2) 
* 3d. Can a Brother be himself the sole judge of the unworthiness of another Brother, or does that judgment rest with the Lodge ? (3) 
* 4th. Are we not bound by our Masonic ties to treat every Brother as a worthy Brother, so long as he remains in full fellowship and uncharged, in the same Lodge with us ? (4) 
* 5th. If a Brother is aware of serious and solemn charges against a Brother, and for two years refrains from charging him, but permits him to occupy his position in the Lodge, is not this culpable and unmasonic ? (5)
* 6th. If A., on his trial, is permitted to make these charges against B., to show him unworthy and offers no other evidence of their truth, and B. in the same manner denies them, is there then any evidence before the Lodge to sustain A.'s justification ? (6) 
* 7th. Would letters from persons in a distant State, not known to us as Masons, and whose hand writing even is not known to us, addressed to A. without the knowledge or privity of B., be good and legal evidence of the facts charged by A. ? (7) 
* 8th. When on trial the prosecution has closed, and A. has replied and retired, that the vote might be taken, is it competent or proper to postpone the final vote to a subsequent meeting, and is it proper for the Lodge or the W. Master to say whether or not there shall be a postponement ? (8) 
* 9th. After the speaking of the evil words by A. is proven and admitted, is it not irregular and improper that these matters, in justification (or extenuation) should be heard at all, until after the question of "guilty or not guilty," is pronounced by the Lodge 1 (9) 

These are nearly all very plain and well decided questions, in my opinion, and it may seem like giving you unnecessary trouble to ask your advice, but nothing but high authority, distinctly given, will have any weight in the excited state of our members. 

You will confer a great favor on myself and perhaps advance the cause of pure Masonry, by answering as soon as convenient. Our next meeting will be on the first Friday in April, by which time I should like to have a reply. We have a large, and heretofore a most flourishing Lodge, and a respectable Chapter, in this place, but I much fear, unless we get this unfortunate difficulty nipped in the bud, that we shall decline, as the parties are both influential. 

I am, yours, respectfully and fraternally, ''Z. B. V.''

(1) Great moral delinquences, committed before initiation, may, doubtless, under certain conditions and limitations, be made available against a newly admitted member of the Order. But before they can be so used, it must be shown, that the offences were wholly unknown to the Lodge, by reason of being of such a character that a knowledge of them was unattainable at the date of the member's reception ; as, for example, a great crime committed on the eve of initiation, but undetected until after the admission had been consummated. In such a case, the crime, if of such magnitude as to render the further connection of the delinquent with the Lodge, a public reproach to it, and therefore inimical to its prosperity, would constitute good cause for expulsion. So, also, in a case of less magnitude, but where the delinquency would have barred the initiation had it been known at the proper time. But, in such a case, it must be shown that the member, by his subsequent good conduct, has not atoned for his offence ; or, in other words, that he has manifested no sufficient evidence of repentance ; but, on the contrary, that his present " life and conversation" are such that the Lodge cannot allow of his continuing his connection with it, without danger to its internal peace and prejudice to its public reputation. In a case like this, criminal or great moral delinquences, committed before initiation, may be used as cumulative evidence on the trial, for the purpose of showing that the general charac ter of the accused, past and present, is bad ; that his admission into the Lodge was the result of a want of proper information, and that the longer continuance of his connection with it, would endanger its good name and prosperity.

(2) It is very certain that it would not be competent for a member to avail himself, ''for purposes of revenge'', of the delinquences of another member, committed anterior to his initiation, and which, as evidenced by his subsequent friendly relations, he has long previously come to regard as matters to be forgotten and forgiven. This would be neither Masonic nor just. Under such a rule there would be no room for repentance or forgiveness.

(3) The accuser cannot sit in judgment on the accused. An opposite rule would be monstrous. He has an undoubted right to his own private opinion, but the case being on trial, the "judgment rests with the Lodge," and to its decision the accuser is bound to submit. 

(4) We are certainly bound to respect the rights of every Brother, and to regard and treat him as a Mason in good standing, while he remains in fellowship with the Lodge. Whether he be worthy of the relation he holds to the Lodge, may be a subject of individual difference of opinion, but such difference will not authorize nor justify any disparage ment of the Brother's character. If any member knows another to be unworthy, it is his privilege to accuse him before the Lodge and put him on his trial, but he may not accuse him, without afTording him an opportunity to justify himself. Such a course would render the accuser liable to discipline before the Lodge.

(5) We should regard the neglect to bring the charges, as indicating that the Brother was satisfied the offence had been atoned for, by repentance and subsequent good conduct; and we should also hold that the lapse of two years, was a sufficient bar to his bringing the charges at the expiration of that time. 

(6) No Lodge would be authorized to convict on such evidence. 

(7) Such evidence would be of no avail. 

(8) We think the vote should be taken at once, unless postponed by consent of the parties. We are clearly of the opinion that the Master would not, of his own authority, be justified in postponing it ; and the reasons must be very strong indeed where such an interference on the party of the Lodge would be justifiable.

(9) It would doubtless be proper that all matters in mitigation of punishment, should be heard after the verdict. We do not readily perceive how they could be urged before it is ascertained whether an offence has been committed or not, and this can be known only from the verdict of the Lodge. 

We have answered these interrogatories very briefly and hastily, but trust what has been said will answer the purpose of our correspondent ; and we shall greatly rejoice if it contribute in any measure to a recon ciliation of the existing difficulty. Let the two Brethren at variance remember that " to err is human," and become reconciled. This would be more in accordance with the spirit and teachings of Masonry, than are their present relations to each other.

==== Suspension of a Lodge ====

''From Vol. XVII, No. 9, July 1858, Page 259:''

A correspondent, officially connected with the Grand Lodge of Maine, presents the following case for our consideration and opinion :—

The Charter of Union Lodge was arrested by Grand Master in 1855, on account of dissension among its members.
* ''Ordered'', by Grand Lodge, May, 1856, that the Lodge be suspended for one year, and until harmony shall be restored — that after one year the Grand Master may restore the Charter, if petitioned for, whenever he may be satisfied of the propriety of doing so.

May, 1858, petition signed by a portion of the members, was presented to Grand Lodge, and the Charter was ordered to be restored to the individual petitioners named in the petition.

Questions now raised.
* Was the effect of the order of Grand Lodge in 1856, to suspend the Lodge from the exercise of its powers as a Lodge? or did it place the members, individually, in the position of suspended Masons — same as if tried and suspended from the rights of Masonry for unmasonic conduct?
* Does the restoration of the Charter leave those not named in the petition, standing suspended from the rights and privileges of Masonry?
* Has the Lodge, when re organized, authority to receive said Brethren as members, without action by the Grand Lodge, restoring their Masonic standing?

We thank our intelligent correspondent for the clear and comprehensive manner in which he has stated his case, for it relieves us of all necessity for conjecture, and danger of misapprehension, as to the precise nature and bearing of the questions proposed. It also obviates any necessity for a recapitulation of the points to be decided. We may, therefore, come directly to the consideration of the matter in hand. 

1. It is a rule of common law that no man is to be adjudged guilty without first giving him an opportunity to be heard in his own defence, either personally or by counsel, as he may elect; and this rule is founded in justice and humanity. To convict and punish the accused without a hearing, without a trial, and an opportunity to establish his innocence, would be no less reputinant to the common sympathies of humanity than opposed to the genius and principles of Masonry. And yet such would clearly and unavoidably be the effect of a vote of the Grand Lodge, or an edict of the Grand Master, suspending a Lodge, if such vote or edict carried with it the suspension, also, of the rights and privileges which its members individually acquired by their initiation, and of which, by the laws and customs of the Institution, no Mason can be deprived, except for misdemeanors of which he has been convicted, after citation and trial before his peers.

Whatever may have been the intention of the Grand Lodge, there can be no difficulty in determining the legal effect and obligation of its order of 1856. On this point there is no room for misconstruction or doubt, if our correspondent has correctly transcribed the order  and that he has done so his official position is a sufficient assurance. By the terms of the order, then, " the ''Lodge'' was suspended for one year." That the word ''Lodge'' is here used as the synonym of ''Charter'', clearly appears from the terms of the second branch of the order, namely, " that after one year the Grand Master may ''restore'' the ''Charter'', if petitioned for." The thing suspended was the thing to be restored, and that was the Charter. No power is given to the Grand Master to restore the ''members'', nor was any needed, for the order of the Grand Lodge did not suspend them. If any doubt yet remain on this point, we think it must be removed when it is considered, that by the laws of the Institution, Brethren under suspension are not in a condition to petition for, or to receive, a Charter from the Grand Lodge. Their own restoration to the full possession of their rights and privileges as Masons, becomes, in such a case, a condition-precedent to their being organized into a Lodge. It is manifest, therefore, that the Grand Lodge did not contemplate by its action any suspension of the members of the delinquent Lodge from their general privileges as Masons, but simply a suspension of their corporate or chartered rights as a Lodge, until such time as they should learn to live and act together in the true spirit of Masonry.

2. The restoration of the Charter to the petitioners only, was doubtless expedient, inasmuch as the Grand Lodge, by the exercise of a just discrimination, was thereby enabled to reinstate the Lodge, free from the disturbing elements that had previously operated to destroy its prosperity and usefulness; and on the presumption that such a discrimination was exercised, and that the petitioners consisted of the more conservative and reliable of the original members, it had reasonable ground for believing that the affairs of the Lodge would thereafter be so conducted as to redeem the confidence it had forfeited by its mismanagement. To have restored the Charter to all the original members, indiscriminately, would have left no room for any such hope. The restoration to a part only of the original members does not, however, affect the general Masonic standing of the remainder.

3. They are in a condition to be admitted to membership, should the Lodge, when re-organized, be disposed to receive them. No action of the Grand Lodge is necessary to this end, nor is it a matter within the control of that body, unless it shall see fit to institute proceedings against them as individuals, and by suspension or expulsion, deprive them of their privileges as Masons. This, as we think must satisfactorily appear from what has already been said, it has not yet done, nor is there any intimation that they have been so dealt with by any Lodge, or other body of competent jurisdiction. They therefore stand in the relation of nonaffiliated Brethren. It is not, however, to be presumed that the reinstated Lodge, though it possess the power, will be disposed to receive them into membership, until it is well assured that it can do so with entire safety to its own peace and credit. Any other course would be a betrayal of the confidence of the parent body, and a reproach to the Lodge.

So far in answer to our correspondent. But a word or two further in this connection may not be unprofitable, though it be but to repeat what we have said on a former occasion.

The suspension in the case we have been considering was by order of the Grand Lodge. It is, however, equally competent for the Grand Master at any time, for adequate cause, to arrest the Charter of any Lodge within his jurisdiction, and thereby suspend iis operations until the complaint can be brought before the Grand Lodge for adjudication; and it is equally competent for him, with the same restriction as to time, to suspend a part or the whole of the members of a Lodge from their Masonic privileges; but in the exercise of this great power, he should be exceedingly careful that he does so with a sole regard for the welfare of the institution, and that he does not exceed the strict rules of duly and justice. It might do for him to say to the Master of the Lodge — "Sir, by virtue of my authority as Grand Master, I arrest the Charter of your Lodge, and summons you to appear before the Grand Lodge at its next communication, to show cause why it should not be revoked ;" because the Master is the legal custodian of the Charter, and as the legal representative of the Lodge, may be lawfully held to answer for any intentional irregularity in its proceedings. But ho is not the representative of the members in their individual capacity, nor can they be individually arrested or punished through him; that is, his suspension could not be construed to carry with it the suspension of the members of his Lodge, though all might be equally gut I Ly and deserving of punishment. It would not, therefore, be sufficient for the Grand Master to say to him — "Sir, I suspend you and your members, and summons you to appear before the G. Lodge;" because each member is alone responsible for his individual acts, and cannot be held to answer for the misdoings of another. If a member, therefore, whether acting as an individual, or in connection with a number of individuals, commit an offence of sufficient magnitude to justify the proceeding, the only lawful and Masonic course is to serve him, personally, if to be found, or if not, to leave at his usual place of residence, a certified copy of the charges against him, with a summons to appear at the prober lime and place to make his answer; and, if the exigency of the case demand it, a notice of suspension by the Grand Master, until his trial can take place. We know of no other way in which delinquent Brethren can be lawfully arraigned and suspended or expelled from Masonry, except, as before intimated, in extreme cases, when the Grand Master may suspend, ''viva voce.''

==== Public Processions ====

''From Vol. XVII, No. 12, October 1858, Page 353:''

''Fredericton, New Brunswick, September, 1858.''<br>
''To the Editor of the Boston F. M. Magazine.''

''Sir and Brother'' — I would most respectfully ask your opinion upon a matter that some of my Brethren and myself think ought to be settled, and I am told it has not been spoken of in the Magazine.

In the great holiday on account of the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transatlantic_telegraph_cable Telegraph Cable], there was a procession in this place. The Fire Companies turned out, and so did the Masons. The Managing Committee for the day went first, then the Mayor, then the Band, the Masons, and the Fire Companies, &c.; but there was a difference among ourselves as to the place that the Masons should hold in the procession; many of us, I think the greatest part, thought we should be in the rear, as the post of honor, as ours is the oldest society perhaps in the world, and we have always seen the highest Masons walking in the rear at Masonic Processions, thus showing that the rear is the post of honor. Some of the old Masons among us thought that in a mixed procession, we must take that place that the people joining in the procession considered the post of honor.

Now although I am not quite reconciled to the notion that we should join in any public procession where no Masonic duty is to be done, it might be well enough to know exactly where we ought to be placed in cases like the one that I refer to, and I am sure your opinion will go far to settle the question in our minds.

Begging your pardon, Sir and Brother, for the trouble I am putting you to I am, fraternally yours, &c,<br>
''A Novice in the Craft.''

We heartily concur in the opinion indicated by our correspondent in the closing paragraph of his note, that it is not advisable for Masonic Bodies to appear in public, when no other purpose is to be answered thereby than that of swelling a civil pageant; or, in other words, on occasions where they have no appropriate duty or service to perform. We do not believe such public shows, or parades, to be consistent with the usages, nor with the teachings of Masonry. None of us would encourage the appearance of a Bible, Missionary, or other religious society, in a fourth-of-July procession, because it would be entirely out of place, and present such a mixture of sacred and secular things as few could approve or desire to witness ; and although a Masonic Lodge may not be strictly a Bible or religious society, it is so far religious in its principles and teachings that it would be hardly less out of place in such mixed company. There may be occasions when religious societies can appear in public without any offence to good taste, but such occasions are rare, and can never happen when the object to be accomplished is of no higher character than the swelling of the show in a celebration of some political anniversary or other event of popular interest. There are occasions, also, when a Masonic Lodge may with strict propriety appear in procession in the public streets; but those occasions are exclusively Masonic; as, for example, when there is some Masonic anniversary to be celebrated, or Masonic service to be performed. Where neither of these purposes constitute the occasion, a Masonic Lodge in the public streets, is out of place.

But this does not answer the inquiry of our correspondent, namely, where, in a mixed procession, is the place of the Lodge?

Masonic processions are usually formed "left-in-front" — that is, with the highest officer or senior body in the rear, which, in such cases, is the right of the procession. Hence in all such processions, the "post of honor is in the rear." Reasoning from this fact, the Brethren referred to by our correspondent, have very naturally, perhaps, arrived at the conclusion, that the "rear" in all processions, must necessarily be the "post of honor." But the fact is not so. Civil processions are more usually formed " right-in-front," and in such processions, the "post of honor" is in front. The procession was so formed in the case cited by our correspondent. The Mayor and his suite were on the right of the procession, occupying the post of honor, and next in order and in rank, was the Masonic Fraternity. This was right; because, as the senior society in the procession, it was its privilege to take rank next after the public functionaries, and on the right of the more modern associations. Had the Lodges been placed at the extreme left, or in the rear, of the procession, as suggested, they would have been degraded, by being outranked by younger societies. But, on the other hand, had the civil procession been formed left in front, and thus brought the Mayor and civil authorities in the rear, then the place of the Lodges would also have been in the rear of the other societies, and directly in advance of the Mayor — that being the "post of honor." In such an organization of the procession, if the Masonic part of it were correctly formed, the Grand Officers, or whoever should represent them, would be brought in the rear of their division and directly in front of the civil authorities.

=== [http://www.masonicgenealogy.com/MediaWiki/index.php?title=MassachusettsYear1859 1859] ===

==== Balloting in Elections ====

''From Vol. XVIII, No. 5, March 1859, Page 136:''

A correspondent says— "Our Grand Lodge Constitution provides, that no Lodge shall elect its installed officers in any other manner than by ballot." In view of this regulation one of our Lodges has adopted the following resolution, on the propriety of which your opinoin is desired, ''viz''.:—

"''Resolved'', That hereafter in the election of officers the W. Master shall appoint two Brethren who shall act as receivers, whose duty it shall be to stand at the ballot-box — the first receiver shall receive the ballot from each Brother voting, and pass it to the second receiver, who shall put it in the ballot-box."

This resolution was passed, continues our correspondent, "in order to prevent by this plan any Brother from casting more than one ballot," which one or more of the members had on a recent occasion done.

The first thought that suggests itself on reading the above is, that the Lodge is made up of dishonest members, and ought to be disbanded at once. But as this is not to be presumed, we are wholly at a loss to comprehend the necessity for a measure so extraordinary, and so entirely unauthorized by any usage, Masonic or political. If indeed there are members in the Lodge so false to their obligations and so utterly devoid of honor and self-respect as to be guilty of so disgraceful a transaction as that of false voting, in an election of officers — (a thing that we are unwilling to believe can have obtained as a practice, though an individual case may have occurred) — then there are other and less objectionable means of protection, than that which has been adopted by the Lodge, — as, for instance, the requiring of the ballot to be enclosed in an envelope, and rejecting such as contain more than one vote, and thus causing the dishonest member to lose his vote—as a punishment for his dishonesty. 

By such a course no wrong would be done to any member, either in the exercise of his privilege or in the free expression of his preferences. But, by the rule which the Lodge has adopted, every member, if not positively disfranchised, is deprived of his inherent right to a free and unrestricted exercise of his privilege as an elector. If he vote at all, he must do so by proxy, — and this at second or third hand, through agents not selected by himself, but appointed for him by the Master of the Lodge! It would be more creditable to the Lodge, and far less derogatory to the character of its members, as intelligent men and Masons, to invest the whole power of election in the hands of the Master, or rather to abolish the elections altogether. The substance having been surrendered, the shadow is not worth preserving. We recommend our correspondent to bring the subject before his Grand Lodge, as a violation of the rights of the minority, and an unauthorized evasion of the intentions of its Constitution.

==== Objections After Ballot ====

''From Vol. XVIII, No. 5, March 1859, Page 139:''

A correspondent in Texas makes the following inquiry :—

What is the proper coarse to pursue under the following circumstances? — A candidate is balloted for and the ballot proves fair. At the next regular meeting, the candidate appears and demands the degree. A Brother who was absent when the ballot was taken, a member of the Lodge, is present in the Lodge-room before the Lodge is opened, proposes a written protest, stating in general terms, that he objects to the conferring of the degree upon the candidate, leaves it in the hands of the Secretary, and then retires from the Lodge-room. 

After the Lodge is opened, the protest is read, and the W. M. decides that the degree should not be withheld — 
* 1st. Because the Brother should have remained and made bis objection in person; 
* 2d. Admitting that the objection could be made in writing, the Brother being present in town, he should at least hare made some specific charge, which, if true, would render the candidate unfit for Masonic privileges. 

This decision is unanimously sustained by the members of the Lodge present, and the degree of Entered Apprentice conferred upon the candidate. Under such circumstances, did the Lodge act in accordance with Masonic usage In conferring the degree over the protest of the Brother T If not, what would have been the proper course?

Yours fraternally, ''W. D. W.''

The objection should have been entertained by the Master. This was his duty. He had no discretionary power in the matter. It was made by a member of the Lodge — and it would not have altered the case at all had it been made by another — but it was made by a member in good standing in the Lodge; and it was made also in an eminently proper and regular manner, and the clear duty of the Master was to receive and refer it to a committee for inquiry, and in the meantime to suspend the initiation. In not doing so, he not only neglected an important duty, but has clearly laid himself open to impeachment before his Grand Lodge, for official delinquency.

==== Correcting A Ballot ====

''From Vol. XVIII, No. 6, April 1859, Page 165:''

''A correspondent at Portland asks —''

"Can a Brother who cast a black ball get up and state, in open Lodge, that he threw a black ball, and that he is now satisfied he was misinformed and voted through prejudice, and wishes to make what amends he can? If he can so state, can it be done at a subsequent meeting?"

The Brother most certainly can make such a statement; and if true it is his duty to do so at the earliest possible moment, as the only means left him of repairing an unintentional, but serious wrong, done to a worthy and innocent man. If he discover his error before the closing of the Lodge on the evening on which the balloting took place, it would be entirely proper for the Master to order a new ballot, provided that but one negative ballot had been cast against the candidate. If, however, the explanation were not made until the next meeting after the rejection, then a new proposition would be necessary, not only for the information of the members who might be absent, but because a reconsideration of the former ballot would not be allowable under the practice of this country. 

And we think such new proposition might be safely entertained by the Master, even though the by-laws of his  Lodge should  require a greater lapse of time, as is the practice in many Lodges in different parts of this country— a practice however that does not commend itself to our favor either by its wisdom or justice. If a mistake has been made, and a candidate thereby improperly rejected, and thus injured in his character and credit, the least the Lodge can do, is to correct its mistake as soon as possible: and any rule which stands in the way of this, is unjust to the injured party, and inconsistent with those laws of Masonry which secures unto every man his just due. The circumstances of this case would seem to take it out from under such a rule, should the by-laws contain one, and authorize a departure from it, as an exception. But should the Master entertain any doubt on this point, then his clear duty is to apply to the Grand Master for a dispensation.

==== Restoration ====

''From Vol. XVIII, No. 6, April 1859, Page 166:''

''Halifax, N. S., March S, 1859.''

''Chas. W. Moore, Esq.''

''Dear Sir and Brother'' — Accompanying this I beg to transmit a copy of the Annual Circular of our Provincial Grand Lodge for the past year, which you will oblige by inserting in your much valued Magazine.

There is a question now before our Brethren upon which I am requested to ask your opinion, (the Constitution of the Parent Grand Lodge being silent on the subject,) viz.:— The Secretary of a Lodge having been guilty of embezzling the funds of the Lodge, and having failed to afford restitution or satisfaction, is suspended, and reported to the*Provincial Grand Lodge. The offending Brother on appearing before the P. G. Lodge to answer the charge, confesses his guilt, and proposes an arrangement for the restitution of the money, to which the P. G. Lodge agrees, although it will require about a year to carry out such arrangement. The question is, has the Prov. Grand Lodge the power to insist upon the members of the subordinate Lodge to receive such offending Brother again on good standing? or have the members a right to receive or reject him as they please, without the interference of any superior authority, just as they would receive or reject an applicant for initiation or affiliation?

A reply to the above will confer a favor on<br>
Yours very truly and fraternally, ''G. F.''

Questions affecting membership in particular Lodges, are necessarily controlled by, and must be decided, therefore, with reference to, the local regulations of the jurisdiction within which the subject-matter of them occurs. It is true there are certain general laws, or usages, which obtain where there are no special laws existing; but these cannot be resorted to, nor made available, as against the particular regulations of any Grand Lodge, within the limits of its own jurisdiction. In other words, in questions strictly local, — as, for instance, in the manner of admitting members, the fee, &c, — the special law of the jurisdiction obtains, to the
exclusion of any usage or practice that may exist elsewhere. If, as our correspondent intimates, it were true that "the Constitution of the Parent Body" — that is, of the Grand Lodge of England—were silent on the subject of his inquiry, we should say it was not competent, or if competent, it would be exceedingly impolitic, for the Prov. Grand Lodge to attempt to compel the Lodge to receive the delinquent again as a member. But our correspondent is mistaken. The Constitution of the Parent Body is clear, full and explicit on the subject, The terms of the regulation are such as to leave no room for doubt as to their meaning, nor as to what is the duty of the Lodge in the premises. 

We quote from page 47, Sec. 4, Ed. 1841 — Art. Prov. G. Master:—
<blockquote>
"The Provincial Grand Master has no power to expel a Mason, though he may, when satisfied that any Brother has been unjustly or illegally suspended, removed, or excluded, from any of his Masonic functions or privileges, by a Lodge within his District or Province, order him to be immediately restored, and may suspend, until the next quarterly communication, the Lodge or Brother who shall refuse to comply with such order.''
</blockquote>

Under this provision of the supreme law, the Lodge can have nothing to say in the matter, nor anything to do, but to receive the delinquent and admit him to the enjoyment of all the privileges of the Body, and to an equality with themselves. That the provision is based on a wrong principle, inasmuch as that in practice, the natural tendency of it must be to create discord and subordination, to disturb the harmony, to lessen the respectability, and endanger the safety of the Lodges in the jurisdiction, we think there can be no doubt. Take the case presented by our correspondent. The Secretary had embezzled the funds of the Lodge, and for so doing had been tried and suspended by his Brethren. He had been guilty of dishonesty, of cheating and defrauding the Lodge, and thus rendered himself unworthy of the confidence of his Brethren. They could no longer associate with him as an equal, nor continue him as a member of the Lodge, without compromising their own sense of honor and respectability. They therefore exclude him, cast him out, until such time as he shall repent of his error and seek their forgiveness. But in steps the Provincial Grand Lodge and says— "No, Brethren,— your Secretary has embezzled your money, and disgraced himself; but he will restore the money when he can get it, and in the meantime you must take him back to your bosoms and your confidence, and perhaps you may make an honest man of him, and get your money again!" And thus the Lodge is compelled to receive among them as an associate and Brother, a man with whom, under like circumstances, they would consider it a disgrace to be associated, in the walks of business life. The law is wrong in principle, and oppressive and dangerous in practice.

P. S.    Since the foregoing was  put into type, we have received the annual circular mentioned by our correspondent, and learn that the decision in question was given by the Prov. Grand Lodge acting under the Scotch, and not as we had inferred, by that under the English authority. The provision quoted from the Constitution of the latter, is not therefore strictly applicable to the inquiry. Our correspondent is measurably right in saying that the Scottish Constitution is silent on the subject. It certainly contains no specific and positive regulation, like that we have given from the English Constitutions. It does, however, provide that the "Prov. Grand Lodge shall hear and determine all subjects of Masonic complaint or irregularity respecting Lodges or Brethren within the District." The case stated by our correspondent was therefore properly within the jurisdiction of the Prov. Grand Lodge, and that Body having given judgment upon it, the only relief for the Lodge is to carry it up to the Parent Body by an appeal, as provided in Chap. xv. of the Grand Constitutions. We think such reasons could be presented to that Body, by our intelligent correspondent, as would lead to the adoption of a regulation, more consistent with what we infer to be bis opinion on the subject. Our own views are embodied in the following from the Constitutions of the Grand Lodge of this Commonwealth :—
<blockquote>
"''Sec. 9.'' Whenever this Grand Lodge shall reverse or abrogate the decision of a subordinate Lodge, suspending or expelling a Brother, and shall restore him to the benefits and privileges of Masonry, he shall not thereby be restored to membership within the body from which he was suspended or expelled, without its unanimous consent."
</blockquote>

==== Masonic Burials ====

''From Vol. XVIII, No. 7, May 1859, Page 139:''

''R. W. Chas. W. Moore — Dear Sir and Brother —

Will you be kind enough to answer in your Magazine the following questions :—
* 1st. Has a Grand Lodge the right to forbid a subordinate to inter a deceased Brother because he was non-affiliated ?
* 2d. If so, when and how was this right obtained?
By answering the above at your earliest convenience, you will much oblige.

Yours Fraternally, ''B.''

A Grand Lodge has doubtless the power to regulate the operations of the Craft within its jurisdiction, and to make laws for the government of its subordinates. And whether right or wrong, there is no going behind the laws so made; because there is no higher authority to which an appeal can be taken; and for the additional reason, that such laws are, and are to be received and respected, as the expression of the will and determination of the majority of the Fraternity, as declared through their lawful representatives in Grand Lodge assembled. 

Hence it follows that a Grand Lodge may, if it think proper, "forbid a subordinate to inter a deceased Brother, because be was non-affiliated." That such a law is right, in the sight of Christian humanity, or of that Charity which is synonymous with Masonry, and without which the latter is but a cold formality, we do not believe; neither will we ever be a consenting party to the punishment of the dying, for the delinquency, or most probably, the concealed poverty, of the living. Nevertheless, the power of a Grand Lodge to pass such a law, and the duty of its subordinate Lodges and the Brethren under its jurisdiction, to respect and obey its authority, do not, in our judgment, admit of any question. The remedy lies in its repeal, and not in a refusal to obey it.

It would be difficult to point out, with any degree of certainty, when or where Masonic burials originated, or the laws by which they were originally governed. Our correspondent, in a private note, intimates that every Master Mason knows where they originated. We need not discuss this point. But suppose our correspondent to be right, then every Master Mason also knows, that the ordering and form of the ceremonies, and their entire control and management, were originally in the hands of the Grand Master. Now, if the precedent be good for anything, it is good for all that it proves ; and the whole subject falls legitimately within the lawful jurisdiction of the Grand Lodge. Our English Brethren, as early as 1754, took this view of it in Grand Lodge, and ordained, as a "standing regulation" — ''That if any Mason shall, without the special licence of the Grand Master, or his Deputy for the time being, attend, as a Mason, clothed in any of tbe Jewels or clothing of the Craft, at any funeral, or funeral procession, he shall not only be forever incapable of being an officer in a Lodge, but even of tyling, or attending a Lodge, or partaking of the general charity, if he shall come to want it.''

This is certainly a stringent regulation, and was doubtless elicited by the abuse of the practice, while the exercise of it was mainly at the discretion of the Masters of Lodges. It is not improbable that it was at this time the Grand Lodge of England first resumed and asserted its inherent and exclusive control over it.

==== Procedures for Trials ====

''From Vol. XVIII, No. 11, 09/01/1859, p. 352:''

In response to an inquiry in the magazine: 

"In answer to N. L. B., Northport, Ala. - H., though not a member, may prefer charges against C. before the Lodge of which C. is a member, if he has sufficient cause for doing so; or he may request the appointment of a committee by the Lodge to investigate the subject of difference between them, and to report the result for the consideration of the Lodge."

=== [http://www.masonicgenealogy.com/MediaWiki/index.php?title=MassachusettsYear1860 1860] ===

==== Use of Tobacco In Lodges ====

''From Vol. XIX, No. 4, February 1860, Page 126:''

It is the duty of Masons to cultivate cleanly and gentlemanly habits at all times. In this matter, of coarse, they must, out of the Lodge, exercise their own judgment. There is a place and a time for all things. What is appropriate in the street or business apartment, is not, frequently, in the parlor, in church, or in the Lodge. It is the duty of the members of each subordinate body to adopt rules to prevent the practice of any disagreeable or unbecoming habit at their meetings.

The custom of chewing tobacco^prevails almost generally through this western country.   In the hotel, the street, the public conveyance, the theatre, the lecture hall, the counting room, the store, the business office—in short, in almost every place, hardly excepting the church or the parlor, men derive what pleasure there may be in grinding between the teeth a nauseous weed. This practice is participated in by all classes—the clergyman, lawyer, merchant and mechanic. The attorney at the bar borrows "a chew of tobacco" from his Honor on the bench. Let this general custom be kept out of Lodges and we have not a word to say against it in this Magazine, but when it enters on the ground floor, or passes to the middle chamber, or raises itself to the ''sanctum sanctorum'', then we have a duty to perform, and we shall not hesitate to perform it.

The use of tobacco in Lodges is, to many persons, filthy and disgusting. The constant spitting which it occasions is very disagreeable. Especially does this appear objectionable in officers who are conspicuous in the work. We have frequently seen Masters, Wardens, and the Senior Deacon, in the midst of the most important part of the ceremonies, coolly place in their mouths a large "chew of tobacco." As soon should we expect to see a minister in the pulpit, before commencing a prayer or a sermon, fill his mouth with the nauseous weed. One is as much out of place as the other.—''Ashlar''.

==== Disclosing Lodge Business ====

''From Vol. XIX, No. 6, April 1860, Page 180:''

All business transacted within a Lodge should be held strictly secret. The seal of silence should be set upon our lips in regard to all that occurs within a Lodge-room. Some of the Brethren, and particularly the younger ones, are entirely too garrulous and communicative in regard to matters that occur in the Lodge. They talk too much and too freely of such things, and of matters, too, which they do not understand themselves, when they are in presence of the uninitiated, who — thus having their prurient curiosity excited, and gaining a partial knowledge of our doings — form incorrect, and sometimes injurious, opinions of the character and object of our Institution. Very much harm is done in this way. and the practice cannot be too much deprecated or too severely reprobated. The monitors, and various Masonic papers and magazines, set forth our principles, and the published transactions of our Grand Lodge make known all that is necessary to be known of our proceedings. To these all can have access, and beyond this the uninitiated have no right to know anything about us.

==== Non-Affiliated Masons ====

''From Vol. XIX, No. 12, October 1860, Page 364:''

Much evil, we fear, is being effected by too strenuous and rigid enforcement of the local regulations, quite recently adopted by several of the Grand Lodges, with reference to non-affiliants. A case in point has been lately narrated to us. A Brother, in good standing, and every way worthy, was dimitted from his Lodge, and removed to a distant State. Owing to pecuniary embarrassment, it was impossible for him to do more than barely support his family, not leaving him a single dollar to spare for any other purpose, even after practicing the most rigid economy. Nevertheless he intended to apply as soon as his circumstances would permit. Under this state of facts he was suddenly summoned to appear and show cause why he should not be suspended for non-payment of dues. A professional engagement, which admitted of no delay, prevented his attendance at the time specified. Supposing that he would have further notice if the matter was prosecuted, the whole subject passed from his mind, until he saw his name published in the Grand Lodge Proceedings as having been suspended for nonpayment of dues. We can almost pardon this high-minded, honorable gentleman (for we know him to be such,) for saying as he did : "If this be Masonry, I'll none of it." " I never," says he, "took any obligation in Masonry which required me to pay dues to a Lodge to which I did not belong, and I find no warrant for such high-handed proceedings in the Constitutions or Grand Regulations. I have violated no obligation that I ever took upon myself in Masonry, and how, in the name of common sense, can I be disciplined for non-performance of that to which I never agreed, and that, too, ''ex parte'' and unheard!"
The Ashlar has several objections to the course taken in this by no means unparalleled case.
* ''First.'' No Brother should be disciplined without trial, and every care should be taken that of this trial he has due notice, and never should a "snap judgment," through any technicality, be permitted.
* ''Second''. A local regulation can only bind those Brothers who have voluntarily become subject to the local law. A non affiliant is only subject to his Masonic obligations and the universal laws of Masonry. It is the duty of the Mason to submit to the By-Laws of the Lodge of which he may become a member, and, of course, to the authority and ordinances of the Grand Lodge under which his Lodge works. But if voluntarily, or from any other cause, he remains unaffiliated, he is subject only to the universalities of Masonry, and can only be disciplined for violation of these.    This we deem a fundamental principle.
* ''Third''. It is an unmasonic hardship to compel Brothers to become connected with or pay tribute to a particular Lodge, or else suffer penalties. Supposing that a Brother is confident that his petition will meet with the black-ball from one or more members of the Lodge, is he to be compelled to risk the implied dishonor of a rejection? Or is it just to force payment of dues, when Lodge privileges are thus denied?

The present writer regrets that whilst recently occupying a responsible position in the Fraternity, he was obliged to insist upon carrying out the Grand Lodge regulation, but the evil resulting was found, practically, largely to preponderate.

It would certainly be more creditable to the Institution, to leave Masonic affiliation wholly a voluntary matter. The attempt to enforce it is, in the large proportion of instances, practically neglected, or too often employed as a means of gratifying private resentment or spleen.

The most obvious method of attaching non-affiliants to the Lodges seems to be the permission, by regulation, of a retired list of membership not required to pay dues. A long and active membership might be honored by election to this, or worthy Brothers of limited means might be placed upon it. One objection urged against this plan is, that Grand Lodge dues have to be paid for such members— the remedy is patent, let the Grand Lodge make a regulation to meet the case.

It is clear that something ought to be done. We do not, in the foregoing, wish to be considered as excusing inexcusable non-affiliation, but as remonstrating against a method of treating it too harsh for general application. 

''—Ashlar.''

==== Itinerant Lecturers ====

''From Vol. XX, No. 1, November 1860, Page 25:''

We had hoped that this great evil, which has in times past done more to unsettle the minds of the Brethren, and to destroy unity of work and practice among the Lodges, than all other causes combined, had been eradicated and destroyed, and that the disgrace which now attaches to the occupation of ''itinerant lecturing'', would hereafter prevent any Mason engaging in the business. But we regret to learn that in this particular we are to be disappointed, and that there are still among us nominal Masons who have so little self-respect, so little respect for the opinions of their Brethren, and so little regard for the interests of the Order of which they are unfortunately members, that they are ready to engage in any disreputable work, any cheating operation, any extravagant imposition, regardless of all consequences to Masonry, that will yield them a miserable subsistence, or, through a show of business, enable them to live in idleness, on a credit as worthless as their own sense of honor or honesty. These creatures, we are told, are quietly spreading themselves all over the country, and imposing upon young and inexperienced Brethren, who are but too ready to seize upon every novelty which carries with it a show of plausibility, and upon newly formed Lodges, the officers of which are but too often happy to avail themselves of any plausible theory, however erroneous, that will enable them to discharge their duties, in a ready, if not in & proper manner. 

The ruinous consequences of such a course of itinerant swindling, of such unauthorized interference with the government of the Lodges, and the importance of putting a stop to it at once, must be apparent to every intelligent Mason, and particularly to every Master of a Lodge. But how is the evil to be got rid of? These beggars will travel, and they will lecture whenever and wherever they can find Brethren credulous enough to listen to them; and they can be stopt only through the action of the Grand Lodge. The Grand Lodge of this State has the following regulation:—
<blockquote>
''Sec. 5.'' No Lodge shall encourage, promote, or permit, the delivery of any Masonic lectures, which have not been sanctioned and authorized by the Grand Lodge. Nor shall any Mason be permitted to deliver such lectures under this jurisdiction.
</blockquote>

A regulation like this, if generally adopted and enforced by the Grand Lodges, — as it is clearly the interest of all, and therefore the duty of each, to do, — the evil would be cured. By it, the permitting of such lectures, and the delivering of them, are made penal offences, punishable by loss of Charter or expulsion, or such other penalty as the Grand Lodge may see fit to impose. In this jurisdiction it has afforded us a measurable exemption from the evil it is designed to prevent, though it is not improbable that in some few instances our younger Lodges and Brethren may have been imposed upon by these harpies, whom we occasionally hear from as hovering about our borders and in the neighboring States. The work and lectures in this State have been permanently settled for more than half a century, and they are now given as they were given fifty years ago. Our Lodges neither need nor ask for any improvement or change in this respect. They simply desire to be let alone—to be left to themselves. And this is also true of every State in New England. They need no instruction from other sections of the country, and particularly not such as they would be likely to get from strolling pedlers of Masonry.

<hr>

[http://masonicgenealogy.com/MediaWiki/index.php?title=MassachusettsEdicts Edicts Main Page]