Difference between revisions of "MassachusettsEdicts MFM1871 1873"

Revision as of 01:01, 12 August 2013

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. 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.

1871

Past Masters

From Vol. XXXI, No. 2, p. 42, December 1871:

Dear Brother Moore.— The question as to what constitutes a Past Master was virtually introduced in the Grand Lodge of Virginia, at its last session by a decision of the Grand Master: viz. that "the installation of a Master-elect of a Lodge, followed by immediate resignation, will not entitle him to the rank of a Past Master who has not actually passed the Chair." In opposition to which ruling the Grand Lodge adopted the following, as reported by the committee to which the subject was referred. "Your Committee are of opinion that a Master-elect who has received the Degree of Past Master and been subsequently installed as Master of a Lodge is a Past Master without regard to the length of time he may have occupied the chair."

The point in this discussion is really whether the oath of office and the formal ceremonies incident to the installation of a Master, independent of the constitutional term of service, are of themselves sufficient to constitute the recipient a Past Master. In the decision of the Grand Master there-are two allegations ; one, that the ceremonies inducting to office do not make a Past Master, and the other, that to insure that rank there must be, in addition to the ceremonials, an occupancy of the office and a personal compliance with its duties, for a full constitutional term. Both of which positions are unquestionably correct. It seems to be a fair logical deduction, that where the constitutional regulations make the election annual, the term of service is for one year, and as the introductory ceremonies are also provided for, the acquisition of both is necessary to secure the emoluments of the office.

The practice of annual elections of officers in subordinate Lodges was probably established as a regulation early in the last century. It may possibly find its source at the annual gathering of the Craft to choose a Grand Master, even before a Grand Lodge originated. At any rate, be that as it may, it has now become a universal custom with the Craft, modified only by a difference of opinion regarding the length of time a Master should remain in office, before he is entitled to the benefits arising therefrom. While the right to resign a stational office is conceded by some Grand Lodges, it is denied by others and its awards withheld. There are very few instances, however, where the ruling so perfectly cuts off the necessity for personal service, and empowers the creation of Past Masters by a mere formal ceremony, as does this of Virginia. These conflicting regulations are more the result of diversified opinions and unscrutinized customs, than of any disposition to do violence to any old Masonic rule, and really grow out of a misconception of a well defined fundamental principle in Masonic government But still a deviation from the original design, however innocently fallen into, rarely ever adds strength or beauty to the institution. While the power may lie in a Grand Lodge to determine the prerequisite to Pastmastership, its right to violate any principle of Masonic law or usage in doing so, and particularly when its origin may be traced, as in the present case, to the earliest system of Masonic Government, is very questionable. It would be more desirable if the usage in this particular was more uniform: its incongruity not only leads to some embarrassment, but breaks in upon the harmony and symmetry of the Masonic system. In some instances, the various rulings and laws diverge so sharply, as almost to preclude the probability of a reconciliation of these conflicting views ; nor can relief be expected from this anomalous condition, unless by a general impulse the subject receives the calm and deliberate judgment of an enlightened brotherhood.

Among the ancient charges is this. "No brother can be made a Warden until he has passed the part of a Fellow Craft; nor Master until he has acted as a Warden; nor Grand Master unless he has been a Fellow Craft before his election, who is also to be noble bom, or a gentleman of the best fashion, or some eminent scholar, or some curious architect or other artist, descended of honest parents, and who is of singular great merit in the opinion of the Lodges, and further that in selecting a Deputy, the Grand Master is to choose a brother who must be then, or must have been formerly, the Master of a particular Lodge." It is evident from this special charge that merit and practical service are made a sine qua non to official positions ; no more initial ceremony could substitute its potent demand for physical duty and moral worth. Language more cogent could, scarcely have been selected to emphasize the design of the Craft of that day, to secure a proper appreciation of an official station by the occupant, and the responsibility resting upon him for fidelity and assiduity in the personal discharge of his duties.

The natural tendency of the doctrine of the Virginia Committee is, to empower a Lodge on the evening of the election, if it sees fit to confer the honor, to pass any number of Wardens and Masters, it has the time and subjects to operate upon. Under a certain condition of things in some localities, this would be a most dangerous liberty. As startling as such a proposition may be, its conclusion is inevitable. Nor is such an idea preposterous; doctrines equally strange, hurtful and absurd have been carried into practice, and their damaging effects realized. The Grand Lodge of Virginia makes the elections in its subordinate Lodges annual, and provides for filling any vacancy which may occur, but there appears to be no Regulation securing the benefits of the office against forfeiture, should the officer relinquish his duties before the termination of his official term. In consequence of this omission the benefits of the office are accorded to him by a local usage; there is no statute under which he could take refuge and claim the benefits as a right, should any questions arise as to his title to the privileges. The decision of the Grand Lodge in the case under review, has no constitutional Regulations to sustain it, beyond the force of a custom. The context of the Constitution is more strongly against it than in its favor. The annual elections fix as a consequence a yearly term of service, and although a remedy is provided, to relieve the Lodge from any embarrassment should any exigency arise, the object of the Regulations is to keep the Lodge in a healthy working trim, not to heap honors on such as may be derelict in duty. The tenor of the Constitution establishes this reasonable position. Where ever the terms "Master" and "Lodge" appear in it, may be traced the design of the law to enjoin upon the Master his personal attention to the duties of the office during the elective term; for instance, he is made the responsible custodian of the Warrant; he is to preside in the Lodge during its sessions; he is to exercise its executive functions ; he is held accountable for its lawful transactions; he is to become proficient in the work and lectures, and during his term of service holds membership in Grand Lodge. These duties and responsibilities are indicative of a personal identity with them, and mean action, and faithful labor. The Master's official obligation, although encumbered by extraneous immaterial matter, enforces an individual application, and brings more vividly,to view the responsibilities consequent upon his new relationship to the fraternity and Institution. Very many of our intelligent brethren overlook these items which so forcibly strengthen the argument of practical service, and indulge the impression that the ceremonies incident to the installation, are of themselves ample to create a Past Master, and thus impart to their theory vital reality.

The correctness of the term " Degree " as applied to the initial installation ceremony is very questionable even with its prefix "honorary." It would be questionable in a Collegiate sense, if intended to carry therewith any mark of distinction. If there was any ceremony attached to the adminstration of the Masters oath of office originally, it is not at all probable it was classed as a Degree. It assumed that character after it was incorporated among the Degrees of the Chapter, as a prerequisite to the Royal Arch Degree.. So far as the present generations may date back their personal knowledge in this matter, it is probable they have known no other form than the one at present in vogue. Many are familiar with its traditional history and ceremonial, but the oldest, who may be with us now, is scarcely old enough to have been Masons at the period when this new American work was first introduced, hence it is reasonable to expect a bias in its favor. It is principally its inconsistency, which renders its historical authenticity doubtful, and its utility questionable. It is generally known that when the Royal Arch Degree was under the control of subordinate Lodges, none but those who had regularly passed the Chair was eligible to it. That test of eligibility being originally an essential element in the qualifications of Candidates to that Degree in those bodies, it was deemed equally necessary to those seeking the Degree in Chapters upon the organization of Royal Arch Masonry. The success of the latter depended principally upon the quantity of material it could obtain to operate with. This demand could not readily be supplied. Past Masters were not made in a day, they were of a yearly production, and but here and there dotted a jurisdiction. To overcome the technical obstruction which this barrier interposed to its progress, the Past Masters Degree was constructed, when any number of nominal Past Masters were created, thus facilitating the passage of hundreds to the Royal Arch Degree. Of course to impart to this ceremony the character and tone of a Degree, there must be an imposing form, and a consistent history; both were found and elaborately decorated by the prolific imagination of the projector. This degree symbolized the service of a Master, covering the whole period of his official existence, beginning with the initial ceremony of installation and ending with his descent from the Chair. The term Past Master's Degree therefore, is perfectly consistent when applied to this Degree, when conferred in a Chapter; not so, however, when applied to the initial form given to the Master elect, before he enters upon the duties of his office.

It is scarcely probable that any one who received the Chapter Degree, in the early period of its history, ever appropriated to himself any virtue from it beyond its nominal title. The recognition of such, as Past Masters, was left for the erroneous construction of some of the brethren, who received it at a more recent date, through a misconception of the intent and character of the Degree. It is no part of York Masonry, and should receive no consideration as such from the fraternity. Whatever ceremonial may be found connected with the oath of office, was taken from the Chapter degree. If the object is to furnish by a Degree some means of identifying Past Masters, it would be more consistent to create a form of ceremonial for that purpose. I do not propose such a scheme, but it may be done with as much propriety as was the present form, some sixty or eighty years ago, and, I was going to say, with as little harm, but that fancy was not intruded with impunity. It fastened upon the Craft an error not easily removed or battled with; it created a new doctrine; established fixed prejudices; diverted a reasonable and legitimate usage, and has driven in an entering wedge, calculated under less favorable circumstances, to sever the tie uniting a Mason's tenacity to the ancient laws and customs, of the Order. The assumption of this article is that the inaugural ceremony of a Master is not a Degree; that if it is a Degree, acquiring it does not constitute one a Past Master ; that to become a Past Master, a Master has to serve out the full term to which he was elected, and that in every case where the Regulations do not expressly award the past honors to a Master for an unfinished term, he is not entitled to it by implication, but must remain in the discharge of his duties to the end of the first year of his election.

Yours in fraternal love, D.

1872

Initiation of Minors

From Vol. XXXI, No. 4, p. 97, February 1872:

A correspondent sends us the following:

Dec. 19, 1871.
Chas, W. Moore, Esq.

Dear Sir & Bro. — By the advise of eminent brethren here, I am induced to ask your opinion on the following — There is at present in out city a Bro. hailing from Canada, who was made a Master Mason in that jurisdiction, by dispensation, before he was 19 years of age. He is still under 21 years of age. Can we receive him as a regular Mason and allow him to visit our Lodges?

Very truly and fraternally yours, ----, P. J. G. Warden.

The earliest regulation on this subject, of which we have any recol
lection, is contained among the "Additional Orders and Constitutions 
made and agreed upon at a General Assembly" of the Fraternity in
 1663, and is in the following words:

"VI. That no person shall be accepted a Free-Mason, unless he be One and Twenty Years Old, or more."

In the Constitutions compiled by order of the Grand Lodge of Eng
land from the "general records and faithful traditions of many ages," 
in 1720, approved in 1721, and first published by order of that Grand
 Body in 1723, it is provided that

"The persons admitted Members of a Lodge most be good and true men, free born, and of mature and discreet age, - no bond men, no women, no immoral or scandalous men, but of good report"

And in the fourth article of the General Regulations appended to these Constitutions, mature and dvcreet age is defined to be twenty five years, as follows:

"IV. No Lodge shall make more than Five new brethren at one Time, nor any man under the age of Twenty-five, who must be also his own Master; unless by a Dispensation from the Grand Master or his Deputy."

In the Irish edition of these old Constitutions, published at Dublin in 1730, we find this same regulation, with the substitution of twenty-one for twenty-five, as the required age of the candidate. But in Anderson's Constitutions published at London in 1738, and in Entick's, published in 1756, the twenty-five years is still retained among the "Old Regulations." At what precise period the Grand Lodge of England reduced the required number of years to twenty-one, we have no ready means of ascertaining; but the fact is not material. The foregoing is sufficient to show what the old regulation was, and that, as a pre-requisite to his initiation, the candidate must have attained to his majority - to the full stature of his manhood and freedom — when, being "his own Master," he could truthfully and in honor present himself at the door of the Lodge as a man of "lawful age." And this requirement is literally and clearly recognized by the present English Constitutions, which enact that the "candidate must be a free man, and his own Master, and at the time of initiation, be known to be in reputable circumstances;" and, further, that before his initiation he shall "subscribe his name at full length, to a declaration " that he is "of the full age of twenty-one years."

The only conclusion to be drawn from these regulations is, that the candidate for Masonry most be of the full age of twenty-one years before he can lawfully be received into the Lodge for initiation. This is the rule and the law of Masonry, as it has come down to us from a time whereof the record of the Craft runneth not to the contrary, and, like many others of the old regulations and landmarks of the Craft, it is irrevocable and unchangeable. We first meet with the attempt to change or evade it, in the Constitutions of the Grand Lodge of England of 1793, through the Dispensation of its Grand Master. But the granting of that dispensatory power over it was a clear innovation upon the ancient law, and at best, constitutes but a doubtful exception to the rule, obligatory or permissible only within the limits of the jurisdiction when it originated. It cannot made available either directly or indirectly, in contravention of the law of any other independent masonic power whatever. And while we are not disposed to quarrel with our ancient mother for making Masons of minors, we admit no obligation on the part of the Lodges of this country, to receive or recognize them as such; for, as minors are young men "under age," whom it would be unlawful for our Lodges to initiate, it should seem to follow, as a logical sequence, that it would be equally unlawful to affiliate them as brethren, "lawfully made."

By the civil law of England, as by that of the United States, " lawful age" is twenty-one years. The law of Masonry does not differ from this, in either country. The Constitutions of the Grand Lodge of England so recognise it, and we are not aware that there is any difference in this respect among the Grand Lodges on the Continent, or elsewhere. It is a fundamental and fixed law of the Craft; and if it may be set aside by the dispensatory power of the Grand Master, or his Deputy, then may any other fundamental law of the Order, not excepting that which forbids the initiation of females, atheists, or libertines, be disposed of in the same way, and our Lodges be thus thrown open to the indiscriminate admission of all applicants, including minors, or, in legal phrase, infants, of both sexes. Extreme and improbable as this may appear, it is only carrying the principle out in its logical results.

We are not ignorant of the fact that the initiation of minors obtains in France, and perhaps in some of the other continental states; but we do not look to the Grand Orient of France for our law, nor acknowledge any obligation to accept its innovations as a rule of masonic government. But we are not informed that even the French Orient, whimsical and unstable as it is, ever sanctioned the initiation of the minor sons of Masons to any thing beyond the first, or apprentice degree; and we shall be surprised to learn that the practice in England at the present time, so restricted or otherwise, is not of very rare occurrence. There might have been a seeming apology, though really no justifiable excuse, for it, when in 1723, if was incorporated into the Constitutions of the Grand Lodge of England. The Craft were than in a feeble and transition state, and the acquisition of even the minor sons of tie nobility and gentry of the kingdom, may have been a matter of some consequence with them — sufficient, in the judgment of that Grand Lodge, to authorize a departure from the ancient usage. But no such necessity exists now, if it,ever existed at all, and the practice should be no longer tolerated anywhere, and especially not, either directly or indirectly, by the Grand Lodges of this country. If our Canadian brethren, or the Grand Lodge of any other foreign jurisdiction, feel themselves authorized to over-ride and ignore the plain and positive teachings of the Constitutions and landmarks of the Craft, and make Masons of boys, they should be given distinctly to understand that they cannot force them into our Lodges, as men "of mature and discreet age."

We speak plainly on this point, because our correspondent, in a subsequent note writes us, that the practice is common in Canada, and that the party whose application for admission to his Lodge as a visitor has given rise to this inquiry, informs him that there are four other minors who, to his own knowledge, recently received the degrees of Masonry there, under the same dispensatory power by virtue of which he himself was allowed to receive them. It is therefore not unreasonable to presume, that among our Canadian brethren the practice has become an established usage, or at least a facile rule, in the government of their Lodges. We trust this is not so, but that the cases referred to by our correspondent, are the results of thoughtlessness, or of misconstrued powers; because, nothing of good, but much of evil, must inevitably ensue from the continuance of a practice so directly opposed to the letter and spirit of the ritualistic requirements and established convictions of duty and obligation entertained by the Fraternity of this country.

To the direct inquiry of our correspondent, we answer, that, for the reasons above given, we should not feel justified in admitting as a visitor a minor, who had been received into the institution in the manner and under the circumstances stated by him. The diploma would have but little weight with us in deciding the question. Such a document is simply prima facie, or at best, collateral evidence of regularity, and is by no means conclusive of the pretensions or claims of its possessor. It may be lawfully his or not. That is to be established, as far as may be, by personal examination. The latter being satisfactory, the former is admitted, not otherwise; and the rejection of it is no disrespect to the body issuing it. But it may be objected that the diploma, properly authenticated, entitles the holder of it to the examination. Not so. That is a matter optional with the Lodge, and cannot be controlled by another. Suppose, by way of illustration, — and in these fast times the reality may not be far off — (it is already knocking at our doors) — suppose then, that a " woman" presents herself at the door of one of our Lodges, with diploma in hand, showing her to have been made a Mason in a lawful Lodge, or under the authority of some competent masonic power — as in Paris, where the thing has been done, — or "at sight," by some Grand Master with, a brain fully indoctrinated with the popular theory of "women's rights," and claims to be examined as a visitor — could the Master lawfully order such an examination? On the contrary, he would at once reject the evidence of the diploma, and politely dismiss her; for, though made in a regular Lodge, the making was in violation of the altar-obligations of Masonry. And yet she occupies the masonic status of the minor, because made under the same exclusive law which forbids the initiation of women and "young men under age." The rule admits of no exceptions, and cannot be controlled by the Dispensation of the Grand Master, for it is above the legislative jurisdiction of Grand Lodges. The principle has its root deep down in the unchangeable obligations of the ritual, and if these obligations may be set aside at the pleasure of the Grand Master or his Deputy, the corollary is logically conclusive, that if a minor is admissible, then there is no lawful hindrance to the making a Mason of a woman, through the exercise of the same dispensatory power. The practice is an absurdity, and in derogation of the true spirit and welfare of the institution.

We leave the subject here. But it may not be out of place to say (by way of parenthesis), for the information of some of our younger readers, that in France the minor son of a Mason is called a louveteau (an iron wedge), and it was the practice some years since, and it may be so now in some few of the Lodges in Paris, to take such a child, soon after birth, to the Lodge-room for baptism, when he received a masonic name, different from that which he bears in the world; and this prepared him for initiation to the first degree, on his attaining to the age of eighteen years. But such folly and irreligious trifling is not adapted to our American sense of propriety, though it has on one or two occasions been attempted here. In England, such a son is called a lewis, a term in operative Masonry, signifying an iron cramp, such as is usually inserted in the cavity of a large stone, to aid in the raising of it. A symbolical meaning is assigned to it in the English ritual, which is hardly worth repeating, and certainly not worth transferring to our own, either as a symbol, or as indicating a practice.

In what we have written above we have given no attention to the modern English ritual. The omissions and interpolations to which, through a mistaken policy of compromise, that was subjected at the "Union" in 1813, are such that, beautiful as it is admitted to be, it can have little or no weight in any argument based on the purer ritual of this country. Solomon condensed a whole volume of sound conservative masonic wisdom into a single sentence, when he said— "My son, forget not my law, but let thine heart keep my commandments ; and remove not (he ancient land-marks thy fathers have set."

Black Ball

From Vol. XXXI, No. 5, p. 132, March 1872:

"We believe any man 'free born,' having the full and free use of limbs, and faculty, or, in other words, of sound mind and not maimed, of good moral character, who believes in the existence of God, and comes well recommended, is entitled to the first degree of Masonry. And any brother who blackballs such an applicant, because some member may have blackballed a friend of his, does a great wrong to Masonry, and drenches his own conscience with a sin, near akin to that of moral perjury. When that spirit takes hold of the brethren, of any subordinate Lodge, the best thing a Grand Lodge can do, is to arrest their charter. The good name of Masonry should not be entrusted to the keeping of such men.

"We are however a strong advocate of the black ball being used to exclude all improper material; and we further believe, that when used, the reason why should never be given." — Bro. C. O. Matchett.

Nominations

From Vol. XXXI, No. 5, p. 156, March 1872:

Our reason for being opposed to open nominations for office in Lodges are, first, that the usage handed down to us from preceding generations has always been to conduct the elections without making such nomination. We believe in standing on the old ways as one of the means of perpetuating the institution, for if we allow changes to creep in one by one, it will not require the gift of prophesy to foretell the period when Masonry, as we now know it, will have ceased to exist. Secondly, the old charges on which all our law is based, declare that preferment among Masons is grounded on real worth and personal merit only, hence, if the brethren desire to confer the honors at their disposal on those who have these qualifications, they can easily ascertain among themselves whom they prefer without the process of making an open nomination. Third, the spirit and forms of Masonry as conducted in a regular and well governed Lodge, revolt at putting any of our processes on a par with the ordinary associations of men. In such a Lodge abundant opportunities are afforded to become acquainted with the conduct, skill and capacity of all the brethren, and to select, as by intuition those who should be honored with the several offices. Fourth, it is always customary to allow a short recess previous to opening the polls, during which the brethren have ample opportunity of comparing notes and making up their minds. — Ex.

Procedure in Lodge

From Vol. XXXI, No. 6, p. 183, April 1872:

Finding that Masonic law differs from parliamentary, I submit the following questions:

1. Is a motion to adjourn in order?
2. Is an amendment to an amendment in order?
3. Why is the moving of the previous question not in order?
4. Is a division of the question in order?
5. Can you amend a resolution after the Lodge has been summoned to act upon it?
6. In what case is a motion to rescind most applicable and proper?

Answer—

1. A motion to adjourn is never in order in the Lodge, because it is the prerogative of the Master to open and close the Lodge in his discretion.
2. An amendment to an amendment is in order, and sometimes more than one amendment will be offered, as in the case of fixing a time or naming a sum.
3. The reason why the previous question is not allowed in a Masonic Lodge is because it is a direct interference with the direct prerogative of the Master to direct all the work of his Lodge. Whenever he deems the debate to have extended far enough, he rises in his place, and by that act all debate ceases, because he has indisputable right to the floor. Moreover, there is no appeal to the Lodge from the decision of the Master, and he having decided that a question has been sufficiently debated, his dictum becomes law for the time being, and must be obeyed.
4. A division of the question, where the subject will admit of it, is in order.
5. A resolution may be amended at any time before its final passage, whether the Lodge has been summoned or not. While under discussion, a resolution is the property of the body, and it may give it such shape as the majority may determine.
6. It is impossible to answer so indefinite a question. There are some acts that can be rescinded, and others that cannot, as an amendment to the by-laws, which, having been adopted, can only be changed by going through the regular form; a vote granting a dimit, because it severs the membership, which can only be regained by petition, committee and ballot; a vote restoring an expelled or suspended member, because the adoption of the proposition to restore, places the member in good standing, and the standing of a member can only be disturbed after charges have been preferred, and regular trial had. —Tidings.

Suitable Proficiency

From Vol. XXXI, No. 6, p. 190, April 1872:

No man should be passed to the degree of Fellow Craft until he has made "suitable proficiency in the E. A. degree." This can only be tested by an examination in open Lodge, by a competent teacher. No Lodge should permit any advancement until the candidate proves himself to be "worthy and well qualified." If one month's study will not qualify him, let him be kept under instruction until he gives the whole Lodge entire satisfaction.

Objection to Advancement

From Vol. XXXI, No. 6, p. 190, April 1872:

An objection made in writing, and filed with the W. M., or stated in open Lodge, has a more extended effect than the black ball. For if the ballots are not clear, the candidate who has received the first degree may apply again at any regular communication and another ballot be taken, and if found clear he then can be advanced. But when an objection is stated or filed, it stops the further progress of the candidate until it is withdrawn, waived or removed.

Courtesy Candidates

From Vol. XXXI, No. 9, p. 257, July 1872:

Baltimore, April 20, 1872.

C. W. Moore, Esq., Editor Freemasons' Magazine.

Dear Sir & Bro. — I beg of you an answer to the following query: "Can a Lodge (B) confer the Master's degree upon a F. C. of Lodge A. at their request — as an act of courtesy — the brother receiving the degree to be a member of Lodge A?"

Our Constitution, Art. XXIII, Sec. 21. says: "Every brother when he receives the degree of M. M., shall have his name enrolled amongst the members of the Lodge which confers the degree, as a member thereof."

Two brethren who have held the position of G. Master, decided during their respective terms, that the act of courtesy could be performed. Other brethren, versed in Masonic Law, contend for a literal construction of the article, viz. that lodge A. must relinquish her right to the F. C. before lodge B. can take any action, and that when action is taken and the degree conferred, he becomes a member of Lodge B, and if he desires to be a member of Lodge A. located at a point which he considers his home (he residing temporarily in the place where Lodge B is located), he must, after receiving his master's degree, demit from Lodge B, and make application in due form, accompanied by membership fee, to Lodge A. Please answer and oblige

Yours fraternally, J. W. B.

Conferring degrees in Masonry, or completing the unfinished work of one Lodge by another, as "an act of courtesy," is one of the many modern inventions that are doing so much to divert our Institution from the plain and simple paths marked out for it by the fathers. We believe the practice originated a few years since among the Lodges in the District of Columbia, which were at that time (however the fact may be now), in the habit of initiating sojourners, without much regard to the jurisdictional rights of others; and in case business or inclination called the candidate home before the proper time arrived for his advancement, then he was furnished with the requisite certificate and recommendation, with a request to the Lodge in the place of his residence, to complete the unfinished work, as "an act of courtesy."

Such requests have at least been received from the District, by Lodges within our own jurisdiction. But the practice is not a safe one, and ought not to be encouraged. The Lodge should complete its own work or abandon it altogether, returning the fee for the unfinished part of it, and leaving the candidate free of its jurisdiction, and at full liberty to apply for advancement elsewhere. The initiating Lodge has no moral or masonic right to exact or receive pay for work that it has not done, nor is it just to ask a sister Lodge to do, "as a gratuity," that for which it has itself received full compensation. This we know is simply a money-view of the question, but it is an equitable one. Degrees cannot be conferred without expense to the Lodge conferring them, and the incurring of this expense should not be demanded of it as "an act of courtesy."

But there is a higher view of the subject; and this is so well and clearly stated by our correspondent in the concluding branch of his inquiry, that we need add little or nothing to it. It is however certain that a lodge cannot initiate a candidate into masonry, except he shall have been duly proposed and subjected to the necessary investigation and ballot. We know of no exception to this rule. His previous acceptance by another Lodge entitles him to no such exemption, and can only be received by the second. Lodge as cumulative evidence of worthiness. This is the rule, and it is neither changed nor weakened by the circumstance that the petition to the second Lodge is for an advance dc gree. As in the first case, the second Lodge can receive the fact of hip having passed the requisite examination, and comes with the endorsement of the first Lodge, as so much evidence in favor of the candidate. Proposition, investigation, and ballot, must precede the advancement, for it is by no means a logical or certain conclusion, that because a candidate is acceptable to one Lodge, he must necessarily be so to . another. The members of every Lodge have a right to express their individual opinions, and to cast a personal ballot on every candidate who shall be brought before them for the first time, to receive any degree of Masonry conferred in the Lodge; and of this right they cannot be deprived by the fact that the candidate may have received a previous degree elsewhere, nor can they voluntarily divest themselves of it, and the duty which it imposes, as "an act of courtesy" to another Lodge, any more than they can do the same thing on the recommendation of a committee of their own Lodge. The right carries with it the correlative duty to exercise it — both are personal, and neither can be surrendered.

The conclusion to which we arrive then is, that Lodge A. must either finish its own work, or surrender all control over it, and leave the candidate to petition the Lodge where he now resides, to finish it for them. This the latter can do with the consent of the former; and this, so far, will leave the future proceedings free and unembarrassed.

The question of membership is a matter of local regulation, and is controlled by the constitution of the Grand Lodge of the State. We personally do not see the wisdom, and question the expediency as well as the legality, of forcing members into the Lodges. These should be left free to select their own associates and to manage their own affairs, under the restrictions of the general laws of the Craft, and such special regulations as the Grand Lodges may find it necessary to enact, not inconsistent with them. But in the present case we must take the law as we find it, and this is so plain that it admits of but one interpretation, and that is, that the candidate, by virtue of receiving the third degree, is made a member of the Lodge This plainness however does not cover the manifest defects of the article, which leaves the candidate without any choice, without any knowledge of the duties and obligations so thrust upon him, and without, what is usually deemed essential to membership, his subscription to the By-Laws. These are defects which might perhaps, under a close and critical analysis of its terms, go far to weaken the force of the article. But this is not to our present purpose. Taking it as it stands, if the brother F. C. consents to receive the master's degree, he becomes a member of Lodge B., and must so stand enrolled upon its records; and as a brother cannot be a member of two Lodges at the same time, it follows that before he can be admitted to membership in Lodge A., he must obtain his regular discharge from membership in Lodge B. The membership fee can of course be remitted in either or both cases.

Trial of a Master

From Vol. XXXI, No. 9, p. 263, July 1872:

A correspondent writing from Mississippi, requests an answer to the following inquiry: —

"Can a subordinate Lodge try its Master for acts committed while he was Master, after he has gone out of office?"

The answer to this question can only be determined by the nature of the offence committed. This our correspondent does not give. In ordinary cases the Lodge cannot try its own Master while in office, for the reason that it has no power of itself to depose him, and he clearly could not, either legally or properly, sit in judgment on his own case. If the offence charged in the present case, be for official malpractice, then it should, at the time of its occurrence, have been laid before the Grand Master for consideration and disposal. If on investigation he should have found it to be sufficiently aggravating and important to justify his doing so, it would have been entirely competent for him to have suspended the offender from his office until the ensuing meeting of the Grand Lodge, or to have ordered his trial before a commission, or jury of his peers. In failure of this course, at the proper time, the Lodge (supposing the accused to have "gone out of office") is now left without any remedy. On the other hand, if the offence was a moral delinquency, and of sufficient magnitude to reflect upon the character of the Lodge, it is entirely competent for it now to prefer charges against the accused, and to bring him to trial in the usual form; or, had the subject been seasonably brought to the attention of the Grand Master, the course here first indicated would have been an entirely competent and proper one. Official position can in no event be urged as a shield, or made subservient to either moral or official delinquency.

Receiving Petitions

From Vol. XXXI, No. 10, p. 319, August 1872:

At the last session of our Grand Lodge one decision was approved, which we wish to dissent from, — 'That a candidate must be twenty-one years of age before he can apply for the degrees. Many years ago, Charles W. Moore being applied to upon this question, replied that it was sufficient that he could truly reply that he was of lawful age when asked. — Masonic Token, Portland.

We stand by this. It was our own case, precisely. We were proposed exactly one month before the balloting could lawfully take place. It was sufficient that before the box was passed in the Lodge, we were within the Law.

1873

Balloting

From Vol. XXXII, No. 2, p. 38, February 1873:

"One black-ball rejects; be careful to make no mistake," is the an
nouncement from the East when a ballot is about to be taken on the application of a person for admission into the brotherhood of Freemasons. This ballot is not to decide whether the applicant shall be received as a member of a particular Lodge merely, but is to determine whether he shall or shall not become a member of that vast fraternity who encircle the globe. Hence the strictness and solemnity of this ballot. It is due to our brethren everywhere, whether they reside in Europe, Asia, Africa or America, or in the many islands of the sea, to
 introduce to them no man, as a brother, whose moral, intellectual and
 social standing is not fully and entirely up to the standard established
 by our ancient brethren. Were the consequences attending the recep
tion of an improper person confined to a Lodge acting in his favor, it
 would be comparatively a trivial thing; but it becomes a very serious 
matter, when, as is the fact, he also is thereby brought into fellowship
 with the members of a world-wide society, none of whom, but those of 
the Lodge receiving him, can know of his qualifications, and whether
 or not he is of "good report and well recommended."

The Master of a Lodge controls the ballot; no by-law of a Lodge can or should contravene his authority respecting it. He should, therefore, feel his great responsibility to the Craft, all over the world, to conduct it so that none others than "good men and true " should have its sanction. If the members of his Lodge, through inadvertence or other cause, should fail to black-ball an unfit applicant, he, knowing him to be so, must have the courage to do it. So, again, if from his own knowledge, or from the reports of individual brethren or from committees, he has reason for believing that a candidate who has had a negative vote, is "worthy and well qualified," he should allow a second ballot, and, perhaps, another, to be taken ; always providing that it can be done without violating the secrecy of the proceeding. Especially should he do this, if he have the moral certainty that the "not clean " was the result of accident.

In 1857, the Grand Master of Massachusetts visited one of the best governed Lodges of his jurisdiction, situate in a prosperous rural district. The visit occurred in the month of August; but, notwithstanding the great heat of the season, the attendance of lodge-members was so large as to fill the lodge-room to repletion. A part of the business of the Lodge was to act on a petition for the degrees. At the proper time a ballot on this petition was collected which gave three negative votes. The Master was evidently surprised at the result, and remarked to the Grand Master that there must have been some mistake or misapprehension, because the candidate was one of the best and most respected citizens of the town; one whom he believed every member of the Lodge would be proud to greet as a Masonic brother. A second ballot was recommended. The result displayed two black balls. Again the Master manifested surprise and repeated what he had before said as to the standing of the petitioner and the feeling of the Lodge towards him. Having these assurances, and observing that the feeble light of the room would enable the aged brethren to discern only with difficulty a black from a white ball, the Grand Master ordered a third ballot, previously, however, cautioning the members to carefully select their ballots. The declaration that the ballot was "'clean" was received with joy by all present.

A broad distinction must be made between balloting for a candidate for membership of the great fraternity of Freemasons, and that for membership in a Lodge. In one case, it determines whether or not a man shall become a brother; in the other, whether or not a brother shall take membership in a particular Lodge. The ballot admitting to membership in the brotherhood must be "clean" or unanimous; while that for membership of a Lodge is subject to its by-laws. J. T. H.

Color as a Disqualification

From Vol. XXXII, No. 2, p. 48, February 1873:

IS COLOR A MASONIC DISQUALIFICATION?

The following circular letter of the Grand Master of Masons in Connecticut fully answers the question :

Office of the Grand Master of Masons of Connecticut,
Greenwich, Conn., Dec. 16, 5872.


To the Secretary of _____ Lodge, F. and A. M. :

Dear Sir and Brother: — Yours of Dec. 13, is just at hand, in which you state that a mulatto thirty-five years of age has made application to the above Lodge for the degrees of Masonry, and that your Lodge has directed you to enquire my opinion, "whether the Lodge can entertain his petition or not, or does his color debar him?" I had supposed that the status of the colored man as respects the Masonic institution was well settled. Masonry embraces within its folds men of all nations, sects, color and religion. Its boast has always been its universality, its capability of embracing in one common bond of brotherhood the whole family of man. We do not read that any stone was rejected at the building of King Solomon's Temple, which is the symbol of our own brotherhood, because of its color. Color is a matter of taste. It is manhood which Masonry respects and esteems, not color or external appearance. The internal and external qualifications of a candidate are well defined. Color is not one of them. These can neither be abridged nor extended. The whole matter rests in the discretion of the Lodge when a petition is presented by a person possessing all these qualifications.

The harmony of the Lodge cannot be disturbed if every member does his duty 
by voting upon all applications; and if any brother believes the introduction of
 any candidate, white, yellow or black, will create discord in the Craft, it is his 
privilege, nay more, it is his duty, to cast a black ball and reject him. My
answer, then, in short, is that the color of the candidate has nothing to do with 
his eligibility for the degrees of Masonry, however much this fact may influence 
the brethren in the question of the desirableness of association with them (per
sons of color) in our Lodges.

Fraternally yours,

L. A. Lockwood, G. M.

Suspensions and Expulsions

From Vol. XXXII, No. 4, p. 97, April 1873:

We are asked whether the suspension of a member for non-payment of dues operates as a bar to his admission as a visitor to the Lodge suspending him?

Suspensions in Masonry are either general or local. (1) They are general when resulting from immorality, disloyalty or other offences subversive of the laws, or prejudicially affecting the welfare of the institution at large. (2) They are local when predicated on causes entirely of a local character, affecting only the relations of the delinquent with the particular Lodge of which he is a member. The laws which govern them are similar in their administrative processes, but are essentially different in their jurisdiction and the penalties attached to them. Both are governed by the common law of equity, and both secure to the accused service and hearing before conviction. The rule of the civil law, that the accused shall not be adjudged guilty before hearing and trial by his peers, is also the rule of Masonic law.

Conviction, under the first of the foregoing definitions, suspends the delinquent from all his rights and privileges as a Mason, and during its continuance, denies him all Masonic fellowship with his brethren. It differs from expulsion in degree only, and is rarely imposed except for offences of secondary importance, as where there is a reasonable presumption of the reformation and ultimate restoration of the offender. On the other hand, expulsion holds out no such inducement, and entertains no such hope. One is correctional, the other final; with rare exceptional cases.

Suspension, under the second of our definitions, rests absolutely or primarily on the relations of the delinquent to the private Lodge of which he is a member, and may be awarded by the Lodge, for causes that are not material to the general interests or welfare of the institution, as affecting either its public reputation, or the acquired rights and immunities of the accused as a member of the Masonic family at large. "The majority of the members present at any Lodge duly summoned," say the Constitutions of the Grand Lodge of England, "have an undoubted right to regulate their own proceedings, provided that they are consistent with the general laws and regulations of the Craft."

The candidate for Masonry, by his initiation is invested with the inherent privileges, and becomes entitled to all those personal benefits and advantages which, under the old constitutions, charges and regulations were possessed and enjoyed by individual members of the fraternity before the organization of private or particular Lodges, as they now exist, and which are indisputably "consistent with the general laws and regulations of the Craft," — not the local laws of any particular State or country, but such as are absolute.and universal in their application. The present system of private Lodges, as subordinate to Grand Lodges, first came into existence in the early part of the last century. Anterior to that period, Lodges were voluntary associations or companies, having a power of correction within themselves, except so far as the subject-matter in controversy was under the control of the ancient constitutions and charges, or was carried by appeal to the General Assemblies of the Craft. At the organization of the first Grand Lodge at London, their condition was changed, and they were brought under more reliable and conservative regulations. It was not, however, until some few years after, that the custom of holding isolated or occasional Lodges, for the making of Masons, was abrogated, and charters or warrants from the new Grand Lodge were required; when; without which, their proceedings became illegal; and it was not until a later period, that the Lodges, so authorized, were empowered to confer the second and third degrees; these being held under the immediate control of the Grand Lodge. The granting of this power placed the Lodges substantially where they now are, and invested them with the privilege of making Masons at their convenience. They were likewise authorized to receive members and to enact laws for their own government, not inconsistent with the ancient usages of the Craft, or the prerogatives of the Grand Lodge. Or, in other words, they were clothed with a "power of correction within themselves." But this power did not extend to expulsion from Masonry. That was reserved by the Grand Lodge; and we accordingly find in the present constitutions of England the declaration that, "In the Grand Lodge alone resides the power of enacting laws and regulations for the government of the Graft, and of altering, repealing and abrogating them, always taking care that the antient landmarks of the Order are preserved", and that, "in the Grand Lodge alone resides the power of erasing lodges and expelling brethren from the Craft, a power which it ought not to delegate to any subordinate authority." By the constitutions of the Grand Lodge of this Commonwealth, it is provided that in any trial where the verdict is suspension or expulsion from Masonry, an attested copy of the proceedings shall be sent up at the ensuing meeting of that Body for examination and confirmation. Until so confirmed, the action of the Lodge is held in abeyance, except that in the meantime expulsion operates as a suspension of the rights of the accused. And this appears to us to be a consistent and proper regulation ; for suspensions of this kind are, for the time being, but modifications of expulsions, and should be controlled by the same general laws. It is important, however, that the distinction between suspension from Masonry and suspension from Membership should not be lost sight of.

The Lodge, per se, has no power to suspend or expel from Masonry, independently of the confirmatory action of the Grand Lodge; while, on the other hand, it is invested with ample power to suspend or vacate individual memberships, without the concurrent action of the Grand Body under which it holds, taking care that the prescribed legal forms in such cases are complied with. Candidates are initiated not into lodges, but by them, into Masonry; and are not therefore amenable to the particular laws of the initiating Lodge, until, by another process, they become members of it. (No man can be entered a Brother In any particular Lodge, or admitted a member thereof without the unanimous content of all the members of that Lodge then present. — Old Regulation), 1720).

The additional privileges and advantages accruing to a member by virtue of his membership, are such as are guaranteed by the by-laws of his Lodge, and are wholly independent of the more general privileges conferred by his initiation. They may be forfeited by a non-fulfillment of the conditions on which he was admitted to them ; as, for insubordination to the requirements' of the by-laws, the commands of the Master, or non-payment of dues; but such forfeiture does not reach beyond the jurisdiction of the Lodge itself, and does not therefore impair any of the rights acquired by his admission into Masonry, as a homogeneous family, governed by laws of universal application. The distinction is an important one. Masonry, using the term in its .broad-and comprehensive sense, is one thing. The Lodge, with its specific, and limited powers, is another thing. The first is a universal society, .embracing men of all nations and all tongues, having a common object in view, and acknowledging allegiance to laws and usages of a common origin: the other is a subordinate and private association, composed of members drawn from the universal family, and clothed with delegated powers to perform such acts, and discharge such duties, as are required by the conditions of its existence. That it may the more effectually discharge these duties, it is also invested with special powers to enforce its own regulations, and to discipline its own members for any wilful violation of them. Beyond this, it has no absolute penal powers whatever. It may remove a member from the Lodge, but it cannot remove him from Masonry, or divest him of any of his original Masonic privileges. And yet, though this be true as an independent proposition, it is not to be received as a bar to prevent the Lodge from taking such steps in this direction as, in its own wisdom, the .interest or honor of the fraternity at large may demand. It is authorized by the accredited usages of the fraternity everywhere, not only to enforce obedience to its own local laws, by such penalties as are within the scope of its powers, but it may arraign an offending brother subject to its jurisdiction, on charges which, if proved, would expose him to the highest penalty known to the criminal laws of Masonry. But its proceedings in suck cases, and the result of its examinations, are incomplete, and, with the exception before noticed, inoperative, until confirmed by the higher power.

But we are extending this article beyond our limits, and must bring it to a close. The conclusions, then, at which we arrive, are — (1), That the Lodge possesses no power of itself to suspend or expel an offending brother from the privileges and benefits acquired by his initiation, but that such power "resides in the Grand Lodge alone." — (2). That each and every Lodge is authorized and empowered to make all the necessary regulations for its own government, and the disciplines of its own members, provided they are "consistent with the general-laws and regulations of the Craft," and not inconsistent with the constitutions and special regulations of the Grand Lodge under which, it holds. — (3). That it is competent for any Lodge to suspend a member from his rights and privileges, as such, for non-payment of dues, the violation of the provisions of its by-laws, or other unmasonic conduct; and that it may also vacate memberships, for adequate cause, the proceedings in each case being conducted in accordance with the requirements of the Grand Lodge.— (4). That the effect of suspension by the Lodge is to exclude him, during its continuance, from all the particular rights, privileges and benefits conferred by his membership.

And now, in conclusion — How is the right to visit affected by suspension from membership? There is no clearly defined rule of practice on the subject. It is, however, held by high authorities in this country, that the right is in no way affected by the suspension, and that the suspended brother may visit his own Lodge "without let or hindrance." This would undoubtedly be true, if the right to visit was absolute and unqualified; because, in that case, it would clearly fall into the class of absolute rights acquired by initiation, and could not, therefore, be impaired by the local regulations of private Lodges. But it is wanting in this important element, and the exercise of it must therefore be controlled by the correlative conditions. By the constitutions of the Grand Lodge of England, as well as by those of the Grand Lodge of this Commonwealth, and of other jurisdictions in this country, "a brother who is not a subscribing member to some Lodge, shall not be permitted to visit any one Lodge in the town or place where he resides more than once during his secession from the Craft."

The right to visit is not therefore an absolute one, nor can it be classed among the general and inalienable rights Which the candidate acquires by his initiation, and of which he can be divested only by suspension or expulsion from the Order. We do not, however, cite this rule with any view to argue from it, that the suspension of membership in one Lodge, carries with it suspension of the right to visit in another; for we are satisfied with the existing practice, as both legal and generous ; but refer to it as evidence that the Lodge is itself clothed with a controlling and independent power in the admission of its visitors. Besides, it is held by some of the best Masonic jurists, that "suspension from the Lodge does not abrogate the connection between the member and his Lodge, but places his rights in abeyance only." Under this rule his membership continues, with the right to exercise its privileges temporarily suspended. His membership remains with his Lodge, and bars him against affiliation with any other Lodge. This is clear; but his right to visit his own Lodge is not so certain. By his membership he acquired an absolute right to do so. This was one of the privileges guaranteed to him, no less by the by-laws of his Lodge than by the general laws of Masonry; and is the correlative of his right to participate in all the transactions and benefits of the Lodge. It should seem, therefore, that the suspension from all the rights and privileges of membership also includes this. We cannot see any logical reason for making it an exception. The matter, however, is perhaps not of much importance, because it is to be presumed that his own sense of propriety would be sufficient to restrain any brother from obtruding himself into a Lodge from which he had been suspended for the violation of its laws, and where he must feel that his presence would not be agreeable.

Edicts Main Page