MassachusettsEdicts MFM1841 1850

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.

1843

Our Natchez correspondent has sent us the following interrogatories, which have been in agitation before the Grand Lodge of Mississippi, and have, almost as a matter of course, given rise to some difference of opinion among the members of that body. He does not inform us how they were finally disposed of, nor has he given us any intimation of the grounds of difference. We however cheerfully comply with the request to state our own views on the subject, and the practice of the Grand Lodge of this Commonwealth:—

Conferral of Past Master's Degree by Grand Lodge

From Vol. II, No. 8, June, 1843, p. 225:

Response to a question given to the Editor: "Do you confer the Past Master's degree upon Masters elect, in Grand Lodge ?—requiring all under that degree to withdraw, of course."

. . . We give a negative answer. The right to confer degrees in Grand Lodge, we do not question; because, in our judgment, the Grand Lodge cannot delegate a power to a subordinate Lodge, which it does not itself possess The latter exists, and is authorized to confer degrees, only by the authority which it derives from the former. It is the agent, exercising the functions of the parent body. If, therefore, it have power to confer the degrees, it is because that power exists as one of the functions of the Grand Lodge. (It is not probably generally known to our readers, that by the regulations adopted at the organization of the Grand Lodge of England, in 1717, the Grand Lodge retained the exclusive right of passing and raising all Masons who were initiated in the subordinate Lodges instituted by its authority. It continued to exercise this power for many years. No degrees are now, bowerer, conferred by that Grand Lodge.)

The expediency of conferring the Past Master's, or any other degree, in Grand Lodge, is a question on which there is a diversity of opinion among the Brethren in this country. Our own is against the practice. Grand Lodges are legislative bodies. In them alone resides the power of enacting laws and regulations for the government of the Craft,—of granting warrants for the constitution of new Lodges,—of regulating the manner of conferring the degrees,—of "devising plans, problems and propositions, for the private Lodges to execute," and of maintaining and exercising a general supervision and control over the affairs of the Fraternity within their respective jurisdictions. These seem to us to be the legitimate and proper duties of Grand Lodges. While, therefore, we do not deny the right, we question the expediency, of their conferring degrees of any kind.

The present practice, both in this country and in Europe, very generally corresponds with what we regard as the expediency in the case. As a general rule, the Grand Lodges confine themselves to their legislative functions. There are, however, exceptions. The Grand Lodge of Pennsylvania, we believe, in particular cases, and as a mark of special distinction, confers the first three degrees on distinguished candidates. The authority for this, she finds in the usages of the Craft, before the regulations were so well defined as at present The Grand Masters of some of the States claim the right to assemble any sufficient number of Brethren, and confer the "degrees at sight." It is a question, however, whether the present organization and usage of the Fraternity, do not abrogate both these ancient practices,—admitting that there is authority for the latter. But let that be as it may, they have become obsolete, and would probably be sanctioned by but few of the Grand Lodges either in this country or in Europe. The conferring of the degrees in Grand Lodge, at this day, and in this country, as marks of distinction, we regard as even more objectionable than the " making of Masons at sight" It is drawing a line between Brethren, little in accordance with the pure ritual and the true spirit of genuine Freemasonry.

The practice in this Commonwealth, is for the Master of the Lodge, in connection with two or more Past Masters, to qualify his successor in office, unless he shall have previously received the Past Master's degree in a Lodge, acting under the warrant of a Chapter of Royal Arch Masons; for, in this country, by some anomalous arrangement, the propriety of which is not readily perceived, the Chapters are authorized to qualify Brethren to preside in Lodges! or, in other words, the Grand Chapters exercise a jurisdiction over a matter which properly belongs to the Grand Lodges. The effect of this is to produce irregularity in conferring the degree. (The degree is sometimes conferred by the District Deputy Grand Masters, while os their official Visits; but never unless requested by the Master, or the immediate Past Master of the Lodge.)

Qualifications of Grand Wardens

From Vol. II, No. 8, June, 1843, p. 227:

Response to questions given to the Editor: "Do you allow Master Masons to be elected to the office of Grand Wardens? Are Grand Wardens entitled to the degree of Past Master, by virtue of their office?"

One of the Ancient Charges (Vide English Constitutions, p. 7) or original Constitutions, declares, that "no Brother can be a Grand Warden, until he has been Matter of a Lodge. Every Brother who serves as Master of a Lodge, attains to the rank of Past Master, and is required to assume the obligations belonging to that degree. It follows, therefore, that the mere Master Mason, independent of the rank conferred on him by virtue of his election as Master of a Lodge, is not eligible to the office of Grand Warden. The question proposed would seem to be answered, without going more fully into the argument. We will merely add, that the regulation of the Grand Lodge of this Commonwealth, is in conformity with the ancient Constitution. We believe this to be the general usage.

A Brother cannot, by the Constitution quoted, nor by the regulations of the Grand Lodge of Massachusetts, be elected to the office of Grand Warden, until he shall have been Master of a Lodge; or, in other words, unless he be a Past Master. His election, therefore, if he were merely a Master Mason, would be void. It would not, of course, entitle him to the Past Master's degree. The whole matter, however, is summed up in few words: a Brother cannot attain to that rank of Past Master, until he has been elected to preside over a Lodge of Masons. If any practice exist, contrary to this rule, it is irregular.

From Vol. III, No. 1, November, 1843, p. 3:

In June last, we offered some remarks on the subject of the Past Master's Degree, and the election of Master Masons to the office of Grand Wardens. They were in reply to certain questions which had been in agitation before the Grand Lodge of Mississippi, and were communicated to us by our intelligent correspondent at Natchez, with the request that we would give our views on the subjects to which they referred. We have since received, from the same source, the following note :

Natchez, Aug. 18, 1843.

"Br. Moore,—I thank you for answering my questions in your June No., but you do not settle the whole difficulty. The Grand Lodge being composed of the Master and Wardens of subordinate Lodges, as well as Past Masters, has, as members, many who are only Master Masons; in the selection of officers, how will these Master Masons be able to distinguish the Past Masters from the Master Masons? They are qualified to vote without being qualified to be voted for! They are members without the ordinary privilege of membership, that of holding office. (1.) A Master Mason, can be elected to the office of Grand Master (for he can be qualified to preside after his election,) but cannot be elected to the office of Grand Warden! (2.) Suppose it should accidentally occur that none should be present in a Grand Lodge, except the Wardens of subordinate Lodges, who are only Master Masons, (and such a thing is possible though not probable,) who would vouch for the absent Past Master candidates? (3.) Year before the last, the Grand Lodge of the State of Mississippi decided, in accordance with all its previous practice, that a Master Mason could not hold the office of Warden, and the last year that he could. I have suggested the above inconsistencies and difficulties, for your consideration, without offering an opinion, as we look to the East for more light on the subject."

(1.) The ancient Constitution, quoted in the article referred to by our correspondent expressly declares, that "no Brother can be a Grand Warden, until he has been Master of a Lodge." This would seem to settle the question. The Constitution is the supreme law, and our duty clearly is, not to endeavor to warp its provisions to suit our own convenience, but to conform our measures to its requirements.

Our correspondent says, the Grand Lodge is composed of the Masters and Wardens, as well as Past Masters, and asks how the Wardens are to distinguish the Past Masters? We answer :—1st. The Masters, being likewise Past Masters, can give them the necessary information. 2dly. If this be not satisfactory, they may require, (if the Grand Lodge sustain them,) a certificate of the fact, under the seal of the Lodge over which the Brother in nomination has presided, and in which he received the degree of Past Master. As a further security, it is provided by the Constitutions, that an officer in Grand Lodge can be installed into office only by a Past Master—by the Grand Master, his Deputy, or some respectable and venerable Past Master of a Lodge, appointed by the Grand Master for the purpose,—whose imperative duty it is to ascertain that the Brother elected, is duly qualified, before he proceeds to install him. We are inclined to think that this point is sufficiently guarded.

That the Wardens of a Lodge, "are qualified to vote without being qualified to be voted for," is no more an anomaly in Masonry than in government. By the Constitution of the United States, a citizen is qualified to vote for Representatives to the National Legislature, when he shall have attained to the age of twentyone years, but he cannot be "voted for," to fill that station, until he has reached the age of twentyfive years; nor can he be elected to the United States Senate before he is thirty years of age, or nine years after he is "qualified to vote" for Senators. The Constitution acts upon the principle that age and experience are requisite in offices of great trust and responsibility. It does not question the ability of younger men to appreciate the talents and capabilities of their seniors. Nor do the Masonic Constitutions doubt the ability of Wardens of Lodges to judge of the fitness of candidates for the office of Grand Warden. They do, however, require that before they can themselves be eligible, they must have the experience of Masters of Lodges. And this is only carrying out that principle in the Constitutions, which declares, that " no Brother can be Master until he has first served a Lodge acceptably in the office of Warden, unless in extraordinary cases, or when a new Lodge is to be formed." (Ahiman Rezon, Chap. II, Sec. 6, Art. "of the Master of a Lodge," &c. Edition of 1783.) In our judgment, both these provisions are founded in wisdom, and ought not to be inconsiderately departed from. The office of Master of a Lodge is an important one,—that of Grand Warden still more so; and Brethren holding them cannot be too well qualified, nor too thoroughly acquainted with the routine of their duties.

(2.) The Grand Master must, however, be qualified before he is installed, and before he can be permitted to preside in Grand Lodge. The regulation in respect to the Grand Master, is not so strict as that in relation to Grand Wardens, because it has generally been deemed expedient and advantageous for the Fraternity, in electing a Grand Master, to avail themselves of the talents, rank, and influence of some Brother distinguished in public life; and in consideration of his supposed inexperience in the practical details of the Craft, he has the inherent power of appointing his own Deputy, who is usually a skilful and experienced Brother. No such provision is made for the Grand Wardens. They are supposed to be acquainted with their own duties. We are by no means certain that, in this country, where worth, and not place, makes the man, the interests of the Fraternity would not be promoted by requiring, that one of the requisite qualifications of a candidate for the Grand Mastership, should be that he has served at least one year as Grand Warden.

(3.) This is hardly a supposable case. Should it occur, the Grand Lodge could not be opened.

Right of Grand Wardens to Preside

From Vol. II, No. 8, June, 1843, p. 227:

Response to questions given to the Editor: "Have not Grand Wardens, by ancient and modern regulations both, the right to preside over subordinate Lodges, which they may visit?"

The terms of this question arc not sufficiently explicit. It should have been stated, whether the visit is to be considered as an official or informal one. We will endeavor, however, to furnish such an answer as shall meet the case. In the first place then, if the visit be an official one, the regulation is, that in the absence of the Grand Master and his Deputy, "the Senior or Junior Grand Warden may preside as Deputy, in visiting Lodges, or in constituting new Lodges." (Harris' Masonic Constitutions, p. 69; Dalcho's Ahimon Rezon, p. 117.) On the other hand, if the visit of the Grand Warden be an informal one, having no immediate connection with his official duties, he will be received with the respect due to a Grand Officer, but will not, in our opinion, be entitled to supersede the presiding Master. The regulations on this subject are not so full nor so well defined, as could be desired. They may, however, enable us to arrive at a correct result. The English Constitutions say :—

"The Grand Master has full authority to preside in any Lodge, and to order any of his Grand Officers to attend him. His Deputy is to be placed on his right hand, and the Master of the Lodge on his left hand. His Wardens are also to act as Wardens of that particular Lodge, during his presence." (English Constitutions, p. 30)

"The Deputy Grand Master has full authority, unless the Grand Master or Pro-Grand Master be present, to preside in every Lodge which he may visit, with the Master of the Lodge on his right hand. The Grand Wardens, if present, are to act as Wardens." (English Constitutions, p. 33)

"The Grand Wardens, whenever commanded, are to attend the Grand Master, and while he presides in any particular Lodge, are to act there as his Wardens." (English Constitutions, p. 34)

The Constitutions of the Grand Lodge of Scotland (Chap. 8, Sec. 2; see also Constitutions of the Grand Lodge of Maryland.) contain similar regulations. They provide that the Grand Wardens, on occasions when the Grand Master visits the Lodges, shall preside as Wardens; but they make no provision for their presiding as Masters, in the absence of the Grand Master and his Deputy. The inference, therefore, is, that the Grand Wardens have not the "right to preside over subordinate Lodges, which they may visit," unofficially. If commissioned by the Grand Master, they "may preside as Deputy." If it were intended that they should have the power to supersede the Master, whenever they might see fit to make an informal visit to a subordinate Lodge, the Constitutions would have made the same provision in their behalf, that is made for the Grand Master and his Deputy. In the absence of any such authority, and in view of the fact, that special provision is made for their presiding when, in the absence of their superior officers, they are required to visit the Lodges, officially, we come to the conclusion, that the right is not vested in them.

As a matter of courtesy, it may have been usual with many Masters of Lodges in different sections of the country, to invite one of the G. Wardens, when present, to take the chair. In this sense the practice may perhaps be regarded as a commendable one; though, like every other mark of respect, it depreciates in value as it is extended ; and it is not improbable that this consideration may have operated to induce the authors of the Constitutions to limit the right to the Grand Master, and his immediate representative. But in discussing questions of this nature, we are not to consider what is courteous, or what is expedient; but what is authorized by the Constitutions and regulations of the Craft.

1844

Right of Visit

From Vol. III, No. 8, p. 242, June, 1844:

"Will our enlightened Brother of the Freemason's Magazine give us his views upon the following questions, which are submitted with a candid desire of obtaining correct information:

"Is it not the inherent right of all Masons, in good standing, to visit any Lodge of his own degree, as often as he thinks proper, and wherever he may be found, freely and without hindrance?
"Is it consistent with the rights of a Mason in good standing, for a Lodge to obstruct his privilege of visitation, by imposing upon him a tax for each visit, when he is not a member of the Lodge to which he seeks admittance?"

- Maysville, Ky., Masonic Mirror."

In the old Constitutions it is laid down as a rule, that every Brother should belong to some Regular Lodge. On this basis the Grand Lodge of England has predicated the following regulation: -

"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." (Constitutions of the Grand Lodge of England, p. 89)

If the principle here advanced be correct, the right to visit cannot be regarded as an inherent right, because it has only a conditional, not an innate existence. It is, on the contrary, a conventional right. The terms on which it may be enjoyed are dictated by the Grand Lodge. These being complied with, it exists, by courtesy and usage, if not by statute, in full and entire force. It may be said, that the Lodges, having a constitutional right to make regulations for their own government, may lawfully prescribe to themselves the conditions on which they may receive visitors. But the regulations of a private Lodge may not conflict with those of the Grand Lodge, from which it derives its existence and all its authority. Subordinate lodges possess no original powers, nor are they at liberty to arrogate to themselves the exercise of those which are exclusively vested in the parent body. It would seem, therefore, that unless the Grand Lodge has imposed restrictions, and stipulated the conditions on which alone Brethren residing within its jurisdiction, may visit the Lodges under its control, the right to visit, as to "all Masons in good standing," is "free and without hindrance." On the contrary, if the Grand Lodge, in its wisdom, has thought proper to restrict the right, it is obligatory on the Lodges to enforce the terms of the restriction.

In early times, and prior to the present organization of the Institution, Lodges generally existed as operative companies, working under Masters and Wardens, and employing no more Brethren than were necessary for the work on which they were engaged. The only regulation in respect to visitors, which appears to have been at that time in force, is the following. It is contained in one of the ancient charges:

"That every Mason receive and cherish strange fellowes when they come over the countrie, and set them on works, if they will worke, as the manner is; that is to say, if the Mason has any mould stone in his place, he shall give him a mould stone, and set him on worke; and if he have none, the Mason shall refresh him with money unto the next Lodge." (Book of Ancient Constitutions, p. 24.)

The right to visit here is distinctly recognized; but it is as to Brethren coming "over the countrie" in pursuit of employment; not as to Brethren residing in the place where the Lodge is situated, and refusing to work. Such Brethren seem not to have been known at that early period. There may have been, as now, drones in the hive, living on the labors of their associates; but, it is believed, no specific provisions were ever made for their accommodation and support.

There was, also, at the time referred to, another class of Lodges, which were not operative; but if they had any different regulation on the subject, it has not come down to us. The next earliest we find on record, was adopted by the Grand Lodge of England, as an amendment to the old Constitutions, on the 19th February, 1723, - six years after the reorganization of the Fraternity. It is as follows: -

"No visitor, however skilled in Masonry, shall be admitted into a Lodge, unless he is personally known to, or well recommended by, one of the Lodge present." (Constitutions, edition 1764 - p. 209.)

Hence it is manifest that the Grand Lodge of England, at its earliest organization, claimed the right to dictate the terms on which alone Brethren were to be admitted into the subordinate Lodges as visitors. This right it has continued to exercise to the present time. We accordingly find in its Constitutions the following corresponding regulation: -

"No visitor shall be admitted into a Lodge, unless he be personally known, recommended, or well vouched for, after due examination, by one of the Brethren present." (Constitutions, edition 1841, p. 88).

Had the right to visit been regarded as an inherent right, it is not to be presumed that the Grand Lodge of England would have deemed it expedient to restrict and regulate it by fixed laws. The restriction, however, is limited. A non-affiliated Brother is not permitted to visit the same Lodge in the town or city where he resides, more than once; but he may visit Lodges in other places as often as shall suit his convenience or inclination. This places him on a footing with those '"strange fellowes" who anciently came "over the countrie"; ahd thus while the new retains the spirit of the old regulation, it charitably supposes that the visiting brother does "worke", when at home, "as the manner is."

The principle involved in the regulation is, that if a Brother would share in the privileges and participate in the pleasures of the Lodge, he should contribute equally with his fellows to its support. Were it otherwise, the burden would be unequal. Members of Lodges are generally required to pay an annual tax for the support of the Lodge to which they belong, and frequently an additional tax for the maintenance of the Grand Lodge or the Grand Charity Fund. They are likewise required to be regular in their attendance at Lodge meetings; and when the calls of charity are to be answered, - when a sick Brother is to be relieved, his remains returned to the earth, his children provided for, or the wants of his widow supplied, - it is the members, and not the visitors, of a Lodge, on whom those duties devolve. The latter, therefore, enjoy all the privileges and reap all the advantages, while the former perform all the duties and bear all the burdens of the Institution. This is wrong in principle, and therefore not right in Masonry. The Grand Lodge of England carry this point so far as to not only exclude non-affiliated Brethren to the extent already stated, but to provide, by a Constitutional regulation, that "no persons shall receive the benefit of the fund of benevolence, but those who have been regularly initiated in a warranted Lodge, who have paid the full consideration-fee, who have been registered in the books of the Grand Lodge, and who have continued members of a contributing Lodge for at least two years, and have, during that period, paid their quarterly dues to the fund of benevolence. (Constitutions, ed. 1841, p. 94.) This rule does not, of course, apply to foreign Brethren. They may be relieved on the production of certificates from their respective Grand Lodges . . . and satisfactory proof of their identity and distress. (Constitutions, ed. 1841, p. 101.)

We will not stop to discuss the propriety of carrying the regulation to the extent here indicted. We cannot, however, refrain from the remark that we do not perceive any injustice in withholding the benefits of a benevolent fund from Brethren who have contributed nothing towards its creation. It is only carrying out the principle which restricts the right of visit, - a principle which is broadly recognized in the Constitutions of some of the Grand Lodges in this country, as well as in Europe, and which was clearly sanctioned by the late National Convention in recommending that a capitation tax be laid on all the Brethren who are not members of Lodges; for, the only lawful way in which this recommendation can be enforced, is by a suspension fo the right of visit. And if this right may be suspended or regulated by the Grand Lodges, it is not an "inherent right", to be exercised "freely and without hindrance."

In answer to the second interrogatory: We are not aware of the existence of any regulation or custom which authorizes or sanctions the Lodges in imposing taxes upon visitors. This is a matter, the adjustment of which, in our opinion, lies exclusively with the Grand Lodges. At a time when it was usual to furnish refreshments after the Lodge duties were over, the Brethren, including visitors, were generally subjected to a small assessment. But this was to defray the extraordinary expenses, and was not a "tax for visiting." Any Brother not wishing to partake of the refreshments, was at liberty to retire, and would not be liable to assessment. This practice still exists in Europe, subject to the regulation here named. In this country, it has happily been abandoned, - at least, we are not aware of its existence.

Conferring the Degrees

From Vol. III, No. 9, p. 275, July, 1844:

The Committee to whom was referred "the order for prohibiting the conferring of more than one Degree on the same candidate, on the same evening, or short of a month, unless by Dispensation, report:

That they have carefully examined the order, and compared it with all ancient rules and usages on the subject, so far as they could have access to them.

They find that the junction of the two Grand Lodges of England, the Grand Lodge of all England, at York, and the Grand Lodge of England, at London, which was effected in 1813, the Constitutions of the Order were revised and collated, with careful and laborious investigation, with a view to ascertain, present and preserve the true ancient laws and usages. For several years the investigation was prosecuted by experienced and able men, and in 1827, the work was completed, approved and published. It is now the Constitution of the United Grand Lodge of England. In that work is the following provision: -

"No Lodge shall on any pretence make more than five new Brothers in one day, unless by Dispensation; nor shall a Lodge be permitted to give more than one Degree to a Brother on the same day; nor shall a higher Degree in Masonry be conferred on a Brother at a less interval than one month, from his receiving a previous Degree. Nor until he has passed an examination in open Lodge on that Degree."

And in a note it is stated, that "no Dispensation can be granted to suspend the operation of this law." The same provision is afterward twice repeated, in substance, in the same work. The early published books of Constitutions contain similar provisions.

In an edition of the Ahiman Rezon, published during the last cetury, in speaking of the reception of men of rank and science into the Institution, the rule is stated, that they are equally subjected to all the charges and regulations; and must be governed by the general rule.

"No Lodge shall make more than five new Brethren at one time, unless by Dispensation. Nor shall any be made, or admitted a member of a Lodge, without be proposed one month, &c. Apprentices, when expert in the business of their apprenticeship, shall be admitted, upon further improvement, as Fellow-Crafts, and in due time, be raised to the sublime degree of Master Masons, capable themselves to undertake their Lord's work, animated with the prospect of passing in future through the higher honors of Masonry."

It is entirely clear and plain that our Brethren in England do think, and in earlier times have thought, that this provision is in conformity both to ancient usage, and the spirit of the work. And your committee are of the same opinion.

The Order in question was adopted in the Grand Lodge, at the Quarterly Communication in June, 1843, having stood the requisite time for consideration of the Lodge. But in the publication of the Constitutions of the Grand Lodge of Massachusetts, subsequently made, it was, by accident, omitted.

It is now a standing law, and in the opinion of the committee it is a wise provision; and one that is in strict accordance with the ancient rules, orders and usages, as it is with the spirit of the work.

They therefore recommend that the Order in question be adopted as a Constitutional Rule, and that it be printed as the fourteenth rule of the Miscellaneous Regulations; that it be pasted into tall the books of the Constitutions which have not yet been distributed, and sent for the same purpose to the Lodges which have already received the work.

All of which is respectfully presented by

Augustus Peabody,
John Abbot,
Thomas Tolman,
Thomas Power,
John Hews,
Committee.

Jurisdiction Over Applicants

From Vol. III, No. 10, p. 295, August, 1844:

An individual makes application for membership to some Brethren of a Lodge in Georgia, but there being some stains on his character at the time, he is requested to wait till he may be free from these spots. But in the meantime, he goes on to New York, where he remains a few weeks or months, and during that time joins the Lodge in that States, take the degrees and then returns again to Georgia. Ought the Lodge in Georgia to recognize this man as a worthy Brother, and permit him to enjoy the benefits of the Fraternity ? Will our enlightened Brother of the "Freemasons' Magazine," please answer the above query? - Masonic Signal, Madison, Geo.

ANSWER.

The receiving of the individual in question, by the Lodge in New York, was in violation of the rights of jurisdiction, and is a proper subject for the action of the Grand Lodge of Georgia. It was a wrong, which we doubt not would receive attention from the Grand Lodge of New York, on a proper representation of the facts in the case.

We do not understand that the person alluded to, was actually proposed for admission to any Lodge in Georgia, but that he made the request of some member to be proposed, and was persuaded to delay his application. If this be the state of the case, then the Lodges in Georgia are bound to receive him as a Brother in good standing, or to prefer charges against him and formally suspend or expel him. He is a Brother, and, until cause be shown to the contrary, is to be recognized as such. That his receiving the Degrees in New York, was a violation of a principle of jurisdiction, recognized by the Grand Lodges of the United States, does not disqualify him as a Mason; because he is presumed to have been ignorant of the existence of such a regulation. But even if he had been aware of its existence, he is not to be held responsible for its violation. The responsibility was assumed by and rests with the Lodge which admitted him. It is not more a legal than a Masonic maxim, that every man is presumed to be innocent until the contrary is proved.

There are two other points of view in which the case may be considered, and as we may not fully understand the terms of the "query," it may be proper briefly to state them. It may be asked, how the question would stand if the application had been laid before the Lodge, and "there being some stains" found on the character of the petitioner, he was, through an unwillingness on the part of the Brethren to reject him, permitted or desired to withdraw his petition? This would be an irregular proceeding, though it is one which, we regret to say, is frequently practised by the Lodges. It would not, however, change the state of the case. There having been no definite action on the petition, the petitioner would stand precisely as before he made his application, and at liberty to apply to any other Lodge for initiation. The Lodge to which he should apply would be under no other than the' ordinary restrictions.

If, on the other hand, his petition was acted upon and rejected by the Lodge, and that rejection was certified up to the Grand Lodge, he is, in our judgment, to be regarded as having obtained his initiation in a clandestine manner, and may properly be rejected by the Lodges in Georgia. We of course take it for granted that the individual is a resident of Georgia, and that he was on a' visit to New York when admitted to Masonry.

The case here stated shows the necessity of a strict adherence on the part of the subordinate Lodges to the rights of jurisdiction. The general rule is, that the application for admission shall be made to the Lodge in or nearest the residence of the applicant. This is not only just, but is the safest course.

1845

Requirement to Vote

From Vol. IV, No. 8, June, 1845, p. 225:

A Georgia correspondent proposes the following inquiry:

"Can a member of a Lodge, and an officer, being present at a balloting for a candidate for the mysteries of Freemasonry, refuse to cast his vote, when the petition has been regularly received, and the person refusing to vote having no constitutional scruples as to the proceedings, and no objection to the candidate?"

The admission of members into the Fraternity, is not only one of the most important, but it is one of the most responsible duties with which the Lodges are charged. This power was originally invested in the Fraternity at large, or rather io a specified number of Master Masons informally assembled. But the looseness of the regulation exposed it to abuse. Sufficient caution was not exercised, and unworthy persons were admitted. It was, therefore, as early as 1663, wisely determined to restrict the power to regularly constituted Lodges,—to make them the guardians of the Fraternity,—to commit to their care and keeping, its reputation and welfare. It was a great and sacred trust, and for the manner in which it shall be discharged, each and every member of a Lodge, is responsible, to the extent of his influence, not only to his own particular Lodge, but to the whole Fraternity; for all are interested in his acts, when those acts are of a character to affect the whole, either in reputation or interest.

A candidate, on entering the Fraternity, engages to do and perform certain acts. If he fail in either of these, he so far fails in the discharge of his duties as a Mason. But he advances one step farther, and affiliates himself, as every Brother should do, with a particular Lodge. He here enters into new engagements, and assumes new responsibilities and trusts. He engages to exert his talents and energies in the advancement of the interests, and in the attainment of the various objects for which the Lodge has been established. Among the most important of these is the admission of candidates. So essential to the welfare of the Institution has a careful and rigid discharge of this duty been considered, that, as a general rule, it has been deemed wise and prudent to invest every individual member of a Lodge, with the despotic power to reject whom he will, without question as to his reasons or his motives,—his honor and conscience being presumed-to be a sufficient guaranty for the propriety of both. Let us inquire then, whether the inference is sound and logical, that this great power has been given to an individual member, to be exercised by him or not, as he may deem expedient ? On the contrary, has he not been clothed with it expressly for the preservation of the character and welfare of the Institution? If so, does he discharge his duty to the Fraternity, when he refuses or neglects, through fear or partiality, or other secret motive, to exercise it ? And if he may defer the performance of this duty, may he not, with equal or greater propriety, refuse to perform any of his Masonic engagements? If one member may do this, why may not all ? The By-Laws of the Lodge may not, in terms, require that each member shall ballot, but they do provide that candidates shall not be admitted except by ballot These ballots must be east by the members. This is a constructive or incidental duty, arising from a positive provision of the By-Laws; the performance of which is made obligatory on the Lodge by the regulations of the Grand Lodge.

Now, whatever is the duty of a Lodge, it is the duty of every member to see performed; and whatever is required to be done by the members in their aggregate capacity, each individual member is required to assist in doing. There is not usually any provision in the By-Laws which, in terms, requires a member to vote against an unworthy applicant for admission; yet he is under a constructive obligation to do so, and his refusal or wilful neglect to discharge this obligation, would subject him to the discipline of his Lodge. A Brother is charged on his first admission into the Fraternity, not to recommend an unworthy person for its privileges. This is made a positive duty; but it carries with it the constructive duty, not less important or obligatory, to vote against such a person, if recommended by another. His whole duty is not done until he has used all his influence and power to preserve the Institution against the admission of the unworthy. It is not therefore to be inferred, that because the By- Laws or the Constitutions do not expressly provide for a particular duty, that, the discharge of that duty is left to the option of the members of the Lodge. There are many collateral, or constructive duties, like the one under consideration, which are necessary to a full and proper discharge of iht positive duties, enjoined by the established regulations. And this class of duties cannot with propriety be neglected. When a Brother joins a Lodge, ho dees it with the understanding and under an obligation to support the regulations, and to render his best services in performing, the duties of the Lodge. One of these duties is the balloting for candidates for initiation. We are aware that this duty is frequently avoided in the Lodge, and so are many other Masonic duties, or we should all be better Masons. But it is the principle, not the practice, we are discussing. A bad practice cannot vitiate or impair the validity of a good principle.

In legislative matters, the rule in voting is, that "every member who shall be in the house when the question is put, shall give his vote, unless the house, for special reasons, shall excuse him." (Jefferson's Manual, rule 28, p. 76). And this is found to be a correct and wholesome regulation, and frequently obliges members to perform their duty to their constituents, when they would other; wise avoid it. As it is, they sometimes, to use a political phrase, "dodge the question." But the discredit which attaches to a manoeuvre of this kind, operates as a powerful restraint, and prevents its frequent occurrence. The Constitutions of the Grand Lodge of Massachusetts, contain a corresponding regulation. They declare that "every member present shall vote on the application, (of a candidate for initiation,) unless excused by the Lodge." And this we hold to be a conservate and correct Masonic rule.

We know nothing of the circumstances under which the Brother referred to, declined to cast his ballot, former than what appears in the. statement given by our correspondent.

Personal Objections in Balloting

From Vol. IV, No. 11, September, 1845, p. 326:

DO PERSONAL OBJECTIONS JUSTIFY A NEGATIVE BALLOT IN THE ADMISSION OF CANDIDATES?

Eureka Masonic Hall, Richland, Mi., May 28,1845.

Comp. C. W. Moore :—We look to the East for Masonic light; and as the humblest Brother within the great Masonic fold might supply a thought, I have again ventured to write to you, with a request, that so far as may be in your estimation proper, you will construct an article, expressive of correct Masonic deportment and morals, toward Brethren and the world, under such heads as your views of propriety may suggest, and with particular reference the following points, viz:—a candidate is proposed, who, unfortuately, has a difficulty with a member of the Lodge to which he applies. Is it not unmasonic for the member to extend his private quarrel to the exclusion of the applicant, if he be in every other way worthy of our privileges? And does not the applicant tacitly say to his enemy— "I will be at peace with you and have you as my Brother, if found worthy of Masonic benefits?"

This may seem an idle question to many intelligent Masons; but I am sure it will be regarded by others as one of no mean importance. If I understand my ritual, our Order proclaims peace and good will to mankind. But how can this be possible if our prejudices are permitted to enter and remain with us while in the Lodge room, where peace and charity and love to each other should dwell in the spirit of our Heavenly Master, and with gratitude to him for the privileges and blessings surrounding us? Men differ oflener from bad judgment than bad intention. Of this they are admonished by the still small voice of conscience, continually telling them that it should be otherwise; and were it so, how much more happiness might we experience! For a Mason to violate the pleadings of conscience, is at war with the fundamental principles of his profession. I should like it, had I the requisite talent and eloquence, to harrangue our Brethren upon correct moral deportment; for I am an old Mason and delight to reflect upon the sublime moral precepts die Institution enjoins upon its votaries.

I doubt not that you will manage the subject with your accustomed ability.

Remarks bt the Editor. Our correspondent has managed his case so well, that we know not that we can add any thing to strengthen it. The question he has started, however, is surrounded with greater difficulties than at first present themselves to the mind. Most Brethren will probably admit that "private quarrels" ought not to be permitted to operate to the exclusion of a worthy applicant from admission to a Lodge. But where is the remedy? The negative is silently given, and the inquiry as to by whom and why given, may not be permitted; because that would destroy the conservative principle of the secret ballot,—one of the safeguards of the Institution. The Lodge is bound to presume that it was given for good and sufficient reasons. It is therefore a matter for which the Brother casting the negative, must answer to his own conscience, alone. There is no other tribunal before which he can be arraigned. It is his duty as a good Mason, when his enemy, (if such he be,) applies for admission to the Lodge of which he is known to him to be a member, to regard the application as an offer of reconciliation, and to meet it in the spirit of kindness, charity and forgiveness. But this must be from his own sense of duty and the promptings of his own heart. There is no power to force him to a reconciliation, or to compel him to associate with, and receive his enemy as a Brother.

The other point referred to by our correspondent, is not stated with sufficient clearness; or if it is, it is not a proper topic for public discussion.

Plural Membership

From Vol. V, No. 2, December, 1845, p. 33:

MAY A BROTHER BE A MEMBER OF TWO LODGES AT THE SAME TIME?

A correspondent proposes the above inquiry. We answer, that such is not the usage of the Fraternity. Cases may exist,—we know that, they do exist,—where the practice is against the usage. But they do not invalidate the legality of the latter, nor establish the correctness of the former. An incorrect practice may obtain in certain locations, and continue for so long a period, as to become the usage, within the sphere of its operation. But as a general rule, where the local practice is against the common and more general usage, it is wrong. In the present case, the usage in this country, and pretty generally in Eurdpe, is against a Brother's enrolling himself, as an actual member, in more titan one Lodge, at the same time. And this usage is based on established regulations. In Harris's edition of the Constitutions of the Ancient and honorable Fraternity of Free and Accepted Masons; collected and digested from the old records, faithful traditions and Lodge books, and published under the sanction of the Grand Lodge of Massachusetts, in 1798, on page 52, Chapter 8, Article 1st, we find the following regulation :

"Every Brother ought to belong to some regular Lodge, and should arrays appear therein properly clothed; truly subjecting himself to the By-Laws and the general regulations. He must attend all meetings when duly summoned, unless he can offer to the Master and Wardens such plea of necessity for his absence as the said laws and regulations may admit.

"By the ancient rules and regulations of Masonry, which are generally adopted among the by-laws of every Lodge, no plea was judged sufficient to excuse any absentee, unless he could satisfy the Lodge, that he was detained by some extraordinary and unforeseen necessity.

"No Brother shall be a member of more than one Lodge at the same time."— [Art. "of Attendance."]

This would seem to be sufficient to settle the question, if we are to be governed by old and generally recognized regulations. But let us look further. One of our old black-letter Charges, in the possession of the Lodge of Antiquity at London, and written in the time of James II., (about 16S5,) says :—

"Tenthly, That every Master Mason and Fellow shall come to the assemble, (i. e. the Lodge,) if itt be within fifty miles of him, if he have any warning." (Note: by modern usage reduced, except in cases of peremptory summons, to three miles.)

Now, suppose a Brother to be a member of two or three Lodges at the same time (for if he may be a member of two, he may by the same rule be a member of all that will receive him); but suppose that he be a member of two only, and that he Is summoned to appear Before both oh the same evening,—which summons is he to obey? How is he to discharge his duties and obligations to both ? Another of these old black-letter regulations says ;—"And if the offender, being duly cited to appear, prove rebel, and will not attend, then the Lodge shall determine against him, that he shall forswear (renounce) his Masonry, and shall no more use this Craft." It seems to us, that in the occurrence of the case supposed, the Brother would he placed in a dilemma, from which he would find it difficult to extricate himself.

The first book of Constitutions ever published (1722,)—under the article "Lodges';"—says: " A Lodge is a place Where Masons assemble and work: hence that assembly, or duly organized society of Masons, is called a Lodge; and every Brother ought to belong to one." This does not say that he shall not belong to more than one, nor does it say that he may belong to two Lodges. But in order to settle the true meaning of the article, or at least to determine the sense in which it was understood at the time of its first publication, we quote the following section from the eighth article of the regulations of the Grand Lodge of England, adopted Feb. 19, 1723 :—

"No Brother shall belong to more than one Lodge within the Bills of Mortality, though he may visit them all." (Note: That is, being a member of one Lodge, he may visit all others within the Bills of Mortality. There were at that times few or no chartered odges under the jurisdiction of this Grand Lodge, out of London.)

We will venture to take it for granted that this settles the question aa to the intention of the article referred to. The spirit of it is still retained in the present Constitution of the Grand Lodge of England. We quote from the last edition—1841, page 84:—

"When a Lodge has ceased to meet, any former member thereof shall be eligible to be proposed and admitted a member of another Lodge, on producing a certificate from the Grand Secretary, stating the fact, and specifying whether the Brother has been registered and hie quarterages duly paid." (Note: the "fact" means, that the Lodge of which he was a "former member", has "ceased to meet".)

Thus far, ancient and foreign regulations. Let us now see how the matter stands at home. The Constitutions of the Grand Lodge of Massachusetts contain the following :—

• "No Brother shall be a member of more than one Lodge; nor shall he hold more than one office in the same Lodge, or in Grand Lodge, at the same time.— [Part 5. Seo. 13. p. 54]. -
• No Brother shall be a member of more than one subordinate Lodge at the same time."—[Con. G. L. of N. H, Art 4. Sec. 7].
• "No Lodge shall admit to membership any Brother who is already a member of a Lodge under the jurisdiction of the Grand Lodge."—[Cos. G. L. of Md., Art. 28, Sec. 20.]
• "Every organized Lodge that admits a member who is in arrears to any other Lodge, thereby becomes responsible to the Lodge to which he has last belonged."—{Con. G. L.Ky., Sec. 62.]
• "No Brother can be a member of more than one Lodge at the same time." -[Con. G. L. Mo. Chap. 25. Sec. 8.]
• "Each subordinate Lodge, under this jurisdiction, shall require every Mason applying for membership therein, to present satisfactory evidence to such Lodge, that he has taken a regular demit from the Lodge of which he had last been a member, or that such Lodge is no longer in existence."— [Con. G. L. Iowa, Sec. 96.]
• " No Brother shall be a member of more than one Lodge," &c.—[Con. G. L. Wis. Part 4. Sec. 12.]
• No Brother shall be a member of more than one Lodge at the same time."— [Con. G. L. N. J. Gen. Reg. Sec. 6.]

We might extend these authorities were it necessary; hut it is not Enough have been given to show that the regulations and the usage ace both against the practice of a Brother's holding membership in more than one Lodge at the same time. And we are disposed to regard the prohibition as wise and conservative. It is an old and generally sound maxim, that a man cannot well serve two masters at the same time. A Brother being a member of two Lodges, must necessarily be divided in his attachments and in his labors, and he will seldom be of any service to either. His prejudices and partialities will often be found enlisted in favor of the one and against the other, as their proceedings, on the many local questions which are continually arising among the Lodges, may, correspond or otherwise with his own personal views of right Besides, if a Brother may be a member of two Lodges at the same time, he may, be called to fill one of the three principal offices in each Lodge at the same time. Every Lodge is empowered to instruct its representatives in Grand Lodge; but the Lodges are not all bound to think alike, or to takja the same view of important questions before the Grand Lodge. Suppose the Brother receive conflicting instructions from both of the Lodges that he represents—which shall he follow ?

But we have not room to argue, the question. Enough we trust baa been said to answer the inquiry of our correspondent. He does not inform us of his own views. If they differ from ours, and he is not satisfied with the authorities cited, if he will state his objections, we will consider them.

1846

Reinstatement of Suspended Brothers

From Vol. V, No. 3, January 1846, p. 69:

A correspondent proposes the following inquiries:-

• "1st. Can an individual, who has been suspended from a Lodge for a definite time, be reinstated before that time expires?"
• "2d. Can an individual who has been suspended for a definite or indefinite period of time be reinstated at a called (special) meeting of the Lodge?"

" "3d. In case of a called meeting for a particular purpose, is it right for the Lodge to transact any other business than that for which it was especially convened?"

We answer as follows:—

1st A Lodge has, as a general rule, in ordinary cases, the power to revise and reconsider its own vote. But in special cases, and particularly when the question has been taken by yeas and nays, this may not be done at a meeting when there is a less number of members present than were present when the vote was adopted. The suspension of a member is not an ordinary case. The Lodge may, nevertheless, restore a member before the expiration of his term of suspension, provided no action has been had in the premises by the Grand Lodge. But in order to do this legally, it is necessary, and indispensable, that the members shall be specially notified of the intention to reinstate him. Any other course might endanger the harmony of the Lodge, and lead to the restoration of an unworthy member. It is not competent for the friends of a suspended member to avail themselves of a thinly attended meeting to effect his restoration. The members of the Lodge must be fully and seasonably notified of the intention to move for a reconsideration of the vote of suspension. This having been done, a review of the case may be had, and the delinquent restored, even though there should not be so full an attendance as at the time of his suspension. If the members do not attend, when notified, the presumption is that they waive their objections, if ihey entertain any. If the Grand Lodge has confirmed the suspension, it becomes necessary that the restoration shall also be confirmed by it, before it can be complete.

2d. A member may be suspended or expelled at a called or special meeting of the Lodge. Indeed, the examination of charges against a member ought always to be had at a called meeting, and in the presence of the members of the Lodge, only. It follows, therefore, that a suspended member may be reinstated at a called meeting, notice to the members having been given as above stated.

3d. We deem it neither right nor lawful for a Lodge to transact at a called meeting, any other business than that for which it has been convened; and this rule is particularly obligatory; because the specific object of the meeting is or should be stated in the notification to the members. The following regulation on this subject, is both wise and conservative :—

A Lodge of emergency may, at any time, be called, by the authority of the Master, or, in his absence, of the Senior Warden, but on no pretence without such authority first given. The particular reason for calling the Lodge of emergency shall be expressed in the summons,(see note 1 below) and, afterwards, recorded on the minutes, and no business but that so expressed, shall be entered upon at such meeting"(Constitution of the Grand Lodge of England, p. 61.)

A less stringent rule than this, could scarcely fail, in practice, to operate prejudicially to the harmony and prosperity of the Lodge.

• Note: The word summons is here used as a synonyme for notification. It is generally so used in the old regulations; but the following distinction will be found to be more convenient, and more in conformity with the intention and practice :
  • A notification—Is the notice by which the time, place and hour, (and frequently the business,) of the Lodge, are communicated to the members. This notice every Brother receiving it, is expected to obey, unless his doing so would materially interfere with his business engagements. The obligation which it imposes is a general one; and the highest penalty incurred by a violation ol it, is forfeiture of membership.
  • A Summons—Is a call of authority, a citation to appear and answer to the charges therein set forth. Or, it is an imperative injunction to appear at a special meeting of the Lodge, with which the Brother receiving it, is affiliated; or to attend on the Grand Master, the District Deputy Grand Master, or any committee, or other body, authorized by the Grand Lodge to issue it. The obligation to obey it, is special and obligatory on every Brother receiving it. The penalty for its non-observance is expulsion; unless the party offending, be able to urge a pressing and positive necessity for his excuse.

Officers of Lodges Under Dispensation

From Moore's Freemason's Monthly Magazine, Vol. V, No. 6, April 1846, p. 164:

A correspondent, the Master of a Lodge working by Dispensation, in Alabama, proposes the following interrogations: —

1. Can the Brother nominated in a Dispensation, as the first Master of a new Lodge, lawfully take his seat, without installation ?
2. How can either of the Wardens, in the absence of the Master, as provided for in the By-Laws of subordinate Lodges, lawfully preside, and confer degrees? Where were they taught how to govern a Lodge?
3. Are Chapter Past Masters competent, by virtue of that degree, to preside in a Blue Lodge? And if yea, why are they not members of such Grand Lodges as declare such officers permanent members thereof?

1. We answer. A Dispensation, whether issued by the Grand Lodge, or by the Grand Master, authorizes the petitioners to "form and open a Lodge, after the manner of Ancient Free and Accepted Masons, and therein to admit and make Freemasons, according to the ancient custom, and not otherwise." This is all the power conferred by a Dispensation. It does not invest the Brethren holding it, with the powers or the privileges of a regular Lodge, except so far as to assemble and "make Freemasons." It does not even empower them to elect or change their principal officers, nor does it confer on their Master and Wardens the privileges of representatives in the Grand Lodge. (No new Lodge is acknowledged, nor can their officers be admitted into the Grand Lodge, until such new Lodge is first regularly constituted, and registered by the authority of the Grand Lodge.—Ancient Constitutions . Art. Grand Lodges).

They form and open after the manner of a Lodge, but not with the full powers and privileges of a Lodge. They are placed in a state of probation for a specified time, preparatory to being constituted into a regular Lodge. While in this state,—not having been constituted, and therefore not invested with the power to elect officers,—the Master cannot be installed. The Brother appointed to fill the office of Master during this probationary term, may nevertheless lawfully take the chair and discharge all the duties of presiding officer, without any further special qualification. At the expiration of the term for which the Dispensation is granted, the Brethren petition for a Charter. If this be obtained, they are authorized to elect their own Master and other officers. They are then regularly constituted, and their officers are duly installed by the Grand Lodge. Neither of these acts can be done under a Dispensation.

2. The Wardens of a Lodge succeed to the chair in the absence of the Master. On this point the ancient Constitutions are explicit. They say:— "If the Master goes abroad on business, resigns, or is deposed, the Senior Warden shall fill his place until the next stated time of election. And although it was formerly held, that in such cases the Master's authority ought to revert to the last Master who is present, yet it is now the settled rule, that the authority devolves upon the Senior Warden, and, in his absence, upon the Junior Warden, even although a former Master be present. Our correspondent will perceive that the question is not subject to be regulated by the "by-laws of subordinate Lodges." And we think his difficulty, which we take to be a technical one, will be removed, if he reflects that the Warden succeeds to the chair, not as Master, but as Senior Warden, for the purpose of temporarily discharging the duties of the Master, who is absent. He is "taught how to govern a Lodge" by his experience as Warden. At his installation, he is charged, that "in the absence of the Master he is to govern the Lodge, and in his presence to assist him in the government of it." And though this charge is addressed only to the Warden of a constituted Lodge, it is equally applicable to the Warden of a Lodge working under Dispensation. The Warden possesses the same relative powers with the Master, in the latter as in the former case; and he is required to possess the same qualifications. The only difference between the two is, that the one is under certain restrictions and limitations which do not apply to the other.

3. The receiving'of the Past Master's degree in a Chapter, confers no privileges that can be made available in a Blue Lodge. It merely qualifies the recipient for admission to the higher degrees of the Chapter. A Brother who, having been duly elected and installed, has served at least one term, as Master of a subordinate Lodge, under the jurisdiction of some Grand Lodge, is, by ancient usage, alone entitled to the rank and privileges of a Past Master. But a Brother having once received the degree in a Chapter, it would, of course, supersede the necessity of his receiving it again, as a qualification for office. He would, therefore, be competent to preside in a Blue Lodge, if elected. But without such election and installation, he would not be entitled to take rank in the Grand Lodge as a Past Master, though he had received the degree. The Chapters cannot make members for the Grand Lodges, or in any manner interfere with the regulations adopted for the government of the subordinate Lodges.

Expulsion and Restoration

From Vol. V, No. 7, May 1846, p. 193:

An intelligent and valued correspondent in Mississippi, proposes the following inquiry :
"Can a subordinate Lodge reinstate an expelled Mason who has been expelled by that Lodge ?"

We had supposed that in this country, there was no rule in Masonic Jurisprudence more positively settled, than that an expelled Mason cannot be reinstated by any other Lodge than that by which he was expelled, if that be in existence; or by the Grand Lodge, on appeal or petition. Tho only exception to this rule, which we can conceive to be admissible, is in a case where the expelled Brother has removed into the jurisdiction of another Grand Lodge, and by his subsequent life and conduct atoned for the misdemeanor which caused his expulsion. We suppose that, under such circumstances, he might, by special permission of the Grand Lodge of the State within whose jurisdiction he is living, be reinstated by the subordinate Lodge in or nearest to the place of his residence. We should prefer, however, even in such a case, that a representation should first be made to, and permission for his restoration obtained from, the Grand Lodge under whose authority he was expelled. We are not aware that there is any precedent for such a proceeding; but the door of mercy can never be irrevocably closed against a repentant Brother. To err is the common lot of all men. Forgiveness is the exercise of one of the finest attributes of humanity.

But this does not cover the whole ground of the inquiry proposed by our correspondent. Under the present organization of the Fraternity, G. Lodges grant Charters to any competent number of Master Masons, authorizing them to assemble and make Masons; that is, to receive petitions and admit members, not necessarily of their own particular association, but of the whole Masonic Fraternity. The Lodges, so constituted, act under the authority and as the agents of the Grand Lodges. The power to admit members to full standing in the Fraternity,—that is, to make Master Masons,—was not, at the reorganization of the Order in 1717, vested in the subordinate Lodges. Fellow-Crafts and Master Masons were at that time made only in the Grand Lodge, "unless by dispensation from the Grand Master." (So late as 1733,—the date of the establishment of the first Grand Lodge in America, at Boston,—the Master's degree was conferred, in this city, in what was called "The Masters' Lodge," over which the Grand Master and his officers presided. This Lodge did not initiate or craft, neither did the subordinate Lodges raise. The organization here referred to, was composed of the Grand Officers, organized at a "Lodge of Masters," for the purposes stated. It was in fact the Grand Lodge in another capacity, exe rcising one of its original functions.)

This, however, says the ancient record here quoted, "being attended with many inconveniences," it was permitted, on the 22d Nov. 1725, by Constitutional regulation, to " the Master of a Lodge, with his Wardens, and a competent number of the Lodge assembled in due form," to "make Masters and Fellows." If the Lodges could not, prior to the adoption of this regulation, admit members to full standing in the Fraternity, without the dispensation of the Grand Master, neither could they expel them, without the consent of the Grand Lodge, if at all. The rescinding of the first branch of the original regulation did not abrogate the second. That remains in the present Constitutions of the Grand Lodge of England, in the following terms :

"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 in England." —[Art. 1, Sec. 15.]

By another provision in these Constitutions, the subordinate Lodges are authorized to suspend or exclude a delinquent member after giving him "due notice of the charge preferred or complaint made against him, and of the time appointed for its consideration." The name of the Brother excluded, together with the cause of his exclusion, are required to be sent to the Grand Secretary. If the case be such as to demand expulsion, he is expelled by the Grand Lodge. In this case, the subordinate Lodges having no power to expel a member from the Fraternity, they have not the power to restore a Brother who has been expelled by the Grand Lodge. To grant them this power, would not merely be to enable them to reverse the decision of the Grand Lodge, but it would invest the supervising power in the subordinate body. Such a proceeding would of course be wholly inadmissible.

This is the rule which, at least since its reorganization, has regulated the course of the Grand Lodge of England, in cases of expulsion and restoration; and we believe it to be entirely coincident with correct Masonic usage. The subordinate Lodge, in exercising its delegated power to receive and initiate Masons, acts as the agent of the Grand Lodge for a determinate district or jurisdiction. In this capacity, it invests all it initiates with important relations to, and claims upon, every individual Mason throughout the world. It does not act for itself alone, but for the great faoiily of which it is a constituent part. It is the sentinel on the outposts, with the power to admit such as can give the countersign of a good moral character, and to refuse admission to those who cannot. But when once admitted, the right to eject properly belongs to the superior authority. Neither by any general Constitutional regulation, nor by the terms of its Charter, is the power given to a subordinate Lodge to expel a Brother from his Masonic rights. And, in view of the ancient regulation and usage above referred to, it muy be doubtful whether any Grand Lodge can, with legal propriety, invest this power in its subordinates.

A different practice has, however, to a very considerable extent, obtained in this country. The Lodges in several of the States have exercised the right to expel and restore delinquent members, without reference to any action of the Grand Lodge under whose authority they exist; and this right has been distinctly recognized in the Constitutions of some of the Grand Lodges. But it could not have been the ancient usage ; for, as we have already shown, the subordinate Lodges, after, if indeed before, the reorganization of the Grand Lodge of England, in 1717, and prior to 1725, had no power beyond the first degree. They could not, therefore, have been authorized to expel Master Masons. They were then amenable to the Grand Lodge alone.

In the year last named, the Lodges were permitted to confer the three degrees, and their disciplinary powers were extended. They were authorized to arraign, try, admonish, censure, suspend, and exclude, unworthy members. But it no where appears that they were ever clothed with power to expel them from the Fraternity. In England, this power seems always to have been retained in the hands of the Grand Lodge. The principle on which this regulation is based, we suppose to be, that the subordinate Lodges are the local agents of the Grand Lodge, through which the uninitiated are received as members, not of a section, but of the whole Fraternity. The Grand Lodge, being the supreme head, exacting fealty of, and extending its care and protection alike over, every individual member of the Fraternity within its jurisdiction, inherits the right, in the ultimate resort, to decide when a recusant Brother has forfeited his claims to its protection, and his privileges as a member, not of a particular Lodge, but of the whole Fraternity. The Lodge, having but limited jurisdiction and restricted powers, may not properly assume to exercise an original and final power. This we suppose to be the principle which regulates the practice under the Grand Lodge of England. If its correctness be admitted, (and it rests on ancient usage,) then the subordinate Lodge has no power to expel, or reinstate an expelled Brother, independently of the action of the Grand Lodge ; for the power to expel carries with it the power to restore.

Leaving the main question here, without stopping to inquire further how far the practice which extensively prevails in this country, is in conformity with ancient regulations and usage, we come more immediately to the question proposed by our correspondent Our answer must rest on the Constitution of the Grand Lodge of Mississippi, if it contain any provision applicable to the case. If there be no such provision, then the answer is to be determined by the usage which has obtained under the sanction of that Grand Lodge. It is not competent for the subordinate Lodge to refuse obedience to a regulation of the Grand Lodge, when once adopted, however firmly convinced it may be that the regulation is contrary to and against correct Masonic usage. Such a conviction would properly justify an appeal to the Grand Lodge to rescind the objectionable regulation; but so long as it remains in existence, the Lodge is bound to submit to and obey it, or to surrender its Charter. We have not the Constitution of the G. Lodge of Mississippi before us, nor are we informed as to the usage. But if the subordinate Lodges in the State are authorized, either by the Constitution or by the general usage among themselves, to expel Brethren from the Fraternity, without the expressed sanction of the G. Lodge, they are unquestionably authorized to reinstate them, whenever they shall be satisfied that the cause of expulsion has been removed or expiated. (We may say this on the presumption, ot course, that the usage does not clash with any provision in the Constitution.) But the restoration must be the act of the Lodge by which the offender was expelled. It is not competent for another Lodge to interfere in the matter, unless specially commissioned for the purpose by the Grand Lodge. If the converse of this rule were admissible, the end contemplated by the expulsion might, and frequently would, be defeated. A Brother might be expelled by one Lodge and immediately restored by another. Which action should predominate? How should strangers receive a Brother thus circumstanced? The highest penalty which it is in the power of the Grand Lodge or of the Fraternity to inflict, would be doprived of its force and validity. Nor would the evil stop here. Discord among the Lodges would inevitably ensue,—the harmony of the jurisdiction would be disturbed, and the prosperity of the Institution in the State materially prejudiced, if not entirely paralysed. If the Brother expelled by the Lodge, (for we are now reasoning on the doubtful hypothesis that the Lodge may expel,) feels himself aggrieved, he has the right of an appeal to the Grand Lodge, and of being heard in his own defence. But he cannot resort to another subordinate Lodge for a redress of his grievances, or a rehearing of his case, if that by which he was expelled, is still in existence; unless, as before intimated, the Grand Lodge shall see cause to change the venue. If the Lodge be not in existence, then the Grand Lodge may authorize another Lodge to grant the rehearing prayed for, and order the evidence to be certified up to them for final adjudication.

There is another view of the case, which may have suggested the inquiry of our correspondent. It is this : "Can a subordinate Lodge reinstate an expelled Mason, who has been expelled by that Lodge," before the cause of expulsion is removed, or any sufficient evidence of repentance manifested? Most certainly it cannot. Should a Lodge be guilty of this offence, it would be the duly of the Grand Master, on proper evidence, to forthwith suspend its operations until the ensuing meeting of the Grand Lodge, when such further action might be had as the nature of the case should demand.

The following brief rules embrace our views of what we esteem to be the safest and most correct method of proceeding in cases of expulsion:

1. If the verdict of the Lbdge be suspension or expulsion, an attested copy of the proceedings shall be sent up at the ensuing meeting of the Grand Lodge, for examination and final action.
2. 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.
3. The restoration of an expelled Brother shall not be valid, until confirmed by the Grand Lodge.

Under these rules, the expulsion would be the act of the Grand Lodge, though that should do no more, when an appeal was not taken, than to confirm the proceedings of the subordinate Lodge. The Lodges should have the power to allege the offences, try the offender, and, if the evidence justifies it, exclude him from their own body, and suspend him, under a vote of expulsion, from his privileges as a Mason, until the ensuing communication of the Grand Lodge. If the vote of the Lodge be confirmed by that body, the expulsion is complete, and the restoration of the offender cannot take place without the cognizance of the Grand Lodge. This. course secures to the Grand Lodge, not only one of its legitimate, but one of its most important prerogatives,—the exclusive exercise of the highest penal power known to Masonry. It affords, also, additional assurance that when a delinquent Brother has been expelled, he has not only been justly and impartially dealt with, but that his expulsion is for adequate cause, and in strict agreement with established Masonic law and usage. It goes further, and effectually protects the Fraternity against the readmission of unworthy members.

Prerequisite Qualifications of Candidates

From Vol. V, No. 7, May 1846, p. 198:

We regret exceedingly to perceive that there is an increasing and dangerous tendency in several of the governing and subordinate Masonic bodies in different parts of the country, to change, modify or add to, the plainest rules and most universally recognized regulations of our ancient and venerable Institution. Reform, change, improvement, we know, are the general characteristics of the age and country in which we live; and when properly directed, they may be commendable, and productive of great and salutary results. But they are not adapted to the nature and character of the Masonic Institution. That must remain "as it was in the beginning," or it must cease to exist. Any radical change would destroy it, because no such change which could be proposed, would be likely to be so acceptable as to become commensurate with its universality. Suppose that the Lodges in the non-slaving holding States should undertake to require of their candidates, as a prerequisite qualification for admission, that they will not fellowship slave holders, the Lodges in the slave holding States would immediately resort to a counter measure, and refuse to recognize Brethren so pledged, as Masons. To this the Lodges in the non-slave holding States could not object. But the tendency of such measures would be to destroy the unity and harmony of the Institution. Similar results must and will follow the introduction of any of the popular controverted questions of the day, whether in politics, temperance, or religion. They are all well in their place; but that place is not a Masonic Lodge. Nor can a difference of opinion in relation to either of them, be lawfully and Masonically made a ground of exclusion from, or reason for admission to, the privileges of Freemasonry.

It has been said, that the candidate for Masonry ought to be required to acknowledge his belief in the divine authenticity of the Bible. This would be very proper, if the Masonic were merely a Christian Institution, existing only in Christian lands. But being a universal Institution, pervading all quarters of the earth, and numbering among its members, men of every country, sect and opinion, the general introduction of such a qualification would be impracticable. All Christian men believe in the divine authenticity of the Bible. But the Jews take exceptions to a portion of it; while the Mahommedans, Buddhists, and other of the Eastern sects, reject the whole. Masonry exists among them all. Any such test would therefore destroy the universality of the Institution, and give to it a sectarian character. We have a high and holy reverence for the Bible, and could ardently and devoutly wish that every Mason living might conscientiously feel that he could acknowledge its divine authenticity. But we cannot consent to change the land-marks and destroy the universalily of our Institution, in order to secure even a prospective realization of this wish. Besides, if innovation be permitted in one particular, who is there among us bold enough to say that it shall not be allowed in another, or to assume to define its limits ? Our only safety lies in checking it in its incipiency.

Inquiries in relation to this last point, and some others of equal delicacy, have been proposed from different sections of the country, for our opinion. They involve considerations, the public discussion of which we desire to avoid. The prerequisite qualifications of candidates, and the preliminary questions to be proposed to them, are dearly and particularly laid down in the ancient Constitutions and text-books, which have been sanctioned and approved by the wisdom and usages of ages; and we are not aware of the existence of any regulation which authorizes or permits a Grand Lodge, and certainly not a subordinate Lodge, to change or multiply them. Masonry is based on the universal principle of "peace on earth and good will to all men," and the only religious test which it requires, is a conscientious belief in the existence and providence of the only true and living God.

Petitions

From Vol. V, No. 10, August 1846, p. 292:

Thomaston, Geo. June 9, 1846.

Br. Moore,—To preserve the Ancient Landmarks and the purity of our Order from innovation, should be the wish of all Masons,—to do this, it is necessary, when any point arises which is not clear, to apply to some Brother who is well informed, and such I have always found ready and willing to dispense such light as they may be in possession of, to those less informed.

I wish to propose for your consideration, two questions, which I hope will prove to be of sufficient importance to elicit an answer, either by letter or through your excellent Magazine.

1st. Has any one the power to withdraw the Petition of a Candidate, after it has been regularly read and received by the Lodge ? And is not the Lodge violating the ancient usage, to suffer it to be withdrawn, even though a majority of the members be in favor of such a course?

My humble conviction is, that after a Petition has been received by the Lodge, it is then the property of the Lodge, and the only way to dispose of it is by the ballot box. It would be presumption in me to offer my reasons for this conviction, or to hint, even, at the evil of suffering a petition to be withdrawn, by the friends of the petitioner, to save him from the mortification of being rejected.

2d. The next point is not so much a question, as to ask how to be relieved from what you will see to be peculiar and embarrassing circumstances. Suppose an individual wishes to become a member of our Institution ; he has his petition properly drawn up and duly recommended by a Brother, whom you know to be "a good man and true." You are asked to "vouch" for the petitioner, and although you are not as well acquainted with him as you might wish to be, yet your confidence in the Brother who recommends him, induces you to "vouch" for him. Now, suppose, after this, before the petition is acted upon, you become dissatisfied with the qualifications of the candidate, so much so that you cannot conscientiously vote for his being received. What course would you then adopt?

As my ignorance is already shown, it will not make it worse by stating what I think would be the proper course. When the petition is called up, I think, the voucher should state to the Lodge, that, since signing the petition, he has become dissatisfied with the candidate, giving his reasons, and so withdraw his name as voucher. If no other Brother then vouches in his place, the petition of course is not received. I don't know that I have authority for my notions, and it is this doubt which induces me to apply to you for information.

With great respect, J. W. W. Drake, P. M.

The practice referred to by our correspondent in his first inquiry, is, we believe, peculiar to the Lodges in the United States, where it prevails to a considerable extent. It is, nevertheless, in our judgment, a wrong and a dangerous practice,—one which is neither sanctioned by the regulations nor authorized by the usages of the Institution. The Constitutions provide, that applications for initiation shall be made in writing and laid before the Lodge,—that they shall lie over one calendar month, (except in cases where dispensations are obtained,) in order that due inquiry may be made into the character of the candidates. The ballot is then taken, and if it be unanimously in favor of the applicant, he is admitted ; if otherwise, he is rejected, and the record is made accordingly. No provision for a different disposition of applications for the degrees, is made by the Constitutions, and any different practice we hold to be unauthorized and irregular. If the petitioner be unworthy to receive the honors of the Institution, it is the duty of the Lodge to which he applies, to reject him ; and thus render it difficult, if not impossible, for him to gain admission elsewhere. This is a sacred duty, which the Lodge owes to itself and to the Fraternity. It has no right to shrink from the discharge of it, though it may sometimes be attended with unpleasant consequences. If the petitioner be allowed, through his friends, to withdraw his petition, he is at full liberty to apply to another Lodge, if there be another in his place of residence, or, in case he change his residence, wherever he may reside ; and in this way, though unworthy, he may succeed in gaining admission, to the serious detriment of the character of the whole Fraternity. There may be special reasons why, in certain cases, a candidate should be allowed to withdraw his petition (as a change of pecuniary circumstances, or removal from the town) ; but these form exceptions to the rule. And even in such cases, it would be preferable to proceed with the ballot, and if the applicant be admitted, to return him his deposit, with a certified copy of the record, stating the circumstances.

We are aware that a different practice prevails in many of our Lodges,- and that it is attempted to be justified by the practice of legislative assemblies, in allowing petitioners "leave to withdraw." But Lodges are not legislative bodies, nor are they governed, in the admission of candidates, by Parliamentary laws.

It is undoubtedly true, that a worthy candidate may sometimes be rejected through individual prejudice or personal dislike, and that the mortification of such a result might be spared to him, were his friends at liberty to withdraw his name before the ballot is taken. But such instances are of rare occurrence, and the evil arising from them is not sufficient to counterbalance the greater evil which would result from permitting the. unworthy to escape, without the restriction imposed by a rejection, on their applying for admission to another Lodge, in which, being less known, they might be more successful. With a view to mitigate the severity of rejections, from motives such as are here suggested, the Grand Lodge of Massachusetts has incorporated into its Constitutions, the following provision :—

Art. 3. Sec. 2.—" No candidate, whose application may be rejected by a Lodge, shall be initiated in any Lodge under this jurisdiction, other than the one to which he first applied, without a recommendation from six members of the said Lodge, of whom the Master and Wardens shall be three. And when the Master and Wardens are unwilling so to recommend a candidate, who has been rejected, it shall be their duty to communicate such rejection to the Grand Lodge, or to the District Deputy Grand Master, who shall immmediately communicate the same to all the Lodges under his jurisdiction. And if any Mason knowingly assist, or recommend for initiation, to any Lodge whatever, (within this jurisdiction,) nny candidate rejected as aforesaid, who may not have obtained a recommendation as before provided, such Mason shall be expelled from the Institution."

It will be perceived, that by this regulation, the Master and Wardens, and any three members of the Lodge, if in their opinion a candidate has been rejected from personal motives, and not from moral delinquencies, may recommend him for admission to any other Lodge, constitutionally competent to receive him. Thus enabling him to go beyond the influence of the real or supposed personal prejudice which may have caused his rejection. This is an important power, but it is believed to be sufficiently guarded to secure it against abuse. And while it affords all the relief to a worthy, but rejected applicant, of which the nature of the case admits, it saves him from the mortification of having his name returned to the Grand Lodge, as unworthy to be received as a member of any moral and benevolent institution.

To the second inquiry of our correspondent, we answer: that a Brother ought never to vouch for, or recommend, any candidate for the degrees, whom he does not know, and with whose moral character and qualifications he is not well acquainted. But, if he is incautiously induced to do so, and subsequently ascertains that he has been deceived, it is perfectly correct for him to withdraw his name, at any time before the petition has been accepted by the Lodge. After it has been accepted, or referred to a committee of investigation, he has no control over it. There is no necessity for waiting for the petition to be called up. We fear we do not understand our correspondent here. If a Brother wishes to withdraw his name from a petition, he must do so before any action has been had on it by the Lodge, and, properly, before it has been publicly read by the Master or Secretary. He cannot do so at the meeting at which the ballot is to be taken, nor at any time subsequent to the meeting at which the candidate was first proposed. But after all, the better way, in a case like the one stated by our correspondent, would be to let the application take the usual course. Investigation might remove the objection; or, if it did not, the same reasons which would induce a Brother to withdraw his name from the petition, would constrain him to cast a negative ballot on the question of admission.

We wish our correspondent to understand, that although we entertain the opinion that it is not competent for a Brother to withdraw his name from a petition, after action has been had on it by the Lodge, we are equally clear in the opinion, that it is his imperative duty, before the ballot is taken, to state to the Lodge, that he signed the petition under a misapprehension as to the moral qualifications of the candidate, and that he does not now wish to be considered as recommending him for admission. He may give his reasons or not; but so much he is required to state, not only for the information and government of the Lodge, but in justification of himself.

Rejection of Affiliates

From Vol. V, No. 10, August 1846, p. 295:

The following inquiry was received: In a Lodge of Master Masons, a Brother Master Mason petitions for Membership and is rejected. Does it affect his standing in that or other Lodges ? or is he, after said rejection, entitled to the privileges of the Order, in visiting that and other Lodges?

The rejection of a candidate for membership, does not affect his standing as a Mason, and he may continue to visit the Lodge rejecting him, or any other, until charges are regularly preferred against him, and he has been formally suspended or expelled. The refusal of the Lodge to receive him as a member, does not necessarily imply moral delinquency.

Binding Nature of Proceedings

From Vol. V, No. 10, August 1846, p. 295:

The following inquiry was received: Are the proceedings of a Lodge of Master Masons binding and legal, until they receive the signature of the Master?

The signature of the Master is not necessary to give validity to the proceedings of the Lodge. The approval of the Lodge and the signature of the Secretary, make the records complete, unless the by-laws require the signature of the Master. But in this case, the record would stand good, even though the Master should withhold his signature. Were it otherwise, the Master might at any time annul the whole proceedings of the Lodge. He possesses no such power. It is rarely that the Master of a Lodge is required to sign the proceedings.

Expulsion of Entered Apprentices and Fellow Crafts

From Vol. V, No. 10, August 1846, p. 296:

Houston, Miss., May 4, 1846.

Br. C. W. Moore,—Has a Master's Lodge the right to try, suspend or expel, a Brother of the first or second degree, for unmasonic conduct? I have answered this question in the affirmative; but promised the Brother propounding the question, to ask your opinion. He differs, owing to your settlement of a previous question, viz. "Does suspension from a Chapter of R. A. Masons, deprive the suspended Companion of the privileges of a Blue Lodge ?"

Your answer produced in his mind a similar answer in this case, overlooking the fact, that the first and second classes are subordinate to the third, and may at pleasure, upon good cause shown, be thrown aside.

Fraternally, J. J. D.

Our correspondent is unquestionably right in the view he has taken of the question proposed. A Lodge of Master Masops has entire jurisdiction over all the degrees it is authorised to confer; and as it admits Apprentices and Fellow-Crafts, it may, for sufficient cause, expel them,— subject to the regulations of the Grand Lodge under whose jurisdiction it works. It matters nothing that Apprentices are not enrolled members of the Lodge. If they reside within its jurisdictional limits, they are amenable to it for Masonic delinquency. So with Fellow-Crafts. In this respect, both classes stand on a footing with Master Masons. The rule is, that any Lodge may take cognizance of the conduct of a Brother, (not attached to any particular Lodge,) sojourning or residing within its jurisdiction, upon a charge of unmasonic conduct. If it be conceded, that a person who has received the first and second degrees in Masonry, is a Brother of the Fraternity, (and this we presume will not be denied,) the question is settled by the rule, and need not be argued. The approved practice, we believe to be in conformity with this opinion.

The distinction made by our correspondent, between a Companion suspended by a Chapter and a Brother suspended by a Lodge, is also coincident with our own views. The Lodge is not amenable to the Chapter for any of its proceedings. It recognizes but one superior, and that is the Grand Lodge. It cannot be controlled in its proceedings by any other body. It Masonically knows no other; and is independent of all others. The reverse of this, however, does not hold. The members of the Chapter owe an allegiance to the Lodge, which they may not throw off. They know their duty towards a suspended or expelled Mason, and this they may not disregard, without denying that the Chapter is a Masonic body. If a member of the Chapter feel himself aggrieved, because a suspended Companion is permitted to visit the Lodge, he has his remedy, and it is bis duty to apply it.

Right of Burial

From Vol. V, No. 12, October 1846, p. 353:

THE RIGHT TO MASONIC BURIAL.

Livingston, Md., July 20, 1846.

Comp. Moore :—A question came np before the Lodge in this place, upon which I should like to have your opinion. The question is this:—

"Can a Mason, being under suspension for non-payment of dues at the time of his death, be entitled to Masonic burial, upon the payment of said dues?"

The circumstances which gave rise to the above question are these—a member of the Lodge in this place was suspended under the By-laws of the Lodge, for non-payment of dues—and during the existence of the suspension, he died, with the request on his death-bed, that his remains should be buried Masonically. A friend of his, and a Mason, informed the Lodge of his request, and tendered the amount of dues for which he had been suspended—upon which application, the above question was submitted to the Lodge and decided in the negative. The question is to me entirely novel, and one upon which, "with the light before me, I am not able to decide. It seems that the disability, not extending to the character or worthiness of the individual, but probably arising from incompetency, should, upon an offer to cancel the cause of the disability, though after death, entitle the party to this Masonic rite. And again, it may be argued, and was, upon the decision of the above question, that no disability can be removed after death, the party then being beyond the jurisdiction of the Lodge. Please give us your opinion, at your earliest opportunity.

Yours, fraternally, C. B. McConnico.

Masonic funerals, strictly speaking, are not of great antiquity: that is, the attending of funerals in Masonic regalia, and the burying of Brethren with Masonic ceremonies, seem not to have come into practice until about the middle of the last century. The oldest Masonic "Funeral Service" to be found in the books, was drawn up by William Preston, and is given in the Trestle-Board, and other text-books of modern date. The older works do not, to our recollection, contain any set form of ceremonies, or make any reference whatever to the existence of the practice. Nor are there any general regulations on the subject, other than those attached to the Service as given by Preston. Neither is the custom a universal one. In Germany, and other of the Continental States, it is rarely observed. In France, the service is generally performed in the Lodge-room, and only on particular occasions, as in case of the death of the Master, or a Brother of distinction, who has rendered important services to the Craft. The inquiry, therefore, as to the obligation on the-part of the Lodge, to comply with the request of a Brother to be buried in Masonic form, is not to be settled by reference to the ancient Constitutions and regulations of the Fraternity ; for they are silent on the subject.

What, then, is the usage which has most generally obtained ?

This is embodied in the following extract from the introduction to the Funeral Service above referred to:

"No Mason can be interred with the formalities of the Order, unless it be by his own special request, communicated to the Master of the Lodge of which be died a member, foreigners and sojourners excepted; nor unless he has been advanced to the third degree of Masonry; and from this restriction there can be no exception. Fellow-crafts, or Apprentices, are not entitled to funeral obsequies, nor to attend the Masonic procession on such occasions.

"The Master of a Lodge, having received notice of a Master Mason's death, and of his request to be interred with the ceremonies of the Order, fixes the day and hour for the funeral, and issues his command to summon the Lodge. He may invite as many Lodges as he thinks proper, and the members of those Lodges may accompany their officers in form; but the whole ceremony must be under the direction of the Master of the Lodge to which the deceased belonged, and he and his officers must be duly honored, and cheerfully obeyed, on the occasion. But in case the deceased was not a member of either of the attending Lodges, the procession and ceremony must be under the direction of the Master of the oldest Lodge."

From these regulations it appears, that in order to be eligible to Masonic burial, a Brother must be—1st, a Master Mason;—2dly, a member of the Lodge to which he makes the request, or a foreigner and sojourner;—3dly, if a member, he must have communicated the request to the Master of the Lodge before his decease. All these requisites having been fulfilled, the Lodge may, and generally will (Under a dispensation from the Grand Master, in States where dispensations for public processions are required,) proceed to perform the service; unless there be special reasons to the contrary. But in doing so, it is influenced entirely by the respect and affection it bears to the deceased. It is under no obligation whatever to grant the request. It judges of the propriety of the measure for itself, and is at full liberty to act according to its two convictions of duty—not merely to the deceased, but to the Fraternity.

Requests of this character are frequently made by worthy, but not always wisely discriminating Brethren, when a compliance would not only be attended with unpleasant consequences, but would often result prejudicially to the interests of the Institution. This is especially true in large and populous cities, where the Fraternity, under a more stringent regulation, would be liable to be called daily into the public streets; and not always under auspicious circumstances. It has, therefore, been wisely left with the Lodge to determine the propriety of granting such requests when made.

The rule, as given by Preston, and which, he says, is "according to ancient custom," excludes all Brethren, except members of Lodges, "foreigners and sojourners," from the privilege of a Masonic burial; and this is nearly in accordance with the present constitutional regulation of the Grand Lodge of England. The difference is, that the latter makes no exception in favor of foreigners or sojourners. The deceased must have been a member of a Lodge, and the request must have been made to the Master of the Lodge of which he was a member. But the practice in this country has, to some extent, given a broader construction to the rule; or, in other words, the rule is not always strictly regarded ; and aged Brethren, who have served the Institution long and faithfully, or distinguished themselves in the service of their country, though, at the time of their decease, not members of any particulat Lodge, are frequently honored with Masonic burial. And this is occasionally done at the desire of friends, and when the request has not been made by the deceased.

In the case proposed by our correspondent, the Brother referred to was, at the time of his decease, under suspension from membership. The act of suspension, during its continuance, deprived him of all his rights and privileges as a member of the Lodge. If, therefore, it be assumed that, while a member in full standing, he possessed any claim to the privilege of a Masonic burial, it must at the same time be conceded, that he forfeited that claim, when he forfeited all the other privileges with which he was invested by his membership. These could be restored only by restoration to membership. This could not take place after death ; for that is the final termination, not the renewal, of earthly relations. The decision of the Lodge, in this respect, was, therefore, correct.

But there is another point in the case, on which we will venture to say a few words. Our correspondent intimates that the disability under which the deceased labored, did not "extend to his character or worthiness," but "probably arose from incompetency" or inability to discharge his pecuniary obligations to the Lodge. If this be true, we do not hesitate to say, that the fact was not known to the Lodge at the time of the suspension, or it would not have taken place. There is not a member of the Lodge who would not have paid the dues from his own pocket, if the suspension could not have been otherwise arrested. There is not a Lodge in the world, that would suspend an honest and worthy Brother for such a cause. And we refer to it thus particularly, merely for the purpose of again entering our protest against the severity of the punishment inflicted in some of the States, for delinquencies of this nature. Had the Brother resided within the jurisdiction of some other Grand Lodges, he would have been expelled and published—disgraced before the whole Fraternity—not for any moral delinquency, but for his poverty ! This would not have been knowingly and wilfully done; but, as in the present case, from the want of correct information—from ignorance of his true pecuniary condition. It may be said, that a Brother, in such case, should make his circumstances known to the Lodge. A proud, high-spirited man will not do this. Our Lodges cannot, therefore, be too cautious in dealing with this class of delinquents. They should be well assured that the delinquency does not arise from inability, before they proceed to stringent measures; and in all cases, the punishment should be scrupulously graduated by the nature of the offence. This is not done when expulsion, the highest penalty that can be incurred in Masonry, is inflicted for the non-payment of Lodge dues, or other slight cause.

We find no fault with the proceedings of the Lodge in the case before us. They were undoubtedly correct, because in accordance with what the Lodge, at the time, supposed to be true. But on discovering the error, if there be one, we should have thrown aside every other consideration, and complied with the Brother's last request.

1847

Personal Prejudice in Balloting

From Vol. VI, No. 3, January 1847, p. 68:

A Southern correspondent and subscriber, asks our opinion on the annexed statement of facts. He does not furnish us with the names of the parties, nor do we know anything more of the matter than what appears upon the face of his communication. There may be circumstances connected with the transaction, which, if disclosed, might materially change the opinion we shall give. But we take the facts as they are stated :—

Br. Moore :—A. is a member of a Masonic Lodge, but his residence is in a distant State; yet he spends much of his time in the State where hts membership exists. During bis absence at his residence, B. applies for initiation into the Lodge. A. and himself are unfriendly; yet B. maintains a most unexceptionable character—remarkable for his morality and good orderas a citizen. Now, I wish to inquire if there is any rule of Masonic faith, that would require C, who is a member, to cast his ballot against B-, because A. and himself (i. e. B-) are not on good terms,—the more especially as C. himself, under other circumstances, would be glad to have B. for a member? Are members who are friendly disposed to a candidate, bound, or ought they, to take cognizance, individually, of the quarrels of a candidate and a Brother, who is a member?

Your attention to the above is most respectfully solicited. I am, fraternally, yours, W. D. S.

A. is not a member of the Lodge to which B. applies for initiation; but being at variance with B., he goes to C, who is a member, states his personal dislike to B., and asks C. to black-ball him. C. consents, and B. is rejected. No charge of moral delinquency is urged against B. He "maintains a most unexceptionable character, remarkable for his morality and good order as a citizen." Of the truth of this, C. is satisfied ; and, "under other circumstances, would be glad to have B. for a member."

Assuming this to be a correct and impartial statement of the case,— embracing all the facts,—we have no hesitation in saying, that in voting for the rejection of B., C. committed a great moral and Masonic error ; because, his only motive in voting as he did, was to gratrfy A., whose opposition to B. arose from personal prejudice, and not from any objection to the moral qualifications of the candidate. C. thus permitted himself,— unconsciously, no doubt,—to be made instrumental in wounding the feelings, if not in inflicting an injury on the character of a worthy man. For this, he can find his justification neither in morals nor in Masonry. Personal prejudices ought never to be permitted to control the action of any Brother in the discharge of his duties as a member of the Fraternity. As a Mason, he "should learn to abstain from all malice and evil-speaking,"—rising above the influence of prejudices and partialities, and looking only to the good of the Institution and the happiness of his fellow-men. But, making all due allowances for the imperfections of human nature, and conceding that wrong action under strong prejudices may sometimes be excusable in the party immediately interested, it will be difficult to find a sufficient apology for the wrong-doing of a third and disinterested party. Had both A. and B. been Masons, and B. had applied for membership in the Lodge of which A. and C. were members, there might have been a propriety in C.'s saying to B., " If thou bring thy gift to the altar, and there rememberest that thy Brother hath aught against thee, leave there thy gift before the altar, and go thy way ; first be reconciled to thy Brother, and then come and offer thy gift: "Because, the harmony and consequent prosperity of the Lodge, might have been essentially endangered by the admission of B., with whom A. was at variance. But in the case as stated by our correspondent, there were no such consequences to be apprehended. A. belonged to another Lodge, in a distant State.

As we have before remarked, we know nothing of the particulars of this case, nor of the parties, further than is stated by our correspondent, who is a respectable Brother. There may be circumstances connected with it, which, if given, would materially change its aspect. But of them, if any exist, we know nothing. Our opinion is predicated on the facts before us; and here rests our responsibility.

Revival of Charters

From Vol. VI, No. 7, May 1847, p. 198:

REVIVAL OF DEAD LODGES.

A correspondent has called our attention to the following inquiry in the report of the committee on foreign correspondence, submitted to the Grand Lodge of Indiana, at its last annual communication, and asks for our opinion on the question proposed :

"We will notice one subject upon which we do not know that any direct opinion has been expressed, as to the principle, at least. We mean, the reviving of dead Lodges by resolution. It is the practice of this Grand Lodge, thus to revive Lodges many years since declared dead, and Charters arrested. Is it proper that a Lodge should thus be resuscitated? We know that each Grand Lodge is supreme, within its own borders, but is this method practised by any Lodge except our own? We think not, and that when once a Charter is arrested, whether taken possession of or not, the Lodge cannot be legally revived but by a new Charter. This question is mooted to invite the attention of other Grand Lodges to the subject It may be a plain question, and already settled different from the views of the committee; but if so, it is unknown to them, and they deem it of sufficient importance to be answered."

We do not precisely understand what meaning is intended to be conveyed by the words, "the reviving of dead Lodges by resolution." Usually, a Lodge may be revived by resolution, provided the resolution be predicated on the petition of a constitutional number of the former members of the Lodge to be revived. Or, it may be done on the recommendation of a committee of the Grand Lodge, appointed to report on such petition. As the Grand Lodge possesses the power to create, so it possesses the power to resuscitate. The manner in which it shall exercise either of these powers, is mainly dependent upon its own will. The general regulations of the Fraternity designate a given number of Brethren as necessary to constitute a Lodge, and provide that, in order to its regularity, a charter must be obtained from a Grand Lodge. The manner and the terms on which charters may be granted, are properly left with the Grand Lodges. They are usually granted by resolution or vote, taken either directly on the petition, or, what is more correct and regular, on the report and recommendation of a committee, and after the petitioners have worked one year under dispensation. The restoration of an old charier differs from the granting of a new one, mainly in that the petitioners in the former case, are not required to work under a dispensation ; or, in other words, the probationary term is dispensed with.

By the Constitutions of the Grand Lodge of this Commonwealth, a charter cannot be restored, "unless seven of the petitioners for its restoration, were members of the Lodge at the time of its surrender"; nor until the petitioners have notified "the District Deputy Grand Master of the District, and the Lodge nearest to their residence, of their intention to petition for the restoration." These regulations having been complied with, and it appearing that the Lodge was in good standing at the time of suspension, and made its surrender of charter, records, regalia, and other property, as required by the Constitutions, any seven of its former members may petition and receive the charter, and all other property surrendered. The charter is endorsed to the petitioners, and they alone are made members of the Lodge. The officers are elected from among the petitioners, and installed by the Grand Master in person, or by his appointment. The Lodge may then increase its members, and proceed with its regular business. When, however, a charter is revoked, and declared forfeited for misdemeanor or irregularity, that is the end of it,—the Lodge is broken up, and cannot be reinstated by any act of the Grand Lodge. A new charter may issue and a new Lodge be formed, in the usual manner: but the old Lodge terminated its existence by the forfeiture of its charter.

Sueh is the practice in this Commonwealth ; but there is very little uniformity among the Grand Lodges in -this particular. Each has a method of its own, and often a very loose one. But it is a matter which every Grand Lodge may regulate for itself. A charter ought never, in our opinion, to be declared forfeited, unless the declaration be accompanied with the de n. nd for a surrender, under the penalty of expulsion for non-compliance. The leaving of dead charters about the country, and in unknown hands, is a loose and mischievous practice, and should be guarded against by stringent regulations.

Restoration of an Expelled Mason

From Vol. VI, No. 8, June 1847, p. 225:

Farmerville, La., March 24, 1847.

Bro. Moore,—I wish to have your opinion on the following questions:

• 1st: After a Master Mason has been tried and found guilty of base misrepresentation between Brethren, and expelled, and he applies to the Grand Lodge for a restoration, and the G. Lodge orders his case back for a new trial, is the subordinate Lodge bound to give him a new trial, when they are well convinced of his Unmasonic conduct ?
• 2d: If the Lodge goes into a new trial, and expels him the second time, has the Grand Lodge the right to restore him, and compel the members of the subordinate Lodge to acknowledge him as a Mason, after they are convinced of his unmasonic conduct, and have twice expelled him ?
  

Bro. Moore will please give his opinion, by request of our Lodge, as just such a case is now pending.

Yours, fraternally, I. S. Henderson.

The right of appeal, in cases of discipline, from the decision of a subordinate Lodge to the Grand Lodge, is guaranteed to every Mason, by the ancient usages and laws of the Fraternity. And this right implies a power in the Grand Lodge to confirm, modify, or reverse, the decision of the subordinate. The Grand Lodge may cite the parlies to appear before, its own body ; or it may order a rehearing of the case before any Lodge, or committee of Masons, specially commissioned for the purpose ; and the decision so had, if confirmed, in Grand Lodge, is binding on all the parties.

It is not unusual, where the proceedings are defective, to refer cases of discipline back to the Lodge for revision, with instructions. But in cases where the proceedings are regular, and expulsion has been decreed, such a course is neither usual nor judicious. It is certainly not just to the appellant, who can hardly expect a more favorable decision, nor courteous to the appellees, who are-to be presumed to have acted without prejudice, and according to their convictions of right and duty. Nevertheless, if the Grand Lodge so determine, and send the case back for new trial, the Lodge is bound to submit, and to give the appellant a rehearing; because, the decrees of the Grand Lodge, Masonically speaking, are to be respected and obeyed, until abrogated or amended in a regular and constitutional manner.

If the Lodge expel the delinquent on a second trial, the Grand Lodge may still restore him, and require that he be respected as a Mason in full standing. The regulation of the Grand Lodge of England is exceedingly stringent on this point. "If the Grand Master," say its Constitutions, " should be satisfied that any Brother has been illegally, or without sufficient cause, suspended, removed, or excluded (A subordinate Lodge, under the English jurisdiction, has not the power to expel) from any of his Masonic functions or privileges, by any private Lodge or other subordinate authority, he may order him to be reinstated or restored, and may also suspend, until the next ensuing quarterly communication, any Lodge or Brother who shall refuse to comply with such order."

The Grand Lodge of Massachusetts has a different and less exceptionable regulation. It provides, that

"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."

A more stringent regulation than this, (like that of the Grand Lodge of England, for instance,) could hardly fail to interrupt the harmony, if it did not entirely destroy the Lodge. Besides, we do not admit that the Grand Lodge is within the line of its duty, when it attempts to thrust an offensive member into any Lodge. But this is not the case with our Brethren at Farmerville. The Grand Lodge of Louisiana does not, as we understand the question, require them to receive the expelled Brother as a member, but merely to recognize him as a Mason. And this, he having been regularly restored by the competent authority, they are bound to do.

The Grand Lodge departed from the usage, though it did not exceed its powers, when it referred the case back to the Lodge for new trial. It should have been referred to another Lodge, or to a special commission, if the Grand Lodge declined to enter upon the investigation itself. This course was due both to the Lodge and to the accused.

Right of Visit

From Vol. VI, No. 8, June 1847, p. 227:

Linden, Ala., April 10, 1847.

Bro. Moore,—Our Lodge has thought proper, under peculiar circumstances, to pass the following resolution:

"Resolved, That each subordinate [Lodge] has the right to refuse admission to any visiting Brother who is at open enmity with one of its members."

Now, has a Lodge the right to pass and enforce such a resolution, or can a visiting Brother go into any strange Lodge, except by the unanimous consent of its members ? Our Grand Lodge has clearly recognised such a doctrine, in one of its By-laws, and it seems to result from the very nature of the Institution. And if a Lodge cannot exercise such a right, it nay be imposed upon to a great extent, and made to receive a strange or visiting Brother into the Lodge, and thereby endorse the. character and standing of a Brother, whom they might regard as anything but worthy, or who was ready, perhaps, to plunge a dagger into the heart of one of its most worthy and esteemed members.

We desire that you would express your opinion fully on this subject, in your valuable Magazine, and much oblige

Yours, fraternally, Thos. J. Woolf.

The Lodge has an unquestionable right to refuse admission to an unworthy or turbulent Brother, whose presence, they have reasonable grounds to believe, might disturb the peace and harmony of the proceedings. But it does.not follow, nor is the Lodge at liberty to assume, that because there is an "open enmity" between a visitor and a member, the former must necessarily be in the wrong. In such case, the true and Masonic course would be, for the Lodge to institute, through a committee, an inquiry and investigation, with a view to a reconciliation. If the latter were found to be impracticable, from the perverseness of either party, the Lodge would at least be enabled to act understandingly, and to impose such restrictions, prohibitions, or penalties, as, in the exercise of a sound judgment, the nature of the case might warrant, and justice demand.

We hold that it is competent for a Grand Lodge to regulate and restrict the right of visiting, as to the Lodges and Brethren within its own jurisdiction. But "every Mason," says one of the ancient black-letter charges of the Order, is to "receive and cherish strange fellowes when they come over the country." That is to say,—a Brother coming from a foreign jurisdiction, having sufficient skill to prove himself, and bearing the certificate of a foreign Grand Lodge, may rightfully claim the privilege of visiting, without let or hindrance, during the hours in which the Lodge is actually engaged in work. No Lodge is obliged, under any circumstances, to admit a visitor, while engaged in the transaction of its local or private business.

Our correspondent is referred to this Magazine, vol. 3, p. 225, for our views at length on this subject.

Masonic Funerals

From Vol. VI, No. 8, June 1847, p. 228:

Clinton, Miss., April 6th, 1847.

Bro. Moore,—I hope I shall not trespass on your time too much by requesting you to give me (through your interesting and instructive Magazine,) some information on the following subject:

Is it not unmasonic to allow Entered Apprentices and Fellow-Crafts to wear the mourning of a Master Mason, and march in funeral processions ?

I am a young Mason, and am exceedingly anxious to get that which is pure, and to understand thoroughly that which I get.

It occurs to me that I have Been something from you on this subject, in one of the back numbers of your Magazine, but as my copy goes no further back than the commencement of the 5th volume, I cannot now ascertain your opinion on the subject, and must therefore request you to give it again.

So fully am I convinced that they have not the right to join in funeral processions, that I refused, two or three days ago, to join in a procession where a Fellow-Craft and an Entered Apprentice were to be of the number. I remonstrated with the Master of the Lodge and several of the members, and told them that I, as a Master Mason, could not recognise it as Masonic, and should therefore decline uniting with them on that occasion. They gave as a reason for allowing them to take part, that it hod been the custom heretofore with this Lodge to admit them into the procession, at the door of the Lodge—let them participate in the services at the grave, and withdraw from the ranks on their return to the door; but it occurs to me that they might as well be admitted into the Lodge, and take part in alt the services there, as at the grave. Please publish your opinion fully in regard to the above.

I would also ask of you at this time, information on two other points:

• 1st. What is the appropriate mourning for a Master Mason, and how should it be worn ? Some Masons tell me that the rods, &.c should be hung with black crape: others say white. * Again,—if you can answer this question to one who is only a Master, please do so: Should a Royal Arch Mason wear any other mourning than that of a Master, when mourning for one who was only a Master ?

By an early compliance with the above requests, you will confer a lasting obligation on Your friend and Brother,

Wm. B. Williamson, M. D.

Our correspondent is entirely correct in his views as to the admission of Entered Apprentices and Fellow-Crafts into funeral processions. The regulation is, that no Mason can be interred with the formalities of the Order, unless he has been advanced to the third degree. Fellow-Crafts and Entered Apprentices are not entitled to Masonic funeral obsequies; neither can they be lawfully admitted into Masonic funeral processions. We had supposed this to be a well settled principle, and that the practice everywhere was in accordance with it. But however this may be, the propriety of the regulation is so generally admitted, that we do not feel the necessity of complying with the request of our correspondent, to enter more fully upon its discussion.

We have so frequently given our opinion in relation to the second inquiry proposed, that our correspondent must excuse us with the general remark, that the most becoming and proper dress for funeral processions, is a black suit, with white apron and gloves. The officers may wear their jewels, with crape. If the rods are carried, they should be trimmed with black, not white.

To the third inquiry, we answer, that in our opinion there is great impropriety and inconsistency in wearing the R. A. regalia at the funeral of a Master Mason. We regard the introduction of the R. A. dress into funeral processions, in any case, as evincive of bad taste, if not absolutely repugnant to correct Masonic usage and propriety.

Masonic Processions

From Vol. VI, No. 9, July 1847, p. 257:

Holly Springs, Miss., April 16, 1847.

Bro. Chas. W. Moore,—A question of some novelty (at least with us,) has arisen in our Lodge within the last few days, which has given rise to considerable debate amongst the Brethren. On tomorrow, the citizens of this county are to assemble, to pay the proper tribute of respect to the memory of those who fell at Buena Vista, and also to give expression to their sentiments of joy for the victory achieved by our army. The general committee of arrangements has invited our Lodge to attend the procession, &c. in a body. Many of the Brethren object to any participation in these contemplated proceedings. Some distinguished Masons have fallen in this battle. Is it, or not, right to accept the invitation? If right, what dress should be worn ? Perhaps it would be better to state the question in a more general form, viz: Is it proper that we should, as a body, mingle with our fellow-citizens on occasions of great rejoicing or sorrow ? Or are our processions to be confined alone to our stated festivals, to funeral occasions, and to the ceremony of laying the corner-stones of public edifices? Will you do us the favor of answering.these questions ? –W.

The legitimate purposes of Masonic processions are undoubtedly restricted to funeral ceremonies, the laying of corner stones, consecrations of Masonic halls, installations, and annual festivals. But a wider range has obtained in this country, and it is now not uncommon, in the interior towns, and sometimes in the larger cities, to witness Masonic Lodges uniting with the civil authorities in celebrating the national anniversary, and other occasions of public rejoicing. We cannot doubt, however, that these are departures from correct Masonic usage. They have no connection whatever with the purposes, the forms or ceremonies of Freemasonry, and Masonic processions are not appropriate adjuncts to civic shows. There is danger in making such a use of them. There is great danger in permitting our Lodges to identify themselves, even in a remote degree, with any of the political movements of the day. Our great security al-. ways has been, and will always continue to be, in a rigid and punctilious adherence to the true purposes of the Institution.

The case stated by our correspondent, presents itself in a double aspect:

1st. The citizens were to assemble "to pay the proper tribute of respect to the memory of those who fell at Buena Vista;" among whom were many distinguished Masons. This was a proceeding analogous to established Masonic usage. It was not strictly, or in other words, it was not exclusively, a Masonic ceremony ; yet it was an occasion on which Masons might, with entire propriety, unite with their fellow-citizens, in paying a proper tribute of respect to the memory of their friends and Brothers.

2d. The further object of the assemblage was "to give expression to their sentiments of joy for the victory achieved by our army." This was an occasion for the united rejoicings of all patriotic citizens, without reference to their religious, political, or social relations. It was one of those general occasions on which the distinctive appellations of sectarianism, of whig and democrat, Mason and antimason, and all the multifarious designations by which the subdivisions of every community are known, should be avoided. Jt was an assemblage of American citizens, and the purpose was to rejoice in the triumph of American valor and patriotism. Local and peculiar distinctions, in our opinion, were neither necessary nor proper. But however this may be, such occasions seem not to be adapted to Masonic display. The Masonic Institution is a universal one. It belongs to all nations and to all people. The use of it as a means of rejoicing at the triumph of one party over another, or of one nation over another, is a perversion of its universality ; and the effect of such use, as a general rule, {having, of course, its exceptions,) would be to exclude from the processions, Brethren who have an imprescriptible right to participate in them.

In the particular case stated by our correspondent, there was not, probably, a Mexican Mason present; and therefore no Brother may have been wounded in his national pride, or deprived of his Masonic rights, if the Lodge united in the ceremonies. But extend the application of the principle, and suppose that a war should break out between England and America, (which may Heaven avert,) and that the Masonic Fraternity in New York or Boston, or in any other place where foreigners are numerous, should unite with their fellow-citizens in rejoicing at a victory obtained over their enemies. Is it not apparent that such a proceeding would not only improperly wound the feelings of English Brethren who might be present, either as visitors or members of Lodges, but that it would wrongfully wrest from them a privilege which, in common with their American Brethren, is guarantied to them by the constitutions,— that of appearing in all public processions, and participating in all the public duties and festivals of the Order? Of course we have reference to English Brethren who have not renounced their allegiance to their native country ; and such form a large class in all of our principal cities.

It appears, then, from what has been said, that our Brethren at Holly Springs were placed in a dilemma. They wore required to mourn and to rejoice—to cry and to laugh—at the same moment and by the same act I The first they could do consistently with their professions and principles as Masons. The second they could not do without violence to their professions and principles as members of a universal, peaceful Fraternity, recognising as Brethren, men of all nations and tongues. How ought they to have acted ? Viewing the question on general grounds, we should have declined the invitation. There may have been local considerations which would have induced us to accept it, but of these we know nothing.

Our correspondent makes the further inquiry, that, "If it be right to accept the invitation, what style of dress should be worn?" We answer, the ordinary dress of the Lodge, as in common processions,—there being no funeral services for the Lodge to perform.

While on this subject, it may not be out of place here to add, that our Brethren on the continent of Europe, are distinguished above all others for the splendor of their public processions, though we cannot subscribe to the correctness of their tastes. The superior officers wear splendid robes of silk and velvet, of the three pure colors, decorated with gold and precious stones. Under the Helvetian ritual, "the Grand Master walks under a purple, blue and crimson canopy, with fine linen and bells. The staves of his canopy are four or eight, which are borne by Master Masons, of the oldest Lodge present. On the right hand of the Grand Master is a sword-bearer, and on his left hand is a sword-bearer. Before the Grand Master is a standard, and behind him is a standard. All Masters of Lodges present are under blue canopies, each borne by four Master Masons of his own company. The canopies are six feet long and three feet broad: the staves are six feet long; the frame-work is of cedar, or pine, or box-wood ; the covering hangs down not less than three feet on each side, and in the front likewise. In the middle of the procession is carried the Ark, covered over with the veil of purple, blue and crimson, by four of the oldest members present."

This, however, is a style of procession which we should much regret to see imitated in this country. It is neither consistent with propriety nor good taste.

Tylers of Lodges

From Vol. VI, No. 11, September 1847, p. 355:

TYLERS OF LODGES.

Mr. Editor:—Should not all the officers of a Lodge be members of that Lodge? Is not the Tyler an officer?—and can the same Brother be appointed Tyler to two or more Lodges, when he can be a member of but one?

Where two or more Lodges meet in the same hall, or under the same roof, the custom has obtained of appointing the same Brother Tyler to all the bodies. That "Custom makes a law," is, of necessity, in some cases, an acknowledged axiom ; and this may be one of such cases. But it has occurred to me that there must be some specific regulation touching this matter. What say the old Constitutions on the subject ?—or, in their silence, what are your own views on the propriety of the practice above named ? Yours, truly, Inquirer.

It is very certain that a Lodge must select its officers from its own members ; but it is not quite certain that the Tyler is an officer, any more than the sentinel who guards a military post, is an officer. Their duties and| powers are similar, and we are inclined to think that the one is just about as much an officer as the other. The Constitutions are not very definite on this point, but they are sufficiently so to answer our present purpose, and to show that the Tyler does not rank as an officer of the Lodge. In 1754, it was resolved and ordered to be entered as a standing regulation, in the Grand Lodge of England, that if a Brother, clothed in his regalia, attend a funeral procession, without permission of the G. Master, "he shall not only be forever incapable of being an officer of a Lodge, but even of Tyling, or attending on a Lodge." It is true that the distinction is here only incidentally made; but it is, nevertheless, we think, sufficiently marked to show that the Tyler was not at that period reckoned among the officers of a Lodge; nor do we understand that his position has since been changed.

The Constitutions require that the Tyler shall be a Master Mason; but they do not require that he shall be a member of the Lodge that he tyles ; nor do they prohibit his tyling a Lodge of which be is not a member. In cities and large towns where there are several Lodges, it is usual, as our correspondent suggests, for one Brother to serve them all as Tyler. So far as there is any regulation on this subject, it is against the Brother being a member of the Lodge that he tyles. The second article of the General Regulations, as revised in 1754, is as follows :

"A Brother Master Mason should be appointed the Tyler, to look after the door; but he must be no member of the Grand Lodge." (If the appointment of G. Tyler conferred on him the character of an officer, it would of course make the Brother receiving it a member of the Grand Lodge; but it does neither. And the principle holds good in its application to private Lodges.)

We know not why the principle here established is not as essential to a private Lodge as it is to the Grand Lodge. If the Brother who tyles the Grand Lodge is not allowed to be a member of that body, there is no just reason why he should be required to be a member of the private Lodge that he tyles. He should of course be a member of one Lodge, before he is appointed Tyler at all; and being a member of one, he may tyle as many Lodges as see fit to employ him.

Initiates in Lodges Under Dispensation

From Vol. VII, No. 2, December 1847, p. 33:

Clarkesville, Mo., Aug. 31, 1847.

Br. Moore :—You will oblige us of the West, by giving your views on the following questions:

1. If an individual is initiated, passed and raised, in a Lodge under Dispensation, and immediately removes into the jurisdiction of another Grand Lodge, without Remitting from his Lodge, and said Lodge afterwards acts so as to gain the displeasure of the power creating it, and the members thereof are declared suspended—how does the individual stand towards the Fraternity ? And, if he is one of the suspended, and desires to remain as one of the faithful, how should he proceed to reinstate himself?
2. If an individual is initiated under the French rite, (say in Canada,) at the age of eighteen, and leaves without any knowledge of the work, so that in a few years he nearly forgets how he was dealt with or what he saw—how should be proceed, if he desires to learn York Masonry ?

Yours, &c, J. F. L. Jacoby.

1. Dispensations are usually granted by the Grand Master, during the recess of the Grand Lodge, on the petition of not less than seven Master Masons; and are generally made returnable at the ensuing annual communication of the Grand Lodge. They authorize the petitioners to "form and open a Lodge, after the manner of ancient free and accepted Masons, and therein to admit and make Freemasons."

This we conceive to be the full extent of the powers delegated to, or which can be legally exercised by, Lodges working under Dispensation. They are Lodges in abeyance, and not in reality. Their presiding officers are not entitled to the rank of Past Masters of Lodges, nor are they privileged with a vote as representatives in the Grand Lodge. Neither have such Lodges the fight of electing their officers, or of changing them, except by permission of the creating power. They are in a state of probation, preparatory to being invested with the full powers and privileges of Lodges. They differ from Lodges working under Charters, not only to the extent already named, but in that they have no power to perpetuate themselves. They cannot add to the number of their members ; neither can they fill vacancies, should their original number be diminished below the constitutional requirement, except by special permission from the competent authority. An essential difference between them and chartered Lodges is, that Charters are granted to the petitioners, and their successors; while Dispensations run to the petitioners only. In the latter case, the petitioners alone are known to the Grand Lodge, and they only are responsible. for the acts of the body they represent. Their initiates are not returned to the Grand Lodge as members; for, not having been constituted, the Lodge possesses no power to admit members. The members of it are themselves a mere association working after the manner of a Lodge, and not in the full capacity of a Lodge. They are, therefore, required to return their initiates for just what they are, and nothing more, viz: initiates.

This view of the powers of Lodges under Dispensation being correct, it follows that the individual referred to by our correspondent, was not a member of the Lodge, notwithstanding that his name may have been recorded as such. It was not possible, therefore, for him to demit; that is, to withdraw his membership. Of course, he could not be affected by any action of the Grand Lodge in relation to the members, namely, the Brethren holding the Dispensation. In other words, the act suspending them, did not, in our view of the case, affect his standing as a Mason.

But we object to the suspending of the members of a Lodge, in the manner stated, as an irregular proceeding. It is a rule at common law, that no man is to be adjudged guilty until an opportunity has been afforded him to be heard in his own defence; and that rule is against all law, and repugnant to common sense and humanity, which condemns and punishes an innocent man for the misdemeanors of his fellows. And yet, in ninety-nine cases in every hundred, this would be the inevitable effect of a vote suspending a Lodge, in the sense in which our correspondent employs the term. But to our understanding of the law and the practice, the phrase implies only the arrest of the Charter of the Lodge. It is at all times competent for the Grand Master to arrest the Charter of a Lodge, and thereby suspend its operations, until the complaint can be brought before the Grand Lodge for adjudication ; and it is equally competent for him to suspend a part or the whole of the members of a Lodge. But in doing so, he must have some regard for the rules of justice. It might do for him to say to the Master, " Sir, by virtue of my authority "as Grand Master, I suspend your Lodge, and summons you to appear before the Grand Lodge, at its next regular communication, to show cause why your Charter should not be revoked;" because the Master is the legal representative of the Lodge, and may be lawfully held to answer for the irregularity of its proceedings. But he is not the representative of the members in their individual capacity, nor can they be individually arrested or punished through him. It would not, therefore, be sufficient for the Grand Master to say to the Master of the Lodge, "Sir, I suspend your members, and summons them to appear before the Grand Lodge" ; because each member is alone responsible for his own acts, and cannot be held to answer for the misdeeds of another. If a member has committed an offence of sufficient magnitude to justify the proceeding, the only proper course is to serve him, personally, or to leave at his place of residence, a copy of the charges against him, with a summons to appear at the proper time and place, to make his answer; and, if need be, a notice of suspension, until his case has been adjudicated and determined. We know of no other way in which Brethren can be legally arraigned or suspended, except in extreme cases, when the Grand Master may suspend viva voce.

2. The second inquiry of our correspondent opens a wide field for discussion. We shall, however, restrict our answer to a few brief remarks. The initiation of minors is prohibited by the ancient Constitutions; and in our judgment, a disregard of this prohibition is hazardous to the interests. and security of the Order. Such a practice would vitiate and destroy the regularity of a York Lodge, and mark its initiates as irregular, if not positively clandestine. It is, however, a practice authorised by the Constitutions of the French, Scotch, and other modern riles; and Brethren made under those Constitutions, are not refused admission as visitors in York Lodges. But if this settles the question as to the recognition of Brethren made in those rites, it does not warrant the initiation of minors in York Lodges, nor would it justify any participation in their initiation by Masons acknowledging the authority of the old Constitutions.

From the preceding remarks and conclusions, it follows, that if we acknowledge and receive Brethren who have been made in the French rite and under the Scotch Constitution, the fact that tho individual in question was initiated at eighteen years of age, cannot be urged as a bar to his admission into our Lodges as a visitor. If, as our correspondent suggests, he has forgotten so much that he cannot prove himself to be a Mason, it is his misfortune. A Lodge would not be at liberty to receive him on any less testimony than it would require of another visitor from a foreign country. If he cannot furnish this testimony—if he cannot prove himself to be a Mason—he cannot be admitted or recognised.

We have said that Brethren made in the French rite, are not refused admission into the York Lodges. This is true, so far as we are informed, except, perhaps, as to the Lodges in Philadelphia, which, we believe, require that visitors shall hail from Lodges working under the York Constitutions. But we are not prepared to say that the practice at present followed, is the correct one ; because we doubt whether innovations, under any circumstances, ought to be sanctioned. The departure from the York, and the adoption of the modern rites, with their mutilations of the ritual, by the Lodges on the continent of Europe, in the latter part of the last century, were such departures " from the original plan of Masonry," that the York Masons of that day did not feel at liberty to acknowledge them. But the evil has since grown to such a magnitude that it is probably incurable ; and, if not positively admitted to be regular, the practice of these modern rites is now, by a kind of general consent, suffered to pass without objection. Had more stringent measures been adopted and enforced, when the evil first appeared, it might perhaps have been checked, though this is not certain, in view of the then state of the Fraternity. All that can now be done is to keep the rites separate, and preserve, as far as possible, the integrity of the York Constitutions and ritual. This is not an easy, it may not be an agreeable, task ; but it should be done.

In conclusion, we will add, that minors cannot, in any of the rites, be advanced farther than the second degree. The third degree is not conferred upon them until after they attain to their majority. The Constitutions of the Grand Lodge of Louisiana, contain the following article on this subject, which we believe to be in conformity with the general usage in the Scottish and French rites :

"Art. 4. The sons of Masons, when presented by their father, or tutor, are dispensed with the condition concerning the age, and may be received when they are eighteen years old. (But it is well understood that they cannot be received as Masters M.^. before they have attained their twentyfirst year.)"

That the reader may not be at a loss to understand why such an article is found in the Constitution of any Grand Lodge in this country, it may be proper to state, that the Grand Lodge of Louisiana, if desired, issues three Charters to a single Lodge, one for each of the three rites that it cultivates and claims to control, viz : the French, or Modern, the Scottish, and the York! And being a Grand Lodge of mixed rites, its first officer is styled "Most Worshipful and Serenissime (Most Serene) Grand Master ;" the second is "Right Worshipful and Illustrious Deputy Grand Master;" the other officers are "Honorable Grand Wardens," &c. But our object in referring to this body was merely to show the practice of foreign rites in the admission of minors. From the article quoted from its Constitution, it will be seen that the minor must be the son of a Mason, and must be proposed by his father or tutor, when he may be advanced to the second degree, but cannot proceed further until his twentyfirst year. Does the person referred to by our correspondent, claim to be a Master Mason?

Grand Lodge Jurisdiction

From Vol. VII, No. 2, December 1847, p. 37:

Bloomington, Iowa, Sept. 10, 1847.

Br. C. W. Moore:—Will you, through the pages of your Magazine, please enlighten me and some of my Brethren of this Western region, who have been taught to look to the East for light, in relation to the meaning of the phrases " Masonic jurisdiction," "Jurisdictional limits of Grand Lodges, &c, a knowledge of which I find becomes necessary to enable us to understand much that is published now-a-days on these subjects, and, what is of more importance, to act in reference to the wise maxim, "Do unto others," &c. I had, until latterly, supposed, that the Masonic jurisdiction of a Grand Lodge was constitutionally limited and restricted within the geographical boundary of the State in which it was organised and held its Grand Communications. But I now find not only Brethren advocating, but Lodges and Grand Lodges practising the contrary,—a course of procedure on their part, which has resulted in much harm, and if persisted in, will increase the mischief.

I might enlarge much upon this topic, but as I have already done so, in a report which will be published in the proceedings of the Grand Lodge of Iowa, and as it is your views I want, I forbear.

Fraternally, &c, T. S. Parvin.

Our correspondent is not entirely correct in the view he has taken of the subject matter on which he desires our opinion; or, perhaps we should say, be stops short of the whole truth.

Generally speaking, the jurisdiction of a Grand Lodge in this country, is "limited and restricted within the geographical boundary of the State in which it holds its communications; but this is not universally true; nor is it true that there is any constitutional provision on the subject. The restriction or limitation, such as it is, is one which the early Grand Lodges in the United States seem to have imposed upon themselves, out of the courtesy and respect they entertained for each other. We have heard it said there was a kind of restrictive treaty entered into between them at the revival of Masonry after the revolutionary war; but we have never met with any evidence of the existence of such a document, and are inclined to regard the statement as without any foundation in fact. But, however this may be, it is indisputably true that a practice has obtained, which, in the absence of any written regulation, is to be received as the settled usage, or common law, on the subject.

What is this practice, and how does it limit the jurisdiction of the Grand Lodges?

We answer, that, as a general rule, the authority and operations of a Grand Lodge, in this country, are restricted to the geographical boundary of the State or territory within whose limits it is located and holds its communications. But this is not unconditionally true ; because, it has never been questioned that a Grand Lodge possesses the inherent power to establish Lodges in any State, territory, or country, where there is not already a Grand Lodge existing. Were this not the case, the respectable Grand Lodge of which our correspondent is the intelligent recording officer, could not have been organised. Other instances will readily suggest themselves to his mind, without our enumerating them.

Neither is the power of a Grand Lodge to establish Lodges in a foreign State, where there is no Grand Lodge existing, affected by the circumstance that there may already be within its borders, regularly established Lodges, deriving their authority from contemporary sources; because one Grand Lodge has no more just or stronger claims to a vacant territory than another, Contiguity has never been urged as ground for exclusive jurisdiction, though it will generally, and very properly, insure a preference. Neither is it of any consideration that there has been, at some previous time, a Grand Lodge within the State sought to be occupied. The only inquiry is as to the present lawful existence of such a body. This being settled negatively, the territory is vacant, and may be improved as though it had never been occupied. If a Grand Lodge, through its own decadency, fails to improve and occupy its jurisdiction, it loses control over it, and it may be taken possession of by another. If cannot be held in abeyance by the form, after the substance has departed. An opposite rule might forever exclude Lodges from any State or territory in which a Grand Lodge had once been organised.- I

There is another view in which it has been considered by pur European Brethren lawful for two or more Grand Lodges to occupy the same territory. This is where different rites are practised. There are, for instance, three Grand Lodges at Berlin, one working in the York, and the others in modern rites. There are also two Grand Lodges at Paris—the Grand Orient and the Supreme Council. The first originally worked the Modern, or French rite, and the latter the Scotch rite. By the regulations of the Supreme Council, and of the Scottish rite, it is declared irregular for a Grand Lodge to cultivate, or to associate with itself, any other than its own rite. Any Grand Lodge of the Scotch rite which should attempt to do so, would " lose its authority, and even existence." And we are inclined to regard this as a sound position, in a more general sense. If a Grand Lodge wear two faces, one must be false, and the whole thing becomes a cheat. That Masonry cannot be genuine which is composed of a plurality of rites; neither can that Grand Lodge be regarded as pure and regular which cultivates a plurality of rites ; for it is well known to every Mason who knows any thing about them, that the various rites differ, not only in the ceremonies, but in the essentials. And we are not prepared to say that there are not other societies, which claim no connection with our Fraternity, that do not bear quite as near an affinity to ancient York Masonry, as some of the modern rites, which are received as Masonic. A Grand Lodge of mixed rites is an anomaly, which can hardly fail to produce corruption in the formula and schism in the government of the Institution.

But without pursuing this point further, we leave our correspondent to consider for himself how far the European practice above referred to, is to be received as just and conservative in its operation,—asking him to bear in mind that a corrupt fountain must send forth impure streams; and that a diseased limb often endangers the whole body.

1848

Masonic Burials

From Moore's Freemason's Monthly, Vol. VII, No. 4, February, 1848, p. 97:

Jackson, Miss., Dec. 6, 1847.

Bro. C. W. Moore,—Circumstances which have recently transpired in this vicinity, have produced a good deal ot discussion in regard to Masonic interments. Various questions have been mooted on which your opinion is desired. It is laid on in the Maryland Ahiman Rezon, that no one can be Masonically interred but such as make a request to that effect to the Master of the Lodge of which they are members. To this rule (it is stated) there is no exception, unless in the case of foreigners or sojourners.

• 1st. One question is—Has any member of a Lodge making the request, and not under sentence of suspension or expulsion, (however he may deserve to be,) a right to Masonic interment—or is it a compliment, which a Lodge may pay or withhold, as they may deem the deceased worthy or unworthy of it, and that, consequently, the interests of the Order may be prejudiced or benefited? The ancient ceremonial does seem to me clearly to indicate that this honor (as I esteem it,) was paid only to the memory of worthy Masons.
• 2d. Does a Lodge act unmasonically, in interring one who is neither a sojourner, a foreigner, nor a member of such or any other Lodge ?
• 3d. If any other, what evidence of the deceased's Masonic character and grade, is sufficient to authorize his Masonic interment?
• 4th. Is any Mason bound to participate in a Masonic funeral, the object of which he believes to be unworthy ?
• 5th. If the members of the particular Lodge engaged in the ceremony are bound to take part by the order of the W. M., are the members of other Lodges, or no Lodge, who may chance to be present as visitors, bound to obey the order of the W. M. to take part in the ceremony I

I should like to have your opinion on all these questions, either with or without your reasons.

Yours, fraternally, - Dudley S. Jennings.

1. On page three hundred and fiftythree, of the fifth volume of this Magazine, our correspondent will find an article on "The Right to Masonic Burial" and to that we respectfully refer him.

The rule referred to by our correspondent, is found in all the Masonic books that contain the funeral service. It is the only rule on the subject. It is not, however, a constitutional regulation; nor do the original Constitutions of Masonry, in any way recognise Masonic funerals. The laws by which they are governed, depend upon; and originate in, the usage of the Fraternity where they are practised. This usage is not uniform. Even in England, public Masonic funerals are of rare occurrence, and in France, the ceremony, as a general rule, is performed in private, and in the Lodge room. Never, but on extraordinary occasions, is it performed in public. We are not, therefore, to receive the rule as given in the Ahiman Rezon and other text-books, as an universal and unchangeable law. It is not regarded as obligatory even by our English Brethren, with whom it originated ; for the present Constitutions of the Grand Lodge of England do not make the exception in favor of " foreigners and sojourners." They require that the deceased, in order to render him eligible to Masonic burial, must have been a contributing member of a subordinate Lodge at the time of his decease. This condition being fulfilled, he is at liberty to make the request of the "Master of the Lodge of which he died a member ;" and the Lodge is then at liberty to grant his request or otherwise, as may be expedient and proper. This is the rule in England. A Brother may not demand the ceremony as a right, though, if he be worthy, it will never be refused to.him as a token of respect and affection, except for reasons of great weight and pressing consideration.

The same rule, in this respect, has obtained, and is generally recognised in this country. The Lodges here, as in England, have ever, and always should, reserve to themselves the right of judging of the propriety of the request when made, nnd of acting in accordance with its own convictions of duty, both to the deceased and the Fraternity. In language used by us on a previous occasion, "requests of this character are frequently made by worthy, but not always wisely discriminating Brethren, when a compliance would not only be attended with unpleasant consequences, but would often result prejudicially to the interests of the Institution. This is especially true in large and populous cities, where the Fraternity, under a more stringent regulation, might be liable to be called daily into the public streets ; and not always under auspicious circumstances. It has, therefore, been wisely left with the Lodges to determine the propriety of granting such requests when made."

2. The construction given to the rule; or perhaps we should say, the practice as generally established in this country; does not restrict the privilege of Masonic burial to members of Lodges, foreigners and sojourners; but permits of its being extended to all Brethren who have rendered themselves worthy of it, by their virtues and fidelity to the Institution, or who have distinguished themselves for courage and patriotism in the service of their country. Nor is it always deemed essential that the deceased should have made the request to be buried by his Brethren. This is often done at the desire of his family and friends. And in neither case, in our judgment, " does the Lodge act unmasonically."

3. The qualifications which should be reg.irded as essential to Masonic burial, are an unimpeachable moral character, and a reputable standing among the Brethren and in the community. In this respect, the Lodges cannot exercise too much care and caution. "Worldly wealth and honors" are not to be taken into consideration in settling a question of this kind ; but the moral attributes of the deceased, his life and conversation, the estimation in which he is held by his Brethren, friends and neighbors, are all to be carefully considered. And if, upon this consideration, it shall not be clearly manifest, that the performance of the solemn ceremony appointed for the occasion, would not, through the unworthiness or short-comings of the deceased, bring reproach upon the Order in the community, or even among his more intimate friends, it is to be withheld, however pressing may be the circumstances under which it is desired. Neither the character of the Lodge, nor the solemnity of the ceremony, must be put at hazard.

4. A Brother is certainly not "bound to participate in a Masonic funeral, the object of which he believes to be unworthy." No Mason is bound to act the hypocrite ; nor are his Brethren at liberty to force him into a situation where he cannot do otherwise.

5. As a general rule, it is the duty of every member to attend the meetings of the Lodge to which he belongs, when not manifestly inconsistent with his business or family engagements. It is particularly his duty, (and he will so generally regard it,) to attend on occasions of so much solemn interest as the burial of a Brother. But unless there is some special provision in the By-laws of the Lodge, making it imperative upon him, we know of no regulation by which his attendance can be coerced ; except, indeed, by a special summons, which no Master of a Lodge, we apprehend, would be willing to authorise on occasions of this kind. And if he were, though the attendance of the Brother at the Lodge room might thereby be required, his participation in the public ceremonies would still be at his own option ; for, as before intimated, he cannot be compelled to violate his conscience, by participating in solemn religious ceremonies to the honor of one whom he believes to be unworthy of them.

The Master of the officiating Lodge has not any power to compel the attendance of members of other Lodges; neither has he power to compel the attendance of unaffiliated Brethren. The regulation says " he may invite as many Lodges as he thinks proper, and the members of those Lodges may accompany their officers in form ;" and, when assembled, the whole are under his direction. But he has no power to compel them to attend and "take part in the ceremony."

Physical Qualifications of Candidates

From Moore's Freemason's Monthly, Vol. VII, No. 4, February, 1848, p. 102:

Cayuga, Miss., Dec. 1, 1847.

Comp. Moore, - Your readiness and willingness to answer such questions as will serve to enlighten your Brethren, and promote the interests of Masonry, together with the fact that I know of a case in point, influence me to ask your views as to the propriety of conferring the degrees of Masonry on an individual who cannot hear well, but who can, notwithstanding, hear distinctly the whisper of one with whom he has been in the habit of conversing with?

Please shape this question so that you may answer it in a proper manner, and oblige, Yours, Fraternally, H. J. Harris.

There cannot be, we think, any valid objection in the above case. We fully comprehend our correspondent, and the point on which his doubts rest. If the candidate's hearing is as stated, it is, in our opinion, sufficient for all required purposes.

Admission of Rejected Candidates

From Moore's Freemason's Monthly, Vol. VII, No. 5, March 1848, p. 132:

ADMISSION OF CANDIDATES WHO HAVE BEEN ONCE REJECTED.

Macon, Miss., Jan. 18, 1848.

Br. Moore: - Is there any specified time for an individual to wait, before be may petition a Lodge the second time, after his petition has been once rejected?
Yours, &c, E. W. Ferris.

There is not. The written law of the Fraternity is silent on the subject; and the practice is not uniform. In some of the States, it is regulated by the Grand Lodges in their Constitutions; and in others; it is left to the local regulations of the subordinate Lodges. The periods usually fixed in such cases, are six and twelve months. But we are not favorably disposed towards this way of adjusting the matter. It is too loose and uncertain. It might happen that the cause of the rejection of a candidate may be satisfactorily explained and removed in twentyfour hours after the ballot is taken. In such case, the Lodge should be at liberty to avail itself of the earliest opportunity to heal the wound it has causelessly, though unintentionally, inflicted on the feelings of an upright and honorable man. Under such circumstances, the delay would be cruelty. On the other hand, a candidate may not be any better qualified to receive the degrees after the expiration of a year of probation, than when he was first proposed and rejected.

The most just to all parties, and, in our judgment, the safest course for the Institution, would be for each Grand Lodge, within its own jurisdiction, to prohibit, by Constitutional enactment, the initiation of a candidate, who has been once rejected, in any other Lodge than that to which he originally applied for admission,—except he obtain the written recommendation of at least six members of the Lodge rejecting him, three of whom should be the Master and Wardens.

This is the regulation of the Grand Lodge of Massachusetts, and it leaves the matter where it properly belongs—in the hands of those who best understand it. And what to our mind is of weighty consideration, it enables the Lodge to correct immediately any error into which it may be inadvertently led. The exception in favor of the candidate, allowing Mm the privilege of the recommendation of six members of the Lodge, is intended to protect him, so far as regulations can avail, against individual prejudice or malice; for, we regret to be obliged to admit, that Masons are not always entirely free from the influence of these vices, though we believe they prevail among them to a much less extent than in any other class of the community.

If a rejected candidate leaves the State and applies for admission elsewhere, it is the duty of the Lodge to which he applies, to communicate immediately with the Lodge in which he was rejected. The fact that he has been rejected, is brought out by the usual test; which ought never to be omitted in the case of one who has recently become a resident in the town where the Lodge to which he applies for admission, is located.

Balloting

From Moore's Freemason's Monthly, Vol. VII, No. 6, April 1848, p. 161:

EFFECTS OF IRREGULAR PROCEEDINGS IN INITIATIONS.

Bro. Moore, —Before you can arrive at correct answers to the following interrogatories, it may be proper to state that A. is a Lodge assumed to be working ooder a Charter from the G. Lodge of Alabama. As a necessary preliminary to this, its By-Laws most have been examined and approved by said G. Lodge, and, are therefore Masonic, and binding upon all its members. One of the articles of these By-Laws says: No ballot shall be taken upon any petition, except at a Regular Communication. And, in another place, No petition shall be received from a rejected candidate, for six months thereafter. We will now suppose that at a Regular Communication of A. Lodge, B. petitions for the E. A. degree, and in three successive ballots is rejected by a very small vote. The Lodge is then duly closed till the next Regular Communication, (one month,) unless some case of emergency may require a special meeting, which can be held, Provided, as the By-Laws say, that notice be served on every member, so far as practicable, of the time and objects of said meeting. It so happened that a visiting Brother, deservedly eminent for his Masonic lore, and the facility and clearness with which he imparts his information to others, was present at this Regular Communication.

After the Lodge had closed, several Brethren requested this well informed Broth er to meet them at the Hall after supper, in an informal way, and give them a lecture on the several degrees of Ancient Craft Masonry. To this he consented, and the Brethren present were invited to attend. After supper, all the members *ho had attended the Regular Communication, except three, assembled for the purpose of receiving a Masonic lecture from the aforesaid Brother, when, to the mrprise of a portion of them at least, it was proposed to have a called meeting for the avowed object of reconsidering the rejection of the above mentioned candidate B., and, if possible, of conferring the degree on him that night. The S. W, the highest officer present, was unwilling to take the responsibility of calling a meeting for that purpose, and the W. M. was sent for, who, after long entreaties, and for reasons not proper to be mentioned here, yielded to the solicitations of B.'s friends, and opened a Lodge of M. M. A motion was then made to reconsider the rejection of B., the mover not professing to have been one of the rejecting party at the Regular Communication.

We will now suppose, that the W. M., after using every argument in bis pow er against the resolution, leaves the whole matter to the Lodge, and the motion prevailed. A fresh ballot is ordered, which proves clear, and B. is forthwith initiated. It should also be mentioned, that no notice of this called meeting was served upon any of tbe absent members, though some of them resided within a very short distance from the Hall.

We will also suppose that the only excuse offered for this proceeding was the presence of an officer of the G. Lodge, viz.: a Grand Chaplain,—for, by a resolution of the G. Lodge, the presence of any of the Grand Officers, to exemplify the work, will sustain the plea of emergency.

With these suppositions! assumed by way of elucidation, in behalf of many zealous Masons, by whom a direct answer will be considered a favor, I respect fully propound the following Questions:

1. Was B. legally initiated, and is be a legitimate E. A. Mason?
2. If he was legally initiated, what would constitute an illegal initiation?
3. If he was not legally initiated, and is not a legitimate E. A. Mason, how can he be made one?
4. Can he, though entirely innocent, (for he was not behind the curtain,) proceed to take the F. C. degree legally, without being first formally healed?
5. Is the rejecter of B. at the Regular Communication, bound to consider him as a genuine Mason ?

- A Supporter or the Ancient Landmarks,
Benton, Ala., Feb. 15, 1848.

Our answers to the above interrogatories will not probably correspond, in all respects, with the views entertained by our intelligent and respected correspondent. We are not, however, disposed to believe that they will be any the less acceptable to him on that account.

In the first place, then, the proceedings had "after supper," were all wrong and irregular. The regular meeting, for which the Lodge was notified, had been held,—the Lodge had been opened and closed, and the Master and some other members had retired. All business proper to be transacted on that evening, had then been disposed of. A special meeting could be convened only in the manner provided by the By-Laws; that is, by serving a notice on "every member, so far as practicable, of the time and object of the meeting." This was not done; nor could it in our opinion, have been legally done on that evening. Time did not admit of it. It is not competent for an indefinite number of members who happen to be convened together, to resolve to hold an emergent meeting and forthwith open the Lodge—not even though a Grand Officer be present. Such a power, invested in a Lodge, would be exceedingly dangerous, and could hardly fail to produce mischievous results. We hope never to see it introduced into Masonry. Emergent meetings should be called in the usual way, and the object stated on the notifications to the members; and for this purpose time enough should be taken. The presence of a Grand Officer cannot excuse any irregularity in the proceedings of a Lodge. If he desire aa emergent meeting, it is his duty to give the Master timely notice, or the Master wilt not be blameable if he decline to call it. With these preliminary remarks, we proceed to answer, very briefly, the inquiries of our correspondent, in the order in which they are pro posed :

1. B. was legally initiated, and is a legitimate E. A. Mason. He was initiated in a regularly constituted Lodge, working under a Constitutional Charter, and by a duly installed Master. The irregularity of the proceedings cannot affect him. So far as he is concerned, all was regular. On his part there was no fault, and he cannot be punished for the faults of the Lodge.
2. Initiation in a clandestine Lodge, or a Lodge not recognized by the Grand Lodge of the State; or by Masons not authorized to assemble as a Lodge; would constitute " illegal initiation."
3. If he were not " legally initiated," nor a "legitimate E. A. Mason," he could be made one only in the usual way; or, under certain circumstances, by healing.
4. The manner of his initiation constitutes no hindrance to his receiving the F. C. degree; though the same cause which at first produced his rejection, might be sufficient cause for his rejection on the second degree. This will not hold, however, as a general rule, but we think it will in the present case; because, if we conceive the matter rightly, the parties ob jecting, were not present at his admission, and the objection was not re acted. If, therefore, it were sufficient, if allowed to have its full weight, to debar him from admission to the first degree, it is sufficient, and may be urged, to prevent his advancing further.
5. The "rejecter" is bound to consider him as *a genuine Mason," until he can effect his expulsion by his own Lodge or by the Grand Lodge; and for the reasons given in the answer to the first inquiry.

We can easily imagine the feelings of our correspondent and the other members of the Lodge whose opinions in this matter are coincident with his own, and the repugnance which they may naturally feel at being com pelled to receive as a Brother one whom they do not esteem to be worthy, and who has been improperly forced upon tbem. They are not, however, without their remedy, if the objections be strong enough to justify expulsion. If not, the matter must rest where it is, at least so far as concerns the initiate.

Balloting

From Moore's Freemason's Monthly, Vol. VII, No. 6, April 1848, p. 164:

BALLOTING FOR CANDIDATES.

Wooster, O., Feb. 2, 1848.

Bro. C. W. Moore, Esq.—Dear Sir:—I seat myself to address you upon a subject, for information,—not for myself alone, but for the good of the Craft. We look to your Magazine as the great light in the East. I therefore take the liberty to address you.

To the subject After the ballot-box passes, and the candidate is rejected, or black-balled, can the vote be reconsidered; or, can the petition be withdrawn? I sincerely hope you will give us your answers soon as possible.

I am, dear Brother, yours fraternally, A. Bartol.

We do not understand that a motion to reconsider a ballot on the application of a candidate for the degrees would, under any circumstances, be admissible, by any known Masonic law or established usage. The most correct process, as we understand it, is this : A candidate applies in writing for the degrees;—his application is read in open Lodge, and usually referred to a committee, for investigation. (Sometimes the appointment of a special committee it omitted; in which caae the members generally are expected to make the neceuary inquiries; but the former ii the better course. What if everybody's business is never attended to.) At the ensuing meeting of the Lodge, the committee make their report,—the ballot is ordered, and the candidate is admitted or rejected. In ordinary cases, this is the end of the matter. But there are exceptions. One of these is, when one black ball is found in the box. In this case, the Master usually orders a second ballot, with a view to ascertain that a mistake has not been committed. If on the second ballot, the black ball still remains, the balloting is at an end, and the candidate is rejected. The record must be so made up. There is no such thing as reconsideration. The candidate can be brought again before the Lodge only by a new proposition. His friends cannot avert the consequences of the ballot by withdrawing his petition after the result is made known. (The friends of a petitioner should never be allowed to withdraw his petition after the committee have made their report, especially if it be unfavorable to him. The better way is always to take the ballot.)

The petition belongs to the Lodge, but the fact of its rejection belongs to the Grand Lodge, and the benefit of it to the Fraternity at large. We wish not to be misunderstood here. We do not approve of the publication of rejections. It is enough that they are privately communicated to the Grand Lodge, and by the Grand Secretary to the Lodges in the State. Lodges out of the State possess the inherent right of ascertaining the fact, if they should ever have occasion to know it.

Another exception to the general rule of proceeding in balloting for candidates is, that when two black balls are cast, a second ballot may be ordered, on the declaration of a member that he has made a mistake in depositing his ballot; and it is sometimes allowed even on the suggestion of the friends of the candidate, that a mistake may possibly have been committed. The second balloting, however, settles the question, and the candidate is either admitted or rejected, without the right to a motion for reconsideration or to withdraw his petition.

Another correspondent addresses us upon this subject, as follows:

Palmyra, Me., Feb. 1, 1848.

Bro. Moore,—Please inform me or the Fraternity what course should be pursued in the case of a Brother who has been duly initiated as an Entered Apprentice and proposed for the F. C. degree, balloted for and found worthy,—but subsequently his conduct is unworthy a Mason, and he does not appear to avail himself of the ballot for F. C. degree, and nearly two years have elapsed since that ballot. Is it the proper course to reconsider that ballot? I have thought it tie proper course to reconsider, but would like to be enlightened.
Truly yours, Granville Flint.

The ballot for the second degree is null and void, the candidate not having come forward in due season to avail himself of it. The rule as to time in such cases, is not very definitely settled. We think it should never exceed three months, and then a satisfactory reason for the delay should be required. In the present case, the candidate having been found unworthy, could not at any time avail himself of the ballot, though there were no other restriction. On the contrary, it is a question for the Lodge to consider whether it is not its duty to investigate the imputations resting upon his character, and to deal with him as the result may warrant.

---

Edicts Main Page