Difference between revisions of "MassachusettsEdicts MFM1856 1860"

Revision as of 15:13, 30 July 2013

ADVICE FROM MOORE'S FREEMASONS' MONTHLY MAGAZINE

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

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

1856

Withdrawing Petitions

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

An intelligent correspondent at Worcester, sends us the following inquiry;-

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Widows of Masons

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

Plymouth, N. C.

Br. Moore: - For the benefit or information of the Brethren here, who entertain opposite views, be pleased to give us your opinion as to the following:-

If the widow of a Master Mason marry again, is she (according to Masonic Law) still retaining the character of a Master Mason's widow?

If her husband dies (who is not a Mason) and during his lifetime she lost her relationship to the Fraternity, does she resume it upon his death, as before the second marriage?

In the 10th volume of your Magazine, page 29, this matter is understood to be decided in the affirmative.

Yours, fraternally, J. R.

There are some titles and honors, which once conferred, will last for life. They become annexed to the person by public courtesy. Once a Squire, always a Squire. But it is not so in every case. Once a widow, may not be always a widow. For when a widow,

Si non pertæsum thalami tædæque fuisset,

again marries, her widowhood certainly ceases; for a widow must be a single woman, and not, as the lawyers would say, a feme-covert; and she must have been legally married, and then bereaved of her husband. And while in this lonely condition, she is a widow indeed: and if her partner, when alive, was a Brother of good standing, she is a Mason's widow, entitled to the sympathy and charity of the Fraternity everywhere, but more particularly of the Lodge to which he belonged.

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

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

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

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

Balloting for Candidates

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

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

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

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

Lodge Punishments

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

PUNISHMENT FOR INTEMPERANCE.

Elkton, Tenn., January 30, 1856.

Bro. Charles W. Moore,—

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

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

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

B.

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

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

Initiation of a Minor

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Appeals

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1857

Restoration

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

Boston, Jan. 2, 1857.

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

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

Fraternally yours, C. W. M.

Failure to Collect a Fee

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

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

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

Membership in Grand Lodge

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

Mansfield, O., January 5, 1857.

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

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

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

Non-Affiliated Masons

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

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

Marshall, Texas, May 19, 1857.

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

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

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

Yours fraternally, J.

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

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

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

1858

Withholding of Degrees

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

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

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

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

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

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

Discipline By A Lodge

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

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

Charles W. Moore, Esq., Boston.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(7) Such evidence would be of no avail.

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

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

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

1859

Balloting in Elections

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

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

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

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

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

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

Objections After Ballot

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

A correspondent in Texas makes the following inquiry :—

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

After the Lodge is opened, the protest is read, and the W. M. decides that the degree should not be withheld —

• 1st. Because the Brother should have remained and made bis objection in person;
• 2d. Admitting that the objection could be made in writing, the Brother being present in town, he should at least hare made some specific charge, which, if true, would render the candidate unfit for Masonic privileges.

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

Yours fraternally, W. D. W.

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

Masonic Burials

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

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

Will you be kind enough to answer in your Magazine the following questions :—

• 1st. Has a Grand Lodge the right to forbid a subordinate to inter a deceased Brother because he was non-affiliated ?
• 2d. If so, when and how was this right obtained?

By answering the above at your earliest convenience, you will much oblige.

Yours Fraternally, B.

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

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

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

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

1860

Use of Tobacco In Lodges

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

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

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

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

Disclosing Lodge Business

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

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

Edicts Main Page