MassachusettsEdicts MFM1856 1860
Contents
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.
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.
