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.
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.
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 tbe 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.
