MassachusettsEdicts

EDICTS

BEFORE 1800

The Grand Masters of Masons in Massachusetts have frequently offered opinions and made declarations from the Oriental Chair of Grand Lodge which have the force of Masonic law within the jurisdiction. This page lists those that appear in the pages of the Proceedings.

1794

John Cutler, Grand Master

Page II-59, 09/10/1794, regarding the granting of charters outside of Massachusetts.

In response to requests and petitions from outside of Massachusetts where Grand Lodges had been erected, the Grand Master directed a letter to be sent to the Grand Lodge of Rhode Island in particular "informing them that it is the intention and full determination of this Grand Lodge, not to grant any charter of erection to any Lodge out of this commonwealth, where another Grand Lodge has jurisdiction: hinting to them the absolute necessity of the measure, and requesting them to join in a plan so likely to operate to the benefit of Masonry in General." (This ruling was confirmed on 03/08/1802, Page II-197, by Grand Master Samuel Dunn, in response to a petition from Columbian Lodge in Norwich, Connecticut; the Grand Lodge of Massachusetts resigned authority of this lodge when the Grand Lodge of Connecticut was erected. A similar petition from Masons in New Brunswick was withdrawn in 1807; Page II-352.)

See also Grand Master Gardner's restatement of the "American Doctrine of Grand Lodge Jurisdiction" in 1870.

1800-1825

1803

Isaiah Thomas, Grand Master

Page II-211, 03/14/1803, on improper use of Lodge regalia.

Certain members of Rising States Lodge were accused of the following:

". . . charged first of having at several times taken from the chest of the Rising States Lodge the charter and jewels of said Lodge; second, for having used the same, or been present at the using of the same, in a clandestine manner, inconsistent with their duty as Masons, derogatory to the Craft and highly injurious to the Lodge of which they are members."

The offending Brothers were expelled for this misuse.

1806

Timothy Bigelow, Grand Master

Page II-328, 03/10/1806, regarding the fitness of disabled men to be Masons.

"It was moved by the Most Worshipful Timothy Bigelow to know the opinion of this Grand Lodge, if a blind man can, or cannot, be made a Mason, such an one having applied for admission to King Solomon's Lodge in Charlestown; and on motion, Voted, That it is inconsistent and incompatible with the Constitutions of Masonry." (This was reconsidered in the 1843 Grand Constitutions, with the following text: "where the deformity does not amount to an inability honestly to acquire the means of subsistence, it constitutes no hindrance to initiation." (Part 4, Article 3, Section 4. )

Page II-345, 12/08/1806, regarding oaths of affirmation.

"In pursuance of a vote of the Grand Lodge at the last Quarterly Communication, submitting the question to his decision, it pleased the Most Worshipful Grand Master to give his opinion, that with respect to such candidates for initiation and other degrees, as have conscientious scruples about taking an oath, the act of affirmation is equally valid as swearing in receiving the obligations of Masonry."

1809

Isaiah Thomas, Grand Master

Page II-410, 06/12/1809, regarding the entrusting of the Grand Lodge regalia.

"On motion, Voted, that the jewels and regalia of this Grand Lodge be entrusted in future to the Grand Stewards, for the time being, and that they be answerable for the same." (This was enshrined in the By-Laws in 1819; see Chapter 4, Section 3; the Senior Grand Steward was given charge of these items.)

1818

Francis J. Oliver, Grand Master

Page III-138, 02/04/1818, regarding the right of summons.

Following a discussion of revisions to the By-Laws of the Grand Lodge, the Grand Master rendered the following opinion.

"This decision was not considered as affecting the unalterable and unalienable right of the Grand Lodge to require the personal attendance of any member of the Fraternity upon a regular summons, a right which had been transmitted from the earliest ages, and which he could not, consistently with the obligations he considered himself under, suffer to be questioned, so long as he had the honor to preside over the Grand Lodge."

1822

John Dixwell, Grand Master

Page III-399, 06/12/1822, regarding the Master's control of the records of the Lodge.

A complaint was made regarding the Worshipful Master of Jordan Lodge, who had struck out some material in the Secretary's record. A committee was appointed to review the Master's rights and powers in this matter.

"The Secretary is the servant of the Lodge; and his duty is well defined in the charges given him by the Master on his being inducted into office. That part of his duty which consists in making a record of the meeting and business of the Lodge is performed by the side of the Master, and under his eye, and the first draught should be inspected by the Master before entered and recorded; for it is the duty of the Master to see that the proceedings of the Lodge be faithfully and properly recorded. Of course the Master has a right to express his opinion with regard to the accuracy of statement or mode of expression. Moreover, there may be transaction in a Lodge which are not worth recording, or which it would not be proper to make matters of history to be perpetuated in the records, and about the inexpediency of entering which the opinion of the Master is to be given.

"If, however, a misunderstanding should arise between the Master and the Secretary as to the article for record, it may be stated in open Lodge for explanation or decision. If the Master object to an article as improper for record, or to the terms in which one is expressed that is a fit matter for record, and the Secretary, making no reference to the opinon of the Lodge inserts and certifies it, he errs; but the record cannot be cancelled, the Lodge Book is not to be defaced, nor may the leaf be cut out. All the remedy is an entry of emendation or correction by the Master or under his direction or by a vote of the Lodge."

1825-1850

1826

John Abbot, Grand Master

Page IV-39, 09/13/1826, regarding obligation to respond to a summons.

In a committee report concerning the relationship between the Fraternity and Masons unaffiliated with any Lodge, the following statement appears:

"Every Mason is bound to obey the summons of a Lodge of Master Masons and presented himself before then, if within the scope of his ability. There is no relation in which he can stand with the fraternity that can absolve a mason from this obligation. He may have sufficient excuse for not obeying a summons, and in that case it is his duty to lay his excuse before the summoning body which has the power of admitting it as satisfactory and it is presumed that it will always be ready to exercise this power liberally whenever a proper spirit is manifested. Thus a Lodge may excuse a Freemason for not performing this duty, but cannot absolve him from his obligation to perform it."

1827

John Soley, Grand Master

Page IV-91, 06/13/1827, regarding the privilege of Lodges to meet in different towns.

"The prayer of of the petition of this ancient and respectable Lodge (Hiram, of West Cambridge) is for an authority to hold alternate meetings by semi annual changes at Lexington and West Cambridge. The reasons assigned are, that as the Members of this Lodge are nearly in equal numbers from each town, those living in West Cambridge are subject to inconvenience and expense in the discharge of their Masonic duties.

"The question therefore to be decided is, whether the inconvenience complained of will justify the Grand Lodge in granting the privilege which will in all probability be attended with many embarrassing consequences. On the one hand it would be very desirable to afford every facility to Lodges and members thus situated. On the other hand it is of the utmost importance that order and regularity should be preserved throughout the whole.

"Your Committee are of opinion that many Lodges under this jurisdiction are subject to similar inconveniences and would be entitled to all the rights and privileges which a precedent once placed on the records of the Grand Lodge would seem to warrant, although not in exact accordance with the present case. Applications of a like nature have been made to this Grand Lodge, which it is believed have in no instance been sustained. Among the many evils to be apprehended by such an indulgence are - a tendency to disturb the harmony of the present system, to unsettle the location of Lodges, and to encourage an itinerant spirit which the Grand Lodge have hitherto thought it their duty to suppress."

This petition was therefore not granted.

1832

Joseph Jenkins, Grand Master

Page IV-270, 12/12/1832, regarding debt of a subordinate Lodge.

Cassia Lodge applied for financial assistance to the Grand Lodge but the request was denied. The committee report contained the following statement.

"Your Committee can find no precedent as far as their inquiries have extended, of the Grand Lodge paying the debts contracted by any subordinate Lodge.

"And when it is remembered that all the funds of the Grand Lodge have been invested in the Temple on Tremont Street, and that a large debt is due from the Grand Lodge, secured by a mortgage upon the Temple, the Committee are constrained to report that it is inexpedient to make any appropriation for Cassia Lodge."

Cassia Lodge was among those surrendering charters in 1834.

1843

Augustus Peabody, Grand Master

Page IV-587, 03/09/1843, regarding the conferral of multiple degrees at the same meeting.

"The Most Worshipful Grand Master stated that he had been called upon for his opinion as to the propriety of the Lodges conferring more than one degree on the Same individual at one and the same meeting, and that he had expressed his conviction that the practice was irregular and injudicious, and ought not to be resorted to except in cases of pressing emergency, and then only by dispensation. Whereupon the Recording Grand Secretary offered the following order:

"Ordered. That from and after the passage of this order, it shall not be regular for any Lodge to give more than one degree to a Brother on the same day, nor at a less interval than one month from his receiving a previous degree, unless a dispensation shall be obtained therefor." (Adopted 06/14/1843, Page IV-598; referred to the committee on the Grand Constitutions, but this ruling was not included in the 1843 edition, and therefore should be considered as an edict in force. Note that a motion was proposed in March 1845, on Page V-22, to rescind this order and to reduce the month of elapsed time between degrees; this was not adopted.)

1844

Augustus Peabody, Grand Master

Page IV-683, 03/13/1844, regarding the obligations of petitioners on restoration of a revoked or surrendered charter.

The Brethren of The Tyrian Lodge, on petitioning for restoration of the Charter following the anti-Masonic period, brought up several questions when making the request of the Grand Lodge. A committee reported on these questions.

"To the first inquiry, viz., 'The Brethren of Tyrian Lodge who divided their funds in 1834 and now are unable to refund it back, ask advice whether Tyrian Lodge or the Grand Lodge ought to remit said amount to them,' your Committee are unanimously of the opinion that to remit would answer no good purpose for either the Grand Lodge or Tyrian Lodge, and it might lead to consequences which we should all find occasion to regret, as the Brethren have justly forfeited all their Masonic rights, by an abuse of Masonic privileges - and as there is no probability that they will hereafter be of any advantage to the institution your committee are of the opinion that a remission under such circumstances and consequent restoration to Masonic privileges would be inexpedient.

"Second inquiry, viz., several Brethren did not sign the petition to restore the Charter - will the Grand Lodge direct Tyrian Lodge to request all such members in Gloucester to refund whether petitioners or not? Or is that left to the discretion of Tyrian Lodge.'

In reference to the foregoing, your Committee are clearly of opinion that it is the duty of Tyrian Lodge to demand the immediate repayment of the money the brethren have thus wrongfully appropriated to their own private use. The funds of a Lodge is not the property of its members it belongs to the poor and needy; and to divide or pervert its use is a violation of Masonic Engagements, and under ordinary circumstances would be visited with the severest penalty known to our laws. It would seem to your committee that these Brethren were carried away by the popular delusion of the times and were led to believe that the institution had ceased to exist — but as the Lodges have now resumed their wonted activity and the sound of the gavel is every-where heard, this belief can no longer obtain — They must see their error — and it is hoped will promptly refund. But if they hold fast their ill begotten wealth — if they love the money, more than the institution, it is conclusive evidence that they are unworthy to participate in any of its privileges, and should be refused admission to any and all Lodges. In view of these facts your committee would recommend that Tyrian Lodge be directed, to demand in the name of the Grand Lodge the return of these funds.

"Third inquiry - 'To become a member of said Lodge a brother must be balloted for, pay a fee and sign the By-Laws — a Brother who has received his degrees in Tyrian Lodge before the Surrender of its Charter, claims the right of membership solely because the Charter is restored without any ballot, fee, or Signing of the By Laws.'

"The restoration of the Charter does not by any possibility of construction, confer upon the Brother here alluded to any rights or privileges that he did not enjoy previous to its surrender — consequently if he were not a member then, he certainly is not now. If the By-Laws of Tyrian Lodge require a ballot and a fee before a Brother can be admitted to membership, then there is not a shadow of Justice in the claim, nor can the Lodge admit him in any other than a regular & constitutional manner."

1845

Augustus Peabody, Grand Master

Page V-51, 12/10/1845, regarding the creation of honorary members of the Grand Lodge.

"Brethren of eminence out of this State, who have rendered important services to the Craft, may, by a vote of this Grand Lodge duly confirmed, be constituted honorary members thereof, with such rank as the vote constituting them members shall designate." (This order was first applied at the December 27 meeting of that year, when Rt. Wor. George Oliver, D.D. was elected with the rank of Past Deputy Grand Master, and Rt. Wor. Robert Thomas Crucefix, M.D., was elected with the rank of Past Senior Grand Warden.)

1847

Simon W. Robinson, Grand Master

Page V-131, 03/10/1847, regarding the conveyance of property.

"The Committee to whom was referred the petition of Union Lodge, Nantucket, have since the last report examined into the affairs of said Lodge and find that during the dark period of Anti-masonic excitement, they were the owners of a building valued at about Two Thousand dollars, which was held by Trustees.

"In 1833 the number of the Trustees was reduced to two, and the number of the members of the Lodge was greatly diminished. Very justly apprehending that in case the surviving Trustees should be taken away or the Lodge be disbanded, their interest in the building would be lost to the Fraternity — and there being no power in the Grand Lodge to hold real estate, the brethren came to the conclusion, after mature deliberation, that they should best discharge their duty, by conveying the property to the Coffin School Corporation — This was accordingly done in December 1835, and in terms which your Committee believe to be just and equitable. The Lodge relinquishes to the School, one fourth part of the interest arising from the funds, for and in consideration of the privilege of admission to the School, of the Orphan Children of the deceased masons on the Island, on the same terms as the Children of the Coffin family are received — And the Trustees of the School further engage to pay to the Lodge the remaining three fourths of the interest arising from the funds. — So far all is well — But the Lodge has gone one step farther, and made the Coffin School Corporation the residuary legatee in case the Lodge should ever be disbanded. This places the funds forever beyond the reach of the Grand Lodge, and here is the great error of the transaction.

"The Lodge did not masonically or morally possess the right to make such a conveyance. It was done in violation of established Masonic usage, and meets with the severest reprobation of your Committee."

1848

Simon W. Robinson, Grand Master

Page V-173, 06/14/1848, one set of grounds for expulsion without formal trial.

A brother of a dissolved lodge held the Charter and other property of the Lodge (Mount Moriah Lodge of Reading) and refused to surrender it to officers of the Grand Lodge; he furthermore engaged in "contumacious and unmasonic conduct." By a unanimous vote of the Grand Lodge, the Brother was expelled from Masonry without trial.

Page V-217, 12/27/1848, a new 'Form of Summons' promulgated.

"By order of the Grand Master, a Form of Summons was adopted and ordered to be printed. This summons was directed to be used by subordinate Lodges when issuing summons to Brothers, per the provision in the 1843 Grand Constitutions.

1849

Edward A. Raymond, Grand Master

Page V-255, 09/12/1849, regarding the powers and station of the Grand Master.

An extensive report was made concerning disputes and schism in the Grand Lodge of New York. The committee report contained the following statements.

"A Grand Lodge legally formed and constituted has from high antiquity, ample right to bear Masonic rule over those subject to its jurisdiction. A Grand Master duly qualified, sitting in open Lodge, clothed with the insignia of his office, have [has] an ample right to bear rule in his Lodge, to exact and receive obedience and courteous deportment from all in the Lodge. None but the Grand Master, unless by his consent, can put any questions to vote or declare the result.

"A Grand Master may err; he may act in gross violation of Masonic laws and usages, but his misconduct can never dissolve a Grand Lodge, or can it ever justify or excuse those in the Lodge, in deposing him from his Chair, or usurping his legal authority, disobeying his commands or treating him with disrespect. Much less can an individual or any number of individuals, of their own motion, declare the Grand Lodge dissolved for any cause whatever."

1851-1875

1851

Edward A. Raymond, Grand Master

Page V-330, 06/12/1851, resolutions regarding the exclusive jurisdiction of Grand Lodges recognized by the Grand Lodge of Massachusetts.

The resolutions were occasioned by the "Supreme Council, Scottish Rite, Southern Jurisdiction" in Louisiana, purporting to create Lodges and make Masons.

"Resolved. That this Grand Lodge recognizes no body of Masons, as having the authority to constitute Lodges of Symbolic Masonry, except the legally constituted Grand Lodge of the State within whose jurisdiction said subordinate Lodges may be located. . .

"Resolved. That this Grand Lodge do hold all Lodges which have been constituted hv any other body of Masons, than the Grand Lodge aforesaid and who acknowledge any other jurisdiction than that of the said Grand Lodge as clandestine Lodges.

"Resolved. That this Grand Lodge will hold no Masonic communication with any such Lodges constituted by any such spurious body, by whatever name or title they may be called or known.

"Resolved. That the Lodges within the jurisdiction of the Grand Lodge of Massachusetts be, and are hereby prohibited from holding any Masonic communication with any such clandestine Lodge, or with any members of the same, or with any Masons, who acknowledge any such spurious authority as that, under which the said clandestine Lodges are held."

1854

George M. Randall, Grand Master

Page V-540, 12/13/1854, regarding a petition for a Lodge to work in a foreign language.

The original petition for dispensation for Germania Lodge requested that it be permitted to use the German language for its ritual. Following some debate, the following report was accepted.

"That Masonry is cosmopolitan. She acknowledges for her votaries no particular tongue, nation or sect. She opens her portals for all, if they be but worthy and well qualified. She asks not for any especial dialect. She but teaches and requires that universal language which is used whenever its influence is diffused.

"There are no laws of naturalization in Masonry; its demand only — Is he good and true.

"The undersigned are not aware that there is any regulation or law of any Grand Lodge in any part of the world which requires the applicants for a Charter to state in what language they propose to converse or administer the rituals of the Institution.

"It is understood that in Boston and in its vicinity there are 22,000 Germans. As a nation, the Germans are distinguished for their industry and honesty: and from this stock we have ever had quiet and good citizens.

"Now among these are many masons of character who are attached to the Institution and are desirous of enjoying its happy, moral and social influences. This they cannot do in our Lodges, and are therefore cut off from those advantages and pleasurers with which others are so highly favored.

"They ask to be previously well tried; for a dispensation only; promising to observe all the inculcations, laws and regulations and ceremonies enjoined by the Grand Lodge, — in short to submit implicitly to this body.

"They ask it now, when there is a necessity for new Lodges, when our numbers are overflowing, and when there is scarcely an evening unoccupied.

"They come with their application in due form, with the approbation of the Dist. Dep. Grand Master and the approval of one of our own Lodges: —

"They ask for that which has always been granted elsewhere by the Grand Lodge of England, where the degrees are conferred in the Hebrew, German and French languages, and the same is true of the continental Grand Lodges."

The dispensation was granted, and Germania Lodge worked for many years using an approved version of the ritual in German.

1858

John T. Heard, Grand Master

Page VI-196, 09/08/1858, on the fee for restoration of a charter.

Resolution based on the Grand Master's 1857 Address. "Resolved: That the fee for a restoration of a Charter shall be the same, as that required for issuing a new Charter unless otherwise ordered by a vote of this Grand Lodge."

Page VI-212, 12/08/1858, on meetings of District Deputies.

By order of the Grand Master, District Deputies were directed to meet. "Ordered: That the District Deputy Grand Masters be authorized to hold Quarterly meetings for the purpose of consulting upon any questions that may arise in the several districts for the discussion or action of the several District Deputy Grand Masters, and that the expenses of such meetings and of the officers attending the same shall be paid by the Grand Lodge."

1863

William Parkman, Grand Master

Page VI-483, 12/10/1863, on what constitutes a candidate.

A Committee was appointed to clarify the status of persons applying to take the degrees, and the prerogatives of the Grand Master and his District Deputies with regard to applications and dispensations.

"All Grand Lodges have rules regulating the admission of candidates, with provisions for the relaxation of their rigor in certain cases. In fact the provision for relaxing the rule or rendering it flexible is apart of the rule itself. . . The provisions of our own Constitutions to which we are to look for a solution of this question are as follows. Part 4 - Article 1 - Section 1 - all applications for initiations shall be made in writing over the signature of the applicant, and in the following form (form omitted). And the no candidate shall be balloted for, who has not been proposed at a stated monthly meeting, and who shall not have stood so proposed from one regular monthly meeting to another without a dispensation therefor, nor shall a candidate, in any event, be balloted for, into whose moral character, a strict inquiry has not been made, and whose name has not been borne on the notifications, for the meeting at which he is to be balloted for. . .

"The limitations do not apply at all to a case where there is a dispensation therefor.

"With the obtaining of a dispensation there ceases to be any restraint whatever as to the meeting at which an application is to be made, or the length of time it shall stand over.

"And here note well the distinction intended by the framers of the Constitutions, between what shall not be done without a dispensation, and what shall not be done at all; for the next clause reads, 'nor shall a candidate in any event be balloted for, into whose moral character a strict inquiry has not been made, and whose name has not been borne on the notifications for the meeting at which he is to be balloted for.'

"More time may be dispensed with, but an inquiry into the character of the candidate, and notice to the Brethren shall not be dispensed with. Who is to give these dispensations - the Constitutions, Part 1 - Article 8 - Section 1 authorizes the Grand Master to grant dispensations, 'for conferring the degrees' and in Section 10 of the same article it is also expressly provided that District Deputy Grand Masters shall have power to grant dispensations for initiation.

"The language in both instances is equally generous and unrestricted. . .

"It may be well as tending to shorten, if it does not succeed in altogether obviating discussion, to consider two suggestions that have been brought to the attention of the Committee.

"One is that no person becomes a candidate for initiation until his application has been presented to and by the Lodge, the Lodge having the right by vote, to reject it, by refusing to receive it, and refer it to a Committee and that until he becomes a Candidate there is nothing to which a dispensation can properly attach. . .

"A man may never have the slightest prospect of obtaining the object of his ambition and yet be a candidate. The signer of an application on presenting it to the Master becomes Candidate. He has done all he could to that end. The Master may properly place his name on the notices for the meeting, that it may be in a condition to be acted upon by the Lodge, nor does this course deprive the Lodge of the privilege, if the members see fit, of rejecting the application, without submitting it to a ballot.

"The other objection is that it comes within what is technically called making masons at sight, a prerogative of the Grand Master of which it is insisted that he cannot be deprived without his consent.

"This prerogative empowers the Grand Master to enter any Lodge within his jurisdiction, and make masns of persons into whose character no inquiry has been made by the Lodge, and whose name has not been placed upon the notices for the meetings, and of whom no member of the Lodge has ever heard, and without any ballot whatsoever.

"Without a further examination of this power now rapidly becoming obsolete; it surely requires no argument to show that its exercise is a very different thing from making masons, after notice to all the brethren, a strict inquiry by the Lodge into the Candidate's moral character, and a clear ballot. . . Besides whatever the authority of the Grand Master may be in this respect, it is not exclusive but concurrent with that of the Grand Lodge. . .

"The Committee are of opinion that District Deputy Grand Masters have the power to grant dispensations, to submit applications to the ballot, and to confer the degrees at the meeting when the application is first brought before the Lodge, and that they cannot dispense with notice to the brethren and an examination into the applicant's character and a clear ballot . . .

"Ordered: That it shall not be regular hereafter for any Lodge, which does not usually issue written or printed notification of its meetings to ballot upon any application for the degrees where there is a dispensation therefor, at any but stated monthly meetings without written or printed notifications to the members of the Lodge, with the name of their Candidate borne thereon."

1864

William Parkman, Grand Master

Page VI-498, 03/09/1864, on Lodge records.

In the petition for Charter of Mount Olivet Lodge, the committee reported on deficiencies in record keeping, in which the record of attending Brethren and acting officers was insufficient.

"It has been an immemorial usage among Masons, to record the names of all Brethren filling the different stations and offices at meetings of their Lodges. If a regular Officer is absent, his place is filled by appointment and the records show the fact, and by the letters p. t. (pro tempore) indicate that he occupies the office temporarily.

"Your Committee believe that this usage and custom exists in all Masonic assemblies and organizations, to say nothing of other good reasons for carefully continuing this custom, it is the only way in which the proper officers who are appointed to examine and visit the Lodges officially, can ascertain whether a proper number of Masons were present to constitute a Lodge. The fact that this usage has existed without any change so long is sufficient reason for us to continue it.

"Formerly and until within a very few years it was the universal custom to place upon the Records, the names of every member and visitor present, and this custom still prevails in many of the Lodges in this jurisdiction. The temptation is strong for recording officers to neglect their duty in this regard, but your Com. believe that no proper record of a Masonic Lodge can be made without it contains the full organization, and the names of the Brethren occupying the various stations."

Page VI-504, 06/08/1864, on the right to appoint.

In the consideration of the By-Laws of Eden Lodge under dispensation, the committee noted that the right of appointment of officers should lie with the Master only.

"Your Committee believe that the inherent appointing power exists in the Master of the Lodge, and that the power of appointment should not lie in the Wardens . . . the Master of the Lodge should have the absolute power of appointing such officers aas he may deem proper to fill the places not elective."

See also an 1866 ruling below.

Page VI-559, 12/14/1864, on the rank and privileges of Past Masters.

A committee was appointed to consider the definition of Past Master, a qualification for certain offices in Grand Lodge under the Grand Constitutions.

"The question first arising in the Committee, was, who are Past Masters?

"We quote from the publications of those three great lights in Masonic literature: Bro. Moore in the East, Bro. Reynolds in the West and Bro. Mackey in the South, their recorded opinions on this subject and believe them to be in harmony with all Masonic writers of any note.

"In Vol. 13, Page 130 of the Freemasons' Monthly Magazine, is published the following queries of a correspondent.

• 1st. What constitutes a Past Master?
• 2nd. Does the receiving the degree of Past Master as conferred, in the Chapter, do this?
• 3rd. If this be so, then, is a Past Master so made thereby qualified, all other things being equal to fill the chair in a subordinate lodge, or an office in the Grand Lodge, one of the pre-requisites of which is that the officer shall be a Past Master.

"In answer to the 1st query, the editor says 'But when so given (referring to conferring the degree in the chapter) it confers no privileges that can as of right be asserted, or made available, in a Lodge or Grand Lodge of Ancient Craft Masonry.'

"In answer to the 2nd query he says "Ancient Craft Masonry gives another and more satisfactory answer in the following words, --- A Brother who having been duly elected and installed, has served one term as Master of a Lodge working under the jurisdiction and authority of some Grand Lodge is alone entitled to the rank and privileges of a Past Master.

"This answer says nothing of the Past Master's degree for ancient craft Masonry knows nothing of any such degree - nevertheless the only answer which as ancient craft Masonry, it can give to the inquiry of cur correspondent, is, that a Past Master, is a Brother, who having been duly elected and installed has pre¬sided as Master over one of its Lodges.

"It knows no other Past Masters than those who have served in the capacity of presiding Masters of Lodges, which it has itself constituted and authorized. This is the answer of Ancient Craft Masonry, and it is the only answer which a Grand Lodge, adhering strictly and literally to the ancient rule and usage can properly recognize. It is the only answer known to the Grand Lodge of England, and so far as we are informed the only one known to any Grand Lodge out of the United States, organized on the basis of Ancient York Masonry, as understood and practiced in this Country and in England.

"In answer to the 3rd query he says, "Taking the rule, then in its ancient strictness, and true interpretation, as our standpoint; an answer to this branch of the inquiry of our correspondent as we have intimated in another place, that the receiving of the Past Masters degree in the Chapter does not in¬vest the recipient with the official qualifications contemplated by the regulations of Craft Masonry, in requiring that certain offices in the Grand Lodge shall be filled only by Past Masters of Lodges.

"In the Masonic Trowel dated August 10, 1863, Page 14 is an article on the eligibility and qualifications of Grand Master, where may be found the following language: The only thing required is, that he shall be an actual Past Master - An actual Past Master is one who has been duly elected to the Office of Worshipful Master, at the regular annual election, and who has been regularly qualified and installed, and served the full term of office.

"In the Lexicon of Freemasonry, published by Albert G. Mackey, M.D. under the title "Past Master", at Page 239, we read 'The Past Master of a Chapter is only a quasi Past Master; the true and legitimate Past Master, is the one who has presided over a symbolic Lodge.'"

1865

William Parkman, Grand Master

Page VII-15, 06/14/1865, on the right of the Master to remove appointed officers.

In the consideration of the By-Laws of William Parkman Lodge under dispensation, the committee noted that the Master has right of appointment but not removal.

"Although the Master of the Lodge has the appointing power, he has no power to remove an installed officer, however inferior the rank of such Officer may be. He may suspend such officer for good cause, and report his action to the Gd. Master but he cannot remove him from the position into which he has been solemnly installed, nor does there any where exist the power to remove him capriciously and at pleasure."

1866

Charles C. Dame, Grand Master

Page VII-108, 12/13/1866, regarding aprons for candidates.

A committee reported on regalia for Grand Lodge and subordinate Lodges, and included the following provision which was approved by vote of the Grand Lodge.

"That hereafter each Lodge, at the time of initiation, present the candidate with an apron of the style prescribed by the Constitutions, to be kept by him for use on public occasions."

Page VII-110, 12/13/1866, on the right to appoint.

This ruling reprises a ruling in 1864 and reinforces the independence of the Master.

In the consideration of proposed By-Laws for King Philip Lodge, under dispensation; the committee wrote as follows:

"There appears to be an increasing disposition to take from the Masters of Lodges some of their ancient prerogatives and privileges. Such is the provision of these By-Laws that certain officers shall be appointed by 'the Master with the advice and consent of the Wardens.'

"The W. Master is the supreme governor of his Lodge. He rules and governs it according to his will and pleasures. He is not amenable to his Lodge, but to the G. Master and the G. Lodge. There is no appeal to the Lodge from his decisions. The Lodge in its By-Laws may retain the right to elect all the Officers, but it must be done by a general election, in which all the members take part. But the appointing power cannot be divided between the W. Master and any one or two of his officers.

"He must be unrestrained and untrammelled in all his appointments. He must be independent and not controlled. This principle is as old as Masonry itself, so far as we know anything of its history, by tradition or written records."

Page VII-119, 12/13/1866, on parliamentary procedure.

In the petition by Adams Lodge for a Charter, the committee reported the following proposed By-Law, and its objections to it.

"Section 12. is as follows, In the transaction of business and in the discussion upon the same this Lodge shall be governed by the ordinary usages of Parliamentary bodies.

"Masonry does not recognize any such usage. Parliamentary rules are unknown in our Lodges, except so far as our own rules, for the dispatch of our masonic business correspond with Parliamentary rules. The Worshipful Master as the head and governor of the Lodge is not bound by any such usage as this section contemplates.

"He can stop debate when he considers it proper, and close the Lodge at his will and pleasure. He cannot be circumscribed in his power by any such regulation. Our Lodges need no code to regulate their discussions for they are not debating, or legislative societies; they are Masonic Lodges, and are unlike all other assemblies which the ingenuity of man has devised. They cannot therefore adopt the rules and usages of any other assembly, society or organization, for their government. In fact, our Lodges need no reform in this particular, and the fewer of those rules which are necessary in order to govern debate in other bodies, we introduce into our institution, the purer our Lodges will be."

The Grand Lodge approved the change in the By-Laws, and the charter was granted.

1869

William Sewall Gardner, Grand Master

Page VII-306, 03/10/1869, on Masonic offenses.

In a report given by the Trial Commissioners, there was a description of Masonic offenses, which applied not only to the case in question (a lodge's proceeding against a Brother which had been referred to the Grand Lodge) but also "their relation to all Masonic trials."

"The question, The question, What constitutes a Masonic Offence? has, perhaps, never been determined with accuracy, and, certainly, not with completeness. It is perhaps impossible, by any verbal definition to determine perfectly, in all cases, a crime, or an offence in Masonry. The compass can not describe a circle inside of which the crime always exists, and outside of which it can never be found. There are no lines in moral geometry within which the misdemeanor may always be traced.

Accordingly there is no strict Masonic code, or classification of offenses. Yet such is the nature of our Fraternity, that the absence of a written criminal law can hardly be regarded as a defect. So much depends upon the facts and circumstances of the particular case, upon the relation which the accused sustains to others, upon the intent, of which the Municipal law does not always take cognizance; nay even upon the temper and manners, that we at once realize the difficulty of declaring, in advance, what shall be deemed an act against Masonry. It would be manifestly absurd to hold that every act which contravenes the civil law is a crime against this Fraternity, although obedience to the law and constituted authorities of the State is one of our fundamental doctrines. Nevertheless no Lodge would expel or even try one of its members for keeping a dog without a licence, or for neglecting to shovel the snow from his sidewalk. Some acts, also, which in contemplation of the law are fraudulent, being made so perhaps by the express words of the statute, such as the preference by a bankrupt of a particular creditor, and other acts known as legal frauds, are not therefore and necessarily offences against Masonry.

On the contrary it is not difficult to find cases where the fraud in law is clear, and yet the act itself is entirely innocent, and perhaps commendable when tried by the rule of Masonic right.

On the other hand there is a large class of statute crimes, such as felonies, and other offences involving moral obliquity and turpitude; —offences as to which all rightminded men, as well as all Masons, are in harmony with the law, and of which it is the imperative duty of Lodges to take cognizance, even should they anticipate the Grand Jury or the Police Court, As such crimes are directed against the law, against society as a whole, and against the rights of the peace of the individual, they are necessarily crimes against an institution sacredly devoted to the protection of all these interests.

Another large class of offences which may be deemed Masonic offences, consists of acts clearly and directly opposed to our constitutions and established regulations, to those cardinal principles known as the general tenets of the Fraternity, and to the special obligations involved in the ritual, and voluntarily assumed by every initiate. Thus, acts against the cardinal virtue of justice, persistent intemperance, wilful or habitual violation of the Regulations of the Grand Lodge, or the By-laws of a Subordinate Lodge; the disclosure to the uninitiated of the secrets or the private business of the Lodge, the failure to comply with those ties of obligation which should be most sacredly observed, though perhaps involving other elements of wrong and wickedness, are to be considered as strictly Masonic offences. This enumeration is not intended to exclude many cases, which, as has been before observed, do not admit of classification or definition. Whenever it shall be found that the acts of a brother are clearly adverse to the principles or regulations of the Craft, or the rights or happiness of any of its members, it will be the duty of his Lodge to try him for those acts, although the offence involved was never described or known before on sea or land.

The attempt thus briefly and imperfectly made, to discover the nature and character of that which should be known as a Masonic offence, leads us next to consider the manners and methods under which the trial for such offence should be conducted.

The absence of a settled code or classification of offences, furnishes in itself a strong reason for the observance of the highest care, caution, and accuracy, in the conduct of all Masonic trials. Certain regulations of the most obvious necessity, for such trials, have been adopted by this Grand Lodge, but they are mostly external in their character, and only intended to meet the plainest and simplest rights of the parties.

The true spirit of the trial cannot come from mere forms or regulations of the proceeding. There is another unwritten law higher than the regulations of this Grand Lodge, but with which they are in harmony. When the accused appears before the Lodge to answer the charges against him, and the trial proceeds, he should be met by that spirit of justice, charity, and fairness, which, while it be large enough to comprehend the Lodge, and the whole Fraternity, is not too large to overlook him. While the specified regulations are to be strictly observed in the absence of formulas of language, he is not to be opposed, or to be shielded by any merely technical vote.

The charges of the written accusation should be made in clear and precise terms. When the charge is general in its nature, as for conduct unbecoming a Mason, there should be clear and accurate specifications, so that there may be a distinct issue to be tried, and that the accused may know exactly what he is to meet.

The evidence should be strictly confined to the issues on trial, excluding all hearsay. The examination of the witnesses on either side should be conducted by managers or counsel appointed for that purpose, the members of the Lodge maintaining the dignified demeanor and bearing of judges in the case. The course of the testimony should never be interrupted by commentary upon the case, which always should be reserved for the summing up of each party. The best and most candid judgment should be expressed in the vote, which is the verdict of the Lodge. The general burden of proof is on the accusers, although that burden may by the acts or admissions of the accused, be shifted and fall upon his shoulders.

Inasmuch as the result of the trial may be the expulsion of the accused from the rights and privileges of Masonry, a disgrace to him, equivalent to a sentence by the civil judge to an ignominious punishment,— a disgrace which his family must share, and which his innocent children must bear as a reproach in after life, — he is entitled ordinarily to the vote of every member. In such a case if a member is not fully satisfied by the proof offered by the prosecution and upon all the evidence, has doubts of the guilt of the accused, the accused should have the benefit of the doubts. If, on the other hand, the evidence offered be clear and satisfactory, every member is bound to reject all consideration of fear, favor, or affection, and vote for conviction."

See below a more modern ruling in 1934 by Grand Master Chipman.

Page VII-491, 12/13/1869, regarding objections to advancement.

"If a candidate is accepted by a clear ballot, and a brother afterwards objects to his advancement, what course is to be pursued?

"I have decided that if the candidate was regularly accepted by a clear ballot, in a Lodge where notices were sent to the members with the name of the candidate upon the notices, or in a Lodge where no notices are sent, but where the ballot was at a regular meeting, that no new ballot can be had.

"That if a brother objects, the W. Master has the right to refuse to confer the degrees.

"If the Master does not so decide, it is his duty - under Section 7, Article 3, Part 4 of our Constitutions, which provides that 'Every member of a subordinate Lodge may object to the initiation, passing, or raising of a candidate at any time before the degree is conferred; and it shall be the duty of the Lodge to investigatesuch objections before proceeding with the candidate.' - to appoint a committee to consider the objections, and to report thereon to the Lodge, and that the Lodge is to decide by a majority vote of the sufficiency of the objections. That the ballot once fairly and regularly taken, by which the candidate is accepted cannot be repeated, unless the Lodge, by vote, decide so to do."

See also a ruling in 1877.

1870

William Sewall Gardner, Grand Master

Page 1870-24, 03/09/1870, regarding Grand Lodge jurisdictions.

This declaration reinforces the 1794 ruling by Grand Master Cutler, regarding the granting of dispensations and charters outside of Massachusetts. (By this time, the Grand Lodge had granted dispensations in Hawaii, British Guiana, Chile, and Peru, as well as in what would become the Canal Zone.)

The "American Doctrine of Grand Lodge Jurisdiction," briefly stated, is this: Three regularly-chartered Lodges existing in any State or Territory have the right to establish a Grand Lodge therein. Such Grand Lodge, when lawfully organized, has sole, absolute, and exclusive jurisdiction over the three degrees of Craft Masonry; over the Lodges and their Members; and over all Masons, unaffiliated as well as affiliated, in such State or Territory. No other Grand Lodge whatever, can lawfully interfere with this jurisdiction, and can neither establish Lodges in such State, nor continue any authority over Bodies which it might properly have exercised prior to the organization of such Grand Lodge therein.

By the erection of a Grand Lodge in such State, all masonic powers over what is popularly called Blue Masonry are merged in it, and henceforth it exists therein supreme and sovereign over a jurisdiction which it can neither divide nor share with any other Masonic Grand Body in the world."

Page 1870-228, 12/14/1870, regarding visitors to Lodges.

"Resolved, That it is the privilege of every affiliated Mason, in good and regular standing, to visit any Lodge, when not engaged in the transaction of private business; but that it is also the right of a sitting member of the Lodge, to object to the admission of a visitor, giving his reasons therefor, if required by a majority-vote of the members to do so; or, as the alternative, declaring, upon his honor as a Masons, that his reasons are such that he cannot with propriety disclose them to the Lodge."

1871

William Sewall Gardner, Grand Master

Page 1871-20, 03/08/1871, regarding the status of certain Brothers at the restoration of their Lodge.

Star in the East Lodge, the Charter of which had been revoked by the Grand Master, was restored to its former status; but three Brothers' names were omitted in the petition for restoration. The Grand Master ruled that these Brothers fell under the provisions of Part 3, Article 3, Section 3 of the Grand Constitutions, requiring them to obtain special permission of the Grand Lodge to visit any Lodge.

Page 1871-72, 06/14/1871, regarding the obligation of a Lodge to present returns.

"Ordered, That any Lodge neglecting to present its returns and Grand Lodge dues to the District Deputy Grand Master, at the time of his official visit to such Lodge, when demanded by him, shall not be permitted to work in any of the degrees of Masonry until such returns and dues are placed in the hands of the District Deputy Grand Master." (This order was developed as a result of the dispute between Grand Lodge and Star in the East Lodge the previous year, which resulted in the revocation of that Lodge's charter for several months.)

Page 1871-75, 06/14/1871,, regarding the fee for healing.

"Voted, That a fee of fifteen dollars be hereafter required from every candidate for healing, the same to be applied toward the extinguishing of the debt of the Grand Lodge."

Page 1871-266, 12/13/1871, regarding testimony in a trial.

In a committee report on a trial of a Brother, the Committee made the following statement:

"One circumstance occurred, in the production of the evidence at this trial, which we deem of sufficient importance to bring to the notice of the Grand Lodge. The record states that after the Treasurer had given his testimony, the W. Master was conducted to the altar, where he took upon himself the obligation in due form. The W. Master then from his place in the East made the following statement, — which statement was a confession made to him by the respondent.

"We are firmly of the opinion, that where the exigencies of a case require the testimony of the Master of the Lodge to appear as a witness, and thus to leave his station in the East and take the required obligation, that official should not undertake to preside at the trial, but should delegate the duty of presiding to a Past Master, or, if necessary, invoke the assistance of the Deputy Grand Master of his District. The Constitutions of Freemasonry in this regard do not differ in essence from the Constitution of this Commonwealth, which declares it to be the right of every citizen to be tried by judges as free, impartial and independent as the lot of humanity will admit. The officer presiding at a Masonic trial is charged by the Constitutions with the enforcement of all the regulations and the preservation of all the safeguards by which the rights and interests both of the accused and of the Fraternity at large are to be scrupulously andsacredly maintained. Consequently he should be free not only from the effect of the prejudices and the preconceptions which are liable to arise under the limitations of our human nature, from such a knowledge of the case as a witness often has, but even from the very appearance of such prejudice or preconception. The most baneful effects of prejudice and partiality often arise unconsciously to the individual, and therefore it is that we cannot guard too jealously against such evils."

1872

Sereno D. Nickerson, Grand Master

Page 1872-19, 03/13/1872, regarding qualifications for admission for visitors.

"It is hereby ordered that no one be admitted into any of our Lodges who is not known to be a Mason in good and regular standing, unless he is vouched for by some well known Brother, or produces the Certificate of some Grand Lodge and passes a strict examination.

"Masters of Lodges are enjoined to enforce this regulation stringently, and to caution the Brethren that in order to vouch for any one it is necessary to have sat in a Lodge with him and to be able to tell the Degree upon which the Lodge was working at the time."

Page 1872-112, 06/12/1872, regarding signatories to petitions for Charters.

In the petition for Charter by the Brethren of Williams Lodge, under dispensation, the Committee noted the following report.

"Your committee . . . report: That they find only four of the ten Brethren to whom the Dispensation was granted have signed the petition for Charter, while eighteen who have been made Masons under their Dispensation, have signed the same.

"It has not been customary for this Grand Lodge to issue Charters to Brethren made in the Lodge while under Dispensation or to include such names in the Charter, unless for special reasons."

The Dispensation was continued until the next Quarterly Communication, at which time an amended petition was presented and the Charter was granted.

Page 1872-229, 12/11/1872, regarding the right of the Grand Lodge to issue a writ of mandamus.

In order to compel a recalcitrant Lodge to pay a required tax (in this case, the Capitation Tax), the Grand Lodge is permitted to issue a write of mandamus, i.e., a legal demand compelling the recipient to act.

1873

Sereno D. Nickerson, Grand Master

Page 1873-82, 09/10/1873, regarding evidence in a trial.

A Brother was subjected to a trial for un-Masonic conduct. A number of depositions against the offending Brother were taken under oath and introduced as evidence.

"To establish the facts alleged in the first and third specifications, reliance was mainly had upon the testimony of several persons not members of the Fraternity, whose statements were given in the form of depositions under oath, and which are annexed to the record of the proceedings; and the only point of technical interest in this case arises from the introduction of these depositions as evidence. There is nothing in the record to show that the respondent knew they were to be taken, or that he was present at the taking of them. There was, of course, no cross-examination of the deponents, and their statements, although made under oath, must regarded as wholly ex parte. The testimony of the profane may be often necessary to secure the ends of justice in a Masonic trial, on both sides of the controversy. But inasmuch as the Masonic right, in harmony and correspondence with the civil right, of a Brother accused is, that he may confront the witnesses against him, if he desire, it follows that no mere ex parte deposition, notice to attend at the taking of which has not been duly given to him, is competent as testimony in the case; and as a corollary from this proposition, no conviction which depends on testimony thus taken can be sustained. But while this doctrine should be insisted upon, it should not be forgotten that the right of a respondent to be present and hear the testimony of all witnesses against him, and to affect the force of such testimony by cross-examination, is a personal right, in his personal interest, and for his benefit, and consequently may be waived by any act or deed which indicates, either at the time or subsequently that he does not desire to exercise it."

Page 1873-115, 12/10/1873, regarding the right to suspend a Master.

"Some weeks since complaint was made to me that the Master of one of our Lodges had contracted grossly intemperate habits, and that his conduct was so notorious as to bring great reproach upon the Fraternity. After due investigation of the charges I deemed it my duty to suspend him from office, and summoned him to appear at this Communication of the Grand Lodge to show cause why he should not be dealt with according to the regulations and usages in such cases established. Accompanying my order to him I sent a private letter, presenting in the strongest terms the disgrace and danger in which his conduct would involve him, and entreating him to adopt and practice resolutions of reform; at the same time promising, in case he followed my advice, to do all in my power to shield him from further disgrace, and aid him in his restoration to the confidence of his Brethren."

Page 1873-134, 12/10/1873, regarding contempt of the Grand Lodge.

In a case involving a Masonic trial, Grand Master Gardner issued an order directing the Lodge to stay its proceedings in the matter.

"The fact that such an order was issued by Past Grand Master Gardner came to the knowledge of the present Grand Master, as also the fact that the proceedings went on, notwithstanding the order. No other material facts were presented to the Grand Master; and, upon this statement, and without knowledge of anything beyond it, it is hear that his conclusion, that some of these Brethren had, knowingly and willfully, disobeyed a plain and positive order of the Grand Master, was nearly irresistible. No change in the appearance of the facts already shown to him having been made, and supposing the previous statement to contain all that was material in the case, the Grand Master on learning [that the Lodge had elected the disobeying Brother to an office in the Lodge] . . . issued an order to the present Master, declaring [the Brother] ineligible to any office in the Lodge, by reason of his being in contempt of the Grand Lodge, in consequence of having wilfully violated the order of Past Grand Master Gardner, - a contempt from which he had not been purged."

Page 1873-143, 12/10/1873, regarding Masonic guilt.

A Brother was subjected to a Masonic trial for various civil or criminal offenses. The committee report included the following statement.

"In any case, however, the record of conviction and sentence would not be conclusive of the guilt of a respondent, but would be open to contradiction or explanation by him. This may be considered as a firmly established doctrine of Masonic jurisprudence, having been expressly held by the Grand Lodge of New York, and in other jurisdictions."

Further,

"By Section 1, Article V., of the Constitutions, it is declared that the Grand Lodge necessarily possesses a supreme superintending authority, and the power of finally deciding on every case which concerns the interest of the Craft. Although enacted alio intuitu, it would seem that this provision may properly be construed to cover the case of a person who, in his absence from the Commonwealth, has been erroneously convicted of an offence, and expelled from the Fraternity, even though such conviction and expulsion has been sustained by the Grand Lodge. An innocent person having been thus convicted and expelled in his absence, and without a knowledge of the pendency of the proceedings against him, should have the right by a petition, in the nature of a petition for a review, and in analogy with the methods of proceedings in review under the civil law, to come before the Grand Lodge and pray that the judgment under the former trial may be set aside and a new trial granted, and if, upon the showing of facts, justice requires such new trial, it would be a competent as well as a graceful act for the Grand Lodge to grant the prayer."

1874

Sereno D. Nickerson, Grand Master

Page 1874-13, 03/11/1874, regarding healing.

A candidate who had been rejected by a Lodge in Massachusetts made application to, and received the degrees from, a Lodge in Scotland. A petition was laid before the Grand Lodge to recommend healing of this individual.

". . . no Lodge, by solemn vote, can be presumed to desire the formal healing of a person which it has rejected in the exercise of its loyal Masonic duty, unless he brings himself within the rule and practice of the Grand Lodge in such cases. That rule and practice, so often laid down in similar applications, is this: the petitioner must show that his irregular reception of the degrees proceeded from a pardonable ignorance of our regulations, and, of course, with no intent to violate them; that it was in good faith, and that he is at least, prima facie, worthy of a lawful connection with the Fraternity; or, in other words, that his error was one of form alone. If either of these elements be wanting, the petitioner rightfully fails in his application for healing."

The petition was denied.

Page 1874-47, 06/10/1874, regarding voting in a trial.

During the conduct of a Masonic trial, the counsel for the defendant claimed that the votes of two-thirds of the Brethren present were necessary to convict, a ruling supported by the presiding officer.

"There is indeed no written regulation, no direction of the Constitutions prescribed. There is, however, a regulation as potent and binding, as any provision of the Constitutions could be. It is found in an uninterrupted serious of decisions, ordered by the Grand Lodge as a High Court of Appeals upon all the cases of Masonic trial which have arisen in our jurisdiction, and not only bearing the weight of its controlling authority as concluding all such cases in this Commonwealth, but sustained and advocated by its leading jurists, among whom the ever lamented Bro. Moore was conspicuous in his assertion of the doctrine. The undoubted rule of Massachusetts Practice is that a majority vote suffices both for conviction, and for the imposition of whatever sentence a Lodge is entitled to render. Until this well-established rule shall be purposely changed by the Grand Lodge, it must stand as the law of Massachusetts."

Page 1874-84, 09/09/1874, regarding an injunction to stop progress of a candidate.

The Grand Master ruled on a dispute between Trinity and Wilder Lodges, in which a candidate in its jurisdiction and rejected by the former was initiated by the latter.

Trinity Lodge submitted a letter to the Grand Lodge stating its objections to the admission and progression of the candidate.

"On receipt of this communication the Grand Master issued the following order.

"To the Master of Wilder Lodge, Leominster:
Dear Sir and W. Brother: - Complaint having been made to me that your Lodge has improperly taken jurisdiction over a candidate by the name of ---- ----, of Sterling, you are hereby directed to refrain from further conferring any of the degrees of Freemasonry upon said ---- ----, until said complaint is investigated, and until further instructions are issued from the Grand Master.
Very truly and fraternally yours, Sereno D. Nickerson, Grand Master.

"This order officially stopped all further progress, and the candidate still remains an Entered Apprentice."

1876-1900

1876

Percival Everett, Grand Master

Page 1876-129, 12/13/1876, regarding charges in a Masonic trial.

A Brother was charged with un-Masonic conduct and a Masonic trial was held. The following statement appears in the committee report.

"In respect to the question whether a respondent can lawfully be convicted of an offence lesser or other than that charged in the specification, the Commissioners are of opinion that he cannot be so convicted, even if the evidence presented under that specification should suffice to disclose such lesser or other offence. If the complainant chooses to make his specification in manner and form as presented, the respondent seems clearly to be entitled to consider the offence charged therein to be the only one really charged against him, and the only one to which he is called to make answer.

"The complainant may present as many specifications as he pleases, but the respondent may not be held to answer a charge which is not contained in a specification actually presented. These observations are made thus at length, because the Commissioners are of opinion that the principle involved is an important one, and that its establishment and recognition as a sound doctrine of Masonic law and practice is desirable."

1877

Percival Everett, Grand Master

Page 1877-219, 09/12/1877, regarding the right of the Lodge to decide on objections to conferring of the degrees.

A committee report on a petition by members of Caleb Butler Lodge, requesting a ruling by the Grand Master on objections to the admission of a candidate. It was the sense of the committee that no such appeal was permitted.

"Where a seasonable objection has been made to the conferring of either of the degrees, and such objection has been properly referred to a committee for consideration, and the committee has made its report to the Lodge, which report has been accepted by the vote of a majority of the members, such action is regular and conclusive, whetherin favor of against the candidate; or, in other words, that the Lodge itself is the only tribunal to try and determine such objections."

Page 1877-284, 12/12/1877, on false representation.

A Brother represented himself as a Past Master of a Canadian lodge when visiting a Massachusetts Lodge.

"The Brother "falsely and fraudulently represented himself as a Past Master of Canadian Lodge in Granby, P.Q. and by said false and fraudulent representation said Narragansett Lodge was induced to receive him, and did receive him, as such Past Master; whereas, in truth and fact, he was not at that time and never was a Past Master of said Canadian Lodge.

"Second, that the said P. V. Roudiez, at divers times between January 1st, A.D. 1876, and April 1st, A.D. 1876, at Fall River aforesaid, falsely and fraudulently represented himself as a Past Master of Canadian Lodge, for the purpose of obtaining pecuniary assistance, and by reason of such false and fraudulent representation did obtain from Worshipful Brother Dr. John B. Whitaker, pecuniary assistance, to wit, the sum of three dollars; whereas, in truth and fact, the said P. V. Roudiez was not then and never was a Past Master of said Canadian Lodge.

"The complaint was duly served on the respondent, and due return of the service made by the Grand Tyler, in conformity with the provisions of the Grand Constitutions and the regulations of the Commissioners. The testimony in the cause was taken at Fall River by the President of the Board, on November 22d. The respondent failed to appear, either at the time of the taking of the testimony or at the hearing before the Commissioners. The testimony and exhibits submitted in behalf of the complainant established beyond question the truth of the facts in each specification of the complaint. The respondent, as by the testimony fully appeared, had been in the habit — a habit which seemed to have become chronic with him — of claiming and pretending to have been a Past Master of the Lodge in question, and by such claim and pretence gained not only admission into Narragansett Lodge and other Lodges in the neighborhood, but also secured the Masonic recognition due to his pretended rank, besides pecuniary and other collateral advantages. It appeared in evidence that Canadian Lodge, to which a Dispensation has been issued, never received a Charter from the Grand Lodge of Quebec, by reason of the loose and inefficient character of its work while under Dispensation, and the only Master it ever had, to wit, under the Dispensation, was not the respondent. It was further shown that the respondent had never been a Master of any Lodge in that jurisdiction.

"The respondent was found guilty of the charge, and under both specifications of the complaint, and was therefore sentenced to expulsion from the rights and privileges of Masonry."

1878

Charles A. Welch, Grand Master

Page 1878-15, 03/13/1878, on healing.

A petition for formal healing was presented by a certain George E. Nelson, twice rejected by a Lodge in Massachusetts. He subsequently removed to Cleveland, Ohio, where he was admitted and made a Mason. The following appears in the committee report:

"It appears by the statement of Mr. Nelson, and also by inspection of his application to said Cleveland City Lodge (which on the request of this committee was forwarded to them by the Worshipful Master of said Lodge), that the blank for said application did not contain a clause in which said Nelson should state whether or not he had before applied for the degrees. Mr. Nelson also states that the fact of his former application was not called to his attention, and this statement is confirmed by a letter received by this committee from the Worshipful Master of said Cleveland City Lodge."

Since the provision for this request for information was not a part of his application, the Massachusetts Lodge voted to ask for formal healing, and the application was granted.

1885

Abraham H. Howland, Jr., Grand Master

Page 1885-20, 03/11/1885, Regarding the use of rituals.

"The M.W. Grand Master addressed the Grand Lodge, in very impressive and forcible language, in condemnation of the use of written or printed rituals, so called, and especially of a publication styled Ecce Orienti, or Rites and Ceremonies of the Essenes, - a work pretending to give the Masonic ritual by letters and characters. He pointed out most clearly the serious consequences resulting from the use of such inaccurate and unauthorized catchpenny affairs, and enjoined it upon every member of the Fraternity to exert every means in his power to prevent their circulation."

1895

Edwin B. Holmes, Grand Master

Page 1895-302: Regarding innovations in the Work.

"I herewith submit some recommendations for your consideration. They concern the introduction of certain practices into our Lodge work which are clearly innovations, and are not warranted by the requirements of our Grand Constitutions.

"I refer, first, to the use of the stereopticon. It mars the simplicity and grandeur of our work and adds nothing to its impressiveness. It introduces a new, unwarranted practice, which, if allowed to continue, might be used as a precedent for numerous other innovations. Where I have known the stereopticon to be used, I have on my own responsibility ordered its discontinuance. The Brethren seem to have cheerfully conformed to my desire.

"I refer, secondly, to the practice of dressing the Fellow-Crafts in an ancient and unusual garb, and the introduction of fancy evolutions and paraphernalia unknown until our day. These are innovations and have no warrant in our Grand Constitutions. The costuming might serve as a precedent for the clothing of all the officers of a Lodge in distinctive and expensive regalia. Where my attention has been called to these matters I have requested their discontinuance.

1901-1915

1904

Baalis Sanford, Grand Master

Page 1904-109, 09/14/1904, regarding admission of visitors.

"Voted, That no Lodge within the jurisdiction of this Grand Lodge shall admit any visitor to any of its meetings, unless said visitor shall first produce a Grand Lodge Certificate, or his original diploma, and then be vouched for by some Brother present, or pass a strict examination." This was in response to concerns about clandestine soi-disant "Masonic" bodies communicating Masonic secrets for a small fixed fee, and because of the work of the Cerneau rite in establishing a spurious Grand Lodge in Ohio. The committee also expressed concern regarding laxity of brethren vouching for visitors.

1914

Melvin M. Johnson, Grand Master

Page 1914-153, 06/10/1914, regarding saluting on entry and withdrawal from Lodge.

"While a Lodge is at labor, every one who enters must approach to the West of the Altar and there salute the Master. The only exception is when the entrant acts by or under the authority of the Grand Master, i.e. the Grand Master, himself, or a Deputy acting under his warrant; their Marshals and suite, while in actual attendance. . . It applies not only to visiting Lodge delegations, but must be strictly observed also at "Military Nights," so-called, and other similar occasions. There is no objection to visitors being received in procession provided proper formation and halt is made West of the Altar for Masonic salute."

Page 1914-154, 06/10/1914, on the covering of visitors.

"Under no circumstances, whatever, must any visitor (save only the Grand Master or his Deputy) be covered while in the Lodge."

Page 1914-154, 06/10/1914, on the wearing of sidearms.

"The wearing of side-arms (save only by Sword-Bearer and Tyler) is forbidden. It is not Masonic to carry weapons of offense or defense into the Lodge."

Page 1914-155, 06/10/1914, regarding dispensations.

"Dispensations to confer degrees in less than the constitutional interval of four weeks should be granted only in cases of necessity or extraordinary emergency. They should not be granted merely for convenience, either of the candidate or of the Lodge." The Grand Master noted that a number of dispensations had been declined, "though in some cases such declination has not been pleasantly received." He further noted that no dispensation would be granted without the approval of the District Deputy Grand Master, nor "to receive the third degree upon the same day as the second."

1915

Melvin M. Johnson, Grand Master

Page 1915-112, 06/09/1915, on the working of multiple degrees.

"Instances have recently been brought to my attention where a Lodge has worked two different degrees simultaneously in separate halls, or where a portion of the degree has been omitted and given to the candidate at a sodality. Such practices are absolutely forbidden."

Page 1915-218, 09/08/1915, regarding successions of officers.

"The Master of a particular Lodge cannot resign his office. If the Master dies or demits, or is suspended, deposed, disabled or absent, the Senior Warden forthwith fills the Master's Chair.

"No dispensation will issue to fill the vacancy. A new election of Master must await the next annual meeting of the Lodge. The Senior Warden does not become Master. He is 'Senior Warden, Acting Master.' He appoints Wardens and other officers, if necessary, to fill the vacancies created by his occupancy of the Oriental Chair and by the appointments so made. Such appointments are not made, however, for the balance of the year, but merely from meeting to meeting, and should be recorded each meeting by the Secretary.

"If the Senior Warden also be disqualified, the Junior Warden becomes acting Master with like powers.

"In the event of a Lodge being without any one of these three officers the facts should forthwith be made known to the District Deputy Grand Master for the District, who will fill the chair himself or, if that be impossible, the Grand Master will preside or commission a special deputy for the purpose."

This declaration was reinforced by Grand Master Abbott in 1918 due to the absence of lodge officers due to the wartime draft (Page 1918-176), regarding the powers and authority of the Senior and Junior Wardens in the absence of the Master, and interim appointments of other officers. "Installed officers are not, except in case of extreme necessity, at liberty to resign. . . In case a vacancy in office actually occurs, it cannot be filled without a Dispensation from the Grand Master."

Page 1915-221, 09/08/1915, on Bible passages to be displayed.

Recommendations of the passage to which the Holy Bible should be opened. "I recommend that when the Lodge is opened upon the First Degree the Holy Bible should be displayed at Psalm 133, or as an alternative at Ruth 4:7. When opened upon the Second Degree, at Judges 12:6, or as alternatives 1 Kings 6:8 or 2 Chronicles 3:17. When opened upon the Third Degree at Ecclesiastes 12:1-7, or as an alternative 1 Kings 7:13 and 14."

1916-1925

1916

Melvin M. Johnson, Grand Master

Page 1916-17, 03/08/1916, On chain letters.

"The attention of the Brethren is called to the unwritten law that no attention whatever should be paid to chain letters or circular appeals except such as bear the official approval of the Grand Lodge or the Grand Master of the jurisdiction." The Grand Master gave the example of the so-called 'McKinley chain letter' to raise funds for a memorial for the late President. "The proper place for chain letters and all other unapproved circular appeals for Masonic aid is the waste basket."

Note the 1920 ruling by Grand Master Prince.
Further remarks in 1924 by Grand Master Ferrell.
Further remarks in 1930 by Grand Master Dean. Further remarks in 1935 by Grand Master Allen. Further remarks in 1952 by Grand Master Roy.

Page 1916-172, 06/14/1916, on suspended members.

"If a Brother has been suspended for non-payment of dues he may at any time pay the amount which was due the Lodge at the time of his suspension. He is then clear upon the books. He can not be charged with dues for the period of his suspension. If upon paying such amount he applies for a dimit he is entitled to the dimit as a matter of right. If he desires to regain his membership in the Lodge it is the duty of the Lodge to vote upon the question and determine the matter of reinstatement by a majority vote of those members of the Lodge present when action is taken. Notice that action wil be taken on the application for reinstatement should be borne upon the notice of the meeting by all Lodges issuing notices. If the Lodge does not issue printed or written notices the Lodge should be advised of the application for reinstatement at one meeting and the matter should lie over until the next regular meeting.

"If the Brother, instead of having been suspended, has been discharged for non-payment of dues he has not the same righs. If his dues up to the time of his discharge, but not including the period of discharge, have been paid or remitted, he is not entitled to a dimit. He is entitled to a receipt or certificate from the Secretary of the Lodge that his dues have been liquidated, but to nothing more. If he desires to regain his membership in the Lodge he must apply for such membership de novo. His application is then dealt with just as if it had come from one who was never a member of the Lodge. All the formalities usually attending admission to membership must be observed, as in the case of any candidate."

Page 1916-174, 06/14/1916, On "baiting and bantering".

The Grand Master criticized ceremonies "characterized by fun and frolic, if not by farce and buffoonery. . . How much more our teachings will sink into his heart and mind if he has no thought except that he is to be received as a gentleman into the company of gentlemen; nay more, as a neophyte into the company of those who are about to take him by the right hand and call him a brother."

"Bantering and baiting of candidates is all wrong. It injures the reputation of Masonry; it decreases our opportunity of service to the candidate; it reacts upon the thoughtless Brother who utters the ill-timed jest; it lowers the moral tone of all concerned."

Page 1916-272, 06/14/1916, regarding the wearing of Henry Price Medals.

"Resolved: That hereafter the Henry Price Medal may be worn only by members of Henry Price Lodge; by Permanent Members of the Grand Lodge; by those who have been members of the Fraternity for fifty years or more; and by such others as may be selected by the Most Worshipful Grand Master as worthy of this special Masonic recognition."

Page 1916-306ff, 09/13/1916, regarding Masonic Burials.

"When a Master learns of the death of any member of his Lodge in good standing and learns from any credible source that the Brother has requested a Masonic funeral, it is that Master's duty forthwith to offer the services of the Fraternity to those who are nearest and dearest to him who has passed into the blessings of that immortality so eloquently taught by our esoteric rites. And if those services are accepted, the Master who does not bend his every energy to comply and who does not conduct or cause to be conducted the prescribed ceremonies if humanly possible is derelict in his duty and unfaithful to his obligations."

"It has been shown that the Right of Burial exists only when the request has been made by the decedent and communicated to his own Lodge.

"The Privilege of Burial exists in two other cases, viz.:

• First. If a Lodge, other than his own, is requested and voluntarily consents to perform the service: and
• Second. If the request has not been made by the decedent but does come from his family.

"In the first case, Masonic jurisprudence fails to impose any obligation or duty upon such Lodge. It may act or not according as the circumstances impress the Master or Acting Master, who is governed only by the dictates of his heart and conscience.

"In the second case, where the decedent has not himself expressed the wish for such a service yet his family request it of his own or another Lodge, interment can not take place with the formalities of the Order except by Dispensation from the Grand Master (Constitutions, Part Fifth, Section 7). When such a request is made not for display but because of a real reaching out by the bereaved and sorrowing for sympathy and comfort, Dispensation has never been refused a Master seeking to ease the burden of the afflicted."

Note the 1920 ruling by Grand Master Prince.

Page 1916-575ff, 12/13/1916, on the Precedence of the Grand Master.

An extended essay on this subject, followed by the declarations starting on Page 1916-584:

"When, therefore, the Grand Master is officially present at any Masonic function whateer within the limits controlled by his Grand Lodge, he is the ranking Masonic officer present and must be received and accomodated accordingly.

"There is a clear distinction between his official and personal attendance. The Grand Master of Massachusetts cannot attend a Lodge within this state, while it is open on the First, Second or Third Degree, without being Grand Master, but it is possible that he could not attend a Chapter, for instance, at all. Within the Symbolic Lodge he is never shorn of his prerogatives, but he might not be able to pass the Sentinel of a Commandery, and, if he did, he could not take the chair at will. If he is entitled to enter these other bodies, it is by virtue of the practices of those bodies. . . But it is otherwise when the Grand Master as such is invited to attend. Then it is not the humble Brother who enters, but it is the head of the supreme Masonic jurisdiction who enters in his official capacity and garb. Then no other Mason outranks him. He takes precedence over all. No matter who else is there received, the Grand Master of the Grand Lodge must be received last."

The rules listed on Page 1916-586 apply:

1. That, within a particular lodge holding a Charter of the Grand Lodge of Massachusetts, the Grand Master of the Grand Lodge is always such;
2. That, in any other body recognized by the Grand Lodge as Masonic and meeting within this Commonwealth the person who happens to be Grand Master for the time being may attend in his personal capacity according to his rank which he may hold there in and (with immaterial exceptions) without other privileges and duties;
3. That, in any other body recognized by the Grand Lodge as Masonic and meeting within this Commonwealth the Grand Master may, if thereunto invited, attend in his official capacity and regalia of office, in which case he takes precedence over all present, though without thereby acquiring authority to exercise any official function pertaining to that body;
4. That, without the territorial jurisdiction of the Grand Lodge, the Grand Master of Massachusetts receives only such Masonic recognition as may be accorded through Fraternal comity. It has invariably been the practice, that where various visiting Grand Masters are received in order appertaining to the seniority of their several jurisdictions, recognition has been given to Massachusetts as the senior Grand Lodge of America.

Page 1916-595, 12/13/1916, regarding giving information on Masonic standing.

The Grand Master adopted the following recommendation of a committee appointed to consider this subject and answer the following question: "Is it a Masonic offence for the member of the Craft to disclose his standing or the standing of any member of his lodge, to a person or persons not members of the Craft?"

1. If the Brother's report, so far as Masonic standing is concerned, states merely the fact as to whether the petitioner is affiliated with a Masonic Lodge under the jurisdiction of the Grand Lodge of Massachusetts, the Brother so reporting has not committed a Masonic offence.
2. If said Brother in his said report discloses or tends to disclose the priate affairs of a Masonic Lodge under the jurisdiction of said Grand Lodge he commits a Masonic offence.

This ruling arose as a result of a communication from a presiding Master to the Grand Master, regarding petitions for membership in the Order of the Eastern Star, which had certain Masonic membership requirements as prerequisites.

1917

Leon M. Abbott, Grand Master

Page 1917-30, 03/14/1917, on chain letters.

See Grand Master Johnson's 1916 ruling above.

"Again it seems necessary to call your attention to another epidemic of chain letters . . . Chain prayer letters seem to be the present most popular form and are being widely circulated in addition to those seeking money for various objects. Such letters are unmasonic and prohibited in this jurisdiction. They are calculated to appeal to the superstitious and are a rank imposition upon those to whom they are sent. Every loyal Masonic officer and member should use every reasonable effort to rid the Fraternity of this pernicious practice so contrary to Masonic ethics and authority."

Page 1917-294, 12/12/1917, on participation in parades and public demonstrations.

"The last year has brought many requests for permission to Lodges to participate in public processions of a general character, flag raisings, fairs, and the like, all of which have been refused.

"Any such participation is entirely opposed to the long established rules and usages of the Fraternity. It is one of the oldest and best established principles of our conduct that we participate publicly in nothing that is not strictly Masonic.

", , , When the Masters of Lodges are asked to participate in these affairs they should remember that from the beginning Freemasonry has done its own peculiar work in its own way. It does not challenge any comparison with others. It does not advertise itself. It does not seek for the applause of the general public and it is indifferent to criticism. . .

"I reaffirm the principles held by my predecessors and I shall continue to refuse dispensations to participate in public demonstrations."

Grand Master Abbott reviewed the rulings of previous Grand Masters on this subject.

1918

Leon M. Abbott, Grand Master

Page 1918-21, 03/13/1918, on qualifications for the Master of a new Lodge.

The Grand Master was asked to rule whether a Brother who had only served one year as a Warden would be qualified to serve as a Master of a Lodge acting under Dispensation. The requirement for a Master to have previously served as Warden is in the 1722 Ancient Charges; the discussion also includes exceptions noted in Mackey's Masonic Jurisprudence.

"Taking into account the wording of our Regulation and the other considerations that I have outlined, I rule that service as regular Warden for the period one year in a Lodge acting under Dispensation makes such member eligible for election as Master."

Page 1918-23, 03/13/1918, on solicitation of new members.

"I am impressed that our Brethren ought to be reminded that it is one of our most sacred traditions that no one shall be solicited or invited to join our Fraternity.

"A candidate's appliction must come of his own free will and accord, of his own initiative, and unbiased and uninfluenced by any member of the Craft.

"Our Order occupies an enviable position in the eyes of the world. It is regarded as a pioneer in advancing civilization, a bulwark of civic righteousness, liberty loving and God serving. Such a reputation has been earned and won by generations of constant loyalty and devotion to the traditions, purposes and fundamental teachings of Masonry.

"The prohibiting of proselyt[iz]ing and importuning of men to join our ranks has been a great contributing factor in the enduring success of our organization. Quality not quantity is our life blood. Every newly admitted member should be early advised by the Master, Officers, or Committee of Instruction as to the duty of every Mason with respect to applicants and new members. This is all-important.

"I am laying especial emphasis upon this charge to you because of recent and intimate knowledge of the need, and of an innocent transgression of this exclusive precept of Freemasonry."

1919

Leon M. Abbott, Grand Master

Page 1919-65, 03/12/1919, regarding the powers of Wardens.

"I hereby rule that a Warden has no right to raise a candidate or occupy the Master's Chair except in his own Lodge.

"Under Masonic law, in the absence of the Master the Senior Warden is to govern the Lodge. But this is his own Lodge and gives him no authority to preside in any other. He has not taken the oath nor qualified as Master. A Warden acting as Master of his Lodge and raising a candidate, is still a Warden and acting simply in the discharge of one of the duties of his office.

"Only one who has qualified and been installed as a Master can raise a candidate or occupy the Master's Chair in a Lodge other than his own."

This decision was reinforced by a 1926 ruling by Grand Master Simpson.

Page 1919-346, 12/10/1919, regarding degree work.

"It has been called to my attention that it has become the practice in some Lodges to abbreviate or omit the lectures in the Entered Apprentice and Fellow Craft degrees. There is absolutely no warrant whatever for this and it must not be permitted under any circumstances. The MAster of any Lodge permitting such violation of Masonic duty and requirement is liable to severe discipline. It only needs a casual thought to convince any one that the whole plan and purpose of Masonic degrees is seriously threatened by any deletions, omissions, substitutions, or additions to the ritual as it is laid down by duly and legally constituted Masonic authority."

See additional ruling in 1921 by Grand Master Prince.

1920

Arthur D. Prince, Grand Master

Page 1920-90, 03/10/1920, regarding solicitation for membership.

"It should be borne in upon the minds of our members, old and young, that solicitation is strictly forbidden. While not a landmark, the law against solicitation is so ancient that it takes on the full force of one. Many times in the past this warning has issued from the East, but it is necessary constantly to reiterate, and the Masters should continually remind the Brethren that "our portals are open to all the good and true, but we ask no man to enter."

Page 1920-91, 03/10/1920, regarding secrecy.

A lodge notice was found "in the desk basket of a certain Boston lawyer who was not a Mason; was indeed a member of a sectarian order whose unfriendliness to Masonry is of common report. . . it at once emphasizes the importance of keeping our Lodge notices from the eyes of those who have no right to see them. . .

"Masonic matters are freely talked over on the street, in the trolley cars, and in the home. News of rejection is often heard of by the man affected and from the lips of non-MAsons before he receives his official notice . . .

"Every presiding Master should impress upon the initiate in the strongest terms that proselyt[iz]ing or exposing the action of the Lodge are Masonic offenses of a serious character and would subject the one found guilty of them to severe discipline."

Page 1920-181, 06/09/1920, regarding funeral ceremonies.

"The right of every Mason to be buried according to the rites and ceremonies of the Craft is well established. It is sad and sometimes shameful to witness the unwillingness of Lodge officers to perform this service and to note the meager attendance of the Brethren on such occasions.

"The officers of a Lodge should consider it a solemn duty and sad privilege to officiate at the funeral of one of our Brethren. They should consider attendance upon this duty as binding as any other and the Brethren ought at least to show their respect for the Institution by giving a few moments of their time in attendance on the last rites over one whom they have been pleased to call their Brother."

Page 1920-182, 06/09/1920, regarding chain letters.

"Several times within recent years Grand Masters have called attention to the pernicious practice of circulating chain letters and have advised the Brethren that in all cases such letters, no matter what their purport, should be discouraged, and in no case should any attention be paid to such a chain letter by its recipient. My attention has been called to the recurrence of one of the worst of those offenders. The silly and superstitious so-called 'Masonic Prayer' is again in circulation. It is probably impossible to stop these things at their source, but I reiterate the advice which I cannot put in too strong terms that any Brother receiving this absurd communication should immediately destroy it and if he knows the source from which he received it should call the attention of the writer to the impropriety of his action in giving circulation to anything so contemptible."

At the September Quarterly communication (09/08; 1920-258) the Grand Master directed "that every Lodge insert with monthly notices a warning against the chain letter of every description, but more particularly this so called Masonic prayer."

Further remarks in 1924 by Grand Master Ferrell (Page 1924-358): "As far as I know there is no prayer so peculiar as to deserve the title Masonic, and if the prayer were sufficiently exclusive to set Masons apart for the special favor of the Deity, it would deserve the title less."

Page 1920-191, 06/09/1920, regarding attention to Grand Lodge communications.

"Much to my surprise, I have met several Masters of Lodges who know nothing of the recommended questionnaires and committee report blanks which are being furnished by the Grand Lodge upon request. Upon further inquiry I found they were not in receipt of the summaries of Grand Lodge Communications which are sent out with the admonition Ordered to be read.

"Upon investigation, the fault was found to lie with the negligence of the Secretary, who failed to bring these matters to the attention of the Master. Since when has the Secretary become the judge of what matters shall be called to the attention of the Master and the Brethren, and by what official authority does he assume to smother Grand Lodge communications in his wastebaskets?

"The officers of this Grand Lodge are earnestly endeavoring to relieve conditions and correct error, complaints about which are received almost daily from earnest members who are interested in the welfare of the Craft. Little can be accomplished without the full cooperation of the officers of the particular Lodges and I am grateful that by far the great majority accord this help. It is only the small minority that throw monkey-wrenches into the gears.

"Every Secretary is bound to bring every matter of information to the attention of the Master and allow him to be the judge of is final disposition. In communications from the Grand Lodge ordered to be read, neither has any jurisdiction but should at the earliest opportunity follow such instructions."

1921

Arthur D. Prince, Grand Master

Page 1921-46, 03/09/1921, regarding jurisdiction over soldiers and sailors.

"I rule that Section 405 is to be interpreted strictly and literally and that the permission given to certain persons to apply in certain Lodges without the preceding six months' residence is not to be taken as implying more than it says. Such persons may apply in the places specified, but not elsewhere. The Section does not confer upon the Lodge to which they may apply any jurisdiction that can be waived."

Page 1921-153, 06/08/1921, regarding the use of lodge mailing lists.

"Requests for membership lists, addresses of Masters or Secretaries, permission to send representatives into our Lodges to address them, or any endorsement of non-Masonic movements are uniformly denied. Even in the stress of war, when the temptation to relax established rules was at its peak, the policy of the Grand Lodge remained unchanged. The merit of the appeal and the worthiness of the cause have no bearing on this policy. The only question to be answered is whether the object is Masonic or not. Masonry in Massachusetts, with its great membership and efficient organization, must not be used for purposes and propaganda which are not Masonic."

Page 1921-154, 06/08/1921, regarding degree work.

To reinforce a 1919 ruling by Grand Master Abbott:

"There is no authority anywhere outside of the Grand Lodge which permits or can permit any deviation or omission in the Standard Work adopted by the Grand Lodge and it is positively incumbent upon the Master to see that the mandates of the Grand Lodge are complied with in full."

1922

Arthur D. Prince, Grand Master

Page 1922-197, 06/14/1922, regarding the Ku Klux Klan.

The Grand Master indicated in a circular letter that any organization that did not support such constitutional principles as protection of the law, trial by jury under duly constituted authority, and freedom of worship was un-American and un-Masonic; and that Grand Lodge would take no interest in an organization such as the Klan, whose objects were "political, sectarian and racial" as exposed by a Congressional investigation, except for the claim by "officers and organizers" that its membership was largely Masonic and that it had Masonic approval and support. "This statement is absolutely false, as the Klan has no connection with and neither does it have the support of any Masonic jurisdiction." While not imposing the threat of Masonic discipline for membership, the Grand Master issued the following statement.

"Without hesitation, I declare the Ku Klux Klan an un-Masonic organization, utterly without Masonic support or sympathy.

"Its avowed principles violate Masonic law at every point and it would be impossible for me to conceive of a Mason who could so far forget his Masonic teachings as to affiliate with an organization which advocates taking the law into its own hands, condemning men and women in secret trials, and imposing the punishment of the whip, the tar bucket, or unlawful banishment.

"How long will it be before the law-abiding people of this Commonwealth visit dire punishment upon those who forget or flout the sovereignity of the law?

"This is not an edict against the Ku Klux Klan. We cannot prevent misguided men from joining it and the arm of the law will soon reach those who join in its overt acts. But we must protect the fair reputation of Freemasonry from being spotted by any connection, official or otherwise, with such an organization. No Masonic Temple or Apartments must be used for their purposes and let every Mason who is tempted to join the Klan consider well if he can harmonize his obligations as a Mason with the principles of the Klan."

Page 1922-200, 06/14/1922, regarding investigations.

"Information and complaints in increasing numbers are being brought to the Grand Master's office, which show beyond question that investigation 'of the characters of applicants' is sadly neglected, and in some cases definite protest against certain applicants is utterly disregarded. The result is that unworthy men are admitted who are almost certain, sooner or later, to bring the Fraternity into disrepute, to say nothing of the disagreeable process of cleaning house which is brought upon us by our own carelessness.

"Case a. Application was made to one of our Lodges by a man who had formerly lived in another city. The investigating committee wrote to a Past Master in that city for information. The Past Master consulted others, and sent back an unfavorable report which represented his own opinion, and that of four other Brethren, two of them Past Masters, the five representing three different Lodges, not one of which would have accepted the candidate's application. In spite of this unfavorable report the committee reported favorably on the applicant, and he passed the ballot and received the degrees.

"Case b. Candidate applied to one of our Lodges claiming residence within the jurisdiction of the Lodge, and stating on his application that he had been rejected in a Lodge in the same city in 1920, and in a Lodge elsewhere in 1915. The Lodge applied for and received recommendation from the Lodge which had rejected the application in 1920, and was therefore technically within its rights. As a matter of fact, however, the rejection of 1915 was the second rejection, and was made on an unfavorable report of the committee. There is also serious question as to whether the applicant was really a resident of the jurisdiction of the Lodge to which he applied. In any case, the investigation was defective as the investigation should have gone back to the 1915 rejection. This Lodge, which twice rejected the candidate, still considers him unworthy.

"Case c. A Lodge received the application of a man who claimed residence within its jurisdiction. He passed the ballot, received one degree and then it was discovered that his legal residence was in another town. He had been working at his trade for more than six months within the jurisdiction of the Lodge to which he applied, but had not changed his legal residence from his former dwelling. In this case the candidate appears to have been innocent of intentional misstatement, because he did not understand that his physical presence in a certain place did not necessarily meet the residence requirements. In this case, also, there is question as to the fitness of the candidate. Proper investigation would have gone back to his place of residence, disclosed the questions as to his fitness, and discovered his residence.

"Case d. A man applied in a Boston Lodge, was elected, and received his degrees, although prominent Masons in the man's home town objected on the ground that he was not reliable. The matter was brought up at a meeting attended by many throughout the state, and since that time this member has put his application into the Chapter, the party signing his application having talked with the member and friends who vouched for the Brother as being all right. Immediately that the Chapter committee of investigation was appointed they began to find objections to the Brother taking further degrees. At this time it is being investigated very fully, but the objections, instead of coming from one source as previously reported, are coming from men such as High Priests and Masters, and the investigating committee have reported to the Companion who vouched for the Brother that the investigating committee of the original Lodge where the Brother took his degrees had made a trip to the man's home town, but had called on only one man there. This matter at this time is being held up for further investigation.

"Case e. A party applied for admission to a Lodge outside of the district where he lived. There were three Lodges in the town where he resided. Two of the Lodges granted a waiver of jurisdiction. The other Lodge refused to release as the committee appointed by that Lodge had reported unfavorably on the application. The Lodge that received the application appointed a committee, who reported favorably, and the man was elected. It was called to the attention of the Master that the applicant was not a suitable person for the Masonic degrees, and he appointed a new committee to look up the applicant, consisting of his two Wardens and himself. The committee who had reported unfavorably to the Lodge which refused to release stated that they were ready and willing to go before the Lodge that had elected the man, and wanted very much to prevent the applicant from becoming a Mason, claiming that he was 'unfit,' and among other things had given away the secrets of the Odd Fellows. At this time no further action has been taken. One of two things will probably be done. Either the Master and Wardens will bring objections in the Lodge against giving the degrees, or the matter may continue over until fall to allow time for the above mentioned committee to appear before them and state what they know.

"The Masters and Wardens of Lodges should not depend entirely on the reports of committees of investigation, but ought to assure themselves by personal inquiry of the fitness of the applicants. Surely, it is the Masonic duty of every Master, when he receives definite information detrimental to the character of an applicant, whether it come from a member of his Lodge or from one of the Fraternity who is not, to make a searching inquiry into the charges and, if found true, to act accordingly. To neglect to follow up information of this sort would be a dereliction of duty to his Lodge and to the Fraternity.

"Altogether too often a man is admitted because nothing can be found against him. It is a question whether such a negative recommendation ought to open our doors. Rather we ought to be able to discover something in an applicant's character which will add strength to the Institution. It is rather startling to find that one-half of our membership is made up of those who have been Masons less than seven years. Here are 55,000 men who have not had the benefit of long Masonic experience. They are men, who, with the proper schooling in the principles, aims, and limitations of the Fraternity, will make Masonry strong and influential, but until this can be accomplished should we not demand that men who seek admission to our Lodges should be possessed of salient characteristics that will assure us, at least potentially, of added strength?"

Page 1922-233, 06/14/1922, on investigation of applicants.

"One of the most serious dangers that threaten our institution is the lack of interest displayed by members of investigating committees when they are assigned to the duty, the very important duty, of looking into the character of applicants for the degrees in Freemasonry. This subject has been dwelt upon by every Grand Master, not only once, but many times, but words do not seem to have much effect. The Grand Secretary, within a day or so, has called my attention to some cases of incomplete and improper investigation that are a disgrace to our Fraternity and particularly to the men who by a favorable report induced their respective Lodges to accept men as candidates who are well known to be morally corrupt. The work of our Commissioners of Trials would be greatly reduced and the necessity of washing so much dirty linen in our Grand Lodge meetings would be avoided if only investigations could be performed with a moderate amount of thoroughness. The situation is deplorable and I have about come to the conclusion that the only way to cure it is to bring the delinquent members of investigating committees before the Commissioners of Trials to answer charges of conduct unbecoming a Mason. Something must be done to impress the members of investigating Committees with the importance of the duty to which they are assigned, because this condition must be cured or else the credit and reputation of our institution will suffer."

1923

Dudley H. Ferrell, Grand Master.

Page 1923-37, 03/14/1923, regarding Henry Price Medals.

"In the matter of requests there is another item to which I would like to call your attention, namely, the requests for Henry Price medals. Section 703 of the Grand Constitutions is very explicit in this matter, and I would suggest that every Master before he consents to forward his request for the conferring of a Henry Price medal would measure the situation by the requirements of the Grand Constitutions. The whole procedure might be relieved of its difficulties if the Master when in doubt should consult the District Deputy Grand Master and receive his opinion and, if satisfactory, his approval of the application. Much embarrassment would be avoided if this were done."

Page 1923-55, 03/14/1923, resolution regarding Masonic utterances.

This was in response to activities of publications, "some of them bearing Masonic names, which profess to be the organs and exponents of Masonic sentiment and opinion."

"Resolved: That this Grand Lodge speaks only through its Most Worshipful Grand Master, through its official Proceedings and other instruments issuing under the attestation of its Right Worshipful Grand Secretary, and through Brothers especially deputed by the Grand Lodge or the Grand Master to the extent of their authority; and further

"Resolved: That this Grand Lodge maintains no representative in Washington or elsewhere; that no person and no paper, magazine, newspaper or other publication has the right officially to voice or represent the principles, opinions or attitudes of this Grand Lodge except as heretofore provided.

Page 1923-159, 06/13/1923, regarding begging letters.

"It has been brought to our attention that a number of begging letters have recently been circulating through our Lodges. These letters are from Masons outside of our jurisdiction, and may at first glance seem worthy. But we desire to call the attention of the Brethren to this fact: 'Begging letters or similar appeals from any source, domestic or foreign, shall not be entertained unless they have been approved by the Grand Lodge or Grand Master.' In deciding disposition of these appeals the Lodges and the Brethren must bear in mind the law just quoted, Section 707 of the Grand Constitutions."

Page 1923-320, 09/12/1923, regarding investigating committees.

"Most of the difficulties that meet us in administrating the affairs of the Craft, are not faults of our system of administration nor due to vagueness in the wording of our Constitutions, or difficulty in interpreting the regulations which are our law.

"They come either from the ignorance or carelessness of our members, often in an attempt to perform some service for their Lodge; and there is no occasion which permits a greater display of ignorance or carelessness on the part pf the Brethren than when a Committee of Investigation makes a report upon an applicant.

"Several cases recently brought to our attention impel me to speak as Grand Masters have spoken in the past, but with the added force of a definite promise. It has been called to our attention that committees have present applications that were incompletely filled out. This, Brethren, cannot be tolerated. The questions on the application blank are in no sense idle inquiries. They are for the purpose of furnishing the Lodge vital statistics and necessary facts about the one who is a potential member, and in no case is it fair to the candidate, the Committee of Investigation, or the Lodge to preent incomplete data. This does not serve as a proper introduction for any applicant.

"Again, and this is more serious, some committees are in all essentials false to their duty by the careless fashion in which the investigation is made. When an investigating committee is appointed, it has but one duty, not to get the applicant into the Lodge, but to investigate the applicant's worthiness to enter. Committees should never be guilty of making a favorable report upon the basis of an inability to discover anything against the applicant. A report should be favorable only when by the widest search of circumtances in which the applicant is involved, by the frankest questioning of those with whom he is associated, something is found in both character and actions that urges his acceptance, that promises an addition of definite value to the personal resources of the Lodge.

"Too often favorable reports and favorable action by the Lodge have rested upon negative conclusions, and thus there is always present the danger that we are assuming what will prove a liability rather than an asset. In the entire process of making additions to our membership there is just one thing that should be our guide, and that is our zealous regard for the purposes and good name of Masonry. Personal considerations of either friendship or comity do not enter the case. One question and one alone should be asked - 'What will this applicant's election mean to this Lodge?' - What will his entrance mean to those resources of character upon which we draw to meet the needs of society? It is sad commentary when such conditions, existing as they do, call for official pronouncement, but I wish to assure the Brethren that from this time forth ignorance or carelessness displayed by Brethren in their capacity as sponsors, or investigators, or by Masters or Secretaries in their official reception and handling of petitions, will be considered inexcusable, and when such fact is proved discipline will be administered according to the provisions of the Constitutions. The life of our Fraternity demands this."

1924

Dudley H. Ferrell, Grand Master.

Page 1924-29, 03/12/1924, On lotteries and games of chance.

The Grand Master reported that the Brethren in Cambridge were planning a carnival to reduce indebtedness on its Temple, which included a lottery "for pecuniary profit." The lottery was abandoned at the request of the Grand Master.

"A lottery or a raffle as we well know is a financial operation forbidden by the law, and the nature of the action on the part of those who participate is of such a peculiarly fundamentally ethical character that the practice is not merely a transgression of the written statute but a crime against the personal integrity of those who indulge. But without taking into consideration the latter phase there is enough in the first phase, a lottery's position in the pronouncements of law, that should challenge our attention and direct us toward a determining decision on the matter. . .

"[The] Brethren should be informed that the operation of lotteries and the sponsoring of financial methods that partake of the character of gambling by the Masonic Lodges of this jurisdiction will be adjudged a Masonic offense; and for the sake of the good name and character of our Fraternity, such practice must cease as a method of Masonic financing. I may add as a matter of general information that the employment of the above interdicted methods by organizations composed of Masons, regardless of size or character, cannot be viewed by Grand Lodge of Massachusetts with any sentiment but the most profound disapproval."

Page 1924-32, 03/12/1924, On entertainments.

"The lighter hours of our association as Brethren when feasting and fun are the items on the programs are as essential and helpful as the more serious times when together we labor for a deeper understanding of the idals and purposes of our profession. Let us see to it that nothing is introduced into these hours of refreshment that will dissipate their benefit. . .

"Brethren, I give it you strictly in charge to see to it that this entertainment is in no sense inconsistent with the serious business that has gone before or is to follow. Questionable jokes, songs of doubtful significance, are both a poor preparation for and valueless as a supplement of the reception or witnessing of a Masonic degree. . .

"The other phase of Lodge practice . . . is the matter of addresses made before the Lodge either during the hour of refreshment or within doors that are tiled. It is practically a universal custom to select a speaker, invite him to come, and leave the selection of topic and the formulation of subject matter entirely to him. As a general rule this may be a safe procedure, but there are enough exceptions to the rule to warrant us in discarding this practice. I am more than ever confirmed in the opinion that Section 338 of the Grand Constitutions which forbids any Lodge from encouraging, promoting or permitting the delivery of any Masonic lectures which have not be authorized by the Grand Lodge is interpreted in too limited a fashion. . .

"It would be well if the Masters of our Lodges developed the practice of acquainting themselves with the subject matter to be presented by lecturers whom they invite; many a false impression upon new members would not then be made, the real purpose of our association would not be clouded; it would be impossible for any political, sectarian, or religious dogma to invade those portals within which they could never, in very nature of the case, be anything but stranger."

Elaboration in 1930 by Grand Master Dean.

Page 1924-314, 06/11/1924, On familiarity with the Grand Constitutions.

The Grand Master noted that "certain incidents of recent date have almost led us to the conclusion that a Master-elect should be required to acquaint himself with the Constitutions and give sufficient proof of his knowledge before he is considered qualified for installation."

"From this time on, it is the intention of your Grand Master to have each District Deputy Grand Master confer with every Master-elect in his District, go over with him the various provisions of the Constitutions and Regulations affecting the practice of the Lodge, its rights and privileges, and the duty and prerogatives of the Master therein."

1925

Dudley H. Ferrell, Grand Master.

Page 1925-10, 03/11/1925, If the Master cannot appear for installation.

"During the Grand Master's absence, the Deputy Grand Master was called upon to make a ruling upon the procedure necessary when the Master-elect of a Lodge is unable to appear for installation. The question involved was: Who occupies the East of the Lodge, the retiring Master or the newly installed Senior Warden? The point is not explicitly covered by the Grand Constitutions nor was any decision of Grand Lodge or Grand Master to be found directly covering the matter.

"The Deputy Grand Master ruled as follows and I hereby approve it and offer it for the guidance of the Craft. In case the Master-elect of a Lodge is unable to present himself with the other officers for installation; his predecessor in office holds over until such time as the installation of the Master-elect takes place."

Page 1925-62, 03/11/1925, On delinquency in Grand Lodge dues.

"We have been asked as to the course of the Grand Lodge in dealing with delinquents. If the member is delinquent with respect to both his Lodge dues and his Grand Lodge dues it is expected that the Lodge will deal with him in the ordinary manner. The Grand Lodge, however, cannot carry open accounts with the individual members. If the Lodge decides to give the member further time for the settlement of his dues, and takes a chance of collecting at a later date, the Lodge will be expected to advance the amount due the Grand Lodge, taking the same chance of collecting that as well. If the member is delinquent in his Grand Lodge dues only, report thereof should be made to the Grand Secretary. A few individual instances have come to light in which members have said that they would pay their Lodge dues but would not pay their Grand Lodge dues. It is doubtful whether any of our members will be so short-sighted or so obstinate as to carry out this hastily expressed intention. Should they do so, however, but one course is open to the Grand Lodge. It is expected that each Lodge will on September 1 balance its account of Grand Lodge dues. This balance will be made up of cash paid, deductions allowed, and reports of delinquency.

"Delinquent members, after due notice, will be suspended by the Grand Lodge from all the rights and privileges of Freemasonry. It must be remembered that this is a much more serious matter than suspension in a Lodge. If a member is suspended by the Grand Lodge his connection with his Lodge is definitely severed.

"On his reinstatement by the Grand Lodge he is an unaffiliated Mason, and can regain affiliation only by application for membership in some Lodge, and passing a clear ballot."

Page 1925-143, 06/10/1925, On occupying the East.

A ruling regarding the answer to the question: Who occupies the East of the Lodge, the retiring Master or the newly installed Senior Warden? when the Master-elect of a Lodge is unable to appear for installation.

"In case the Master-elect of a Lodge is unable to present himself with the other officers for installation, his predecessor in office holds over until such time as the installation of the Master-elect takes place."

Page 1925-439, 12/28/1925, Regarding proficiency.

An appeal was made to the Grand Master regarding the ruling of a Master of a Lodge requiring that before signing the by-laws a Master Mason would be required to learn the work of the Master's degree. The Grand Master's decision was based on Section 420 of the Grand Constitutions. He indicated that it was not out of order for a Lodge to make further requirements beyond fees and balloting to permit a man to become a member of the Lodge.

"No more reasonable requirement can readily be imagined than that of acquiring the proficiency in the work and lectures of the third degree necessary to pass examination as a visitor to a Lodge and, in general, to make the newly raised Brother an intelligent and competent member of the Fraternity.

"Until such a requirement should be met and By-Law signature permitted, the Brother would be an unaffiliated Master Mason in good standing as such, exactly as if he had been raised in a Lodge under dispensation. Should he fail to comply with the requirement within six months his right to sign the By-Laws of the Lodge which accepted his application would lapse and he would have to make application, there or elsewhere, for affiliation.

"He would then be subject to the provisions of Section 506 and Section 507 of the Grand Constitutions regarding voluntarily unaffiliated Masons.

"My ruling is that the Master was within his constitutional rights."

1926-1935

1926

Frank L. Simpson, Grand Master.

Page 1926-64, 03/10/1926, on the status of candidates, following the requirements for candidates signing by-laws (see directly above).

"Two questions have been asked touching this order. One is whether the Diploma should be presented to the candidate before the lectures are learned. As to this, for the present at least, I have seen no reason to interfere with the discretion of the Worshipful Master, nor for withholding the Diploma.

"The second is, what is the status of the candidate in the period after he is raised and before he signs the By-Laws? The answer is that he is still a candidate - he is not a member of a Lodge, nor is he in full standing; he is not entitled to visit other Lodges than that which has accepted his application, nor to participate in the business affairs of that Lodge. Under Section 420 of the Grand Constitutions, he must sign the By-Laws within six months, and if he fails to do so, his status then becomes that of a voluntary unaffiliated Mason and he is "not entitled to any of the benefits or privileges of Freemasonry," under Section 505 of the Grand Constitutions. Other incidents of his status may well await determination until specific instances call for a more detailed statement or ruling. Ample authority exists to deal with emergency cases; in their very nature they are exceptional and may be presented for special dispensation as occasion and circumstance may warrant."

Page 1926-239, 06/09/1926, on the status of members suspended in other jurisdictions.

"In case a Brother who is a member of a Lodge in this jurisdiction and also of a Lodge in this jurisdiction is suspended for non-payment of dues in the other jurisdiction, his case falls under the provisions of Section 504 and not those of Section 517: that is to say, his case is treated exactly as if the suspension occurred in another Lodge in this jurisdiction."

Page 1926-240, 06/09/1926, on the removal of objection to a candidate's advancement.

"In case an objection is made to the advancement of a candidate and sustained by a majority vote of the Lodge as provided by Section 417 of the Grand Constitutions, the Lodge may later, by a majority vote, reconsider its action and promote the candidate."

Page 1926-240, 06/09/1926, regarding waivers of jurisdiction.

"An applicant for the degrees residing in town A made application in town B. Waiver of jurisdiction was asked and granted, but the petition was rejected. The applicant then made a second application outside town A, in which he still resided. I ruled that the Lodge in town A still held territorial jurisdiction over him notwithstanding the former waiver. A waiver of jurisdiction is not a permanent surrender of said jurisdiction. It is only a permission to another Lodge to receive and act upon an application. If the application is rejected, jurisdiction is resumed by the Lodge executing the waiver. It may be added that if application is made by the rejected candidate in any Lodge other than that which rejected his application, within five years of that rejection, recommendation must be obtained from the Master and Wardens of the Lodge which rejected the application under Section 415 of the Grand Constitutions."

Page 1926-250, 06/09/1926, regarding balloting by mail.

"The By-Laws of a Lodge provide that certain action requires a vote of two-thirds of the members of the Lodge. The very great difficulty in obtaining that vote in a meeting raised the question whether the Worshipful Master might take a vote by mail. I ruled that such an action would be improper and declined to issue a dispensation to permit it."

Page 1926-241, 06/09/1926, regarding waivers of jurisdiction.

"A request for waiver of jurisdiction was received, borne upon the notice of the Lodge, and the refusal to waive was announced in proper form by the Worshipful Master. The question was raised whether he might reverse his decision and announce the reversal at the next meeting of his Lodge, the name of the applicant not being borne upon the notice. I ruled that such procedure would be improper. The transaction was closed by the announcement of the Worshipful Master's decision. If the decision is to be reversed there must be a new application, and the name must be borne upon the notice of the meeting at which it is to be acted upon."

Page 1926-241, 06/09/1926, regarding the printing in the notice of candidates to be balloted upon.

"Thr requirement of Section 408 of the Grand Constitutions that the name of the candidate for the ballot must be borne upon the notice of the meeting is not complied with by inserting the names of candidates upon a separate sheet. The provision of this Section is that the candidates shall be balloted for ... only when written or printed notification of the Meeting, bearing the name of the candidate to be balloted for, shall be sent to all the members. This language, taken in connection with other provisions of our Constitutions, seems to me to require the names of candidates to be written or printed on the notice."

Page 1926-241, 06/09/1926, regarding action on balloting.

"The Worshipful Master of a Lodge is not obliged to take a ballot upon a candidate whose name appears upon the notice of the meeting. If he decides not to take action at that meeting he should so state and should not call for the report of the committee. It is not proper after the report of the committee has been read for the Master of the Lodge to decide by vote or otherwise to postpone the ballot until a later meeting. If the report of the investigating committee is read, the Lodge must immediately proceed to ballot and the acceptance or rejection of the applicant must be settled without postponement or the intervention of any other business."

Page 1926-242, 06/09/1926, regarding the right to preside.

This ruling reinforces a ruling in 1919 by Grand Master Abbott, and includes further provisions.

"Only Presiding and Past Master of Massachusetts Lodges may act as Masters in our Lodges, except that a Warden may preside in his own, but not in another Lodge, and when directed to do so by the Worshipful Master, or in the latter's absence. It is not permissible for a Past Master of a Lodge of another jurisdiction to raise a candidate in a Massachusetts Lodge."

Page 1926-244, 06/09/1926, regarding inter-jurisdictional visitation.

"When a Lodge in this jurisdiction is invited or desires to visit a Lodge under the jurisdiction of another Grand Lodge, application should be made for a warrant or dispensation therefor. This warrant or dispensation will not issue except after request to the Grand Master of the jurisdiction sought to be visited and receipt of his consent thereto. Visiting Lodges from other Grand Jurisdictions should not be received unless and until application has been made for dispensation therefor and receipt by the Lodge of such dispensation. In the event that work is performed by a visiting Lodge, the work should be in accordance with the ritual prescribed by the jurisdiction of the visiting Lodge and upon a candidate of that jurisdiction.

"Visiting by 'teams' of Massachusetts Masons to Lodges under the jurisdiction of other Grand Lodges must be governed by the procedure hereinbefore prescribed. . .

"The foregoing applies only to cases where a Lodge visits as such and in an organized capacity. It does not apply to visits made by groups of Lodge members as individual Master Masons, visiting informally and doing no Masonic work."

Page 1926-437, 12/08/1926, regarding withdrawal of applications.

"The provisions of Section 407 of the Grand Constitutions relative to the withdrawal of applications do not apply in cases in which the Lodge has no jurisdiction over the applicant, and applications in such cases may, and indeed must be withdrawn or dismissed. . .

"Indeed, if the candidate is a resident in any other recognized Jurisdiction, balloting on his petition is prohibited without the consent of the Grand Master of such Jurisdiction, except as provided in Section 405 of the Grand Constitutions. Therefore if by reason of non-residence, minority, physical disability, or any other cause, the Lodge has no jurisdiction over an applicant, his application must be withdrawn or dismissed without ballot. It may be added that what has been said has no reference to applications for affiliation. Section 407 has no application to such petitions, which may be withdrawn before they are balloted on upon request of the petitioner."

An extensive discussion of the relevant law follows.

1927

Frank L. Simpson, Grand Master.

Page 1927-42, 03/09/1927, on the procedure for release of jurisdiction.

Following an extensive discussion and review of the precedents regarding applications for release of jurisdiction, the Grand Master recapitulated the procedure.

"The request for release must be made in writing and must state the reason upon which the request is based. Blank requests are furnished without cost, and these ought to be used for the sake of uniformity. If the reason assigned is not deemed sufficient, the request should be denied, and that event the requesting Lodge has its right of appeal under Section 403 of the Grand Constitutions.

"If the reason assigned is a valid one, the Lodge requested must appoint a committee of investigation as upon an application made to it, and release may not be granted until a majority of the committee has reported; in this request the matter is governed by Section 406 of the Grand Constitutions. Such a committee must be appointed in all Lodges of which the request is made. The name of the applicant and that of the Lodge requeting the release must be borned upon the notice of the Lodge of which request is made, for a regular meeting, and the release cannot be granted before the close of the meeting. If granted, it must be by the written consent of the Master, one Warden, and two members, and notice must be given as required by Section 403. If the release is declined, notice of this fact should be given in writing to the Lodge requesting the release. As our law now stands these requirements are mandatory, and compliance therewith is requisite to the regularity of the candidate initiated outside the territorial jurisdiction of the Lodge of his place of residence."

Page 1927-105, 06/08/1927, regarding the applicability of Lodge By-Laws on the Grand Lodge.

"It is not uncommonly supposed that the Grand Lodge has approved By-Laws, and that they have thus become binding, even on the Grand Lodge itself, and whether or not they are in conformity to the Grand Constitutions, or to the laws, usages, customs and landmarks of Freemasonry. It is not pertinent to the present discussion whether the By-Law of a Lodge would be binding upon Grand Lodge against any subsequent change made by Grand Lodge, if specifically approved by it. But in order that there may be no misinterpretation of what is here said, I think I ought to say that I am wholly of the opinion that it is within the power of the Grand Lodge to alter, amend or repeal a Lodge By-Law at any time, or to adopt a law which contravenes a By-Law, whether said By-Law has been approved by Grand Lodge or not."

Page 1927-342, 12/14/1927, regarding dimits and certificates of clearance.

"In appropriate situations, a Brother in good standing and having paid all dues and assessments is entitled, as a matter of right, to a dimit or a Certificate of Clearance, as the case may be. No action by the Lodge is required, nor, indeed, should action by the Lodge be had. The Lodge does not grant the certificate, nor can it withhold one. If the Brother making application is in good standing and clear on the books, the appropriate certificate must issue as a matter of course and its issue should be ordered by the Worshipful Master upon receipt of the request and after a determination of him of the good standing of the applicant and that he is clear on the books. This certificate should be issued as soon as such determination and order are made and should be reported to the next regular meeting of the Lodge for the purpose of record.

"If the Brother making application is not in good standing or is in arrears in dues or assessments, the application must be denied."

Page 1927-343, 12/14/1927, regarding duties of Tylers regarding proof of membership.

"It is doubtless unnecessary for me to point out that a Brother who visits a Lodge other than one of which he is a member without producing his receipt [for dues], or a Tyler who permits such a Brother to enter such a Lodge without producing his receipt, commits a violation of the Grand Constitutions and hence a violation of his Obligations."

1928

Frank L. Simpson, Grand Master.

Page 1928-204, 09/12/1928, regarding the Uniform Receipt for Dues.

"Question has been raised whether the Uniform Receipt for Dues must bear the seal of the Lodge issuing it. . .

"The present form of the Uniform Receipt for Dues, a description of which may be found in 1926 Proceedings, page 78, was recommended by a Committee composed of five of the most experienced Secretaries of Lodges in the Commonwealth. This Committee did not recommend that it be required that the Lodge impress its seal upon the Uniform Receipt, and in view of the time and labor which would naturally be involved, I have not deemed it advisable to require the Lodges to impress their seals upon the Receipts. I realize that question might be raised in other jurisdictions as to the sufficiency of the Receipt without the seal of the Lodge; but inasmuch as the approved form of the Receipt is described in our Proceedings, and a copy of it has been filed with each of the several Grand Jurisdictions with which we are in relations of fraternal intercourse, I am not inclined to recommend any other or further requirements of form than that suggested to me by the Committee of Secretaries above referred to. . .

"Under the circumstances, I am not disposed to require the seals of the several Lodges be impressed upon the Receipt, and doubt if sufficient benefit would be derived by so doing to compensate for the amount of effort required annually to comply with such a requirement."

Page 1928-380, 12/12/1928, regarding initiation of candidates.

"Initiation on the night of election has almost disappeared and the time has come when it seems proper that that practice is in violation of Section 413 of the Grand Constitutions."

1929

Herbert W. Dean, Grand Master.

Page 1929-31, 03/13/1929, regarding release of jurisdiction. (SCC p. 267) ???

Page 1929-33, 03/13/1929, regarding initiation of candidates.

Following up the 1928 ruling.

"There still seems to be some misunderstanding regarding the question of initiating candidates on the night of election. Until such time as it may be be clarified by a change in the Grand Constitutions, I hereby rule that it is a violation of Section 413 of the Grand Constitutions to initiate any candidate on the night of his election."

Page 1929-118, 06/12/1929, regarding irregularly made Masons.

"Section 407 of the Grand Constitutions prescribes that 'in Lodges usually issuing written or printed notifications, the names of candidates must be borne upon the notification of the Meetings at which they are to be balloted for.' This has been the law in this Grand Jurisdiction since 1843. It is clear that if the name of a candidate is wrongly given or even wrongly spelled on such notice and a ballot is taken, such ballot is in violation of the law and any Mason made as the result of such ballot is irrgularly made.

"During the administration of my predecessor, when the resources of the Grand Lodge permitted attention to be given to many matters which previously had been necessarily neglected, much closer scrutiny was given to Lodge notices and among other things the custom was instituted of comparing the annual returns of the Lodges with the notices of the meetings. It was soon discovered that there was a surprisingly large number of cases where names were not printed correctly on the notices and Masons were consequently irregularly made. The regularity of any Brother's standing is of the greatest importance not only during his lifetime but forever after.

"The usual method of dealing with irregularities is by the issuance of a declaration of irrgularity followed, if it appears that the irregularity is not caused by some fault of the candidate, by a formal healing by Warrant of the Grand Master. Up to the present time this procedure has been followed, and it has been necessary to issue a large number of such declarations and warrants. In some instances as many as half a dozen such cases have occurred in a single year's work of a Lodge.

"This method of procedure is not satisfactory to me. There are many objections to it, but the principal one is that it subjects Brethren who are entirely innocent of any wrong doing whatever to embarrassment and even humiliation, to which they ought not to be exposed, while these who are really responsible escape any public notice. I have, therefore, devised a different procedure which will heal the irregularities (which must not be allowed to stand) with much less discomfort to the innocent victims of the mistakes of others.

"I urge upon the Masters the importance of seeing that every precaution is taken by careful proof-reading and otherwise to secure absolute accuracy in the preparation of notices, and I enjoin upon them never to allow any name to go to ballot without assuring themselves that such name appears upon the notice correctly to the last particular."

Page 1929-149, 06/12/1929, regarding duties of officers. (SCC p. 269) ???

1930

Herbert W. Dean, Grand Master.

Page 1930-73, 03/12/1930, regarding chain letters.

"My attention has been called to another recurrence of the periodical epidemic of chain letters. These silly things are started every few years. My predecessors have many times called attention to them and advised the Brethren to pay no attention to them. The only thing to be done when one of them appears is to put it into the waste basket and thus break the chain."

Further remarks in 1952 by Grand Master Roy.

Page 1930-284, 06/11/1930, regarding entertainments.

Complaints made to the Grand Master regarding improper entertainments at certain Lodges.

"It is the duty of every Master, (or in his absence, of the Senior Warden) to take every possible precaution to prevent the presentation of any entertainment of an objectionable character in connection with a Lodge meeting or any activity sponsored by the Lodge. He should not only investigate the character of the proposed entertainment personally, not leaving it to a committee or any Brother, but he should warn the entertainers that nothing of an objectionable character will be tolerated, and he should stop the entertainment instantly if he finds that his warning has not been headed. . .

"It is impossible to emphasize too strongly that all entertainments and talks sponsored by our Lodges must not be inconsistent with the principles of Freemasonry, or in violation of our Masonic law."

This ruling referenced and quoted the 1924 ruling by Grand Master Ferrell.

See also the 1932 commentary by Grand Master Chipman.

Page 1930-336, 09/10/1930, regarding use of Lodge funds.

"The question has been again brought to my attention regarding the expenditure of Lodge funds for the support of non-Masonic organizations by the Lodges in this Jurisdiction. I am convinced that this is an improper use of the funds of a Lodge, as they are needed for the proper care of those members who require financial assistance. These calls for aid are constantly increasing and every Lodge should conserve its funds for that purpose.

"I therefore wish it understood that it is not deemed proper for any Lodge to contribute to the support of a unit of any non-Masonic organization."

See also remarks on the subject of bodies "which, to a greater or less extent, base their membership upon a connection with Freemasonry," made at the March, 1931 Quarterly Communication (Page 1931-37).

Page 1930-480, 12/10/1930, regarding the presentation of the Master Mason diploma.

"The Grand Constitutions specify no time for the presentation [of the diploma], and it has been found that when delayed until the signing of the By-Laws more or less confusion has resulted. I therefore would suggest that in the future the candidate be presented with his Master Mason's diploma on the completion of the third degree."

Page 1930-487, 12/10/1930, regarding Grand Lodge dues and Lodge by-laws.

A Lodge had proposed a By-Law amendment in which it would propose to pay Grand Lodge dues for its members, which a committee found "violative of the letter and the spirit of the Grand Constitutions." Consequently the committee reporting on this subject recommended:

"the pronouncement by Grand Lodge of the unconstitutionality of any by-law of a Lodge which permits the Lodge from its funds to pay the Grand Lodge dues of the Lodge's individual members, or to sell life memberships covering Grand Lodge Dues."

Page 1930-489, 12/10/1930, regarding the right of the Tyler to vote.

An appeal was heard from the Tyler of Noquochoke Lodge, who protested that he had been deprived of the Constitutional right to vote.

"From evidence as presented to your Committee by both the Worshipful Master and Tyler of Noquochoke Lodge it is conclusive that the appellant was not inside the Lodge and had not come in previous to the reception of the report of the investigating Committe and according to Section 411 of the Grand Constitutions, such presence inside the Lodge at the time stated, namely, immediately before the business of receiving the reports of investigating Committees was required of every member who desired to vote upon the application. Being Tyler did not exempt the applicant from the requirements stated in Section 411.

"It is the opinion of your Committee that the Master was obligated to apply Section 411 to ech and every member of the Lodge.

"Your Committee affirms that the Tyler of Noquochoke Lodge was not deprived of his Constitutional right of voting. We therefore recommend that the appeal be dismissed."

The report was accepted, and on motion a Committee was appointed to consider Section 410 and Section 411 "with a view to an adjustment of the difficulties which may arise in their application."

See also the committee report in 1931.

1931

Herbert W. Dean, Grand Master.

Page 1931-36, 03/11/1931, on suspension and reinstatement.

These remarks were made as a result of increasing reports of delinquency, clarifying the procedure and law; in spring 1931 twenty-three Lodges reported 50 or more delinquents, and four Lodges reported more than 100.

"A member suspended by the Lodge may be reinstated on payment of back dues by a majority vote of the Lodge. Reinstatement by Grand Lodge is much more difficult, and only places the Brother in the position of an unaffiliated Mason who must make a regular application before he can join any Lodge.

"Even though a member has been reported by a Lodge to the Grand Lodge as a delinquent, he may be removed from the list by the Lodge before the final action in June, if payment is made, Lodge dues remitted, or the member suspended before then.

"I would urge the Lodges by the use of the Service Committee to have a personal interview with all those Brethren whom it is possible to reach before taking any action which might not be fair to the member.

"I would call the attention of the Masters to the fact that it is their duty to see that all amounts collected for Grand Lodge dues which are on hand on April 1st and June 1st should be sent in so that we may properly finance the affairs of the Grand Lodge.

Page 1931-41, 03/11/1931, regarding the right of the Tyler to vote.

Following an appeal in 1930, a special Committee was appointed to consider the Tyler's Constitutional right to vote, and the applicability of Section 410 and Section 411 of the Grand Constitutions.

"The purpose of these regulations is clear. Section 410 is intended to secure a full expression of the minds of the Brethren on the admission of an applicant. It has the further purpose of safeguarding the secrecy of the ballot. If only a few Brothers cast their ballots, it becomes easy to locate a cube if one is cast.

"The purpose of Section 411 is not merely to avoid confusion in the Lodge. It provides that all who are to cast their ballots shall have all the information regarding the applicant that is in possession of the Lodge. The report of the investigating committee often does and always should contain definite information upon which the Brethren may act. The bare report favorable or unfavorable is not enough. The Section further prevents a Brother from evading the responsibility of the ballot by leaving the Lodge-room before the ballot is spread. . ."

Based on previous rulings, the Committee concluded that since the Tyler's station is "necessarily" outside the Lodge room, Section 410 does not apply to the Tyler.

"There is one way, and, in the opinion of your Committee, only one, in which the Tyler may vote on applicants. He may arrange with the Master to have some Master Mason, not necessarily a member of the Lodge, act as Tyler pro tem during the entire period of balloting on applications, thus enabling him to be relieved of the duties of his office and take his place among the Brethren. Obviously, he should not thus be relieved during the consideration of a single application, if there be more than one, as the secrecy of the ballot might thus be impaired.

"Two alternatives proposd, and sometimes practiced, are inadmissible. Tyling the door to permit the Tyler to enter, vote, and immediately retire violates Section 411. Voting over the threshold, that is, opening the door and holding out the ballot box to the Tyler with a statement we are voting on the application of A.B. The report is favorable. is equally inadmissible. If the Tyler may thus vote, it is difficult to see why other members of the Lodge who may be in the ante-room may not also vote. Such procedure clearly violates the spirit, if not the letter, of Section 411. It violates also a fundamental principle of Freemasonry that the ballot box should never be for an instant where the Master cannot see it.

"If it be objected that the Tyler cannot be deprived of his inherent right as a member to ballot upon applications, your Committee does not consider the point well taken. No Brother is under compulsion to accept the office of Tyler. If he accepts it, it is with the full knowledge that his station is outside the door as set forth in the opening and closing ritual, and that his duties keep him there. So long as he is actually in discharge of his duties as Tyler, he is not present at the time of the ballot and cannot be so. The Tyler who is voluntarily assuming a duty outside the door is no more deprived of his ballot than any other member of the Lodge who voluntarily remains in the ante-room or at home. He is not deprived of his right to ballot, but has voluntarily renounced it for the purpose of serving his Lodge in an important capacity. If he wishes to exercise his right to ballot, he lay aside for a time his position and duties as Tyler. How this may be done has already been indicated."

This committee recommendation was adopted and a copy of the report was directed to be sent to Lodges to clarify the matter.

Page 1931-37, 03/11/1931, regarding non-Masonic bodies. (SCC p. 274) ???

Page 1931-87, 06/10/1931, on "burlesque" degrees.

The Grand Master expressed concern about the presentation of parodies of degree work.

"We are concentrating our efforts at this time on an endeavor to impress the candidates with the seriousness of Masonry, its ideals, its aims, its accomplishments. Any burlesque cannot help but detract from the impression which we have made, particularly as all such degrees adopt to a more or less extent the peculiar construction and phraseology of our ritual. In too many of these presentations language and double meanings have been introduced which are far from the principles which we teach in Masonry.

"I therefore feel it wise for the Lodges not to permit Masonic apartments to be used for this form of entertainment. Other entertainments can be provided which will attract our members and which will be in keeping with the dignity and purposes of our Order."

Page 1931-91, 06/10/1931, on limitation of candidates. (SCC p. 276) ???

1932

Curtis Chipman, Grand Master.

Page 1932-24, 03/09/1932, an expansion on the 1930 ruling by Grand Master Dean.

The Grand Master commented on the tendency to expand on the entertainments provided by a Lodge to draw in attendance.

". . . Masters commenced to look about for other attractive forms of entertainments, and invited speakers to their dinners, and sometimes lecturers with or without a stereopticon. Then followed motion picture shows, often with films showing little care in their selection. From that point, then, the class of so-called entertainment in certain quarters seems to have greatly deteriorated, until now we find female singers and dancers from local night clubs or vaudeville agencies, whose suggestive songs and scanty costumes leave much to be desired, and even wrestling bouts and boxing matches have found their way into our Masonic entertainments in Masonic Temples.

"To the thoughtful Mason, this situation should be the cause of grave concern. My predecessors have all voiced with alarm the danger of such offerings to the real spirit of Masonry, either as a preparation for the solemn ritual to follow, or as a menace to blot out the lofty and dignified Masonic lessons which have preceded such entertainments.

"Your Grand Master is most reluctant to consider the inauguration of a censorship or oversight of entertainments offered in connection with the exemplification of Masonic degrees, preferring that it be left to the good judgment of the Masters themselves to determine what is appropriate and fitting to offer their Brethren on such occasions, if indeed anything should be offered at all.

"But this may be said, in all sincerity, that the tone of such entertainments as are offered must definitely be raised to a far higher level, and I am confident my Brethren will see the propriety of my comments and that there will be no occasion to speak of this again."

Page 1932-153, 09/14/1932, on lotteries.

"There recently has ben received from the Assistant Attorney General of the United States at Washington, a letter calling to the attention of Fraternal organizations the criminal aspect of certain lotteries and schemes of chance promoted or fostered by them.

"This letter, answering as it does many of the questions that have already been asked, I have deemed of sufficient importance to include as a part of this address.

"It is interesting to note the variety of subterfuge employed in the endeavor to avoid conflict with the criminal code, and to observe, with some concern, how closely some of them resemble methods which have been employed within our own Grand Jurisdiction in the past."

The letter from the Assistant Attorney General quoted Criminal Code Sections 213 and 237, and noted: "It has come to the attention of the Department of Justice that lottery schemes are being promoted among fraternal organizations, by persons making a business thereof, as a means of raising revenue, increasing memberships, etc. . . Doubtless many officers of fraternal organizations wrongfully assume or are deliberately deceived by promoters to believe that these schemes do not violate the law . . . and the Department of Justice consequently considers it proper to warn officers of fraternal organizations who might otherwise be misled or deceived, by calling to their attention the criminal statutes involved.

"It is very earnestly hoped that no member of the Fraternity within our borders will place himself in the position of violating either the letter or the spirit of this law, thereby bringing a disgrace upon the Fraternity which neither could be tolerated nor condoned."

1933

Curtis Chipman, Grand Master.

Page 1933-29, 03/08/1933, on Lodge finances.

The Grand Master reported on recommendations on the Advisory Finance Committee: adopting a budget, bonding financial officers, etc.

"The question of bonding financial officers as a remedy has been discussed from all angles. We find that 40 percent of the Lodges have one or more officers bonded. Many Lodges having bonded their financial officers think that is all the protection necessary.

"The terms of most bonds require a periodical audit of the officers' accounts and a certificate that they have been checked to a given date and found correct. If a proper supervision and audit is not made, it is probable the bonding company will refuse the claim.

"I strongly recommend the closing of all bank accounts under the control or in the names of Secretaries of Lodges, and that all moneys when and as received by a Secretary be deposited to the regular Lodge bank account, subject to the check of the Treasurer. The Secretary should obtain a signed duplicate deposit slip from the bank as evidence of his deposit, and should advise the Treasurer as to the date and amount of the deposit, giving an analysis of the same (that is to say, the amount of Lodge dues, Grand Lodge dues, dinner tickets, application fees, etc.)

"It is not proper for Secretaries to retain application fees until a candidate is balloted on, nor should they retain and pay over Grand Lodge dues, as I understand is the practice is some Lodges. This is the duty of the Treasurer.

"I also recommend that all checks on Lodge funds bear two signatures, - that is, that they be signed by the Treasurer and countersigned by the Master or one of the Wardens; or in the case of Trust funds, by at least two of the Trustees. The signature of the Master or Warden on a check is prima facie evidence of the correctness of the payment, and if the Master mail the checks himself, he will be certain of the payment of his bills. . . "

". . . I recommend that the Treasurer and Secretary send the Master a monthly report in the form recommended by the Committee, samples of which were sent to each Master. These report forms may now be obtained from the Grand Secretary's office in blocks of 50 at the trifling cost of a few cents. I cannot urge too strongly the use of these report forms.

"Over 25 per cent of the Lodges in the state registered an objection to this suggestion. The principal reasons given for these objections were that the by-laws provided that the Treasurer's and Secretary's books were always open to inspection by the Lodge, or the Master, or the Finance Committee. Most by-laws contain such provisions, but I fear if the Masters and Wardens who objected were questioned on the subject, it would be discovered that no systematic comparison had ever been made and that they were not at all informed regarding the financial condition of their respective Lodges.

"The benefit of these monthly reports is to bring directly to the Master's attention just how his income is coming in, of what it consists, how it is being spent, and how far the expenditure agrees with the budget. It induces sane and safe financing, and brings out the advantages of a proper budget for Lodge finance. Less than 21 per cent of our Lodges at the present time work on a budget. Eighty-three per cent report themselves as being able to support themselves on dues, several adding if paid. I venture to state that outside of the 21 per cent who work on a budget the remainder are just guessing, and an investigation would disclose the fact that they are by no means supporting themselves on their dues.

"I urgently recommend that a proper audit of Treasurers, Secretaries and Trustees accounts be made.

"Less than 11 per cent of the Lodges in the jurisdiction have effective audits. Many Lodges state that they have a regular audit by a committee consisting generally of the Master and Wardens. This form of audit is usually of no real value, and in many instances consists of nothing more than signing the various reports. In isolated cases it might be effective, as for instance, when a public accountant happens to be one of the chief officers, but in general it is too superficial to be of value.

"I urge you, then, to give immediate and serious thought to these recommendations and by your help and cooperation to place the administration of the finances of your Lodge in such condition that the distressing experiences of former years shall become things of the past."

See further remarks by this Grand Master in 1934.

1934

Curtis Chipman, Grand Master.

Page 1934-80, 06/13/1934, on the use of Lodge mailing lists for non-Masonic purposes.

"It has come to my notice that Masters and Secretaries of a number of our Lodges have been requested to furnish copies of membership lists or addresses of the Brethren, in order to make use of them for purposes other than Masonic.

"The impropriety of this request is so obvious that it would seem unnecessary to refer to the matter at all, but in view of the position taken by our Grand Masters in teh past and the fact that officers of our Lodges are constantly changing, it is deemed important to repeat what has so often been said before,- that such a practice is most unwise and not in teh interests of the Fraternity.

"Ever since the World War, and seemingly in increasing numbers, there have been so many drives for worthy objects and appeals for assistance that it has become, at time, a very embarrassing problem for the Masters or Secretaries to refuse to furnish such lists, particularly when personally they may be deeply interested in the particular objects or when they bear the mark of appealing charity or urgently needed relief.

"As a Grand Lodge, our position is now and always has been opposed to supplying such lists, or to permit representatives of other organizations to address our Lodges or secure from them any endorsement of non-Masonic movements. The merit or worthiness of the cause has no bearing whatever on this policy, and even in the stress of war, with its many and urgent calls for help, our attitude has remained unchanged.

"It is easy to understand the natural desire of the promoters of such agencies to desire to solicit contributions from members of our Fraternity, who are naturally pre-disposed to respond to any appeal to relieve suffering or distress. It is equally true that Masons as individuals are far from lacking in sympathetic interest in calls for charity, and I believe our record as individuals will bear comparison with any other organization as liberal contributors to worthy causes; but I regard it as a dangerous practice to supply our lists to promoters of any cause, however worthy, unless it be one wholly Masonic in character.

"Individual Masons naturally will contribute as liberally as they may see fit to the causes presented to them, but I urge the officers of Lodges to firmly decline to furnish our mailing lists for any non-Masonic purpose."

Page 1934-81, 06/13/1934, concerning sales tactics used on new candidates.

"In certain parts of the state our Lodges are being infested by high-power salesmen who make contact with candidates as soon as they are raised, or even before, for the purpose of inducing them to buy books or insurance. In some cases the candidate is told that the purchase of the books or insurance is obligatory and their standing as Masons will be seriously affected by failure. Candidates, of course, are not in position to deny these claims and are not infrequently victimized.

"I enjoin upon all Masters of Lodges to inform every candidate that he is under no obligation whatever to purchase any Masonic books or insurance. If approached by salesmen, he should refuse to listen to them. Later, when he has adjusted himself in Masonry he will be in position to know what he wants and can then consider the offers as he would any other business proposition."

Page 1934-125, 09/12/1934, on Masonic offenses.

See also an earlier (1869) presentation on this subject.

The Grand Master provided some historical background and examples of Masonic offenses, noting that while Grand Lodge had the obligation to try such cases, charges should be preferred by individual Lodges and Brethren.

"Masonic offenses may be of two kinds: first, those which are purely Masonic in origin and character, and secondly, those which are quite unrelated to Masonry except as they may tend to lower the Order in the estimation of the world at large.

"Masonic offenses which are purely Masonic in origin and character are those which violate the written law of Masonry. A wilful or habitual violation of the Grand Constitutions, or the Regulations of the Grand Lodge, are clearly Masonic offenses. A deliberate breach of the Landmarks of Masonry - as, for example, the disclosure to the uninitiated of the secrets or the private business of a Lodge, is also a Masonic offense. Failure to comply with the sacred ties of our obligations, using that word in its narrower sense, fall within the class of offenses of which this Grand Lodge must take cognizance. None of these offenses, it will be observed, necessarily involve a crime against the public. Nevertheless good order and decorum require that those who are no longer willing to abide by the fundamental principles or regulations of the Craft should withdraw therefrom by enforced severance from membership therein. As to these act, proof of their wilful commission will suffice.

"As to those offenses which are not Masonic in origin and character but which tend to degrade our Institution in the estimation of the world at large, a further element enters. Here the cardinal principle is the safeguarding of the fair name of the Order. It has nothing to do with the internal management thereof. If the act be one which shocks the enlightened conscience of right-minded persons, then it violates the moral law, whether or not it be also a crime, and it is a Masonic offense. It would be impossible to state specifically all of the acts which might fall within this category. Many will readily suggest themselves, while others may not be so obvious; but the tests to be applied are in all cases the same: - Are the acts of a member such as may properly be considered reprehensible in the opinion of all fair and decent minded citizens in the community? and, if so, are such acts of such a character that they tend to reflect upon the good name of the Order if, by silence and inaction, we permit the offending Brother to continue in good standing? If these two questions fairly admit of an affirmative answer, then such acts constitute a Masonic offense and it becomes the duty of this Grand Lodge to take such action as may protect and preserve its integrity."

". . . Lofty ideals, noble principles are not sufficient. Our practices must square with our precepts else is our usefulness impaired and our very existence as a worth-while organization imperilled."

Page 1934-298, 12/12/1934, further remarks on Lodge finances.

Following up his 1933 remarks (see above), the Grand Master reassured Lodge officers regarding bonding (some officers considered bonding as reflecting on their integrity) and the need for periodic and independent audit of Lodge finances.

"I strongly recommend the closing of all bank accounts under the control or in the names of Secretaries of Lodges, and that all moneys when and as received by a Secretary be deposited in the regular Lodge bank account, subject to the check of the Treasurer. The Secretary should obtain a signed duplicate deposit slip from the bank as evidence of his deposit, and should advise the Treasurer as to the date and amount of the deposit, giving an analysis of the same (that is to say, the amount of Lodge dues, Grand Lodge dues, dinner tickets, application fees, etc.)

"It is not proper for Secretaries to retain application fees until a candidate is balloted on, nor should they retain and pay over Grand Lodge dues, as I understand is the practice in some Lodges. This is the duty of the Treasurer.

"I also recommend that all checks on Lodge funds bear two signatures; that is, that they be signed by the Treasurer and countersigned by the Master or one of the Wardens; or in the case of Trust funds, by at least two of the Trustees. The signature of the Master or Warden on a check is prima facie evidence of the correctness of the payment, and if the Master mails the checks himself, he will be certain of the payment of his bills. This has been shown to be important, as in a certain instance of which I have personal knowledge, a Master duly approved a number of bills and sent them to the Treasurer, who not only failed to pay them, but made away with the entire cash balance of the Lodge.

"I urge you, then, to give immediate and serious thought to these recommendations and by your help and cooperation to place the administration of the finances of our Lodges in such condition that the distressing experiences of former years shall become things of the past."

1935

Claude L. Allen, Grand Master.

Page 1935-24, 03/13/1935, on the need to perform degree work in the absence of candidates.

"During the depression of the last few years, as you all know, there have been very few applications for the degrees in some of the Lodges, and in some instances a year or more has elapsed without a single application being received. Therefore, in Lodges working on a one-year basis, a Master may come and go without ever having worked the degrees on a candidate.

"Of course, it is presumed that a Master will have prepared himself in the Master's work of all three degrees while he holds the chair of Warden, but I fear that there are cases where this is not so.

"To me it is unthinkable that one should have the honor of being Master of a Masonic Lodge without being competent to do the Master's work in all three degrees. I therefore suggest to the Masters that whether they have candidates or not, they shall work all three degrees in their respective Lodges at least once and preferably twice during each Lodge year."

Page 1935-83, 06/12/1935, on the Master's Jewel.

"It has been the general custom in our jurisdiction for a presiding Master when inviting a Past Master or visiting Master to assume the East - not only to tender him the gavel but to invest him with the Master's collar and jewel.

"It has recently come to my attention that in some Lodges the Masters are departing from this custom and retaining the collar and jewel.

"Whether this retention is upon the theory that by surrendering his collar and jewel the Master surrenders his authority as Master, or for what other reason, I do not know; but certainly the surrender of the collar and jewel could have no different effect than the surrender of the gavel and chair.

"The Master by inviting another to preside in his presence for a specific purpose, surrenders no sovereignty over his Lodges except for the specific purpose, and it can not be doubted that he can resume the East at any moment.

"On the other hand, to retain his collar and jewel when he has invited another to assume the East might be, and I am advised has been, considered discourteous to the guest.

"The act of inviting another to preside in his Lodge is purely an act of courtesy on the part of the Master; a courtesy extended only at the pleasure of the Master. Therefore if any when he extends this courtesy it should be done in such a manner as to make the one to whom it is extended feel that it is genuine and sincere.

"I therefore suggest that in Lodes where the practice of the Master retaining the collar and jewel has crept in, it be discontinued."

Page 1935-86, 06/12/1935, on chain letters.

Following a number of predecessors, the Grand Master spoke about chain letters, recounting previous rulings.

"The present outbreak is the worst of all. The basic idea is that if one sends a small amount of money to some specified person and writes a certain number of letters, one will in due time receive a considerable sum of money. One now before me is to be sent to Masons only. The recipient is to send twenty-five cents to the person whose name heads a list of six. Then the recipient writes to the other five and adds his own name and address at the bottom of the list. Then he mails the five letters and waits hopefully for the $3,900 to come to him when his name gets to the top of the list.

"The scheme would seem to be so transparently silly as to deserve no comment. Nevertheless it has been serious enough to be denounced as criminal by the Post Office Department and has been made a profitable source of revenue by unscrupulous racketeers.

"The chain letter in all its forms has been denounced, invariably with an injunction to deposit them promptly in the waste basket, by Most Worshipful Brothers Johnson, Abbott, Prince, Ferrell and Dean. During the administrations of Most Worshipful Brothers Simpson and Chipman they did not appear.

"I emphatically add my own condemnation of this vicious scheme. No Mason should write such a letter or in any way help its circulation. All such letters should immediately go into the waste basket. Break the chain whenever and wherever you get a chance."

Page 1935-283, 12/11/1935, on gambling.

"The gambling spirit is rampant in our midst, and unfortunately not all of our Brethren are immune to its wiles. To me, it is a deplorable thought that any Masonic organization or any organization composed wholly of Masons should, for the purpose of raising money, be willing to jeopardize the fair name of our beloved Order by resorting to lotteries or games of chance which in most cases are in violation of state or federal laws, and in all cases are in violation of the dignity and reputation of our Order.

"Unfortunately our Brethren, in some cases swayed from their better judgment by the alluring promises presented by the promoters of these games as to the easy money that can be realized from them are tempted to the point where their proper perspective of the cardinal principles of our Order and the importance of safe-guarding its fair name may be endangered. Participation in these enterprises, if they tend to bring Masonry into disrepute, may constitute a Masonic offense even although they are not in actual violation of the statute law. Several organizations composed of Masons have sought my approval of one or another of these lottery schemes, usually upon the theory that other organizations of various sorts were conducting them and that our organizations needed the money that could be obtained by this means as much as the others. In all of these cases my approval has been denied, and I am happy to say that the plans have been abandoned, in most cases cheerfully and in a commendable spirit of cooperation when the danger has been pointed out.

"That many of our organizations, either Masonic or composed wholly of Masons, are in need of funds to carry on their activities, there can be no doubt, but I sincerely trust that the time has not arrived and that it may never arrive when Masonic bodies or bodies composed of Masons must resort to violations of either the statute or Masonic law to enable them to obtain the necessary funds to carry on.

"What other organizations may do is of no concern to us as Masons. We have our own landmarks and standards of morality and conduct. Let us not be swayed by what others may do to depart from those high standards and principles."

1936-1945

1936

Claude L. Allen, Grand Master.

Page 1936-24, 03/11/1936, on ballot procedure and inspection.

The Grand Master described the procedure for balloting described by Albert Mackey in Masonic Jurisprudence, in which the ballot box is inspected in advance by the Worshipful Master and the Wardens, then it is placed on the altar; the roll is called and each Brother approaches the altar, gives a proper Masonic salutation, ballots and returns to his seat. He allowed that calling the role was somewhat impractical in Lodges with large membership, and that in Massachusetts black cubes had replaced black balls.

". . . there is not perhaps the necessity of approaching the altar singly or even of approaching the altar at all, as the same secrecy can be maintained by a proper passing of the ballot box among the Brethren, although this should be done in a dignified manner and without too great haste."

Regarding inspection of the ballot:

"It has recently come to my attention that in a few of our Lodges the custom prevails of presenting the ballot box, after the ballot has been closed, to the Worshipful Master only for inspection or report.

"While our Grand Constitutions provide no definite method for the inspection, in most Grand Jurisdictions and I think generally speaking in our own, it is the long established usage, after the ballot is closed, to present it for inspection to the South, West and East, at each of which stations the ballot is inspected and in some Lodges its condition is reported to the Master by each Warden after his inspection, and announced by the Master after his inspection, with the additional statement by him that the applicant has been accepted or rejected as the case may be.

"In other Lodges it is the custom for the ballot to be presented to the South, West, and East, for inspection, and for the Wardens to make no report following their inspection until severally interrogated by the Master as to the condition of the ballot, after which the Master also announces the condition of the ballot in the East, followed by a statement that the applicant has been accepted or rejected as the case may be."

Page 1936-120, 06/10/1936, Regarding the reading of names of remitted members.

"I am advised that in some of our Lodges it is the custom to read in open Lodge the names of members listed for remission of Lodge dues.

"This practice should be discontinued at once as un-masonic and unworthy of the brotherly spirit that should prevail toward a member who finds himself unhappily in a situation were it is necessary for him to ask a remission of dues.

"When the time arrives for action upon remission of dues, it would seem fair to assume that the Master through his own investigation, that of his officers delegated to that task, or of a suitable committee whether it be the Lodge Service Committee or some other, would have satisfied himself as to the worthiness of the Brother to receive this consideration.

"Undoubtedly the Lodge members would be willing to rely upon the judgement of their Master from such information as he may have obtained to recommend remission only in worthy cases. That being so, it would seem to serve no useful purpose to humiliate the member by having his name read in open Lodge. It would be far better that the recommendation in open Lodge should be that the dues of a certain number of worthy but unfortunate Brethren be remitted.

"There are many instances, I regret to state, where injustice has been done to certain Brothers in the matter of dues owing to their reticence about confiding their misfortunes to the Masters or Secretaries of their Lodges. Everything possible that can properly be done should be done to encourage such confidence on the part of members in distress, to the end that their circumstances may be given proper and sympathetic consideration, and nothing could be of greater assistance in the accomplishment of this result than to have the Brother feel that he could confide his troubles to his Master or Secretary without making them known to the whole Lodge."

Page 1936-121, 06/10/1936, regarding restoration of membership.

"Section 521 of the Grand Constitutions provides that a Brother expelled or suspended by the Grand Lodge from the rights and privileges of Masonry thereby loses absolutely his membership in any Lodge to which he then belongs, and that when the Grand Lodge shall restore to the rights and privileges of Masonry an expelled or suspended Brother, he shall have the status of a dimitted Mason and shall not be restored to membership in the Lodge of which he was formerly a member except by unanimous ballot.

"This section as it now reads applies to a suspension by Grand Lodge for non-payment of Grand Lodge dus as well as to suspension or expulsion for any other cause.

"On the other hand, Section 507 of the Grand Constitutions provides that a Brother who has been suspended by his Lodge for non-payment of Lodge dues, and whose dues have been paid or remitted to the date of his suspension, may be reinstated in his Lodge by a majority vote of those present and voting at a regular meeting of the suspending Lodge.

"There would seem to be no valid reason why a Brother who has been suspended by Grand Lodge for non-payment of Grand Lodge dues and who has subsequently been restored by Grand Lodge to the rights and privileges of Masonry should not also be reinstated to his former membership in any Lodge to which he belonged at the time of his suspension upon the same terms as he can be reinstated following suspension by the Lodge for non-payment of Lodge dues; namely, a majority vote of his Lodge. Undoubtedly there are cases where through misunderstandings of one kind or another a Brother is suspended for non-payment of Grand Lodge dues and later restored to his rights as a Mason where he might be loath to apply to his Lodge for reinstatement if it required a unanimous ballot, and yet it might be for the best interests of Masonry, of the particular Lodge, and of the Brother that he should be permitted to return to the fold, where he might become an asset to the Lodge by the resumption of his obligations to it and his active interest in its affairs. I believe that no unnecessary obstacles should be placed in the path of a Brother finding himself in this position."

The Grand Master offered a proposal for amendment to Section 521 to correct this situation.

Page 1936-152, 09/09/1936, regarding floor work.

The Grand Master noted that exemplifications had turned up discrepancies in instructions to officers. He had requested that the Grand Lecturers submit "lists of such discrepancies as they know exist, and upon the receipt of the same I shall endeavor to adjust them to a uniform basis."

"In this connection, I rule that floor work, unless it involves an interpretation of the ritual, is in the discretion of the Worshipful Master of each Lodge. It is entirely proper for a Grand Lecturer to make suggestions as to what he considers the best method of doing floor work, even though it does not involve the interpretation of the ritual, provided that it is at all times made clear that it is merely a suggestion to the Master, to be followed or not as he may choose. I understand that in some Districts the Deputies have requested the Grand Lecturers to insist that all of the Lodges in that particular District do the floor work in the same manner. In the future this should not be done, unless it is with the consent of all the Masters in that District.

"Many Lodges have some particular movements in connection with the floor work which do not perhaps involve any interpretation of the ritual, in which they take special pride and satisfaction, and in such cases I believe it is their right and privilege, and I see no objection to their being permitted to carry out these movements in their own way, provided of course they are at all times done in a dignified manner and in a way that will not detract from the ritual and the lessons it teaches.

"Where floor work involves an interpretation of the ritual, the interpretation given to the Lodges at the Exemplifications by the Grand Lecturers should be uniform. I realize that there are cases of floor work involving an interpretation of the ritual upon which the Grand Lecturers may honestly and properly differ as to what is the proper interpretation. If in any such instance the Grand Lecturers cannot agree after conference upon a uniform interpretation, a ruling will be made by the Grand Master's office as to which is to be followed.

"Wherever floor work involves an interpretation of the ritual and therefore calls for definite instructions from the Grand Lecturers, the Grand Lecturers will be asked to explain the interpretation with the reasons therefor, and in order to clarify this situation I am requesting the Grand Lecturers at the opening of each Exemplification to explain what is meant by floor work involving interpretation of the ritual as distinguished from floor work which does not involve such interpretation, with a few illustrations of each."

Page 1936-154, 09/09/1936, regarding visiting.

"Section 501 of the Grand Constitutions provides that no visitor shall be admitted into a tyled Lodge without producing his card showing the payment or remission of Grand Lodge and particular Lodge dues for the preceding or current fiscal year; or a receipt for the payment of his dues if from another jurisdiction.

"In addition to this, it is of course necessary that he be vouched for in writing or that he produce a diploma or certificate from a regular Lodge, or certificate under seal of a secretary of a regular Lodge, and in addition that he pass a satisfactory examination.

"I fear that considerable laxity exists in certain Lodges in reference to these requirements, and it is the duty of the Masters of the Lodges to see that they are complied with. It is entirely possible that a visitor may present himself to a Lodge and be recognized by the Tyler, who possibly recalls some prior visit of this Brother. Possibly the Tyler may consider this a sufficient identification and authorization for the admittance of the Brother without anything further, but this is not so.

"It is entirely possible, and instances have occurred where just this situation existed and the visitor had been suspended from the rights and privileges of Freemasonry, or from his Lodge, between the period of his two visits; or the Brother may be in arrears in his dues or may have taken a dimit more than a year prior.

"I therefore urge upon the officers of Lodges the importance of seeing that this section of the Grand Constitutions is complied with."

Page 1936-157, 09/09/1936, regarding envelopes for Lodge mailing.

"Section 711 of the Grand Constitutions reads as follows:

"All written or printed notices of Lodges meetings containing any Masonic information beyond the time of place of such meeting, must be sent out in sealed envelopes.

"Question has arisen as to whether it is permissible to mail notices of Lodge meetings in the so-called 'postage-saving' or 'spot-sealing' type of envelopes, thereby effecting a considerable saving in postage rates. These envelpes are actually sealed so that no loose or tucked-in flaps are noticeable and in order to get at the contents at least one seal must be broken. These envelopes must, however, carry on the reverse side, usually I think on the end flap, the words, 'pull out for postal inspection.'

"At the time of the adoption of Section 711 in 1921 envelopes of this type were either not in use at all or were not in common use, and it is entirely probable that the framers of the amendment did not have them in mind at all.

"It is my opinion that envelopes of this type are sufficiently private and sufficiently within the language and meaning of Section 711 to permit their use, and I therefore rule that envelopes of this type may be used for the mailing of all Lodge notices.

"An even greater saving in postage can be made with the use of these 'spot' sealed envelopes by obtaining postal permits for bulk mailing, full information concerning which is of course available at any post office."

1937

Claude L. Allen, Grand Master.

Page 1937-20, 03/10/1937, on investigating committees.

"Section 406 of the Grand Constitutions provides for the appointment by the Master of a committee of investigation, consisting of three or more members of the Lodge, at the time when an application for the degrees is received. It also provides that the names of the committee shall be entered on the record of that meeting, but shall not be borne on the notices.

"It would seem that it should be obvious to us all that this is a highly desirable provision, - that the names of the investigating committee should not be disclosed to the members generally.

"It has recently come to my attention that the purpose of this provision has been largely nullified in some Lodges by a practice which has crept in of the Master reading in open Lodge the names of the members of the investigating committee when making his report on the result of the investigation. Obviously this should never be done, for the same reason that the names should not appear on the notice, and I hereby direct that in future the names of members of the investigating committee shall not be read in open Lodge.

Page 1937-82, 06/09/1937, on a Pre-Application Statement.

The Grand Master referred to the 1926 ruling by Grand Master Simpson regarding pre-application meetings.

"I am of the opinion that a considerable number of applicants still seek admission to the Fraternity with a false notion as to what Masonry means, what they are expected to contribute to it, and what they may fairly expect to receive from it.

"In order that we may so far as possible eliminate all misunderstandings of this nature, I am of the opinion that a second step should be taken after the preliminary examination of the candidate by the committee and before he is been given an application for the degrees; namely, the applicant should be required to read, sign, and file with the pre-application committee a statement."

This statement, adopted by the Grand Lodge on June 9, 1937, is listed on this page.

See also the ruling below on Page 1937-129, regarding procedure.

Page 1937-84, 06/09/1937, regarding the signing of Lodge By-Laws by candidates.

"Since 1925 candidates have been required, after being raised, to learn the lecture of the third degree before being permitted to sign the by-laws and thereby become members of the Lodge. Under the provisions of the Grand Constitutions, the candidate has the right to become a member of the Lodge if he signs the by-laws at any time within one year from his raising. Ordinarily there should be no occasion for any great delay after the date of raising in learning the lecture of the third degree and signing the by-laws. In my judgement, two months should be ample for this purpose.

"It is for the best interests of the candidate himself that he should complete his task and become a member in full standing thereby making himself eligible to visit other Lodges, as soon as possible after he is raised. Furthermore, it is for the best interests of the Lodge and of the Grand Lodge that this should be done. A delay of more than two months, particularly where it runs from one fiscal year to another, frequently causes confusion as to the right to collect Grand Lodge or Lodge dues, and in some cases results in a loss of dues.

"I have wondered whether the apparent laxity on the part of some Masters in requiring a candidate to learn his lectures and sign the by-laws may have been occasioned by the provision of the Grand Constitutions allowing signing within one year. On the assumption that may be so, and with a desire to bring about a better understanding of what I deem to be for the best interests of all concerned, I hereby request the Masters of Lodges to use all reasonable diligence and exert every possible effort to see that their candidates learn the lecture of the third degree and sign the by-laws within sixty days from the date of raising."

Page 1937-129, 09/08/1937, regarding procedure for pre-application.

The Grand Master reviewed the pre-application statement presented in the September quarterly communication, and then outlined the proper procedure for Lodges to follow.

"First: a prospective applicant, having expressed orally or in writing to some member of the Lodge his desire to apply to said Lodge for the degrees, is invited to appear at a set time and place before the pre-application committee.

"Second: if the pre-application committee, after interviewing the prospective applicant, is favorably impressed with him, the committee then presents him the pre-application statement, with the request that he read it and if he assents to it that he affix his signature thereto, and that when that has been done he will be given the regular application blank. The prospect would probably read this pre-application statement then and there, and sign it. If he should wish to take it away with him for more careful reading before signing he should be permitted to do so. If he should fail to sign it, or decline to sign it, under no circumstances can he be given an application blank.

"Third: When the pre-application statement has been signed, it should be immediately forwarded to the Secretary of the Lodge to be attached to and form a part of the application blank itself when that shall have later been received.

"Fourth: Upon delivery to the committee of this pre-application statement signed by the prospective applicant, he should be given a form of petition as prescribed by Section 401 of the Grand Constitutions, which must be entirely filled out by the applicant in his own handwriting; and three copies of the blank provided by the Grand Lodge to be filled out by the applicant furnishing information for the investigation committee, or in lieu thereof, three copies of a similar form prepared by the Lodge itself. While there is nothing in the Grand Constitutions specifying the form of this blank or actually requiring the use of such a blank, it is highly desirable that this information should be obtained in every case, both for the information of the investigating committee and as a permanent record to accompany the application for the degrees."

Page 1937-131, 09/08/1937, on the use of the trestle-board.

The Grand Master observed that Lodges in the Canal Zone did not use a trestle-board in the third degree, and he was informed that it was not then current practice for Lodges in that District to do so.

"I have requested the District Grand Master to see that the Lodges are provided with Trestle Boards and that they are used, first because it is the well established practice in our Massachusetts Lodges to do so, and second because it aids in the proper interpretation of the ritual and adds to the effectiveness of the degree.

"So far as I know there are no Lodges in this state that do not use the Trestle Board, but if perchance there are such, it is my desire that they correct the omission at an early date."

Page 1937-136, 09/08/1937, clarification on plural membership.

The Grand Master noted that affiliation of Brethren from Lodges in other jurisdiction was causing some confusion, and he sought to clarify the situation.

"A majority of Grand Lodges in the United States do not permit plural membership. These Grand Lodges are often greatly annoyed if we permit their members to affiliate without dimits.

"If an application for affiliation is received from a member of a Lodge in another jurisdiction, it should be at once ascertained whether or not that jurisdiction permits plural membership. A list of Grand Lodges which do permit it will be sent to all the Lodges with the regular Abstract of Proceedings which will be mailed in a few days. If the Grand Lodge does permit plural membership all that is necessary is evidence of good standing.

"If it does not permit plural membership, the applicant should be advised to obtain a dimit and file it with his application. It may occasionally happen that the applicant may fear that he may not be accepted and may thus be left stranded without any membership. In such a case, his application may be voted upon before he asks for a dimit, but he must not be allowed to sign the by-laws until his dimit is in the hands of the Secretary. Under our law membership begins when the by-laws are signed, and until the signature occurs there can be no violation of the law of the other Grand Lodge.

"All affiliates should be warned that affiliation does not automatically sever connection with the applicant's other Lodge. Trouble has occasionally arisen because ill-informed Brethren have supposed that it did, and upon such supposition have perhaps failed to take a dimit or pay their dues in the Lodge in the other jurisdiction, resulting in suspension there for non-payment of dues and consequent limitation of their privileges in this jurisdiction under the provisions of Section 503 of the Grand Constitutions."

1939

Joseph Earl Perry, Grand Master.

Page 1939-85, 03/08/1939, on gambling.

"Much has been written by Grand Masters of this and other jurisdictions about gambling. Their disapproval, and that of the Craft, has been unanimous. There is, however, a twilight zone in which are found many activities that fall short of gambling and that even partake of entertainment and voluntary charity, but which find their final excuse for existence solely in the element of a chance to get pecuniary value for nothing.

"To ask a Grand Master to be constantly acting as censor of these borderline cases is unfair to him and bad for the Craft, for every such decision prompts some criticism, and misunderstanding, and comparison with other decisions, and the cumulative effect is to spread dissension and weaken the solidarity of our Fraternity.

"After more than a year of such experiences I can discern no halfway stopping point, no safe basis for discretion. Any arbitrary frontier merely creates a new series of borderline problems, precedents, comparisons, injustices, dissatisfactions. Any decision by a single individual whatever his position or however much he may consult with others still leaves the suspicion of conscious, or unconscious, personal bias.

"For the benefit of the entire Fraternity, therefore, I now ask this Grand Lodge as a legislative body to enact a law for its own government on this troublesome subject. Lest this may appear to be a mere evasion of responsibility, let me say unequivocally that unless this body shall otherwise vote I shall rule that it is inconsistent with the purposes and professions of our Fraternity and dangerous to its welfare to permit any sort of so-called door prize or game or other device promoted by a Lodge for financial gain whereby a participant may by an element of chance or luck stand to win something of value in excess of the stake invested by him. Such a ruling would no doubt bar many things not inherently harmful in themselves but potentially dangerous as analogies or precedents.

"There are many who believe that the predominant drift of our times is toward a desire to get something for nothing, to rely on others rather than on one's own efforts. This disintegrating influence reveals itself not only in a craving for collective forms of government to promote getting rather than giving but in a myriad of other forms even including religious and charitable organizations that are hypocritical enough to rely on the gambling spirit rather than the giving spirit. Even at the risk of being deemed narrow and old-fashioned, Freemasonry must stand firm against this dangerous tendency. There is probably no Lodge in the country, certainly not in this Jurisdiction, that could not be financially independent if its members wished to contribute only a portion of what they spend in personal indulgences. Reliance on the public's gambling instinct is not a necessary way to finance ourselves. It is only the easiest way. In the long run it is also a disastrous way. Fortunately the overwhelming proportion of our Lodges have always refrained from such activities. I suggest for your adoption the following resolution:

RESOLVED: that it is inconsistent with the professions and purposes of Freemasonry for any Masonic Body to promote, participate in, or profit by any lottery, game of chance, door prize, or other device or activity whereby the individual participant may be able, through the element of luck or chance, to win a greater value than he pays, and each Masonic body within the jurisdiction of this Grand Lodge is hereby enjoined to observe the letter and the spirit of this Resolution; and

Be it further Resolved that all so-called collateral bodies, clubs, or other organizations in Massachusetts whose membership is related to or dependent on Masonic membership, or which in the public mind are likely to be regarded as Masonic organizations, are requested, and all individual Masons owing allegiance to this Grand Lodge are enjoined, to respect the purpose of this Resolution.

Note: this Resolution was adopted by unanimous vote on 03/08/1939, at the Quarterly Communication at which it was presented, on Page 1939-105.

Page 1939-396, 12/13/1939, on interrupting a degree.

"My attention has been called to the fact that one of our Lodges conferred half a degree upon a candidate and deferred the rest of the degree until a subsequent meeting.

"This was apparently done under a misunderstanding and in the belief that special permission had been obtained. However, such a practice would be undesirable, and for the purpose of the record I hereby rule that a degree may not be divided between two meetings. The entire degree must be conferred in the meeting in which it is begun. If for any reason the candidate is obliged to leave the Lodge before the degree is completed, the entire degree should be conferred at a subsequent meeting."

Page 1939-446, 12/13/1939, on reference to symbolic penalties in the ritual.

A committee was appointed to consider reference to the symbolic penalties mentioned in the obligations of the degrees. Its report traced the history of this consideration, and recommended the following paragraph be inserted in the ritual between the words "and keep me steadfast" and "in token of my assent":

My Brother, Freemasonry's continued use of the imprecations in all its ancient obligations is wholly figurative. The only penalties which Freemasonry imposes are reprimand, suspension, and expulsion.

This change was adopted by vote of the Grand Lodge, 12/13/1939.

1940

Joseph Earl Perry, Grand Master.

Page 1940-225, 09/11/1940, on Lodges of Instruction.

"The presiding officer of a Lodge of Instruction shall have the same prerogative as the Presiding Master of a Chartered Lodge with regard to the admission of visitors, and in his discretion may require the presentation of a receipt for dues and may require that prospective visitors be vouched for or pass an examination. Worshipful Masters and Secretaries of Chartered Lodges are required to see that every candidate they send to a Lodge of Instruction shall have an identification card."

"One who has sat with a Brother in a Chartered Lodge or in a Lodge of Instruction may vouch for him in another Lodge of Instruction, but sitting with a Brother in a Lodge of Instruction is not sufficient to enable one to vouch for him in a Chartered Lodge. Only by sitting with a Brother in a Chartered Lodge can one vouch for his admission to another Chartered Lodge."

"The organization and conduct of Lodges of Instruction are broadly designed to improve Masonry by imparting to its membership a better knowledge of its purposes, methods, and benefits. This general objective justifies such inconvenience or even minor hardship as may occasionally be involved in the compulsory requirement for attendance of candidates. To give relief from any real hardship, Section 345 of the Grand Constitutions allows the Master of a Lodge, for good reason, to excuse a candidate from attendance. That section, however, is not intended to be used as a device to defeat the purpose of the Lodge of Instruction, and should be used sparingly and only when compulsory attendance would involve a real hardship or serious inconvenience on a particular candidate. If each Worshipful Master or each candidate were free to select and obey only those provisions of Masonic law which to him seem wise and to disregard the others,, all semblance of orderly government would soon disappear. Instruction by the candidate's own Lodge, therefore, may be in addition to, but not in substitution for, attendance at the Lodge of Instruction."

In 1941 Grand Master Schaefer called attention to this ruling on Pages 1941-199 and after.

Page 1940-233, 09/11/1940, on "perpetual jurisdiction."

"There is historic and Masonic justification for the position that once a candidate has applied for the degrees and been rejected his Lodge - or perhaps his Grand Lodge - has acquired perpetual jurisdiction so that no matter where the candidate goes or how long he lives no other Masonic jurisdiction can accept his application without obtaining a release from the first Lodge, or Grand Lodge, as the case may be. The other view, taken by Massachusetts, is that if a rejected applicant moves his legal residence out of our geographical territory he has left our Masonic jurisdiction for all purposes and we lose all claim over him, and conversely, that it would be an infringement on our Masonic sovereignty to allow any other Masonic body to prevent us from exercising our own judgment in accepting applications from Massachusetts residents who formerly lived elsewhere. There is something to be said for each view, but not enough to justify any ill feeling between Grand Lodges.

"During my administration I have taken the position that I ought not to modify our law on this matter, nor have I desired to for it seems more logical and in keeping with the spirit of Freemasonry. On the other hand, I have respected the position of other Grand Masters who have felt similarly bound by their own law of perpetual jurisdiction. With that in mind it has seemed to me that we could afford to be big enough to request a release of jurisdiction without waiving our position that in fact such a request is, from our point of view, superfluous. Where such request is granted no problem arises. If the request has been refused, I have felt obliged to consider each case on its merits with respect to all the available facts and in the light of the law that appears to govern the particular situation."

Page 1940-337, 12/11/1940, on factious balloting.

The Grand Master reported that a Lodge was suffering from a series of factious ballots.

"After careful investigation I have become satisfied and have officially found as a fact that in one of our Lodges such a condition (an internal Lodge conflict in which candidates were rejected 'without regard to their qualifications or acceptability') has existed for more than two years. If allowed to continue it would result in the death of the Lodge and the end of its opportunity for service. There should be some way to protect the Lodge in such a case. No precedent having been found I have adopted a course of action which is hereby reported to this Grand Lodge in order that if the Grand Lodge should deem such a course unwise it may legislate on the matter so as to govern similar cases if any should arise in the future."

The Grand Master issued a decree, reprinted in full on Page 1940-338, in which he declared rejections as a result of factious balloting to be "illegal and void", and directed that the applicants should "stand as though they had been favorably reported upon but not yet balloted upon." He directed the Master of the Lodge to place the applicants' names on the notice, and for the Lodge to again ballot upon them, with investigations as needed. Any applicants wishing to withdraw would be granted a special certificate from the Lodge's secretary.

The Grand Master noted that "it might be that the balloting was voided by factious voting but that, even so, the candidate ought to have been rejected and would have been even without the factious ballots. The calling of a new ballot does not prevent legitimate rejection."

1941

Albert A. Schaefer, Grand Master.

Page 1941-47, 03/12/1941, on dispensations.

The Grand Master expressed his surprise at the large number of dispensations requested. "I am aware of the historical fact that requests of this nature apparently assume epidemic proportions during the first six months of a new administration. . . I am still of the opinion that the great increase in the number of such applications is occasioned primarily by a lack of appreciation on the part of the Masters of our Lodges - and perhaps, of the Fraternity at large - of the nature and the dispensing power of a Grand Master, and the propriety of its exercise."

He then outlined "the occasions for which special dispensations are required . . . but give the Grand Master the greatest concern . . .:

1. to permit a candidate to be balloted for at the meeting at which he is proposed;
2. to permit a candidate to be entered on the night of his election;
3. to shorten the constitutionally prescribed interval between the conferring of degrees; and
4. to permit a Lodge to entertain an application from one not residing within the territorial jurisdiction of the Lodge."

In other cases, such as dispensations for special elections due to vacancies; regular special meetings outside the territorial jurisdiction of the Lodge; holding a joint meeting to receive guests, or to allow ritual to be exemplified elsewhere; to hold a meeting on another night than the regular one due to religious observance or holiday. "Special dispensations to accomplish these purposes present no particular problem . . . and they are granted almost as a matter of course."

The Grand Master suggested that the Selective Service law might require dispensations in case 1. He dismissed case 2 because the Grand Constitutions had been specifically amended (in Section 413) to prevent this practice, and he was not inclined to grant dispensations "except under the most extraordinary circumstances." In Case 3, he was "constrained to rule that a Master must state a reason of greater validity than merely the convenience of the candidate or of the Lodge" before a dispensation would be issued. Case 4 was "troublesome", but the Grand Master indicated that, while releases of jurisdiction were granted almost as a matter of course and Lodges holding jurisdiction should not have "veto power" over such releases, that "more sufficient reason must be given than that the applicant has a friend or a few acquaintances in the Lodge where he desires to apply."

The Grand Master made further remarks beginning on Page 1942-29.

1942

Albert A. Schaefer, Grand Master.

Page 1942-182, 09/09/1942, on wartime conditions.

Following the attack on Pearl Harbor, numerous restrictions and regulations were imposed on civilians. The Grand Master issued a number of suggestions to Lodges.

"The intensification of war activities has posed new problems which have no single nor uniform solution but which may profitably be presented to you for your information and consideration.

"Dimouts.. Regulations, affecting principally the Eastern seaboard areas, requiring all automobile traffic to proceed at a very reduced rate of speed, usually not more than fifteen miles per hour, and then only with low beam lights or dimmers, affect to some extent, even though indirectly, our Lodge activities. Where the automobile is the generally accepted if not the only means of transportation to and from the lodge-rooms, such regulations, necessary though they may be, create an additional hazard to all who must travel after dark. There is no way that such hazards may be eliminated but I believe they can be lessened if the officers of our Lodges time their meetings so that the closing may take place at apn early hour.

"I have always felt, and frequently stated, that no Lodge meetings should extend beyond ten o'clock. If everv meeting is planned carefully in advance, started promptly at the stated hour and arranged with sufficient flexibility to aliow for unforeseen contingencies, I see no reason why this cannot be accomplished. Particularly I stress starting promptly at the stated hour. One who has hurried through his evening meal at home or who has remained down town, dining alone, to be present at the opening of a scheduled sevent-thirty meeting is not apt to be agreeably minded if the meeting finally gets under way at eight-fifteen. In Lodge matters it is an act of courtesy to start promptly; it is an act of kindness to close seasonably. And this apples with equal sodalities or rehearsals.

"Blackouts. Those of you who were in Boston or in its more immediate environs last night experienced a surprise blackout, the first siren signals for the air wardens sounding shortly after nine-thirty and the siren signals for the blackout proper shortly after ten. As I listened, I wondered what effect these wailing warnings might have on the rather large number of meetings which were being held in this Temple. Some of these Lodges were at that time at work, some perhaps at a business meetings, others it may be at refreshment. Perhaps in every Lodge there were members and officers who were air wardens in the immediate or more remote areas.

"Lodges should carry on normally as may be in these abnormal times. Our English Brethren, I have direct information, have done so - indeed, meetings have continued while actual air raids were in progress. But we must be sensible as well as zealous. No Lodge or Master of a Lodge would of course want to expose any member to even possible danger. Above all every member when needed will answer every call. Hence it becomes of the utmost importance that we plan carefully and well in advance to meet every foreseeable contingency. Therefore, I venture the following suggestions:

"I suggest first, as I suggested to the District Deputies this morning, that the Master find out in advance the names of those among his officers who may be inconvenienced by reason of the warning signal and arrange for a suitable substitute to carry on whenever his absence should seem desirable. Whenever an alarm comes, all who have civic duties elsewhere should be immediately excused, whatever station they may be occupying.

"I shall leave to the sound judgment and good discretion of the Masters of the Lodges whether the Lodge should forthwith be closed. I most emphatically urge, however, in this connection that you err on the side of safety rather than carry on under conditions which might prove uncomfortable, to say the least. I believe that no great harm will be done whenever an unannounced blackout comes - and we cannot of course under those circumstances be sure whether it is a test or otherwise - if the Master or the presiding officer of the particular Lodge should close his Lodge forthwith.

"I must point out, however, that once work is interrupted and the Lodge is closed, candidates must receive the entire degree from the very beginning at some subsequent meeting. In other words, even though a single section of one of the degrees may have been completed and the candidate is merely waiting for a subsequent section, if the Lodge be closed, the first section of that degree must again be conferred before the second can be given to the candidate. I know that you will not feel that this is an unreasonable requirement. It is intended for the benefit of the candidate, for I think you will all appreciate that if the candidate loses the continuity of the work he is very apt to lose a great deal of the benefit of the degree which he might otherwise receive. At best, it is difficult for him to remember that which he has received, and where there is an interruption of days, we can readily see that he has perhaps forgotten what may be the most important to remember.

"And so I want to stress that if a Lodge is closed while only a part of the degree has been conferred, the entire degree must be repeated on this particular candidate at some subsequent meeting.

Next, whenever the warning signal comes, the Master must proceed to satisfy himself that no lights will be visible to the outside. In some temples this is obviously so, but in many it is not so certain. In case of any doubt, all lights must be extinguished. It is not necessary for the Lodge to be closed. It is entirely permissible for the presiding officer to go from labor to refreshment in order that he may scertain, so far as he may, what are the real conditions and thereupon decide whether to close the Lodge or to await further development.

"Some curtailment of Lodge activities must necessarily result from present regulations. In these meetings where it is contemplated that Masons from some distance are to be present - Grand Lodge officers or otherwise - I shall request the District Deputies to confer with the Masters to ascertain to what extent these meetings may perhaps be postponed until more favorable conditions exist. I have every hope and expectation of carrying on as nearly normal as possible the Grand Lodge part of your celebrations in your anniversaries and in your principal observances, but I trust that you will recognize that it is just as far from Boston to Springfield as it is from Springfield to Boston and that we have difficulty in keeping engagements now that we cannot use the customary mode of traveling. Where we use railroad facilities, it is necessary for use to leave these far-away cities at a very early hour in order to return on the same evening, since many of us find it impossible to remain overnight because of the requirements of our usual vocations. And so I beg you to be considerate of our time, and I know you will appreciate that whenever it is necessary for me to tell you that I cannot be present or other Grand Officers cannot be present, that we are not slighting you or the occasion.

"In conclusion, one brief word: We are beginning our first full Masonic year under wartime conditions. We shall have many new problems to meet which may not be wholly foreseeable and for the solution of which we have no precedents. Hence we must be Masonically as well as civicly alert. I have mentioned merely a few of these problems. To your sound judgment I must leave the solution of many others."

Page 1942-285, 12/09/1942, on remission of dues.

The Grand Master expressed concern, but noted that Lodges were allowed to make any provision they liked regarding the amount of dues and the circumstances under which they were remitted.

"It has come to my attention that a number of Lodges have voted to remit the dues of aa members in the Armed Forces. . .

"May I point out that remission of dues should not be granted merely because the Lodge is perhaps momentarily in excellent financial condition, nor should remission of dues be denied because a Lodge is in poor financial condition. The determining factor is and should continue to be the circumstances and need of the individual member. Remission of dues should never be merely a reward for meritorious conduct. Active war service alone, in and of itself, affords no ample justification for any general policy. Where induction in service has affected not at all or only to an inconsequential degree the financial status of a member, there would seem to be no sound reason to remit dues. Indeed, I am convinced that under such circumstances a member would not expect to profit by his patriotism. Every loyal Brother would want Masonry in general, and his Lodge in particular, to remain on a sound basis against the time when he shall return to his normal status. . .

"I strongly recommend, therefore, that no general remission of dues be voted or granted, but that every consideration be given to meritorious cases of individual members, whether within or without the Armed Forces, and that no suspension for non-payment of dues be voted until after a full and careful investigation has disclosed the actual status of the delinquent Brother."

Page 1942-287, 12/09/1942, on war-related public service.

The Grand Master was asked regarding Lodge participation in war-related activities, such as bond drives, Red Cross drives, blood donations, and so forth. (Note the response of the Grand Lodge during the Great War was - at least at first - non-participation as a Fraternity.) The Grand Master noted that a National Masonic War Bond Campaign, and Massachusetts had been asked to participate.

"I have also been asked to recommend that every Master appoint a similar committee in his Lodge, who shall publicize the bond drive and make a personal appeal to each member personally. It is suggested that a quota be established for each Grand Lodge and each constituent Lodge.

"These requests have received my most careful consideration. I am wholeheartedly in favor of this and kindred drives. I believe they merit our most earnest support. I am reluctant, however, to use or cause to be used the organizational facilities of Masonry for matters of a distinct extra-Masonic nature. All of us, with possibly inconsequential exceptions, are affiliated with other organizations of a business, professional or service nature. In all of these groups similar drives are anticipated. In many of these groups of a more civic nature such drives are part and parcel of the general purposes of the organization. Not infrequently it is more desirable and more convenient to combine with others in those organizations rather than to divide efforts with Masonic groups. Thus a wholly unfair and inadequate result is obtained and Masonry is exposed to a charge of non-cooperation when exactly the reverse is true."

1943

Albert A. Schaefer, Grand Master.

Page 1943-28, 03/10/1943, on use of transportation and wartime rulings.

The Grand Master made remarks on inquiries regarding use of automobiles for Lodge functions, and whether that was permissible given the wartime directives. He noted that some lessening of the most draconic restrictions now left decisions up to individuals, and criminal penalties were not being imposed.

"It is not easy to generalize respecting the variety of rulings which have been made. It may be helpful however if I mention a few of the more usual decisions. I caution you, nevertheless, to remember that they have no universal application and that a slight variation in the factors involved may well result in a totally different conclusion.

"First, it is generally conceded that if the individual is a paid officer, such as a secretary, an organist or a tyler, and no other adequate means of transportation is available, the use of an automobile is permissible.

"Second, a substantial number of local boards exempt from the restriction other officers whose attendance might be considered as essential or desirable.

"Third, a few, though not a majority, consider a Lodge meeting as a meeting of a charitable or even a quasi-religious character and hold attendance by officers and members alike permissible.

"Fourth, the use of automobiles to attend funerals is permissible whether conducted by the Lodge or otherwise. . .

"In my opinion - an opinion which is not binding upon you - wherever there is available other reasonable means of transportation, even though less convenient or satisfying, such means should be used. In other cases I should expect that the officers of our various bodies would be willing to consider that attendance at meetings is a part of their accepted duty in the furtherance of a worthwhile activity and make such necessary use of their cars as circumstances prescribe."

He also noted some restrictions on fuel and on the impact to Lodges of Instruction. In some cases, dispensations were issued to permit candidate instruction in the home Lodge, due to extreme distance required to attend Lodges of Instruction.

Page 1943-32, 03/10/1943, on the need to educate candidates whose degrees have been rapidly conferred.

"Closely analogous to this problem is the matter of the proficiency of the candidates in the lectures of the several degrees. When, as has happened by dispensation, all three degrees are conferred within a few days, it is obviously impossible for the candidate to acquire that proficiency which we require and expect in more normal times. Nevertheless, the candidate is not only entitled to receive, but is, in most instances, definitely in need of sufficient instruction in order that he may make himself known as a Mason in foreign jurisdictions. If in seeking admission as a visitor in some Lodge he finds that he is unable to convince an examining committee of his qualifications, he will not be disposed to think favorably of the officers of his home Lodge who have sent him forth so inadequately equipped. Careful preparation are his right and privilege; to deny it to him is to deprive him of a most valued and often much needed possession."

Page 1943-84, 06/09/1943, on balloting.

". . . Fervently I pray that every member of every Lodge may sometime be fully impressed with a clear understanding that he has not only a duty to express his reasoned opinion as to the qualifications of all petitioners upon whose applications he is entitled to vote, but also and more important - so it seems to me - to approach the ballot box with but a single objective, namely: to consider whether in his unbiased judgment the applicant is worthy of the honor which he seeks. This means that in the exercise of his franchise he must allow no unworthy motive to influence his vote, but solely to determine and to act in accordance with his well considered decision as to the qualifications of the applicant.

"It is not necessary for me, I hope, again to point out that the possession of the power to blackball presupposes a duty to exercise that power in the interests of the Fraternity at large and not merely to gratify a personal spite or grudge against an applicant entirely disassociated with his Masonic qualifications. Infinite and irreparable injury may be done by a vicious use of the ballot which is unworthy of the charitable and tolerant attribute which are the fundamental characteristics of all good Masons.

"I must not be misunderstood. I do not mean even to intimate that a member should deny himself the privilege of passing honest judgment upon the Masonic qualifications of any applicant. I do mean to state emphatically that the right of franchise must not be exercised from personal and unworthy motives. The temptation so to use the voting privilege is perhaps aided by the secrecy of the ballot since it permits a member to adopt a wholly unjustifiable and even improper motive without fear of detection or accountability.

"On the other hand, reprehensible as such conduct may be, it affords no justification on the part of the other members to invade the secrecy of the ballot.

"In the course of the hearings in certain cases however, it frequently has developed that in taking the ballot certain methods were adopted by the Lodge to discover the dissenting member, which if persisted in and countenanced by inaction on our part would destroy one of the most sacred principles of the institution, namely: the sacredness of the secret ballot. It cannot be doubted that no ultimate good to the Fraternity can be obtained by seeking to correct an admitted evil by means which are also, and equally improper and reprehensible.

"In one case, it appeared that after a ballot had been taken which upon inspection was not clear, another was quite properly directed by the Master. However, in the case in point, by previous design or otherwise, all present other than the three officers of the Lodge and the respondent charged with factious balloting refrained from voting. Upon inquiry, it was admitted that no member then present and not voting had been excused from voting by the Lodge. This was in direct violation of the provisions of Section 410 of our Grand Constitutions. Since the officers were willing to affirm that none of them had cast a blackball, it also by indirection denied the dissenting member the protection of secrecy to which he and every member is entitled by an immutable landmark of our Order.

"This method of determining responsibility for rejection has not even the merit of novelty. It has been a favorite device of over-zealous members extending well back in our history."

The Grand Master quoted several previous cases and directives from his predecessors, supporting the case.

1943-115, 09/08/1943, on suspensions and reinstatements.

The Grand Master observed that many Brothers who left the Fraternity during the Depression were now seeking readmission.

"Much diversity among Lodges exists and during the past few months many have appealed to the Grand Master to rule with respect to particular cases. It seems desirable to restate some of the established rulings which are now reaffirmed and to lay down certain definite requirements concerning which there seems to be some doubt.

"Apart from death there are four ways by which a member of a Lodge may lose his membership - by suspension, by discharge, by expulsion, all of which are involuntary on his part, and finally, by dimission, which is a voluntary act.

"It may perhaps be noted that a Brother who applies for and receives a dimit does not always thereby indicate an intention to sever his connection with the Craft. One holding membership in two or more Lodges may dimit from all but one. Or he may remove from this jurisdiction to take up permanent residence elsewhere and request a dimit, intending to affiliate with some Lodge at his new home. There are occasions, however, when the applicant for a dimit thereby indicates an intention voluntarily to withdraw from one or more of several reasons, perhaps the most frequent of which is to relieve himself from further financial responsibility.

"When a dimit is requested for this latter reason, I have urged and now repeat, that each case should be individually investigated, either by the service committee of the Lodge, or by the Master or perhaps some Brother more closely acquainted with the applicant, to ascertain his reasons and to learn whether he may not be persuaded to retain in membership and to suggest in all appropriate cases that the Lodge would remit his dues. If, however, the applicant being clear upon the books, persists, he is of course as a matter of right entitled to a dimit. . .

"But for my present purposes, I am more concerned with the losses in membership caused by suspension, discharge or expulsion, either by the particular Lodges or by the Grand Lodge. Only the Grand Lodge may expel a Brother from the rights and privileges of Masonry, and such action is taken only when, after hearing, an offending Brother has been found guilty of a Masonic offense and such punishment is either recommended by the Board of Trial Commissioners or exacted by Grand Lodge. . .

"The more common method whereby a member may involuntarily lose his membership is by suspension or discharge by action of his Lodge and either of these penalties are now exacted invariably for continued delinquency in the payment of dues. The occasions when such penalties have been imposed for other infractions are now so infrequent as to be for all practical purposes negligible. . .

"Frankly, there are but two reasons for any long delay on the part of members to meet their financial obligation - one, inability, real or supposed, and second, sheer negligence. A personal interview by some member of the Lodge especially charged with that duty will invariably disclose into which category a delinquent should be placed and suggest the appropriate action. The wholly impersonal approach through the medium of repeated bills rendered will almost certainly in either case meet with indifferent success."

The Grand Master mentioned two specific cases: in one, a Brother was too proud to ask for assistance that he desperately needed, and the Master of the Lodge made a personal call and arranged for remission; in another case, a Lodge had a Brother suspended by Grand Lodge who had (unknown to the Lodge) died some time earlier.

He next turned to the matter of reinstatements.

"Recurrent and repeated inquiries on the part of Masters and Secretaries with reference to the rights and privileges of a suspended or discharged member seeking reinstatement offer convincing proof that these are not thoroughly understood. Former Grand Masters have at various times adverted to many particular problems and have made various rulings, so much that I may say may be but repetitious. Nevertheless, because of the increasing number of applications, it seems best to restate our regulations and perhaps add thereto.

"A Brother who has been suspended by his Lodge for non-payment of dues may subsequently take any one of three courses:

• First, he may do nothing. In such a case he shall continue to be deprived of his rights as a meber of his Lodge and is not permitted to visit that or any other Lodge.
• Second, he may pay the amount which was due his Lodge, including his Grand Lodge obligations at the time of his suspension. He cannot be charged with dues while under suspension. Upon payment of his prior obligations, he is then clear upon the books. This, however, does not automatically restore him to membership. He may, nevertheless, should he then so desire, ask for a dimit and if he does so, he is entitled to one as a matter of right. (See 1916-172). He thereupon occupies the status of an unaffiliated Mason and if he voluntarily remains for more than one year without being afilliated with some regular Lodge, he becomes again subject to the same disabilities as if under suspension for non-payment of dues. (Grand Constitutions, Sec. 504.)
• Third, if he has become clear upon the books, he may apply for reinstatement in the Lodge from which he was suspended. It therefore becomes the duty of the Lodge to vote upon the question and determine the matter by a majority vote of those members of the Lodge present when action is taken. It should be

carefully noted that the vote required for the reinstatement of a Brother suspended for non-payment of dues is a majority vote of those present, and not merely a majority vote of those voting. Thus if the vote is taken by a show of hands, those not voting affirmatively must be counted as opposed, even though no such indication is expressed. If the suspended Brother is not reinstated, he is entitled to a certificate of good standing in the Fraternity as an unaffiliated member, entitled a certain rights and subject to certain disabilities.

"Thus far, what I have said is expressly set forth in our Grand Constitutions. Our Grand Constitutions, however, do not state what procedure, if any, must be taken after the receipt of the application for the reinstatement of a suspended Brother and before the Lodge may lawfully act thereon.

"This question was passed upon by Most Worshipful Brother Johnson in 1916. It was then ruled that:

"Notice that action will be taken on the application for reinstatement should be borne upon the notice by all Lodges issuing notices. If the Lodge does not issue printed or written notices the Lodge should be advised of the application for reinstatement at one meeting and the matter should lie over until the next regular meeting.

"Notwithstanding this clear ruling, the piactice among the Lodges has been far from uniform. In some nothing appears on the Lodge notice and action is taken whenever the Master decides to act under "Other Business." In still other Lodges, the only notice given is "Action upon Applications for Reinstatement" but no one is advised as to the names or any other pertinent matters connected with such applications. In others, although a similar notice is given, the Master has, as is his right, not called for a vote at the meeting notified and at some other meeting, without additional notice, when he is so minded calls for a vote.

"I am of the opinion that such a procedure evades the plain intent of our Grand Constitutions. The only purpose of the requirement that prior notice must be given is to advise every member of the contemplated action, in order that he may act accordingly. If it be said that members should attend all meetings, I might be tempted to agree, but we face a condition, not a theory. We must be realistic. It may well be that a member who has the best interests of the Lodge at heart, but who does not and cannot always be present, may know of good and sufficient reasons why some suspended Brother ought not to be reinstated. He should at least have the opportunity of expressing his beliefs and not be under obligation continually to seek outside of Lodge notices to learn of contemplated action.

"I, therefore, rule and hereby direct not only that prior notice shall be given all contemplated actions upon applications for reinstatement, but further, that such notice, whether printed, written or oral, shall contain the name of the applicant for reinstatement.

"I am wholly conscious that this is at variance with a widespread practice to the contrary. I am aware it has frequently been said that to give publicity to the fact that a former member is seeking reinstatement may be the first notice many members will receive that such person has been suspended and may, when such suspension was occasioned by a prior inability to meet his financial obligations, prove an added embarrassment. To this there seems to me at least two sufficient answers. First, no worthy Brother unable to pay his dues, who is willing to disclose such fact to the Master, would probably suffer suspension by his Lodge. But secondly, and it seems to me conclusively, is the answer that every active member of every Lodge has an inalienable right to express himself by his vote as to the fitness or unfitness of any applicant for membership, whether the application be for the degrees or for affiliation or for reinstatement. Reinstatement is not a matter of right to be exacted, but a privilege which may be denied. A full and fair opportunity should be given to every member in good standing to act according to the dictates of his own conscience. No sound distinction can be drawn between an applicant for the degrees and an applicant for membership so far as the rights of the present membership are concerned. In passing, it may not be amiss to remark that in many other bodies recognized by us as regular and duly constituted Masonic bodies, a similar ruling has long been in force and without causing undue embarrassment or even discussion.

"I would remind you that what I have thus far said applies only to cases where applications for reinstatement are received after a Brother has been suspended for non-payment of dues. But a Lodge may not merely suspend, but may discharge from membership such a delinquent Brother. In such a case, 'our Grand Constitutions are more explicit with reference to the rights of the discharged Brother to readmission as a member.

• First, even if a discharged Brother pays his dues in full to the date of his discharge, he is not thereby entitled to a dimit. He is thereby entitled only to a receipt or certificate from the Secretary of the Lodge that his dues have been liquidated, but to nothing more.
• Second, if he should desire to regain his membership in the Lodge, he must proceed as if he had never been a member. All the formalities as to notice, investigation and a unanimous ballot are required, as in the case of any candidate. The only qualification of the broad generalities of this statement is that no membership fee may be demanded, unless the By-Laws of the Lodge so expressly require."

1944

Arthur W. Coolidge, Grand Master.

Page 1944-113, 06/14/1944, on the official cipher.

"With the approval of the Board of Directors, a copy of the Official Cipher may now be purchased by any Master Mason in good standing. The price is $1.50 per copy.

"Under no circumstances should a copy of the Official Cipher be available to any Entered Apprentice or Fellow Craft, either by loan, gift or sale. The lectures must be learned by word of mouth."

The Grand Master noted that a uniform receipt for dues would be required to be presented when obtaining a cipher.

1945

Samuel H. Wragg, Grand Master.

Page 1945-35, 03/14/1945, regarding government directives on meetings.

"On January 11, 1945, the office of War Defense Transportation announced the appointment of The War Committee on Conventions and this Committee issued a Directive that no meeting involving the attendance of over fifty people needing transportation by rail, bus, automobile or airplane, and for sleeping accommodations in hotels, could be held without permit from this Committee.

"On January 22, 1945, the following Directive was further issued by this Committee: After February 1 purely local meetings of more than 50 persons using only city or suburban transit facilities, or in the case of rural communities, transit facilities within the normal trading area and for which no hotel sleeping accomodations are necessary, are not required to file an application for a special permit.

"In view of the latter Directive, this regular meeting of the Grand Lodge was called, with the following notice appearing upon call for the meeting:

SPECIAL NOTICE

The War Committee on Conventions has ordered that, on and after February 1, 1945, no group meetings or conventions with an attendance of fifty or more may be held without a Government permit, if attendance entails travel by train, bus, automobile or airplane other than local or suburban, and/or sleeping accomodations at Hotels.

In accordance with the above regulation, no Mason entitled to attend a Grand Lodge meeting may attend the meeting of March 14, 1945, if his attendance will in any way conflict with this regulation.

A sufficient number for the legal transaction of necessary business can be had from those living in Boston and its immediate suburbs.

The failure of any lodge to be represented will be regarded only as showing the usual willingness of Masons to cooperate with the Government in the furtherance of the War efforts. Failure to attend will be but a further contribution to our Masonic Military Service Activities to which the Masons of Massachusetts have contributed so generously of their means and time.

Prove your loyalty to your Government and to the principles of Freemasonry by a strict compliance with this Government Directive.

(285 Lodges were represented at least by Proxies at this Communication, along with 37 of 47 District Deputies.)

Page 1945-41, 03/14/1945, regarding procedures for candidates at Lodge of Instruction.

"Every candidate is presented by Grand Lodge with suitable printed material and is required to attend a Lodge of Instruction after each degree unless excused by the Master for good cause. In this case the Master must see to it that the candidate receives adequate private instruction along the lines officially approved by the Grand Master, as set forth in the Manual of Instruction.

"Ordinarily a candidate should receive instruction in one degree before being advanced to the next, but exceptions may be made for justifiable reasons. In all cases, however, I hereby rule that every candidate, unless he be in the service, must receive instruction in all three degrees before he is allowed to sign the by-laws.

"To implement our educational program more effectively, the Masters of Lodges are directed to follow these few simple directions:

1. When an applicant is elected to receive the degrees, send him a copy of Preparation along with the notice of his election.
2. At the conclusion of each degree, present the candidate with the appropriate volume of Claudy's Introduction to Freemasonry, Part 1 of the ticket of admission to the Lodge of Instruction, and respectively a copy of Declaration of Principles after the first degree, a copy of The Benevolent Enterprises of the Most Worshipful Grand Lodge after the second degree, and a copy of A Short List of Books on Freemasonry after the third degree.
3. After each degree, properly fill out and send Part 2 of the candidate's ticket of admission to the Secretary of the Lodge of Instruction.
4. If a candidate is excused from attending the Lodge of Instruction, notify the Secretary of the Lodge of Instruction. The Secretary needs this information to clear his records.
5. Attend the Lodge of Instruction as regularly as possible and encourage your officers to do likewise. Make a particular effort to attend with your candidates."

Page 1945-438, 12/12/1945, regarding dispensations.

"I believe that I have followed the practices of my predecessors in giving kindly consideration to the many requests for permission to shorten time between degrees and other requests incident to unusual conditions caused by so many of our candidates being in the Armed Forces. There have been many such requests, as most of you know, and so far as I am informed, no legitimate request for special consideration has been overlooked or refused.

"I think it is well to speak a word of caution at this time with regard to present conditions. There will be many additional requests of this nature, even though the war may be over and many of our candidates are daily being discharged. There will, however, still be a sufficient number of these men coming and going to pose awkward situations for the Masters of our Lodges, and I shall continue to cooperate as in the past in helping them to meet whatever situations may confront them in this regard. However, unless it is apparent that an injustice or hardship may result, it is much better that the candidate receive his degrees in the normal course."

1946-1955

1946

Samuel H. Wragg, Grand Master.

Page 1946-199, 06/12/1946, on degree teams.

"I regret to bring before you a matter which has recently come to my attention, and I mention it here only because it seems to be a rather general condition rather than a purely local matter, and that is the permitting of so-called degree teams to assist in the presentation of the Third Degree.

"Just at the present time, with the very considerable number of candidates, additional groups have been formed into these teams and are accepting invitations to visit Lodges. They, and the others who have been organized for longer time, are in many cases doing excellent work in enabling the Lodge Masters to add variety to their programs and thereby increase the pleasure of the Brethren attending the meetings.

"There is a place for this work, and I hope it may be continued, but unfortunately of late there have been a number of expositions which have been brought to my attention because of the character of the presentation. It would be unfortunate indeed if the occasional lapse from the proprieties were to cause this practice to become so objectionable that it had to be discontinued."

Page 1946-250, 09/11/1946, on factious balloting.

"During recent months, several instances of rejections at the ballot have been called to my attention, where the Lodge officers have felt that personal animosity had influenced the balloting adversely. In each case so reported, the recital went to some length to give the facts and the background as they appeared to the Lodge officers. But in only one instance was it possible to establish a clear case of improper motive, and measures have been taken to remove any injustice that may have been created in that instance.

"Each individual allegation has been carefully considered, and in some instances the individuals suspected of casting factious ballots have been interrogated. It was not possible, with one exception noted, to definitely establish that there had been any abuse of the ballot box, and consequently, the the record has been allowed to stand.

"I appreciate the reaction of the Lodge officers to a situation of this kind, and sympathize with their feelings in such an unfortunate outcome. A charge of factious balloting is a serious matter, and a member of one of our Lodges would reflect seriously on the consequences before lightly doing anything that might endanger his standing and reputation as a Mason. A greatly increased number of applicants is knocking at our doors, and if we would keep our standards high, we must be thorough and diligent in screening this material.

"I have recently reread Most Worshipful Brother Perry's review of this subject, at page 337 of the 1937 Proceedings, and would recommend it to your consideration, and on occasion, even to the membership of our Lodges."

Page 1946-304, 12/11/1946, on use of lodge notices for business purposes.

"My attention has been called recently, on more than one occasion, to the fact that in some of our Lodges new members, in some cases candidates, are being solicited for business purposes by certain commercial organizations. In most instances the solicitation was in behalf of companies that restrict their sales efforts exclusively among the members of the Craft. This, together with the fact that most of the personnel of such companies are also members of the Craft, has a tendency to give the erroneous impression, particularly among the newer members, that these organizations have some special status in the fraternity. In none of the cases that have come to my attention has there been the slightest criticism of the commercial function which the organizations serve. In fact, it might even be conceded that these organizations are performing a useful economic function which amply justifies their existence. It is only the method employed to make business contacts among members of the Craft that has given rise to complaints.

"One method employed is to secure a representative in as many particular Lodges as possible whose duty it is to supply the names and addresses of other members, particularly new members, as prospective customers. Some organizations have gone so far as to require their representatives to forward their lodge notices, which, of course, supply an easy and practical way to to build up a mailing list of the names and addresses of every new member.

"It is settled Masonic law that a lodge notice is a personal and private communication from a Lodge to the members and that the information which it contains is private Masonic business for the sole benefit of the members. After a notice has served its intended purpose, each member should either destroy his copy or keep it in his private file for his own personal use. The use of a lodge notice for business purposes is un-Masonic and any member so using a lodge notice may be subjected to Masonic discipline.

"Just how far a member of the Craft can properly go in employing the information secured Masonically for business purposes must be governed in each individual case by the dictates of good taste.

"It does not seem to me, however, that it is consistent with the standard of good taste for one member to furnish any commercial organization with the name and address of another member without his knowledge and express approval, and then only after it is definitely understood that there is no connection whatsoever between the fraternity and any such commercial organization."

1947

Samuel H. Wragg, Grand Master.

Page 1947-54, 03/12/1947, on degree teams.

"During the last two years I have several times spoken to the District Deputies and urged them to caution the Masters of our Lodges to be careful in permitting the so-called degree teams to assist in the degree work. I have felt all along that the injection of new faces and personalities into our work has certain advantages, but have cautioned that due care be exercised to avoid anything of an objectionable nature being permitted.

"I know that the Deputies have carried out their assignments and the Lodge officers have cooperated in every way, and there have been very few instances called to my attention where criticism can be justly directed at the work of these teams. I do, however, have occasion to bring a certain happening to your attention. One of our Lodges accepted the application of a young man just out of the service. In due time he was scheduled to receive the Third Degree, and for that evening the services of one of the so-called degree teams had been obtained. The work went forward with dispatch and the ritual was handled in a most excellent manner, even though some of those present were not too well impressed with the conduct of three of the participants, however, the program was concluded without apparent harm.

"Within the last twenty-four hours I have had a report of the results of that evening's work, and I cannot imagine a more embarrassing situation for a Lodge or a more painful and distressing position for a candidate and his family and friends. Now, two and one-half months afterwards, the candidate is hospitalized with a shoulder injury which requires surgical attention and he bears marks attesting to the manhandling he suffered at what should have been a solemn and dramatic ceremony. I hardly think it necessary to stress the fact that this young man had been a member of the Armed Forces and had not suffered personal injury in that experience; that he had conceived a favorable impression of our Institution and had asked to become one of us. I wonder how you would feel if your Lodge was in this unfortunate position, or that you would do if you were standing here. I feel it to be my duty to inform the Worshipful Masters of our Lodges that the degree team of the (Police Square) Club is forbidden to participate in the work of any Massachusetts Lodge until further notice. I sincerely regret the necessity for taking this position, but it is impossible to condone any exhibition which would detract from the dignity and majesty of our ritual.

"You will please take note of this decision, and I urge our Masters to exercise extreme caution to see that our usual dignity is maintained, no matter under whose direction the degree work may be actually performed."

Note: the original ruling did not include the name of the degree team; this was clarified in later declarations.

Page 1947-373, 12/10/1947, on Masonic work.

This ruling modifies earlier rulings regarding the ability of a Master or Warden to participate in ritual outside of his own Lodge.

"A presiding or past Master of a particular Lodge of any jurisdiction recognized by this Grand Lodge may participate in the ritualistic work of a Lodge of this jurisdiction upon the invitation of its Master or acting Master, PROVIDED, that the work is done in accordance with the ritual of this Grand Lodge.

"A Warden of a Lodge in this jurisdiction may act as Master in that Lodge when directed so to do by its Master, or in the absence of the Master, but may not preside in any other Lodge."

Page 1947-373, 12/10/1947, on degree teams.

See the earlier ruling above.

"You will recall that at the March Quarterly I reported to you the necessity of barring the Degree Team of the Police Square Club of Massachusetts from participating in the work of our Lodges until further notice. The circumstances in this particular instance have been the subject of considerable attention and much time has been consumed in bringing about a satisfactory solution which would be agreeable to all concerned. This happy conclusion has now been reached, and I am pleased to report that the order prohibiting this Degree Team from working in Massachusetts Lodges is hereby revoked.

"I am delighted that it is possible to reinstate this Degree Team. They are excellent ritualists and enjoy a well-earned reputation, but as has been stated by so many of my predecessors, it is our intention and desire at all times that the work in our Lodge and shall be maintained on a high plane and that the conferring of degrees shall not furnish an occasion for levity. I add my words to all that has been said previously to caution the Masters of our Lodges to see that regardless of what group is doing the work, it shall not be allowed to deviate from what it is intended to be a solemn and dignified ceremony. This, of course, applies equally to those regular members who may be asked to assist, and I again urge upon all Masters a careful supervision to avoid any repetition of this unfortunate incident."

Page 1947-375, 12/10/1947, on Masonic honors.

"As there seems to be some confusion in the minds of some of our Brethren, and there never having been an official pronouncement on this subject, I make the following ruling:

"In this jurisdiction there are only two kinds of Masonic Grand Honors: namely, Public Grand Honors and Private Grand Honors. The Public Grand Honors (sometimes called Public Honors) consist only of the battery of three times three, the first being right over left, the second left over right, and the third right over left. These Public Grand Honors are given where non-Masons or other than Master Masons are present.

"The Private Grand Honors (sometimes called Private Honors) are given by the battery of three times three, each battery being followed by the sign of a degree in the order of the first, second and third. The Private Grand Honors may be given only on four occasions - Dedication of a Masonic Hall, Constitution of a new Lodge, Installation of a Master-elect, or on receiving a Grand Master.

"At the Installation of the Grand Master, the battery is omitted, the signs only being given.

"At a Masonic funeral, neither the Public nor Private Grand Honors are given, but the following should be done at the proper place in the service; both arms should be placed across the breast, the left uppermost, followed by a reverential bow, this to be done three times by the Brethren in attendance.

"In honor of a Brother receiving a Grand Lodge Medal, or other honor, it is fitting and proper that the Brother should be greeted with the Private Grand Honors should the Master of the Lodge so direct."

Ruling on interpretation of Section 331 of the Grand Constitutions regarding instruction of representatives.

This ruling was not published until 1950 by Most Wor. Roger Keith, and is recorded there.

1948

Roger Keith, Grand Master.

Page 1948-19, 03/10/1948, on kneeling during degrees.

"There are one or two minor questions that have arisen in connection with degree work which have not yet reached the point where I desire to make rulings on them, but I do want to call attention to the fact that kneeling, as used in the Masonic sense, means kneeling on the knee or knees - going entirely down and not just a genuflection. Also, no covering should be worn on the head in the lodge-room except by the Master or Grand Master, both of whom, as you know, have the privilege of remaining covered if they so desire. The District Deputy Grand Master, on occasion, is also covered.

"These indicretions, I am sure, are unintentional and if they have occurred, have been a result of thoughtlessness or carelessness."

Page 1948-20, 03/10/1948, on dispensations.

"With regard to dispensations, during the war many occasions rightfully arose where it was considered wise to grant dispensations shortening the time between degrees or even to initiate applicants on the night of election. Now that the war is somewhat in the background, I want to call to the attention of the Brethren that the Grand Constitutions require four weeks between degrees. Exceptions will still be made for service men, and while it is not a hard and fast rule, it my intention to allow very few exceptions.

"I feel that a cndidate will be more deeply impressed if he realizes that he must wait for the Lodge to act in good order and in good time, in accordance with the precedents established during the many years of our Grand Jurisdiction."

Note the ruling on 06/09 below.

Page 1948-63, 06/09/1948, on degree work and third degree presentations.

"The Legend of the Third Degree and the work at the three gates has often been the part that makes or breaks the solemnity and effectiveness of this very important lesson. You have heard my predecessors in office discuss this subject, and I want to again point out that this part of the degree should be handled in such a manner that there is no semblance of a smile at any time. This work was exemplified recently for the entire Grand Lodge of New York by their Grand Lecturer. If done with the proper feeling and tone of voice, it can be exceedingly impressive. There is no need or occasion for force or roughness of any kind.

"The dignity of this part of the work is entirely in the hands of the Master."

Page 1948-64, 06/09/1948, on dispensations.

"At the March Communication I mentioned the matter of time between conferring of degrees. I am still getting more requests to shorten time than I feel there is any occasion to receive. I have granted some of these because I have felt that in some cases perhaps it was not thoroughly understood. I am, however, refusing many and intend to make it almost an iron-clad rule that the time shall not be shortened between degrees unless the circumstances are in fact unusual and a hardship to the candidate might result, or the candidate is in active military service."

1949

Roger Keith, Grand Master.

Page 1949-135, 09/14/1949, on bonding of officers.

"Borrowing from the remarks in 1932 (actually 1933) of Most Worshipful Curtis Chipman, Grand Master, I would call your attention to the wisdom, and I might even say the need, of fidelity bonds. In the old days there may have been a disposition on the part of some to feel that the bonding of Lodge officers was contrary to the spirit of Masonry, but I fully believe that the present-day Mason, and especially the present-day Secretaries and Treasurers, feel that the bonding of their positions is only a natural and ordinary procedure for their own protection.

"I am sure that this is the general custom throughout our Lodges, but I do want to remind you at this time of the desirability of this practice and to urge that the occasional Lodge which may not be following this practice adopt it without delay."

1950

Roger Keith, Grand Master.

Page 1950-190, 12/13/1950, on a Lodge's right of instruction of representatives to Grand Lodge.

"Three years ago the Grand Master, M.W. Samuel H. Wragg, was asked to give his official interpretation of Section 331 of the Grand Constitutions. This section reads as follows:

"Section 331. The majority of the members of any Lodge, when duly assembled, shall have the right to instruct their representatives in the Grand Lodge.

"This query was prompted by a prevailing difference of opinion as to whether a majority of all the members of a Lodge was meant or a majority of the members present at a meeting of the Lodge.

"Most Worshipful Brother Wragg ruled as follows:

"From the language of Section 331, I can see where the question of whether a majority of the members of a Lodge, or the majority present at a regularly called meeting, is necessary in order for a Lodge to instruct its representatives.

"From a practical point of view, it would seem to me impossible, or nearly so, for a majority of the members of almost any Lodge to be present at a meeting to exercise this power. Perhaps this language applied to a differ¬ent day and age.

"In any event, unless and until better information is before me, my interpretation of this section is that it does not require the presence of a majority of the members of a Lodge but that with a quorum present at a duly called business meeting, instruction may be given to the Lodge representatives by a majority of the members then present.

"My attention has been called to the fact that this important ruling has never been published in our Proceedings. I therefore now rule and affirm the above ruling of Moat Worshipful Brother Wragg and order it to be so recorded."

1951

Thomas S. Roy, Grand Master.

Page 1951-138, 06/13/1951, on the use of 'Jesus'.

"It has been brought to my attention that some of our Brethren are disturbed because they have been led to believe that the Grand Lodge forbids the use of the name Jesus Christ in the lodge-room, or in Masonic gatherings. To them he has the value of God and they feel that Freemasonry denies its boasted tolerance if they are forbidden to use that name, or if any reproach attaches to the use of that name. My understanding of their complaint is that they are not pressing for the use of the name in Masonic circles, but that they do not want to be denied the right to use it; and that should a Brother use the name in a prayer in the way that is natural to him, that no reproach should attach to its use. My answer to the question is that there is nothing in the Grand Constitutions, nor any ruling by a Grand Master, that prohibits the use of the name. No name sacred to any religion that is in conformity with the first of our Ancient Landmarks is prohibited in Masonic circles. The Ancient Landmark is this: Monotheism, the sole dogma of Freemasonry.

"We learn that Freemasonry unites men of every country, sect and opinion. It does not unite races, it unites men. It does not unite opinions, it unites men. No action takes place by which, in Freemasonry, we have a syncretism of all religions. It says that men of different religions, and maintaining those differences, can form a union that transcends the differences of country, sect and opinion. No man is barred from using that name by which God comes nearest to him. However, there is always the matter of good taste, of courtesy. Therefore we are well-advised if in our prayers we use the terminology that is common to all of our religions. In my duties as Chaplain in a Lodge, I have found the prayers suggested in our ritual to have such spiritual meaning and such dignity of expression as to make them completely satisfying to me. I am quite sure that as Brethren we shall strengthen the bonds that unite us as we find a common expression in prayer rather than assert our right to use each his own distinctive phraseology."

Page 1951-139, 06/13/1951, on factious balloting.

"From time to time there is a word from the Grand Master on factious balloting. Let me call to your attention again that Section 412 of the Grand Constitutions says: Casting a black ball factiously and without just cause is a Masonic offense for which a member is subject to Masonic punishment. The black-ball is a good thing. We have had some evidence today that it is not used as often as it should be. Perhaps we ought to say that it is not used in the right place. We have members who call themselves Masons who do not belong in our order. Men who would have made worthy Masons are kept out by factious ballots. You who are Masters must drive home forcibly to your members that a blackball should be used only to prevent an unworthy man from being made a Mason. Using the ballot box to pay off a personal grudge is a contemptible act and merits the disapproval of every man worthy of the name of Mason."

Page 1951-140, 06/13/1951, on chain letters.

"Here is another matter that may not be too important, but which should be called to your attention. Just this week copies of chain letters have been placed on my desk. They are being circulated among Masons only, with the suggestion of good fortune if the chain is unbroken, and ill fortune if this chain is broken. Chain letters my Brethren, originate in disordered minds. They are essentially based upon superstition. Inasmuch as Freemasonry has no part in fostering superstition you will please advise all your members who receive such letters to disregard them. Section 705 of the Grand Constitutions reads: Begging circulars or similar appeals from any source, domestic or foreign, shall not be entertained unless they have been approved by the Grand Lodge or the Grand Master. By a broad interpretation, you are virtually forbidden to respond to any such appeals made to you as a Mason unless they have the approval of the Grand Lodge or the Grand Master. Chain letters have the strongest sort of disapproval of the Grand Master.

Page 1951-141, 06/13/1951, on gambling.

"During the last few months, the nation has been shocked and angered by the revelation of gambling, and the association with it of law enforcement officials. I would remind you again of the position taken by this Grand Lodge. At a regular quarterly communication of March 8, 1939, the following resolution was adopted.

"Resolved: that it is inconsistent with the professions and purposes of Freemasonry for any Masonic Body to promote, participate in or profit by any lottery game of chance, door prize or other device or activity whereby the individual participant may he able, through the element of luck or chance to win a greater value than he pays, and each Masonic body within the jurisdiction of this Grand Lodge is hereby enjoined to observe the letter and spirit of this Resolution: and

"Be it further resolved, that all so-called collateral bodies, clubs or other organizations in Massachusetts whose membership is related to or dependent on Masonic Membership or which in the public mind are likely to be regarded as Masonic organizations, are requested, and all individual Masons owing allegiance to this Grand Lodge are enjoined, to respect the purpose of this Resolution.

"There can be no mistake in the meaning of this resolution. That word enjoin virtually means to prohibit, which means that every form of gambling is prohibited in Masonic bodies. This resolution has been disregarded both in letter and spirit. I am embarrassed in speaking about it because it may be thought that my profession inspires my condemnation of gambling. Believe me, Brethren; I am interested only in preserving the good name of Freemasonry, which cannot remain good with any taint of gambling upon it. In every problem, social or moral or political, we occupy one of two positions. We are either part of the problem or part of the solution. If we insist upon trying to profit from gambling of any sort, then we are part of the problem. If we have no part or lot in it, then we are part of the solution. By this action taken over twelve years ago, which I reaffirm today, the Grand Lodge of Masons in Massachusetts proclaims that it is part of the solution. In order that none may pretend ignorance of this resolution, I am ordering that it be carried on the September notice of every Lodge in the jurisdiction."

Page 1951-188, 09/12/1951, on balloting.

"Because of some misunderstanding about Section 411 of the Grand Constitutions, I want to make it perfectly clear what it means. I do this after consultation with those wiser than I. The relevant portion of the section reads as follows: Immediately before the business of receiving the reports of investigating committees is commenced, the Master shall permit the entrance of any members of the Lodge who have presented themselves to the Tyler seeking and prepared for admission. During the period from the commencement of the report of such a committee until the declaration of the ballot on the candidate under consideration no one shall be permitted to enter or leave the lodge except only in case of extraordinary emergency. This has been interpreted by many to cover the entire period of balloting on all candidates to be balloted on. It applies, however, to one ballot only. After each ballot, and before the report of the investigating committee on the next applicant, members may be permitted to enter or retire."

1952

Thomas S. Roy, Grand Master.

Page 1952-111, 03/12/1952, on unauthorized ciphers.

"I have been informed that some of the candidates, presumably with the knowledge of Lodge officers, are using what is familiarly known as the Morgan exposé of the ritual to aid them in their lecture work. Please take notice, and let it be known as widely as you can, that the use of such a work constitutes a serious Masonic offense. Upon proof of the purchase, sale, transmission or ownership of such a book on the part of a member or candidate, that member will be immediately suspended and the work halted in that candidate’s progress; such action to hold until the first subsequent meeting of the Grand Lodge, when more seri¬ous penalties will be recommended. The use of any cipher or presentation of Masonic ritual not authorized by this Grand Lodge; or by a Grand Lodge with which we have fraternal relations, is absolutely forbidden."

Page 1952-112, 03/12/1952, on candidate ciphers.

"I have ordered the preparation of individual ciphers of candidates' lectures, which will be available to the candidate while learning the lecture. Each cipher must be returned before he can receive his next degree, or in the case of the third degree, before he can sign the by-laws. In the meantime, ciphers are available for officers only."

Page 1952-112, 03/12/1952, on visitation right for candidates.

"The question has been presented to me several times as to the right of a candidate to visit another Lodge and see the work on the degree he has taken. Please understand that a candidate has no such right. The right of visitation is for members only, and a candidate does not become a member until he has signed the by-laws."

Page 1952-112, 03/12/1952, on requirements for initiation.

"Because of the fact that a somewhat loose procedure is sometimes followed in reading applications for initiation, in that the Secretary has not in his possession all of the information which he should have before he reads such an applications I am making the following ruling, or interpretation, whichever you choose to call it. In any case, it is your authority for the procedure as from this date.

"An application for initiation shall not be read to a Lodge until all papers required for the application shall be on file with the Secretary. These papers are the pre-application statement signed by the applicant, the petition signed by both the applicant and his sponsor, the triplicate questionnaire for the use of the investigating committee, and any waiver required for a nonresident application for an applicant previously rejected in another Lodge."

Page 1952-113, 03/12/1952, on the status of a stopped candidate.

"Because of some uncertainty as to the status of a candidate whose advancement has been stopped, I rule that A candidate whose advancement has been stopped by vote of the Lodge in accordance with Section 417 of the Grand Constitutions shall then have the status, of a rejected applicant, subject to all the disabilities thereof. A Lodge, having once voted to sustain an objection to a candidate's advancement, shall not reconsider its action."

Page 1952-113, 03/12/1952, on filings of by-law change requests.

"Every month we have requests for changes in by-laws on behalf of the Lodges. It is my direction that all such by-law changes be filed in duplicate."

Page 1952-182, 06/11/1952, on chain letters.

A number of Grand Masters had previously issued comments on chain letters.

"Apparently there is a recrudescence of the Chain Letter Nuisance. Our condemnation of a continuance of the practise of keeping them going is not known to all. The hopeful thing is that the nuisance has not realized fully on its possibilities, because there is one born every minute, and we must conclude that we get our share in Masonry. Let me again ask you, Brethren, to impress upon your members to remember that when such a letter comes to them that they told us when they came into Masonry that they were of lawful age, and that they must be adult in their actions as well as in their years."

Page 1952-184, 06/11/1952, on the Third Degree.

"Because of certain incidents that have been brought to my attention in the conferring of the third degree, I wish to caution all those responsible as to what is permissible and what is not." (Here the Grand Master issued three directives affecting certain esoteric part of the work.)

Page 1952-185, 06/11/1952, on relief.

"I want to emphasize also the importance of giving careful and meticulous attention to all appeals for relief. I fear that there is at times a disposition to take advantage of a technicality that will, so to speak, get the Lodge 'off the hook,' and cancel its responsibility to give aid. Such a procedure is not Masonry. We are to act as Brothers, and a Brother never tries to avoid giving aid, but insists on finding some way by which aid can be given when needed. When a Lodge finds a case of need beyond its abilities, then it must be immediately reported to the Relief Commissioner that the resources of the Grand Lodge may come to the rescue. There is no way in which we can take so severe a beating, both in public opinion and in the private thinking of a Brother, than in our failure to do all that is possible to do to help when help is most needed.

"May I express the hope that the service committees of the Lodges are alert in visiting the sick, and the relatives, particularly the widows, of deceased Brothers. The Master, or his personal representative, should be at the home within hours of the death of a Brother. It brings help where and when it is most needed. It lets those who sorrow know that the Masons care."

Page 1952-186, 06/11/1952, on DeMolay.

"I would go on record as commending those of our Brethren who are sponsoring and supporting the work of the Order of DeMolay. This is an excellent body that has stood the test of years as a character-building force. Every community which has no Council of DeMolay nevertheless has boys who would profit from membership in DeMolay. I hope that the Masters of Lodges in such communities will explore the possibility of sponsoring the organization of a Council. There can be no better investment of time and means than in the lives of the men of tomorrow."

Page 1952-187, 06/11/1952, on use of ciphers.

"At our meeting in March I called attention to the promiscuous use of ciphers particularly in dealing with candidates. I took the rather drastic action of denying ciphers to all but officers and candidate lecturers. This was for the purpose of shutting off all the traffic in ciphers until a method could be devised to control their use.

"The present plan, therefore, is that ciphers may be obtained, beginning June 15, by any Master Mason, who must sign a statement, however, that it is for his own personal use and will not, under any circumstances, be given, loaned or sold to another. Secretaries applying for ciphers for members must see to it that this statement is signed in their presence."

Page 1952-220, 09/10/1952, on ritual changes.

"I have been concerned for many years over certain portions of our ritual which are so inconsistent with the high principles of conduct which we teach in our degrees and earnestly strive to practice. I am convinced that these particular portions should be omitted and that such other changes should be made as are necessary to harmonize the whole.

"I presume that I could exercise my authority as Grand Master and order such a revision made. However, I consider it too great a change for any Grand Master to make. A change of this kind should be by vote of the Grand Lodge. Accordingly, I am giving notice that a motion will be made at our Annual Communication in December that certain portions be eliminated from our ritual in each degree, and that such other changes be made as are necessary to make our ritual conform to this change. You have three months to think about it and discuss it, so that nothing can be done in a corner. Incidentally, I have discussed this matter with the Past Grand Masters, and they are agreed that this change should be made."

Note: This almost certainly refers to the inclusion of the Ancient Penalties in obligations; at the Quarterly Communication of 12/10/1952, the Grand Master made the following announcement:

"The Grand Master requested an informal expression of opinion on the general question whether certain changes should be made in our ritual in accordance with the proposal which he had made in his September address. Since the sentiment of Grand Lodge appeared to be adverse to such changes, the Grand Master dropped the matter."

Page 1952-221, 09/10/1952, on anti-Masonic propaganda.

See 1952 Answer to Anti-Masonic Propaganda.

Page 1952-286, 12/10/1952, on Past Masters' Diplomas.

"It has been the custom of this Grand Lodge for many years to present diplomas to retiring Masters. Section 702 of the Grand Constitutions states that The Master of any lodge under this jurisdiction, who has faithfully discharged his duties and complied wit the laws of the Grand Lodge, shall, at the end of his first year, be presented by the District Deputy Grand Master with a Past Master's Diploma. The diplomas themselves state that the recipient has been '... a Light to his Brethren and an Ornament to the Craft. This testimonial of his meritorious services recommends him to the hospitality and protection due to a faithful overseer.'

"Very evidently the award of these diplomas was to be on the basis of merit, and not just for a year spent in the East. However, it has become automatic. The District Deputy Grand Master has presented the diploma at his official visitation in the fall. I understand that some of my Deputies have presented some of these diplomas with something less than complete enthusiasm. As a matter of fact, they have choked somewhat over even the few polite phrases that the amenities of the occasion compelled them to say. In one case, a Master who learned none of the Third Degree ritual, but had some one else do the work on that degree, was given a diploma. It would seem, therefore, that there should be some set of standards to determine a Master's right to a diploma. Such a set of standards is being prepared and will be sent out to you Masters at the beginning of the year. With it will go a questionnaire covering the standards, and providing a good yardstick by which to measure the work the Master has done in his year. The Masters will probably find that they are responsible for things which they have considered the responsibility of some one else. But in the final analysis, the Master is responsible for just about everything in the Lodge, including the correctness of the Secretary's returns and the complete payment by his Lodge of Grand Lodge dues. These diplomas that have been earned will not be presented to the Masters at the official visitation, which often comes weeks before the Master's term of office expires, but will be presented at the fraternal visit of the Deputies in the winter and spring.

"Let me urge upon those of you who are Masters to guard well the work of your Lodge. Especially you should warn degree teams that the work must be done with dignity and decorum. Reports of teams that overstep the bounds of propriety will result in a denial of their right to work in any of our Lodges. The Third Degree is serious business and the Grand Lodge will not tolerate its being turned into a playground for buffoons."

1953

Thomas S. Roy, Grand Master.

Page 1953-63, 03/11/1953, on investigating committees.

"A recent occurrence is one of our newer Lodges prompts me to issue a word of warning. An applicant for the degrees was reported on favorably by the committee of investigation and elected to receive the degrees, in spite of the fact he had both court and jail records. Let me emphasize to you who are Masters that you cannot be too careful in appointing your investigating committees, and that you cannot exaggerate to them the importance of their work.

"A Brother is not compelled to accept appointment as a member of an investigating committee, but once having accepted appointment, he should be informed that he will be held personally accountable for the correctness of the information he secures. You who are Masters of Lodges must impress upon your committees the necessity of thoroughly investigating the applicant. One of the most important items of information that should be secured is this: regardless of his apparently blameless character, is the applicant the kind of person who, when he becomes a member, will use the ballot box to avenge himself on one personally objectionable to him. The success of Masonry is determined by the quality of men we take into our membership. We cannot be too careful in screening.

Page 1953-327, 12/09/1953, on installation ritual.

"It has come to my attention that at installation ceremonies the installation ritual provided by this Grand Lodge is being honored more in its breach than in its observance. I have never heard an improvised installation ritual that was any improvement either in content or wording on the Grand Lodge ritual, I would therefore urge that installing officers use the ritual provided, that installations preserve the dignity their importance deserves and not degenerate into a meaningless improvisation of sentimental drivel."

Page 1953-328, 12/09/1953, on liquor.

"Let me issue a word of warning to the Masters and Wardens on the conduct of their social affairs or ladies' nights. Quite recently I was told that the word was being passed that the Grand Master had no objection to the serving of alcoholic liquor on such occasions. Just for the sake of the record, let me say that what I might have said was that I did not consider that I had the right to forbid it. My personal attitude toward liquor is well known. It has never been served at any function of any organization over which I have presided. I have never known any party to be improved by it. Apparently some Masonic parties have been spoiled by it. I would therefore enjoin all responsible officers to see to it that any use of alcoholic beverages is in moderation, that we may indicate that we have learned that the first of our four cardinal virtues is Temperance."

Page 1953-328, 12/09/1953, on DeMolay.

"Not so long ago, in a district where I was visiting, the occasion of which I have forgotten, two members of DeMolay came to me to ask if there was anything I could do to arouse the interest of the Masons in their area in their Council. I said there was nothing I could do officially. However, I can say to you officers that I hope you will try to bring home to your members the importance of the work of DeMolay, and urge them to interest themselves in that work. A Council of DeMolay must be Masonically sponsored. The movement is one of the finest character-shaping forces in America today, and offers us an unparalleled opportunity to make our influence felt for the building of a better America. It may well be that the fame of Freemasonry in the years to come will rest to some degree upon its relationship to the influence of the Order of DeMolay."

1954

Whitfield W. Johnson, Grand Master.

Page 1954-26, 03/10/1954, on the use of Lodge funds and the Order of DeMolay.

"I was asked if a constituent Lodge could sponsor a Chapter of DeMolay, and if so, whether Lodge funds could be used in connection with such sponsorship.

"The Order of DeMolay was organized some thirty-five years ago in Kansas City, Missouri, and was introduced into Massachusetts in 1922 by our senior Past Grand Master, Most Wor. Melvin M. Johnson. He was actively in charge of DeMolay in Massachusetts from 1922 to 1931, and from 1931 to 1951, he was an Active Member-at-large of the Grand Council.

"Under the Grand Constitution, Statutes and Chapter Regulations of the Order of DeMolay, every Chapter requires a sponsoring body composed exclusively of Freemasons to supervise, guide and assist the Chapter. I believe some of the early Chapters were sponsored by constituent Lodges, but in 1930 Most Worshipful Herbert W. Dean ruled that Lodges could not sponsor DeMolay Chapters, nor could Lodges use Lodge funds for this purpose (Page 1930-336). The wording of the ruling is general, and did not specifically mention DeMolay by name, presumably in order to do as little harm to the Order as possible. After this ruling, new DeMolay Chapters were sponsored either by Royal Arch Chapters, Commanderies, Scottish Rite Bodies, Grottos, or by informal groups of Masons who were organized for the express purpose of sponsoring a DeMolay Chapter.

"The great value of the work of the Order of DeMolay has been recognized by most, and probably all, of our Grand Masters in recent years.

"At the Quarterly Communication of March 13, 1940, Most Worshipful Joseph Earl Perry concluded his address with these words:" Quotation from Page 1940-51 follows)

"In 1942, Most Worshipful Melvin M. Johnson stated at the Grand Masters' Conference in Washington:" (Quotation from Page 1942-64 follows)

"Most Worshipful Samuel H. Wragg had this to say with regard to the Order of DeMolay:" (Quotation from Page 1946-199 follows)

"In the remarks of both Most Worshipful Brother Perry and Most Worshipfl Brother Wragg it will be noted that the encouragement given to Masons to assist DeMolay was on an individual basis and not on the basis of Lodge sponsorship.

"The matter was discussed again by Most Worshipful Thomas S. Roy in June 1952, as follows:" (Quotation from Page 1952-186 follows)

"It seems clear to me that the Order of DeMolay during some thirty-five years of existence has established itself as the outstanding youth organization for character training, as the youth organization closer than all others to Masonry in spirit, purpose and principle, and as an agency through which the principles and tenets of Masonry can be effectively injected into the life-stream of our society. Although the Order of DeMolay is in no sense junior Masonry, it seems to me entirely proper for any Lodge which wishes to do so to become the official sponsoring body for a DeMolay Chapter, and if necessary, to assist the Chapter financially.

"RULING: USE OF LODGE FUNDS. It is my belief that this is the purpose used by Most Worshipful Brother Roy above referred to, but in order to remove any question as to the official position of Grand Lodge at this time, I now therefore rule that the language of that part of Most Worshipful Herbert Dean's address, appearing on pages 336 and 337 of the 1930 Proceedings of our Grand Lodge, is no longer applicable to a Chapter of the Order of DeMolay, but in all other respects his reference to the use of Lodge funds for the support of other non-Masonic organizations is hereby reaffirmed as an official Grand Masters' ruling.

"I further rule that a constituent Lodge under the jurisdiction of this Grand Lodge may become the sponsoring body for a Chapter of the Order of DeMolay (now officially called International Order of DeMolay) and the sponsoring of such a Chapter shall be deemed a proper Masonic purpose for the expenditure of any Lodge funds which such Lodge may wish to appropriate for such purpose; provided however, that notice of the proposal to become the sponsoring body for such a Chapter) and notice of a proposal to appropriate Lodge funds for such a purpose, shall be borne upon the official notice of the meeting at which such proposed action is to be taken.

"This brings up another question which has presented itself with regard to the use of Lodge funds. The ruling of Most Worshipful Brother Dean heretofore referred to (Page 1930-336) and a ruling of Most Worshipful Leon M. Abbott made in June 1917 (Page 1917-138) indicate clearly that the use of Lodge funds should be restricted to Masonic purposes. While the language of Most Worshipful Brother Abbott indicates that in his opinion Lodges have the legal right to use their funds to make donations to worthy organizations, such as the Red Cross, he stated, it would seem clear that Lodge funds should first be applied to the answering and supplying of those calls that come from Masonic sources. Since these two pronouncements on this subject, it has been considered that the base of Lodge funds must be restricted to Masonic purposes."

Page 1954-29, 03/10/1954, on scholarships.

"I have been asked whether or not a Lodge under our jurisdiction may properly use Lodge funds for the purpose of establishing an annual scholarship to be awarded by a committee of Past Masters to a high school student on the basis of a thesis submitted by a high school senior on a subject selected by the committee. Such a plan, highly desirable in and of itself, does not, in my opinion, have a sufficient Masonic purpose to justify the expenditure of Lodge funds. I therefore rule that the granting of an annual scholarship to be awarded to a high school student on the basis of a thesis submitted in competition with other students is not a Masonic purpose and that the use of Lodge funds for this purpose is therefore improper."

Page 1954-31, 03/10/1954, on the War Relief Fund.

"In 1917, Grand Lodge established the War Relief Fund for the purpose of providing assistance for those members of the Craft, or their dependents, who might become in need through the first World War. (Page 1942-31ff) In 1944 the provisions regarding this fund were enlarged to enable its use for the relief of Brethren who served in the great Wars of 1917 and 1941, and their dependents (Page 1944-171).

"We now have two needy cases among the veterans of the Korean War. It is the opinion of the Board of Relief, which is shared by Your Grand Master, that the beneficiaries for whom this fund may be used should be broadened.

"A motion will be presented at this session of Grand Lodge to broaden the scope of this fund so that it may be used for the relief of Brethren who have served or shall serve, in the Armed Forces of the United States, and their dependents, and it is my recommendation that Grand Lodge act favorably upon this motion."

At the Quarterly Communication of March 1954, the Board of Masonic Relief was authorized by vote to use the War Relief Fund at its discretion. (Page 1954-46)

Page 1954-32, 03/10/1954, on door prizes and lotteries.

"The question of raffles, door prizes, lotteries, etc. seems to arise constantly for the consideration of Grand Masters. The matter was fully discussed in 1939 by Most Worshipful Joseph Earl Perry, who stated:

"Much has been written by Grand Masters of this and other jurisdictions about gambling. Their disapproval and that of the Craft has been unanimous. There is, however, a twilight zone in which are found many activities that fall short of gambling and that even partake of entertainment and voluntary charity but which find their final excuse for existence solely in the element of a chance to get pecuniary value for nothing.

"To ask a Grand Master to be constantly acting as censor of these borderline cases is unfair to him and bad for the Craft, for every such decision prompts some criticism and misunderstanding, and comparison with other decisions; and the cumulative effect is to spread dissension and weaken the solidarity of our Fraternity.

"After more than a year of such experiences I can discern no halfway stopping point, no safe basis for discretion. Any arbitrary frontier merely creates a new series of borderline problems, precedents, comparisons, injustices, dissatisfactions. Any decision by a single individual whatever his position or however much he may consult with others still leaves the suspicion of conscious, or unconscious, personal bias.

"For the benefit of the entire Fraternity, therefore, I now ask this Grand Lodge as a legislative body to enact a law for its own government on this troublesome subject. (Page 1939-85ff)

"Pursuant to the recommendation of Most Worshipful Brother Perry, Grand Lodge adopted the following resolution by unanimous vote:

"Resolved: that it is inconsistent with the professions and purposes of Freemasonry for any Masonic Body to promote, participate in, or profit by any lottery game of chance, door prize, or other device or activity whereby the individual participant may be able, through the element of luck or chance, to win a greater value than he pays, and each Masonic Body within the jurisdiction of this Grand Lodge is hereby enjoined to observe the letter and the spirit of this Resolution, and

"Be it further resolved that all so-called collateral bodies, clubs, or other organizations in Massachusetts, whose membership is related to or dependent on Masonic membership, or which in the public mind are likely to be regarded as Masonic organizations, are requested, and all individual Masons owing allegiance to this Grand Lodge are enjoined to respect the purpose of this Resolution. (Page 1939-105)

"Most Worshipful Thomas S. Roy reminded Grand Lodge at the Quarterly Communication of June, 1951 of this resolution and added:

"There can be no mistake in the meaning of this resolution. That word "enjoin" virtually means to prohibit, which means that every form of gambling is prohibited in Masonic bodies. This resolution has been disregarded both by letter and spirit. I am embarrassed in speaking about it because it may be thought that my profession inspires my condemnation of gambling. Believe me Brethren, I am interested only in preserving the good name of Freemasonry, which cannot remain good with any taint of gambling upon it. In every problem, social or moral or political, we occupy one of two positions. We are either part of the problem or part of the solution. If we insist upon trying to profit from gambling of any sort, then we are part of the problem. If we have no part nor lot in it, then we are part of the solution. By this action taken over twelve years ago, which I reaffirm today, the Grand Lodge of Masons in Massachusetts proclaims that it is, part of the solution. (Page 1951-141)

"I have been asked with regard to the app1idability of a resolution to two proposals.

"One proposal is to give a valuable watch, to be contributed by a member of a Lodge, to the lady who happens to hold the lucky dinner ticket at a Ladies Night banquet.

"The other proposal is to award a valuable prize to the person who happens to make a subscription to an admittedly worthy cause on the lucky subscription blank.

"In each instance the opportunity to participate would be confined to the members of the sponsoring Lodge or group.

"I have carefully considered these proposals, both from the point of view of their legality or illegality under the law of the Commonwealth and from the point of view of their propriety under established practices of our Masonic Law. I have sought for and received the advice of those who I felt were best qualified to advise me.

"In both of these instances, the awarding of the prize was deemed to constitute an inducement to the Brethren to buy dinner tickets in the one case and to make a contribution in the other case. The proposals were both made in the expectation that the offering of the prize to the holder of the lucky ticket or subscription blank would result in the sale of more tickets and in the making of more subscriptions than would be otherwise possible.

"It has been pointed out to me that both of these proposals are used by other responsible organizations with impunity. I believe that I only need to point out that in Masonry one of our fundamental teachings is obedience to civil law. We do not place ourselves above the law, but subject to it. We cannot, consistent with our principles, determine what laws we shall obey and what laws we shall violate. Other organizations may evade or violate the laws of our Commonwealth on the ground that the end justifies the means and that the laws will therefore not be enforced against them. But Masonry will have none of this!

"Without going into a lengthy discussion of either aspect, and in full appreciation of the fact that there are many who would not feel that either of these proposals constitutes a lottery or raffle in the ordinary sense, I am satisfied that both proposals are illegal and both violate the spirit and the letter of what has become accepted Masonic Law in this jurisdiction. I therefore rule that they fall within the proscribed practices."

Page 1954-89, 06/09/1954, on chain letters.

"The chain letter is again with us. This time it purports to be confined to members of the Craft. My predecessors have repeatedly regretted the necessity of warning the Craft against such letters. Grand Masters in other jurisdictions which I have visited during the last six months have felt obliged to warn the Craft to destroy any such letters that come into their hands.

"In 1916 Most Worshipful Melvin M. Johnson referred to the unwritten law that no attention should be paid to chain letters (Page 1916-17). Most Worshipful Leon M. Abbott referred to chain letters as being un-Masonic and prohibited in this jurisdiction (Page 1917-30). Most of the subsequent Grand Masters have had occasion to condemn such letters and have urged the Craft to ignore any that come into their possession.

"The necessity of constant repetition seems to be a reflection upon the intelligence of the Craft, but since the matter has been officially brought to my attention, I feel constrained to add my word of admonition to those of my predecessors.

"Although I do not so rule at this time, I express the opinion that it is conduct unbecoming a Mason and therefore a Masonic offense subject to Masonic discipline for a member of the Craft to send to another member of the Craft a chain letter which contains any Masonic reference and purports to bring good fortune to those who perpetuate the chain and misfortune to those who break it."

Page 1954-90, 06/09/1954, on residence and jurisdiction.

"I have been asked whether or not a Massachusetts Lodge has jurisdiction to confer the degrees upon an applicant having a residence outside of Massachusetts as well as a residence within the jurisdiction of the Massachusetts Lodge.

"The distinction between residence and legal domicile is well defined. The difficulty arises, however, when it becomes necessary to determine whether the word residence as used in a specific case means mere residence or whether it means legal domicile. A man may have several residences, but he can have only one legal domicile. In our state Statutes, the word residence has sometimes been construed to mean mere residence, and sometimes to mean legal domicile, depending upon the subject matter of the Statute.

Section 405 of the Grand Constitutions prohibits a Lodge from balloting upon a candidate residing in any other recognized jurisdiction . . . without the written permission of the Grand Master of such jurisdiction. Section 403 requires a candidate to apply for the degrees in a Lodge having jurisdiction over the municipality in which the petitioner has last acquired a Masonic residence.

"Our Masonic law in Massachusetts on this question is governed by a committee report accepted by vote of Grand Lodge at the Quarterly Communication in September 1889, in which the committee squarely decided that the word residence in questions of Masonic jurisdiction means legal domicile (1889-112ff). Upon the adoption of this committee report and its recommendations this became Grand Lodge legislation. In 1910 Most Worshipful Dana J. Flanders stated that the practice of this Grand Lodge has been that a man's Masonic residence must coincide with his legal residence (1910-191).

"RULING: I therefore rule that a Lodge does not have jurisdiction to confer the degrees on an applicant who has a residence within the territorial jurisdiction of the Lodge unless such residence constitutes the applicants legal domicile.

"As to the specific facts of the case in question, I am informed that the applicant owns a home in a New Hampshire town bordering on Massachusetts where his wife and son live; that he has a business in Haverhill and an office in Boston; that his residence in Massachusetts is a room in a private home in a Boston suburb which he pays for by the week; that he does not have any of his own furniture there; that this room is maintained as a convenience in connection with carrying on business in Massachusetts; and that he files his personal Federal income tax in New Hampshire and probably votes there.

"On these facts it seems conclusive that his legal domicile is in New Hampshire and not in Massachusetts."

Page 1954-91, 06/09/1954, on class lodges.

"The action which I have already taken in granted a dispensation for the institution of Realty Lodge and several problems now before me awaiting solution, induce me to take this occasion to make some observations on the question of Lodges whose membership, either by charter limitation, by-law requirement, or practice, is limited to members of certain groups. Such Lodges in Masonic parlance are called class Lodges.

"In one sense, all Lodges with territorial jurisdiction are class Lodges, because their right to confer the degrees is limited to those whose legal domicile is within their territorial jurisdiction. But the class Lodges to which I refer are those Lodges whose membership is limited by other considerations than by place of domicile.

"Our Grand Lodge is committed to the principle of class Lodges. We have three so-called college Lodges, the charter jurisdiction of which is not territorial, but institutional. The jurisdiction of these Lodges to confer the degrees is limited by the Grand Constitutions to officers, instructors, students, alumni or employees of the institution named in the charter. My own Lodge is such a Lodge.

"There are also Lodges having regular territorial jurisdiction but which have a class membership either by the requirements of their by-laws or by custom. Thus we have a Lodge whose by-laws restrict membership to those on the active, retired or reserve lists of the various branches of the Armed Forces. We have a so-called daylight Lodge whose membership is largely composed of those who are connected with the theatrical or entertainment profession and who thus are required to meet in the afternoon. We have another lodge whose membership is primarily restricted to members of the newspaper profession.

"We have other Lodges whose membership is entirely or largely limited to members of certain racial groups; for example, there is a German Lodge, an Italian Lodge, and a number of Jewish Lodges. We also have Lodges whose membership is entirely or largely limited to members of certain religious faiths, such as Lodges in which the predominating faith is Christianity and others in which the predominating faith is Judaism.

"Then there are Lodges which because they are either very large or very small tend to limit their membership to relatives of present or former members. They are therefore in effect class Lodges. There are also Lodges whose membership is largely limited to certain economic groups because of the fees, dues and other financial obligations imposed by the Lodge. These are also in effect class Lodges.

"Class Lodges have a particular significance in a metropolitan area, because the class interest tends to furnish a cohesive influence in the Lodge that is likely to be missing in other large metropolitan Lodges. In fact, it tends to furnish a substitute for that close spirit of fellowship and cohesion which is characteristic of Lodges in the smaller communities where every member feels closely affiliated with every other member not only in the Lodge but in the community life.

"I regard a Lodge as analogous to a family group which, within reasonable limitations, is justified in determining whom it will and whom it will not take into the bosom of its family life. This does not imply that if for any reason you do not wish to take me into the close family fellowship of your Lodge I am therefore not worthy to become a Mason; nor does it imply that there is not some other Lodge which would gladly extend to me the privilege of membership. It most certainly does not imply that when I have become a member of the Craft we will not share our Masonic fellowship with each other or that we will not treat each other with all the courtesy and consideration due to those who have knelt at the altar and have bound themselves to a way of life which teaches us to rejoice in each other's welfare and prosperity as our own. It is our common membership in the Craft, and not necessarily our common membership in the same Lodge which conciliates true friendship among those who might otherwise have remained at a perpetual distance. The fact that I might prefer to join your Lodge because your Lodge has more money in its treasury, because it is smaller, is larger, is composed of people in my own income, business or social group, or because of any other reason, does not in and of itself entitled me as a matter of right to come into your particular Lodge even though we both are worthy to share the Masonic fellowship.

"But these broad considerations must be balanced by a recognition of the Masonic spirit of universal brotherhood which should lead us all to strive to make it possible for every worthy applicant who is desirous of enlisting under our banner of universal brotherhood to have the opportunity to do so. This is particularly important where there is only one Lodge in a community. A Lodge having an exclusive territorial jurisdiction should feel a Masonic obligation to see that every worthy applicant within its jurisdiction shall have an opportunity to join our Craft. Lodges with exclusive jurisdiction are usually located in small communities where the feeling of community spirit and cohesion will tend to make it possible for the Lodge to welcome every worthy applicant into its Masonic family.

"However, if a Lodge which enjoys an exclusive jurisdiction, after careful consideration, consciously wishes to become a class Lodge and limit its membership to any given group, the Lodge should surrender its exclusive jurisdiction and welcome the organization within its jurisdiction of another Lodge not limited to any one group in order that the community might be adequately served Masonically.

"The same principle applies in large communities where several Lodges share jurisdiction. Such Lodges should jointly and severally feel a Masonic obligation to see that every worthy applicant shall have an opportunity to become a Mason in one or another of the Lodges which share jurisdiction over the applicant. If one or more of such Lodges consciously wish to become a class Lodge, there should be no criticism or objection as long as every worthy applicant within their joint jurisdiction has an opportunity to join one Lodge or another. But if all of the Lodges which share concurrent jurisdiction wish to become class Lodges and limit their membership to certain groups to the exclusion of others, all should volunteer to share their jurisdiction within a new Lodge not wishing to so limit its membership.

"What has been said is equally applicable to class Lodges which limit their membership to certain groups within the class group, whether this limitation is based on economic standing, family relationship or otherwise. This practice, in my opinion, is not subject to criticism provided it does not in effect leave a worthy applicant in a position where there is no Lodge reasonably available to him. If all Lodges in a given class group so limit their membership to certain sub-groups, to the exclusion of worthy applicants in the main class group, all of the Lodges which in effect share the class group jurisdiction jointly should volunteer to share this jurisdiction with another Lodge which will not confine its membership to any given sub-group.

"I have shared with you my thoughts about class Lodges. I do not expect all to agree with me. There may be a fundamental fallacy in my premise, or in my reasoning from my stated premise. One can never be absolutely sure of the soundness of his own point of view, but since the solution of some problems now before me will depend upon straight and clean-cut thinking on these matters, I consider it proper that my present attitude be expressed as clearly as it is possible for me to formulate it into words."

Page 1954-183, 12/08/1954, on Lodges of Instruction.

"I call particular attention to the last portion of Section 313 of the Grand Constitutions, which provides that no Lodge shall hold a special meeting on the same day on which the Lodge of Instruction of its District has been scheduled to meet without dispensation of the Grand Master.

"This provision was inserted into the 1953 revision of our Grand Constitutions, and it has come to my attention on two separate occasions recently that Masters of the Lodges are not yet fully aware of the fact that this provision is now part of our statutory law.'

1955

Whitfield W. Johnson, Grand Master.

Page 1955-43, 03/09/1955, on Veteran Past Master's Certificates.

"It has come to my attention that a very few of our Lodges have among their Past Masters one who has been a Past Master for fifty or more years. When the matter was first brought to my attention it was suggested that Grand Lodge might like to take some recognition of a half century of service to the Lodge as a Past Master. The suggestion struck a responsive chord, and as a result a beautifully hand engrossed and illuminated certificate or scroll was designed for presentation in recognition of a half century of service as a Past Master. Presentation has been made in most cases by the District Deputy Grand Master in open Lodge with a suitable ceremony. In at least one instance it was necessary for the presentation to be made at the home of the Past Master because of his inability to attend Lodge."

Eleven Veteran Brothers were listed in the Proceedings.

"There may be other Veteran Past Masters whose names have not been called to my attention, and as time goes on others will attain that venerable status. I hope that the Lodges will call the Grand Master's attention to every Past Master who was installed as Master fifty or more years ago so that this long service can be recognized."

This became a regular feature in the Proceedings during 1955; for example, another list appears on Page 1955-145, at the June Quarterly Communication.

Page 1955-145, 06/08/1955, on Sunday meetings.

"While there is no provision in Sections 312 or 313, or elsewhere for that matter, in the Grand Constitutions which prohibits Lodge meetings on Sunday, nevertheless it has been generally assumed that there are only two purposes for which Lodge meetings should be held on Sunday; namely, (1) to attend Divine Worship, and (2) to conduct a funeral or memorial service for a deceased Brother. While there may be some other occasion which would justify the holding of a Lodge meeting on Sunday, no such reason comes to my mind. I am sure that the Craft would in general agree that meetings for degree work are out of place on Sunday, not because our Degrees are in any way inconsistent with the spirit of the day, but because Sundays should be reserved as the one day which our members should be free to devote to their religious and family obligations, without any encroachment from Masonic obligations. It recently came to my attention on a Friday that one of our Lodges had called a special meeting for degree work to be held the following Sunday. Despite the serious inconvenience and embarrassment which I realized would be involved in a last minute shift of plans, I felt that the matter was of such importance that I requested the Master to cancel the proposed Sunday meeting. I am happy to say that he readily complied, although he expressed some surprise that there was an objection to Sunday meetings, particularly where it seemed to meet the convenience of the officers. In order to prevent any possible misunderstanding in the future, I feel that the Matter should be covered by a formal ruling.

RULING

I hereby rule that no Lodge shall hold a meeting for the conferring of a Degree on a Sunday, but this ruling shall not preclude the opening of a Lodge on a Sunday for the purpose of attending Divine Worship, conducting a funeral or memorial service for a deceased Brother, or for such other purpose as the Grand Master may specifically authorize.

Page 1955-231, 09/14/1955, on modification to the ritual.

The Grand Master noted that there was a new edition of the ciphers to be released, and made a recommendation regarding changes to the Master Mason Degree.

"In our standard work there is no provision made for a so-called short form of the Master Mason Degree. The short form in common usage for many years was considered by many to be too inadequate. My predecessor, Most Worshipful Thomas Sherrard Roy, prepared and submitted to the Craft in cipher a short form which he felt contained the minimum essentials of the standard work. He included for trial purposes two additions which were never a part of the Standard Work. Three raps were inserted for the Worshipful Master to call up the Craft during the invocation at the beginning of the second section, and one rap was inserted to seat the Lodge after the invocation. There was also inserted some words instruction for the three Craftsmen in the second section (to address the candidate with their respective working tools in their hands). However, these changes are as equally applicable to the long form as to the short form, and if they are to be adopted, the official standard work should be amended accordingly so that the official work and the cipher may be brought into conformity.

"So far as I have been able to learn, it is universally agreed that it is better always to call up the Lodge during the invocation. Accordingly, I recommend to Grand Lodge that the standard work be amended by inserting the necessary raps by the Master to call up the Lodge before, and to seat the Lodge after, the invocation."

This change was endorsed by vote of the Grand Lodge on Page 1955-249.

On the other noted change, the Grand Master noted that a divergence of opinion was present, and determined that he did not wish to make what he called "piecemeal recommendations" to change the standard work.

Page 1955-234, 09/14/1955, on Masonic law, demits and certificates of clearance. (SCC p. 208)

"In my address at the March 1954 Communication of Grand Lodge, I pointed out that our body of Masonic law is derived from the Ancient Landmarks, from the customs of the Craft which have been so long established that they have become Masonic common law, from Grand Lodge legislation embodied in the Grand Lodge Constitutions, committee reports adopted by Grand Lodge and the rulings, decisions, edicts and interpretations made by Grand Masters. I pointed out that I would clearly indicate such rulings as I should make and would include them in my quarterly addresses to Grand Lodge so that they might be published and indexed as such for the information of the Craft.

"I have noticed with increasing frequency the use of the word directive in connection with Grand Lodge matters. However, the term "directive" has no place in the terminology of our Masonic jurisprudence. It is a word that has come into use within the last twenty-five years in connection with the rapidly expanding administrative agencies of the Federal Government. Rulings issued by a Grand Master in the nature of general orders governing matters of administration are properly termed edicts.

"Upon the recommendation of the Grand Secretary, and after carefully considering the reasons advanced by him, I have issued certain edicts in connection with the issuance of Demits, Certificates of Clearance, and Certificates of Good Standing; and in connection with securing certain official information before balloting upon applications for membership by affiliation. The basis reason underlying the issuance of these edicts is for the purpose of insuring accuracy in the Masonic records of the members of our Craft and of making these accurate membership records available for the guidance of Lodges who are acting upon applications for affiliation. These edicts, or rulings as they are generally called, have exactly the same validity as Grand Lodge legislation until they are superseded. These rulings are:

RULINGS

1. No Demit or Certificate of Clearance hereafter issued pursuant to the provisions of Sections 505 or 507 of the Grand Constitutions shall be valid unless the Masonic record of the Brother named therein has been entered thereon and has been certified by the Grand Secretary under the seal of the Grand Lodge.
2. No Certificate of Good Standing hereafter issued pursuant to the provisions of Section 507 of the Grand Constitutions shall be valid until the Masonic record of the Brother named therein has been entered thereon and has been certified by the Grand Secretary under the seal of the Grand Lodge.
3. No application for affiliation under the provisions of Section 423 of the Grand Constitutions shall hereafter be balloted upon until the Lodge shall have secured a certified copy of the Masonic record of the applicant over the signature of the Grand Secretary which certified copy shall be retained with the application and the report of the investigating committee in the files of the Lodge.

1956-1965

1956

Whitfield W. Johnson, Grand Master.

Page 1956-115, 03/14/1956, on the Masonic Inspiration newsletter and what can be sent with Lodge notices.

"In my December address I called attention to the fact that the pamphlet entitled Masonic Inspiration, which was being rather widely mailed to our Massachusetts Masons with the Lodge notices had changed considerably in context from previous issues. I pointed out that although no permission had ever been given by the Grand Master authorizing the insertion of this pamphlet with the Lodge notices, I had taken no affirmative action to prevent its being mailed with the notice.

"However, serious question was raised with regard to some material which was published in the December issue, and in view of the fact that the January issue contained more of the same type of material, in my December address I reluctantly requested the Lodges not to mail out the January issue with their January Lodge notices. The Masters and Secretaries of the Lodges were so notified by letter. A few Lodges which meet early in the month had already sent out their January notices and were therefore unable to comply with this request. I pointed out that this request would apply only to the January issue unless the Lodges were further advised, since I had been assured by the editor that he was going to get back to his original concept of the type of material which would be published. I find, however, from the February and March issues that he is continuing to use the pamphlet to arouse Masonic sentiment to combat a political situation in Spain involving the arrest of some Masons who are Spanish Nationals. I am therefore reluctantly obliged to require the Lodges to comply with the long-established precedent which strictly confines the Lodge notices, and material mailed with the Lodge notices, to official Lodge business except as otherwise specifically approved by the Grand Master.

"It is not my intention in any way to censor what the editor writes in his publication. Any Massachusetts Mason who wishes to subscribe to this publication on an individual basis and to receive it directly from the publisher is privileged to do so. The difficulty, however, is that when it is inserted in the same envelope with the official Lodge notice, it may properly be inferred that its contents bear the official approval not only of the Lodge, but of the Grand Lodge.

"I realize that the March issue has already been mailed. I hope that this comes in time to prevent the mailing of the April issue. No subsequent issues may be mailed until specific authorization has been given by the Grand Master."

In June, 1956, the Grand Master revisited the subject, on Page 1956-217:

"I regret the necessity of again referring to this subject. You will recall that I have previously issued an edict prohibiting the mailing of this bulletin with the monthly Lodge notices. Copies of a circular being currently mailed by the editor to the Masters and Secretaries of our Massachusetts Lodges may no longer send out the bulletin with the monthly notices, the Lodges should order copies for distribution at meetings, ask members to subscribe individually or appoint a Brother to handle orders. The bulletin offers to pay a commission of fifty cents on each annual subscription sold at two dollars. I have been asked whether my edict previously issued would prevent a Lodge from adopting one of these alternative suggestions.

"This publication has no official or quasi-official Masonic status despite the fact that the word Masonic appears on its mast head. It stands on the same basis as any other of the many publications available to all who wish to subscribe.

"The reasons which impelled me to invoke the long-established law against including unofficial matter in the monthly notice are equally valid to impel me to withhold permission for Lodges to distribute the bulletin at Lodge meetings, either by passing them around at the meeting or leaving them on a table in the ante-room to be picked up by the members. By permitting such distribution, an inference might justifiably be drawn that the Lodge, and possibly Grand Lodge, assumed responsibility for the material therein contained.

"I am not presently called upon to rule whether a Mason who solicits subscriptions to this bulletin or otherwise assists in its distribution within the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, is guilty of a Masonic offense under Section 706 of our Grand Constitutions. However, I will not hesitate to make a ruling on this question if and when any specific case of such solicitation or assistance is officially brought to my attention.

"No question of censorship or suppression of this publication is involved. Anyone, Mason or non-Mason alike, is perfectly at liberty to read this bulletin. If he wishes to subscribe to it, it is as much his privilege to do so through regular business channels as it is to subscribe to any of the many other publications in which he may have a particular interest. Our Grand Lodge does not in any way attempt to dictate its policy or censor its contents. However, it is my duty to take such action as to me seems necessary to avoid, as far as is possible, any inference that the contents of this publication bear the official or unofficial approval of Grand Lodge or of any of its constituent Lodges. This I have done and this I will continue to do so far as is necessary. But I hope that this is the last time that a Grand Master of Masons in Massachusetts will find it necessary to refer to this matter. The position of our Grand Lodge should be crystal clear to all who are willing to understand. I respectfully request that all Massachusetts Masons try to see how faithfully the spirit of our position can be supported, rather than to try to see how resourcefully it can be subverted."

Page 1956-167, 06/13/1956, on By-Laws.

The Grand Master presented a problem relating to the By-Laws of Simon W. Robinson Lodge, and made a ruling regarding by-laws of particular Lodges. This bears upon a decision made in 1926 by Most Wor. Frank L. Simpson and one made during the administration of Most Wor. Samuel H. Wragg. The Lodge had an explicit By-Law regarding the consent of two-thirds of all members to all changes (rather than two-thirds of the members present); when adopted, the Lodge had 86 members and now had nearly seven hundred, with only 425 residing in Lexington.

". . . There is an inherent right in every Lodge to adopt, amend, or repeal its own by-laws subject only to the Ancient Landmarks, the common law of the Craft, Grand Masters' Rulings, and the provisions of the Grand Constitutions and Regulations and other Grand Lodge legislation binding on all Lodges within the jurisdiction . . . [but] any by-law which purports to prevent a Lodge from acting otherwise lawfully upon the amendment or repeal of its own by-laws or other legislation must, therefore, be inherently invalid, whether the prohibition is imposed by express words of limitation or by conditions impossible of fulfillment.

"The by-law in question in actual practice prevents the Lodge from acting upon a proposal to amend or repeal its own by-laws by setting up conditions impossible of fulfillment. The fact that these conditions were possible of fulfillment when the by-law was adopted is of no consequence in determining the validity of the by-law under present conditions. While giving due consideration to the lofty motives which prompted the Brethren in 1890 to impose these restrictions, despite the inherent sanctity of by-law provisions relative to Charity Funds, and with the utmost respect for the acknowledged legal abilities of Most Wor. Frank L. Simpson, nevertheless, in ruling on this matter I must be guided by the motto of our Grand Lodge engraved on our official seal, I must Follow Reason.

"RULING AS TO BY-LAWS. Accordingly I hereby rule as follows:

1. Any provision in the by-laws of a Lodge which by express limitation precludes the Lodge from acting otherwise lawfully upon the amendment or repeal of any provision of its by-laws or other legislation is invalid and void.
2. Any provision in the by-laws of a Lodge which imposes a condition which in actual practice precludes a Lodge from acting otherwise lawfully upon the amendment or repeal of any provision of its by-laws or other legislation, may be declared by the Grand Master to be void and no longer binding upon the Lodge upon an affirmative finding and determination by the Grand Master of the existence of such condition.
3. I find and determine that in actual practice it would be impossible for Simon W. Robinson to assemble two-thirds of the entire membership of the Lodge at a meeting for the purpose of taking action upon Article VII of its by-laws, and I therefore declare to be void and no longer binding upon the Lodge that portion of the Section 3 of Article X of its by-laws which reads as follows: provided, however, that any proposition to amend or repeal Article VII, relating to the Charity Fund, or this provision, shall not be adopted except by the consent of two-thirds of the members of the Lodge."

"APPLICABILITY TO OTHER CASES. It occurs to me that other Lodges might find similar provisions and limitations in their own by-laws. I know specifically of one other Lodge having an identical by-law which leads me to believe that perhaps in the latter part of the last century this might have been a standard provision.

"Any Lodge seeking relief under this Ruling should furnish the Grand Master with such factual information as may be necessary to enable him to determine whether or not in actual practice the limitations in the by-laws of the Lodge in question are or are not capable of fulfillment.

"In granting relief under this Ruling, the Grand Master by implication neither endorses nor signifies approval of the proposed action of the Lodge. All that the Grand Master does is to make it possible for the Lodge to exercise its inherent right to act under its own by-laws upon the proposed amendment or repeal, subject only to the Ancient Landmarks, the Common Law of the Craft, Grand Masters' Rulings, and the provisions of the Grand Constitutions and Regulations and other Grand Lodge legislation binding on all Lodges within the jurisdiction."

Page 1956-169, 06/13/1956, on exemplifications.

"Exemplifications have now been held in all of the Districts under the direction of one of the four members of the Board of Grand Lecturers. You will recall that on several occasions I have emphasized the fact the Grand Lecturers have been instructed to coordinate the teaching of the ritual and the floor work in such a way as to achieve substantial uniformity throughout the jurisdiction. (Pages 1954-37, 1954-119). I am very happy that the Craft has graciously responded to this type of instruction, but what is even more gratifying is the fact that Lodge officers have sensed a new atmosphere at these exemplifications. They have sensed that they were present at the exemplifications not so much to be tested and examined, as to be instructed and helped, in the performance of their duties. I wish to express my appreciation to the Grand Lecturers for so successfully interpreting my attitude as to the function of these exemplifications. What we are all striving for is to find the best possible way to do what we all want to do in the best way possible.

"Our system of obligatory exemplifications came into being as a result of a recommendation made in 1895 by Most Worshipful Edwin B. Holmes (Page 1895-303), which was adopted by Grand Lodge the following year. (Page 1896-32). I quote from the committee report recommending the district exemplifications as follows:

"These Exemplifications are schools of instruction and not only give the officers and opportunity to hear the correct ritual, but also to witness the established observances as recommended by the Grand Lodge. By this method all the Lodges will have the same instruction and will witness the same ceremonies. If officers of Lodges are permitted to make innovations in the established regulations, and to introduce ceremonies of their own, the time will soon come when there will be as great a variance as there is now between different Grand Jurisdictions.

"These words are as sound today as they were sixty years ago when they were written.

"As a result of the exemplifications this year, a number of suggestions have been brought to my attention. Some of the suggestions have originated with the Grand Lecturers, some have been made by the District Deputies, some have come from officers of Lodges, and some have been made by interested Brethren.

"Under our present system the Master Mason Degree is exemplified one year and the Entered Apprentice and Fellow Craft Degrees the following year. It has been suggested with considerable merit that the officers would prefer to have instruction in all three Degrees every year and that an unofficial exemplification could be held once a year to cover the work not being officially exemplified that year. Demonstrations of the work by the Grand Lecturers and a specially trained degree team in various areas of the jurisdiction might well supply this need. I suggest that Lodge Officers wishing to have this additional instruction, either by way of a demonstration or by means of an unofficial exemplification, might request their District Deputy to make necessary arrangements with one of the Grand Lecturers. If on a voluntary basis this proves to be helpful, it might well develop into something more formal."

Page 1956-171, 06/13/1956, on costumes.

"I am reluctant to take official notice of the fact that certain Lodges are using costumes for the Fellow Crafts in the second section of the Master Mason Degree.. However, if the custom goes unnoticed, it might be assumed to have been approved. A situation has recently been called to my attention where the entire Degree Team was dressed in elaborate costumes.

"The law of our jurisdiction was established sixty years ago. The committee report on which this action was based said in part:

"... as a general thing, the costuming destroys that beautiful and impressive simplicity, which has been not only the peculiar characteristic but also the strength of Masonic work. It places in the background the elevating lessons of the ritual, and gives the prominent place, with its lasting impressions, to what is usually undignified and often burlesque, In conclusion we would suggest that in an institution whose precepts are transmitted as are ours, it should al. ways be a cardinal principle to endeavor to inculcate the moral precepts, rather than to exhibit our dramatic abilities, to appeal to the higher nature rather than to the love for the spectacular, to cultivate the substantial, rather than the superficial, elements and possibilities of our work. And, finally, we should strive to cultivate that impressive and intelligent simplicity, which is always the most appropriate vesture for such truths as our ritual is designed to teach.... We therefore recommend the adoption by this Grand Lodge of the recommendation made by the Grand Master on this subject: 'That the Grand Lodge order the discontinuance in this jurisdiction of the costuming of the Fellow Crafts.' (Page 1896-108)

"Until this law of our jurisdiction is altered or repealed, it should be observed. This law is equally applicable to any other officers or members of a Degree Team."

Page 1956-172, 06/13/1956, on the use of a stereopticon lantern.

This ruling reinforces an 1895 ruling by Grand Master Holmes, above. It also appears in the Grand Constitutions (1953 ed., Section 333).

"A stereopticon lantern and slides to illustrate the lecture in the Fellow Craft and Master Mason Degrees is apparently still being used by some Lodges although this has also been prohibited in our Grand Lodge for over sixty years.

"The resolution, as adopted by Grand Lodge and which was incorporated in Section 333 of the 1953 revision of our Grand Constitutions, is as follows:

"Resolved, that the use of the stereopticon, or other devices not in general use of the work and lecturers of the degrees, is hereby prohibited as contrary to the ancient usages and customs of the Fraternity in this Grand Jurisdiction. (Page 1896-32)

"I trust that Lodges which are still using the stereopticon may find it possible to adopt some other method of illustrating the lectures."

Page 1956-219, 09/12/1956, on gifts to Past Masters.

"Evidence continues to be presented to me of the disfavor which is incurred among many of the Brethren of the Lodges which have adopted the practice of soliciting the Lodge members year after year for contributions to be presented either in the form of a purse or a gift to the outgoing Master at the end of his term of office. A year ago after seeking the advice of several Brethren whose opinion I respect, I addressed a letter to all Masters, in which I outlined the problem and the attendant unfortunate implications of such a practice. I pointed out that it was the kind of thing that Grand Lodge or a Grand Master would be reluctant to forbid; but yet, in view of the many complaints that reached the Grand Master as a result of these practices, it is obvious that it is a matter that Grand Lodge could not completely ignore.

"Under our present law there is nothing illegal in this practice. But there are many things which, although not illegal, are in bad taste.

"As I pointed out a year ago in my letter to the Masters, while some official action may eventually be necessary, it would seem obviously much more appropriate if the practice could be kept under suitable control and be voluntarily cut down to proper proportions.

"It has of course been traditional that a Master be presented with a Past Master's Apron or a Past Master's Jewel, or possibly both, upon the completion of his term of office, but an Apron and a Jewel need not run into any great amount of money. In some Lodges it is customary for the line officers who serve with the Master to present him with some inexpensive memento of their association. So long as such a gift is sufficiently modest, this practice should not be considered to be objectionable.

"The privilege of serving a Lodge as its Master should be its own reward and any gift which appears to be in the nature of compensation for this service is entirely inconsistent with this concept. There are some things in life which money cannot purchase. One of these things is the privilege of serving as Master of a Lodge. There are other things in life which could not be possibly compensated for in money or things of monetary value, such as the service which a Master should give to his Lodge. The presentation of a purse of money or an expensive gift to the Master year after year looks too much like attaching compensation to the office. In fact, it cheapens the office by seemingly placing a monetary value upon the Master's services.

"It has been suggested that some legislation may become necessary to clarify this particular issue, but before approaching this problem legalistically, I should like to request that the officers of the Lodges in which this practice prevails make an effort to have the practice discontinued voluntarily as a matter of good taste."

Page 1956-398, 12/12/1956, on balloting.

"I have been concerned about the future of two lodges in which the improper use of the ballot has come to my attention. Under the provisions of Section 413 of our Grand Constitutions, casting a black cube factiously and without just cause is a Masonic offense, for which a member is subject to Masonic punishment. The word factious is defined as meaning addicted to raising dissension. For purposes of this discussion, I am sub-dividing factious balloting into three classifications which I shall call vindictive balloting, discriminatory balloting, and retaliatory balloting.

"By vindictive balloting I refer to the use of the ballot to square a personal grudge against a worthy applicant. Happily, this does not often occur, and when it does, the member casting the black cube is usually known and can be made to see the evil of his vindictive attitude. Such use of the ballot is entirely unworthy of a Mason. Where it is established, it will subject the guilty member to Masonic discipline and to the contempt of his fellow members.

"Discriminatory balloting is a more common and difficult problem to deal with. The word discriminatory is here used in its more common meaning of making an unfair and injurious distinction. The most common manifestation of discriminatory balloting is in the rejection of applicants of a different economic, social or racial group than most of the members of the Lodge. Discriminatory balloting is un-Masonic and evidences a narrow and bigoted attitude which we as Masons try to overcome by our philosophy and teachings, but it seldom evidences a malicious or malevolent attitude. However, in any event, it should be condemned and not condoned.

"Retaliatory balloting is, in my opinion, the most reprehensible type of factious balloting. It is indulged in on the false theory that two wrongs make a right. By its very nature it involves maliciousness and malevolence, because its practitioners say in effect that until applicants whom they sponsor are allowed to pass the ballot box, no other applicant, regardless of how worthy he is, will be permitted to do so. Thus a Lodge stagnates and soon no applicant would have the courage to apply to the Lodge for the degrees.

"When this evil disease breaks out in a Lodge, it is primarily the Lodge and the Craft at large that are being harmed and not the candidate asking admission, serious though it may be to him. The profane has no right to be elected to receive the Masonic degrees in any particular Lodge. Therefore when an applicant is rejected it is not a denial of an inherent right to the applicant, nor does it constitute a wrong against him entitling him to redress.

"However, a Lodge does have a right, and indeed an obligation, to the Craft as a whole to perpetuate itself and to propagate the art of Freemasonry within its charter jurisdiction, and when that right is denied to a Lodge by the evil practices of retaliatory balloting on the part of one or more of its members, the Lodge and the Craft as a whole are being wronged in a manner entitling the Lodge and the Craft to relief.

"Retaliatory balloting is the most reprehensible type of factious balloting for other reasons. As in the case of vindictive balloting, the guilty Brother is usually known to the members of the Lodge - in fact, he often boasts about it; but whereas a Brother who casts a vindictive ballot is usually willing to recede from his position the Brother who casts a retaliatory ballot is seldom willing to listen to the advice of those who have the welfare of the Lodge at heart. He is usually willing to damage, perhaps even destroy, the Lodge rather than retreat from his position, and he often tries to justify his position by insisting that he is acting in support of a principle, thus assigning a lofty motive to a malicious act.

"Too many times he tries to justify his action as being a defense against what he believes to be discriminatory balloting against one of his friends, when the fact may be that his friend has been rejected, not as a result of discrimination but because he was unworthy in the ayes of the impartial and objective members. Seldom is an applicant's unworthiness apparent to his friends.

"For these and many other reasons, retaliatory balloting is too unworthy and indefensible a weapon ever to be justifiably employed in a Masonic Lodge, no matter what the provocation or the superficial justification. Neither the Grand Lodge nor the Grand Master is powerless to deal with such a situation, regardless of how reluctant they might be to exercise their power to do so. If sufficient information is available to identify the guilty Brother, he can be summarily suspended.

"If the guilty Brother cannot be identified, or if he is identified and suspended and his cause is taken up by his friends, the Charter of the Lodge can be suspended. In such a case, the Charter could later be restored to seven former members who could be entrusted with the responsibility of properly conducting themselves as a Masonic Lodge. All other former members of the suspended Lodge would become unaffiliated Masons subject to the disabilities stated in Section 308 of the Grand Constitutions, and thereafter would be required to pass a unanimous ballot to regain their Masonic standing. Obviously, only those whose motives were above question would be able to do so. This would indeed be a remedy, resort to which should be had only in extreme cases. However, it may become necessary for me to resort to this remedy in one or both of the cases which have come to my attention in order to prevent my successor from being inflicted with these unsavory situations at the commencement of his term of office.

"It is my earnest prayer that those creating these situations will be enlightened by the principles which we so earnestly try to instill in the hearts of our Brethren will realize how indefensible their position is and will desist from causing further damage to the Lodge and to the Craft which they profess to cherish."

Page 1956-401, 12/12/1956, on Lodge finances.

"Within the last few months I have had occasion to make a somewhat detailed study of the financial situation of three different Lodges where financial problems had become apparent.

"In one Lodge I found that through inadequate accounting procedures and lack of supervision by the Master, the Lodge had depleted its cash resources without making the transfers to the Permanent, Charity and Building Funds of that portion of the fees for the degrees, as required by the by-laws. It seemed necessary for the Grand Master to withhold the Past Master's Diploma from the Master who must assume responsibility for the proper conduct of the affairs of the Lodge. The new Master and Wardens, with the advice and the assistance of the District Deputy Grand Master, have agreed upon a plan to make up the deficiency. While this will place a considerable burden upon their administrations, nevertheless their willingness to work out the problem and establish the Lodge on a sound financial basis is very gratifying.

"In another Lodge, an examination of the audit report disclosed that the net worth of the Lodge had been reduced during the fiscal year just ended by approximately $2100. Some of this was attributable to some unpaid bills held over from previous administrations, but most of it was attributable to a loss of $1500 incurred during the last fiscal year in connection with a ladies' night. The matter came to the attention of the Grand Master as the result of a vote of the Lodge to transfer $1000 from the Relief Fund to apply toward the deficit incurred in the general operation of the Lodge. I not only felt obliged to withhold the Past Master's Diploma from the Master who permitted this transfer, but I notified the present Master to see that this transfer was immediately returned to the Relief Fund. This was done from the general funds of the Lodge, and was possible only because the collection of the 1957 dues had built up the cash balance in the general account. The present officers are trying to work out some method of liquidating the deficit which the Lodge had intended to cure by this transfer from the Relief Fund, but so far as I know, no plan has yet been agreed upon. As in the other case, it is basically unfair for the present officers to be required to work out a problem resulting from excessive spending by previous administrations, but they show an admirable desire to solve the problem and prevent its recurrence.

"In still another Lodge a Master installed a year ago inherited over $2400 in unpaid bills incurred by previous administrations, with nothing with which to pay the bills except income attributable to his year. He met this challenge by a strict restraint on expenditures and a close attention to the fiscal affairs of the Lodge. During his administration, he was not only successful in paying all of the expenses attributable to his year, but in addition, he was able to liquidate all but $180.34 of the liabilities totaling $2400 which he inherited. This represented a phenomenal demonstration of what can be accomplished where the responsibility for sound fiscal practice is properly understood.

"These three cases which have officially come to my attention lead me to comment that some closer supervision of Lodge finances may become necessary, not only for the protection of the Lodge itself, but also for the protection of the interest which Grand Lodge has in the funds collected in the name of Freemasonry by individual Lodges. It should be clearly understood that constituent Lodges exist, solely at the will and pleasure of Grand Lodge by virtue of a charter issued by Grand Lodge, Under the provisions of Section 305 of the Grand Constitutions each Lodge is declared to be in fact a constituent part of the Grand Lodge which is the representative body of the whole Craft. In the Grand Lodge therefore, resides the fee, that is, the ultimate ownership, of all the property belonging to the Craft as a whole or to any subdivision thereof. Accordingly when the Charter of a particular Lodge is revoked, suspended, or surrendered, all of the assets in the possession of the Lodge must be returned to the Grand Lodge. Since the constituent Lodges merely have what might be termed a life interest in the funds and the property which it accumulates in the name of Freemasonry, with the remainder interest in Grand Lodge to inquire into the way in which the funds are handled becomes clear. Since improper fiscal policies of any one Lodge reflect discredit upon the entire Craft, it seems to me that the Grand Master might properly require each District Deputy Grand Master to secure annually a copy of the annual audit of each Lodge under his Jurisdiction, together with such additional information or standardized forms, as the Grand Master might require to enable him to be sure that every Lodge was properly handling its fiscal affair's. In this way a Lodge whose financial affairs were not being properly handled could be assisted in organizing its finances before irreparable damage had been suffered, either by the Lodge or by the Craft at large. I recommend this suggestion for the careful consideration of my successor."

Page 1956-403, 12/12/1956, on costumes and special dress.

"My approval has been requested on several occasions for the use of costumes or special dress in the Master Mason Degree. The question of costumes has been easily disposed of because the use of costumes has long since been forbidden by action of our Grand Lodge. Special dress, as distinguished from costumes, is another matter although the two are closely related.

"A variety of dress is used by the officers of our various Lodges. While Lodges using tuxedos and black ties seem to predominate, the officers of a few Lodges wear full evening dress, and at the other extreme, in some Lodges the officers wear business clothes. In at least one Lodge, the officers wear white tuxedos the year round. The officers of two of our University Lodges wear academic dress, and in our Military Lodge, they wear a military uniform. In the Canal Zone, at least one Lodge uses white coats and trousers.

"I have never heard the slightest objection to the regular use of Lodge officers of dress other than tuxedos where the dress is appropriate to the Lodge and is calculated to enhance the dignity of the officers and the solemnity of the work as in the case to which I have alluded.

"The requests to which I refer have come from degree teams who wish to identify themselves by some special dress which is characteristic of their special group. Teams from some allied Masonic bodies would like to appear in the characteristic dress of their organization, thus identifying the team with their particular body. Another typical request comes from Brethren of particular racial groups who wish to clothe themselves in dress of their native land, thus identifying themselves as a particular racial group.

"A great deal of thought has been given to these requests, particularly because in many jurisdictions special dress and costumes in the Master Mason degree seem to be looked upon with favor. While something is to be said for anything which tends to stimulate interest, we must always keep in mind that a Masonic degree is conferred for the benefit of the candidate and not the spectators. It is certainly not for the benefit of the officers or the degree team which may be permitted to participate. Our solemn ceremonies must impress themselves on the mind of the candidate when he receives his degrees, and it is my considered opinion that anything which is superfluous so far as the candidate is concerned will detract from, rather than enhance, the ceremonies.

"In every case in which I was requested to approve the use-of some special or unusual dress by a degree team I have withheld my approval pending further study.

"I have talked with many Grand Masters of other jurisdictions in addition to many members of our own Grand Lodge. Such study and investigation as I have been able to make as my term of office expires, leads me to the conclusion that my approval has been properly withheld and that any tendency to adopt a special dress by a degree team should be discouraged."

1957

Andrew G. Jenkins, Grand Master.

Page 1957-86, 06/12/1957, on balloting.

"It has been recently brought to my attention that in one particular locality it has become the practice to ballot upon more than one applicant by the same ballot. This is apparently an outgrowth of war-time conditions when a very considerable number of applications for the degrees were being considered each month. This practice, in my opinion, is contrary to Masonic usage and quite improper.

"I have therefore directed that this practice be discontinued in the following language:

"I am therefore officially advising you to instruct ________ Lodge Masters and Secretaries that no ballot upon an application for initiation or affiliation or reinstatement, or even on a nomination for honorary membership, should be taken on more than one person at a time. Each Ballot should be secret and on only one candidate."

1960

Laurence E. Eaton, Grand Master.

Page 1960-33, 03/09/1960, on Lodge notices and the use of mailing lists.

"Some problems have arisen that need mention. One is the general rule that Lodge notices shall contain nothing but Lodge business. There have been some exceptions granted in special cases. It would be easier to say no and stick to it; however, it is not our intention to be dictatorial, and we attempt to judge all requests on their merits. Where these requests border on the use of our membership lists for business purposes, they become a problem. No one will deny that we should not use our membership lists to solicit business of any kind; yet attempts have been made to have the Lodge officers get around this general prohibition by various methods.

"It has also been suggested in certain instances that the Grand Master was in favor of certain projects because he did not object to them. Let me assure you that the Grand Lodge has no connection with any one selling photographs, insurance or cemetery lots.

"One offers the inducement of a free album to get the Master of a Lodge to use his membership list; another states that the matter has been talked over with the Grand Master, which is true, but when Grand Lodge sponsors something, you will know about it through regular channels. Because the Grand Master has not ruled against a project is no assurance that it has the support of Grand Lodge, and none of these present projects has that approval."

Page 1960-34, 03/09/1960, on dispensations.

"Another matter which seems to be of very frequent occurrence is that of requests for dispensations, generally to shorten time between the degrees or to confer the Entered Apprentice Degree upon the night of election.

"The time between degrees is governed by Article 337 of the Grand Constitutions and provides that a dispensation may be issued but only in cases of necessity or extraordinary emergency. Article 414 states that a candidate must be notified in writing of his election to receive the degrees, and that the notice shall specify the time and place when and where he is to receive his first degree, which time shall not be the meeting at which he is elected. It does not provide for a dispensation; neither does it state that any number of days must elapse between election and the conferring of the first degree.

Page 1960-141, 06/08/1960, on balloting.

"All of you know that at the installation of the Master of a Lodge he is presented the Book of Constitutions and admonished to have it read in his Lodge, that none may profess ignorance of its requirements. I wonder how many of you have heard it read, and sometimes I wonder if some of you have ever read it yourselves. I have read it through several times, and usually I can find something each time that was not noticed before. Many a question that is presented to me is solved by looking to see what the Grand Constitutions have to say on the subject.

"There have been several cases lately that have come to my attention, embarrassing to the Lodge officers and tending to cause friction in the Lodge, that would never have occurred if the Constitutional requirements had been observed. I would refer you, to Sections 400 and 423 particularly concerning balloting. If the Constitutions are not followed and it comes to my attention, I must declare the ballot illegal. The Constitutions specify just how a ballot shall be taken and the routine to be followed. Before balloting, the door should be tyled to see if any Brethren are present in the ante-room desiring admittance. No one should then enter or leave unless in extreme emergency until the ballot has been completed. All the members must vote, unless excused by the Lodge, not by the Master, and this would mean a vote to excuse an individual Brother, not a vote to excuse those not wishing to vote. The Master should announce that all the Brethren should vote. Occasionally one hears a Master say; Have all the Brethren voted who wish? Let's never hear that again; the Brethren have no wish in the matter. If the Master is not sure, he can ask if all the Brethren have voted, and if there is no response, it would be in order to assume that they have all voted. In this matter, the secrecy of the ballot is preserved.

"There is another point in Section 507, with regard to reinstatement. The ballot must be secret and be decided by a majority vote of the members present, if the period of suspension is not longer than five years. This would require a Master to take a count of the members present and provide ballots for a yes or no vote. It is not a majority of the votes cast that decides, but a majority of the members present. If the period of suspension is longer than five years, the ballot must be clear and unanimously favorable.

"I know that these little irregularities seldom cause trouble until a complaint is made; and these remarks are not intended to, and do not, set aside any of the Constitutional requirements. If I have left anything out, it is not a precedent for any short cuts; if I am wrong in any way, you still must follow the Grand Constitutions.

"Brethren, let's follow the book, it will save a lot of trouble for all those involved, including the Grand Master."

Page 1960-162, 09/14/1960, on "Sword of Bunker Hill."

"Having had several inquiries as to the Swords of Bunker Hill and having expressed an opinion based on reports from other jurisdictions as to my doubts of their reliability as an organization predicated on the prerequisite of Masonic membership, I have gathered what information was available to try to determine whether the Order is a suitable activity for members of the Masonic Fraternity.

"I have read the Proceedings of their annual meeting for 1959, and have examined their Grand Officers' Roster and the Director or Orders, Regulations and Edicts of 1959. I have met and talked with members in Massachusetts and other states.

"A Grand Master is in a kind of predicament when someone says to him Do you approve of such and such a thing? One does not desire to become a dictator, and I have come to learn that I must be somewhat wary, because there are those who will use a statement that something is not objected to as a permission to go ahead with it, on the assumption that while the Grand Master does not want to endorse that particular project, he does so in effect, when he does not forbid it, thus implying consent or approval.

"The situation has progressed to the point where it can be no longer ignored. I will make no ruling at this time, believing that Massachusetts Masons have the ability to reason out their proper place with this group without any ruling from the Grand Master forbidding them to be associated with it. However, in my opinion they (the Swords) are not financially able to carry out their proposed objectives. A life membership, which includes initiation, of six dollars, of which two dollars goes to those who find the candidate and two to the group which puts on the degree plus another dollar, to the grand body, does not go very far in any program.

"Their degree is based on history well known to Massachusetts Masons, which has been considerably distorted; improper language is used in their ritualistic work; their application forms do not require certification by a Lodge Secretary that the applicant is in good standing in his Lodge; and reports from other jurisdictions tend to indicate their general irresponsibility. As one Brother said to me; Sure, we all sometimes act and talk a bit off color, so what? You can have a lot of fun at one of their meetings. But he did not think a Masonic temple was the proper place for them to meet.

"I believe this Brother summed up about right. It is my opinion that under the present organization and ritual Massachusetts Masons should not become affiliated with it, and that its meetings should not be held under a Masonic or quasi-Masonic banner and I am definitely of the opinion that they should not be permitted to meet in Masonic halls or temples.

"I remember an old Past Master of my own Lodge who saw to it that it was impressed on all new Master Masons that the lodge-room should be considered a sacred spot and that no one would ever think of walking in at any time while smoking or wearing a hat."

Page 1960-163, 09/14/1960, on toleration.

"If we read the newspapers today, it is not too difficult to see the wisdom behind the ancient ruling which forbids the discussion within a Masonic Lodge of matters of religion or politics, or of anything else that might tend to arouse angry discussion and impair the harmony of our meetings. This is something that it would not be difficult for non-Masons to ascertain, if there was the desire. Nevertheless, we read that men identified as Masons are being accused of fomenting religious intolerance. These accusations have not been leveled against Massachusetts Masons but are usually a quote from someone who is identified as 'a Mason.'

"In view of this situation, many thinking Masons are exercising great caution in their remarks and actions, even to the point of cancelling certain events that they feel could be construed by those who may be unfriendly to our Craft as an improper gesture or demonstration (especially around election time).

"It might be in order to remind our Brethren that Masonic Lodges or other organized groups of Masons do not take sides or enter into discussion of political matters; that they pass no resolutions, nor do they attempt to influence legislators in the performance of their duties.

"But how about the individual members: We put no restriction on their activities or on their minds. As long as they act lawfully, as Masons they should be free to act in any manner that their consciences may direct.

"With regard to the so-called oath of the Knights of Columbus, which is again in circulation and is alleged to contain un-American features and to be true because it appeared in the Congressional Record back in 1913, the truth of the matter is that it was lifted out of the Congressional Record without the accompanying context.

"It is interesting to note that in 1914 four Past Grand Masters of the Grand Lodge of California investigated this matter and made a report to their Grand Lodge. In their report they stated that on the authority of the supreme officers of this order in the United States, they were furnished with a complete copy of all the work, and they found that the Order of the Knights of Columbus is dedicated to the Roman Catholic religion, charity and patriotism. Protestants and Masons were not referred to in their ceremonials and pledges. They found nothing in the entire ceremonies of the Order that to their minds could be objected to by any person, and so reported to the Grand Lodge.

"Within the past week, while thinking of this Quarterly meeting and trying to prepare for it, I came across an article in the California Mason, which they had borrowed from another Masonic publication, the Wisconsin Mason, in effect as follows: There is the over-zealous or impulsive Mason who feels the urge to announce to the world, or to declare to his Brethren, that Freemasonry 'stands for' or is 'opposed to' another organization or to any religious, political or social program. Let him pause and ask himself first by what authority he speaks for the Masonic Fraternity as a whole. He should reflect upon the fact that the Craft has been held together for centuries because it permits the utmost latitude to its members in their interpretations of their religious, political, and social duties, and that if it should undertake to favor or oppose any organization or any movement, it would probably disintegrate into groups having few purposes in common."

Page 1960-165, 09/14/1960, on the George Washington Memorial.

"You have all heard more or less about the George Washington Memorial at Alexandria, Virginia, on more than one occasion. Many of you have seen it, and do not need to be told that there is much work remaining to be done before it is finished. You may also know that it has been the policy of the George Washington Memorial Association to contract for only such work to be done as could be paid for from funds on hand. The building of the Memorial has therefore been necessarily slow, and doubtless somewhat more costly than to have had it completely built in one operation. However, many famous structures have taken years to build, and whatever the conditions have been, we now have the structure practically completed. We should see what can be done to finish the job.

"Money is needed for the completion of the building and its surroundings, and to establish an Endowment Fund for its maintenance. A plan has been suggested that each Grand Lodge contribute a sum equivalent to ten dollars for each of its Lodges, and also ask each of its members to contribute one dollar to the Memorial Fund.

"We have recommended the Ten Dollar per Lodge contribution by the Grand Lodge in the budget for this year, and anticipate in the not-too-distant future an undertaking requesting contributions from our members to average one dollar per member. Some Grand Lodges have already completed such a program to suitably endow the Memorial, and report a very favorable and successful reception."

Page 1960-249, 12/14/1960, on liquor and social functions.

"There has been a continued use of circulars and flyers in connection with Lodge functions which carry the Masonic emblem and the information that cocktails or other alcoholic beverages will be served. (My previous advice has been that this subject can be adequately covered without advertising it to the public; the mention of a social hour should convey a sufficient information.) However, I now rule that no Lodge shall use its name or the Masonic emblem on any publication, circular, flyer, invitation or other material which refers to the use or sale of alcoholic beverages at a social dinner or any other function of the Lodge."

Page 1960-249, 12/14/1960, on Past Masters.

"There has also been raised the question of 'what constitutes a Past Master.' This question is often asked in connection with the wearing of a Past Master's Apron or a Past Master's Jewel, or the eligibility of the individual for an office which has a prerequisite that he be a Past Master. When Most Worshipful William Parkman was Grand Master, a formal report was adopted by Grand Lodge on this matter on December 14, 1864, which stated that the question often had arisen and had always been answered in the same way. A Brother who, having been duly elected and installed, has served one term as Master of a Lodge working under the jurisdiction and authority of some Grand Lodge, is alone entitled to the rank and privileges of a Past Master.

"I am aware that calling this to your attention will bring up the question of presiding Masters who have not completed a term of office wearing Past Master's aprons and jewels. So while we are on this subject let me say that the answers to those questions are plainly given in the Constitutions. Section 817c contains the regulation covering Master's and Past Masters' Aprons. They are the same. Section 812 regarding jewels says that the jewel of the Master is the square, while the jewel of a Past Master shall be the blazing sun within the square and compasses extended on a quadrant.

"The highest ranking officer of any Lodge is the Master, and no other is entitled to wear the badge of his office. One might ask why a Presiding Master might wish to wear a jewel of lesser rank."

Page 1960-251, 12/14/1960, on Lodge finances.

"In 1932 Most Worshipful Curtis Chipman urged Lodges to have their financial officers bonded, a need for this security having been indicated. He said: "The intent of bonding is to protect not only the Lodge but the officer himself. Placing officers now in office under bond is no reflection on their integrity and should not be so regarded even by the most sensitive. In referring to this subject in December of 1933, he reported that in one year sixty-six per cent were bonded as against thirty-six per cent the year before, and then he said: The matter of audits is of equal or even greater importance than bonding. Many Lodges have by-laws which provide that the Master and Wardens shall examine the accounts of the Treasurer, Secretary and Trustees, but from many painful instances that have been brought to my attention; I am led to believe that in too many instances this sort of an audit is ineffectual in preventing serious loss.

"Most Worshipful Roger Keith, in September of 1949, called attention to these words of Most Worshipful Brother Chipman, and urged any Lodges not following the practice to adopt it without delay.

"I know of no serious trouble at the present time, but some matters that have come to my attention recently indicate that the foregoing should again be called to your attention; and I recommend that not only should all Lodges have their financial officers bonded, but that they should elect someone skilled in accounting to audit their books every year. Bonding is of no use if you have losses and do not know it; someone skilled in accounting should make a thorough audit every year."

Page 1960-??, 12/14/1960, on liquor and Ladies' Nights. (SCC p. 242) can't find this

Page 1960-??, 12/14/1960, on Masonic etiquette. (SCC p. 243) can't find this

1961

Laurence E. Eaton, Grand Master.

Page 1961-27, 03/08/1961, on balloting.

"It has come to my attention that there have been some cases where 'collective' balloting has been resorted to, and may even be the regular procedure. I would call your attention to the ruling by Most Worshipful Andrew G. Jenkins at the June Quarterly Communication of 1957, in the following language:

". . . no ballot upon an application for initiation or affiliation or reinstatement, or even on a nomination for honorary membership, should be taken on more than one person at a time. Each ballot should be secret and on only one candidate. (Page 1957-86).

"It might be well to note that when a matter does not seem to be covered in our Grand Constitutions there is the possibility that a ruling has been made on the subject. The Grand Secretary's office can very easily check on that for you."

Page 1961-27, 03/08/1961, on degree work and decorum.

"Search of the Proceedings would undoubtedly substantiate the statement that every Grand Master, at least once during his administration, has found it necessary to refer to the conduct of certain officers in the work of the Third Degree, and to caution the Masters of Lodges that it is their responsibility to see that unseemly enthusiasm or exuberance is not permitted to creep in.

"Because of reports that are being received altogether too frequently, I must refer to this subject again and remind the Masters that they are responsible for the orderly and Masonic conduct of the business and work in their Lodges at all times. This applies perhaps with special regard when a visiting team or group is to participate in the work, to ascertain in advance what their practice is and instruct them what is required of them. This is equally applicable whether there are regular officers assigned to these tasks, or whether friends are temporarily filling the stations."

Page 1961-173, 12/13/1961, on waivers of jurisdiction, and regarding jurisdiction over rejected applicants.

"With due respect for the reasons for jurisdictional lines between our Lodges, I would inform you that careful attention has been and will continue to be given to requests for permission 'to entertain the application' of candidates living in the jurisdiction of other Lodges. These requests should be accompanied by detailed reasons why the man wants to apply to a Lodge other than the one in the town or city where he lives. We are now living in an age where distance is not a problem. Prospective candidates cannot be expected to know our laws or methods. Several cases have come to my attention lately which indicate that on a state-wide basis, we may be losing many good candidates because they are not permitted to join the Lodge of their choice. In some instances where a release was finally granted after some delay caused by insufficient or incorrect information, the prospective candidate felt that he had been 'tried and found wanting' and no longer held a favorable opinion of our Fraternity.

"Section 416 of the Grand Constitutions spells out the procedure for the granting of a waiver of jurisdiction over a rejected applicant. Hitherto it has been the custom for the granting Lodge to send such waiver direct to the requesting Lodge with the result, frequently, that the Grand Secretary is embarrassed by not having record of the waiver and recommendation.

Therefore I rule that whenever a waiver of jurisdiction over a rejected applicant is granted by a Lodge in accordance with the provisions of Section 416 of the Grand Constitutions and has been attested by the Secretary under the seal of the Lodge, it shall be immediately sent to the Grand Secretary to be validated and recorded. The Grand Secretary will then forward the same to the Lodge named in the waiver to receive it."

1962

Laurence M. Eaton, Grand Master.

Page 1962-140, 06/13/1962, on territiorial jurisdictions.

"This matter has given me great concern for some time and the references in our Proceedings since 1926 have been reviewed.

"There are those who think there should be no jurisdictional lines and others who think releases should never be granted. Somewhere between the two extremes must lie a solution.

"We must remember that those seeking membership know little about our laws. Some have thought that they were rejected when a release was not granted. There are also others who may have reasons (good to them) why they want to join a distant Lodge. We decide whether we think a candidate is one who will make a good member, has the proper character, etc.; there well may be candidates who reject a certain Lodge because of the character or reputation of some of its members.

"All in all, it is a complicated problem with many 'public relation' angles. How to handle the matter without creating ill feeling on the part of both sponsors and candidates is the problem.

"You can now see, Brethren, how or why there are problems along this line that finally reach my desk for decisions. Most of these problems come about through the fact that Brethren complain about situations in which they find themselves. The Grand Master looks into the matter, and then finds that somewhere along the line the constitutions or regulations or instructions were not followed. I am not as familiar with them as I might be, but in them are the answers to most questions. Also there is a file available where decisions on various subjects can be rapidly located.

"Some years ago Grand Lodge in its wisdom placed the power to give 'permission to entertain' in the Grand Master. They were trying to eliminate 332 Masters, that is, 332 different minds, trying to act uniformly on the matter; it was getting troublesome.

"Therefore, I should like to review this subject before Grand Lodge. It has often been stated that the Grand Master has the power of granting releases, and that he does not have to consult anyone in the matter. This is correct, but it is not the kind of answer that I should like to receive. When the whole story is told, there is more to it.

"Any of you may drop me a line regarding your thoughts on this Matter. I believe that we need to overhaul our procedure somewhat.

"I take it for granted you know how to request permission to entertain. The Grand Master can grant it without consulting anyone (See Section 404). However, that is not just how it is done and I desire to have our instructions followed. First, the request is referred to the District Deputy, or in rare cases, directly to the Master of the Lodge where the candidate resides. The form used states in part, Please inform the Master of the following-named Lodge or Lodges of this request, and ascertain what objections, if any, are held to the granting of it by the Grand Master. Now no Master should say 'no objection' if he doesn't know the applicant, He should meet the applicant, if he is unknown, and ascertain if he is a fit candidate for Masonry. He also can inform him about jurisdictional lines (which the requesting Lodge should have done) and that there is a Lodge in his home town where he might be welcome. He is then able to report intelligently. This has been working out to some extent, but bear in mind the Master does not grant or refuse the release; he merely informs the Grand Master of his objections, if any.

"The next important thing, if the request is granted, is stated on the 'permission' to the Master, quote: You are enjoined to use special care in the investigation of applicants living outside your jurisdiction, extending the investigation to the locality in which the applicant lives. This creates a problem, but it is a condition of the release.

"There are two thoughts: jurisdictional lines protect a Lodge's life in that other Lodges cannot raid its territory; they also protect the quality of our initiates in that the local people can best know their neighbors, and that that poorly qualified men do not seek admission where they are unknown, to our later regret.

Page 1962-141, 06/13/1962, on Past Masters' apron and jewel.

"On December 14, 1960, at the quarterly Communication of the Grand Lodge (Page 1960-249), I referred to What Constitutes a Past Master and to what was formally adopted on December 14, 1864, by the Grand Lodge describing a Past Master as one who has served one term as Master of a Lodge and is alone entitled to the Rank and privileges of a Past Master. I also called the attention of the Brethren to Section 817(C) of the Grand Constitutions which indicates that the apron of a Master and Past Masters are the same; and to Section 812 regarding the description of the jewels of a Master and a Past Master.

"It was my opinion at the time that this subject was well covered in the report of the committee in 1864, and by Section 812 and 817(C) of the Grand Constitutions. However, the question is still being asked of some of the District Deputies by Lodge officers who do not seem to think that what I had to say was definite. I would repeat my query in December of 1960, asking why the ranking officer in a Lodge should want to wear any jewel other than a Master's jewel; and also I would think the Past Masters would jealously guard their prerogative of wearing a Past Master's jewel, showing that they had completed a term as Master.

"To clarify the situation, I now repeat and confirm what was then said, and rule A Brother who, having been duly elected and installed, has served one term as Master of a Lodge working under the jurisdiction and authority of some Grand Lodge, is alone entitled to the rank and the privileges of a Past Master, and remind all concerned that one of the privileges of a Past Master is the right to wear the jewel of a Past Master, as described in Section 812 of the Grand Constitutions.

"I am notifying those suppliers of Masonic aprons and jewels that we know of just what the requirements of our Grand Constitutions are regarding Masters' and Past Masters' aprons. If this provision does not meet the approval of the Brethren, it is always permissible to change the Grand Constitutions.

"To summarize, I would like to point out to you the following:

1. According to the Grand Constitutions, there is no difference in the design of a Presiding Master's or a Past Master's apron.
2. If it is the custom of your Lodge to present a Past Master's apron to your Master at the time of his installation as Master (this is fundament-ally wrong if we are to consider the Past Master's apron a reward for work well done), the apron should be made in accordance with the provisions of Section 817(C) of the Grand Constitutions. This will eliminate the confusion of a Presiding Master's wearing a Past Master's apron as we know it at the present time.
3. The presentation of a Past Master's jewel to a Presiding Master at the time of his installation is in violation of the ruling just made.

Page 1962-169, 09/12/1962, on jewels and aprons.

"[M]uch thought and time has gone into the matter of jewels and aprons. You no doubt all know that last June the Grand Master rather forcibly called attention to the provisions of the Grand Constitutions regarding Masters' jewels and Past Masters' jewels, Master Masons' aprons, Masters' aprons, and Past Masters' aprons. Brethren, we really kicked up a hornet's nest on that one. We have all promised to abide by the Constitutions of this Grand Lodge. It is my opinion that all the buzzing that I have heard is because no one has ever paid the slightest attention to what the Constitutions say about aprons for fifty years, more or less.

"The Grand Constitutions describe very clearly the approved apron for Entered Apprentices, Fellow Crafts, Master Masons, Presiding Masters and Past Masters, and prohibits the use of any variation. Let me briefly review the subject. A Master Mason's apron is 12" x 14", white lambskin (not Cloth), blue backing, blue border 2" in width and 1 1/2" on the flap. It may have blue tabs and silver tassels, and three blue rosettes. Did you ever see one? A Presiding Master's apron or a Past Master's apron is the same size as a Master Mason's apron, of lambskin, symbols instead of rosettes; and it may have a square embroidered on it and may have a silver border and fringe. Where has the authority come from for larger aprons; or aprons with the all-seeing eye on the flap and a Past Master's jewel embroidered? It would appear that thirty-two years ago these regulations were revised and that they did not invalidate any aprons then being worn; again no one paid much attention. Well, enough of that; what to do about it. We should either abide by the Grand Constitutions or we should change the Constitutions. It is my sincere opinion that we might do both. I Think that the Constitutions should spell out when and by whom a Past Master's apron and jewel may be worn, and that there should be a distinction between Presiding and Past Master's aprons. Possibly a Past Master's jewel should be authorized on a Past Master's apron to distinguish it from 1 Presiding Master's Apron. If this situation has gone on for so long a time, I guess it can go on a bit longer.

"A committee will be appointed to go into the matter and bring in recommendations for any desired Constitutional changes at the December meeting regarding the aforesaid comments. I recommend that any of you having any suggestions regarding the entire matter send them at once to my office."

Page 1962-235, 12/12/1962, on lodge finances.

"The financial affairs of some few Lodges have been brought to the attention of the Grand Master, and considerable investigation has been done. A reference to the 1956 Proceedings will show that the very same problems were present six years ago. M.W. Whitfield W. Johnson devoted 2 1/2 pages to a discussion of the problem. The situation has not changed; either the Lodges in question did not hear about the problem or they have decided to go their own way.

"Those affairs fall into two categories. There is the Master who for reasons best known to himself does not seem to be able to operate his Lodge on its regular income. There is a tendency to over-stretch on ladies' nights, the number of invited free guests at dinners, etc., with the result that a deficit of several hundred dollars must be met by an appropriation from Lodge reserve funds. Rather than penalize the many because of the few, I have instructed the District Deputies to watch their Lodges and if necessary to require monthly financial reports from those who are offending. A Master is responsible and must live within his income.

The other matter is in regard to funds claimed not to be 'Lodge Funds.' Some are known as Philanthropic Funds. They seem to come about because a Master of a Lodge wants to contribute to worthy charities from which the use of Lodge Funds would be improper.

"These Funds are solicited from the Members of the Lodge. They then become Lodge Funds, or do we have an improper use of the membership list? The Lodge has no control of the fund. It would be simple for a Lodge, by a change of by¬laws, to make the funds legal, or assume control of it, but then its use for non-Masonic purposes would be illegal.

"My Brethren, let's get down to earth on this matter. There is no question in the minds of most of us as to what constitutes a Masonic purpose. Our Masonic law must be upheld; if the law is unpopular it is possible to amend our Constitutions. However, until that time comes I feel it is necessary to rule as follows: Money solicited from, or raised by, the members of a Lodge is the property of the Lodge; and the Lodge must have control of said money or any fund of which it becomes a part. There would be no objection to a Master or a Committee having a small sum to be used at their discretion, but to replenish this sum it would be necessary to have the money come from the Lodge through regular channels replacing what had been spent for some Masonic purpose.

"It is the duty of the District Deputies to be familiar with the financial condition of their Lodges; and if the problem cannot be handled locally, it should be reported to the Grand Master.

"It might also be well to point out that it is not considered good taste to solicit the membership for a gift to a retiring Master. It could well lead to a condition where monetary value was placed on the office.

Page 1962-236, 12/12/1962, on the use of alcohol.

This declaration was in reference to an earlier ruling on the subject.

"There is a ruling against Lodges indicating that alcoholic beverages are being used at functions sponsored by a Lodge. Some few stil apparently try to circumvent the ruling. Violations can well lead to suspension from office and withholding of the Past Master's diploma."

1963

A. Neill Osgood, Grand Master.

Page 1963-55, 03/13/1963, on door prizes.

"It comes to my attention with increasing frequency that Lodges are sponsoring various affairs at which door prizes, or other gifts, are offered as an inducement to attend or to purchase tickets for the affair.

"I call your attention to the resolution adopted by Grand Lodge in 1939, which is as follows:

"Resolved: that it is inconsistent with the professions and purposes of Freemasonry for any Masonic Body to promote, participate in, or profit by any lottery, game of chance, door prize, or other device or activity whereby the individual participant may be able, through the element of luck or chance, to win a greater value than he pays, and each Masonic Body within the Jurisdiction of this Grand Lodge is hereby enjoined to observe the letter and spirit of this Resolution; and

"Be it further resolved, that all so-called collateral bodies, clubs, or other organizations in Massachusetts whose membership is related to or dependent on Masonic membership, or which in the public mind are likely to be regarded as Masonic organizations, are requested, and all individual Masons owing allegiance to this Grand Lodge are enjoined, to respect the purpose of this Resolution. (Page 1939-104)

"I also call your attention to the remarks of M.W. Thomas S. Roy (Page 1951-141) and a subsequent ruling by M.W. Whitfield W. Johnson (Page 1954-32).

"I definitely concur with the decisions of my predecessors, and ask that the Masters of our Lodges strictly comply with the provisions of the above-mentioned resolution and ruling. It should be unnecessary to remind you that failure to do so may result in disciplinary action.

"Please bring this matter to the attention of your Lodge Officers."

Page 1963-56, 03/13/1963, on officer training.

"From the many instances in which Wardens and newly installed Masters have found it necessary to consult the Grand Lodge with regard to rules, proper procedures, and the avoidance of practices repeatedly frowned upon, it is evident that their predecessors have made little or no attempt to acquaint them with such items as basic knowledge. Year after year requests are received to initiate on the night of election, to hold a Ladies Night on a Sunday. We find the repetition, after the lapse of a year or so, of the unsanctioned mention of a cocktail hour, or a new approach to the old idea of a door prize. This cannot be willful disregard of what is proper; it must be ignorance! Without in any way suggesting that calls for information should be curtailed, I do suggest that it is part of the responsibility of any worthy occupant of the East of a Lodge to provide an adequate training for all junior officers; and further, to see that each Warden is capable of performing all administrative functions of a Worshipful Master."

Page 1963-204, 09/11/1963, on Past Masters' Aprons.

"Prior to our June Communication, it was a frequent custom to present a newly-installed Master with what was known as a Past Master's Apron. This was not considered wholly improper as there was not an officially recognized difference between the apron of a presiding Master and that of a Past Master; they were of the same design according to the provisions of our Grand Constitutions, although the design which was authorized was seldom adhered to in every detail.

"No longer does the situation of these two identical aprons prevail. The amendments to the Grand Constitutions adopted at the last Quarterly Communication provide for the Past Master of a Lodge an apron different from that which is authorized for the Worshipful Master. Since the aprons are no longer interchangeable, I believe it is timely to review the conditions which permit the wearing of a Past Master's Apron.

"On December 14, 1864, the Grand Lodge adopted the following definition of a Past Master, which has never been repealed, but which still remains in full force and effect:

"An actual Past Master is one who has been duly elected to the office of Worshipful Master, at the regular Annual Election, and who has been regularly qualified and Installed, and served the full term of office.

"Until a Brother has fulfilled all the requirements of the foregoing definition, including that of serving a full term of office as Worshipful Master, he does not become a Past Master in this Grand Jurisdiction; nor may be assume any of the prerogatives of a Past Master, of which the wearing of a Past Master's Apron is one.

"It seems unnecessary to suggest to the Lodges that they should present aprons only to those who may wear them with propriety. In any event, the mere possession of a Past Master's Apron confers on its owner no right to wear it on any Masonic occasion, irrespective of when or from whom it may have been received.

"I do not believe that any Master who takes a normal pride in high office which he fills would care to risk the pity or scorn of better-informed Brethren by appearing before them in Masonic regalia which he is not entitled to wear. Therefore, I ask you who are here today to carry this information promptly to your Lodge, and make such that each Master and Warden is thoroughly aware of what is seemly and proper in the use of the Past Master's Apron. Furthermore, the District Deputy Grand Master's are directed to require and maintain a strict conformity to these standards by the Members of their Suites and others within their Districts."

Page 1963-206, 09/11/1963, on identification numbers (lodge finances).

"As most of you know, all banks and corporations paying interest and dividends are asking the payee for his Social Security Number, Employer's Identification Number, or Tax Account Number which they are required to report to the Internal Revenue Service in connection with any payments in excess of $10.00 a year. Many of the constituent Lodges receiving these requests have asked for instructions how to proceed.

"I have sought the assistance of M.W. Whitfield W. Johnson, both as Past Grand Master and attorney in this matter, and in keeping with his suggestions, I make the following recommendations to the Lodges: If a constituent Lodge already has an Employers Identification Number (as many of them no doubt have if they are paying Social Security on the Secretary's salary) it should supply this number in connection with all interest and dividends received by the Lodge for the account of any of its Funds. If a constituent Lodge does not have an Employer's Identification Number and has not already applied for such a number, it should supply the Grand Lodge's Identification Number in connection with all interest and dividends received by the Lodge for the account of any of its Funds. The Grand Lodge's Identification Number is 04-1383607.

"The foregoing recommendation is based on Section 305 of the Grand Constitutions which provides that the "fee" (i.e. the ultimate title) to all property belonging to the Craft as a whole or a subdivision thereof resides in the Grand Lodge since each Lodge is a constituent part of the Grand Lodge.

"Since the use of identification numbers was designed to track down income escaping taxation, it should make no difference to the Internal Revenue Service whether the identifying number used is the number of a constituent Lodge or of Grand Lodge, because neither Grand Lodge nor its constituent Lodges are subject to the payment of Federal Income Taxes. Neither are they required to file Federal Income Tax Returns of any kind. The use of Grand Lodge's number will simplify matters for everyone, including the Internal Revenue Service."

Page 1963-207, 09/11/1963, on public installations.

"The time of year is now at hand when the majority of the Lodges will be installing new lines of Officers. Because of the wide-spread use of Public Installations, we as Masons will be under frequent scrutiny both by our own Members and by those who are not a part of the Fraternity. Once again we will have an opportunity to confirm or deny to families, friends, and neighbors, that the prestige which our Craft so widely enjoys is, in large measure, fully deserved.

"To those who will arrange or conduct these Installations, I offer this reminder of a few simply but important requirements which should be carefully heeded by any who participate in such a public occasion:

1. Your Lodge will be in session, hence none but Members of the Craft should be permitted to take part.
2. Any presentation to the Master must be made by a Mason, for only Masons may approach the East.
3. A token intended for a non-Mason will reach the recipient in a dignified manner if the Marshal is directed to take it to where the person is sitting.
4. An item not easily carried, such as a bouquet used to decorate the East, may properly be designated for its recipient with the request that it be taken after the meeting.
5. The ritual provided for the Installation of Lodge Officers is dignified and meaningful; few of those who change it deliberately succeed in making a worthwhile substitution.
6. Installing Officers should strive to create and maintain interest for all who are in attendance. Poor preparation, halting delivery, long-winded reminiscent, excessive presentations: any of these will detract from the general enjoyment of the evening.
7. In opening or closing a Lodge with any present who are not Masons, ritual will not be used. At the Master's nod, or other pre-arranged signal, the Chaplain is conducted to the altar for prayer and the lights attended, all in proper sequence; then the Master simply declares the Lodge opened or closed.
8. A little extra thought and preparation will insure a smooth performance of the ritual and create much interest in Freemasonry on the part of the families and friends of those Brethren who have been selected to serve as Officers. We must not permit carelessness or incompetency to engender an attitude of public indifference towards us or our concerns. On the contrary, we must enlist the services of our most competent and conscientious Past Masters and confirm to all who honor us with their presence that Masonry is worthy of the High esteem in which it is generally held."

Page 1963-260, 12/11/1963, on Past Master's Jewels.

"At the last quarterly communication of the Grand Lodge the attention of the Craft was directed to the circumstances under which the wearing of a Past Master's apron is appropriate and permissible. From such comment as has come to my attention, I believe that the Brethren are happy to have received a statement which can be easily and accurately interpreted upon which to base their conduct in this regard.

"In my remarks at that communication I made no reference to the wearing of the Past Master's Jewel. That I avoided the subject was not an oversight; there were certain practices connected with the use of this jewel to which I wanted to give further consideration.

"Some Lodges possess as a cherished memento the Past Master's jewel of their first Master or some other distinguished member. Frequently, this treasured emblem is entrusted to the custody of each new Master on the occasion of his installation, to be preserved and transmitted to his successor. The practice has developed of the Master's wearing this jewel whenever he represents his Lodge officially.

"As Masons we recognize, and readily appreciate, the desire on the part of a Lodge to honor and perpetuate the memory of one who has made an outstanding contribution to its earlier history. It is probable that the initial instances of the wearing of a Lodge-owned jewel were prompted by such motives. Nevertheless, as a result of this usage another practice has developed, that of a Lodge acquiring a Past Master's jewel for the purpose of providing its current Master with a temporary or 'traveling' jewel during his term of office.

I quote to you again the definition of a Past Master, which the Grand Lodge of Massachusetts adopted on December 14, 1864, and which still governs the Brethren of this jurisdiction: An actual Past Master is one who has been duly elected to the office of Worshipful Master, at the regular annual election, and who has been regularly qualified and installed, and served the full term of office.

"We as Massachusetts Masons should comply with our own definition of a Past Master. We should not display the jewel of a Past Master under any circumstances whereby the rank of the wearer might be misinterpreted. I, therefore, recommend that the Lodges explore other ways of displaying any jewels of Past Masters which are the permanent possession of the Lodge. I direct that the wearing of the jewel of a Past Master be confined to those who have attained the rank of Past Master."

1964

A. Neill Osgood, Grand Master.

Page 1964-78, 03/11/1964, on chain letters.

This commentary is based on previous declarations by other Grand Masters.

"It is with considerable regret that I bring to your attention a matter which by its very nature should never receive the least consideration from any intelligent Member of our Fraternity. During the past ten weeks I have been receiving from disgusted recipients many samples of a Chain Letter purporting to be sent by Masons to other Masons suggesting that good fortune will come to those who do not so demean themselves. Every teaching of our Fraternity seeks to promote Light, to exalt Trust. Yet, if the names on all the Chain Letters which I have in my files be indeed those of Masons who have voluntarily placed them on such a communication, we now face the fact that we have among our Members some who would willingly ally themselves with ignorance and superstition. Lest there be those who would pass this matter off as nothing but simple jest, let me report that I know of one instance in which the receipt of one of these letters at the home of a Brother whose wife had been recovering from a period of mental depression caused immediate and serious consequences. Such a result was not intended, but the cause of it should never have happened, particularly among Masons.

"I rely on all of you for the exercise of good judgment in the future, and for the stamping out of this infantile and unwarranted practice."

Page 1964-176, 06/10/1964, on DeMolay.

"During my visits to other Grand Jurisdictions and in my discussions with other Grand Masters I have noted that an increasing number of Grand Lodges are showing interest in the Order of DeMolay by providing financial support for a statewide DeMolay program in their respective jurisdictions. Some time ago I appointed a committee consisting of M.W. Joseph Earl Perry, Chairman, M.W. Andrew G. Jenkins and M.W. Laurence E. Eaton to consider what part if any our Grand Lodge should take in supporting a program in Massachusetts.

"This committee prepared a detailed and lengthy report which was presented to our Board of Directors. They recommended that our Grand Lodge should support a DeMolay program in Massachusetts, and recommended the appropriation of $10,000 a year for a period of five years to finance the establishment of a state headquarters and the employment of a professional youth-worker to supervise and encourage DeMolay within the Commonwealth. The Directors accepted and adopted the report. It was hoped, with Grand Lodge taking the initiative, that additional financial support would be forthcoming from other sources.

"At the May meeting of the Board of Directors an initial appropriation of $5,000 was made to establish the program. I am informed that the services of a professional youth-worker, who is a member of the Craft, a former DeMolay and presently a Boy Scout Executive, has been secured and that he will soon be available to start planning a state-wide DeMolay program to be initiated next fall."

Page 1964-176, 06/10/1964, on the interval between degrees.

"A rather large number of requests for dispensations to shorten the time between the conferring of degrees continues to be received. Where the period concerned is a matter of one or two days a dispensation is frequently granted. Requests for a greater curtailment of time interval between degrees are usually denied.

"From some of the requests, I have gained the impression that a few Lodges may be more concerned in adapting the progress of the Candidates to its other programs, or to the convenience of its Officers than to the needs and education of the Candidate himself.

"The most important function of a Lodge is to mold the petitioner who has been attracted to us and accepted for admission into an alert, inquiring, intelligent Mason. This significant challenge should be our primary concern. The constitutional time provided for the important task of furnishing stimulation and enlightenment is already so short that its abbreviation increases the possibility of failure. I urge the Lodges to keep constantly in mind the successful development of the Candidate into an active, intellectually inquisitive Mason above all other considerations."

Page 1964-213, 09/09/1964, on Lodge finances.

"The consideration of a budget for Grand Lodges prompts me to express the wish that more of the Lodges would follow such a pattern in the conduct of their own finances. In a period when the number of candidates is declining, it becomes increasingly important that a newly-installed Master, from the beginning of his term, have a realistic understanding of the probable income which will be available for the operation of his Lodge, and a practical plan for meeting expenses as they become due. It is a prime responsibility of each Worshipful Master, and should be a matter of personal pride, that he turn over the Lodge to his successor in as good financial condition as when he took office, or better.

"Many Lodges deposit in a single bank account their own general funds together with the amounts collected as per capita payments required under the Grand Constitutions to be assessed by the Lodge upon its members. These assessments are often referred to by the members themselves as Grand Lodge dues.

"On occasion, a Master has directed the Lodge Treasurer to pay bills of the Lodge with the sums received from members for their per capita assessments. This is improper, and denotes a lack of financial responsibility on the part of the individual making the demand. Any Lodge Treasurer who refuses to comply with such an order will have the firm backing of the Grand Master."

Page 1964-214, 09/09/1964, on Temple building.

"The dedication of a new Masonic Temple, or the laying of a corner-stone for one, provides me with reassurance of the faith of the Brethren in the future of our Fraternity. It is definitely an act of confidence when the members of a Lodge unite in providing attractive surroundings for their future meetings.

"Much thought, careful planning and sound financing have been evident in each building program with which I am familiar. Many have been completed, and others are under way. However, the erection of an appropriate meeting-place, even a small one, is still a large undertaking for a single Lodge. Greater consideration might well be given by Lodges now contemplating a building program to the possibility of a join enterprise borne by two or more Lodges. Such action was made feasible by the amendment of Section 322 in 1961.

1965

A. Neill Osgood, Grand Master.

Page 1965-381, 12/08/1965, on prizes and lotteries. (SCC p. 15)

1966-1975

1966

Thomas A. Booth, Grand Master.

Page 1966-54 (or -64?), 03/09/1966, on prizes and lotteries, as well as cocktails. (SCC p. 17, p. 250)

Page 1966-198, 06/08/1966, on table lodges. (SCC p. 18, p. 249)

Page 1966-199, 06/08/1966, on the interval between degrees. (SCC p. 19)

Page 1966-237, ??/1966, on DeMolay. (SCC p. 251)

1967

Thomas A. Booth, Grand Master.

Page 1967-508, ??/1967, on costumes for degree teams. (SCC p. 252)

1968

Thomas A. Booth, Grand Master.

Page 1968-31, ??/1968, on Lodges of Instruction. (SCC p. 254)

Page 1968-87, 06/12/1968, on DeMolay and Rainbow. (SCC p. 20, p. 255)

Page 1968-91, 06/12/1968, on solicitation of public funds. (SCC p. 22, p. 256)

Page 1968-92, 06/12/1968, on use of Lodge funds. (SCC p. 23)

Page 1968-93, 06/12/1968, on taxation. (SCC p. 24, p. 260)

Page 1968-145, 09/11/1968, on taxation. (SCC p. 26, p. 258)

Page 1968-283, 12/11/1968, on dimits and suspensions. (SCC p. 28)

Page 1968-301, 12/11/1968, on Negro Masonry. (SCC p. 29)

1969

Herbert H. Jaynes, Grand Master.

Page 1969-259, 09/10/1969, on charity and relief funds. (SCC p. 30)

Page 1969-261, 09/10/1969, on Negro Masonry. (SCC p. 31)

1970

Herbert H. Jaynes, Grand Master.

Page 1970-337, 09/09/1970, on Prince Hall national meetings. (SCC p. 32)

Page 1970-390, 09/09/1970, on Rainbow. (SCC p. 34)

Page 1970-597, 12/09/1970, on Rainbow. (SCC p. 37)

Page 1970-598, 12/09/1970, on Rainbow. (SCC p. 39)

Page 1970-600, 12/09/1970, on Prince Hall. (SCC p. 41, 42)

1971

Herbert H. Jaynes, Grand Master.

Page 1971-393, 09/08/1971, on OES and Rainbow. (SCC p. 46)

Page 1971-397, 09/08/1971, on Lodge charity funds. (SCC p. 47)

Page 1971-509, 09/08/1971, on handicaps. (SCC p. 49)

1972

Donald W. Vose, Grand Master.

Page 1972-34, 03/08/1972, on First Degree work. (SCC p. 50)

Page 1972-179, 06/14/1972, on material accompanying Lodge notices. (SCC p. 83)

Page 1972-186, 06/14/1972, on beano. (SCC p. 51)

Page 1972-256, 09/13/1972, on demits. (SCC p. 84)

Page 1972-387, 12/13/1972, on the Universal League of Free Masons. (SCC p. 85)

1973

Donald W. Vose, Grand Master.

Page 1973-119, 06/13/1973, on visitors. (SCC p. 86)

Page 1973-121, 06/13/1973, on DeMolay. (SCC p. 87)

1974

Donald W. Vose, Grand Master.

Page 1974-??, 07/25/1974, on enclosures with Lodge notices. (SCC p. 161)

Page 1974-??, 07/25/1974, on the fourth class of instruction. (SCC p. 162)

1975

Stanley F. Maxwell, Grand Master.

Page 1975-28, 03/12/1975, on demits and suspensions. (SCC p. 91)

Page 1975-29, 03/12/1975, on the Master's Lecture in the EA degree. (SCC p. 92)

Page 1975-30, 03/12/1975, on degree teams. (SCC p. 93)

Page 1975-31, 03/12/1975, on gambling and liquor. (SCC p. 94)

Page 1975-32, 03/12/1975, on cipher. (SCC p. 96)

Page 1975-102, 06/11/1975, on funeral attire. (SCC p. 97)

Page 1975-103, 06/11/1975, on the Master's Lecture in the EA degree. (SCC p. 98)

Page 1975-171, 09/10/1975, on liquor. (SCC p. 99)

Page 1975-223, 12/10/1975, on inserts in Lodge notices. (SCC p. 101)

1976-1985

1976

Stanley F. Maxwell, Grand Master.

Page 1976-170, 06/09/1976, on Sunday meetings and liquor. (SCC p. 102)

Page 1976-170, 06/09/1976, on the fourth class of instruction. (SCC p. 103)

Page 1976-260, 09/08/1976, on demits and suspensions. (SCC p. 104)

Page 1976-261, 09/08/1976, on discrimination. (SCC p. 105)

Page 1976-343, 12/08/1976, on appointments. (SCC p. 106)

1977

Stanley F. Maxwell, Grand Master.

Page 1977-45, 03/09/1977, on liquor. (SCC p. 107)

Page 1977-46, 03/09/1977, on prizes and games of chance. (SCC p. 108)

Page 1977-53, 03/09/1977, on costumes in degree work. (SCC p. 110)

Page 1977-94, 06/08/1977, on the Masonic Home and nursing home. (SCC p. 111)

Page 1977-98, 06/08/1977, on the duties of a Worshipful Master. (SCC p. 113)

Page 1977-101, 06/08/1977, on liquor. (SCC p. 115)

Page 1977-102, 06/08/1977, on prizes and games of chance. (SCC p. 53)

Page 1977-131, 09/14/1977, on Masonic emblems. (SCC p. 55)

Page 1977-131, 09/14/1977, on Lodge charity funds. (SCC p. 56)

1978

Arthur H. Melanson, Grand Master.

Page 1978-46, 03/08/1978, on dispensations. (SCC p. 58)

Page 1978-86, 06/14/1978, on previous rulings. (SCC p. 59)

Page 1978-87, 06/14/1978, on ritual changes. (SCC p. 60)

1979

Arthur H. Melanson, Grand Master.

Page 1979-45, 03/14/1979, on the GWMMA. (SCC p. 62)

Page 1979-103, 06/13/1979, on the Masonic Home. (SCC p. 64)

Page 1979-140, 09/12/1979, on Panama. (SCC p. 66)

Page 1979-177, 12/12/1979, on street advertising. (SCC p. 67)

Page 1979-178, 12/12/1979, on Masonic emblems. (SCC p. 68)

1980

Arthur H. Melanson, Grand Master.

Page 1980-91, 06/11/1980, on healings. (SCC p. 69)

Page 1980-91, 06/11/1980, on dispensations. (SCC p. 70)

Page 1980-92, 06/11/1980, on candidate's dress. (SCC p. 71)

Page 1980-92, 06/11/1980, on Grand Lodge protocol. (SCC p. 72)

1981

J. Philip Berquist, Grand Master.

Page 1981-21, 03/11/1981, on Roman Catholicism. (SCC p. 73)

Page 1981-23, 03/11/1981, on degree teams. (SCC p. 74)

Page 1981-61, 06/10/1981, on Roman Catholicism. (SCC p. 75)

Page 1981-91, 09/09/1981, on the Grand Master's Award. (SCC p. 76)

Page 1981-127, 09/09/1981, on Sunday meetings. (SCC p. 80, p. 318)

1982

J. Philip Berquist, Grand Master.

Page 1982-156, 12/08/1982, on public relations. (SCC p. 117)

Page 1982-158, 12/08/1982, on Lodge memorial services. (SCC p. 118)

Page 1982-160, 12/08/1982, on 250th Anniversary medal. (SCC p. 119)

1983

J. Philip Berquist, Grand Master.

Page 1983-137, 06/08/1983, on public relations. (SCC p. 120)

Page 1983-138, 06/08/1983, on retiring from a Lodge room. (SCC p. 121)

Page 1983-138, 06/08/1983, on Grand Lodge dues. (SCC p. 122)

Page 1983-213, 12/14/1983, on insurance. (SCC p. 123)

Page 1983-219, 12/14/1983, on recognition of Masonic bodies. (SCC p. 155)

1984

David B. Richardson, Grand Master.

Page 1984-107, 09/12/1984, on Grand Lodge dues. (SCC p. 124)

1985

David B. Richardson, Grand Master.

Page 1985-12, 03/13/1985, on Lodge notices. (SCC p. 125)

Page 1985-32, 03/13/1985, on public relations. (SCC p. 126)

Page 1985-120?, 09/11/1985, on anti-Masonic publicity. (SCC p. 128)

Page 1985-150, 12/11/1985, on Grand Lodge dues. (SCC p. 127)

1986-1995

1986

David B. Richardson, Grand Master.

Page 1986-75, 06/11/1986, on raffles and door prizes. (SCC p. 129)

Page 1986-95, 09/10/1986, on alcohol and drug abuse prevention. (SCC p. 131)

1987

Albert T. Ames, Grand Master.

Page 1987-27, 03/11/1987, on Masonic charities. (SCC p. 132)

Page 1987-28, 03/11/1987, on DeMolay. (SCC p. 133)

Page 1987-28, 03/11/1987, on new program. (SCC p. 134)

Page 1987-99, 09/10/1987, on protocol. (SCC p. 135)

1988

Albert T. Ames, Grand Master.

Page 1988-33, 03/09/1988, on the "Adam's Rib" program. (SCC p. 136)

Page 1988-34, 03/09/1988, on the Masonic Awareness Committee. (SCC p. 137)

Page 1988-69, 06/08/1988, on lodge inserts. (SCC p. 138; see also p. 140)

Page 1988-95, 09/14/1988, on the Grand Master's Award. (SCC p. 139)

1989

Albert T. Ames, Grand Master.

Page 1989-71, 06/14/1989, on public relations. (SCC p. 141)

Page 1989-71, 06/14/1989, on Masonic funerals. (SCC p. 142; also p. 156, p. 319)

1991

Edgar W. Darling, Grand Master.

Page 1991-??, 01/05/1991, on visits to Connecticut. (SCC p. 159)

Page 1991-78, ??/1991, regarding Masonic funerals. (SCC p. 320)

1994

David W. Lovering, Grand Master.

Page 1994-109, ??/1994, on use of the word 'Temple'. (SCC p. 166) Note: this might be 1993, 1994 or 1995

Page 1994-109, ??/1994, on suspensions. (SCC p. 167, p. 321) Note: this might be 1993, 1994 or 1995

1995

David W. Lovering, Grand Master.

Page 1995-178, ??/1995, on candidate instruction. (SCC p. 323)

1996-2005

2000

Fred K. Bauer, Grand Master.

Page 2000-?, ??/2000, on internet service providers. (SCC p. 143, p. 325)

Page 2000-141, ??/2000, on distribution of relief funds. (SCC p. 162, p. 324)

Page 2000-158, ??/2000, on candidate proficiency. (SCC p. 144)

2002

Donald G. Hicks, Jr., Grand Master.

Page 2002-26, 03/12/2002, on lotteries and games of chance. (also p. 2002-37) (SCC p. 145, p. 326, p. 327)

Page 2002-115, ??/2002, on approaching the East, and photographs. (SCC p. 147, p. 328)

Page 2002-116, ??/2002, on redistricting. (SCC p. 148)

2003

Donald G. Hicks, Jr., Grand Master.

Page 2003-30, ??/2003, on redistricting. (SCC p. 149)

2005

Jeffrey B. Hodgdon, Grand Master.

Page 2005-29, ??/2005, on website and email communications. (SCC p. 330)

Page 2005-30, ??/2005, on Master's Path. (SCC p. 150, p. 331)

Page 2005-102, ??/2005, on Lodge Ambassadors. (SCC p. 332)

2006 and After

2006

Jeffrey B. Hodgdon, Grand Master.

Page 2006-114, ??/2006, on signing By-Laws. (SCC p. 151, p. 333)

2007

Jeffrey B. Hodgdon, Grand Master.

Page 2007-79, ??/2007, on application procedure. (SCC p. 153, p. 336)

Page 2007-96, ??/2007, on the Lewis Jewel. (SCC p. 152, p. 334)

Page 2007-102, ??/2007, on alcohol consumption in the Grand Lodge buliding. (SCC p. 150, p. 335)

2009

Roger W. Pageau, Grand Master.

Page 2009-??, ??/2009, on balloting. (SCC p. 157)

Page 2009-??, ??/2009, on degree work. (SCC p. 158) (This reprises a 1935 ruling by Grand Master Allen, above.)