Difference between revisions of "MassachusettsEdicts MFM"
| Line 95: | Line 95: | ||
''Committee''. | ''Committee''. | ||
| − | ==== | + | === [http://www.masonicgenealogy.com/MediaWiki/index.php?title=MassachusettsYear1864 1864] === |
| + | |||
| + | ==== Balloting ==== | ||
| + | |||
| + | ''From Vol. XXIII, No. 7, p. 216, May, 1864:'' | ||
| + | |||
| + | BALLOTING. | ||
| + | |||
| + | A Brother presents the following case :— | ||
| + | |||
| + | "Mr. __ applies lo Lodge for initiation. He is balloted for and elected at the next regular communication; presents himself for initiation; a Brother who had voted favorably at the last meeting protests against his admission, for reasons which should have caused him to vote unfavorably if known. | ||
| + | |||
| + | "Is it right for lhe W. M. to admit the party? | ||
| + | |||
| + | "The Brother protesting stated that he could not conscientiously 'be at the making' of that man a Mason. The Brother retired; the party was introduced and initiated." | ||
| + | |||
| + | We have nothing lo do with special cases in our columns, only with general principles. We can never make our paper the advocate of any particular party, or lend its influence to the maintenance of faction, or the abuse of individuals. But general inquiries like the foregoing are legitimate, whete names and places are concealed, ami we cannot be expected to have any partiality in the case. | ||
| + | |||
| + | According to striutly legal, external, and anological interpretation, a ballot once made with a unanimously favorable issue, makes the person a member, and entitled to all the piivileges of the same, one of which is the degrees. It is tUe election, the vote received by the peison in the outer world, that constitutes him eligible to receive the oath and immunities of office. This vote cannot be changed, unless before the proper tiibunal it may be proved to be a fraudulent vote, It no vote at all. Any mistakes in the motives, or imposition in representation, in securing the vote, cannot vitiate the effect of the ballot. It is not competent to go beyond the mere ballot. This is in accordance with external usage and decision. | ||
| + | If Masonic usage and decision were similar, the W. M. did right in initiating the Brother, as there is no claim of fraud or imperfection in the ballot, and no claim of any irregularity even. If there had been irregularity, which is not essential to Ibe validity of the ballot, such irregularity could not be plead in bar. | ||
| + | |||
| + | Our Brother changed his mind, if capriciously or for insufficient cause, he deserves censure. If he were remiss in examining into the propriety of the application, he deserves censure also for remissness of duty. If the facts could not have been known, under the circumstances he is excusable. In any case it is his duty to protest against the admission of an unwnrlhy member. We must increase our scrutiny into the qualifications of applicants. What next? Inasmuch as the applicant has not been obligated even as an Entered Apprentice, and inasmach as the Brother did but a few evenings before declare the applicant worthy of his ballot, it is due to himself, to the Lodge, and the applicant, not merely capriciously to protest, but to state his reasons, and submit those to the action of the Lodge, and abide its decision. He forfeited his technical and legal Masonic right to use the ball a second time after the unanimous action. He makes known that he does object, and thus renders secresy impossible. For the sake of harmony and the great principles of the Order, the protest should be regarded; for the same reason the objections should be stated and the decision of the Lodge regarded. We do not believe that there is a Lodge in the United States which would proceed against reasonable objections. If a Brother has taken the E. A. degree, we are clear in our views that charges should be presented against him and he be treated as a Brother, as he is. | ||
| + | |||
| + | Let the two great principles be regarded of harmony and" its preservation among Brethren, and the reception of the worthy only, and there can be no great error. If each Brother is sincerely anxious to preserve the harmony of the Lodge, and equally anxious not for many applicants, but for the good and true only, strife cannot enter our portals. Let not the letter so much as the great spirit of our institution be followed. "Let Brotherly love cement us."— ''Freemason.'' | ||
==== PLACEHOLDER C ==== | ==== PLACEHOLDER C ==== | ||
Revision as of 20:35, 14 September 2012
Contents
ADVICE FROM MOORE'S FREEMASONS' MONTHLY MAGAZINE
Prior to 1875, a considerable amount of Masonic jurisprudence was based on the advice and direction published in The Freemasons' Monthly Magazine, published in Boston and edited by one of the foremost Masonic authorities of the time, Rt. Wor. Charles W. Moore. While not established as edicts or rulings by Grand Masters, they were consequential in the establishment of precedents and contributed to the decisions made in later years.
Comments and views in the publication were often lengthy, but were generally based on sound reasoning that the author provided in response to inquiries from many Grand Jurisdictions.
1844
Right of Visit
From Vol. III, No. 8, p. 242, June, 1844:
"Will our enlightened Brother of the Freemason's Magazine give us his views upon the following questions, which are submitted with a candid desire of obtaining correct information:
"Is it not the inherent right of all Masons, in good standing, to visit any Lodge of his own degree, as often as he thinks proper, and wherever he may be found, freely and without hindrance?
"Is it consistent with the rights of a Mason in good standing, for a Lodge to obstruct his privilege of visitation, by imposing upon him a tax for each visit, when he is not a member of the Lodge to which he seeks admittance?"
- Maysville, Ky., Masonic Mirror."
In the old Constitutions it is laid down as a rule, that every Brother should belong to some Regular Lodge. On this basis the Grand Lodge of England has predicated the following regulation: -
"A Brother, who is not a subscribing member to some Lodge, shall not be permitted to visit any one Lodge in the town or place where he resides, more than once, during his secession from the Craft." (Constitutions of the Grand Lodge of England, p. 89)
If the principle here advanced be correct, the right to visit cannot be regarded as an inherent right, because it has only a conditional, not an innate existence. It is, on the contrary, a conventional right. The terms on which it may be enjoyed are dictated by the Grand Lodge. These being complied with, it exists, by courtesy and usage, if not by statute, in full and entire force. It may be said, that the Lodges, having a constitutional right to make regulations for their own government, may lawfully prescribe to themselves the conditions on which they may receive visitors. But the regulations of a private Lodge may not conflict with those of the Grand Lodge, from which it derives its existence and all its authority. Subordinate lodges possess no original powers, nor are they at liberty to arrogate to themselves the exercise of those which are exclusively vested in the parent body. It would seem, therefore, that unless the Grand Lodge has imposed restrictions, and stipulated the conditions on which alone Brethren residing within its jurisdiction, may visit the Lodges under its control, the right to visit, as to "all Masons in good standing," is "free and without hindrance." On the contrary, if the Grand Lodge, in its wisdom, has thought proper to restrict the right, it is obligatory on the Lodges to enforce the terms of the restriction.
In early times, and prior to the present organization of the Institution, Lodges generally existed as operative companies, working under Masters and Wardens, and employing no more Brethren than were necessary for the work on which they were engaged. The only regulation in respect to visitors, which appears to have been at that time in force, is the following. It is contained in one of the ancient charges:
"That every Mason receive and cherish strange fellowes when they come over the countrie, and set them on works, if they will worke, as the manner is; that is to say, if the Mason has any mould stone in his place, he shall give him a mould stone, and set him on worke; and if he have none, the Mason shall refresh him with money unto the next Lodge." (Book of Ancient Constitutions, p. 24.)
The right to visit here is distinctly recognized; but it is as to Brethren coming "over the countrie" in pursuit of employment; not as to Brethren residing in the place where the Lodge is situated, and refusing to work. Such Brethren seem not to have been known at that early period. There may have been, as now, drones in the hive, living on the labors of their associates; but, it is believed, no specific provisions were ever made for their accommodation and support.
There was, also, at the time referred to, another class of Lodges, which were not operative; but if they had any different regulation on the subject, it has not come down to us. The next earliest we find on record, was adopted by the Grand Lodge of England, as an amendment to the old Constitutions, on the 19th February, 1723, - six years after the reorganization of the Fraternity. It is as follows: -
"No visitor, however skilled in Masonry, shall be admitted into a Lodge, unless he is personally known to, or well recommended by, one of the Lodge present." (Constitutions, edition 1764 - p. 209.)
Hence it is manifest that the Grand Lodge of England, at its earliest organization, claimed the right to dictate the terms on which alone Brethren were to be admitted into the subordinate Lodges as visitors. This right it has continued to exercise to the present time. We accordingly find in its Constitutions the following corresponding regulation: -
"No visitor shall be admitted into a Lodge, unless he be personally known, recommended, or well vouched for, after due examination, by one of the Brethren present." (Constitutions, edition 1841, p. 88).
Had the right to visit been regarded as an inherent right, it is not to be presumed that the Grand Lodge of England would have deemed it expedient to restrict and regulate it by fixed laws. The restriction, however, is limited. A non-affiliated Brother is not permitted to visit the same Lodge in the town or city where he resides, more than once; but he may visit Lodges in other places as often as shall suit his convenience or inclination. This places him on a footing with those '"strange fellowes" who anciently came "over the countrie"; ahd thus while the new retains the spirit of the old regulation, it charitably supposes that the visiting brother does "worke", when at home, "as the manner is."
The principle involved in the regulation is, that if a Brother would share in the privileges and participate in the pleasures of the Lodge, he should contribute equally with his fellows to its support. Were it otherwise, the burden would be unequal. Members of Lodges are generally required to pay an annual tax for the support of the Lodge to which they belong, and frequently an additional tax for the maintenance of the Grand Lodge or the Grand Charity Fund. They are likewise required to be regular in their attendance at Lodge meetings; and when the calls of charity are to be answered, - when a sick Brother is to be relieved, his remains returned to the earth, his children provided for, or the wants of his widow supplied, - it is the members, and not the visitors, of a Lodge, on whom those duties devolve. The latter, therefore, enjoy all the privileges and reap all the advantages, while the former perform all the duties and bear all the burdens of the Institution. This is wrong in principle, and therefore not right in Masonry. The Grand Lodge of England carry this point so far as to not only exclude non-affiliated Brethren to the extent already stated, but to provide, by a Constitutional regulation, that "no persons shall receive the benefit of the fund of benevolence, but those who have been regularly initiated in a warranted Lodge, who have paid the full consideration-fee, who have been registered in the books of the Grand Lodge, and who have continued members of a contributing Lodge for at least two years, and have, during that period, paid their quarterly dues to the fund of benevolence. (Constitutions, ed. 1841, p. 94.) This rule does not, of course, apply to foreign Brethren. They may be relieved on the production of certificates from their respective Grand Lodges . . . and satisfactory proof of their identity and distress. (Constitutions, ed. 1841, p. 101.)
We will not stop to discuss the propriety of carrying the regulation to the extent here indicted. We cannot, however, refrain from the remark that we do not perceive any injustice in withholding the benefits of a benevolent fund from Brethren who have contributed nothing towards its creation. It is only carrying out the principle which restricts the right of visit, - a principle which is broadly recognized in the Constitutions of some of the Grand Lodges in this country, as well as in Europe, and which was clearly sanctioned by the late National Convention in recommending that a capitation tax be laid on all the Brethren who are not members of Lodges; for, the only lawful way in which this recommendation can be enforced, is by a suspension fo the right of visit. And if this right may be suspended or regulated by the Grand Lodges, it is not an "inherent right", to be exercised "freely and without hindrance."
In answer to the second interrogatory: We are not aware of the existence of any regulation or custom which authorizes or sanctions the Lodges in imposing taxes upon visitors. This is a matter, the adjustment of which, in our opinion, lies exclusively with the Grand Lodges. At a time when it was usual to furnish refreshments after the Lodge duties were over, the Brethren, including visitors, were generally subjected to a small assessment. But this was to defray the extraordinary expenses, and was not a "tax for visiting." Any Brother not wishing to partake of the refreshments, was at liberty to retire, and would not be liable to assessment. This practice still exists in Europe, subject to the regulation here named. In this country, it has happily been abandoned, - at least, we are not aware of its existence.
Conferring the Degrees
From Vol. III, No. 9, p. 275, July, 1844:
The Committee to whom was referred "the order for prohibiting the conferring of more than one Degree on the same candidate, on the same evening, or short of a month, unless by Dispensation, report:
That they have carefully examined the order, and compared it with all ancient rules and usages on the subject, so far as they could have access to them.
They find that the junction of the two Grand Lodges of England, the Grand Lodge of all England, at York, and the Grand Lodge of England, at London, which was effected in 1813, the Constitutions of the Order were revised and collated, with careful and laborious investigation, with a view to ascertain, present and preserve the true ancient laws and usages. For several years the investigation was prosecuted by experienced and able men, and in 1827, the work was completed, approved and published. It is now the Constitution of the United Grand Lodge of England. In that work is the following provision: -
"No Lodge shall on any pretence make more than five new Brothers in one day, unless by Dispensation; nor shall a Lodge be permitted to give more than one Degree to a Brother on the same day; nor shall a higher Degree in Masonry be conferred on a Brother at a less interval than one month, from his receiving a previous Degree. Nor until he has passed an examination in open Lodge on that Degree."
And in a note it is stated, that "no Dispensation can be granted to suspend the operation of this law." The same provision is afterward twice repeated, in substance, in the same work. The early published books of Constitutions contain similar provisions.
In an edition of the Ahiman Rezon, published during the last cetury, in speaking of the reception of men of rank and science into the Institution, the rule is stated, that they are equally subjected to all the charges and regulations; and must be governed by the general rule.
"No Lodge shall make more than five new Brethren at one time, unless by Dispensation. Nor shall any be made, or admitted a member of a Lodge, without be proposed one month, &c. Apprentices, when expert in the business of their apprenticeship, shall be admitted, upon further improvement, as Fellow-Crafts, and in due time, be raised to the sublime degree of Master Masons, capable themselves to undertake their Lord's work, animated with the prospect of passing in future through the higher honors of Masonry."
It is entirely clear and plain that our Brethren in England do think, and in earlier times have thought, that this provision is in conformity both to ancient usage, and the spirit of the work. And your committee are of the same opinion.
The Order in question was adopted in the Grand Lodge, at the Quarterly Communication in June, 1843, having stood the requisite time for consideration of the Lodge. But in the publication of the Constitutions of the Grand Lodge of Massachusetts, subsequently made, it was, by accident, omitted.
It is now a standing law, and in the opinion of the committee it is a wise provision; and one that is in strict accordance with the ancient rules, orders and usages, as it is with the spirit of the work.
They therefore recommend that the Order in question be adopted as a Constitutional Rule, and that it be printed as the fourteenth rule of the Miscellaneous Regulations; that it be pasted into tall the books of the Constitutions which have not yet been distributed, and sent for the same purpose to the Lodges which have already received the work.
All of which is respectfully presented by
Augustus Peabody,
John Abbot,
Thomas Tolman,
Thomas Power,
John Hews,
Committee.
1864
Balloting
From Vol. XXIII, No. 7, p. 216, May, 1864:
BALLOTING.
A Brother presents the following case :—
"Mr. __ applies lo Lodge for initiation. He is balloted for and elected at the next regular communication; presents himself for initiation; a Brother who had voted favorably at the last meeting protests against his admission, for reasons which should have caused him to vote unfavorably if known.
"Is it right for lhe W. M. to admit the party?
"The Brother protesting stated that he could not conscientiously 'be at the making' of that man a Mason. The Brother retired; the party was introduced and initiated."
We have nothing lo do with special cases in our columns, only with general principles. We can never make our paper the advocate of any particular party, or lend its influence to the maintenance of faction, or the abuse of individuals. But general inquiries like the foregoing are legitimate, whete names and places are concealed, ami we cannot be expected to have any partiality in the case.
According to striutly legal, external, and anological interpretation, a ballot once made with a unanimously favorable issue, makes the person a member, and entitled to all the piivileges of the same, one of which is the degrees. It is tUe election, the vote received by the peison in the outer world, that constitutes him eligible to receive the oath and immunities of office. This vote cannot be changed, unless before the proper tiibunal it may be proved to be a fraudulent vote, It no vote at all. Any mistakes in the motives, or imposition in representation, in securing the vote, cannot vitiate the effect of the ballot. It is not competent to go beyond the mere ballot. This is in accordance with external usage and decision. If Masonic usage and decision were similar, the W. M. did right in initiating the Brother, as there is no claim of fraud or imperfection in the ballot, and no claim of any irregularity even. If there had been irregularity, which is not essential to Ibe validity of the ballot, such irregularity could not be plead in bar.
Our Brother changed his mind, if capriciously or for insufficient cause, he deserves censure. If he were remiss in examining into the propriety of the application, he deserves censure also for remissness of duty. If the facts could not have been known, under the circumstances he is excusable. In any case it is his duty to protest against the admission of an unwnrlhy member. We must increase our scrutiny into the qualifications of applicants. What next? Inasmuch as the applicant has not been obligated even as an Entered Apprentice, and inasmach as the Brother did but a few evenings before declare the applicant worthy of his ballot, it is due to himself, to the Lodge, and the applicant, not merely capriciously to protest, but to state his reasons, and submit those to the action of the Lodge, and abide its decision. He forfeited his technical and legal Masonic right to use the ball a second time after the unanimous action. He makes known that he does object, and thus renders secresy impossible. For the sake of harmony and the great principles of the Order, the protest should be regarded; for the same reason the objections should be stated and the decision of the Lodge regarded. We do not believe that there is a Lodge in the United States which would proceed against reasonable objections. If a Brother has taken the E. A. degree, we are clear in our views that charges should be presented against him and he be treated as a Brother, as he is.
Let the two great principles be regarded of harmony and" its preservation among Brethren, and the reception of the worthy only, and there can be no great error. If each Brother is sincerely anxious to preserve the harmony of the Lodge, and equally anxious not for many applicants, but for the good and true only, strife cannot enter our portals. Let not the letter so much as the great spirit of our institution be followed. "Let Brotherly love cement us."— Freemason.
