Difference between revisions of "MassachusettsEdicts MFM"

Revision as of 03:24, 16 September 2012

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.

BALLOTING FOR CANDIDATES

From Vol. XXIII, No. 8, p. 285, June, 1864:

The following communication on this subject has been handed to us, and, as it is a matter of great importance, and one upon which Masons, both young and old, seem to be divided in opinion, we cheerfully give our views with regard to it:—

"Masonic Editor Sunday Mercury:—Will you please answer the following questions, and oblige several young Masons?

1. When a candidate is proposed in the Lodge, and his application received and referred to a committee, is it not the duty of any Brother who may know aught against the character of the applicant to communicate to the committee the facts which may have come to his knowledge?
2. When a candidate has been favorably reported upon by the committee, and bears a good reputation in the community, and, upon the ballot being taken but one black-ball appears, is it not the duty of the Brother casting the negative ballot to explain his reasons for so doing?

To the first question, we answer: as a general rule, Yes; but circumstances may arise which would render a different course both justifiable and proper; and such cases will suggest themselves to the mind of any intelligent Brother.

To the second question, we answer, emphatically, No! No one has a right to know who casts the black-ball; and if by chance it should become known, no one has a right to question the Brother who casts it concerning his reasons for so doing.

There is no one act on which so much care, deliberation and justice are required as in balloting on the application of a candidate for the mysteries of Masonry. We have in former articles expressed our views in connection with recommendations, duties of committees, &c., and the subject of balloting for candidates for Masonic honors is one of equal, if not of more vital importance to the prosperity and harmony of the Order. To young Masons, in particular, we wish now to address ourselves, and in all candor say to them, weigh well the duty that devolves upon you, and be careful you do not permit the impulses of passion or prejudice to influence your vote. The position in which you, as well as every individual Brother is placed when called upon to vote for an applicant, should be maturely considered; and if you feel inclined to reject him, ask of your conscience this question: Have I good and sufficient reasons for so doing? or, is it simply a "private pique" or personal prejudice which influences me in this matter? Conscience will answer truly, and by its dictates you may safely be guided ; then, when yon are satisfied as to the proper course to be pursued, do your duty without fear or favor. Honesty of purpose should be the guiding star to the rule of your action—Charity at all times the director of your mind—and the harmony of the Lodge the basis by which all should be governed.

Much ill-feeling must necessarily be engendered in a Lodge if a good man is rejected, and his friends most assuredly must and will become chagrined if it be found that no proper cause exists for the exercise of the highest prerogative vested in an individual. Apart from this, the sensibilities of the applicant himself must be sorely wounded, if he be conscious that his life has been one of moral rectitude and propriety; and as men are apt to reason by analogy and comparison, it too often occurs, when an undue exercise of the black-ball is used, that the question presents itself to the rejected whether there be not some one or more members in the body much more unfit to be borne upon its roll than he would be if received : and the result, instead of producing the effect desired, raises up a secret enemy against us. It is, therefore, very easy to prevent and obviate the cause of annoyance by proper and due reflection, and acting under the chaste and mild influences of the noblest attribute of our Order—Charity—which should be the guide of all our acts, and thereby we should be governed. A Mason sitting as member of a Lodge, and beholding the emblems before him, ought at all times to remember the sublime lessons which they teach, and so act as to win the approval of the Almighty Master of the Universe, in whose presence he seeks to be approved now and hereafter. He should be careful that he perpetrates no invidious act!), but rather "dounto his neighbor as he would that he should do unto him." Let every Brother remember that the white apron is emblematical of purity and innocence, both of conscience and heart, and teaches us to walk uprightly before Heaven and before man, without permitting us to deviate from the square of propriety, or to use it as a medium of persecution, malice or revenge ; but, as the operative workman raises his column by the plumb, so should the speculative Mason carry himself in all his acts, more especially when within the " Sanctum "—ever bear in mind that no contention should arise, "save that noble contention, or rather emulation, of who best can work and best agree," thus inspiring a feeling pure and holy as that which pervades the sphere to which all, by proper conduct, hope to arrive when the trial of their probationary state is over. Mercury, San Francisco.

Masonic Trials

From Vol. XXIII, No. 7, p. 216, May, 1864:

Mr. Editor,—Are any classes of persons declared to be incompetent to give evi. dence on Masonic trials ? Please answer and oblige. Delta.

The law of the land, which, in this instance is the same as the law of Masonry, has declared the following classes as incompetent to give evidence :—

1. Persons who have not the use of reason, are from the infirmity of their nature considered to be utterly incapable of giving evidence. This class includes idiots, madmen, and children loo young to be sensible of the obligations of an oath, and to distinguish between good and evil.
2. Persons who are entirely devoid of any such religious principle or belief as would bind their consciences to speak the truth, are incompetent as witnesses. Hence the evidence of an Atheist must be rejected, because as it has been well said, such a person cannot be subject to that sanction which is deemed an indis pensable test of truth. But as Masonry does not demand of its candidates any other religious declaration than that of a belief in God, it cannot require of the witnesses in its trials any profession of a more explicit faith. But even here it seems to concur with the law of the land.
3. Persons who have been rendered infamous by their conviction of great crimes, are deemed incompetent to give evidence.
4. Persons interested in the result of the trial are considered incompetent to give evidence. From the nature of human actions and passions, and from the fact that all persons, even the most virtuous, are unconciously swayed by motives of interest, the evidence of such persons is rather to be distrusted than believed. This rule will, perhaps, be generally difficult of application in Masonic trials, although in a civil suit at law, it is easy to define what is the interest of a party sufficient to render his evidence incompetent.

But whenever it is clearly apparent that the interests of a witness would be greatly benefitted by either the acquital or conviction of the accused, his testimony must be entirely rejected, or, if admitted, its value must be weighed with the most scrupulous caution.

The peculiar isolated character of the Masonic institution here suggests as an important question, whether it is admissible to take the testimony of a profane person, who is not a Freemason, in the trial of a Mason before his Lodge. Such testimony, we think, is generally admissible, but as there are special cases in which it is not, it is proper we should state the grounds and reasons for this admissibility, and the mode and manner in which such testimony is to be taken.

The great object of every trial in Masonry, as elsewhere, is to elicit truth ; and in the spirit of truth to administer justice.

From whatever source, therefore, this truth can be obtained, it is not only competent to seek it, but it is obligatory on us to do so. This is a principle of law as well as common sense. Now, if A, who is a Freemason, shall have committed an offence, of which B and C alone wen; cognizant as witnesses, shall it be said that A must be acquitted for want of proof, because B and C are not members of the society. If such were the case the ends of justice will be defeated rather than subserved.

If the veracity of B and C are unimpeached, their testimony as to the fact, cannot be lawfully rejected on any ground, except that they may be interested in the result of the trial, and might be benefitted by the conviction or the acquittal of the defendant.

Any other rule would be often attended with injurious consequences to our institution. We will suppose a case :—A, who is a member of a Lodge, is accused of habitual intemperance, a vice eminently unmasonic in its character, and one which will always reflect a great portion of the de-jredation of the offender upon the society which shall sustain and defend him in its perpetration. If then a dozen or more men, all ot reputation and veracity, should come, or be brought before the Lodge, ready and willing to testify to this fact, by what process of reason or justice, or under what maxim of Masonic jurisprudence, could their testimony be rejected, simply because they were not Masons 1 The world would not, and could not, appreciate the causes which led to the rejection of such clear and unimpeachable testimony, and would visit with its just reprobation, the institution which could thus extend its fraternal affection to the support of undoubted guilt.

It must, however, be noted, that the testimony of persons who are not Masons, is not to be given as that of Masons is, within the precincts of the Lodge. They are not to be present at the trial, and whatever testimony they have to adduce must be taken by a Committee, to be afterwards accurately reported to the Lodge. But in all cases, the accused has a right to be present, and interrogate the witnesses.

The testimony of Masons is to be taken either in Lodge or in Committee, and under the sanction of their obligation.

The testimony of profanes is always to be taken by a Committee, and on oath, legally administered.— N. Y. Sat. Cour.

Restoration of Membership

From Vol. XXIII, No. 8, p. 262, June, 1864:

An expelled or suspended Mason can only be restored to the rights and privileges of Masonry, or to membership, by petition, its reference to a Committee, a favorable report thereon, and his unanimous acceptance by the Lodge.

Exclusion of a Brother by the Master

From Vol. XXIII, No. 8, p. 262, June, 1864:

The Master of a Lodge has the power to direct the withdrawal of a visiting Brother, if, in his opinion, the presence of such visiting Brother will disturb its harmony, or cause the withdrawal of any member on account of his presence.

Officers of Lodges Under Dispensation

From Vol. XXIII, No. 8, p. 272, June, 1864:

A Brother claims that the officers of a Lodge U. D., can and ought to be installed into their respective offices when the Lodge commences to work under its Dispensation. I think they neither can nor ought to be. What is your opinion?

The seventh paragraph of the Constitution of the Grand Lodge, among other things, has the following words: " The duties of the Grand Master shall be, to govern Lodges under Dispensation; to constitute, consecrate, and dedicate new Lodges chartered by the Grand Lodge, and install their officers."

A Lodge under Dispensation is governed by the Grand Master. It is not a Lodge in any permanent sense, but its members are simply authorized to make Masons, and to do such things as are necessary for its convenience or to prepare it for a permanent organization: all this by permission, and as agents of the Grand Master.

Before the officers of a Lodge can be installed, the Lodge must be chartered, constituted and consecrated. The members of a Lodge U. D. are not divested of any rights or privileges in the Chartered Lodges to which they belong, but are liable for dues, and amenable to discipline. The Charter is the demit of the Brethren named therein ; all others remain in their old homes as before. When a chartered Lodge is constituted, its members are absolved from allegiance to all other Lodges, and thenceforth go with the new Lodge. A Lodge under Dispensation is temporary; a Chartered Lodge is permanent.

Expulsion

From Vol. XXIII, No. 11, p. 347, September, 1864:

"What is Ihe proper course for a Lodge to pursue in relation to a Mason who is under suspension for unmasonic conduct, and who, since his suspension, has been guilty of unmasonic conduct of the grossest nature?"

With regard to the case in question, the proper course to be pursued is simply to prefer charges of gross unmasonic conduct, making the specifications as in other cases, and proceed according to the rules prescribed by the Constitution of the Grand Lodge relative to Masonic trials. The idea that a suspended Mason is no longer amenable to the laws of the Order is a fallacious one: it is true he has no claim upon the Fraternity—he has forfeited all his rights and privileges as a Mason for the time being; but as suspension is only a temporary privation of the rights and privileges of the Order, it does not place him entirely without the pale of Masonry, but leaves him still amenable to the general laws and regulations; and, if during his period of suspension, he should commit a Masonic crime which merits a severer punishment, it is the duty of the Lodge to try him for the greater offence, and if guilty to inflict upon him the extreme penalty of the law.

Those who have an idea that a suspended Mason cannot be reached because he is already undergoing Masonic punishment, might with the same propriety, argue that a man who has been imprisoned for larceny, and who while in prison assaults and murders his jailor, or fellow-prisoner, cannot be tried and punished for murder, because he is already suffering the penalty of the minor offence. In this Jurisdiction there are but three grades of Masonic punishment: First, reprimand; second, suspension; third, expulsion. Immoral or unmasomc conduct, according to its magnitude, will subject a Brother to either of the first two, but nothing short of gross unmasonic conduct should subject him to the last; it is the severest punishment known to Masonry, and very few expelled Masons are ever restored, however earnestly they may pray for forgiveness. Gross unmasonic conduct may be defined to be an offence, or crime, so wickedly and deliberately perpetrated that but little hope can be entertained that the offender will soon repent and honestly endeavor to-make atonement. A Mason should not be expelled so long as there is a reasonable hope that the offender is not corrupt at heart; but if circumstances demand it, every Lodge owes it to itself and to the Fraternity at large to inflict the punishment; and Ihe repremanded or suspended Mason is just as liable to this higher grade of punishment as any other Mason. —N. Y. Mercury.

From Vol. XXIII, No. 11, p. 350, September, 1864:

"If a Brother be guilty of acts unwarranted either by Masonic or the moral law, can a Lodge retain him as a member, when the effects outside are damaging to the great principles and objects of Masonry ? Will not the Lodge be compelled to expel or get rid of the obnoxious Brother?"

Sometimes it is right and proper for a Lodge to be patient with an erring Brother; sometimes they are afraid to do their duty, but we hope none are so dishonest as to be really in sympathy with a Brother greatly in error.

If, however, a Lodge should retain a turbulent, vicious Brother, or one guilty of any crime, the Grand Lodge, or Grand Master, will institute an inquiry, and the Lodge may lose its charter. There is no wrong without a remedy. Let Brethren bear in mind that it is best to let the tares remain sometimes, at least as long as there is considerably more wheat than tares.

We may as well lake this occasion to say, that abroad distinction should always be made between crimes and wrong committed in the heat of passion, under strong provocation, or without premeditation, and those committed dtliberately, in cool blood, and in the exercise of reasoning faculties. To the former, act in mercy, considering lest thou also may be tempted in like manner.

Let reason and conscience rule, but temper justice as God tempers the wind to the shorn lamb.—Trowel.

Edicts Main Page