MassachusettsEdicts MFM

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.

1843

Our Natchez correspondent has sent us the following interrogatories, which have been in agitation before the Grand Lodge of Mississippi, and have, almost as a matter of course, given rise to some difference of opinion among the members of that body. He does not inform us how they were finally disposed of, nor has he given us any intimation of the grounds of difference. We however cheerfully comply with the request to state our own views on the subject, and the practice of the Grand Lodge of this Commonwealth:—

Conferral of Past Master's Degree by Grand Lodge

From Vol. II, No. 8, June, 1843, p. 225:

Response to a question given to the Editor: "Do you confer the Past Master's degree upon Masters elect, in Grand Lodge ?—requiring all under that degree to withdraw, of course."

. . . We give a negative answer. The right to confer degrees in Grand Lodge, we do not question; because, in our judgment, the Grand Lodge cannot delegate a power to a subordinate Lodge, which it does not itself possess The latter exists, and is authorized to confer degrees, only by the authority which it derives from the former. It is the agent, exercising the functions of the parent body. If, therefore, it have power to confer the degrees, it is because that power exists as one of the functions of the Grand Lodge. (It is not probably generally known to our readers, that by the regulations adopted at the organization of the Grand Lodge of England, in 1717, the Grand Lodge retained the exclusive right of passing and raising all Masons who were initiated in the subordinate Lodges instituted by its authority. It continued to exercise this power for many years. No degrees are now, bowerer, conferred by that Grand Lodge.)

The expediency of conferring the Past Master's, or any other degree, in Grand Lodge, is a question on which there is a diversity of opinion among the Brethren in this country. Our own is against the practice. Grand Lodges are legislative bodies. In them alone resides the power of enacting laws and regulations for the government of the Craft,—of granting warrants for the constitution of new Lodges,—of regulating the manner of conferring the degrees,—of "devising plans, problems and propositions, for the private Lodges to execute," and of maintaining and exercising a general supervision and control over the affairs of the Fraternity within their respective jurisdictions. These seem to us to be the legitimate and proper duties of Grand Lodges. While, therefore, we do not deny the right, we question the expediency, of their conferring degrees of any kind.

The present practice, both in this country and in Europe, very generally corresponds with what we regard as the expediency in the case. As a general rule, the Grand Lodges confine themselves to their legislative functions. There are, however, exceptions. The Grand Lodge of Pennsylvania, we believe, in particular cases, and as a mark of special distinction, confers the first three degrees on distinguished candidates. The authority for this, she finds in the usages of the Craft, before the regulations were so well defined as at present The Grand Masters of some of the States claim the right to assemble any sufficient number of Brethren, and confer the "degrees at sight." It is a question, however, whether the present organization and usage of the Fraternity, do not abrogate both these ancient practices,—admitting that there is authority for the latter. But let that be as it may, they have become obsolete, and would probably be sanctioned by but few of the Grand Lodges either in this country or in Europe. The conferring of the degrees in Grand Lodge, at this day, and in this country, as marks of distinction, we regard as even more objectionable than the " making of Masons at sight" It is drawing a line between Brethren, little in accordance with the pure ritual and the true spirit of genuine Freemasonry.

The practice in this Commonwealth, is for the Master of the Lodge, in connection with two or more Past Masters, to qualify his successor in office, unless he shall have previously received the Past Master's degree in a Lodge, acting under the warrant of a Chapter of Royal Arch Masons; for, in this country, by some anomalous arrangement, the propriety of which is not readily perceived, the Chapters are authorized to qualify Brethren to preside in Lodges! or, in other words, the Grand Chapters exercise a jurisdiction over a matter which properly belongs to the Grand Lodges. The effect of this is to produce irregularity in conferring the degree. (The degree is sometimes conferred by the District Deputy Grand Masters, while os their official Visits; but never unless requested by the Master, or the immediate Past Master of the Lodge.)

Qualifications of Grand Wardens

From Vol. II, No. 8, June, 1843, p. 227:

Response to questions given to the Editor: "Do you allow Master Masons to be elected to the office of Grand Wardens? Are Grand Wardens entitled to the degree of Past Master, by virtue of their office?"

One of the Ancient Charges (Vide English Constitutions, p. 7) or original Constitutions, declares, that "no Brother can be a Grand Warden, until he has been Matter of a Lodge. Every Brother who serves as Master of a Lodge, attains to the rank of Past Master, and is required to assume the obligations belonging to that degree. It follows, therefore, that the mere Master Mason, independent of the rank conferred on him by virtue of his election as Master of a Lodge, is not eligible to the office of Grand Warden. The question proposed would seem to be answered, without going more fully into the argument. We will merely add, that the regulation of the Grand Lodge of this Commonwealth, is in conformity with the ancient Constitution. We believe this to be the general usage.

A Brother cannot, by the Constitution quoted, nor by the regulations of the Grand Lodge of Massachusetts, be elected to the office of Grand Warden, until he shall have been Master of a Lodge; or, in other words, unless he be a Past Master. His election, therefore, if he were merely a Master Mason, would be void. It would not, of course, entitle him to the Past Master's degree. The whole matter, however, is summed up in few words: a Brother cannot attain to that rank of Past Master, until he has been elected to preside over a Lodge of Masons. If any practice exist, contrary to this rule, it is irregular.

From Vol. III, No. 1, November, 1843, p. 3:

In June last, we offered some remarks on the subject of the Past Master's Degree, and the election of Master Masons to the office of Grand Wardens. They were in reply to certain questions which had been in agitation before the Grand Lodge of Mississippi, and were communicated to us by our intelligent correspondent at Natchez, with the request that we would give our views on the subjects to which they referred. We have since received, from the same source, the following note :

Natchez, Aug. 18, 1843.

"Br. Moore,—I thank you for answering my questions in your June No., but you do not settle the whole difficulty. The Grand Lodge being composed of the Master and Wardens of subordinate Lodges, as well as Past Masters, has, as members, many who are only Master Masons; in the selection of officers, how will these Master Masons be able to distinguish the Past Masters from the Master Masons? They are qualified to vote without being qualified to be voted for! They are members without the ordinary privilege of membership, that of holding office. (1.) A Master Mason, can be elected to the office of Grand Master (for he can be qualified to preside after his election,) but cannot be elected to the office of Grand Warden! (2.) Suppose it should accidentally occur that none should be present in a Grand Lodge, except the Wardens of subordinate Lodges, who are only Master Masons, (and such a thing is possible though not probable,) who would vouch for the absent Past Master candidates? (3.) Year before the last, the Grand Lodge of the State of Mississippi decided, in accordance with all its previous practice, that a Master Mason could not hold the office of Warden, and the last year that he could. I have suggested the above inconsistencies and difficulties, for your consideration, without offering an opinion, as we look to the East for more light on the subject."

(1.) The ancient Constitution, quoted in the article referred to by our correspondent expressly declares, that "no Brother can be a Grand Warden, until he has been Master of a Lodge." This would seem to settle the question. The Constitution is the supreme law, and our duty clearly is, not to endeavor to warp its provisions to suit our own convenience, but to conform our measures to its requirements.

Our correspondent says, the Grand Lodge is composed of the Masters and Wardens, as well as Past Masters, and asks how the Wardens are to distinguish the Past Masters? We answer :—1st. The Masters, being likewise Past Masters, can give them the necessary information. 2dly. If this be not satisfactory, they may require, (if the Grand Lodge sustain them,) a certificate of the fact, under the seal of the Lodge over which the Brother in nomination has presided, and in which he received the degree of Past Master. As a further security, it is provided by the Constitutions, that an officer in Grand Lodge can be installed into office only by a Past Master—by the Grand Master, his Deputy, or some respectable and venerable Past Master of a Lodge, appointed by the Grand Master for the purpose,—whose imperative duty it is to ascertain that the Brother elected, is duly qualified, before he proceeds to install him. We are inclined to think that this point is sufficiently guarded.

That the Wardens of a Lodge, "are qualified to vote without being qualified to be voted for," is no more an anomaly in Masonry than in government. By the Constitution of the United States, a citizen is qualified to vote for Representatives to the National Legislature, when he shall have attained to the age of twentyone years, but he cannot be "voted for," to fill that station, until he has reached the age of twentyfive years; nor can he be elected to the United States Senate before he is thirty years of age, or nine years after he is "qualified to vote" for Senators. The Constitution acts upon the principle that age and experience are requisite in offices of great trust and responsibility. It does not question the ability of younger men to appreciate the talents and capabilities of their seniors. Nor do the Masonic Constitutions doubt the ability of Wardens of Lodges to judge of the fitness of candidates for the office of Grand Warden. They do, however, require that before they can themselves be eligible, they must have the experience of Masters of Lodges. And this is only carrying out that principle in the Constitutions, which declares, that " no Brother can be Master until he has first served a Lodge acceptably in the office of Warden, unless in extraordinary cases, or when a new Lodge is to be formed." (Ahiman Rezon, Chap. II, Sec. 6, Art. "of the Master of a Lodge," &c. Edition of 1783.) In our judgment, both these provisions are founded in wisdom, and ought not to be inconsiderately departed from. The office of Master of a Lodge is an important one,—that of Grand Warden still more so; and Brethren holding them cannot be too well qualified, nor too thoroughly acquainted with the routine of their duties.

(2.) The Grand Master must, however, be qualified before he is installed, and before he can be permitted to preside in Grand Lodge. The regulation in respect to the Grand Master, is not so strict as that in relation to Grand Wardens, because it has generally been deemed expedient and advantageous for the Fraternity, in electing a Grand Master, to avail themselves of the talents, rank, and influence of some Brother distinguished in public life; and in consideration of his supposed inexperience in the practical details of the Craft, he has the inherent power of appointing his own Deputy, who is usually a skilful and experienced Brother. No such provision is made for the Grand Wardens. They are supposed to be acquainted with their own duties. We are by no means certain that, in this country, where worth, and not place, makes the man, the interests of the Fraternity would not be promoted by requiring, that one of the requisite qualifications of a candidate for the Grand Mastership, should be that he has served at least one year as Grand Warden.

(3.) This is hardly a supposable case. Should it occur, the Grand Lodge could not be opened.

Right of Grand Wardens to Preside

From Vol. II, No. 8, June, 1843, p. 227:

Response to questions given to the Editor: "Have not Grand Wardens, by ancient and modern regulations both, the right to preside over subordinate Lodges, which they may visit?"

The terms of this question arc not sufficiently explicit. It should have been stated, whether the visit is to be considered as an official or informal one. We will endeavor, however, to furnish such an answer as shall meet the case. In the first place then, if the visit be an official one, the regulation is, that in the absence of the Grand Master and his Deputy, "the Senior or Junior Grand Warden may preside as Deputy, in visiting Lodges, or in constituting new Lodges." (Harris' Masonic Constitutions, p. 69; Dalcho's Ahimon Rezon, p. 117.) On the other hand, if the visit of the Grand Warden be an informal one, having no immediate connec¬ tion with his official duties, he will be received with the respect due to a Grand Officer, but will not, in our opinion, be entitled to supersede the presiding Master. The regulations on this subject are not so full nor so well defined, as could be desired. They may, however, enable us to arrive at a correct result. The English Constitutions say :—

"The Grand Master has full authority to preside in any Lodge, and to order any of his Grand Officers to attend him. His Deputy is to be placed on his right hand, and the Master of the Lodge on his left hand. His Wardens are also to act as Wardens of that particular Lodge, during his presence." (English Constitutions, p. 30)

"The Deputy Grand Master has full authority, unless the Grand Mas¬ ter or Pro-Grand Master be present, to preside in every Lodge which he may visit, with the Master of the Lodge on his right hand. The Grand Wardens, if present, are to act as Wardens." (English Constitutions, p. 33)

"The Grand Wardens, whenever commanded, are to attend the Grand Master, and while he presides in any particular Lodge, are to act there as his Wardens." (English Constitutions, p. 34)

The Constitutions of the Grand Lodge of Scotland (Chap. 8, Sec. 2; see also Constitutions of the Grand Lodge of Maryland.) contain similar regulations. They provide that the Grand Wardens, on occasions when the Grand Master visits the Lodges, shall preside as Wardens; but they make no provision for their presiding as Masters, in the absence of the Grand Master and his Deputy. The inference, therefore, is, that the Grand Wardens have not the "right to preside over subordinate Lodges, which they may visit," unofficially. If commissioned by the Grand Master, they "may preside as Deputy." If it were intended that they should have the power to supersede the Master, whenever they might see fit to make an informal visit to a subordinate Lodge, the Constitutions would have made the same provision in their behalf, that is made for the Grand Master and his Deputy. In the absence of any such authority, and in view of the fact, that special provision is made for their presiding when, in the absence of their superior officers, they are required to visit the Lodges, officially, we come to the conclusion, that the right is not vested in them.

As a matter of courtesy, it may have been usual with many Masters of Lodges in different sections of the country, to invite one of the G. Wardens, when present, to take the chair. In this sense the practice may perhaps be regarded as a commendable one; though, like every other mark of respect, it depreciates in value as it is extended ; and it is not improbable that this consideration may have operated to induce the authors of the Constitutions to limit the right to the Grand Master, and his immediate representative. But in discussing questions of this nature, we are not to consider what is courteous, or what is expedient; but what is authoriz¬ ed by the Constitutions and regulations of the Craft.

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.

Jurisdiction Over Applicants

From Vol. III, No. 10, p. 295, August, 1844:

An individual makes application for membership to some Brethren of a Lodge in Georgia, but there being some stains on his character at the time, he is requested to wait till he may be free from these spots. But in the meantime, he goes on to New York, where he remains a few weeks or months, and during that time joins the Lodge in that States, take the degrees and then returns again to Georgia. Ought the Lodge in Georgia to recognize this man as a worthy Brother, and permit him to enjoy the benefits of the Fraternity ? Will our enlightened Brother of the "Freemasons' Magazine," please answer the above query? - Masonic Signal, Madison, Geo.

ANSWER.

The receiving of the individual in question, by the Lodge in New York, was in violation of the rights of jurisdiction, and is a proper subject for the action of the Grand Lodge of Georgia. It was a wrong, which we doubt not would receive attention from the Grand Lodge of New York, on a proper representation of the facts in the case.

We do not understand that the person alluded to, was actually proposed for admission to any Lodge in Georgia, but that he made the request of some member to be proposed, and was persuaded to delay his application. If this be the state of the case, then the Lodges in Georgia are bound to receive him as a Brother in good standing, or to prefer charges against him and formally suspend or expel him. He is a Brother, and, until cause be shown to the contrary, is to be recognized as such. That his receiving the Degrees in New York, was a violation of a principle of jurisdiction, recognized by the Grand Lodges of the United States, does not disqualify him as a Mason; because he is presumed to have been ignorant of the existence of such a regulation. But even if he had been aware of its existence, he is not to be held responsible for its violation. The responsibility was assumed by and rests with the Lodge which admitted him. It is not more a legal than a Masonic maxim, that every man is presumed to be innocent until the contrary is proved.

There are two other points of view in which the case may be considered, and as we may not fully understand the terms of the "query," it may be proper briefly to state them. It may be asked, how the question would stand if the application had been laid before the Lodge, and "there being some stains" found on the character of the petitioner, he was, through an unwillingness on the part of the Brethren to reject him, permitted or desired to withdraw his petition? This would be an irregular proceeding, though it is one which, we regret to say, is frequently practised by the Lodges. It would not, however, change the state of the case. There having been no definite action on the petition, the petitioner would stand precisely as before he made his application, and at liberty to apply to any other Lodge for initiation. The Lodge to which he should apply would be under no other than the' ordinary restrictions.

If, on the other hand, his petition was acted upon and rejected by the Lodge, and that rejection was certified up to the Grand Lodge, he is, in our judgment, to be regarded as having obtained his initiation in a clandestine manner, and may properly be rejected by the Lodges in Georgia. We of course take it for granted that the individual is a resident of Georgia, and that he was on a' visit to New York when admitted to Masonry.

The case here stated shows the necessity of a strict adherence on the part of the subordinate Lodges to the rights of jurisdiction. The general rule is, that the application for admission shall be made to the Lodge in or nearest the residence of the applicant. This is not only just, but is the safest course.

1845

Requirement to Vote

From Vol. IV, No. 8, June, 1845, p. 225:

A Georgia correspondent proposes the following inquiry:

"Can a member of a Lodge, and an officer, being present at a balloting for a candidate for the mysteries of Freemasonry, refuse to cast his vote, when the petition has been regularly received, and the person refusing to vote having no constitutional scruples as to the proceedings, and no objection to the candidate?"

The admission of members into the Fraternity, is not only one of the most important, but it is one of the most responsible duties with which the Lodges are charged. This power was originally invested in the Fraternity at large, or rather io a specified number of Master Masons informally assembled. But the looseness of the regulation exposed it to abuse. Sufficient caution was not exercised, and unworthy persons were admitted. It was, therefore, as early as 1663, wisely determined to restrict the power to regularly constituted Lodges,—to make them the guardians of the Fraternity,—to commit to their care and keeping, its reputation and welfare. It was a great and sacred trust, and for the manner in which it shall be discharged, each and every member of a Lodge, is responsible, to the extent of his influence, not only to his own particular Lodge, but to the whole Fraternity; for all are interested in his acts, when those acts are of a character to affect the whole, either in reputation or interest.

A candidate, on entering the Fraternity, engages to do and perform certain acts. If he fail in either of these, he so far fails in the discharge of his duties as a Mason. But he advances one step farther, and affiliates himself, as every Brother should do, with a particular Lodge. He here enters into new engagements, and assumes new responsibilities and trusts. He engages to exert his talents and energies in the advancement of the interests, and in the attainment of the various objects for which the Lodge has been established. Among the most important of these is the admission of candidates. So essential to the welfare of the Institution has a careful and rigid discharge of this duty been considered, that, as a general rule, it has been deemed wise and prudent to invest every individual member of a Lodge, with the despotic power to reject whom he will, without question as to his reasons or his motives,—his honor and conscience being presumed-to be a sufficient guaranty for the propriety of both. Let us inquire then, whether the inference is sound and logical, that this great power has been given to an individual member, to be exercised by him or not, as he may deem expedient ? On the contrary, has he not been clothed with it expressly for the preservation of the charac¬ ter and welfare of the Institution? If so, does he discharge his duty to the Fraternity, when he refuses or neglects, through fear or partiality, or other secret motive, to exercise it ? And if he may defer the performance of this duty, may he not, with equal or greater propriety, refuse to perform any of his Masonic engagements? If one member may do this, why may not all ? The By-Laws of the Lodge may not, in terms, require that each member shall ballot, but they do provide that candidates shall not be admitted except by ballot These ballots must be east by the members. This is a constructive or incidental duty, arising from a positive provision of the By-Laws; the performance of which is made obligatory on the Lodge by the regulations of the Grand Lodge.

Now, whatever is the duty of a Lodge, it is the duty of every member to see performed; and whatever is required to be done by the members in their aggregate capacity, each individual member is required to assist in doing. There is not usually any provision in the By-Laws which, in terms, requires a member to vote against an unworthy applicant for admission; yet he is under a constructive obligation to do so, and his refusal or wilful neglect to discharge this obligation, would subject him to the discipline of his Lodge. A Brother is charged on his first admission into the Fraternity, not to recommend an unworthy person for its privileges. This is made a positive duty; but it carries with h the constructive duty, not less important or obligatory, to vote against such a person, if recommended by another. His whole duty is not done until he has used all his influence and power to preserve the Institution against the admission of the unworthy. It is not therefore to be inferred, that because the By- Laws or the Constitutions do not expressly provide for a particular duty, that, the discharge of that duty is left to the option of the members of the Lodge. There are many collateral, or constructive duties, like the one under consideration, which are necessary to a full and proper discharge of iht positive duties, enjoined by the established regulations. And this class of duties cannot with propriety be neglected. When a Brother joins a Lodge, ho dees it with the understanding and under an obligation to support the regulations, and to render his best services in performing, the duties of the Lodge. One of these duties is the balloting for candidates for initiation. We are aware that this duty is frequently avoided in the Lodge, and so are many other Masonic duties, or we should all be better Masons. But it is the principle, not the practice, we are discussing. A bad practice cannot vitiate or impair the validity of a good principle.

In legislative matters, the rule in voting is, that "every member who shall be in the house when the question is put, shall give his vote, unless the house, for special reasons, shall excuse him." (Jefferson's Manual, rule 28, p. 76). And this is found to be a correct and wholesome regulation, and frequently obliges members to perform their duty to their constituents, when they would other; wise avoid it. As it is, they sometimes, to use a political phrase, "dodge the question." But the discredit which attaches to a manoeuvre of this kind, operates as a powerful restraint, and prevents its frequent occurrence. The Constitutions of the Grand Lodge of Massachusetts, contain a corresponding regulation. They declare that "every member present shall vote on the application, (of a candidate for initiation,) unless excused by the Lodge." And this we hold to be a conservate and correct Masonic rule.

We know nothing of the circumstances under which the Brother referred to, declined to cast his ballot, former than what appears in the. statement given by our correspondent.

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?

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?
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 :—

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.
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.
Persons who have been rendered infamous by their conviction of great crimes, are deemed incompetent to give evidence.
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.

1865

Jurisdiction of Lodges

From Vol. XXIV, No. 7, p. 193, May, 1865:

LODGE JURISDICTION

The universal rule of Masonry in this country is, that the jurisdiction of a Lodge (and the same is true of all other Masonic Bodies,) extends half-way, in all directions, between itself and the next nearest Lodge, except that it does not extend beyond the limits of the State in which it is located, nor to within the boundaries of any town where a Lodge is already established. This is a plain and simple rule, and it should seem that there need not be any misapprehension about it, or difficulty in its practical application. The Lodges, in their work, are restricted by it, and it is the duty of the Master of every Lodge to see that it is carefully and literally enforced. The usual penalty for a violation of it, is a forfeiture of the fees to the Lodge nearest the residence of the candidate; within whose jurisdiction he has his abode, and to which his petition should have been presented. This is the mildest form of discipline, and is in force where no special regulation exists imposing a higher penalty, such as reprimand, suspension of the Master, or revocation of the Charter; according to the aggravated character of the offence, and its frequency by the same Lodge. The power of a Grand Lodge to impose either of these penalties is unquestionable, and its duty to do so, where the lesser penalty fails of its purpose, is equally clear. The rule, at whatever consequences, should be rigidly enforced. If this cannot be done by lenient measures, then more stringent ones should be employed. It is the only equal and just rule that can be framed to meet all the contingencies of the case, and to secure to each individual Lodge the full enjoyment of its jurisdictional rights. Without this security there can never be that perfect harmony and confidence among the Lodges which are so essentially necessary to their peace and prosperity; nor that protection against the admission of unfit and improper persons, which the reputation and welfare of the Institution at large so imperatively demand.

The regulation on this subject in the Constitutions of the Grand Lodge of this State, until within the last few years, was in exact conformity with the ancient rule as above cited, and in the following words :—" All applications for initiation shall be made to the Lodge in the town where the petitioner resides, if there be a Lodge in such town; but if there be none, then he shall apply to the Lodge nearest his residence." And this rule worked to the satisfaction of all parties, and its perfect equity and fairness were nowhere questioned, until the multiplication of railroad facilities changed the natural line of distances, and Lodges, which, under the old mode of travel, were geographically ten or even twenty miles distant from a given place, were brought, in point of lime, nearer the residence of a candidate living within five or six miles of a Lodge located in the adjoining town.

This led, on the part of some of the Lodges, to a construction of the rule never contemplated by its framers, and clearly antagonistical to its spirit and purpose. It was assumed, on the one hand, that that Lodge was " nearest the residence" of the candidate which could be reached in the shortest time and at the least inconvenience; while, on the other hand, it was contended, and with logical force and correctness, that the rule, in its terms and intention, limited and restricted the privileges of a candidate to the Lodge geographically " nearest his residence," without regard either to convenience or time; that the introduction of a new and more rapid mode of travelling did not change or affect the established and lawful jurisdiction of a Lodge, nor relieve the candidate of the necessity of applying for initiation where he is best known. The conclusiveness of this reasoning ought to have placed the question beyond doubt or controversy. But it did not. And with a view to relieve the subject of its present embarrassment, the Grand Lodge, (as we thought at the time, and as the result has shown,) unfortunately amended the rule, to the effect, that the petitioner shall " apply to the Lodge most convenient to his residence." By this amendment a clear and well defined rule, about which there ought never to have been any difference of opinion, was stricken out of the Constitutions, and another substituted, as indefinite and unsatisfactory as it was possibb for language to make it. If it be admitted that the terms of the original rule were liable to misconstruction, those of the new rule are equally so. If the former decided that a Lodge twenty miles distant was nearer the residence of the candidate than one of five miles, the latter leaves it optional with him to say whether one fifty miles off, is not more "convenient" for him than one in a neighboring town, four or five miles from his residence 1 for there is nothing in the new regulation to determine the question of "convenience." It must therefore be decided either by the candidate or the Lodge to which he applies. And who should know better than the candidate himself what suits his own convenience! We know of one instance, at least, where the candidate claimed this right, and it was conceded to him; and he was initiated in a Lodge more than twenty miles from his residence, when there was a good Lodge nearer by fifteen miles. The difficulty in this case was that the nearest Lodge would not have entertained his petition. The objection may have been a personal one, (and we are inclined to think it was,) or it may have been one of character. If the latter, then an unworthy member gained admission to the Institution by finding it more "convenient" to apply to a distant and strange Lodge, than to one composed of his neighbors! We cite this case merely as an illustration of the principle we are discussing, and not with any view to censure or find fault with the parties to it.

Others might have been selected, but this best answers our purpose, as presenting the subject in its strongest light. Here, not only the objection to the candidate was disregarded, or not allowed to manifest itself in an effective form, but the rightful jurisdiction of the nearest Lodge was stultified. And perhaps the most remarkable feature in the case is, that this singular result was brought about by the candidate himself!" It is more convenient" said he, "for me to go twenty miles east, than to go five miles west!" The eastern Lodge believed him, and the matter was settled —lawfully, perhaps, but neither masonically nor wisely. The western, or nearest Lodge, was, by a fiction, wrongfully deprived of its privilege to initiate the candidate, who resided within its lawful jurisdiction,—as much so as though he had lived in the town where the Lodge was situated. That this wrong was the result of a fiction, will hardly be questioned, for it is idle to say that it was more convenient for the candidate to travel twenty miles and remain out over night, when, if worthy, he could have accomplished the same purpose by traveling four or five miles, and returned home on the same evening. The pretence was an absurdity; but it was allowed, because there was no authorized power to determine its validity. The regulations of the Grand Lodge are silent on the subject, and the rule itself is vague and undefined. That this is not only a wrong, but a dangerous condition of things, no intelligent Brother can doubt. Whatever may be its advantages, if it have any, they are moie than counter-balanced by its liability to great abuses. It is a door thrown wide open, through which unworthy men, who could not gain admission to a Lodge where they are known, may effect their purpose in a Lodge where they are but imperfectly known, or perhaps not personally known at all. It cannot therefore be too soon closed. And this can be most effectually and properly done by restoring the rule to its normal condition, and requiring all candidates to be initiated in the Lodge nearest their residence. This is the ancient, as it is the only truly Masonic and safe rule, on the subject. But if this may not be, then let the question of " convenience," in all cases, be referred to the "nearest Lodge" for its decision.. Having all the facts in its possession, with a perfect knowledge of the means of travel, and of the fitness of the candidate, it is the only competent and qualified Body to decide it. The distant Lodge can know, comparatively, but little about it, and the petitioner should not be allowed to have anything to do with it.

Demits

From Vol. XXIV, No. 9, p. 296, August, 1865:

A demit is simply the severence of Lodge membership, and is complete when the Brother has paid his indebtedness to the Lodge and the Lodge has by Resolution consented to such severence. The act of the Lodge severs the membership—not the issuing of the certificate by the Secretary. The certificate of dismission is merely evidence of the joint action of the Lodge and the member, by which such membership was terminated, and does not necessarily include a recommendation of the Brother.

Jurisdiction Over Rejected Candidates

From Vol. XXIV, No. 10, p. 325, September, 1865:

Where a candidate has been rejected and a new Lodge is afterwards established having jurisdiction over his place of residence, he may present his petition to the new Lodge; but he cannot be initiated without the consent and recommendation of the Lodge that rejected him.

Trials in Lodges Under Dispensation

From Vol. XXIV, No. 10, p. 325, September, 1865:

Lodges under Dispensation have no jurisdiction to try charges against the members composing it. Such charges must be presented to the Lodge from which the petitioners hailed at the time of issuing Dispensation, or to the Grand Master.

Physical and Age Requirements of Candidates

From Vol. XXIV, No. 11, p. 350, September, 1865:

MINORS AND MAIMED MEN

"The first written law we have on the subject, is contained in the 5th article of the Gothic Constitutions, adopted at York, in 926, and is in these words :—
A candidate must be without blemish, and have the full and proper use of his limbs; for a maimed man can do the Craft no good.

The next enactment is to be found in the Regulations of 1663, under the Grand Mastership of the Earl of St. Albans, and is as follows:—
That he that be made, be able in all degrees, that is, free-born, of a good kindred, true, and no bondman: and that he have his right limbs as a man ought to have.

In the Charges approved in 1772, we have the following:—
No master should take an apprentice unless he has sufficient employment for him, and unless he be a perfect youth, having no maim or defect in his body that may render him incapable of learning the art of serving his master's lord, and of being made a brother, &c.

In the second edition of Anderson's Constitutions, which was examined and approved by such Masons as Desaguliers, Cowper and Payne, we find the following :—
The men made Masons must be free-men, (or no bondmen,) of mature age, and good report, hale and sound, not deformed or dismembered at the time of making.

The Ahiman Rezon of the Grand Lodge of Pennsylvania, published in 1788, and of South Carolina, published in 1807, adopt the rule as laid down in the second edition of Anderson's Constitutions.

In 1823, the Grand Lodge of Missouri unanimously adopted a Resolution, requiring that candidates for initiation should be sound in mind and all their members, and at the same time declared that the Grand Lodge cannot grant a letter of dispensation to initiate any person maimed, disabled, or wanting the qualifications established by ancient usages.

In 1848, the Grand Lodge of Maryland adopted a Resolution requiring their subordinates in the initiation of candidates, to adhere to the ancient law, which says, He shall be of entire limbs.

In 1849, the Grand Master of the Grand Lodge of New Jersey, in his address, enforces the same rule. And the Grand Lodges of New York, Ohio, Alabama, Kentucky, Tennessee, Georgia, North Carolina, Florida, Arkansas, District of Columbia, and all other of our sister Grand Lodges, so far as the Committee have any knowledge of their action on the subject, have in substance, the same rule as the 79th and 80th Rules of our Grand Lodge.

And we have no knowledge of any differently expressed opinion, except by a Committee of the Grand Lodge of Mississippi. They adopted as the basis of their opinion, That the world has changed, and Masonry has changed. That the world has changed is doubtless true, but that Masonry has changed is doubtless false. The supposed change of our Institution from an entirely operative to entirely speculative character, is a supposition that has no foundation either in history or tradition. Let the world change; let other institutions, with their peculiar usages and objects, grow up and live their brief hour and die, but lay not violent hands on our venerable Order. It may seem hard that one so unfortunate as to be without an arm or leg, or not to have the proper use of them, should be excluded. But there is no greater hardship in his case than in that of his mother, wife, sister, or daughter; they are excluded by the same unvarying rule, but without a murmur they submit. A man without a leg or an arm, or the proper use of them, may be otherwise worthy, but cannot be well qualified.

That universal language by which Masons make themselves known to each other, by evidences as invaluable as life itself, and by which the savage, the Arab, the Dane, the Chinese, German, Irishman, Frenchman, Spaniard, Italian, and Englishman, can all meet upon the same common plain of Masonic friendship, and feel, and know, that besides the common tie of humanity, there are obligations of a stronger nature, that induce them to stand by, relieve, and befriend each other, can only be spoken in that language that is known to every creed, clime, and country under heaven, but to Masons only.

On the subject of age, the Ancient Regulations are less definite, expressing no uniform number of years at the expiration of which a candidate may apply for admission. The language used at an early date was, that he must be of mature and discreet age. The usages of the Craft have varied in different countries as to the construction of the time as to when this maturity or discretion is supposed to arrive.' The 6th of the Regulations adopted in 1663, prescribes that No person shall be accepted unless he be twenty-one years old or more. At Frankfort-on-the-Main, the age required is twenty. The Grand Lodge of Switzerland fixes the age at twenty-one. The Grand Lodge of Hanover prescribes the age of twentyfive, but permits the son of a Mason to be admitted at eighteen. The Grand Lodge of Hamburg deems that the lawful age for initiation shall be that in which the laws of the country fixes to be the age of majority. The Grand Orient of France requires the candidate to be twenty-one, except he be the son of a Mason who has performed an important service to the Order. In Prussia, the required age is twenty-five. In England it is twenty-one, except in cases where the Provincial Grand Master has granted a dispensation for an earlier age. In Ireland, the candidate must be twenty-one years old, unless a dispensation has been granted by the Grand Master or Grand Lodge. In the United States, the rule adopted by the Grand Lodge of Hamburg has been universally adopted, and the civil law fixing the age of majority at twenty-one years, there is no Grand Lodge that permits a candidate to be initiated under that age; and so universal and uniform has that rule been, that it would seem to be a matter of astonishment that any Lodge should violate it.

From Vol. XXIV, No. 11, p. 352, September, 1865:

A correspondent in Canada East Inquires—

1. "What is the Masonic meaning ol 'free birth,' or 'free born'?)"

We answer, just whut the words imply. If a man is bora of a bond woman, be is not "free by birth," i. e. he is not "free born." The child takes the condition of the mother, When the Grand Lodge of England a lew years since changed the words " free born," to "free man," it enacted an unauthorized innovation on the ancient laws and usages of Masonry.

2. "Can a person be made a Mason whose parents were not legally married?"

The old Consiitutions answer this in these words—"No Master should take a Prentice that is not the son of honest parents." The practice has not, however, always followed the law: and we are not aware that any injury has accrued to the Institution from the neglect. There were doubtless good reasons for the law when it was first enacted, but the spirit of Masonry, as now interpreted, does not require that the sin of the parent shall be visited upon the child. The law has long since become obsolete, and it is not worth while now to revive it. Jephthah, though of illegitimate birth, was made a head Judge in Israel, notwithstanding the Levitical law proscribed such children, even to the tenth generation.

Edicts Main Page