MassachusettsEdicts MFM1851 1855

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.

1852

Making Masons At Sight

This discussion was subsequent to the removal of the Grand Master of California, who asserted that he could make Masons at sight independent of particular Lodges.

From Vol. XII, No. 2, p. 33:

The apparent primary cause of the unfortunate difficulty that has recently arisen among our Brethren in California, may be traced directly to the opinion which seems to be entertained by their Grand Master, that by virtue of his place, he is invested with plenary power to " Masons at sight," without regard to circumstances or conditions. In other and more intelligible words, that as Grand Master, he is privileged to make Masons of anybody, anywhere, and in any manner, that shall suit his convenience, his whims, or his prejudices. This is his theory. Its practical illustration is to be seen in his acts.

If the principle he has thus boldly set up be true, it involves considerations and consequences of momentous importance to the future peace and prosperity of our Institution in this country. In any light in which we can view it, the doctrine is lo our mind startling in its aspects, and portentous in its results. It is either true, and the Grand Master is above the law; make or it is not true, and he is but the executive of the law; to which, in common with all his Brethren, he is amenable. He is either the centre in which all power is lodged, and from which all authority emanates; or he is amenable to a power higher than himself. He is either the embodiment of a despotism ; or he is the representative of a free and intelligent constituency. He is either above the law, or under the law. If above the law, "to himself alone, he is accountable;" and in the eye of the law, "can do no wrong." If under the law, he is amenable to the law, and may do great wrong. Which is true?

It is our misfortune to differ from some intelligent Brethren who have favored the Fraternity with their opinions on this subject. That Grand Masters possess the power to make, or authorize others to " make Masons at sight," under proper circumstances and limitations, we suppose to be a proposition that does not admit of a negation. But that they may so make Masons without regard to conditions or limitations, is more than we are at present prepared to concede. As early as 1663, under the Grand Mastership of the Earl of St. Albans, it was decreed, as a permanent regulation, "that no person, of what degree soever, shall be accepted a Freemason, unless in a regular Lodge (a regular lodge is one formed in accordance with the authorized usage or prescribed regulations of the supreme authority, at the time of its organization), whereof one to be Master or a Warden, in that division (or District) where such Lodge is kept, (regularly held), and another to be a Craftsman in Masonry." Prior to this period, little regard was paid to the manner of holding Lodges or the making of Masons. They were then made "at sight," anywhere and by any competent Master or Warden. The Grand Master could then make Masons, as claimed by our Brother in California, "at will," and without regard to preliminaries or restrictions. It was not a prerogative of his office. It was a right or privilege enjoyed equally by his Brethren of inferior rank. The foregoing regulation was adopted. The right of making Masons at sight remained intact. But "no person, of what degree soever," whether prince or peasant, could be "accepted a Freemason, unless in a regular Lodge" formed and organized in the manner prescribed. This was then the condition and limitation.

At the reorganization of Masonry in year 1717, so much of the regulation of 1663, as defines what constitutes a "regular Lodge," was taken into a new draft, as follows :—

"The privilege of assembling as Masons, which has been hitherto unlimited, ■hall be vested in certain Lodges or assemblies of Masons, convened in certain places; and every Lodge to be hereafter convened, except the four old Lodges at this time existing, shall be legally authorized to act by warrant from the Grand Master for the time being, granted to certain individuals by petition, with the content and approbation of the Grand Lodge in communication; and without such warrant no Lodge shall be hereafter deemed regular or constitutional."

The adoption of this regulation did not repeal or impair that part of the regulation of 1663, which declares that "no person, of what degree soever, shall be accepted a Freemason, except in a regular Lodge." That remained as it originally stood, and as it stands now. It was in the nature of an explanatory regulation, and defined what should thereafter constitute a regular Lodge; and in which alone Masons could be lawfully made.

But there was yet another element wanted in order to afford full protection to the Lodges against the danger to which they were exposed under the practice of making Masons at sight; for there was then no rule on the subjeot. This was supplied by the adoption of the following regulation in 175S :—

"That no Lodge thall ever make a Mason without due inquiry into his character; neither shall any Lodge be permitted to make and raise the same Brother, at one and the same meeting, without a dispensation from the Grand Master, which, on very particular occasions only, may be requested."

As the Lodges could not "make due inquiry into the character" of a candidate until his name had been proposed, this regulation has been interpreted by the Grand Lodge of England to mean, that "no person shall be made a Mason without a regular proposition at one Lodge, and & ballot at the next regular stated Lodge; nor until his name, addition or profession, and place of abode, shall have been sent to all the members, in the summons." And the interpretation has received the sanction and concurrence of all regular Grand Lodges that have since been established.

In the manner here pointed out—and in this way only—can any "person, of what degree soever," be lawfully and regularly " accepted a Freemason." And at this point terminated, we trust forever, the loose and injudicious practice of making Masons at sight,—at least, so far as respects any other than Grand Lodges. Were they authorized to continue it ? This question is not without its difficulties. The reliable Constitutions are silent on the subject. The term, "making Masons at sight," is not known to them. It has its origin in another and less credible source. To find it we must leave the paths of true Masonry, and seek it in a body which was spurious in its organization, and impure in its practices. We speak of the term. The principle may be found in the practice, though the words be absent.

In the "Ahiman Rezon," by Laurence Dermott,—Secretary and, subsequently, Deputy Grand Master of the illegal Grand Lodge at London, in the middle of the last century,—as published by the Grand Lodge of Pennsylvania in 1781, we find the following :—

"It is the prerogative of the Grand Lodge (not of the Grand Master, as has been maintained), and the R. W. Grand Master has full power and authority (when the Grand Lodge is duly attembled), to make or cause to be made in his Worship's presence, free and accepted Masons at sight, and such making is good; but they cannot be made out of his Worship's presence (see Note 1), without his written dispensation for that purpose.) (see Notes 2 and 3)

Note 1: That is, (as we understand the restriction), out of the Grand Lodge.

Note 2: This power is still in force, and we may add, too freely exercised. The Grand Master dispenses with the previous proposition of the name, and the time required before the balloting I bat not with the "due inquiry into character," nor with the notice to members, tn this sense, Lodges, as before 1717, continue to "make Masons at sight,"—that is, the constitutional provision as to time, is dispensed with, and the candidate is made at once.

Note 3: it is worthy of remark, that this paragraph (for Dermott does not seem, to have regarded it as a regulation), does not appear in the first edition of the Abiman Rezon. We are told that it is to be found in the edition of 1772. That we have not before us. It is contained in the constitutions of the Grand Lodge of New York of 1824, verbally as it is here given. It stands there as an old "constitution." Nevertheless, in the regulations of the same body as revised and published in 1832, it is omitted for the following substitute, viz :—"He (the Grand Master) may make Masons at sight, and for this purpose may summon such Brethren as he may deem necessary to assist him." The difference is material; bnt we need not here stop to disease it. We next find it, in still another form, in Cole's compilation, called "the Freemasons' Library and General Ahiman Rezon"—a work of little value, like most of the hundreds of similar compilations which have been pirated and thrust upon the Fraternity as Masonic guides, within the last quarter of a century. It is there given as an explanatory note, and, as such, purports to be copied from Dermott's work of 1772. It there assumes neither the dignity of a constitution, nor yet of a regulation. There is an important difference in it, however, as given by Cole and as it is given in the Pennsylvania. work. As the former gives it, the material, qualifying clause, within the parenthesis, is wholly omitted. The reader will note this.

In our appreciation of it, this regulation embraces the usage which obtained with our Brethren in England, from and after the re-organization of the Fraternity at London in 1717. While it secures to the Lodges their just rights, and protects the Order against abuse from indiscreet or evil-disposed Grand Masters, to our mind it relieves the subject of all embarrassment. Its terms are clear and comprehensive." It is the prerogative of the Grand Lodge" to make " free and accepted Masons, at sight." What is the prerogative of one, cannot be rightfully exercised by another. When a right or privilege is held in common with another, it ceases to be a prerogative. If the right to make Masons at sight be the prerogative of the Grand Lodge, it is not a prerogative of the Grand Master. His authority to make Masons at sight is, therefore, if our reasoning be correct, a limited and qualified power. It is restricted by the terms of the rule, to be exercised only "when the Grand Lodge is duly assembled." The usual preliminaries required of subordinate Lodges, are then, by virtue of an inherent power in the Grand Lodge, dispensed with; and he may lawfully proceed to make, or in case of inability or disinclination personally to perform the work, cause to be made, " free and accepted Masons, at sight."

The regulation of 1717, was adopted as it stands above. It relates wholly to the " privilege of assembling" for the purpose of making Masons. It provides that such assemblies shall not be lawful, unless authorized by " warrant from the Grand Master," granted on petition, with the " consent and approbation of the Grand Lodge." In 1741, the Grand Lodge ordered, " that no new Lodge for the future, should be constituted within the Bills of Mortality, without the consent of the Brethren assembled in quarterly communication, first [obtained. But this order," says Entick, " afterwards appearing to be an infringement on the prerogative of the Grand Master, and to.be attended with many ifteon* venienoes, and with damage to the Craft, was repealed." (This was only a re-enactment of the regulation of 1717,—called for probably on account of some recent disregard of its restrictions, occasioned by the delay of waiting the action of the Grand Lodge. Hence its inconvenience; and hence also, perhaps, the discovery that it was an "infringement on the prerogative of the Grand Master." We do not find the order among the regulations given in the Constitutions, nor any other notice of its reconsideration than the above.)

It might be hypercritical to ask, what was repealed? The first regulation had been in existence a quarter of a century. Had the Grand Lodge been that length of time in discovering that its provisions were an infringement on the prerogative of the Grand Master," in establishing Lodges? Or did the second regulation, or order, deny to him the right to constitute Lodges after the prescribed formula, without the consent of the Grand Lodge? The language is not altogether clear; but the intention undoubtedly was to restore to him, (for he had not possessed it since the re-organization of the Fraternity in 1717—when many things which had before been regarded as prerogatives were brought, under rules,) the privilege of granting warrants for the organization of Lodges, without the previous action of the Grand Lodge. This is conceded. But we cannot so readily concede the argument attempted to be drawn from it, that because the Grand Master may issue his warrant to a competent number of petitioners, authorizing them to assemble as a Lodge and make Masons, he may therefore make them himself, without the aid of any Lodge, constituted in the form and maimer, and for the purpose contemplated by the reguUv- tion. It is asking too much, when we are required to concede that the Grand Lodge of England in 1741, in restoring to the Grand Master a power which, anterior to 1717, was vested in every Master and Warden > within a given district,—namely, to create Lodges,—intended to invest him with a power in direct rivalry and competition with the Lodges then and thereafter to be constituted, and which were to become, constituent parts of its own body. It is enough to ask us to consent that the Grand Lodge in 1741, knew better than the Brethren who formed the original . Grand Lodge in 1717, and enacted laws for its own and the future government of the Lodges, what, under the altered and progressive circumstances of the Fraternity, it was proper to reserve as prerogatives of the Grand Master. We will not contest this. But it is obvious that at the re-organization of the Order in 1717, the Grand Lodge then formed, believed it had the power, and intended to deny to the Grand Master, as it did to everybody else, the right to constitute Lodges, without the " consent and approbation of the Grand Lodge in communication." The Grand Lodge of 1741, thought proper to assume the right to rescind this rule, and reinvest the Grand Master with a power which he had anciently enjoyed, not as a prerogative, but in common with his Brethren of inferior rank. Had it rescinded the entire rule, it would have left the power on its original basis—as an inherent privilege—but it would have abnegated the original purpose of its own organization.

In this country there is a diversity of practice in the manner of instituting Lodges. We here differ from the existing practice of our English Brethren, without a precise conformity to the rule, either as originally adopted, or amended. Where the power of the Grand Master to establish Lodges, is constitutionally recognized by our Grand Ledges, it is, we believe, in all cases limited, in the extent to which it may be exercised, by the terms of its recognition. The Grand Master, by his Dispensation, may authorize the organization of incarnate Lodges, to exist for a fixed and definite period; at the expiration of which time they terminate by their own limitation, unless continued by the authority of the Grand Lodge. Here the power of the Grand Master is clearly a limited power. It is under the control of the Grand Lodge; and therefore of the nature of a delegated power, which the Grand Lodge may revoke or restrict. In some instances, as in the case of the Grand Lodges of Tennessee and Kentucky, this power is not vested in the Grand Master; but is retained by constitutional provision in the Grand Lodge. Thus literally following the rule as given by Dermott, and regarding the power as "the prerogative of the Grand Lodge." In other cases, as in the Grand Lodges of Massachusetts and Missouri, the power is held by the Grand Lodge ; but allowed, under specific limitations, to be exercised by the Grand Master. Again. By the Constitution of the Grand Lodge of Indiana, the power to create new Lodges by Dispensation, is vested in both the Grand and Deputy Grand Masters. We might continue these illustrations; but enough have been given to indicate the diversity of the usage that exists, and to'show, also, that the power in this country at least, is held as a " prerogative power of the Grand Lodge," to be exercised under its im- mediate control, and subject to such limitations as it may think proper to impose. This could not be the case if it were an inherent and irrevocable prerogative of the Grand Master. We cannot, therefore, concede the argument, that the power to create Lodges, thus delegated to the Grand Master, carries with it a correlative power to "make Masons at sight." (The question of competency to delegate such power (supposing it not to be an original power), must of course be dependent on the answer to the further question, of how far the present Grand Lodges are bound by the regulation of 1717.) If it were permitted to travel out of the precise record, we might instance the practice of the General Grand Chapter and Encampment of the United States. By the Constitutions of those bodies, the first four officers in each, are authorized to institute new Chapters and Encampments; but we do not presume that anybody ever supposed those officers to be, by virtue of this power, authorized to make Eoyal Arch Masons and Knights Templars " at sight." The cases are analagous.

For several years subsequent to 1717, the Grand Lodge was a working body. We learn from the record, that "on the morning of his election, June 34, 1721, George Payne, Esq., Grand Master, assembled the Grand Lodge at the Queen's Arms, in St Paul's Churchyard, made some new Brothers, particularly Phillip, Lord Stanhope, afterwards the Earl of Chesterfield, and then marched, according to the manner of Masons, to a noble feast." In this instance, and others might be cited, the Grand Master, (the Grand Lodge being duly assembled,) conferred all the degrees. As a general rule, however, the Grand Lodge restricted its duties in this respect to the making of Fellow Crafts and Master Masons. Up to the year 1725, the second and third degrees were exclusively conferred in the Grand Lodge. This was its prerogative. In November of that year, it was decreed that "the Master of a Lodge, with his Wardens, and a competent number of the Lodge assembled in due form, can make Masters and Fellows at discretion." But in restoring this privilege to the Lodges, the Grand Lodge did not surrender any of its own inherent authority to make Masons. This remained unimpaired; though it was rarely afterwards exercised, but upon extraordinary occasions. (The power to make Masons was early recognized, and in one or two instances, within ear recollection, has been exercised by the old Grand Lodges in ibis eouniry—but never, we believe, by a Grand Master, until the present year.)

On such emergencies, special meetings, or as they are called in the abstract of the proceedings of the Grand Lodge (Not the proceedings of private Lodges. These were not matters of record in the Grand Lodge then, more than now), as given by Anderson, Entick, and others, "occasional Lodges"—such as are referred to in the following "old regulation":—" If at any Grand Lodge, stated or occasional, monthly or annual, the Grand Master and Deputy should both be absent," then the last Past Grand Master shall preside. (Hence the Grand Lodge held not only annual and quarterly, but monthly and "occasional Lodges." (This resolution was afterwards corrected so as to give precedence to the Wardens over Past Grand Masters.) It was under this regulation, that the Rev. Dr. Desaguliers, a Past Grand Master, presided over one of these " occasional Lodges," held in the Palace at Kew, in 1737, for the-initiation of the Prince of Wales. " (It was not unusual to hold such Lodges out of the city of London. In 17S1, Lord Lovell, Grand Master, held one in Houghton Hall, in Norfolk, and raised the Duke of Lorraine, who had previously received the preceding degrees at the Hague.

"Mr. William Gofton, sen., attorney-at-law, and Mr. Erasmus King, jun., mathematician," says the record, officiated as Grand Wardens. Had this been a private Lodge, the officiating Wardens would not have been designated and recorded as Grand Wardens. (It is not singular that neither the Grand Master nor his Deputy was present at this meeting. At the annual communication of the "Grand Lodge, in form," held at London on the 27th of Dec. 1736, the S. W. presided, with the J. W. as his Deputy, and two other Brethren as Wardens pro tempore.) They were not the regular Grand Wardens at the time, but were appointed for the occasion. The Lodge was an "occasional" or special Grand Lodge, convened under the authority of the Grand Master; and its officers are, therefore, properly styled Grand officers. It would seem that this fact sufficiently marks the distinctive character of what, in these Grand Lodge proceedings, are termed "occasional Lodges." (It may be proper to remark here, that, at this time, it was only at the quarterly and annual meetings of the Grand Lodge, that the private Lodges, which were few in number, were represented by their Masters and Wardens. They were not represented at their "occasional Lodges," for prudential, or reasons of state.)

In 1764, the Duke of Gloucester was initiated, the Grand Master presiding; and in 1758, the Duke of Cumberland was also initiated, the Deputy in the chair. Both were made in "occasional Lodges" in London. In the latter case, the Grand Master was absent in Ireland. If these Lodges were not Grand Lodges, then it would seem that the Deputy Grand Master must also be invested with power to make Masons "at sight;" or that the Grand Master was at liberty to transfer his prerogative to another. If they were Grand Lodges, then the Deputy, while presiding, was authorized by the rule, to exercise all the powers which appertain to the Grand Master. Not otherwise. Prerogatives belong to the office, not to the person. He can neither transfer nor alienate them.

In February, 1787, the Prince of Wales was made at an "occasional Lodge;" and in November following, the Duke of York was initiated " t a special Lodge." The Duke of Cumberland, Grand Master, presided in both cases. In 1795, the Duke of Gloucester was initiated, also in an " occasional Lodge." It is not stated who presided, but probably his brother, the Prince of Wales, who was Grand Master at the time. These, we believe, comprise all the " occasional Lodges " named in the books. They were rarely held, and only on extraordinary occasions; when considerations of state made them expedient; as when persons of royal lineage were to be initiated. (This fact is of importance, as showing that they were not of so frequent occurrence as to establish a rule of action; or to be used as precedents, under entirely different circumstances. In this country, where the degrees of blood are little regarded, the necessity for them cannot exist. No such occasions can arise to authorize tbem, as those on which, they were employed by our Brethren in England.

None appear to have been held in the present century. The high respectability of several of the private Lodges in London—as the Prince of Wales' Lodge, of which George IV., while Prince of Wales, was Master—has rendered them unnecessary. Of their character, and the sanctions under which they were assembled, our readers can decide for themselves, from what has been already said. One thing is most certain, they were regularly organized, and were presided over by the proper Grand officer; or, as in the case of Dr. Desaguliers, by some Brother qualified, and who would have been authorized to preside over the Grand Lodge, under corresponding circumstances. Another point is worthy of note. If they were held by virtue of the alleged prerogative of the Grand Master to make Masons at sight, then it is certain that the Grand Master can delegate the exercise of this important an d as recent occurrences have demonstrated) dangerous power, to whomever he may see fit to entrust it. And if he may delegate it to one, he may delegate it to a hundred Brethren ; and there need be no end to the "making of Masons at sight;" there need be no further occasion for Lodges. This is only carrying the principle out to its ultimate results. Our Brother in California has done enough in this way, for illustration. Let us take the example he has set us, and improve it as a lesson of .wisdom, drawn from experience. We would not subtract one iota from any authority which clearly belongs to the Grand Master; neither would we invest him with a doubtful prerogative power. All such powers are better and safer in the hands of the constituent body.

1853

Rejection of Candidates

From Vol. XII, No. 4, February 1853, p. 103:

The rule in the admission of candidates in this Commonwealth, is to take but one ballot for the three degrees. (The whole fee accompanies the application. This is also the English rule.) We believe no other general practice has ever obtained here, though there may have been isolated exceptions to it. A good old rule of other days, required that the candidate for advancement should pass an examination in open Lodge, as to his proficiency in the preceding degree. (This rule has of late years fallen much into disuse, though not entirely abandoned. It would be well if it were fully restored.) Here a question for the Lodge was usually raised, not as to his moral fitness,—unless the candidate had been long absent,—but as to his Masonic qualifications ; and this question was taken by hand vote, and decided by the majority. It being presumed that a full investigation of character is made prior to admission to the first degree, a second ballot on advancement is not deemed necessary, especially when no great length of time intervenes between the conferring of the degrees; and inasmuch as it is always competent for any member, for reasons which shall be satisfactory to the Lodge, to stay the proceedings. But a different practice prevails in other parts of the country, and a ballot is taken on each degree. Under this rule a correspondent states the following case as having occurred :—

"A candidate having been initiated and passed, was rejected on the third degree. He appealed to the Grand Lodge. The appeal was sustained, and the case referred back to the Lodge with instructions. It was committed. The committee could find nothing to rest charges upon. The candidate again applied for the third degree, and was again rejected by one vote. He then applied and received a demit as a worthy fellow-craft. Was he entitled to a demit?"

The point in this case which strikes us as the one of most doubtful propriety, is that the appeal should have been advised by the friends of the initiate, or sustained by the Grand Lodge. The rule requiring a new application and ballot on the third degree, placed the candidate before the Lodge in the relation of an original petitioner,—except perhaps that it did not impose the necessity of committing the application, nor require the delay before acting upon it which follows a first petition. Now, there is nothing more clear than that the Lodges are the sole judges of the fitness of their own candidates. This is an inherent power, inseparable from their organization—a necessity of their existence. As in the case of all their other charter-powers, they are responsible to the Grand Lodge for the abuse of it. But caution in the use of a power, even when carried to excess, does not"constitute an abuse of it. At the present time, when candidates are pressing in from all directions, we should rather account it a virtue. The great fault, and the great danger is, that our Lodges are not sufficiently cautious—that they are too free—that they allow their doors to swing too easily on their hinges. And it is undoubtedly true, that the interests and character of the Institution would be more secure,

if ten applicants were denied admission where one is now rejected. In this view of the matter, it might be well if the whole question of admission were left to the decision of the Grand Lodges; but it would not be Masonic ; neither would it be practicable. Yet the allowing appeals to rejected candidates, and sending them back to the Lodges with instructions to confer the degrees or prefer charges, is coming to about the same result, and through an altogether exceptionable process. It is not only de- stoying the power and purposes of. private ballot, but is depriving the Lodges of their free agency, — degrading them to the condition of thinking through other brains and acting through other wills than their own. It is placing them in a condition where they might be required to do that which, if done of their own motion, would subject them to the loss of their charters. In the most favorable light in which we can view the subject, it would be exacting of them the performance of an act, the direct tendency of which would inevitably be to destroy the harmony which is essential to their prosperity. The only correct and Masonic rule, is to leave the whole question of admission where it belongs,—in the hands of the Lodges. If any of them are found to bo unworthy of the trust, let their charters be revoked.

The ostensible error in the present case is, that the member casting the negative ballot did not manifest his objection at the first balloting; though it is charitable to believe that the cause which now influences him was at that time unknown to him, or did not exist; or he may not hare been present at either of the previous ballotings. If he has been influenced by improper or personal motives, he is unworthy of his membership. But of this he alone is the judge; as he is the keeper of his own secrets and the guardian of his own conscience. Had the ballot for the three degrees been taken at the first balloting, he Would now be required to make his objections known, and the responsibility of proceeding would be thrown upon the Lodge. As it is, he has the same right to his private ballot that he would have had at the original balloting, and he is protected by the same guaranties.

In respect to the inquiry of our correspondent, whether the candidate was entitled to a demit from the Lodge, it is sufficient to say, that a demit is a discharge from membership ; and as he was not a member of the Lodge, he could not properly receive any such discharge. The Lodge might have given him a certificate that he had been regularly passed as a craftsman, and rejected on his application for advancement, for reasons not made known to the Lodge. He certainly is a fellow-craft; and, there being no actionable charges against him, is in regular standing, and may exercise his privileges>as such, until such time as the cause of his rejection is removed, or he is expelled.

Lodge Membership (Entered Apprentices and Fellowcrafts)

From Vol. XII, No. 4, February 1853, p. 107:

We are asked by a correspondent, if apprentices and fellow-crafts are eligible for membership in Lodges? This question has been discussed on previous occasions; and it has been decided in the negative by nearly or quite every Grand Lodge in this country. It is therefore a settled question; and the practice, so far as we are informed, corresponds with the rule so established. This, however, has not always been the practice. Anciently there were apprentice and craft Lodges. Long after the adoption of the modern system of Masonic government, Lodges did not possess the power to make Master Masons. At the time indicated, apprentices and craftsmen were undoubtedly enrolled members of Lodges; and, under certain circumstances, they' were admitted to a voice and a vote in Grand Lodge. But the system has been modified. Lodges are now authorized to make Masters; and their charters are granted to none of an inferior degree. Hence there are apprentice and fellow-craft Lodges, only as existing under the authority of Masters' Lodges, and for specific and limited purposes. Literally speaking, there are no such Lodges. Their distinctive feature has been merged in another. The Lodges now created by Grand Lodges are Masters' Lodges, with power to open in the appropriate degrees, and make apprentices and craftsmen. When thus open, they are Lodges for the reception of initiates or craftsmen. This, under the existing practice, is the only proper business of their creation. They cannot admit members. Hence membership appertains only to Masters' Lodges. Under the present system the rule could not with propriety be otherwise. If apprentices were admitted, to membership, they could be present only when the Lodge was open on the first degree.— They could take no part in the business of the Lodge, for all business, except the actual work if the inferior degrees, is transacted in a Masters' Lodge. Membership with them would therefore be merely nominal. It could not be actual, because they would not be in a condition to enjoy its privileges or fulfil its obligations.

But we need not argue this question further. The practice in this country we believe to be uniform and correct; and whatever itinerant pretenders may urge to the contrary, there is no probability that it will soon undergo any change. It is founded in reason and the necessities of the case, and it will stand. We have been induced to notice it, not from any apprehension of a change, but merely to oblige our correspondent, and to counteract any influence which the bold assertions of empiricism may be supposed to hove had upon the minds of Brethren in his vicinity, who, like himself, do not possess the necessary information on the subject to enable them to correct the misstatements referred to by him. And it may be proper to remark here, that the natural and inevitable consequence of allowing itinerant lecturers and preachers to stroll about the country,

scattering their crude and pernicious opinions among the Lodges, is the unsettling of the minds of young and uninformed Brethren, on questions in relation to which they have not the means of authentic information. The present is a case of this kind ; and the Grand Lodges owe it to themselves—to their dignity and authority, as well as to the harmony and prosperity of their Lodges—to put a stop to a practice so pregnant with evil. If the Master is incapable of instructing his Lodge in all things useful for its interests, it is far better that the Grand Lodge should itself incur the expense of sending a competent and authorized Brother to instruct him, than to allow irresponsible intinerant missionaries to spread the seeds of discord over its jurisdiction.

Lodges Under Dispensation

From Vol. XII, No. 7, May 1853, p. 228:

March 31, 1853.

Br. Moore:—As a lover of Masonic principles, I have also a reverence for Masonic law, and trust that I may never be guilty of knowingly transgressing any of its regulations. Not wishing, where in ignorance, to remain so;—and persuaded that such is the fact with all good Masons,—I.would respectfully submit the follow ing questions and observations, for notice at your discretion.

1. Is it competent for a Lodge empowered (either by Dispensation or Charter) to work in the first three Degrees, when the Master and both Wardens are absent, and there is no Past Master of that or any other Lodge present, to call one of their members of the third degree to preside and do work on the degrees?
2. Is it competent for a Lodge U. D. (its Master being sick and unable to attend, and its Wardens away,) to chooie one of its members, and instruct him to obtain tbe Past Master's degree in a Chapter, as a qualification to preside over them as their Master pro tempore? though they should be advised to it by their real Master:— And would the person so chosen and so promoted to the Past degree have authority to preside and do work on the degrees? (Should you say yet to this last, let me ask—In virtue of what has he his authority?)
3. Is it competent for any number of Masons who have been initiated, crafted and raised in a Lodge U. D., but have not signed the By-Laws, to act and vote on any and all matters—but especially on the admission of candidates—in the Lodge where they were made?
4. Have Lodges U. D. any power to increase the number of their members ?

According to my ideas of Masonic regulations and usages all the questions are to be answered in the negative; but there are many others who do not think as I do. It is my wish to be right. I am not able to cite any authority in negation of the first question other than that universal usage (if I am not in error) has ever been its negation. I reason that the second is to be answered in the negative, be cause Lodges U. D. are not Lodges in full, but are rather bodies on trial, to be made Lodges in full, if and whenever (but not otherwise) it shall so please their supreme head, the Grand Lodge. They cannot therefore go beyond their Dispensation, and displace or supercede by others, the officers into whose hands they have been given :—and if they may not do this, they may not choote officers at all, but if in want must ask aid of their Grand Head. Past Masters are known as such to Grand Lodges only from their having been chosen and duly qualified to preside over some regular and duly constituted Lodge. As under the authority of Grand Lodges Past Masters may be made, and these are amenable to them ; and as they have nothing to do with the making of Past Masters in a Chapter, and these as such are not amenable to them, they cannot be supposed to recognize in their constitution and government Chapter made Past-Masters:—and these do not therefore in virtue thereof gain any authority which may be used in a Blue Lodge. I negative the third question, because By-Laws always do or should require of every Brother, as a condition of membership, to sign them. I negative the fourth question, because Dispensations are granted to a certain number of Masons therein named, and specify what they may do. They only are known to, owned by, and held responsible for, their proceedings as a Lodge, to the Grand Lodge:—If therefore they had the power to add to their members, prudent care of their own interests would seem to forbid their using it.

Thus I reason with my present light ; but having been walking in the light of Masonry but little more than a year, I would not be too positive that I see all things clearly.

Now one other question :—Under the circumstance, as named in the second ques tion, of the Master's being sick, should the Grand Master on application before choice, authorize the Lodge to choose one of its members to serve as Master pro tempore and have him duly qualified, would the Brother chosen be duly qualified by taking the Past Matter's degree in A Chapter? Should the Grand Master give his sanction after the thing was done, would his sanction be any thing but an act of grace ? and how would it affect the matter?

Yours Fraternally, J. C P.

Our correspondent has so satisfactorily answered his own inquiries, that there is very little occasion for additional comments. We will, however, more for his personal gratification, than from any necessity in the case, add a few words to what he has so well said. Taking the questions in the order in which he has stated them, we answer :—

1. We are of opinion, that in the absence of the Master and Wardens, whether the Lodge be working under Dispensation or Charter, the best thing the members can do, is to go home, and be more careful in future whom they select for their officers. The Master and both Wardens being absent, and there being no Past Master present, we should hold that no work could be lawfully done; though there is a show of authority to the contrary,—emanating in a quarter to which little credit is due, but which has been a source of much irregularity and mischief in the Masonic polity of this country. The rule of the Grand Lodge of England is, that— "In the Master's absence, the immediate Past Master, or if he be absent, the Senior Past Master of the Lodge present, shall take the chair. If neither the (immediate) Past Master nor any Past Master of the Lodge be present, then the Senior Warden, or in his absence the Junior Warden, shall rule the Lodge." The right of succession to the government of the Lodge here stops with the Junior Warden; who rules the Lodge, but does not take the chair of the Master. The latter privilege is

reserved to the Master alone; and even he cannot avail himself of it until after his installation. " No Master shall assume the Master's chair" says the regulation, " until he shall have been regularly installed, though he may, in the interim, rule the Lodge." We are not quite so particular in this country, and allow the presiding officer for the time being to occupy the chair of the Master. With us, also, the Wardens take precedence of the Past Masters in presiding. And these practices are both consonant with the regulation of 1723, which says—"If a Master of a particular Lodge is deposed or demits, the Senior Warden shall forthwith fill the Master's chair, till the next time of choosing." It is very clear that the course indicated by our correspondent's first inquiry, would be wholly un authorized, and, we apprehend, without precedence.

2. We shall not say yes to this inquiry, for we have no authority to offer in justification of such an opinion. We are not acquainted with any rule which requires that the presiding officer of a Lodge under Dispensation shall be a Past Master. We understand a Past Master to be a Brother who has been elected and installed, and who has served for a definite term, as Master of a Lodge under a Charter from some Grand Lodge. We are not aware that any Grand Lodge in this country has ever constitutionally recognized any other description of Past Masters. The officers of Lodges, under Dispensation are neither elected nor installed. To require that the Masters of such Lodges should have previously presided over regularly warranted Lodges, would be a troublesome, if not an im practicable rule in the establishment of new Lodges, beyond the immediate limits of populous cities. No such rule exists. The receiving of what is called the Past Master's degree in a Chapter, confers no privileges that can properly be made available in a Lodge of Master Masons. The secrets of the chair form a part of the ceremonies of installation, and are thus communicated to the officer to qualify him to preside as Master over the Lodge, when duly constituted by the Grand Lodge under which he holds his authority. This we understand to be the ancient rule on the subject. The assumption of the ceremonies in question by the Chapters, cannot be allowed to affect the rights, nor can the fact be taken into consideration in determining the authorized practice of the Lodges. The proper remedy in the case suggested by our correspondent, would be to apply to the Grand Master for relief.

3. Our correspondent has given a sufficient answer to this inquiry. The only members of the Lodge are named in the Dispensation. It is time enough for others to sign By-Laws when they have been approved by the Grand Lodge, and to ask for membership when the Lodge, has ac quired an actual existence.

4. The answer to this inquiry is embraced in the answer to the preceding; and the reason is well stated by our correspondent.

The additional inquiry submitted by our correspondent, presents no new point. During the illness of the Master the right to preside devolves on the Wardens according to rank. Should the Master resign, and the Wardens and Brethren of the Lodge request it, the Grand Master would doubtless appoint some competent Brother to take charge of the Lodge. The Lodge would be competent to recommend such a Brother, and it could do this in any form it saw fit; but its action would amount to nothing more than a recommendation, which the Grand Master might regard or not. The Chapter qualification has no bearing on the case.

Reports on Petitions

From Vol. XII, No. 7, May 1853, p. 231:

A correspondent in Alabama proposes the following inquiry :—

"When a petition is presented for initiation and referred to a Committee, whose duty is it to make the report? Is it proper for the report to be made through the Secretary, when it is not convenient for either member of the Committee to be present? The Committee, in the case referred to, had a meeting and agreed to make a favorable report, but not finding it convenient to be present at the ensuing meeting of the Lodge, requested the Secretary to make it for them. Was this a proper course?"

As a general thing reports should be made in writing and entered in the records. They are in this way more likely to be preserved and are more available for reference. Verbal reports, like unwritten votes and resolutions, if of any considerable length, or at all intricate in character, are liable to be misunderstood by the recording officer. It is to be presumed that the writer of a report, or the mover of a resolution, as the case may be, understands himself better than another can understand him, and would, therefore, be less liable to misstate his own intentions. There are cases, of course, frequently arising, so simple and unmistakeable in their character, that a rigid enforcement of a rule like this, in its application to motions, might be not only unnecessary, but onerous and inconvenient. Such cases constitute the exceptions wherever the rule exists. In its application to reports and resolutions, exceptions should not be allowed, Had there been such a regulation in the By-Laws of the Lodge referred to by our correspondent, the Committee would have been at no loss as to the proper manner of making their report.

The subject referred to them was one of the most important which it is in the power of a Lodge to entrust to a Committee. We are fully sensible that it is not usually so regarded, or if so regarded, is not usually so treated. But this does not change its character or lessen its importance. It is safe to assume that, as a general rule, the admission or rejection of the applicant is determined by the report of the Committee of investigation. This being true, it follows that, to the extent to which the question of admission can affect it, the character of the Lodge, and, in a proportionate degree, of the whole Institution, is placed in the hands of the Committee. Taking this view of the subject, the responsibility of the trust and the importance of the report to be made, present themselves in their proper light, and sufficiently indicate "whose duty it is to make the report." How would it be in ordinary cases? Would the Master of the Lodge, in the absence of every member of a Committee, feel himself authorized to receive a verbal report, at second-hand, through the Secretary, or any other member of the Lodge? Would the members of the Lodge be content with such a report? We think not. Most assuredly then such a report should not be received in a matter of so much importance as the admission of a. candidate. The least the Committee could do, or should have been permitted to do, under the circumstances stated by our correspondent, was to make a written report, properly signed, and addressed to the Master of the Lodge. With anything less than this, we should have been unwilling, as Master, to order the ballot to be taken.

The foregoing answers the inquiries of our correspondent. The usual practice, in such cases, is to receive a verbal report from the chairman, or, in his absence, from some other member of the Committee, authorized to make it. Another and more common practice in this part of the country, is for each member of the Committee to report the result of his own inquiries directly to the Lodge. This is frequently done without any previous consultation with his associates on the Committee. And this course operates very well, in ordinary cases; but we should prefer previous consultation and a written report, as more safe and reliable.

Our German Brethren have a practice differing from both of the foregoing, which possesses some advantages over them. It is this:—The name of the candidate is proposed and referred to a Committee of three or five, to be appointed by the Master. The Master then writes the name and such particulars as he may consider necessary, on separate pieces of paper. After the Lodge is closed, or the next day, he hands these strips of paper to such members of his Lodge as he may select for the Committee, enjoining privacy. Of course no member of the Committee knows his associates, neither are the Committee known to the Lodge. At the ensuing meeting, or earlier, each member of the Committee makes a written report to the Master, who at the proper time, reads the reports to the Lodge, suppressing the names of the Committee. On these reports the ballot is taken, unless objections are raised by some member present. If the candidate is rejected, a record is made of it, and the reports are destroyed. If he is admitted, the reports are placed on file. The advantage of this practice is, that it secures entire immunity to the Committee, the reports are made with more freedom, and the'danger of disturbing the harmony of the members of the Lodge is lessened. We have no knowledge of the existence of such a practice in any of our own Lodges, and refer to it only as a matter of interest, or curiosity, as the reader pleases to receive it. Too much care cannot however be observed in the admission of candidates, nor can the right to a free and unrestrained ex ercise of individual opinion, and of the ballot, be too stringently protected.

Rejection of Candidates

From Vol. XII, No. 8, June 1853, p. 261:

Charles W. Moore: — Dear Sir and Br.:—I wish to submit a question to you in Masonic usage, and if you regard it as sufficiently important, I should be obliged to you, to see your opinion in the next number of the Magazine. The question is this : —

A candidate petitions to a Lodge and is regularly and constitutionally rejected,— within a few months after his rejection, the objecting Brother becomes satisfied, and is willing that the petitioner should become a Mason,—wishes to withdraw the objection ; but is unwilling that his name should be given as the objecting party. The By-Laws of the Lodge, we will say, state that when a petitioner has been rejected, no further balloting shall take place, in the case, for twelve months next thereafter; unless the member opposing, shall voluntarily withdraw the objection, in open Lodge.

The objecting Brother executes a written authority, which is attested by two Master Masons, known by the Lodge to be such; andin this mode empowers a Brother to withdraw the objection in open Lodge; but not to disclose his name to the Lodge. Under these circumstances, is it consistent, or inconsistent, with the principles of Masonry, and with the usages of the Order (independently of the provisions in the Lodge By-Laws,) for the objection to be withdrawn, and let another ballot take place?

To me this has seemed to be a question of some general importance, and should you think it worthy of note, I should be much gratified to see a remark from you upon the subject. Fraternally yours, &c.

There is no law of general application, in the books, nor is there any settled usage of the Fraternity, that either limits the time, or prescribes the manner, in which a second application for initiation may be made by a person whose petition has been once rejected. Neither is there any uniformity on the subject, either in the usage or the local regulations of the Grand Lodges in this country. The practice is arbitrary, and therefore divers. In a few States, it is regulated by the constitutions of the supreme body; while in others, it is left to the determination of the Lodges, each acting independently, and according to its own convictions of propriety and duty. Hence we often find different practices prevailing within the same general jurisdiction. This is objectionable. It embarrasses the Lodges and introduces irregularity and diversity of practice where there should be order and uniformity. As like begets like, so looseness of practice in one respect leads to 'corresponding looseness in others. The remedy is in the hands of the Grand Lodges, and should be applied, so far at least as to ensure agreement among the Lodges within the same jurisdiction. Uniformity of practice is as essential to the beauty and harmony and prosperity of the Lodges, as uniformity of ritual is to the unity of the Order. However difficult the latter may be, the former can be readily secured. Written regulations are easily understood, though oral instructions are with difficulty retained. If we cannot have exact uniformity in all respects, the true policy is to secure it where it is attainable. This can at least be done in the rules of government, if not in the ritual of the Lodges.

A practice which has obtained to a very considerable extent in this country, is, to require that a specified time shall intervene between the rejection of a first and the reception of a second petition for the degrees. This is usually determined, where it exists, by the By-Laws of the Lodge, and is fixed in some cases at three, in others at six, and in others again, at twelve months. But, as we have remarked on a former occasion, we are not favorably disposed towards this method of adjusting the difficulty. We do not perceive the propriety, nor, if we understand it, do we concur in the philosophy of it. It is predicated upon the assumption that the applicant is a bad man,—that he is destitute of a fair moral character; and, consequently, unworthy to be admitted to the privileges and associations of the Lodge room. But this is far from being a certain and just conclusion. It is not a rule by which we may safely determine the moral character of any man. Reasons are rarely, or at least not always, given for a negative ballot, and they cannot be demanded.

The law of the ballot-box secures alike the act and the individual. The petitioner is afforded no opportunity for defence or explanation. He knows neither the source nor the nature of the objections against him. As to him, the whole proceeding is shrouded in secrecy. Beyond the result, he can know nothing. This may be just or it may be unjust. But experience leaves no room to doubt, that rejections frequently occur from considerations beyond, and independent of, the question of character. They are often the result of personal dislike, or the supposed absence of the requisite social qualities ; and a variety of other causes, having no necessary or proper relation to the personal integrity or moral qualifications of the rejected. It may be said that such rejections are wrong,—that they are not authorized or warranted by the rules and usages of the Institution. This is granted. But in discussing questions of human action we must take men as they are, and human nature as we find it. If we were permitted to assume that all men are above their passions, and their prejudices, and their dislikes,—that in all their intercourse with their fellow-men, they are influenced only by pure and ennobling motives,—by sentiments of brotherly love and disinterested friendship,—it would be reasonably safe to infer that none but bad men are refused admission to our Lodges. But the postulate being inadmissible, the conclusion fails. There are two classes of rejections. First, where the petitioner is rejected by a single ballot, and frequently against a favorable report from the investigating committee. To such cases, the preceding remarks apply with peculiar force. Secondly, where the rejection is based on the report of the committee. Here, it is conceded, that a prima facie case of bad character is made out. But the fact is not proved. The report rests on ex-parte testimony ; and though it is sufficient to determine the action of the Lodge, we think it not sufficient to establish the general bad character of the petitioner, either in his social or civil relations. The standard by which he is tried in the Lodge is a peculiar one,—more exacting in its demands than the ordinary standard, of social and business life. A man may be honest and honorable in all his ordinary transactions, a kind neighbor and useful member of society, and yet fail to come up to the full measure of the standard of admission to the Lodge. His rejection, therefore, does not, in either case, afford that clear and certain evidence of general moral delinquency, which should exclude him from the amenities and confidence of social and business life. The rule in question assumes the opposite of this, and places him on probation as one whose present moral character excludes him from the associations of moral men. In this respect we think it assumes too much. In the first class of cases, the rejection and consequent application of the rule, are often determined by a single negative ballot, thrown by an unknown hand and for unknown reasons. In the second class, the rejection is determined by a report based upon ex-parte testimony, and that not always from the most reliable sources. It is however the best the committee can obtain, the most satisfaetory of which the peculiarities of the case admit, and should always be sufficient for the present purposes of the Lodge. But it cannot with propriety, be received as final and conclusive of the facts presented. It is a prima facie case; and, as to the Lodge, stands until the contrary is shown. This may be done in twenty four hours, or it may never be done. But it is proper that the Lodge should always, and at,any hour, hold itself at liberty to reverse its decision,, when satisfied of its error. The rule in question does not allow this. But the equitable laws of justice, respect for the natural feelings of the candidate, and the honor of the Lodge, would all seem to, demand it. If an error has been committed,—if a single member, or a dozen members, have been deceived by false impressions or misrepresentations, and thus been led to do a great moral wrong, where their only purpose was to do right, they should be allowed the earliest opportunity to retrace their steps, when convinced of the propriety of doing so. The Lodge owes it to its own honor, that it should hold in its own hands, the privilege and the right to avail itself of the earliest practicable moment to heal the wound it has causelessly, though unintentionally, inflicted on the feelings, and perhaps the character, of an upright and honorable man. Under such circumstances, delay, to a sensitive mind, is cruelty. While the standard of character should in no case be lowered—while all the requirements should be rigidly enforced, and while too great precaution cannot be used against the admission of the unworthy—our Lodges should be left free and untrammelled to right themselves without delay, and to "render unto every man his just due." The rule of limitation does not allow of this. And because it does not, we question the propriety of incorporating it into the By-Laws of our Lodges. In our opinion, the most just to all parties, and the safest course .for all concerned, would be to leave the whole question of a second petition open and unrestricted. The Lodge would then be at liberty to decide on each case, as it occurred. No embarrassing delay, as in the instance presented by our correspondent, could occur. The Lodge would be in a condition to act promptly—to relieve itself and the petitioner at once, of all embarrassment and doubt. It may occur to tho minds of some of our readers, that under such a rule, the Lodge would be exposed to unnecessary vexation, from the frequency with which rejected petitions might be re-presented. Not so. The Lodge is under no obligations to receive any petition. It has therefore only to determine that it will not receive the petition, and it cannot be presented. While, on the other hand, if it see cause to receive it and reinvestigate the case, it is not prohibited by its own regulations from doing so. This right we would have it retain, for the reasons given,—and for the further reason, that it is in unison with the spirit and ancient usages of the Institution. The rule of limitation is an Americanism, and of modern origin. Before leaving this branch of our subject, and as german to it,—though having no necessary connection with the inquiry submitted by our correspondent,—we will take the liberty to repeat a suggestion thrown out by us some few years since, in relation to the policy of Grand Lodges, regulating the initiation of rejected candidates. It has become a frequent and serious cause of complaint, that candidates who have been rejected in one State, have been afterwards received and initiated in a sister State, and sometimes, though not so frequently, in another Lodge under the same jurisdiction. This is a ruinous policy and should be prohibited by stringent regulations. Every Grand Lodge being supreme and independent within its own province, it is not in the power of any one body to effect a full and perfect remedy of the evil. This would require the cooperation of all. But each body can do much towards it. It can regulate its own household. It can prohibit by constitutional enactment, the initiation of a candidate, who has been rejected within its own jurisdiction, in any other Lodge than that to which he originally applied for admission,—except (if it see fit to make such an exception), he obtain the written recommendation of at least six members of the Lodge by which he was rejected ; three of whom to be the Master and Wardens. This is the regulation of the Grand Lodge of Massachusetts, and it leaves the matter where it properly belongs—in the hands of those who best understand it. And what to our mind is of weighty consideration, there being no other restriction, it enables the Lodge to correct immediately, any error into which it may have been inadvertently led, in the original rejection. The exception in favor of the candidate, allowing him the benefit of the recommendation of six members of the Lodge, is intended to protect him, so far as regulations can avail to that end, against individual prejudice or malice ; for it is not to be denied that Masons are not always free from the influence of these vices, though they probably prevail among them to as limited an extent as in any other class of the community. As to rejected candidates coming from other States, all that any Grand Lodge can do, is to require the Lodge within its own jurisdiction, to which such a person applies for initiation, to communicate immediately with the foreign Lodge, in which he was rejected. And this would be sufficient, if the rule were universally adopted by the Grand Lodges in the country. The fact that the applicant has been once rejected, is brought out by the usual test, when he presents himself for initiation, if it has not been previously ascertained. This test, though it may not be necessary in all cases, ought never to be omitted in the case of one who has recently become a resident in the State or town where the Lodge to which he applies for admission, is located. A little more attention to precautions such as are here indicated, would be the means of saving the Fraternity in all sections of the country, from many annoyances, and some reproach.

But, to the inquiry of our correspondent. The case may be briefly stated as follows :—A candidate has been rejected. By a provision of the By-Laws of the Lodge, this bars him from the privilege of presenting a second petition for the space of one year, unless the opposing member shall sooner voluntarily withdraw his objection in open Lodge. The member wishes to do this, but declines to appear before the Lodge in person, or to have h'w name made known. He asks that the rule of the secret ballot shall be continued until the whole subject has been finally disposed of. He threw the negative under the protection of secrecy, and desires to withdraw it under the same provision. To this end, he certifies in writing to two reputable members of the Lodge, that he was the author of the objection, and in the same instrument authorizes one of them to withdraw it," in open Lodgo," as required by the regulation- stipulating as a condition that his name shall not be exposed. The reason for the condition, is doubtless o.f a personal character, and grows out of the relations of the parties. These may be such as to render it essential. But is the intention of the By-Law answered by the course proposed? If so, then it is a proper one; for the intention, not the letter of the regulation, should govern the action. The terms of the rule, as given by our correspondent, provide that a second proposition shall not be entertained, " unless the member opposing, shall voluntarily withdraw the objection in open Lodge." If we analyze these terms we shall find—First, that the objection must be voluntarily withdrawn by the opposing member,—that is, he shall not be constrained by intimidation, or other improper influences, to do the act involuntarily. There is no pretension that in the present case the member is under any such constraint Secondly, he must " withdraw the objection in open Lodge,"—that is, when the Lodge is open and organized fur business. There is nothing in the terms of the rule that requires his personal presence in the Lodge, or that indicates any particular form or manner in which the objection shall be withdrawn. It designates the place where, the time when, and by whom, this shall be done. Nothing further. The essential object of the secret ballot, is, that the member casting the black ball shall be protected in his negative, and the Lodge in its harmony. But this object would be liable to subversion, if in order to retrace his steps, the objector were required to expose his name. The alternative would be presented to him, of allowing the act to remain, to the great injustice of the innocent, or of incurring the risk of personal annoyance, perhaps of dissevering intimate ties of personal friendship. No interpretation of Masonic rules can be just, that leads to such a result.

As the By-Law under consideration does not prescribe the mode by which the Brother may withdraw his objection, it should seem that kt would be entitled to exercise his own best judgment in the premises. The difficulty of preserving the identity of the objector, in the process of transferring the right to exercise his power, as an individual member, to others is a serious one; and if often permitted, without great care, might, in ordinary cases, lead to great abuses, But when it is considered that the By-Law in question, literally construed, may be easily violated by an untruthful Brother, being present,—in the absence of the objector, or in a variety of ways by deception,—we can perceive no special reason why the method proposed may not be allowed. The identity of the objection, is of more consequence than that of the person. The objection being one of principle,—unless some Brother has erred by carrying personalities into the Lodge room,—it need not necessarily have any connection with individuality. If the objection were of a personal nature, then the author of it stands as a supplicant for favor; and the Brethren are simply asked, by the proposed method, to aid him in preventing the extension of an error. Any risk which may be supposed to attach to the course suggested, is removed by the consideration, that the ngent, equally with his principal, is responsible to the Lodge for his faithfulness ; and that the withdrawal of the objection merely opens the way for a new proposition ; when the name of the candidate will again be inserted in the nutifications and laid before the members of the Lodge. Imposition, if attempted, cannot, therefore, fail of being seasonably detected, if the Lodge is properly notified.

Approval of Lodge Records

From Vol. XII, No. 9, August 1853, p. 293:

Nachitoches, La., June 5, 1853.

Dear Sir and Br.:—Will yoabe kind enough to answer through your Magazine— If at a called meeting, a Lodge can approve the minutes of a previous regular or called meeting? Your time I know is valuable; but the position you hold, and the consideration your opinion on Masonic subjects, has with the Brethren, must be my excuse for trespassing on your attention. At a Lodge, in the jurisdiction where I have the honor and pleasure to act as a District Deputy Grand Master, a called meeting was held—the minutes of a previous regular, and of a called meeting, were read and approved and signed by the Worshipful Master. At the next regular meeting, I being present, the said approval was brought to my attention, and my opinion asked. I decided the approval of proceedings at a called meeting, to he irregular, and contrary to the practice of Masonry, so far as my experience went, and instructed the Master to have the minutes approved at a regular meeting—on the ground that, at a called meeting, nothing could be done but the business for which the meeting was called; and that among the things for which a meeting could not be called, was the approval of the minutes,—that the reasons for not approving minutes at a called meeting, were, that it placed it in the power of a minority of the Lodge to transact business that might be against the will of a majority, and then to hold another called meeting and approve the proceedings—that the Lodge having regular days of meeting, the Brethren who live at a distance, know the time and place of meeting, and if they do not attend, something personal to them- selves must prevent them; whilst at a called meeting, they may not have notice- it frequently being impossible to give them timely warning. The Master of the Lodge differed from me in opinion, and the matter will go before the Grasd Lodge), as a poi'it of practice, to be determined.

Will you give us light on the subject, and by so doing, oblige yours fraternally, S. M. Hyams, Dist. Dep. G. Master 8th Dist. Louisiana.

Our understanding of the matter is, that no business can be transacted at a "called meeting," other than that for which the Lodge is specially convened. The fact being so, it follows, that the record of any preceding meeting, ean be made a subject for consideration, only so far as it may be necessary for information,—unless indeed it be itself the specific purpose for which the meeting has been called, and so notified to the members. Independent of this exception, the record can neither be amended nor changed, confirmed nor revoked, approved nor disapproved, nor in any other manner affected or interfered with, at a special meeting of the Lodge. Nor is it, in our view of the question, material whether the preceding meeting were a "called" or a regular meeting. The effect of the rule is the same. If, therefore, the by-laws of the Lodge require that the record shall be confirmed at the next succeeding meeting, we think a just construction of the law would not authorize its confirmation at a "called meeting;" because, the regulation manifestly contemplates only the stated meetings ; at which, alone, the regular business of the Lodge is transacted. "Called meetings" are frequently authorized by the By- Laws, subject to the discretion of the Master; or they may be summoned without any such special authorization, at the pleasure of the Master. But however held, they are exceptions to the general stated meetings of the Lodge, and are subject to, and restricted in their powers, by special regulations,—either written or growing out of the recognized usages of the Fraternity, and being of equal validity and force,— beyond which the action of the Lodge cannot go. One of these regulations is,—and it is one of vital importance to the security of the Lodge,—that no business of any kind shall be transacted at a special meeting, other than that for which the Lodge is called together, and of which the members have received proper notice. (Our correspondent intimates that special meetings are or may be called by the Master without notifying all the members of the Lodge. This is a practice with which we are unacquainted; and if it exists, it it one too full of danger to be continued. Every member of the Lodge has an equal right to know when his Lodge is called together. There can be no discrimination, nor can the Master rightfully exercise any discretion in this respect. He must do his whole duty—not half of it.)

The power to approve, carries with it the correlative power to disapprove ; or, in other terms, to amend or change any part of the record ; for the only purpose of taking the question on approving the record is, that it may be amended, if incorrect, before it is signed by the Master. If therefore the Lodge, at a "called meeting," (which is usually thinly attended,) may amend and then confirm the record of any previous meeting, the members of the Lodge, present at any regular meeting, can have no assurance that their decisions may not all be reversed, or their doings revoked, before the ink is fairly dry upon the record. We think, therefore, that our correspondent was correct in his instructions to the Lodge. He has however an able Grand Lodge before which to carry his case, and we shall look with interest for its decision.

Disciplinary Powers of Lodges

From Vol. XII, No. 12, October 1853, p. 353:

An intelligent correspondent in a distant State, proposes the following inquiry:—

"Is it competent for a Lodge to discipline a member and punish him by suspen sion or expulsion, (subject in the latter case to the confirmation of the Grand Lodge,) for any crime or offence, unless it be a wrong done to some individual Mason or body of Masons?"

A Lodge possesses ample and plenary powers not only to enforce obedience to its own regulations and the general laws of Masonry, but to protect its interests and character against the withering influences of im moral and vicious members. It not merely possesses this power, in its full extent, but it is wanting in self-respect and a proper regard for its own safety, as well as in faithfulness to its Grand Lodge, whenever it fails, on any fit occasion, to exercise it promptly and efficiently.

"A Mason is obliged, by his tenure, to obey the moral law." This is the language of one of the earliest regulations of Masonry. It embodies the first principle—the corner-stone of the Institution. It lies at its foundation. Remove it, and the superstructure falls to the ground, a mass of worthless ruins. Remove it, and you convert the Masonic Lodge into a den of thieves,—a receptacle for the vile and vicious,—a resort for the drunkard and the blasphemer. Nay, more than this. You drive Masonry to the necessity of becoming the endorser of the character of the depraved and worthless, who may gain access within its sacred retreats; or you reduce Masonry to the level and companionship of vice. No! Our old grey-headed Institution has enough to sorrow for in the character of its members ; but thank God, it has no such principle as this to answer for. Its precepts are true and holy, whatever the lives of its members may be. Disbelievers in the divine mission of our Saviour would be no more out of place as communicants in a Christian church, than are immoral men in a Masonic Lodge. If a belief in the Son of God be the tenure of Christianity, so obedience to the "moral law" is the condition on which every Mason holds his Masonry. A violation of this condition is as sufficient cause for expulsion from the Lodge, as his avowal of infi delity would be for his exclusion from the Christian communion. His immorality vitiates the tenure by which he holds his Masonry, the condition on which he received it, and on which alone he can rightful ly claim or be permitted to enjoy its benefits or participate in its ceremonies.

Our correspondent, who is a Mason of forty years standing, and one of the most intelligent Past Grand Masters in the country,—a devoted Brother, startled by new doctrines,—says :—"I have always supposed that a Lodge possessed the power to punish by suspension or expulsion, any in corrigible offending member, for any violation of the "moral law," as laid down in that Holy Book which always lies open upon our altar, and which, according to my Masonic teaching, is our mora,l and spiritual Trestle-Board, given us by the Grand Master of the universe as the rule and guide of our faith and practice."

Our Brother is right in his supposition. The Lodge does possess the power. No intelligent Mason will risk his reputation in assuming the contrary. The teachings and practices of the Institution from remote times, and in all countries, and under all circumstances, confirm and establish the truth of his conviction. Does he need authorities to sustain him—we refer him to the whole history of the Order,—to every printed page on its principles and laws, ever dictated by an honest and intelligent mind,—to its entire code of rules and regulations, constitutions and charges,—to its ritual; and above all, to the teachings of the "great light" which is continually shining within the walls of its Lodges, as the foun tain of its principles, and the rule of its practices. If he can find nothing here to justify the profane in his profanity, the drunkard in his intempe rance, or the libertine in his licentiousness, then he has a sufficient war rant to denounce such practices as unmasonic, and to hold the Brother addicted to them, amenable to his Lodge for a breach of the obligations imposed " by his tenure, to obey the moral law."

That was a strange hallucination of the mind, which suggested the thought, as indicated by the inquiry of our correspondent, that a Mason can live in open violation of the moral and civil law, and yet continue to hold his Masonic relations, on the plea that no wrong is done to an " in dividual Mason or a body of Masons." Neither the law nor the principies of Masonry recognize any such distinction. It is a principle adapted only to the necessities and the conditions of pirates and robbers. Our Brother might well be startled when he heard it ringing in his ears. If the thought is seriously entertained by any Mason living, we adjure him to abandon it at once, or to abandon his Masonry forever. Such a prin ciple is not only in derogation of all Masonic teachings, but it is an out rage on his personal character as a Mason, of so gross a nature, that it cannot long escape the official notice of his Lodge. The influence of such a sentiment, whether avowed in the hearing of younger Brethren in thetyled recesses of the Lodge, or in the open streets, is too demoraliz ing in its tendencies, and too dangerous in its consequences on the char acter of the whole Institution, to be permitted to pass unnoticed and unre- buked, by any Lodge, Grand or Subordinate, entertaining a proper re spect for its own character and rightly appreciating its position and rela tions to the Fraternity at large.

In view of this and other cases almost as remarkable, which are constantly being presented to our notice, we may be permitted to say, in conclusion, that strange doctrines and practices are rapidly finding access to our Lodges, and obtaining credence among our younger and otherwise in telligent Brethren, to the utter subversion of the true principles and whole some precepts of genuine Masonry. We will not stop now to inquire par ticularly into the cause of this, though we think it may be easily traced. It is sufficient for our present purpose, to caution our younger Brethren against adopting as true every plausible theory, whether in practice or discipline, that may chance to fall under their eyes. "All is not gold that glistens, and we are told that since the days of the Apostles the land has been full of " false teachers." Above all things, let them avoid itinerant lecturers and pedlars of flashy Masonic literature of every description, if they desire to become intelligent and useful members of the Fraternity, or if they would understand its principles and realize its benefits. There are reliable teachers and books enough at their command, without resort ing to vagrants or works of doubtful authority, for instruction. Most young Masons are ambitious to learn and should be encouraged. Some are ambitious to teach before they have learned. Such will never become safe or reliable guides, though they may attain to high position and some distinction among their Brethren. Like all other branches of learning and science, Masonry, to be understood and appreciated, must be studied. This requires time, as well as facilities. A knowledge of the subject can not be acquired in a day or a year. The technicalities of the ritual may be learned, but the ritual is only the alphabet; and, unfortunately, that is too often but imperfectly taught. Even in this important respect, many intelligent Brethren are too ready to. adopt the vagaries of ignorance, and to follow the lead of inexperienced and incompetent guides.

Suspension of Lodge By-Laws

From Vol. XII, No. 12, October 1853, p. 356:

A correspondent at Fairhaven, Conn., writes us, that in June, his Lodge was closed until its regular meeting in September, making no provision for special meetings. He thinks this was not lawfully done, and asks our opinion on the following statement of the facts:

At the meeting in June, there were present seven members only, out of about ninety belonging to the Lodge. A motion was made to suspend the July and August meetings. After discussion the W. M. put the question, when four members voted in the affirmative, one in the negative, and two did not vote at all. He gives the following sections from the By-Laws :—

1. "The stated communications of the Lodge shall be on the first and third Tuesdays of every month.
2. "When any alteration of these By-Laws is proposed, the proposition shall not be acted on until the next regular communication; when such proposed alteration may be made, by a vote of two-thirds of the members present.
3. "No article of these By-Laws shall be dispensed with, except by a vote of two-thirds of the members present."

On the foregoing statement and extracts from the By-Laws of the Lodge, he predicates the following interrogatories :—

1. Is not the vote, dispensing with the July and August meetings, an alteration or amendment of the By-Laws, requiring a previous proposition?
2. Was the vote passed in conformity with the third section of the By-Laws?
3. Is said third section in agreement with Masonic usage? If so, what security have we against members whose friendly attachments, or ardent desire to carry a cherished measure, may lead them to take advantage of a thinly attended meeting?
4. Can the doings of the special meetings, held since the adjournment in June, be properly entered in the minutes, and if so, how will they read in connection with the sections, as given above, from the By-Laws?
5. Can a vote adopted at a regular meeting be reconsidered at a special meeting?
6. Is it proper for a Lodge to suspend its regular meetings, and hold special meetings in the interim?

1. The vote dispensing with the July and August meetings was a temporary suspension of the By-Laws, as provided for by the third section, and not such a permanent alteration or amendment as is contemplated by the second section. The distinction is sufficiently marked in the By-Laws, and if the rule was complied with the proceeding was regular. The difficulty lies in giving to two-thirds of the members who may happen to be present at a thinly attended meeting, the power to effect, by a temporary suspension of a regulation, what they might not be able to accomplish were a permanent alteration of the By-Laws rendered necessary for the purpose. We shall have occasion to refer to this point again.

2. A vote of two-thirds of the members present was required to suspend the By-Law fixing the stated meetings of the Lodge. The records give seven as the whole number of members present, and four as the number voting in the affirmative. As four are not two-thirds of seven, the vote was lost, and the July and August meetings should have been held as required by the By-Laws. That but five of the seven members voted, does not affect the result. "He who is not for me is against me." The third section declares, that "no article of the By-Laws shall be dispensed with, except by a vote of two-thirds of the members present"—not by two-thirds of the votes cast. Seven members were present; and as no one of them could conveniently be cut up into fractions, it required five whole votes to decide the question affirmatively. These were not given.

3. Our opinion on this point is, that the power to suspend a By-Law of a Lodge, resides in the Grand Master, and, in certain cases, in his Deputy ; but nowhere else, unless otherwise determined by the Grand Lodge. It is a high power, and in irresponsible and injudicious hands, may be used to disastrous effect. We know very well that the exercise of it is some times assumed by. the Lodges; but this neither confirms the propriety nor the legality of the proceeding. Lodges, from the want of proper informa tion, or careful consideration, not unfrequently assume the exercise of powers which are not strictly within the range of their authority and duties. Such assumptions are to be regretted, though no immediate evil may result from them. They establish bad precedents, and lead to diversity of practice. They do more than this. They not only afford a reason in which the designing may attempt to seek justification for his wrong-doing, but they mislead others, whose only desire it is to do right. A Lodge possesses general and specific powers. The latter, at least, should be clearly defined in its by-laws, subject to the approval of the Grand Lodge, by whose authority alone it exists. When so approved, the by-laws should not be changed but with the approbation and consent of the approving body. This is the practice in many of the States, and as a conservative rule, is worthy of general adoption. It gives permanency to the regulations of the Lodge, and security and regularity to its proceedings. Under such a restriction, the danger of hasty amendments and changes is of course avoided, as no alterations can become effective until they receive the sanction of the approving power. The inquiry of our correspondent is pertinent. If the By-Laws may be suspended at the pleasure of a majority or two-thirds of the members present, the absent members have no security whatever that the Lodge may not be disbanded, and its property disposed of at any moment, or that its affairs may not be so mismanaged, by a small number, as to involve all the members in unpleasant or discreditable con sequences. The practice is not consonant with Masonic usage, nor is it a safe one. We think our Brethren in Connecticut would find it more to their security as a Lodge, and to their individual satisfaction, to abandon it.

4. The Secretary would certainly be guilty of a culpable neglect of duty, if he were to omit to record the doings of any meeting of the Lodge, called by authority of the Master. With the question of the legality of the meeting he has nothing to do, in his official capacity. His business is to keep a faithful record of all that is done in the Lodge, proper to be recorded. The Grand Lodge will look after the rest, if invited to do so. But our correspondent has misconceived the powers of the Master. We have already said that a Lodge possesses general as well as particular powers. This is also true of the Master ; and one of his general powers is, to call special meetings of his Lodge, whenever in the exercise of his own judgment, he may think the interests of his Lodge require them. With the exercise of this power no special regulation of the Lodge can interfere. If the Master abuse it the remedy is to be sought for else where. With this explanation, we think our correspondent will find no particular difficulty in reconciling the course of the Master with the By-Laws of his Lodge.

5. No other business can be transacted at a special meeting, than that for which the Lodge is particularly called together. A vote, therefore, adopted at a regular meeting, cannot be reconsidered at a special meeting. We have so recently considered this subject in our pages, that we need not pursue it further.

6. Nothing is more common than for Lodges to suspend their regular meetings during two or three of the warm summer months, leaving the Master in the interim to exercise his privilege of calling special meetings, should occasion render them necessary. But for this purpose provision is usually made in the By-Laws,—the absence of which in those of the Lodge with which our correspondent is affiliated, has led to the difficulty of which he complains. We have little doubt that if he would propose such a provision as a substitute for the third section as it now stands, his Brethren would readily adopt it; and we entertain as little doubt that the By-Laws would be greatly improved by the change.

Surrender of Lodge Charter

From Vol. XIII, No. 1, November 1853, p. 21:

Muscatine, Iowa, September 13, 1853.

Br. C. W. Moore:—Will you be kind enough to publish in your Freemasons' Magazine, at your earliest convenience, the answers to the following interrogatories? And very much oblige your subscriber, L. D. P.

1. Can a subordinate Lodge by a two-thirds vote, surrender her Charter, and by that act demiie? or is it necessary that the Charter should be received by the G. L. (or the G. M. during recess)? or, in other words, if a Lodge of say 24 members, should decide by resolution unanimously (with three exceptions) to surrender their Charter, and the R. W. Grand Secretary receives the same, with the effects—is it necessary that the Grand Lodge (or Grand Master) approve their action before the Lodge can cease to exist?
2. What is the smallest number that can hold a Charter? or if there be three dissenting votes to a surrender, have those three the power to retain the Charter, the Grand Master granting permission?
3. Where a surrender of Charter is not deemed advisable, can the members of a Lodge demit down to a lesser number.than seven; and if so to what number?

Answer. The whole matter is subject to local regulation. There being no provision in the Constitution of the Grand Lodge, to the contrary, under the general practice in this country, a majority of the members may vote to surrender the Charter. An acceptance of the Charter, either by the Grand Master or the Grand Lodge, we judge to be necessary to complete tlie surrender ; because a condition of things might exist, when it would be inexpedient, or even prejudicial to the interests of the Grand Lodge, or other parties, to dissolve the Lodge, without first providing for such contingencies as might arise from the measure.

As it requires seven petitioners to obtain a Charter, it would seem that a less number cannot continue to hold it. The regulation of the Grand Lodge of Massachusetts on this subject, covers the whole ground of the inquiry of our correspondent, and as we held it to be a sound and conservative rule, based on correct Masonic principles, we quote it for his information; remarking, en passant, that it can hardly be urged as obligatory where the principle it embodies has not been recognized, or where a different practice has obtained :—

"As every warranted Lodge is a constituent part of the Grand Lodge, in which assembly all the power of the Fraternity resides, it is clear that no other authority can destroy the power granted by a warrant. If, therefore, the majority of any Lodge should determine to leave the Institution, or that Lodge, the constitution, or power of assembling, remains with the rest of the members, who adhere to their allegiance. If the number remaining shall, however, be reduced to less than seven, the charter shall be returned, agreeably to the regulation in such cases provided."

The Grand Lodge of England has a similar provision in its Constitution; but, as before observed, the whole matter is subject to Grand Lodge regulation. Where no such rule exists, under the practice in this country, a majority of the members are competent to vote to surrender the Charter; and under the same practice, we think no Lodge can exist with a less number of members than seven.

---

Edicts Main Page