MassachusettsEdicts MFM1861 1870
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.
1864
Balloting
From Vol. XXIII, No. 7, p. 216, May, 1864:
BALLOTING
A Brother presents the following case :—
"Mr. __ applies lo Lodge for initiation. He is balloted for and elected at the next regular communication; presents himself for initiation; a Brother who had voted favorably at the last meeting protests against his admission, for reasons which should have caused him to vote unfavorably if known.
"Is it right for lhe W. M. to admit the party?
"The Brother protesting stated that he could not conscientiously 'be at the making' of that man a Mason. The Brother retired; the party was introduced and initiated."
We have nothing lo do with special cases in our columns, only with general principles. We can never make our paper the advocate of any particular party, or lend its influence to the maintenance of faction, or the abuse of individuals. But general inquiries like the foregoing are legitimate, whete names and places are concealed, ami we cannot be expected to have any partiality in the case.
According to striutly legal, external, and anological interpretation, a ballot once made with a unanimously favorable issue, makes the person a member, and entitled to all the piivileges of the same, one of which is the degrees. It is tUe election, the vote received by the peison in the outer world, that constitutes him eligible to receive the oath and immunities of office. This vote cannot be changed, unless before the proper tiibunal it may be proved to be a fraudulent vote, It no vote at all. Any mistakes in the motives, or imposition in representation, in securing the vote, cannot vitiate the effect of the ballot. It is not competent to go beyond the mere ballot. This is in accordance with external usage and decision. If Masonic usage and decision were similar, the W. M. did right in initiating the Brother, as there is no claim of fraud or imperfection in the ballot, and no claim of any irregularity even. If there had been irregularity, which is not essential to Ibe validity of the ballot, such irregularity could not be plead in bar.
Our Brother changed his mind, if capriciously or for insufficient cause, he deserves censure. If he were remiss in examining into the propriety of the application, he deserves censure also for remissness of duty. If the facts could not have been known, under the circumstances he is excusable. In any case it is his duty to protest against the admission of an unwnrlhy member. We must increase our scrutiny into the qualifications of applicants. What next? Inasmuch as the applicant has not been obligated even as an Entered Apprentice, and inasmach as the Brother did but a few evenings before declare the applicant worthy of his ballot, it is due to himself, to the Lodge, and the applicant, not merely capriciously to protest, but to state his reasons, and submit those to the action of the Lodge, and abide its decision. He forfeited his technical and legal Masonic right to use the ball a second time after the unanimous action. He makes known that he does object, and thus renders secresy impossible. For the sake of harmony and the great principles of the Order, the protest should be regarded; for the same reason the objections should be stated and the decision of the Lodge regarded. We do not believe that there is a Lodge in the United States which would proceed against reasonable objections. If a Brother has taken the E. A. degree, we are clear in our views that charges should be presented against him and he be treated as a Brother, as he is.
Let the two great principles be regarded of harmony and" its preservation among Brethren, and the reception of the worthy only, and there can be no great error. If each Brother is sincerely anxious to preserve the harmony of the Lodge, and equally anxious not for many applicants, but for the good and true only, strife cannot enter our portals. Let not the letter so much as the great spirit of our institution be followed. "Let Brotherly love cement us."— Freemason.
BALLOTING FOR CANDIDATES
From Vol. XXIII, No. 8, p. 285, June, 1864:
The following communication on this subject has been handed to us, and, as it is a matter of great importance, and one upon which Masons, both young and old, seem to be divided in opinion, we cheerfully give our views with regard to it:—
"Masonic Editor Sunday Mercury:—Will you please answer the following questions, and oblige several young Masons?
- When a candidate is proposed in the Lodge, and his application received and referred to a committee, is it not the duty of any Brother who may know aught against the character of the applicant to communicate to the committee the facts which may have come to his knowledge?
- When a candidate has been favorably reported upon by the committee, and bears a good reputation in the community, and, upon the ballot being taken but one black-ball appears, is it not the duty of the Brother casting the negative ballot to explain his reasons for so doing?
To the first question, we answer: as a general rule, Yes; but circumstances may arise which would render a different course both justifiable and proper; and such cases will suggest themselves to the mind of any intelligent Brother.
To the second question, we answer, emphatically, No! No one has a right to know who casts the black-ball; and if by chance it should become known, no one has a right to question the Brother who casts it concerning his reasons for so doing.
There is no one act on which so much care, deliberation and justice are required as in balloting on the application of a candidate for the mysteries of Masonry. We have in former articles expressed our views in connection with recommendations, duties of committees, &c., and the subject of balloting for candidates for Masonic honors is one of equal, if not of more vital importance to the prosperity and harmony of the Order. To young Masons, in particular, we wish now to address ourselves, and in all candor say to them, weigh well the duty that devolves upon you, and be careful you do not permit the impulses of passion or prejudice to influence your vote. The position in which you, as well as every individual Brother is placed when called upon to vote for an applicant, should be maturely considered; and if you feel inclined to reject him, ask of your conscience this question: Have I good and sufficient reasons for so doing? or, is it simply a "private pique" or personal prejudice which influences me in this matter? Conscience will answer truly, and by its dictates you may safely be guided ; then, when yon are satisfied as to the proper course to be pursued, do your duty without fear or favor. Honesty of purpose should be the guiding star to the rule of your action—Charity at all times the director of your mind—and the harmony of the Lodge the basis by which all should be governed.
Much ill-feeling must necessarily be engendered in a Lodge if a good man is rejected, and his friends most assuredly must and will become chagrined if it be found that no proper cause exists for the exercise of the highest prerogative vested in an individual. Apart from this, the sensibilities of the applicant himself must be sorely wounded, if he be conscious that his life has been one of moral rectitude and propriety; and as men are apt to reason by analogy and comparison, it too often occurs, when an undue exercise of the black-ball is used, that the question presents itself to the rejected whether there be not some one or more members in the body much more unfit to be borne upon its roll than he would be if received : and the result, instead of producing the effect desired, raises up a secret enemy against us. It is, therefore, very easy to prevent and obviate the cause of annoyance by proper and due reflection, and acting under the chaste and mild influences of the noblest attribute of our Order—Charity—which should be the guide of all our acts, and thereby we should be governed. A Mason sitting as member of a Lodge, and beholding the emblems before him, ought at all times to remember the sublime lessons which they teach, and so act as to win the approval of the Almighty Master of the Universe, in whose presence he seeks to be approved now and hereafter. He should be careful that he perpetrates no invidious act!), but rather "dounto his neighbor as he would that he should do unto him." Let every Brother remember that the white apron is emblematical of purity and innocence, both of conscience and heart, and teaches us to walk uprightly before Heaven and before man, without permitting us to deviate from the square of propriety, or to use it as a medium of persecution, malice or revenge ; but, as the operative workman raises his column by the plumb, so should the speculative Mason carry himself in all his acts, more especially when within the " Sanctum "—ever bear in mind that no contention should arise, "save that noble contention, or rather emulation, of who best can work and best agree," thus inspiring a feeling pure and holy as that which pervades the sphere to which all, by proper conduct, hope to arrive when the trial of their probationary state is over. Mercury, San Francisco.
Masonic Trials
From Vol. XXIII, No. 7, p. 216, May, 1864:
Mr. Editor,—Are any classes of persons declared to be incompetent to give evi. dence on Masonic trials ? Please answer and oblige. Delta.
The law of the land, which, in this instance is the same as the law of Masonry, has declared the following classes as incompetent to give evidence :—
- Persons who have not the use of reason, are from the infirmity of their nature considered to be utterly incapable of giving evidence. This class includes idiots, madmen, and children loo young to be sensible of the obligations of an oath, and to distinguish between good and evil.
- Persons who are entirely devoid of any such religious principle or belief as would bind their consciences to speak the truth, are incompetent as witnesses. Hence the evidence of an Atheist must be rejected, because as it has been well said, such a person cannot be subject to that sanction which is deemed an indis pensable test of truth. But as Masonry does not demand of its candidates any other religious declaration than that of a belief in God, it cannot require of the witnesses in its trials any profession of a more explicit faith. But even here it seems to concur with the law of the land.
- Persons who have been rendered infamous by their conviction of great crimes, are deemed incompetent to give evidence.
- Persons interested in the result of the trial are considered incompetent to give evidence. From the nature of human actions and passions, and from the fact that all persons, even the most virtuous, are unconciously swayed by motives of interest, the evidence of such persons is rather to be distrusted than believed. This rule will, perhaps, be generally difficult of application in Masonic trials, although in a civil suit at law, it is easy to define what is the interest of a party sufficient to render his evidence incompetent.
But whenever it is clearly apparent that the interests of a witness would be greatly benefitted by either the acquital or conviction of the accused, his testimony must be entirely rejected, or, if admitted, its value must be weighed with the most scrupulous caution.
The peculiar isolated character of the Masonic institution here suggests as an important question, whether it is admissible to take the testimony of a profane person, who is not a Freemason, in the trial of a Mason before his Lodge. Such testimony, we think, is generally admissible, but as there are special cases in which it is not, it is proper we should state the grounds and reasons for this admissibility, and the mode and manner in which such testimony is to be taken.
The great object of every trial in Masonry, as elsewhere, is to elicit truth ; and in the spirit of truth to administer justice.
From whatever source, therefore, this truth can be obtained, it is not only competent to seek it, but it is obligatory on us to do so. This is a principle of law as well as common sense. Now, if A, who is a Freemason, shall have committed an offence, of which B and C alone wen; cognizant as witnesses, shall it be said that A must be acquitted for want of proof, because B and C are not members of the society. If such were the case the ends of justice will be defeated rather than subserved.
If the veracity of B and C are unimpeached, their testimony as to the fact, cannot be lawfully rejected on any ground, except that they may be interested in the result of the trial, and might be benefitted by the conviction or the acquittal of the defendant.
Any other rule would be often attended with injurious consequences to our institution. We will suppose a case :—A, who is a member of a Lodge, is accused of habitual intemperance, a vice eminently unmasonic in its character, and one which will always reflect a great portion of the de-jredation of the offender upon the society which shall sustain and defend him in its perpetration. If then a dozen or more men, all ot reputation and veracity, should come, or be brought before the Lodge, ready and willing to testify to this fact, by what process of reason or justice, or under what maxim of Masonic jurisprudence, could their testimony be rejected, simply because they were not Masons 1 The world would not, and could not, appreciate the causes which led to the rejection of such clear and unimpeachable testimony, and would visit with its just reprobation, the institution which could thus extend its fraternal affection to the support of undoubted guilt.
It must, however, be noted, that the testimony of persons who are not Masons, is not to be given as that of Masons is, within the precincts of the Lodge. They are not to be present at the trial, and whatever testimony they have to adduce must be taken by a Committee, to be afterwards accurately reported to the Lodge. But in all cases, the accused has a right to be present, and interrogate the witnesses.
The testimony of Masons is to be taken either in Lodge or in Committee, and under the sanction of their obligation.
The testimony of profanes is always to be taken by a Committee, and on oath, legally administered.— N. Y. Sat. Cour.
Restoration of Membership
From Vol. XXIII, No. 8, p. 262, June, 1864:
An expelled or suspended Mason can only be restored to the rights and privileges of Masonry, or to membership, by petition, its reference to a Committee, a favorable report thereon, and his unanimous acceptance by the Lodge.
Exclusion of a Brother by the Master
From Vol. XXIII, No. 8, p. 262, June, 1864:
The Master of a Lodge has the power to direct the withdrawal of a visiting Brother, if, in his opinion, the presence of such visiting Brother will disturb its harmony, or cause the withdrawal of any member on account of his presence.
Officers of Lodges Under Dispensation
From Vol. XXIII, No. 8, p. 272, June, 1864:
A Brother claims that the officers of a Lodge U. D., can and ought to be installed into their respective offices when the Lodge commences to work under its Dispensation. I think they neither can nor ought to be. What is your opinion?
The seventh paragraph of the Constitution of the Grand Lodge, among other things, has the following words: " The duties of the Grand Master shall be, to govern Lodges under Dispensation; to constitute, consecrate, and dedicate new Lodges chartered by the Grand Lodge, and install their officers."
A Lodge under Dispensation is governed by the Grand Master. It is not a Lodge in any permanent sense, but its members are simply authorized to make Masons, and to do such things as are necessary for its convenience or to prepare it for a permanent organization: all this by permission, and as agents of the Grand Master.
Before the officers of a Lodge can be installed, the Lodge must be chartered, constituted and consecrated. The members of a Lodge U. D. are not divested of any rights or privileges in the Chartered Lodges to which they belong, but are liable for dues, and amenable to discipline. The Charter is the demit of the Brethren named therein ; all others remain in their old homes as before. When a chartered Lodge is constituted, its members are absolved from allegiance to all other Lodges, and thenceforth go with the new Lodge. A Lodge under Dispensation is temporary; a Chartered Lodge is permanent.
Expulsion
From Vol. XXIII, No. 11, p. 347, September, 1864:
"What is Ihe proper course for a Lodge to pursue in relation to a Mason who is under suspension for unmasonic conduct, and who, since his suspension, has been guilty of unmasonic conduct of the grossest nature?"
With regard to the case in question, the proper course to be pursued is simply to prefer charges of gross unmasonic conduct, making the specifications as in other cases, and proceed according to the rules prescribed by the Constitution of the Grand Lodge relative to Masonic trials. The idea that a suspended Mason is no longer amenable to the laws of the Order is a fallacious one: it is true he has no claim upon the Fraternity—he has forfeited all his rights and privileges as a Mason for the time being; but as suspension is only a temporary privation of the rights and privileges of the Order, it does not place him entirely without the pale of Masonry, but leaves him still amenable to the general laws and regulations; and, if during his period of suspension, he should commit a Masonic crime which merits a severer punishment, it is the duty of the Lodge to try him for the greater offence, and if guilty to inflict upon him the extreme penalty of the law.
Those who have an idea that a suspended Mason cannot be reached because he is already undergoing Masonic punishment, might with the same propriety, argue that a man who has been imprisoned for larceny, and who while in prison assaults and murders his jailor, or fellow-prisoner, cannot be tried and punished for murder, because he is already suffering the penalty of the minor offence. In this Jurisdiction there are but three grades of Masonic punishment: First, reprimand; second, suspension; third, expulsion. Immoral or unmasomc conduct, according to its magnitude, will subject a Brother to either of the first two, but nothing short of gross unmasonic conduct should subject him to the last; it is the severest punishment known to Masonry, and very few expelled Masons are ever restored, however earnestly they may pray for forgiveness. Gross unmasonic conduct may be defined to be an offence, or crime, so wickedly and deliberately perpetrated that but little hope can be entertained that the offender will soon repent and honestly endeavor to-make atonement. A Mason should not be expelled so long as there is a reasonable hope that the offender is not corrupt at heart; but if circumstances demand it, every Lodge owes it to itself and to the Fraternity at large to inflict the punishment; and Ihe repremanded or suspended Mason is just as liable to this higher grade of punishment as any other Mason. —N. Y. Mercury.
From Vol. XXIII, No. 11, p. 350, September, 1864:
"If a Brother be guilty of acts unwarranted either by Masonic or the moral law, can a Lodge retain him as a member, when the effects outside are damaging to the great principles and objects of Masonry ? Will not the Lodge be compelled to expel or get rid of the obnoxious Brother?"
Sometimes it is right and proper for a Lodge to be patient with an erring Brother; sometimes they are afraid to do their duty, but we hope none are so dishonest as to be really in sympathy with a Brother greatly in error.
If, however, a Lodge should retain a turbulent, vicious Brother, or one guilty of any crime, the Grand Lodge, or Grand Master, will institute an inquiry, and the Lodge may lose its charter. There is no wrong without a remedy. Let Brethren bear in mind that it is best to let the tares remain sometimes, at least as long as there is considerably more wheat than tares.
We may as well lake this occasion to say, that abroad distinction should always be made between crimes and wrong committed in the heat of passion, under strong provocation, or without premeditation, and those committed dtliberately, in cool blood, and in the exercise of reasoning faculties. To the former, act in mercy, considering lest thou also may be tempted in like manner.
Let reason and conscience rule, but temper justice as God tempers the wind to the shorn lamb.—Trowel.
1865
Jurisdiction of Lodges
From Vol. XXIV, No. 7, p. 193, May, 1865:
LODGE JURISDICTION
The universal rule of Masonry in this country is, that the jurisdiction of a Lodge (and the same is true of all other Masonic Bodies,) extends half-way, in all directions, between itself and the next nearest Lodge, except that it does not extend beyond the limits of the State in which it is located, nor to within the boundaries of any town where a Lodge is already established. This is a plain and simple rule, and it should seem that there need not be any misapprehension about it, or difficulty in its practical application. The Lodges, in their work, are restricted by it, and it is the duty of the Master of every Lodge to see that it is carefully and literally enforced. The usual penalty for a violation of it, is a forfeiture of the fees to the Lodge nearest the residence of the candidate; within whose jurisdiction he has his abode, and to which his petition should have been presented. This is the mildest form of discipline, and is in force where no special regulation exists imposing a higher penalty, such as reprimand, suspension of the Master, or revocation of the Charter; according to the aggravated character of the offence, and its frequency by the same Lodge. The power of a Grand Lodge to impose either of these penalties is unquestionable, and its duty to do so, where the lesser penalty fails of its purpose, is equally clear. The rule, at whatever consequences, should be rigidly enforced. If this cannot be done by lenient measures, then more stringent ones should be employed. It is the only equal and just rule that can be framed to meet all the contingencies of the case, and to secure to each individual Lodge the full enjoyment of its jurisdictional rights. Without this security there can never be that perfect harmony and confidence among the Lodges which are so essentially necessary to their peace and prosperity; nor that protection against the admission of unfit and improper persons, which the reputation and welfare of the Institution at large so imperatively demand.
The regulation on this subject in the Constitutions of the Grand Lodge of this State, until within the last few years, was in exact conformity with the ancient rule as above cited, and in the following words :—" All applications for initiation shall be made to the Lodge in the town where the petitioner resides, if there be a Lodge in such town; but if there be none, then he shall apply to the Lodge nearest his residence." And this rule worked to the satisfaction of all parties, and its perfect equity and fairness were nowhere questioned, until the multiplication of railroad facilities changed the natural line of distances, and Lodges, which, under the old mode of travel, were geographically ten or even twenty miles distant from a given place, were brought, in point of lime, nearer the residence of a candidate living within five or six miles of a Lodge located in the adjoining town.
This led, on the part of some of the Lodges, to a construction of the rule never contemplated by its framers, and clearly antagonistical to its spirit and purpose. It was assumed, on the one hand, that that Lodge was " nearest the residence" of the candidate which could be reached in the shortest time and at the least inconvenience; while, on the other hand, it was contended, and with logical force and correctness, that the rule, in its terms and intention, limited and restricted the privileges of a candidate to the Lodge geographically " nearest his residence," without regard either to convenience or time; that the introduction of a new and more rapid mode of travelling did not change or affect the established and lawful jurisdiction of a Lodge, nor relieve the candidate of the necessity of applying for initiation where he is best known. The conclusiveness of this reasoning ought to have placed the question beyond doubt or controversy. But it did not. And with a view to relieve the subject of its present embarrassment, the Grand Lodge, (as we thought at the time, and as the result has shown,) unfortunately amended the rule, to the effect, that the petitioner shall " apply to the Lodge most convenient to his residence." By this amendment a clear and well defined rule, about which there ought never to have been any difference of opinion, was stricken out of the Constitutions, and another substituted, as indefinite and unsatisfactory as it was possibb for language to make it. If it be admitted that the terms of the original rule were liable to misconstruction, those of the new rule are equally so. If the former decided that a Lodge twenty miles distant was nearer the residence of the candidate than one of five miles, the latter leaves it optional with him to say whether one fifty miles off, is not more "convenient" for him than one in a neighboring town, four or five miles from his residence 1 for there is nothing in the new regulation to determine the question of "convenience." It must therefore be decided either by the candidate or the Lodge to which he applies. And who should know better than the candidate himself what suits his own convenience! We know of one instance, at least, where the candidate claimed this right, and it was conceded to him; and he was initiated in a Lodge more than twenty miles from his residence, when there was a good Lodge nearer by fifteen miles. The difficulty in this case was that the nearest Lodge would not have entertained his petition. The objection may have been a personal one, (and we are inclined to think it was,) or it may have been one of character. If the latter, then an unworthy member gained admission to the Institution by finding it more "convenient" to apply to a distant and strange Lodge, than to one composed of his neighbors! We cite this case merely as an illustration of the principle we are discussing, and not with any view to censure or find fault with the parties to it.
Others might have been selected, but this best answers our purpose, as presenting the subject in its strongest light. Here, not only the objection to the candidate was disregarded, or not allowed to manifest itself in an effective form, but the rightful jurisdiction of the nearest Lodge was stultified. And perhaps the most remarkable feature in the case is, that this singular result was brought about by the candidate himself!" It is more convenient" said he, "for me to go twenty miles east, than to go five miles west!" The eastern Lodge believed him, and the matter was settled —lawfully, perhaps, but neither masonically nor wisely. The western, or nearest Lodge, was, by a fiction, wrongfully deprived of its privilege to initiate the candidate, who resided within its lawful jurisdiction,—as much so as though he had lived in the town where the Lodge was situated. That this wrong was the result of a fiction, will hardly be questioned, for it is idle to say that it was more convenient for the candidate to travel twenty miles and remain out over night, when, if worthy, he could have accomplished the same purpose by traveling four or five miles, and returned home on the same evening. The pretence was an absurdity; but it was allowed, because there was no authorized power to determine its validity. The regulations of the Grand Lodge are silent on the subject, and the rule itself is vague and undefined. That this is not only a wrong, but a dangerous condition of things, no intelligent Brother can doubt. Whatever may be its advantages, if it have any, they are moie than counter-balanced by its liability to great abuses. It is a door thrown wide open, through which unworthy men, who could not gain admission to a Lodge where they are known, may effect their purpose in a Lodge where they are but imperfectly known, or perhaps not personally known at all. It cannot therefore be too soon closed. And this can be most effectually and properly done by restoring the rule to its normal condition, and requiring all candidates to be initiated in the Lodge nearest their residence. This is the ancient, as it is the only truly Masonic and safe rule, on the subject. But if this may not be, then let the question of " convenience," in all cases, be referred to the "nearest Lodge" for its decision.. Having all the facts in its possession, with a perfect knowledge of the means of travel, and of the fitness of the candidate, it is the only competent and qualified Body to decide it. The distant Lodge can know, comparatively, but little about it, and the petitioner should not be allowed to have anything to do with it.
Demits
From Vol. XXIV, No. 9, p. 296, August, 1865:
A demit is simply the severence of Lodge membership, and is complete when the Brother has paid his indebtedness to the Lodge and the Lodge has by Resolution consented to such severence. The act of the Lodge severs the membership—not the issuing of the certificate by the Secretary. The certificate of dismission is merely evidence of the joint action of the Lodge and the member, by which such membership was terminated, and does not necessarily include a recommendation of the Brother.
Jurisdiction Over Rejected Candidates
From Vol. XXIV, No. 10, p. 325, September, 1865:
Where a candidate has been rejected and a new Lodge is afterwards established having jurisdiction over his place of residence, he may present his petition to the new Lodge; but he cannot be initiated without the consent and recommendation of the Lodge that rejected him.
Trials in Lodges Under Dispensation
From Vol. XXIV, No. 10, p. 325, September, 1865:
Lodges under Dispensation have no jurisdiction to try charges against the members composing it. Such charges must be presented to the Lodge from which the petitioners hailed at the time of issuing Dispensation, or to the Grand Master.
Physical and Age Requirements of Candidates
From Vol. XXIV, No. 11, p. 350, September, 1865:
MINORS AND MAIMED MEN
"The first written law we have on the subject, is contained in the 5th article of the Gothic Constitutions, adopted at York, in 926, and is in these words :—
A candidate must be without blemish, and have the full and proper use of his limbs; for a maimed man can do the Craft no good.
The next enactment is to be found in the Regulations of 1663, under the Grand Mastership of the Earl of St. Albans, and is as follows:—
That he that be made, be able in all degrees, that is, free-born, of a good kindred, true, and no bondman: and that he have his right limbs as a man ought to have.
In the Charges approved in 1772, we have the following:—
No master should take an apprentice unless he has sufficient employment for him, and unless he be a perfect youth, having no maim or defect in his body that may render him incapable of learning the art of serving his master's lord, and of being made a brother, &c.
In the second edition of Anderson's Constitutions, which was examined and approved by such Masons as Desaguliers, Cowper and Payne, we find the following :—
The men made Masons must be free-men, (or no bondmen,) of mature age, and good report, hale and sound, not deformed or dismembered at the time of making.
The Ahiman Rezon of the Grand Lodge of Pennsylvania, published in 1788, and of South Carolina, published in 1807, adopt the rule as laid down in the second edition of Anderson's Constitutions.
In 1823, the Grand Lodge of Missouri unanimously adopted a Resolution, requiring that candidates for initiation should be sound in mind and all their members, and at the same time declared that the Grand Lodge cannot grant a letter of dispensation to initiate any person maimed, disabled, or wanting the qualifications established by ancient usages.
In 1848, the Grand Lodge of Maryland adopted a Resolution requiring their subordinates in the initiation of candidates, to adhere to the ancient law, which says, He shall be of entire limbs.
In 1849, the Grand Master of the Grand Lodge of New Jersey, in his address, enforces the same rule. And the Grand Lodges of New York, Ohio, Alabama, Kentucky, Tennessee, Georgia, North Carolina, Florida, Arkansas, District of Columbia, and all other of our sister Grand Lodges, so far as the Committee have any knowledge of their action on the subject, have in substance, the same rule as the 79th and 80th Rules of our Grand Lodge.
And we have no knowledge of any differently expressed opinion, except by a Committee of the Grand Lodge of Mississippi. They adopted as the basis of their opinion, That the world has changed, and Masonry has changed. That the world has changed is doubtless true, but that Masonry has changed is doubtless false. The supposed change of our Institution from an entirely operative to entirely speculative character, is a supposition that has no foundation either in history or tradition. Let the world change; let other institutions, with their peculiar usages and objects, grow up and live their brief hour and die, but lay not violent hands on our venerable Order. It may seem hard that one so unfortunate as to be without an arm or leg, or not to have the proper use of them, should be excluded. But there is no greater hardship in his case than in that of his mother, wife, sister, or daughter; they are excluded by the same unvarying rule, but without a murmur they submit. A man without a leg or an arm, or the proper use of them, may be otherwise worthy, but cannot be well qualified.
That universal language by which Masons make themselves known to each other, by evidences as invaluable as life itself, and by which the savage, the Arab, the Dane, the Chinese, German, Irishman, Frenchman, Spaniard, Italian, and Englishman, can all meet upon the same common plain of Masonic friendship, and feel, and know, that besides the common tie of humanity, there are obligations of a stronger nature, that induce them to stand by, relieve, and befriend each other, can only be spoken in that language that is known to every creed, clime, and country under heaven, but to Masons only.
On the subject of age, the Ancient Regulations are less definite, expressing no uniform number of years at the expiration of which a candidate may apply for admission. The language used at an early date was, that he must be of mature and discreet age. The usages of the Craft have varied in different countries as to the construction of the time as to when this maturity or discretion is supposed to arrive.' The 6th of the Regulations adopted in 1663, prescribes that No person shall be accepted unless he be twenty-one years old or more. At Frankfort-on-the-Main, the age required is twenty. The Grand Lodge of Switzerland fixes the age at twenty-one. The Grand Lodge of Hanover prescribes the age of twentyfive, but permits the son of a Mason to be admitted at eighteen. The Grand Lodge of Hamburg deems that the lawful age for initiation shall be that in which the laws of the country fixes to be the age of majority. The Grand Orient of France requires the candidate to be twenty-one, except he be the son of a Mason who has performed an important service to the Order. In Prussia, the required age is twenty-five. In England it is twenty-one, except in cases where the Provincial Grand Master has granted a dispensation for an earlier age. In Ireland, the candidate must be twenty-one years old, unless a dispensation has been granted by the Grand Master or Grand Lodge. In the United States, the rule adopted by the Grand Lodge of Hamburg has been universally adopted, and the civil law fixing the age of majority at twenty-one years, there is no Grand Lodge that permits a candidate to be initiated under that age; and so universal and uniform has that rule been, that it would seem to be a matter of astonishment that any Lodge should violate it.
From Vol. XXIV, No. 11, p. 352, September, 1865:
A correspondent in Canada East Inquires—
1. "What is the Masonic meaning ol 'free birth,' or 'free born'?)"
We answer, just whut the words imply. If a man is bora of a bond woman, be is not "free by birth," i. e. he is not "free born." The child takes the condition of the mother, When the Grand Lodge of England a lew years since changed the words " free born," to "free man," it enacted an unauthorized innovation on the ancient laws and usages of Masonry.
2. "Can a person be made a Mason whose parents were not legally married?"
The old Consiitutions answer this in these words—"No Master should take a Prentice that is not the son of honest parents." The practice has not, however, always followed the law: and we are not aware that any injury has accrued to the Institution from the neglect. There were doubtless good reasons for the law when it was first enacted, but the spirit of Masonry, as now interpreted, does not require that the sin of the parent shall be visited upon the child. The law has long since become obsolete, and it is not worth while now to revive it. Jephthah, though of illegitimate birth, was made a head Judge in Israel, notwithstanding the Levitical law proscribed such children, even to the tenth generation.
1866
Objection to Advancement
From Vol. XXV, No. 6, p. 161, April, 1866:
I. A candidate is proposed and accepted. Before initiation, objection is raised. What is the course?
II. A candidate is accepted and initiated. Objection is raised to advancement. What is the course?
I. It is a well-settled rule of Masonic law in this country, that no man can be admitted into Freemasonry without the unanimous consent of the members of the Lodge present at the time when his application for admission is lawfully before, it. So important did the founders of the present system of Masonic government regard this ancient rule, that they embodied it in the regulations of 2721, in the following terms: "No man can be entered a brother in any particular Lodge, or admitted to be a member thereof, without the unanimous consent of all the members of that Lodge then present when the candidate is proposed." And though this law was so far modified by the "new regulations" adopted by the Grand Lodge of England in 1754 as to authorize the Grand Master to allow "the Lodges to admit a member if not above three black balls are against him," its original restriction in the admission of candidates for the degrees was left, by the terms of the amendment, intact and in full force, notwithstanding that the present Masonic Constitutions of England give it a different construction. It is enough, however, for our purpose, that the practice of the fraternity in this country is in strict agreement with the original regulation, and that in the admission of candidates for Masonry, the unanimous consent of all the members present is an indispensable requirement.
This consent having been obtained, the candidate is entitled to initiation under the rule; and any objection that may subsequently be raised, is to be considered independently of the original ballot, and determined by a different proceeding. As a conservative regulation, and that every member of the Lodge may be protected in the exercise of this important privilege of his membership, and left free and unembarrassed by personal or other impertinent influences, the law of the secret ballot was adopted. But while this sound and wise provision affords the most ample protection to every member, it imposes upon him the reciprocal duty of exercising it in an impartial and conscientious manner, whenever and as often as occasion for it may arise. However loose a practice may have obtained, or whatever qualifications of the rule may have occasionally been introduced into the regulations of particular Lodges, there is no law in Masonry which excuses or exempts any member from the faithful performance of it. It is the highest prerogative with which he is invested, and the highest duty with which he is charged; and he is not at liberty to waive the one or neglect the other. Both are to be performed, and at the proper time, and in tho way and manner prescribed by the usages of the Lodge. If however a member, being present, neglects or is excused by his Lodge from the performance of this duty, he thereby voluntarily places himself beyond the protection and guarantees of the law of the ballot. The candidate has been accepted constructively, with the unanimous consent of all the brethren present, though one or more votes may have been withheld, and the record must be made in accordance with the fact, as indicated by the ballot-box.
The candidate is therefore lawfully admitted; he has passed the required ordeal, and stands before the Lodge with an unexceptionable character; awaiting only its pleasure for initiation. At this stage of the proceedings, the member who had declined to cast his ballot at the proper time, or one who was absent when the ballot was taken, rises in his place and objects to the initiation. What is to be done? The ballot cannot be reconsidered; and even if this were allowable, the Lodge would be no less derelict in its duty to the candidate than to itself, if it were to consent to the reversion of its own unanimous action by the unsustaincd objection of an individual member. The time when such member might have urged his objection in a way that would at once have been effective and final, has gone by; the condition of the case is changed, and another and different rule of proceeding is required to meet it.
What is this rule? We decided this question some years since, in the following words, and subsequent experience furnishes no sufiicient reason for a change of the opinion then given, namely, "Where a member came in, after a candidate had been accepted, and claimed a right to ballot, we hold that the ballot could not be reconsidered; and that of his objections to the candidate, the Lodge was then the sole judge. . . . After the ballot is recorded, a member claims the right to negative the decision already had: we hold that the Lodge may demand his reasons, and judge of their sufficiency." (We find this principle recognized in the by-laws of a subordinate Lodge in this country as early as 1739. The article referred to provides, that in balloting for candidates, if there be but one negative, the member casting it shall give to the committee, to be chosen by the Lodge, his reasons, "which, if satisfactory to said committee, his vote shall be confirmed, and the party stand negatived; but if unsatisfactory, or if he (the objector) refuses to give his reasons, or discover himself, his negative shall be of no effect." We do not of course subscribe to the propriety of tliis rule, and cite it merely to show that the principle we have stated was recognized and acted upon by our brethren of more than a century ago.)
To the same effect is the following rule in the Constitutions of the Grand Lodge of Massachusetts: "Any member of a subordinate Lodge may object to the initiation, passing, or raising of a candidate, at any time before the degree is conferred; and it shall be the duty of the Lodge to investigate such objections before proceeding further with the candidate." If the Lodge may investigate, then it must determine the validity of the objection; and there being no special rule to the contrary, this determination must be arrived at in the usual way in which all - questions, not otherwise specially provided for, are decided; that is, by a majority of the votes of the members present. The Grand Lodge of Michigan in 1857, and the Grand Lodge of Texas in 1858, (After a candidate is elected, if objections be made, it is the duty of the Master to withhold the degree and investigate. A member present when the ballot is taken, and afterwards objects, should state his reasons. — G. M. Texas, 1857) – it resolved, "that at any time before the initiation of a candidate, upon the objection of any member of the Lodge, upon the statement of his reasons for said objection, the Lodge may determine as to whether he shall be initiated or not." The Grand Master of Illinois in 1855 held that, "where objections are made after clear ballot, I think a vote of two-thirds should be required to withhold what the unanimous ballot entitled to;" and this opinion was confirmed by his Grand Lodge at the same session. It asserts the right of the Lodge to investigate the objections and to determine their sufficiency, and differs from the opinion already advanced only in that it requires a vote of two-thirds of the members present to stay the proceedings. On the other hand, the General Grand Chapter in 1857 laid it down as a rule for the government of its own bodies, that " where a candidate was elected, and a member, not present, afterward, and before the degrees were conferred, came in and objected, held, proper to commit, to hear and investigate the objections, and, on report, to require a further and unanimous ballot." This is simply a reconsideration of the ballot (which is not allowable), and the placing of the whole matter at the disposal of a single individual member of the body, however frivolous and unsubstantial his objections may be considered by the committee appointed' to investigate them, or by the Chapter itself. It is difficult therefore to perceive why any such committee should be appointed, or investigation made, since the report of the committee may be set aside by the negative ballot of the objecting member. It seems to ns that there is little judicial wisdom, and almost an entire want of self-respect, in a proceeding of this kind. It was proper that the objection should have been referred to a committee ; but their report was the only subject before the body for action. The objecting member, by his absence, had forfeited, in this particular case, the privilege and protection of the law of the secret ballot, and he stood before the body as a protestant, not as a dictator, — not as one authorized to say whether the body should turn its back upon itself, or proceed with the work, as his individual will or prejudices may induce him to decide. Our opinion on the whole question therefore is, that all such objections should be committed, and that the action of the body should be on the report of the committee. If the report sustains the objection, it necessarily stays the proceedings, and should be entered upon the record. If it fail to do this, the initiation should proceed. There being no regulation of the Grand Lodge on the subject, it is competent for a Lodge to determine by a provision in its by-laws whether a majority or a larger number of votes shall be required in cases of this description. In the absence of such a rule, a majority governs.
II. The discussion of this question is somewhat embarrassed by the circumstance that under the jurisdiction of some of the Grand Lodges in this country a separate ballot is taken on each degree, and that where this practice obtains, a candidate may be stopped in his advancement by an individual vote. We think the practice an injudicious one, because it is unnecessary for the protection of the Lodge, and is liable to be improperly used to the prejudice of the candidate. We think also that it is founded in a misapprehension of an old and commendable practice that was formerly in use in our best Lodges, and which might be revived at the present time to great advantage. Our predecessors were more particular in the technical fitness of candidates for advancement from one degree to another than we at the present day are accustomed to regard as necessary. It was an established rule with them that a candidate, after he had been initiated, should not only remain on probation the required time, but that he should attain to a certain measure of proficiency in the degree he had already taken, before he should be allowed to advance to a higher one ; and this proficiency he was required to exhibit in open Lodge. He then withdrew from the Lodge, and a vote was taken, usually by show of hands, on the question of proficiency alone. The question of moral fitness was decided on his first admission, and the second vote was taken irrespectively of that consideration. Some of our modern legislators, and writers on Masonic law, misapprehending the original purpose of this second vote, have construed it into a question of character, and thus introduced the practice of passing the ballot-box on each degree. We shall, however, in what we have to say in answer to the inquiry under discussion, assume that the candidate was originally balloted for to receive the three degrees ; and that, unless reasonable cause is shown to the contrary, he is by that vote entitled to them. We assume further, that his initiation made him a Mason, and amenable to the laws of Masonry; that he is entitled to their protection, and is answerable to his Lodge for any breach of them, as fully as though he had attained to the highest degree in the power of the Lodge to confer.
Now, if the foregoing premises be admitted, — and we presume they will not be controverted, — if it be true that by initiation a candidate becomes a Mason, and, as such, entitled according to his degree to the privileges of Masonry and the protection of its laws, then the clear logical deduction from it is, that he cannot lawfully be denied the benefit of any privilege or right so vested in him, except for good and sufficient cause, shown and established according to the forms and usages of Masonic jurisprudence. This is unquestionably the right of every Mason, whatever his rank or degree. In the case we are considering, the candidate may doubtless waive it, the Lodge not objecting; but it cannot lawfully be denied to him if he demand it. The question is not merely whether the candidate shall be advanced to a higher degree, to which he has been duly elected ; — if it were, it would be of much less importance ;—but it is whether he shall be forced to remain, perhaps for tho residue of his life, under the imputation which the refusal attaches to his moral character. And in this connection it is important to a just decision of the case that the proper distinction should be made between a refusal to advance and the rejection of a candidate on his first application. The latter may result from a variety of reasons, neither one of which might necessarily affect the moral character of the petitioner; while, on the other hand, the refusal to advance him to a higher degree, to which he has been elected, is hardly less severe in its consequences than an expulsion They both involve the question of character. It is therefore a matter of vastly more importance to him and his friends than was the question of his original admission into the Lodge. The Grand Lodge of Arkansas in 1852 took the right view of this matter, when it decided that " if the objections to the advancement of the candidate are of that serious nature that would justify suspension or expulsion (It is not easy to understand how a less objection would authorize a refusal to advance a candidate;) it is the duty of the Lodge to prefer charges and try him"; and again, in 1856, the Grand Master decided that "the advancement of the candidate may be arrested at any stage, for good cause." The Grand Lodge of Illinois to the same effect in 1857, "Advancement in the degrees may be stayed at any time, for good reasons, by the Lodge or the Master." But it must first be shown that these "good reasons" exist, and the truth of them must be established, before the candidate can be stayed in his advancement. Any other course would be monstrous injustice; such as would not be shown to the meanest felon at the bar of a criminal tribunal. That the candidate may waive an investigation, or the Lodge insist upon it, there can be no more doubt than there is that the latter must order it if the former demand it. The whole may be subordinate to existing circumstances, and governed by them. If the objections be such that if left unnoticed they would affect the character or discipline of the Lodge, charges should undoubtedly be preferred; but if not of this serious character, it might be judicious and charitable to leave the matter in abeyance and the candidate on probation.
Objection to Visitors
From Vol. XXV, No. 6, p. 169, April, 1866:
If a Mason applies to a Lodge to be admitted as a visitor, and a member of the Lodge objects to his admission, should the W. M. admit the visitor?
He should not.
Should a brother objecting to the admission of a visiting brother state his objection?
Not necessarily, and generally so. It is now good Masonic law that a brother's objection is to be respected without being stated . . . if a man is worthy to be a Mason, he is worthy to be believed, and to have his feelings respected, even though they involve prejudices, bias or small things. And if a Lodge has admitted an unworthy, small, feeble-minded or prejudiced man, it must abide the consequences. A brother's feelings and objections must be respected by his own Lodge, against all outsiders.
Physical Qualifications of Candidates
From Vol. XXV, No. 8, p. 225, June, 1866:
We find the following remarks on this important subject in the annual address of the late Grand Master of the Grand Lodge of Alabama: — "Can one who has lost a leg be made a Mason? Can one thus situated, whose loss has been supplied by artificial means, be made a Mason ?" n answer to the first question, I quoted the language of the Constitution as the law, 'that the candidate must be free from such corporeal deformity as would render him incapable of teaching and practising the ritual of the fraternity' ; and that every subordinate Lodge was a jury, whose duty it was to pass upon the fact, whether the candidate could come up to the requisition, litre I rested my decision, declining to interfere in what I conceived to be the proper duty of the subordinate Lodge. At the same time, however, I expressed an opinion adverse to the reception of such candidates, even though the loss of a limb was supplied by artificial means. . . .
"In this, as in almost every other question, it is well to recur to the elementary principles as the starting-point from which we must not depart, and by which we must be guided, if we wish to avoid error. It may be well also to remember, that though we live in a 'progressive age,' yet there is nothing progressive in the character of Masonry. It is the same to-day it was yesterday,— the same it was centuries ago. . . .
"By the loss of a limb, one certainly ceases to be of able body, and capable of practising the ritual of the fraternity. It is possible, nay probable, that one thus situated might be able to comprehend, and perhaps even teach, the ritual; but he could not practise it: and, without ability to do so, such persons remain embraced within the category of those who shall not be accepted as Freemasons.
"The standard, then, of physical qualifications, as I understand it from the ancient landmarks and our own Constitution, is the ability of the candidate to teach and practise the ritual of the Order, in every particular and in its most minute details. It matters not how the candidate may be deprived of that ability. His misfortunes may command our sympathy, but sympathy does not remedy the difficulty."
The late rebellion has given an importance to this subject which it never before possessed. Thousands of our most enterprising and reputable young men have come back from the battle-fields, and are knocking at the doors of our Lodges, — young men whose physical condition would perhaps, under a rigid and exact interpretation of the ancient and original regulation on the subject, disqualify them for admission. But it is not impertinent to inquire whether such a strict construction of the law is demanded by the present condition or the interests of the Institution.
The first regulation on the subject of which we have any knowledge was probably adopted in the early part of the tenth century; and it requires that every candidate for the mysteries of Masonry shall be "freeborn, of mature and discreet age, of good report, of sufficient natural endowments, and the senses of a man, with an estate, office, trade, occupation, or some visible way of acquiring an honest livelihood, and of working in his craft." It further declares, that he "must also be upright in body, not deformed nor dismembered, at the time of making, but of hale and entire limbs."
A similar regulation was adopted at a general assembly of Masons, held at London in 1663, at which time the Earl of St. Albans was elected Grand Master; and Sir Christopher Wren, the architect, Junior Grand Warden. It was in the following words : —
"That no person hereafter shall be accepted a Freemason but such as are of able body, honest parentage, good reputation, and an observer of the laws of the land."
Taking these regulations as they stand, and interpreting them literally, there can be no doubt as to what should be the physical qualifications of a candidate for the honors of Masonry. But they were adopted at a time when the fraternity was almost exclusively an operative association. The admission of the deformed and maimed, who were disqualified for manual labor, was therefore to be guarded against as a practice calculated unnecessarily to burthen the brotherhood, and, as a conscquencerto lessen their ability to afford pecuniary relief to those of their fellows who from sickness, or the occurrence of accidents peculiar to their occupation, might require it. The regulation under such circumstances was wise and salutary. But does the same necessity for it now exist? The Institution has ceased to be operative, and has become a purely speculative or moral and benevolent fraternity ; and it is certainly very clear that it is not at the present day so essential that the candidate should be of " hale and entire limbs," if he be of " good report, of sufficient natural endowments," has "some visible way of acquiring an honest livelihood," and is capable "of working in his craft." We would preserve our ancient laws as a sacred legacy; but does it necessarily follow, that, in order to do this, we must be governed by the letter, without any regard to the spirit of them, or the changes wrought by time in the character and purposes of the Institution? A regulation adopted during the reign of James II. provides, "That no fellowe goe into the town by night, except he have a fellowe with him, who may bear him record that he was in an honest place." All will admit that it would be more than inexpedient to attempt to enforce the letter of this regulation at the present time. It was undoubtedly originally wise and salutary, and demanded by the then condition of the brotherhood. The spirit of it is, that a Mason should walk uprightly in his vocation, avoiding all evil company and licentious habits. A more literal construction would now be an absurdity. Do we not, therefore, perform our whole duty when we regard the spirit of regulations, the letter of which has by necessary and unavoidable circumstances become obsolete, and is not demanded for any. useful purpose?
Let us apply this reasoning to the oldest of the regulations above cited. We have seen that one of the objects proposed by it was to protect the Institution against the embarrassment and injurious effects which must necessarily follow the admission of persons having no visible means of acquiring an honest livelihood, or ability to work in their craft. And here it may be asked, whether the spirit of this regulation is impaired by the admission of a candidate possessing such " visible means," and in all respects capable of "working in his craft," but who is laboring under a physical deformity? We answer, that if the deformity be not such as to disqualify him for receiving the necessary
instructions, and imparting the same to others when required, the true intent of the regulation in our opinion remains unimpaired; and we believe this construction to he sustained and sanctioned by the usages of the fraternity for at least a century past. In the book of "Ancient Constitutions," published in England in 1754, we find a corresponding regulation in the following terms: —
"No Master should take an.apprenticc unless he has sufficient employment for him, and unless he be a perfect youth, having no maim or defect in his body that may render him incapable of learning the art, or of serving his Master's Lord, and of being made a brother, and then a fellow-craft in due time."
This clearly sustains the construction, that where the deformity does not amount to inability to obtain an "honest livelihood," nor render the candidate incapable of receiving the necessary instructions, it does not operate as a bar against his admission to the privileges of the Institution.
The present regulation of the Grand Lodge of England is, "that every candidate must be a free man and his own master, and, at the time of his initiation, be known to be in reputable circumstances. He should be a lover of the liberal arts and sciences, and have made some progress in one or the other of them." Possessing these qualifications, with a good character, and acknowledging the existence of a superintending Providence, nothing more is required of him. But the best rule on the subject that we have met with, and that which most nearly covers the whole ground, is the following from the Constitutions of the Grand Lodge of Maine : —
"Sect. 78. By the ancient regulations, the physical deformity of an individual operates as a bar to his admission into the fraternity. But as this regulation was adopted for the government of the craft at a period when they united the character of operative with that of speculative Masons, this Grand Lodge authorizes such a construction of the regulation as that, when the deformity of the candidate is not such as to prevent him from being instructed in the arts or mysteries of Freemasonry, and does not amount to an inability honestly to acquire the means of subsistence, the admission will not be an infringement upon the ancient landmarks, but will be perfectly consistent with the spirit of our Institution."
By a strict attention to the requirements of this rule, our Lodges will find very little difficulty in determining, physically at least, the eligibility of any candidate who presents himself for admission. It is clear that one who is deaf, or blind, or who has lost his right arm, is incnpable of receiving or imparting instruction in the " arts or mysteries " of Freemasonry. But it does not follow that because he has lost a finger, or an eye, or an ear, or that his body is not as straight and well-formed as other men's, that he is incapable of doing so, and shonld therefore be rejected. We have known many good Masons who wero cripples. Walter Scott had a club-foot, yet his brethren were proud of his masonic connection. We have known a Grand Master with an artificial left hand, and many a good and expert brother with an artificial foot; and since these physical defects clearly do not amount to a positive inability to impart or receive instruction, it may well he questioned whether any violence is done to the spirit and intent of the law by the admission of candidates so deformed.
Rejected Candidates
From Vol. XXV, No. 9, p. 257, July, 1866:
Pittsfield, May 15, 1866
C. W. MOORE, Esq.
Dear Sir ahd Brother, — Allow me to propound a simple question in masonic jurisprudence.
L - petitions B - Lodge, in thetown of A - , in due receive the degrees of F. & A. M's.
His petition is rejected. L- afterwards removes to P-, and a year or two after his residence in P - , makes application to M - Lodge, to receive degrees there. M - Lodge is located in P - . The petition is duly referred; favorable report; M—— Lodge unanimously elect L - to receive the degrees.
Can they legally proceed without the consent of the Master, one Warden, and three members of B - Lodge? {Vide "Pocket Trestle-Board," page 61.) In other words, Is there any masonic statute of limitation? Or does a man forever go under the ban of having been rejected, in this State, so as to be under the necessity of applying, semper et ubique, to the Master, &c., of the Lodge where he was once rejected?
I inquire for the purpose of getting a practical interpretation, especially of the 10th clause on page 61 of "Pocket Trestle-Board." Your views will greatly oblige yours ever, L. H. G.
The section in the " Pocket Trestle-Board " referred to by our correspondent is as follows: —
"A rejected candidate cannot, in Massachusetts, be initiated in any other Lodge, without the recommendation of the Master, one Warden, and three members of the Lodge in which he was rejected. A more general rule is, that he cannot be initiated until after the expiration of six months or a year from the date of rejection. Our own opinion is, that he should be initiated whenever the Lodge which had rejected him can properly receive him; that is, when the cause of the rejection is removed, be the time longer or shorter; and this can be ascertained only by a new proposition, to be received at the discretion of the Master. There is no justice in keeping him a year under the imputation of the rejection, if it can be sooner removed."
It is a rule of universal application in Masonry, that a candidate, having been once rejected, cannot subsequently apply to any other Lodge for admission, the original Lodge having and retaining exclusive masonic jurisdiction over him until it voluntarily relinquishes it, or until it is terminated by some constitutional provision of the Grand Lodge to .which it is subordinate. The object of the rule is to. reader it difficult, if not impossible, for an unworthy applicant, who has been rejected by the Lodge where he is known, to gain admission to the Institution through a Lodge located where he is unknown ; and, being of universal application, it is equally operative and binding on all Lodges throughout the country. There is not, however, we regret to say, that uniformity in the conditions with which a majority of our Grand *Lodges have thought proper to incumber it that is desirable, and which is necessary to render its practical operation complete and effective.
The law, as it exists under the authority of the Grand Lodge of this Commonwealth, is correctly stated in the opening sentence of the paragraph given above from the "Pocket Trestle-Board"; and our correspondent will perceive that it admits of no qualification or limitation. It is clear and positive in its terms; and the only admissible exception to it would be in a case where the rejecting Lodge had ceased to exist. In the happening of such an event, a compliance with its requirements being impossible, the candidate would doubtless be at liberty to apply to any other Lodge within whose jurisdiction he might reside; and such Lodge, with a knowledge of the previous rejection (to be ascer¬ tained in the ordinary way), would also be at liberty to dispose of the application in such manner as its own judgment, with a proper regard for the interests of the Institution, should determine.
The rule may, in exceptional cases, operate with some severity; but, as a general regulation, it is undoubtedly a wise and conservative one. Any law on the subject less stringent in its provisions could scarcely fail to introduce causes of complaint among the Lodges in different parts of the country, and to expose them and the Institution generally to an additional risk of admitting unworthy members. The rule cannot, therefore, be too carefully preserved or rigidly enforced. As we have already said, it is of universal application, and is so regarded by nearly (very Grand Lodge in the country, though in some jurisdictions it exists in a modified form. The Grand Lodge of the District of Columbia, for example, forbids the initiation of a rejected candidate in another Lodge until the expiration of one year after his rejection, and then only upon the recommendation of seven members of the original Lodge, if it be in existence, of whom three must be the Master and Wardens. Virginia modifies this rule, and allows the candidate to be initiated in any Lodge after one year from the date of his rejection, without the recommendation. Georgia, Florida, Alabama, and Louisiana make no exceptions, but require the recommendation of the rejecting Lodge. Illinois demands the unanimous consent, and Michigan the written recommendation, of the Master and Wardens of the rejecting Lodge. Iowa goes one step further, and requires that the rejected candidate shall not only apply to the same Lodge, but that the Lodge shall not act upon the second peti¬ tion, " except all the members be present who acted in the instance of the rejection, unless by special dispensation of the Grand Master." And Ohio requires that its Lodges shall "satisfy themselves, by a test or otherwise," that the candidate has not previously been rejected in some other Lodge. We need not multiply these authorities. Enough have been cited to show the general prevalence of the rule, and the importance that is everywhere attached to it.
The fact that, as in the case presented by our correspondent, the can¬ didate does not now reside in the State where the Lodge which rejected him is located, does not change the force of the rule, or impair its universality, though it may justify a constructive modification of its terms. For example, by the law as it exists in Massachusetts, a candidate who has been rejected by one Lodge cannot be received by another in this jurisdiction, without the consent and recommendation of the Master, one Warden, and three members of the first Lodge; but this rule has been so construed in practice, as that, when the rejected candidate comes from a foreign jurisdiction, and has acquired a legal residence in this State, the consent alone of the foreign Lodge has been deemed to be sufficient. This construction rests on the presumption that such consent would not be given in a case where substantial and positive objections are known to exist. The propriety of it is further justified by the circumstance that cases frequently arise where the candidate,, having removed from his former residence, allows a period of one, two, or more years to elapse before he renews his application to the Lodge in his present place of abode. In such cases, the presumption is, that the responsible officers of the rejecting Lodge may have been changed, and that their successors know little more of the candidate than what appears of record; and are not, therefore, qualified to recommend him to a sister Lodge as worthy of its confidence and acceptance. All that can reasonably be asked under such circumstances, is, that the original Lodge will relinquish its jurisdiction in the case. And this will seldom be withheld, unless for such substantial reasons as should forever exclude the petitioner from the privileges of the Order. This course throws the responsibility of his admission upon the second Lodge, within whose jurisdiction he resides, and where it properly belongs.
As a final answer to the inquiries of our correspondent, we beg to say: 1. That the rule, as it exists in Massachusetts (the rejecting Lodge, and that to which the second application is made, being both located in the jurisdiction), admits of no change or limitation. 2. That the candidate having been rejected by a Lodge under a foreign jurisdiction, the content alone of that Lodge is sufficient to authorize the second Lodge to entertain his petition.
And we may be allowed to suggest, in conclusion, that if this last rule were adopted as the uniform rule throughout the country, it would afford all the protection of which the case admits, and secure greater efficiency and unity in practice.
Forfeiture of Membership
From Vol. XXV, No. 9, p. 279, July, 1866:
"The right of a lodge, by a provision in its by-laws, to prevent a member from voting for officers, who is a certain number of months in arrears for dues, admits of no dispute. One of the undoubted rites of a subordinate Lodge is to exact the payment of dues from its members, and to fix a penalty, other than censure, suspension, or expulsion, for non-compliance. Every member of a Lodge, at the time of his admission to membership, enters into a voluntary written contract with the Lodge, that he will observe and support the by-laws. The nature of this contract is, that the member is to enjoy all the rights and privileges of the Lodge on condition that, among other things, he will pay a certain amount of dues, annually, in instalments due at certain specified times; and the penalty is, that if he neglect or refuse the required payments, he shall be deprived of certain named privileges. The contract is equally binding on both parties, and neither can violate it without incurring the penalty. If a Lodge should refuse the rights and privileges to a brother who has promptly fulfilled his duties, the Grand Master would compel it to stand up to its bargain, and by a parity of reasoning, the Lodge compels the member to stick to his. If he will not pay he cannot vote, that's all. Much stress is laid by the opponents of this doctrine on the constitutional provision that every member in good standing is entitled to one vote, but it is respectfully submitted that a member who tails to comply with the conditions of good standing is not entitled to its immunities." —Simons.
The general principle of membership as stated in the above is correct, but the argument is calculated to mislead and induce erroneous action. There is no question that if a member fails to fulfil his contract under the by-laws he incurs the stipulated penalty; but the fact of failure must be proved and established before it can be lawfully exacted; and this must also be done in accordance with masonic usage, that is, by previous notice and investigation. It will not do, while an election is pending, for one member of the Lodge to object to another's voting because he may chance to be a few months in arrears for his dues. Such a practice if allowed would lead to great abuses and oppression. It must first be shown that the secretary has officially demanded the dues, and that the delinquent has wilfully neglected or refused to discharge them. The Lodge can then inflict the proper penalty, not before.
