MassachusettsEdicts MFM1871 1873

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.

1871

Powers of Grand Masters

From Vol. XXX, No. 6, p. 189, April 1871:

Our distinguished and talented Bro. Tisdall of Pomeroy's Democrat writes on this subject (true to the old landmarks as he always is), as follows : —

"By the ancient law, which is unabrogated and in full force to this day, the highest authority and powers in the Masonic institution are vested in the Grand Master, and he is during the recess of the Grand Lodge, the embodiment of the interest, the character and immunities of the whole Craft in his jurisdiction. Indeed the Ancient Regulations allow nothing to be done without the consent and approbation of the Grand Master; the Deputy, Wardens, and Secretary, etc., were his mere appointees, and though in the United States (contrary to the old rule which still prevails in England), these officers are elected and not appointed; they are subject to the greater authority of the Grand Master, who can not only annul any of their acts, but should occasion require it, suspend them from the exercise of their official and Masonic functions.

"He is then, as he should be, the embodiment of authority, in fact, as well as in form. His actions and opinions are not subjects of inquiry, nor can they be interfered with. His prerogatives are not to be compared with the restricted power of a presiding officer of an ordinary association, who is tied down by set rules created by the association itself, or whose decision can be reversed upon appeal, to the association. The written Constitution cannot abridge his rule, nor restrict his powers, because they are inherent in the high office, nor can any power go behind his throne to detect his errors, correct his decisions, or inquire into his fallibility. He is absolute in his rule. There is no appeal from his decision. He has no equal during his term of office, and the acts of all his other Grand Officers can be set aside, or their decisions reversed, if in his judgment the welfare of the Fraternity demands it. Indeed, unless specially authorized, we hold that the Deputy cannot act in an executive capacity, while the Grand Master is within his jurisdiction, without his special sanction. The meaning of the term Deputy is sufficiently declaratory, for according to Webster's Dictionary, a 'Deputy is a person appointed or elected to act for another, especially a person sent with a special commission to. act in the place of another: a lieutenant, a viceroy.

"We hardly imagine that the opinions we thus have given expression to will be seriously questioned by any well-informed Mason."

Irregularly Made Masons

From Vol. XXX, No. 7, p. 220, May 1871:

"A regularly made Mason is entitled to recognition wherever there are Masons. If a Lodge does wrong in making a non-resident, the Lodge should be punished, but the party made is entitled to all the rights and privileges of a Mason everywhere."

So says a contemporary, and, regarded as a general rule, the position he assumes is undoubtedly consistent with correct Masonic law and equity, for it is to be assumed as true, that applicants for the degrees are wholly ignorant of the local and peculiar laws which regulate the admission of members to the Order, and ought not therefore to be held responsible for any violation of them. The fault, if there be any in the mode of admission, lies with the Lodge receiving the application, and not with the person making it, for the reason already given. This is the old and true law in the case, and its interpretation. Until within a comparatively few years, no other construction was ever put upon it.

Circumstances, frequently of great aggravation, have however led to its modification or limitation, and it is now in many of our jurisdictions held that a person who goes from beyond his proper residence and receives the degrees in another town or State, is irregularly made, and not entitled to recognition by his Lodge at home. Now this in our judgment is all wrong, because calculated to operate with great severity to the prejudice of the innocent, while it leaves the wrong-1 doer, the initiating Lodge, untouched. Cases may and do however occasionally arise, where the applicant for the degrees and the Lodge1 conferring them, are equally guilty of irregularity, and should be held to equal responsibility; as for example, where the candidate has been1 rejected, or fearing rejection by the Lodge at his place of residence, applies to a distant Lodge where he is not known, and thus surreptitiously obtains the degrees. In such a case, though the candidate would have been Masonically made, because made in a regular Lodge, the Lodge at his place of residence would be justified in refusing to' recognize and receive him; because his presence might and probably would disturb its harmony. The offending brother being a Mason, would of course be subject to Masonic discipline, should the circumstances warrant such a course.

Past Masters

From Vol. XXXI, No. 2, p. 42, December 1871:

Dear Brother Moore.— The question as to what constitutes a Past Master was virtually introduced in the Grand Lodge of Virginia, at its last session by a decision of the Grand Master: viz. that "the installation of a Master-elect of a Lodge, followed by immediate resignation, will not entitle him to the rank of a Past Master who has not actually passed the Chair." In opposition to which ruling the Grand Lodge adopted the following, as reported by the committee to which the subject was referred. "Your Committee are of opinion that a Master-elect who has received the Degree of Past Master and been subsequently installed as Master of a Lodge is a Past Master without regard to the length of time he may have occupied the chair."

The point in this discussion is really whether the oath of office and the formal ceremonies incident to the installation of a Master, independent of the constitutional term of service, are of themselves sufficient to constitute the recipient a Past Master. In the decision of the Grand Master there-are two allegations ; one, that the ceremonies inducting to office do not make a Past Master, and the other, that to insure that rank there must be, in addition to the ceremonials, an occupancy of the office and a personal compliance with its duties, for a full constitutional term. Both of which positions are unquestionably correct. It seems to be a fair logical deduction, that where the constitutional regulations make the election annual, the term of service is for one year, and as the introductory ceremonies are also provided for, the acquisition of both is necessary to secure the emoluments of the office.

The practice of annual elections of officers in subordinate Lodges was probably established as a regulation early in the last century. It may possibly find its source at the annual gathering of the Craft to choose a Grand Master, even before a Grand Lodge originated. At any rate, be that as it may, it has now become a universal custom with the Craft, modified only by a difference of opinion regarding the length of time a Master should remain in office, before he is entitled to the benefits arising therefrom. While the right to resign a stational office is conceded by some Grand Lodges, it is denied by others and its awards withheld. There are very few instances, however, where the ruling so perfectly cuts off the necessity for personal service, and empowers the creation of Past Masters by a mere formal ceremony, as does this of Virginia. These conflicting regulations are more the result of diversified opinions and unscrutinized customs, than of any disposition to do violence to any old Masonic rule, and really grow out of a misconception of a well defined fundamental principle in Masonic government But still a deviation from the original design, however innocently fallen into, rarely ever adds strength or beauty to the institution. While the power may lie in a Grand Lodge to determine the prerequisite to Pastmastership, its right to violate any principle of Masonic law or usage in doing so, and particularly when its origin may be traced, as in the present case, to the earliest system of Masonic Government, is very questionable. It would be more desirable if the usage in this particular was more uniform: its incongruity not only leads to some embarrassment, but breaks in upon the harmony and symmetry of the Masonic system. In some instances, the various rulings and laws diverge so sharply, as almost to preclude the probability of a reconciliation of these conflicting views ; nor can relief be expected from this anomalous condition, unless by a general impulse the subject receives the calm and deliberate judgment of an enlightened brotherhood.

Among the ancient charges is this. "No brother can be made a Warden until he has passed the part of a Fellow Craft; nor Master until he has acted as a Warden; nor Grand Master unless he has been a Fellow Craft before his election, who is also to be noble bom, or a gentleman of the best fashion, or some eminent scholar, or some curious architect or other artist, descended of honest parents, and who is of singular great merit in the opinion of the Lodges, and further that in selecting a Deputy, the Grand Master is to choose a brother who must be then, or must have been formerly, the Master of a particular Lodge." It is evident from this special charge that merit and practical service are made a sine qua non to official positions ; no more initial ceremony could substitute its potent demand for physical duty and moral worth. Language more cogent could, scarcely have been selected to emphasize the design of the Craft of that day, to secure a proper appreciation of an official station by the occupant, and the responsibility resting upon him for fidelity and assiduity in the personal discharge of his duties.

The natural tendency of the doctrine of the Virginia Committee is, to empower a Lodge on the evening of the election, if it sees fit to confer the honor, to pass any number of Wardens and Masters, it has the time and subjects to operate upon. Under a certain condition of things in some localities, this would be a most dangerous liberty. As startling as such a proposition may be, its conclusion is inevitable. Nor is such an idea preposterous; doctrines equally strange, hurtful and absurd have been carried into practice, and their damaging effects realized. The Grand Lodge of Virginia makes the elections in its subordinate Lodges annual, and provides for filling any vacancy which may occur, but there appears to be no Regulation securing the benefits of the office against forfeiture, should the officer relinquish his duties before the termination of his official term. In consequence of this omission the benefits of the office are accorded to him by a local usage; there is no statute under which he could take refuge and claim the benefits as a right, should any questions arise as to his title to the privileges. The decision of the Grand Lodge in the case under review, has no constitutional Regulations to sustain it, beyond the force of a custom. The context of the Constitution is more strongly against it than in its favor. The annual elections fix as a consequence a yearly term of service, and although a remedy is provided, to relieve the Lodge from any embarrassment should any exigency arise, the object of the Regulations is to keep the Lodge in a healthy working trim, not to heap honors on such as may be derelict in duty. The tenor of the Constitution establishes this reasonable position. Where ever the terms "Master" and "Lodge" appear in it, may be traced the design of the law to enjoin upon the Master his personal attention to the duties of the office during the elective term; for instance, he is made the responsible custodian of the Warrant; he is to preside in the Lodge during its sessions; he is to exercise its executive functions ; he is held accountable for its lawful transactions; he is to become proficient in the work and lectures, and during his term of service holds membership in Grand Lodge. These duties and responsibilities are indicative of a personal identity with them, and mean action, and faithful labor. The Master's official obligation, although encumbered by extraneous immaterial matter, enforces an individual application, and brings more vividly,to view the responsibilities consequent upon his new relationship to the fraternity and Institution. Very many of our intelligent brethren overlook these items which so forcibly strengthen the argument of practical service, and indulge the impression that the ceremonies incident to the installation, are of themselves ample to create a Past Master, and thus impart to their theory vital reality.

The correctness of the term " Degree " as applied to the initial installation ceremony is very questionable even with its prefix "honorary." It would be questionable in a Collegiate sense, if intended to carry therewith any mark of distinction. If there was any ceremony attached to the adminstration of the Masters oath of office originally, it is not at all probable it was classed as a Degree. It assumed that character after it was incorporated among the Degrees of the Chapter, as a prerequisite to the Royal Arch Degree.. So far as the present generations may date back their personal knowledge in this matter, it is probable they have known no other form than the one at present in vogue. Many are familiar with its traditional history and ceremonial, but the oldest, who may be with us now, is scarcely old enough to have been Masons at the period when this new American work was first introduced, hence it is reasonable to expect a bias in its favor. It is principally its inconsistency, which renders its historical authenticity doubtful, and its utility questionable. It is generally known that when the Royal Arch Degree was under the control of subordinate Lodges, none but those who had regularly passed the Chair was eligible to it. That test of eligibility being originally an essential element in the qualifications of Candidates to that Degree in those bodies, it was deemed equally necessary to those seeking the Degree in Chapters upon the organization of Royal Arch Masonry. The success of the latter depended principally upon the quantity of material it could obtain to operate with. This demand could not readily be supplied. Past Masters were not made in a day, they were of a yearly production, and but here and there dotted a jurisdiction. To overcome the technical obstruction which this barrier interposed to its progress, the Past Masters Degree was constructed, when any number of nominal Past Masters were created, thus facilitating the passage of hundreds to the Royal Arch Degree. Of course to impart to this ceremony the character and tone of a Degree, there must be an imposing form, and a consistent history; both were found and elaborately decorated by the prolific imagination of the projector. This degree symbolized the service of a Master, covering the whole period of his official existence, beginning with the initial ceremony of installation and ending with his descent from the Chair. The term Past Master's Degree therefore, is perfectly consistent when applied to this Degree, when conferred in a Chapter; not so, however, when applied to the initial form given to the Master elect, before he enters upon the duties of his office.

It is scarcely probable that any one who received the Chapter Degree, in the early period of its history, ever appropriated to himself any virtue from it beyond its nominal title. The recognition of such, as Past Masters, was left for the erroneous construction of some of the brethren, who received it at a more recent date, through a misconception of the intent and character of the Degree. It is no part of York Masonry, and should receive no consideration as such from the fraternity. Whatever ceremonial may be found connected with the oath of office, was taken from the Chapter degree. If the object is to furnish by a Degree some means of identifying Past Masters, it would be more consistent to create a form of ceremonial for that purpose. I do not propose such a scheme, but it may be done with as much propriety as was the present form, some sixty or eighty years ago, and, I was going to say, with as little harm, but that fancy was not intruded with impunity. It fastened upon the Craft an error not easily removed or battled with; it created a new doctrine; established fixed prejudices; diverted a reasonable and legitimate usage, and has driven in an entering wedge, calculated under less favorable circumstances, to sever the tie uniting a Mason's tenacity to the ancient laws and customs, of the Order. The assumption of this article is that the inaugural ceremony of a Master is not a Degree; that if it is a Degree, acquiring it does not constitute one a Past Master ; that to become a Past Master, a Master has to serve out the full term to which he was elected, and that in every case where the Regulations do not expressly award the past honors to a Master for an unfinished term, he is not entitled to it by implication, but must remain in the discharge of his duties to the end of the first year of his election.

Yours in fraternal love, D.

1872

Initiation of Minors

From Vol. XXXI, No. 4, p. 97, February 1872:

A correspondent sends us the following:

Dec. 19, 1871.
Chas, W. Moore, Esq.

Dear Sir & Bro. — By the advise of eminent brethren here, I am induced to ask your opinion on the following — There is at present in out city a Bro. hailing from Canada, who was made a Master Mason in that jurisdiction, by dispensation, before he was 19 years of age. He is still under 21 years of age. Can we receive him as a regular Mason and allow him to visit our Lodges?

Very truly and fraternally yours, ----, P. J. G. Warden.

The earliest regulation on this subject, of which we have any recol
lection, is contained among the "Additional Orders and Constitutions 
made and agreed upon at a General Assembly" of the Fraternity in
 1663, and is in the following words:

"VI. That no person shall be accepted a Free-Mason, unless he be One and Twenty Years Old, or more."

In the Constitutions compiled by order of the Grand Lodge of Eng
land from the "general records and faithful traditions of many ages," 
in 1720, approved in 1721, and first published by order of that Grand
 Body in 1723, it is provided that

"The persons admitted Members of a Lodge most be good and true men, free born, and of mature and discreet age, - no bond men, no women, no immoral or scandalous men, but of good report"

And in the fourth article of the General Regulations appended to these Constitutions, mature and dvcreet age is defined to be twenty five years, as follows:

"IV. No Lodge shall make more than Five new brethren at one Time, nor any man under the age of Twenty-five, who must be also his own Master; unless by a Dispensation from the Grand Master or his Deputy."

In the Irish edition of these old Constitutions, published at Dublin in 1730, we find this same regulation, with the substitution of twenty-one for twenty-five, as the required age of the candidate. But in Anderson's Constitutions published at London in 1738, and in Entick's, published in 1756, the twenty-five years is still retained among the "Old Regulations." At what precise period the Grand Lodge of England reduced the required number of years to twenty-one, we have no ready means of ascertaining; but the fact is not material. The foregoing is sufficient to show what the old regulation was, and that, as a pre-requisite to his initiation, the candidate must have attained to his majority - to the full stature of his manhood and freedom — when, being "his own Master," he could truthfully and in honor present himself at the door of the Lodge as a man of "lawful age." And this requirement is literally and clearly recognized by the present English Constitutions, which enact that the "candidate must be a free man, and his own Master, and at the time of initiation, be known to be in reputable circumstances;" and, further, that before his initiation he shall "subscribe his name at full length, to a declaration " that he is "of the full age of twenty-one years."

The only conclusion to be drawn from these regulations is, that the candidate for Masonry most be of the full age of twenty-one years before he can lawfully be received into the Lodge for initiation. This is the rule and the law of Masonry, as it has come down to us from a time whereof the record of the Craft runneth not to the contrary, and, like many others of the old regulations and landmarks of the Craft, it is irrevocable and unchangeable. We first meet with the attempt to change or evade it, in the Constitutions of the Grand Lodge of England of 1793, through the Dispensation of its Grand Master. But the granting of that dispensatory power over it was a clear innovation upon the ancient law, and at best, constitutes but a doubtful exception to the rule, obligatory or permissible only within the limits of the jurisdiction when it originated. It cannot made available either directly or indirectly, in contravention of the law of any other independent masonic power whatever. And while we are not disposed to quarrel with our ancient mother for making Masons of minors, we admit no obligation on the part of the Lodges of this country, to receive or recognize them as such; for, as minors are young men "under age," whom it would be unlawful for our Lodges to initiate, it should seem to follow, as a logical sequence, that it would be equally unlawful to affiliate them as brethren, "lawfully made."

By the civil law of England, as by that of the United States, " lawful age" is twenty-one years. The law of Masonry does not differ from this, in either country. The Constitutions of the Grand Lodge of England so recognise it, and we are not aware that there is any difference in this respect among the Grand Lodges on the Continent, or elsewhere. It is a fundamental and fixed law of the Craft; and if it may be set aside by the dispensatory power of the Grand Master, or his Deputy, then may any other fundamental law of the Order, not excepting that which forbids the initiation of females, atheists, or libertines, be disposed of in the same way, and our Lodges be thus thrown open to the indiscriminate admission of all applicants, including minors, or, in legal phrase, infants, of both sexes. Extreme and improbable as this may appear, it is only carrying the principle out in its logical results.

We are not ignorant of the fact that the initiation of minors obtains in France, and perhaps in some of the other continental states; but we do not look to the Grand Orient of France for our law, nor acknowledge any obligation to accept its innovations as a rule of masonic government. But we are not informed that even the French Orient, whimsical and unstable as it is, ever sanctioned the initiation of the minor sons of Masons to any thing beyond the first, or apprentice degree; and we shall be surprised to learn that the practice in England at the present time, so restricted or otherwise, is not of very rare occurrence. There might have been a seeming apology, though really no justifiable excuse, for it, when in 1723, if was incorporated into the Constitutions of the Grand Lodge of England. The Craft were than in a feeble and transition state, and the acquisition of even the minor sons of tie nobility and gentry of the kingdom, may have been a matter of some consequence with them — sufficient, in the judgment of that Grand Lodge, to authorize a departure from the ancient usage. But no such necessity exists now, if it,ever existed at all, and the practice should be no longer tolerated anywhere, and especially not, either directly or indirectly, by the Grand Lodges of this country. If our Canadian brethren, or the Grand Lodge of any other foreign jurisdiction, feel themselves authorized to over-ride and ignore the plain and positive teachings of the Constitutions and landmarks of the Craft, and make Masons of boys, they should be given distinctly to understand that they cannot force them into our Lodges, as men "of mature and discreet age."

We speak plainly on this point, because our correspondent, in a subsequent note writes us, that the practice is common in Canada, and that the party whose application for admission to his Lodge as a visitor has given rise to this inquiry, informs him that there are four other minors who, to his own knowledge, recently received the degrees of Masonry there, under the same dispensatory power by virtue of which he himself was allowed to receive them. It is therefore not unreasonable to presume, that among our Canadian brethren the practice has become an established usage, or at least a facile rule, in the government of their Lodges. We trust this is not so, but that the cases referred to by our correspondent, are the results of thoughtlessness, or of misconstrued powers; because, nothing of good, but much of evil, must inevitably ensue from the continuance of a practice so directly opposed to the letter and spirit of the ritualistic requirements and established convictions of duty and obligation entertained by the Fraternity of this country.

To the direct inquiry of our correspondent, we answer, that, for the reasons above given, we should not feel justified in admitting as a visitor a minor, who had been received into the institution in the manner and under the circumstances stated by him. The diploma would have but little weight with us in deciding the question. Such a document is simply prima facie, or at best, collateral evidence of regularity, and is by no means conclusive of the pretensions or claims of its possessor. It may be lawfully his or not. That is to be established, as far as may be, by personal examination. The latter being satisfactory, the former is admitted, not otherwise; and the rejection of it is no disrespect to the body issuing it. But it may be objected that the diploma, properly authenticated, entitles the holder of it to the examination. Not so. That is a matter optional with the Lodge, and cannot be controlled by another. Suppose, by way of illustration, — and in these fast times the reality may not be far off — (it is already knocking at our doors) — suppose then, that a " woman" presents herself at the door of one of our Lodges, with diploma in hand, showing her to have been made a Mason in a lawful Lodge, or under the authority of some competent masonic power — as in Paris, where the thing has been done, — or "at sight," by some Grand Master with, a brain fully indoctrinated with the popular theory of "women's rights," and claims to be examined as a visitor — could the Master lawfully order such an examination? On the contrary, he would at once reject the evidence of the diploma, and politely dismiss her; for, though made in a regular Lodge, the making was in violation of the altar-obligations of Masonry. And yet she occupies the masonic status of the minor, because made under the same exclusive law which forbids the initiation of women and "young men under age." The rule admits of no exceptions, and cannot be controlled by the Dispensation of the Grand Master, for it is above the legislative jurisdiction of Grand Lodges. The principle has its root deep down in the unchangeable obligations of the ritual, and if these obligations may be set aside at the pleasure of the Grand Master or his Deputy, the corollary is logically conclusive, that if a minor is admissible, then there is no lawful hindrance to the making a Mason of a woman, through the exercise of the same dispensatory power. The practice is an absurdity, and in derogation of the true spirit and welfare of the institution.

We leave the subject here. But it may not be out of place to say (by way of parenthesis), for the information of some of our younger readers, that in France the minor son of a Mason is called a louveteau (an iron wedge), and it was the practice some years since, and it may be so now in some few of the Lodges in Paris, to take such a child, soon after birth, to the Lodge-room for baptism, when he received a masonic name, different from that which he bears in the world; and this prepared him for initiation to the first degree, on his attaining to the age of eighteen years. But such folly and irreligious trifling is not adapted to our American sense of propriety, though it has on one or two occasions been attempted here. In England, such a son is called a lewis, a term in operative Masonry, signifying an iron cramp, such as is usually inserted in the cavity of a large stone, to aid in the raising of it. A symbolical meaning is assigned to it in the English ritual, which is hardly worth repeating, and certainly not worth transferring to our own, either as a symbol, or as indicating a practice.

In what we have written above we have given no attention to the modern English ritual. The omissions and interpolations to which, through a mistaken policy of compromise, that was subjected at the "Union" in 1813, are such that, beautiful as it is admitted to be, it can have little or no weight in any argument based on the purer ritual of this country. Solomon condensed a whole volume of sound conservative masonic wisdom into a single sentence, when he said— "My son, forget not my law, but let thine heart keep my commandments ; and remove not (he ancient land-marks thy fathers have set."

Black Ball

From Vol. XXXI, No. 5, p. 132, March 1872:

"We believe any man 'free born,' having the full and free use of limbs, and faculty, or, in other words, of sound mind and not maimed, of good moral character, who believes in the existence of God, and comes well recommended, is entitled to the first degree of Masonry. And any brother who blackballs such an applicant, because some member may have blackballed a friend of his, does a great wrong to Masonry, and drenches his own conscience with a sin, near akin to that of moral perjury. When that spirit takes hold of the brethren, of any subordinate Lodge, the best thing a Grand Lodge can do, is to arrest their charter. The good name of Masonry should not be entrusted to the keeping of such men.

"We are however a strong advocate of the black ball being used to exclude all improper material; and we further believe, that when used, the reason why should never be given." — Bro. C. O. Matchett.

Nominations

From Vol. XXXI, No. 5, p. 156, March 1872:

Our reason for being opposed to open nominations for office in Lodges are, first, that the usage handed down to us from preceding generations has always been to conduct the elections without making such nomination. We believe in standing on the old ways as one of the means of perpetuating the institution, for if we allow changes to creep in one by one, it will not require the gift of prophesy to foretell the period when Masonry, as we now know it, will have ceased to exist. Secondly, the old charges on which all our law is based, declare that preferment among Masons is grounded on real worth and personal merit only, hence, if the brethren desire to confer the honors at their disposal on those who have these qualifications, they can easily ascertain among themselves whom they prefer without the process of making an open nomination. Third, the spirit and forms of Masonry as conducted in a regular and well governed Lodge, revolt at putting any of our processes on a par with the ordinary associations of men. In such a Lodge abundant opportunities are afforded to become acquainted with the conduct, skill and capacity of all the brethren, and to select, as by intuition those who should be honored with the several offices. Fourth, it is always customary to allow a short recess previous to opening the polls, during which the brethren have ample opportunity of comparing notes and making up their minds. — Ex.

Procedure in Lodge

From Vol. XXXI, No. 6, p. 183, April 1872:

Finding that Masonic law differs from parliamentary, I submit the following questions:

1. Is a motion to adjourn in order?
2. Is an amendment to an amendment in order?
3. Why is the moving of the previous question not in order?
4. Is a division of the question in order?
5. Can you amend a resolution after the Lodge has been summoned to act upon it?
6. In what case is a motion to rescind most applicable and proper?

Answer—

1. A motion to adjourn is never in order in the Lodge, because it is the prerogative of the Master to open and close the Lodge in his discretion.
2. An amendment to an amendment is in order, and sometimes more than one amendment will be offered, as in the case of fixing a time or naming a sum.
3. The reason why the previous question is not allowed in a Masonic Lodge is because it is a direct interference with the direct prerogative of the Master to direct all the work of his Lodge. Whenever he deems the debate to have extended far enough, he rises in his place, and by that act all debate ceases, because he has indisputable right to the floor. Moreover, there is no appeal to the Lodge from the decision of the Master, and he having decided that a question has been sufficiently debated, his dictum becomes law for the time being, and must be obeyed.
4. A division of the question, where the subject will admit of it, is in order.
5. A resolution may be amended at any time before its final passage, whether the Lodge has been summoned or not. While under discussion, a resolution is the property of the body, and it may give it such shape as the majority may determine.
6. It is impossible to answer so indefinite a question. There are some acts that can be rescinded, and others that cannot, as an amendment to the by-laws, which, having been adopted, can only be changed by going through the regular form; a vote granting a dimit, because it severs the membership, which can only be regained by petition, committee and ballot; a vote restoring an expelled or suspended member, because the adoption of the proposition to restore, places the member in good standing, and the standing of a member can only be disturbed after charges have been preferred, and regular trial had. —Tidings.

Suitable Proficiency

From Vol. XXXI, No. 6, p. 190, April 1872:

No man should be passed to the degree of Fellow Craft until he has made "suitable proficiency in the E. A. degree." This can only be tested by an examination in open Lodge, by a competent teacher. No Lodge should permit any advancement until the candidate proves himself to be "worthy and well qualified." If one month's study will not qualify him, let him be kept under instruction until he gives the whole Lodge entire satisfaction.

Objection to Advancement

From Vol. XXXI, No. 6, p. 190, April 1872:

An objection made in writing, and filed with the W. M., or stated in open Lodge, has a more extended effect than the black ball. For if the ballots are not clear, the candidate who has received the first degree may apply again at any regular communication and another ballot be taken, and if found clear he then can be advanced. But when an objection is stated or filed, it stops the further progress of the candidate until it is withdrawn, waived or removed.

Courtesy Candidates

From Vol. XXXI, No. 9, p. 257, July 1872:

Baltimore, April 20, 1872.

C. W. Moore, Esq., Editor Freemasons' Magazine.

Dear Sir & Bro. — I beg of you an answer to the following query: "Can a Lodge (B) confer the Master's degree upon a F. C. of Lodge A. at their request — as an act of courtesy — the brother receiving the degree to be a member of Lodge A?"

Our Constitution, Art. XXIII, Sec. 21. says: "Every brother when he receives the degree of M. M., shall have his name enrolled amongst the members of the Lodge which confers the degree, as a member thereof."

Two brethren who have held the position of G. Master, decided during their respective terms, that the act of courtesy could be performed. Other brethren, versed in Masonic Law, contend for a literal construction of the article, viz. that lodge A. must relinquish her right to the F. C. before lodge B. can take any action, and that when action is taken and the degree conferred, he becomes a member of Lodge B, and if he desires to be a member of Lodge A. located at a point which he considers his home (he residing temporarily in the place where Lodge B is located), he must, after receiving his master's degree, demit from Lodge B, and make application in due form, accompanied by membership fee, to Lodge A. Please answer and oblige

Yours fraternally, J. W. B.

Conferring degrees in Masonry, or completing the unfinished work of one Lodge by another, as "an act of courtesy," is one of the many modern inventions that are doing so much to divert our Institution from the plain and simple paths marked out for it by the fathers. We believe the practice originated a few years since among the Lodges in the District of Columbia, which were at that time (however the fact may be now), in the habit of initiating sojourners, without much regard to the jurisdictional rights of others; and in case business or inclination called the candidate home before the proper time arrived for his advancement, then he was furnished with the requisite certificate and recommendation, with a request to the Lodge in the place of his residence, to complete the unfinished work, as "an act of courtesy."

Such requests have at least been received from the District, by Lodges within our own jurisdiction. But the practice is not a safe one, and ought not to be encouraged. The Lodge should complete its own work or abandon it altogether, returning the fee for the unfinished part of it, and leaving the candidate free of its jurisdiction, and at full liberty to apply for advancement elsewhere. The initiating Lodge has no moral or masonic right to exact or receive pay for work that it has not done, nor is it just to ask a sister Lodge to do, "as a gratuity," that for which it has itself received full compensation. This we know is simply a money-view of the question, but it is an equitable one. Degrees cannot be conferred without expense to the Lodge conferring them, and the incurring of this expense should not be demanded of it as "an act of courtesy."

But there is a higher view of the subject; and this is so well and clearly stated by our correspondent in the concluding branch of his inquiry, that we need add little or nothing to it. It is however certain that a lodge cannot initiate a candidate into masonry, except he shall have been duly proposed and subjected to the necessary investigation and ballot. We know of no exception to this rule. His previous acceptance by another Lodge entitles him to no such exemption, and can only be received by the second. Lodge as cumulative evidence of worthiness. This is the rule, and it is neither changed nor weakened by the circumstance that the petition to the second Lodge is for an advance dc gree. As in the first case, the second Lodge can receive the fact of hip having passed the requisite examination, and comes with the endorsement of the first Lodge, as so much evidence in favor of the candidate. Proposition, investigation, and ballot, must precede the advancement, for it is by no means a logical or certain conclusion, that because a candidate is acceptable to one Lodge, he must necessarily be so to . another. The members of every Lodge have a right to express their individual opinions, and to cast a personal ballot on every candidate who shall be brought before them for the first time, to receive any degree of Masonry conferred in the Lodge; and of this right they cannot be deprived by the fact that the candidate may have received a previous degree elsewhere, nor can they voluntarily divest themselves of it, and the duty which it imposes, as "an act of courtesy" to another Lodge, any more than they can do the same thing on the recommendation of a committee of their own Lodge. The right carries with it the correlative duty to exercise it — both are personal, and neither can be surrendered.

The conclusion to which we arrive then is, that Lodge A. must either finish its own work, or surrender all control over it, and leave the candidate to petition the Lodge where he now resides, to finish it for them. This the latter can do with the consent of the former; and this, so far, will leave the future proceedings free and unembarrassed.

The question of membership is a matter of local regulation, and is controlled by the constitution of the Grand Lodge of the State. We personally do not see the wisdom, and question the expediency as well as the legality, of forcing members into the Lodges. These should be left free to select their own associates and to manage their own affairs, under the restrictions of the general laws of the Craft, and such special regulations as the Grand Lodges may find it necessary to enact, not inconsistent with them. But in the present case we must take the law as we find it, and this is so plain that it admits of but one interpretation, and that is, that the candidate, by virtue of receiving the third degree, is made a member of the Lodge This plainness however does not cover the manifest defects of the article, which leaves the candidate without any choice, without any knowledge of the duties and obligations so thrust upon him, and without, what is usually deemed essential to membership, his subscription to the By-Laws. These are defects which might perhaps, under a close and critical analysis of its terms, go far to weaken the force of the article. But this is not to our present purpose. Taking it as it stands, if the brother F. C. consents to receive the master's degree, he becomes a member of Lodge B., and must so stand enrolled upon its records; and as a brother cannot be a member of two Lodges at the same time, it follows that before he can be admitted to membership in Lodge A., he must obtain his regular discharge from membership in Lodge B. The membership fee can of course be remitted in either or both cases.

Trial of a Master

From Vol. XXXI, No. 9, p. 263, July 1872:

A correspondent writing from Mississippi, requests an answer to the following inquiry: —

"Can a subordinate Lodge try its Master for acts committed while he was Master, after he has gone out of office?"

The answer to this question can only be determined by the nature of the offence committed. This our correspondent does not give. In ordinary cases the Lodge cannot try its own Master while in office, for the reason that it has no power of itself to depose him, and he clearly could not, either legally or properly, sit in judgment on his own case. If the offence charged in the present case, be for official malpractice, then it should, at the time of its occurrence, have been laid before the Grand Master for consideration and disposal. If on investigation he should have found it to be sufficiently aggravating and important to justify his doing so, it would have been entirely competent for him to have suspended the offender from his office until the ensuing meeting of the Grand Lodge, or to have ordered his trial before a commission, or jury of his peers. In failure of this course, at the proper time, the Lodge (supposing the accused to have "gone out of office") is now left without any remedy. On the other hand, if the offence was a moral delinquency, and of sufficient magnitude to reflect upon the character of the Lodge, it is entirely competent for it now to prefer charges against the accused, and to bring him to trial in the usual form; or, had the subject been seasonably brought to the attention of the Grand Master, the course here first indicated would have been an entirely competent and proper one. Official position can in no event be urged as a shield, or made subservient to either moral or official delinquency.

Receiving Petitions

From Vol. XXXI, No. 10, p. 319, August 1872:

At the last session of our Grand Lodge one decision was approved, which we wish to dissent from, — 'That a candidate must be twenty-one years of age before he can apply for the degrees. Many years ago, Charles W. Moore being applied to upon this question, replied that it was sufficient that he could truly reply that he was of lawful age when asked. — Masonic Token, Portland.

We stand by this. It was our own case, precisely. We were proposed exactly one month before the balloting could lawfully take place. It was sufficient that before the box was passed in the Lodge, we were within the Law.

1873

Balloting

From Vol. XXXII, No. 2, p. 38, February 1873:

"One black-ball rejects; be careful to make no mistake," is the an
nouncement from the East when a ballot is about to be taken on the application of a person for admission into the brotherhood of Freemasons. This ballot is not to decide whether the applicant shall be received as a member of a particular Lodge merely, but is to determine whether he shall or shall not become a member of that vast fraternity who encircle the globe. Hence the strictness and solemnity of this ballot. It is due to our brethren everywhere, whether they reside in Europe, Asia, Africa or America, or in the many islands of the sea, to
 introduce to them no man, as a brother, whose moral, intellectual and
 social standing is not fully and entirely up to the standard established
 by our ancient brethren. Were the consequences attending the recep
tion of an improper person confined to a Lodge acting in his favor, it
 would be comparatively a trivial thing; but it becomes a very serious 
matter, when, as is the fact, he also is thereby brought into fellowship
 with the members of a world-wide society, none of whom, but those of 
the Lodge receiving him, can know of his qualifications, and whether
 or not he is of "good report and well recommended."

The Master of a Lodge controls the ballot; no by-law of a Lodge can or should contravene his authority respecting it. He should, therefore, feel his great responsibility to the Craft, all over the world, to conduct it so that none others than "good men and true " should have its sanction. If the members of his Lodge, through inadvertence or other cause, should fail to black-ball an unfit applicant, he, knowing him to be so, must have the courage to do it. So, again, if from his own knowledge, or from the reports of individual brethren or from committees, he has reason for believing that a candidate who has had a negative vote, is "worthy and well qualified," he should allow a second ballot, and, perhaps, another, to be taken ; always providing that it can be done without violating the secrecy of the proceeding. Especially should he do this, if he have the moral certainty that the "not clean " was the result of accident.

In 1857, the Grand Master of Massachusetts visited one of the best governed Lodges of his jurisdiction, situate in a prosperous rural district. The visit occurred in the month of August; but, notwithstanding the great heat of the season, the attendance of lodge-members was so large as to fill the lodge-room to repletion. A part of the business of the Lodge was to act on a petition for the degrees. At the proper time a ballot on this petition was collected which gave three negative votes. The Master was evidently surprised at the result, and remarked to the Grand Master that there must have been some mistake or misapprehension, because the candidate was one of the best and most respected citizens of the town; one whom he believed every member of the Lodge would be proud to greet as a Masonic brother. A second ballot was recommended. The result displayed two black balls. Again the Master manifested surprise and repeated what he had before said as to the standing of the petitioner and the feeling of the Lodge towards him. Having these assurances, and observing that the feeble light of the room would enable the aged brethren to discern only with difficulty a black from a white ball, the Grand Master ordered a third ballot, previously, however, cautioning the members to carefully select their ballots. The declaration that the ballot was "'clean" was received with joy by all present.

A broad distinction must be made between balloting for a candidate for membership of the great fraternity of Freemasons, and that for membership in a Lodge. In one case, it determines whether or not a man shall become a brother; in the other, whether or not a brother shall take membership in a particular Lodge. The ballot admitting to membership in the brotherhood must be "clean" or unanimous; while that for membership of a Lodge is subject to its by-laws. J. T. H.

Color as a Disqualification

From Vol. XXXII, No. 2, p. 48, February 1873:

IS COLOR A MASONIC DISQUALIFICATION?

The following circular letter of the Grand Master of Masons in Connecticut fully answers the question :

Office of the Grand Master of Masons of Connecticut,
Greenwich, Conn., Dec. 16, 5872.


To the Secretary of _____ Lodge, F. and A. M. :

Dear Sir and Brother: — Yours of Dec. 13, is just at hand, in which you state that a mulatto thirty-five years of age has made application to the above Lodge for the degrees of Masonry, and that your Lodge has directed you to enquire my opinion, "whether the Lodge can entertain his petition or not, or does his color debar him?" I had supposed that the status of the colored man as respects the Masonic institution was well settled. Masonry embraces within its folds men of all nations, sects, color and religion. Its boast has always been its universality, its capability of embracing in one common bond of brotherhood the whole family of man. We do not read that any stone was rejected at the building of King Solomon's Temple, which is the symbol of our own brotherhood, because of its color. Color is a matter of taste. It is manhood which Masonry respects and esteems, not color or external appearance. The internal and external qualifications of a candidate are well defined. Color is not one of them. These can neither be abridged nor extended. The whole matter rests in the discretion of the Lodge when a petition is presented by a person possessing all these qualifications.

The harmony of the Lodge cannot be disturbed if every member does his duty 
by voting upon all applications; and if any brother believes the introduction of
 any candidate, white, yellow or black, will create discord in the Craft, it is his 
privilege, nay more, it is his duty, to cast a black ball and reject him. My
answer, then, in short, is that the color of the candidate has nothing to do with 
his eligibility for the degrees of Masonry, however much this fact may influence 
the brethren in the question of the desirableness of association with them (per
sons of color) in our Lodges.

Fraternally yours,

L. A. Lockwood, G. M.

Suspensions and Expulsions

From Vol. XXXII, No. 4, p. 97, April 1873:

We are asked whether the suspension of a member for non-payment of dues operates as a bar to his admission as a visitor to the Lodge suspending him?

Suspensions in Masonry are either general or local. (1) They are general when resulting from immorality, disloyalty or other offences subversive of the laws, or prejudicially affecting the welfare of the institution at large. (2) They are local when predicated on causes entirely of a local character, affecting only the relations of the delinquent with the particular Lodge of which he is a member. The laws which govern them are similar in their administrative processes, but are essentially different in their jurisdiction and the penalties attached to them. Both are governed by the common law of equity, and both secure to the accused service and hearing before conviction. The rule of the civil law, that the accused shall not be adjudged guilty before hearing and trial by his peers, is also the rule of Masonic law.

Conviction, under the first of the foregoing definitions, suspends the delinquent from all his rights and privileges as a Mason, and during its continuance, denies him all Masonic fellowship with his brethren. It differs from expulsion in degree only, and is rarely imposed except for offences of secondary importance, as where there is a reasonable presumption of the reformation and ultimate restoration of the offender. On the other hand, expulsion holds out no such inducement, and entertains no such hope. One is correctional, the other final; with rare exceptional cases.

Suspension, under the second of our definitions, rests absolutely or primarily on the relations of the delinquent to the private Lodge of which he is a member, and may be awarded by the Lodge, for causes that are not material to the general interests or welfare of the institution, as affecting either its public reputation, or the acquired rights and immunities of the accused as a member of the Masonic family at large. "The majority of the members present at any Lodge duly summoned," say the Constitutions of the Grand Lodge of England, "have an undoubted right to regulate their own proceedings, provided that they are consistent with the general laws and regulations of the Craft."

The candidate for Masonry, by his initiation is invested with the inherent privileges, and becomes entitled to all those personal benefits and advantages which, under the old constitutions, charges and regulations were possessed and enjoyed by individual members of the fraternity before the organization of private or particular Lodges, as they now exist, and which are indisputably "consistent with the general laws and regulations of the Craft," — not the local laws of any particular State or country, but such as are absolute.and universal in their application. The present system of private Lodges, as subordinate to Grand Lodges, first came into existence in the early part of the last century. Anterior to that period, Lodges were voluntary associations or companies, having a power of correction within themselves, except so far as the subject-matter in controversy was under the control of the ancient constitutions and charges, or was carried by appeal to the General Assemblies of the Craft. At the organization of the first Grand Lodge at London, their condition was changed, and they were brought under more reliable and conservative regulations. It was not, however, until some few years after, that the custom of holding isolated or occasional Lodges, for the making of Masons, was abrogated, and charters or warrants from the new Grand Lodge were required; when; without which, their proceedings became illegal; and it was not until a later period, that the Lodges, so authorized, were empowered to confer the second and third degrees; these being held under the immediate control of the Grand Lodge. The granting of this power placed the Lodges substantially where they now are, and invested them with the privilege of making Masons at their convenience. They were likewise authorized to receive members and to enact laws for their own government, not inconsistent with the ancient usages of the Craft, or the prerogatives of the Grand Lodge. Or, in other words, they were clothed with a "power of correction within themselves." But this power did not extend to expulsion from Masonry. That was reserved by the Grand Lodge; and we accordingly find in the present constitutions of England the declaration that, "In the Grand Lodge alone resides the power of enacting laws and regulations for the government of the Graft, and of altering, repealing and abrogating them, always taking care that the antient landmarks of the Order are preserved", and that, "in the Grand Lodge alone resides the power of erasing lodges and expelling brethren from the Craft, a power which it ought not to delegate to any subordinate authority." By the constitutions of the Grand Lodge of this Commonwealth, it is provided that in any trial where the verdict is suspension or expulsion from Masonry, an attested copy of the proceedings shall be sent up at the ensuing meeting of that Body for examination and confirmation. Until so confirmed, the action of the Lodge is held in abeyance, except that in the meantime expulsion operates as a suspension of the rights of the accused. And this appears to us to be a consistent and proper regulation ; for suspensions of this kind are, for the time being, but modifications of expulsions, and should be controlled by the same general laws. It is important, however, that the distinction between suspension from Masonry and suspension from Membership should not be lost sight of.

The Lodge, per se, has no power to suspend or expel from Masonry, independently of the confirmatory action of the Grand Lodge; while, on the other hand, it is invested with ample power to suspend or vacate individual memberships, without the concurrent action of the Grand Body under which it holds, taking care that the prescribed legal forms in such cases are complied with. Candidates are initiated not into lodges, but by them, into Masonry; and are not therefore amenable to the particular laws of the initiating Lodge, until, by another process, they become members of it. (No man can be entered a Brother In any particular Lodge, or admitted a member thereof without the unanimous content of all the members of that Lodge then present. — Old Regulation), 1720).

The additional privileges and advantages accruing to a member by virtue of his membership, are such as are guaranteed by the by-laws of his Lodge, and are wholly independent of the more general privileges conferred by his initiation. They may be forfeited by a non-fulfillment of the conditions on which he was admitted to them ; as, for insubordination to the requirements' of the by-laws, the commands of the Master, or non-payment of dues; but such forfeiture does not reach beyond the jurisdiction of the Lodge itself, and does not therefore impair any of the rights acquired by his admission into Masonry, as a homogeneous family, governed by laws of universal application. The distinction is an important one. Masonry, using the term in its .broad-and comprehensive sense, is one thing. The Lodge, with its specific, and limited powers, is another thing. The first is a universal society, .embracing men of all nations and all tongues, having a common object in view, and acknowledging allegiance to laws and usages of a common origin: the other is a subordinate and private association, composed of members drawn from the universal family, and clothed with delegated powers to perform such acts, and discharge such duties, as are required by the conditions of its existence. That it may the more effectually discharge these duties, it is also invested with special powers to enforce its own regulations, and to discipline its own members for any wilful violation of them. Beyond this, it has no absolute penal powers whatever. It may remove a member from the Lodge, but it cannot remove him from Masonry, or divest him of any of his original Masonic privileges. And yet, though this be true as an independent proposition, it is not to be received as a bar to prevent the Lodge from taking such steps in this direction as, in its own wisdom, the .interest or honor of the fraternity at large may demand. It is authorized by the accredited usages of the fraternity everywhere, not only to enforce obedience to its own local laws, by such penalties as are within the scope of its powers, but it may arraign an offending brother subject to its jurisdiction, on charges which, if proved, would expose him to the highest penalty known to the criminal laws of Masonry. But its proceedings in suck cases, and the result of its examinations, are incomplete, and, with the exception before noticed, inoperative, until confirmed by the higher power.

But we are extending this article beyond our limits, and must bring it to a close. The conclusions, then, at which we arrive, are — (1), That the Lodge possesses no power of itself to suspend or expel an offending brother from the privileges and benefits acquired by his initiation, but that such power "resides in the Grand Lodge alone." — (2). That each and every Lodge is authorized and empowered to make all the necessary regulations for its own government, and the disciplines of its own members, provided they are "consistent with the general-laws and regulations of the Craft," and not inconsistent with the constitutions and special regulations of the Grand Lodge under which, it holds. — (3). That it is competent for any Lodge to suspend a member from his rights and privileges, as such, for non-payment of dues, the violation of the provisions of its by-laws, or other unmasonic conduct; and that it may also vacate memberships, for adequate cause, the proceedings in each case being conducted in accordance with the requirements of the Grand Lodge.— (4). That the effect of suspension by the Lodge is to exclude him, during its continuance, from all the particular rights, privileges and benefits conferred by his membership.

And now, in conclusion — How is the right to visit affected by suspension from membership? There is no clearly defined rule of practice on the subject. It is, however, held by high authorities in this country, that the right is in no way affected by the suspension, and that the suspended brother may visit his own Lodge "without let or hindrance." This would undoubtedly be true, if the right to visit was absolute and unqualified; because, in that case, it would clearly fall into the class of absolute rights acquired by initiation, and could not, therefore, be impaired by the local regulations of private Lodges. But it is wanting in this important element, and the exercise of it must therefore be controlled by the correlative conditions. By the constitutions of the Grand Lodge of England, as well as by those of the Grand Lodge of this Commonwealth, and of other jurisdictions in this country, "a brother who is not a subscribing member to some Lodge, shall not be permitted to visit any one Lodge in the town or place where he resides more than once during his secession from the Craft."

The right to visit is not therefore an absolute one, nor can it be classed among the general and inalienable rights Which the candidate acquires by his initiation, and of which he can be divested only by suspension or expulsion from the Order. We do not, however, cite this rule with any view to argue from it, that the suspension of membership in one Lodge, carries with it suspension of the right to visit in another; for we are satisfied with the existing practice, as both legal and generous ; but refer to it as evidence that the Lodge is itself clothed with a controlling and independent power in the admission of its visitors. Besides, it is held by some of the best Masonic jurists, that "suspension from the Lodge does not abrogate the connection between the member and his Lodge, but places his rights in abeyance only." Under this rule his membership continues, with the right to exercise its privileges temporarily suspended. His membership remains with his Lodge, and bars him against affiliation with any other Lodge. This is clear; but his right to visit his own Lodge is not so certain. By his membership he acquired an absolute right to do so. This was one of the privileges guaranteed to him, no less by the by-laws of his Lodge than by the general laws of Masonry; and is the correlative of his right to participate in all the transactions and benefits of the Lodge. It should seem, therefore, that the suspension from all the rights and privileges of membership also includes this. We cannot see any logical reason for making it an exception. The matter, however, is perhaps not of much importance, because it is to be presumed that his own sense of propriety would be sufficient to restrain any brother from obtruding himself into a Lodge from which he had been suspended for the violation of its laws, and where he must feel that his presence would not be agreeable.

Withdrawal of Petitions

From Vol. XXXII, No. 8, p. 246, August 1873:

By the Constitutions of the Grand Lodge, applications, or petitions, for initiation, must be made in writing and be presented at the stated monthly meetings of Lodges. On the reception of one, it is at once referred to a committee whose duty it is to determine by "strict inquiry," whether or not the applicant is a fit person to receive the honors and privileges of Freemasonry; whether or not he possesses an unblemished moral character, and is otherwise qualified, in mind and heart, according to the requirements set forth not only in our present Constitutions, but also in the oldest of them.

The question sometimes arises whether a petition of this kind, when it has been received by a Lodge, can be withdrawn? By some Masons it is thought that its retirement may be permitted at any time before the committee to whom it was referred has reported. It should be borne in mind that the applicant asks for privileges which do not concern any one Lodge alone, nor any one Grand Lodge jurisdiction; and although they are conferred through the agency of a particular Lodge, the granting of his prayer interests and affects for good or ill the whole Fraternity. Hence no opportunity should be lost to black-ball an unworthy man; lest he gain ingress at some other point where his true character is unknown.

Since that the old regulations are silent touching the withdrawal of an application for initiation, and that there is no statutory regulation of the Grand Lodge which permits it, and as there is not, even by implication, any authority for the act, the "higher law" must intervene, namely, the law of self-protection, which, it may be said, provides that whatever will tend to promote the good of the universal society, in such a case, must be our guide.

Under this rule, it may be held that for the protection of the Fraternity against the admission of corrupt persons, when a petition has been read, merely, before the Lodge, and before its reference to a committee, it becomes the property of the Lodge and cannot be recalled: that its withdrawal, induced, perhaps, by some intimation that it would be rejected, would leave the petitioner at liberty to make his demand else where, to the possible great injury of the body of which he seeks to become a member. It is therefore prudent to subject his character to the test of the first opportunity, rather than release him, even though he be required by present regulations to declare, in advance of any action in his power, whether or not he has "before applied for initiation." An unprincipled man would not hesitate to so declare; and where then would be the remedy, except by his subsequent expulsion from Masonry — an amende which cannot, however, obliterate all the consequences of his reception?

Unnecessary Discussion in Lodge

From Vol. XXXII, No. 8, p. 248, August 1873:

All useless discussion is a Masonic nuisance and should be abated by the gavel. In Grand Bodies where laws are made, a free interchange of ideas is an absolute necessity for the general good of the Craft, but in subordinate bodies where the principal object is work and the brief transaction of routine business, long debates, and especially excited ones, are out of order and do more harm than good. Some of the best Lodges have been almost entirely broken up on account of the persistent harangues of a few certain persons in each, by disgusting and driving away the most intelligent and useful members of the Lodge.

It is a principle of Freemasonry that harmony is the corner-stone of all well-regulated institutions, and we hold that harmony cannot be preserved if criminations and personal remarks are allowed; or if some member with more gab than good judgment, is allowed to jump up and make a speech on every trifling occasion or matter of business. The Master is as much to blame as anybody else if he allows it, for he is clothed with power to put a stop to all unnecessary talk, and in doing so it is not necessary to bring down the gavel hard enough to split the pedestal, but to first give the offender a gentle reminder that he has said enough, and then, if necessary, use the gavel, without temper, yet firmly. Some people were born to talk and not say much either. —St. Louis Freemason.

Committees of Inquiry

From Vol. XXXII, No. 9, p. 261, September 1873:

All true glory rests,
All praise, all safety, and all happiness,
Upon the moral law. — Wordsworth.

Freemasonry Is a beautiful System of Morality, veiled in allegory, and illustrated by symbols. Truth is its centre — the point whence its radii diverge — pointing out to its disciples a correct knowledge of the Great Architect of the Universe, and the moral laws which He has ordained for their government.— Moore's Trestle-Board.

By the fundamental law of the Grand Lodge of Massachusetts no candidate for the privileges of Freemasonry can be balloted for, "into whose moral character a strict inquiry has not been made." This inquiry is devolved upon a committee of the lodge receiving the candidate's petition, who have sometimes a very delicate duty to perform. The practice of the duties of life of the petitioner is to be investigated; his general behaviour, conduct and manners are things to be weighed and duly considered, but in a way not to offend, nor prejudice unnecessarily his standing among men inside or outside of the lodge. Besides, the judgment and feelings of his masonic friend who presented him as a candidate are not to be disregarded without the most ample evidence of his unworthiness. But as the committee have in charge, in this particular, the honor and welfare not only of the Lodge but of the great body of freemasons "dispersed around the world," nothing short of a most rigid and "strict inquiry" should limit their investigation. Unbiased by personal inclinations, their aim should be to report without fear or favor, the real character of the applicant according to the evidence before them.

It is not a sufficient recommendation that he is a "good fellow," in the ordinary acceptation of the term. It is not sufficient to justify his reception because "nothing can be found against him." The qualities entitling him to the favorable action of the committee should be positive rather than negative. His moral character should be beyond reproach. As "a city that is set on a hill cannot be hid," so the conduct of his life cannot be concealed in the place of his residence. That source would rarely fail to supply the desired evidence concerning him. It is not sufficient to say of him that he will do no harm to freemasonry. On the contrary, it should be averred with the utmost confidence that his application would bring credit to our institution and add to its usefulness.

Hence the office of "Committees of inquiry," for the purposes referred to is one, the duties of which every member of such committees should feel bound to discharge conscientiously, without stint as to his time, labor or convenience. They should recognize that their obligations to the Craft demand that their inquiries should be at once diligent, searching and thorough. They should remember that masonry is designed to benefit mankind, directly as to its members, and indirectly as to society in general.

• 1st. Its membership includes men of every country, sect and opinion, and unites them in bonds of fellowship; so that, travel as we may, east, west, north or south, the bounds of freemasonry, and the practice of its humanizing principles are co-extensive with civilization. No other moral sodality is thus so cosmopolitan in its operation; none practically diffuse on a grander scale the sublime teachings which should actuate its members.
• 2d. To society in general, a body of men selected as masons should be (for their moral and intellectual worth,) would be and is a grand moral balance-wheel, acting unseen, but tempering, smoothing and governing even outside of its ranks, with a potency for good which few other instrumentalities could effect. This influence though unfelt, pervades beneficently the moral structure which all good men respect, cherish and sustain. To this body of men is due in no small degree those aspirations which elevate and ennoble the tone of society and give success to the many philanthropic undertakings of the day. It could not be otherwise than that freemasonry should be influential over the well being of community at large, established as it is on broadly liberal and benevolent principles. It knows no sectionalism; it discards the dogmatisms of the church and of politicians; and seeks only to bring together on fraternal grounds good men and true wherever found, and of all nationalities. An association thus constituted must of necessity exert power beyond its immediate sphere. It is well for the nations that they have in their midst a combination of men, among whose cardinal doctrines are the promotion of the general good of society; the inculcation of respect for the laws' of the state, and for the office of the civil magistrate; and cheerful obedience to the moral law.

In view of the sentiments here expressed, it is obvious that the duties of the "Committees of Inquiry" under notice, invest them with functions which should be discharged in a manner to secure a membership for the masonic fraternity, preeminent for social and moral worth.

H. T.

Visitors

From Vol. XXXII, No. 9, p. 268, September 1873:

Visiting Brothers.

Visiting brothers are the links that unite the ten thousand Lodges of the world into one harmonious chain. They afford us the best means of testing our own Masonic charity and knowledge, and the integrity of the Order in other jurisdictions. They give us objects for examination, objects for hospitality, and objects for relief. The Lodge which has the most visitors, other things being equal, is the best informed; they who give the most — the recipients being worthy objects — are the most ready to give again.

In the olden time this was the law of visiting-brothers in distress: "If you discover him to be a true and genuine brother, you are to respect him accordingly. if he is in want you are to relieve him if you can, or else direct him how he may be relieved; you must employ him some days, else recommend him to be employed."

Nowhere is the visiting-brother so welcome, nowhere is he so well entertained, nowhere is his visit so productive of joy to all concerned, as in that Lodge which understands the principles of an examination, and the courtesies due to him who presents the proper vouchers.

From Vol. XXXII, No. 9, p. 270, September 1873:

In view of the cosmopolitan character of Freemasonry, it would seem to be an axiom that whenever and wherever Masons as such, meet, there every member of the fraternity should be welcome. The identity of a visitor as a mason, ought, however, to be made certain by every means at the command of the body he desires to visit. That done, why should any Lodge debar his reception? He is a mason of good standing, as he proves, and why should he not be received cheerfully and in a brotherly manner ? He is bound by obligations to the great masonic society, as are the members of the Lodge he would visit, and possesses rights, which no mason or body of masons should disregard, or can disregard, if a world-wide benevolent brotherhood is to be maintained.

There seems to be difference of opinion among intelligent and true masons, among lodges, and even in Grand Lodges, as to the rights which " visiting masons" possess to attend lodge-meetings; and much has been written on the subject, pro and con, in the masonic periodicals and by "committees of foreign correspondence." This divergence of opinion arises from the over importance given to a lodge, its powers and functions; and to forgetfulness that a lodge is but a part of an organization whose aim is to bring together men of every country, sect and opinion in the holy bonds of brotherhood.

In order to decide justly this question of "visitors," we cannot, keep too clearly in mind the character of the masonic association; that, though for purposes of effective organization, lodges and grand lodges become necessary, yet that they are the convenient means only, by which the great fraternity operate, and give effect to their humanizing principles. Regulations which circumscribe the free intercommunication of freemasons, bailing from whatever part of the globe (he) may claim as residence, should be adopted, with no less ground for their sanction than that the welfare of the whole brotherhood demands them.

It has been held by many good masons that visitors may be excluded from lodge-meetings which have a strictly private character, and for other reasons, without derogation of the laws of masonry, namely:

• When a lodge is engaged on business relating to its private affairs, such as its finances; its elections of officers; and when it is assembled on festal occasions.
• When the visitor is from an infected district, where it is known that clandestine and irregular masonry exists; and there being no one at hand to vouch for him, and he has not his diploma with him.
• When his deportment is coarse and rude, and otherwise exceptional, and his bearing is not that of a gentleman.
• When a brother of the lodge he desires to visit, objects to his doing so, it being held that this objection, not being sustained, would tend to unseat the objecting brother.

No sensible brother who offers to visit a lodge when convened for the transaction of business private to itself, will object to his exclusion, and especially if it has assembled for festal purposes and he is not an invited guest. Neither should he complain if he be not received, if he came without the most ample vouchers of his identity as a regular mason, from a district of masonic irregularity. His regard for the integrity of masonry would lead him to applaud every measure which would exclude improper visitors, even though he might thereby suffer inconvenience and be subjected to the annoyances of rejection. If his deportment is ungentlemanly, which means unmasonic, he should congratulate himself if to his non-admission there was not added the utmost penalty suited to his conduct.

The important and delicate question, whether or not a mason wishing to visit a lodge should be denied that privilege on the mere objection ot one of its members, has received the attention of several Grand Lodges in the United States, but they do not appear to have agreed in its settlement. The question may be thus presented : Whether or not the ipse dixit of a member of a lodge, that a person offering himself as a visitor is unworthy of the favor, the member preferring no charges nor giving any reasons for his action, is the lodge, or Master, obliged to exclude the visitor? Bear in mind that this proceeding takes place, not in a lodge convened for purposes private to itself, but for business of general concern for the craft; and affecting alike both the member and visitor as masons. At such a time do not the transactions of a lodge interest all of the brotherhood, come from whence they may, and should not every member of it be not only welcomed, but cordially invited to participate in the ceremonies and duties of the occasion? True the visitor would have no vote, that function belonging to the members of the lodge; but his counsel and opinion should be solicited and respected.

In a Lodge assembled for the general purposes of masonry, why has not a visitor as much right to object to the presence of a member of the lodge, as the latter has to oppose that of the former? Moral grounds afford the cause of objection, in either case; and may not the visitor know of the shortcomings of the member which would subject him to discipline? And, hence, ample reason he would have for not sitting with the member. These difficulties can be reconciled in one way only, namely: the objector, be he a member of the lodge or a visitor to it, shall be obliged to state his objections openly to the lodge, or privately to the Master. If they be of a grave character, then the offence charged should be dealt with as the laws of masonry provide for its delinquents.

As pertinent to these remarks, the Sentiments of the M. W. Grand Master of South Carolina, James Conner, Esq., as expressed in November, 1870, are quoted:

1. That I regarded the right of visit as one of the essential rights conferred in the very act of making a Master Mason, and that he could only be deprived of it for just cause.
2. That every member of a lodge has the right of objecting to the admission of any visitor to his lodge, but that the validity of his objections are to be determined by the Master of the lodge. If the objecting member is to decide on the validity of his objection, the right is the right of exclusion, not of objection. The inherent right to visit and the unqualified right to exclude cannot co-exist. To exclude a visitor without just cause is contrary to the fundamental principles of the Order, and the right to do so should not depend upon the caprice or passions of a single member.
3. By recognizing in the Master alone the right to exclude, an impartial judgment is secured, and the rights of the visitor and of the lodge equally protected.

It is gladdening to the masonic spirit to find one so high in authority as Grand Master Conner recognizing an important and ancient prerogative of Masters of Lodges; since he leaves it to their discretion and power to admit or turn away a visitor. A Master was formerly looked up to as the Governor of his lodge; but in these latter days he has dwindled, in some cases, into a president of a debating society; dwarfed into the facile head of a club of spouters! In the absence of grand lodge regulations to the contrary, and not limited in the exercise of his office by the old landmarks, he is and should be the supreme chief of his lodge. His accountability is not to the Lodge, but to the great assembly of masons represented by the Grand Lodge and Grand Master. Who, then, other than he, should determine the rights of visitors? Before a visitor can be rejected he must in some way have forfeited his claims as one of the Craft. There must be prima facie evidence that he is unworthy; which evidence the Master should scrupulously weigh before giving judgment.

The doctrine that a visitor objected to by a member, would, if ad
mitted, unseat the member, is a mischievous one, and fraught with much 
evil and injustice, if the objections are not sustained by evidence, at
least of an ex parte character. - J. T. H.

Lodge Secrets

From Moore's Freemason's Monthly, Vol. XXXII, No. 9, September 1873, p. 283:

Masons will render their Order more august in the estimation of men by refraining from garrulousness. Whatever occurs in the lodge, is sacredly secret and ought never to be profaned by outside mention. Is not the Tyler, with drawn sword guarding the portals of our mystic temple, a perpetual symbol of the sacredness and secrecy of our retreat? Around our council chamber a wall is built which no wanton eye can pierce. The entrance to our mysteries is scaled, except to those choice spirits who are ever willing to come humbly, and faithfully promise to be secret and silent. There have been instances in which the secrets of great discoveries have been so rigidly guarded that, for a season, the most curious eye was defeated iu its efforts to pry into the shops or laboratories where the process of manufacture was executed. More secret the work of Masonry than all this, and more sacred the obligation of its craftsmen, than the oaths of partisans engaged in such manufacture as we have intimated. As our doors are tiled, so let our lips be guarded. The slightest incidents of the lodge-room are secret. The brother who does not regard them as such, has not yet learned Masonry. "We positively can allow no license in this direction. Honor, fidelity, vows good faith with the whole Fraternity require that, on such subjects, where he is unknown. This qualification should be exhibited in open Lodge, before advancement be allowed.

At the time the first paper was written on this subject, it had passed the mind of the writer that the circular referred to contained what is here quoted. - J.

Masonic Obligations

From Moore's Freemason's Monthly, Vol. XXXII, No. 10, October 1873, p. 302:

An oath is a recognisance to heaven,
Binding us over in the courts above,
To plead to the indictment of our crimes,
That those who 'scape this world should suffer there.
—Southern's Oronaka.

Trust repos'd in noble natures,
Obliges them the more.
—Dryden.

Against Freemasonry it is alleged, by its opponents, that its members are bound together by horrible and repulsive oaths not to divulge its secrets. Even within a few days a Sunday newspaper of this city contained severe comments upon what it averred were Masonic obligations, some of which it assumed to adduce. During the anti-Masonic political crusade the stock in trade of its supporters consisted in marvellous revelations relative to what was termed the unholy bonds by which Masons were held together. In charity, these opinions, when honestly held, may be overlooked or pardoned, as being entertained by persons whose prejudices outstrip their reason.

That Freemasonry binds the initiated not to reveal what are termed its secrets, no truthful Mason will deny. Without a formal and solemn engagement by and between its members to protect its arcana from the knowledge of the outside world, this benevolent institution could not exist, nor could the world enjoy the benefits it dispenses. A society which embraces men of all nations and tongues, having for its sphere of operation the entire civilized world, must possess the means of communication between its members common to them all; through a Ianguage which no one people can supply. Through such a language, guarded by solemn promises to conceal it from the uninitiated, every one to whom it is imparted, be he of whatever nationality he may, can recognize and commune with its possessor, though neither should know the other's vernacular. To the preservation of this language are confined the alarming secrets of Freemasonry. It consists of symbols, emblems and allegory, which, while they subserve the wants of an universal brotherhood, are designed, also, to teach great moral lessons and inculcate the duties of man to man.

Before a man is admitted into Masonry, an important disclaimer is made to him, namely: that its requirements will not interfere improperly with his religion, his political opinions, his relations to his neighbors, nor with his domestic duties.

1. His obligations under the divine law are deemed imperative on him, not only as a man but as a Mason. The moral law is strictly enjoined. But beyond his avowal that he believes in a God, he is left free to follow the dictates of his own conscience in all things sectarian.
2. His politics are never to be questioned. The discussion of them at Masonic meetings is rigidly prohibited. He enjoys on such occasions, what is elsewhere seldom the case, entire immunity from the bickerings and ill-blooded controversies which often are exhibited in other assemblages. He is required to respect the civil magistrate, and not to be concerned in plots and conspiracies against government; but to behave himself like a good citizen. Masonry teaches that its adherents should be true to their country by upholding its laws, and by permitting no infraction of them, if in their power to prevent it.
3. The scripture commands: "And as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise," "Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself," are no less the teachings also of Masonry. The elucidation of these principles, designed to elevate mankind and bind individuals together in reciprocal relations of love and friendship, is a prominent characteristic of the Masonic Order.
4. One of the most urgent commands of the fraternity is that every member of it should be faithful to his domestic relation. The family tie is not only to be respected, but it must be religiously maintained. "But if any provide not for his own, and especially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel."

But, though none of these duties should be neglected or abridged in any degree, there are few brethren of the mystic tie who cannot, nevertheless, devote time and means to the great sodality to which they belong, and contribute a mite, at least, to advance its welfare and usefulness.

It being admitted that Masonry does not demand of its disciples anything in antagonism with their religious, political, social or domestic duties, but on the contrary disclaims at the outset any interference with them, what, it may be asked, remains to be objected to in any obligation they may come under to keep and conceal the secrets of Freemasonry, these being simply the means of preserving the society intact, and enabling it to work oat that grand humanitarianism for which it was established?

Oaths, indeed! Is it to be supposed that the twenty-three thousand affiliated Freemasons in Massachusetts, selected as they were for intelligence and good moral character, would have been guilty of taking one which would conflict, if observed, with any of the duties they owe to God, to their country, to their neighbors or to their families?

The greatest caviller against Masonic obligations, if he knew more of their nature, would find that he had not a foothold for his animadversions, and would be apt to exclaim,

Twixt truth and error, there is this difference known,
Error is fruitful, truth is only one."

- J. T. H.

---

Edicts Main Page