( PDF ) The principles of masonic law a treatise on the constitutional laws,usages and landmarks of freemasonry

Download PDF

ads:

The Principles of Masonic Law A Treatise on the

Constitutional Laws, Usages And Landmarks of

Freemasonry

Albert G. Mackey

Project Gutenberg's The Principles of Masonic Law, by Albert G. Mackey

This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with

almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or

re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included

with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.net

Title: The Principles of Masonic Law

A Treatise on the Constitutional Laws, Usages And Landmarks of

Freemasonry

Author: Albert G. Mackey

Release Date: April 28, 2004 [EBook #12186]

Language: English

Character set encoding: UTF-8

*** START OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE PRINCIPLES OF MASONIC LAW ***

Produced by Distributed Proofreaders

The Principles of Masonic Law:

A Treatise on the Constitutional Laws, Usages And Landmarks of

Freemasonry,

Albert G. Mackey, M.D.,

Author of

"The Lexicon of Freemasonry," "The Mystic Tie," "Legends and Traditions of

Freemasonry," Etc., Etc.,

Grand Lecturer and Grand Secretary of The Grand Lodge of South Carolina;

Secretary General of the Supreme Council of the Ancient and Accepted Rite

for the Southern Jurisdiction of the United States, Etc., Etc., Etc.

ads:

Livros Grátis

http://www.livrosgratis.com.br

Milhares de livros grátis para download.

"Est enim unum jus, quo devincta est hominum societas, quod lex

constituit una; quæ lex est recta ratio imperandi atque prohibendi,

quam qui ignorat is est injustus."

Cicero de Legibus. c. XV.

New York:

Jno. W. Leonard & Co., Masonic Publishers,

383 Broadway.

1856.

Entered, according to Act of Congress, in the year 1855, by Jno. W.

Leonard & Co.,

In the Clerk's Office of the District Court of the United States for the

Southern District of New York.

Brother J.J.J. Gourgas,

Sovereign Grand Inspector General in the Supreme Council for the Northern

Jurisdiction of the United States,

I Dedicate This Work,

As a Slight Testimonial of My Friendship and Esteem for Him

As a Man,

And of My Profound Veneration for His Character

As a Mason;

Whose Long and Useful Life Has Been Well Spent in the

Laborious Prosecution of the Science,

And the Unremitting Conservation of the Principles of Our

Sublime Institution.

Table of Contents

Preface

Introduction

Book First. The Law of Grand Lodges.

Chapter I. Historical Sketch.

Chapter II. Of the Mode of Organizing Grand Lodges.

Chapter III. Of the Members of a Grand Lodge.

Chapter IV. Of the Officers of a Grand Lodge.

Section I. Of the Grand Master.

ads:

Section II. The Deputy Grand Master.

Section III. Of the Grand Wardens.

Section IV. Of the Grand Treasurer.

Section V. Of the Grand Secretary.

Section VI. Of the Grand Chaplain.

Section VII. Of the Grand Deacons.

Section VIII. Of the Grand Marshal.

Section IX. Of the Grand Stewards.

Section X. Of the Grand Sword-Bearer.

Section XI. Of the Grand Tiler.

Chapter V. Of the Powers and Prerogatives of a Grand Lodge.

Section I. General View.

Section II. Of the Legislative Power of a Grand Lodge.

Section III. Of the Judicial Power of a Grand Lodge.

Section IV. Of the Executive Power of a Grand Lodge.

Book Second. Laws of Subordinate Lodges.

Chapter I. Of the Nature and Organization of Subordinate Lodges.

Chapter II. Of Lodges under Dispensation.

Chapter III. Of Lodges Working under a Warrant of Constitution.

Chapter IV. Of the Officers of a Subordinate Lodge.

Section I. Of the Officers in General.

Section II. Of the Worshipful Master.

Section III. Of the Wardens.

Section IV. Of the Treasurer.

Section V. Of the Secretary.

Section VI. Of the Deacons.

Section VII. Of the Stewards.

Section VIII. Of the Tiler.

Chapter V. Of Rules of Order.

Section I. Of the Order of Business.

Section II. Of Appeals from the Decision of the Chair.

Section III. Of the Mode of Taking the Question.

Section IV. Of Adjournments.

Section V. Of the Appointment of Committees.

Section VI. Of the Mode of Keeping the Minutes.

Book Third. The Law of Individuals.

Chapter I. Of the Qualifications of Candidates.

Section I. Of the Moral Qualifications of Candidates.

Section II. Of the Physical Qualifications of Candidates.

Section III. Of the Intellectual Qualifications of Candidates.

Section IV. Of the Political Qualifications of Candidates.

Section V. Of the Petition of Candidates for Admission, and the

Action Thereon.

Section VI. Of Balloting for Candidates.

Section VII. Of the Reconsideration of the Ballot.

Section VIII. Of the Renewal of Applications by Rejected Candidates.

Section IX. Of the Necessary Probation and Due Proficiency of

Candidates before Advancement

Section X. Of Balloting for Candidates in each Degree.

Section XI. Of the Number to be Initiated at one Communication.

Section XII. Of Finishing the Candidates of one Lodge in another.

Section XIII. Of the Initiation of Non-residents.

Chapter II. Of the Rights of Entered Apprentices.

Chapter III. Of the Rights of Fellow Crafts.

Chapter IV. Of the Rights of Master Masons.

Section I. Of the Right of Membership.

Section II. Of the Right of Visit.

Section III. Of the Examination of Visitors.

Section IV. Of Vouching for a Brother.

Section V. Of the Right of Claiming Relief.

Section VI. Of the Right of Masonic Burial.

Chapter V. Of the Rights of Past Masters.

Chapter VI. Of Affiliation.

Chapter VII. Of Demitting.

Chapter VIII. Of Unaffiliated Masons.

Book Fourth. Of Masonic Crimes and Punishments.

Chapter I. Of What Are Masonic Crimes.

Chapter II. Of Masonic Punishments.

Section I. Of Censure.

Section II. Of Reprimand.

Section III. Of Exclusion from the Lodge.

Section IV. Of Definite Suspension.

Section V. Of Indefinite Suspension.

Section VI. Of Expulsion.

Chapter III. Of Masonic Trials.

Section I. Of the Form of Trial.

Section II. Of the Evidence in Masonic Trials.

Chapter IV. Of the Penal Jurisdiction of a Lodge.

Chapter V. Of Appeals.

Chapter VI. Of Restoration.

Index.

Footnotes.

Preface.

In presenting to the fraternity a work on the Principles of Masonic Law,

it is due to those for whom it is intended, that something should be said

of the design with which it has been written, and of the plan on which it

has been composed. It is not pretended to present to the craft an

encyclopedia of jurisprudence, in which every question that can possibly

arise, in the transactions of a Lodge, is decided with an especial

reference to its particular circumstances. Were the accomplishment of such

an herculean task possible, except after years of intense and unremitting

labor, the unwieldy size of the book produced, and the heterogeneous

nature of its contents, so far from inviting, would rather tend to

distract attention, and the object of communicating a knowledge of the

Principles of Masonic Law, would be lost in the tedious collation of

precedents, arranged without scientific system, and enunciated without

explanation.

When I first contemplated the composition of a work on this subject, a

distinguished friend and Brother, whose opinion I much respect, and with

whose advice I am always anxious to comply, unless for the most

satisfactory reasons, suggested the expediency of collecting the decisions

of all Grand Masters, Grand Lodges, and other masonic authorities upon

every subject of Masonic Law, and of presenting them, without commentary,

to the fraternity.

But a brief examination of this method, led me to perceive that I would be

thus constructing simply a digest of decrees, many of which would probably

be the results of inexperience, of prejudice, or of erroneous views of the

masonic system, and from which the authors themselves have, in repeated

instances, subsequently receded--for Grand Masters and Grand Lodges,

although entitled to great respect, are not infallible--and I could not,

conscientiously, have consented to assist, without any qualifying remark,

in the extension and perpetuation of edicts and opinions, which, however

high the authority from which they emanated, I did not believe to be in

accordance with the principles of Masonic jurisprudence.

Another inconvenience which would have attended the adoption of such a

method is, that the decisions of different Grand Lodges and Grand Masters

are sometimes entirely contradictory on the same points of Masonic Law.

The decree of one jurisdiction, on any particular question, will often be

found at variance with that of another, while a third will differ from

both. The consultor of a work, embracing within its pages such distracting

judgments, unexplained by commentary, would be in doubt as to which

decision he should adopt, so that coming to the inspection with the desire

of solving a legal question, he would be constrained to close the volume,

in utter despair of extracting truth or information from so confused a

mass of contradictions.

This plan I therefore at once abandoned. But knowing that the

jurisprudence of Masonry is founded, like all legal science, on abstract

principles, which govern and control its entire system, I deemed it to be

a better course to present these principles to my readers in an elementary

and methodical treatise, and to develop from them those necessary

deductions which reason and common sense would justify.

Hence it is that I have presumed to call this work "The Principles of

Masonic Law." It is not a code of enactments, nor a collection of

statutes, nor yet a digest of opinions; but simply an elementary treatise,

intended to enable every one who consults it, with competent judgment, and

ordinary intelligence, to trace for himself the bearings of the law upon

any question which he seeks to investigate, and to form, for himself, a

correct opinion upon the merits of any particular case.

Blackstone, whose method of teaching I have endeavored, although I confess

"ab longo inter-vallo," to pursue, in speaking of what an academical

expounder of the law should do, says:

"He should consider his course as a general map of the law, marking out

the shape of the country, its connections, and boundaries, its greater

divisions, and principal cities; it is not his business to describe

minutely the subordinate limits, or to fix the longitude and latitude of

every inconsiderable hamlet."

Such has been the rule that has governed me in the compilation of this

work. But in delineating this "general map" of the Masonic Law, I have

sought, if I may continue the metaphor, so to define boundaries, and to

describe countries, as to give the inspector no difficulty in "locating"

(to use an Americanism) any subordinate point. I have treated, it is true,

of principles, but I have not altogether lost sight of cases.

There are certain fundamental laws of the Institution, concerning which

there never has been any dispute, and which have come down to us with all

the sanctions of antiquity, and universal acceptation. In announcing

these, I have not always thought it necessary to defend their justice, or

to assign a reason for their enactment.

The weight of unanimous authority has, in these instances, been deemed

sufficient to entitle them to respect, and to obedience.

But on all other questions, where authority is divided, or where doubts of

the correctness of my decision might arise, I have endeavored, by a course

of argument as satisfactory as I could command, to assign a reason for my

opinions, and to defend and enforce my views, by a reference to the

general principles of jurisprudence, and the peculiar character of the

masonic system. I ask, and should receive no deference to my own

unsupported theories--as a man, I am, of course, fallible--and may often

have decided erroneously. But I do claim for my arguments all the weight

and influence of which they may be deemed worthy, after an attentive and

unprejudiced examination. To those who may at first be ready--because I do

not agree with all their preconceived opinions--to doubt or deny my

conclusions, I would say, in the language of Themistocles, "Strike, but

hear me."

Whatever may be the verdict passed upon my labors by my Brethren, I trust

that some clemency will be extended to the errors into which I may have

fallen, for the sake of the object which I have had in view: that, namely,

of presenting to the Craft an elementary work, that might enable every

Mason to know his rights, and to learn his duties.

The intention was, undoubtedly, a good one. How it has been executed, it

is not for me, but for the masonic public to determine.

Albert G. Mackey.

Charleston, S.C., January 1st., 1856.

Introduction.

The Authorities for Masonic Law.

The laws which govern the institution of Freemasonry are of two kinds,

_unwritten_ and _written,_ and may in a manner be compared with the "lex

non scripta," or common law, and the "lex seripta," or statute law of

English and American jurists.

The "lex non scripta," or _unwritten law_ of Freemasonry is derived from

the traditions, usages and customs of the fraternity as they have existed

from the remotest antiquity, and as they are universally admitted by the

general consent of the members of the Order. In fact, we may apply to

these unwritten laws of Masonry the definition given by Blackstone of the

"leges non scriptæ" of the English constitution--that "their original

institution and authority are not set down in writing, as acts of

parliament are, but they receive their binding power, and the force of

laws, by long and immemorial usage and by their universal reception

throughout the kingdom." When, in the course of this work, I refer to

these unwritten laws as authority upon any point, I shall do so under the

appropriate designation of "ancient usage."

The "lex scripta," or written law of Masonry, is derived from a variety of

sources, and was framed at different periods. The following documents I

deem of sufficient authority to substantiate any principle, or to

determine any disputed question in masonic law.

1. The "Ancient Masonic charges, from a manuscript of the Lodge of

Antiquity," and said to have been written in the reign of James II.[1]

2. The regulations adopted at the General Assembly held in 1663, of which

the Earl of St. Albans was Grand Master.[2]

3. The interrogatories propounded to the Master of a lodge at the time of

his installation, and which, from their universal adoption, without

alteration, by the whole fraternity, are undoubtedly to be considered as

a part of the fundamental law of Masonry.

4. "The Charges of a Freemason, extracted from the Ancient Records of

Lodges beyond sea, and of those in England, Scotland, and Ireland, for the

use of the Lodges in London," printed in the first edition of the Book of

Constitutions, and to be found from p. 49 to p. 56 of that work.[3]

5. The thirty-nine "General Regulations," adopted "at the annual assembly

and feast held at Stationers' hall on St. John the Baptist's day, 1721,"

and which were published in the first edition of the Book of

Constitutions, p. 58 to p.

6. The subsequent regulations adopted at various annual communications by

the Grand Lodge of England, up to the year 1769, and published in

different editions of the Book of Constitutions. These, although not of

such paramount importance and universal acceptation as the Old Charges

and the Thirty-nine Regulations, are, nevertheless, of great value as the

means of settling many disputed questions, by showing what was the law and

usage of the fraternity at the times in which they were adopted.

Soon after the publication of the edition of 1769 of the Book of

Constitutions, the Grand Lodges of America began to separate from their

English parent and to organize independent jurisdictions. From that

period, the regulations adopted by the Grand Lodge of England ceased to

have any binding efficacy over the craft in this country, while the laws

passed by the American Grand Lodges lost the character of general

regulations, and were invested only with local authority in their several

jurisdictions.

Before concluding this introductory section, it may be deemed necessary

that something should be said of the "Ancient Landmarks of the Order," to

which reference is so often made.

Various definitions have been given of the landmarks. Some suppose them to

be constituted of all the rules and regulations which were in existence

anterior to the revival of Masonry in 1717, and which were confirmed and

adopted by the Grand Lodge of England at that time. Others, more

stringent in their definition, restrict them to the modes of recognition

in use among the fraternity. I am disposed to adopt a middle course, and

to define the Landmarks of Masonry to be, all those usages and customs of

the craft--whether ritual or legislative--whether they relate to forms and

ceremonies, or to the organization of the society--which have existed from

time immemorial, and the alteration or abolition of which would materially

affect the distinctive character of the institution or destroy its

identity. Thus, for example, among the legislative landmarks, I would

enumerate the office of Grand Master as the presiding officer over the

craft, and among the ritual landmarks, the legend of the third degree. But

the laws, enacted from time to time by Grand Lodges for their local

government, no matter how old they may be, do not constitute landmarks,

and may, at any time, be altered or expunged, since the 39th regulation

declares expressly that "every annual Grand Lodge has an inherent power

and authority to make new regulations or to alter these (viz., the

thirty-nine articles) for the real benefit of this ancient fraternity,

provided always that the old landmarks be carefully preserved."

Book First

The Law of Grand Lodges.

It is proposed in this Book, first to present the reader with a brief

historical sketch of the rise and progress of the system of Grand Lodges;

and then to explain, in the subsequent sections, the mode in which such

bodies are originally organized, who constitute their officers and

members, and what are their acknowledged prerogatives.

Chapter I.

Historical Sketch.

Grand Lodges under their present organization, are, in respect to the

antiquity of the Order, of a comparatively modern date. We hear of no such

bodies in the earlier ages of the institution. Tradition informs us, that

originally it was governed by the despotic authority of a few chiefs. At

the building of the temple, we have reason to believe that King Solomon

exercised an unlimited and irresponsible control over the craft, although

a tradition (not, however, of undoubted authority) says that he was

assisted in his government by the counsel of twelve superintendants,

selected from the twelve tribes of Israel. But we know too little, from

authentic materials, of the precise system adopted at that remote period,

to enable us to make any historical deductions on the subject.

The first historical notice that we have of the formation of a supreme

controlling body of the fraternity, is in the "Gothic Constitutions"[4]

which assert that, in the year 287, St. Alban, the protomartyr of England,

who was a zealous patron of the craft, obtained from Carausius, the

British Emperor, "a charter for the Masons to hold a general council, and

gave it the name of assembly." The record further states, that St. Alban

attended the meeting and assisted in making Masons, giving them "good

charges and regulations." We know not, however, whether this assembly ever

met again; and if it did, for how many years it continued to exist. The

subsequent history of Freemasonry is entirely silent on the subject.

The next general assemblage of the craft, of which the records of

Freemasonry inform us, was that convened in 926, at the city of York, in

England, by Prince Edwin, the brother of King Athelstane, and the grandson

of Alfred the Great. This, we say, was the next general assemblage,

because the Ashmole manuscript, which was destroyed at the revival of

Freemasonry in 1717, is said to have stated that, at that time, the Prince

obtained from his brother, the king, a permission for the craft "to hold a

yearly communication and a general assembly." The fact that such a power

of meeting was then granted, is conclusive that it did not before exist:

and would seem to prove that the assemblies of the craft, authorised by

the charter of Carausius, had long since ceased to be held. This yearly

communication did not, however, constitute, at least in the sense we now

understand it, a Grand Lodge. The name given to it was that of the

"General Assembly of Masons." It was not restricted, as now, to the

Masters and Wardens of the subordinate lodges, acting in the capacity of

delegates or representatives, but was composed, as Preston has observed,

of as many of the fraternity at large as, being within a convenient

distance, could attend once or twice a year, under the auspices of one

general head, who was elected and installed at one of these meetings, and

who, for the time being, received homage as the governor of the whole

body. Any Brethren who were competent to discharge the duty, were allowed,

by the regulations of the Order, to open and hold lodges at their

discretion, at such times and places as were most convenient to them, and

without the necessity of what we now call a Warrant of Constitution, and

then and there to initiate members into the Order.[5] To the General

Assembly, however, all the craft, without distinction, were permitted to

repair; each Mason present was entitled to take part in the deliberations,

and the rules and regulations enacted were the result of the votes of the

whole body. The General Assembly was, in fact, precisely similar to those

political congregations which, in our modern phraseology, we term "mass

meetings."

These annual mass meetings or General Assemblies continued to be held, for

many centuries after their first establishment, at the city of York, and

were, during all that period, the supreme judicatory of the fraternity.

There are frequent references to the annual assemblies of Freemasons in

public documents. The preamble to an act passed in 1425, during the reign

of Henry VI., just five centuries after the meeting at York, states that,

"by the _yearly congregations_ and confederacies made by the Masons in

their _general assemblies, _ the good course and effect of the statute of

laborers were openly violated and broken." This act which forbade such

meetings, was, however, never put in force; for an old record, quoted in

the Book of Constitutions, speaks of the Brotherhood having frequented

this "mutual assembly," in 1434, in the reign of the same king. We have

another record of the General Assembly, which was held in York on the 27th

December, 1561, when Queen Elizabeth, who was suspicious of their secrecy,

sent an armed force to dissolve the meeting. A copy is still preserved of

the regulations which were adopted by a similar assembly held in 1663, on

the festival of St. John the Evangelist; and in these regulations it is

declared that the private lodges shall give an account of all their

acceptations made during the year to the General Assembly. Another

regulation, however, adopted at the same time, still more explicitly

acknowledges the existence of a General Assembly as the governing body of

the fraternity. It is there provided, "that for the future, the said

fraternity of Freemasons shall be regulated and governed by one Grand

Master and as many Wardens as the said society shall think fit to appoint

at every Annual General Assembly."

And thus the interests of the institution continued, until the beginning

of the eighteenth century, or for nearly eight hundred years, to be

entrusted to those General Assemblies of the fraternity, who, without

distinction of rank or office, annually met at York to legislate for the

government of the craft.

But in 1717, a new organization of the governing head was adopted, which

gave birth to the establishment of a Grand Lodge, in the form in which

these bodies now exist. So important a period in the history of Masonry

demands our special attention.

After the death, in 1702, of King William, who was himself a Mason, and a

great patron of the craft, the institution began to languish, the lodges

decreased in number, and the General Assembly was entirely neglected for

many years. A few old lodges continued, it is true, to meet regularly, but

they consisted of only a few members.

At length, on the accession of George I., the Masons of London and its

vicinity determined to revive the annual communications of the society.

There were at that time only four lodges in the south of England, and the

members of these, with several old Brethren, met in February, 1717, at the

Apple Tree Tavern, in Charles street, Covent Garden, and organized by

putting the oldest Master Mason, who was the Master of a lodge, in the

chair; they then constituted themselves into what Anderson calls, "a Grand

Lodge _pro tempore;"_ resolved to hold the annual assembly and feast, and

then to choose a Grand Master.

Accordingly, on the 24th of June, 1717, the assembly and feast were held;

and the oldest Master of a lodge being in the chair, a list of candidates

was presented, out of which Mr. Anthony Sayer was elected Grand Master,

and Capt. Joseph Elliott and Mr. Jacob Lamball, Grand Wardens.

The Grand Master then commanded the Masters and Wardens of lodges to meet

the Grand Officers every quarter, in communication, at the place he should

appoint in his summons sent by the Tiler.

This was, then, undoubtedly, the commencement of that organization of the

Masters and Wardens of lodges into a Grand Lodge, which has ever since

continued to exist.

The fraternity at large, however, still continued to claim the right of

being present at the annual assembly; and, in fact, at that meeting, their

punctual attendance at the next annual assembly and feast was recommended.

At the same meeting, it was resolved "that the privilege of assembling as

Masons, which had been hitherto unlimited, should be vested in certain

lodges or assemblies of Masons convened in certain places; and that every

lodge to be hereafter convened, except the four old lodges at this time

existing, should be legally authorized to act by a warrant from the Grand

Master for the time being, granted to certain individuals by petition,

with the consent and approbation of the Grand Lodge in communication; and

that, without such warrant, no lodge should be hereafter deemed regular or

constitutional."

In consequence of this regulation, several new lodges received Warrants of

Constitution, and their Masters and Wardens were ordered to attend the

communications of the Grand Lodge. The Brethren at large vested all their

privileges in the four old lodges, in trust that they would never suffer

the old charges and landmarks to be infringed; and the old lodges, in

return, agreed that the Masters and Wardens of every new lodge that might

be constituted, should be permitted to share with them all the privileges

of the Grand Lodge, except precedence of rank. The Brethren, says Preston,

considered their further attendance at the meetings of the society

unnecessary after these regulations were adopted; and therefore trusted

implicitly to their Masters and Wardens for the government of the craft;

and thenceforward the Grand Lodge has been composed of all the Masters and

Wardens of the subordinate lodges which constitute the jurisdiction.

The ancient right of the craft, however, to take a part in the proceedings

of the Grand Lodge or Annual Assembly, was fully acknowledged by a new

regulation, adopted about the same time, in which it is declared that all

alterations of the Constitutions must be proposed and agreed to, at the

third quarterly communication preceding the annual feast, and be offered

also to the perusal of _all_ the Brethren before dinner, _even of the

youngest Entered Apprentice_[6]

This regulation has, however, (I know not by what right,) become obsolete,

and the Annual Assembly of Masons has long ceased to be held; the Grand

Lodges having, since the beginning of the eighteenth century, assumed the

form and organization which they still preserve, as strictly

representative bodies.

Chapter II.

Of the Mode of Organizing Grand Lodges.

The topic to be discussed in this section is, the answer to the question,

How shall a Grand Lodge be established in any state or country where such

a body has not previously existed, but where there are subordinate lodges

working under Warrants derived from Grand Lodges in other states? In

answering this question, it seems proper that I should advert to the

course pursued by the original Grand Lodge of England, at its

establishment in 1717, as from that body nearly all the Grand Lodges of

the York rite now in existence derive their authority, either directly or

indirectly, and the mode of its organization has, therefore, universally

been admitted to have been regular and legitimate.

In the first place, it is essentially requisite that the active existence

of subordinate lodges in a state should precede the formation of a Grand

Lodge; for the former are the only legitimate sources of the latter. A

mass meeting of Masons cannot assemble and organize a Grand Lodge. A

certain number of lodges, holding legal warrants from a Grand Lodge or

from different Grand Lodges, must meet by their representatives and

proceed to the formation of a Grand Lodge. When that process has been

accomplished, the subordinate lodges return the warrants, under which they

had theretofore worked, to the Grand Lodges from which they had originally

received them, and take new ones from the body which they have formed.

That a mass meeting of the fraternity of any state is incompetent to

organize a Grand Lodge has been definitively settled--not only by general

usage, but by the express action of the Grand Lodges of the United States

which refused to recognize, in 1842, the Grand Lodge of Michigan which had

been thus irregularly established in the preceding year. That unrecognized

body was then dissolved by the Brethren of Michigan, who proceeded to

establish four subordinate lodges under Warrants granted by the Grand

Lodge of New York. These four lodges subsequently met in convention and

organized the present Grand Lodge of Michigan in a regular manner.

It seems, however, to have been settled in the case of Vermont, that where

a Grand Lodge has been dormant for many years, and all of its subordinates

extinct, yet if any of the Grand Officers, last elected, survive and are

present, they may revive the Grand Lodge and proceed constitutionally to

the exercise of its prerogatives.

The next inquiry is, as to the number of lodges required to organize a new

Grand Lodge. Dalcho says that _five_ lodges are necessary; and in this

opinion he is supported by the Ahiman Rezon of Pennsylvania, published in

1783 by William Smith, D.D., at that time the Grand Secretary of that

jurisdiction, and also by some other authorities. But no such regulation

is to be found in the Book of Constitutions, which is now admitted to

contain the fundamental law of the institution. Indeed, its adoption would

have been a condemnation of the legality of the Mother Grand Lodge of

England, which was formed in 1717 by the union of only _four_ lodges. The

rule, however, is to be found in the Ahiman Rezon of Laurence Dermott,

which was adopted by the "Grand Lodge of Ancient Freemasons," that seceded

from the lawful Grand Lodge in 1738. But as that body was undoubtedly,

under our present views of masonic law, schismatic and illegal, its

regulations have never been considered by masonic writers as being

possessed of any authority.

In the absence of any written law upon the subject, we are compelled to

look to precedent for authority; and, although the Grand Lodges in the

United States have seldom been established with a representation of less

than four lodges, the fact that that of Texas was organized in 1837 by the

representatives of only _three_ lodges, and that the Grand Lodge thus

instituted was at once recognized as legal and regular by all its sister

Grand Lodges, seems to settle the question that three subordinates are

sufficient to institute a Grand Lodge.

Three lodges, therefore, in any territory where a Grand Lodge does not

already exist, may unite in convention and organize a Grand Lodge. It will

then be necessary, that these lodges should surrender the warrants under

which they had been previously working, and take out new warrants from the

Grand Lodge which they have constituted; and, from that time forth, all

masonic authority is vested in the Grand Lodge thus formed.

The Grand Lodge having been thus constituted, the next inquiries that

suggest themselves are as to its members and its officers, each of which

questions will occupy a distinct discussion.

Chapter III.

Of the Members of a Grand Lodge.

It is an indisputable fact that the "General Assembly" which met at York

in 926 was composed of all the members of the fraternity who chose to

repair to it; and it is equally certain that, at the first Grand Lodge,

held in 1717, after the revival of Masonry, all the craft who were present

exercised the right of membership in voting for Grand Officers,[7] and

must, therefore, have been considered members of the Grand Lodge. The

right does not, however, appear to have been afterwards claimed. At this

very assembly, the Grand Master who had been elected, summoned only the

Master and Wardens of the lodges to meet him in the quarterly

communications; and Preston distinctly states, that soon after, the

Brethren of the four old lodges, which had constituted the Grand Lodge,

considered their attendance on the future communications of the society

unnecessary, and therefore concurred with the lodges which had been

subsequently warranted in delegating the power of representation to their

Masters and Wardens, "resting satisfied that no measure of importance

would be adopted without their approbation."

Any doubts upon the subject were, however, soon put at rest by the

enactment of a positive law. In 1721, thirty-nine articles for the future

government of the craft were approved and confirmed, the twelfth of which

was in the following words:

"The Grand Lodge consists of, and is formed by, the Masters and Wardens of

all the regular particular lodges upon record, with the Grand Master at

their head, and his Deputy on his left hand, and the Grand Wardens in

their proper places."

From time to time, the number of these constituents of a Grand Lodge were

increased by the extension of the qualifications for membership. Thus, in

1724, Past Grand Masters, and in 1725, Past Deputy Grand Masters, were

admitted as members of the Grand Lodge. Finally it was decreed that the

Grand Lodge should consist of the four present and all past grand

officers; the Grand Treasurer, Secretary, and Sword-Bearer; the Master,

Wardens, and nine assistants of the Grand Stewards' lodge, and the Masters

and Wardens of all the regular lodges.

Past Masters were not at first admitted as members of the Grand Lodge.

There is no recognition of them in the old Constitutions. Walworth thinks

it must have been after 1772 that they were introduced.[8] I have extended

my researches to some years beyond that period, without any success in

finding their recognition as members under the Constitution of England. It

is true that, in 1772, Dermott prefixed a note to his edition of the

Ahiman Rezon, in which he asserts that "Past Masters of warranted lodges

on record are allowed this privilege (of membership) whilst they continue

to be members of any regular lodge." And it is, doubtless, on this

imperfect authority, that the Grand Lodges of America began at so early a

period to admit their Past Masters to seats in the Grand Lodge. In the

authorized Book of Constitutions, we find no such provision. Indeed,

Preston records that in 1808, at the laying of the foundation-stone of the

Covent Garden Theatre, by the Prince of Wales, as Grand Master, "the Grand

Lodge was opened by Charles Marsh, Esq., attended by the _Masters and

Wardens_ of all the regular lodges;" and, throughout the description of

the ceremonies, no notice is taken of Past Masters as forming any part of

the Grand Lodge. The first notice that we have been enabled to obtain of

Past Masters, as forming any part of the Grand Lodge of England, is in the

"Articles of Union between the two Grand Lodges of England," adopted in

1813, which declare that the Grand Lodge shall consist of the Grand and

Past Grand Officers, of the actual Masters and Wardens of all the

warranted lodges, and of the "Past Masters of Lodges who have regularly

served and passed the chair before the day of Union, and who continued,

without secession, regular contributing members of a warranted lodge." But

it is provided, that after the decease of all these ancient Past Masters,

the representation of every lodge shall consist of its Master and Wardens,

and one Past Master only. There is, I presume, no doubt that, from 1772,

Past Masters had held a seat in the Athol Grand Lodge of Ancient Masons,

and that they did not in the original Grand Lodge, is, I believe, a fact

equally indisputable. By the present constitutions of the United Grand

Lodge of England, Past Masters are members of the Grand Lodge, while they

continue subscribing members of a private lodge. In some of the Grand

Lodges of the United States, Past Masters have been permitted to retain

their membership, while in others, they have been disfranchised.

On the whole, the result of this inquiry seems to be, that Past Masters

have no inherent right, derived from the ancient landmarks, to a seat in

the Grand Lodge; but as every Grand Lodge has the power, within certain

limits, to make regulations for its own government, it may or may not

admit them to membership, according to its own notion of expediency.

Some of the Grand Lodges have not only disfranchised Past Masters but

Wardens also, and restricted membership only to acting Masters. This

innovation has arisen from the fact that the payment of mileage and

expenses to three representative would entail a heavy burden on the

revenue of the Grand Lodge. The reason may have been imperative; but in

the practice, pecuniary expediency has been made to override an ancient

usage.

In determining, then, who are the constitutional members of a Grand Lodge,

deriving their membership from inherent right, I should say that they are

the Masters and Wardens of all regular lodges in the jurisdiction, with

the Grand Officers chosen by them. All others, who by local regulations

are made members, are so only by courtesy, and not by prescription or

ancient law.

Chapter IV.

Of the Officers of a Grand Lodge.

The officers of a Grand Lodge may be divided into two classes, _essential_

and _accidental_, or, as they are more usually called, _Grand_ and

_Subordinate_. The former of these classes are, as the name imports,

essential to the composition of a Grand Lodge, and are to be found in

every jurisdiction, having existed from the earliest times. They are the

Grand and Deputy Grand Masters, the Grand Wardens, Grand Treasurer, and

Grand Secretary. The Grand Chaplain is also enumerated among the Grand

Officers, but the office is of comparatively modern date.

The subordinate officers of a Grand Lodge consist of the Deacons, Marshal,

Pursuivant, or Sword-Bearer, Stewards, and others, whose titles and duties

vary in different jurisdictions. I shall devote a separate section to the

consideration of the duties of each and prerogatives of these officers.

Section I.

_Of the Grand Master._

The office of Grand Master of Masons has existed from the very origin of

the institution; for it has always been necessary that the fraternity

should have a presiding head. There have been periods in the history of

the institution when neither Deputies nor Grand Wardens are mentioned, but

there is no time in its existence when it was without a Grand Master; and

hence Preston, while speaking of that remote era in which the fraternity

was governed by a General Assembly, says that this General Assembly or

Grand Lodge "was not then restricted, as it is now understood to be, to

the Masters and Wardens of private lodges, with the Grand Master and his

Wardens at their head; it consisted of as many of the Fraternity _at

large_ as, being within a convenient distance, could attend, once or twice

in a year, under the auspices of one general head, who was elected and

installed at one of these meetings; and who for the time being received

homage as the sole governor of the whole body."[9] The office is one of

great honour as well as power, and has generally been conferred upon some

individual distinguished by an influential position in society; so that

his rank and character might reflect credit upon the craft.[10]

The Grand Mastership is an elective office, the election being annual and

accompanied with impressive ceremonies of proclamation and homage made to

him by the whole craft. Uniform usage, as well as the explicit declaration

of the General Regulations,[11] seems to require that he should be

installed by the last Grand Master. But in his absence the Deputy or some

Past Grand Master may exercise the functions of installation or

investiture. In the organization of a new Grand Lodge, ancient precedent

and the necessity of the thing will authorize the performance of the

installation by the Master of the oldest lodge present, who, however,

exercises, _pro hac vice_, the prerogatives and assumes the place of a

Grand Master.

The Grand Master possesses a great variety of prerogatives, some of which

are derived from the "lex non scripta," or ancient usage; and others from

the written or statute law of Masonry.[12]

I. He has the right to convene the Grand Lodge whenever he pleases, and to

preside over its deliberation. In the decision of all questions by the

Grand Lodge he is entitled to two votes. This is a privilege secured to

him by Article XII. of the General Regulations.

It seems now to be settled, by ancient usage as well as the expressed

opinion of the generality of Grand Lodges and of masonic writers, that

there is no appeal from his decision. In June, 1849, the Grand Master of

New York, Bro. Williard, declared an appeal to be out of order and refused

to submit it to the Grand Lodge. The proceedings on that eventful occasion

have been freely discussed by the Grand Lodges of the United States, and

none of them have condemned the act of the Grand Master, while several

have sustained it in express terms. "An appeal," say the Committee of

Correspondence of Maryland, "from the decision of the Grand Master is an

anomaly at war with every principle of Freemasonry, and as such, not for

a moment to be tolerated or countenanced."[13] This opinion is also

sustained by the Committee of the Grand Lodge of Florida in the year 1851,

and at various times by other Grand Lodges. On the other hand, several

Grand Lodges have made decisions adverse to this prerogative, and the

present regulations of the Grand Lodge of England seem, by a fair

interpretation of their phraseology, to admit of an appeal from the Grand

Master. Still the general opinion of the craft in this country appears to

sustain the doctrine, that no appeal can be made from the decision of that

officer. And this doctrine has derived much support in the way of analogy

from the report adopted by the General Grand Chapter of the United States,

declaring that no appeal could lie from the decision of the presiding

officer of any Royal Arch body.

Since we have enunciated this doctrine as masonic law, the question next

arises, in what manner shall the Grand Master be punished, should he abuse

his great prerogative? The answer to this question admits of no doubt. It

is to be found in a regulation, adopted in 1721, by the Grand Lodge of

England, and is in these words:--"If the Grand Master should abuse his

great power, and render himself unworthy of the obedience and submission

of the Lodges, he shall be treated in a way and manner to be agreed upon

in a new regulation." But the same series of regulations very explicitly

prescribe, how this new regulation is to be made; namely, it is to be

"proposed and agreed to at the third quarterly communication preceding the

annual Grand Feast, and offered to the perusal of all the Brethren before

dinner, in writing, even of the youngest entered apprentice; the

approbation and consent of the majority of all the Brethren present being

absolutely necessary, to make the same binding and obligatory."[14] This

mode of making a new regulation is explicitly and positively

prescribed--it can be done in no other way--and those who accept the old

regulations as the law of Masonry, must accept this provision with them.

This will, in the present organization of many Grand Lodges, render it

almost impracticable to make such a new regulation, in which case the

Grand Master must remain exempt from other punishment for his misdeeds,

than that which arises from his own conscience, and the loss of his

Brethren's regard and esteem.

II. The power of granting dispensations is one of the most important

prerogatives of the Grand Master. A dispensation may be defined to be an

exemption from the observance of some law or the performance of some duty.

In Masonry, no one has the authority to grant this exemption, except the

Grand Master; and, although the exercise of it is limited within the

observance of the ancient landmarks, the operation of the prerogative is

still very extensive. The dispensing power may be exercised under the

following circumstances:

1. The fourth old Regulation prescribes that "no lodge shall make more

than five new Brothers at one and the same time without an urgent

necessity."[15] But of this necessity the Grand Master may judge, and, on

good and sufficient reason being shown, he may grant a dispensation

enabling any lodge to suspend this regulation and make more than five new

Brothers.

2. The next regulation prescribes "that no one can be accepted a member of

a particular lodge without previous notice, one month before given to the

lodge, in order to make due inquiry into the reputation and capacity of

the candidate." But here, also, it is held that, in a suitable case of

emergency, the Grand Master may exercise his prerogative and dispense with

this probation of one month, permitting the candidate to be made on the

night of his application.

3. If a lodge should have omitted for any causes to elect its officers or

any of them on the constitutional night of election, or if any officer so

elected shall have died, been deposed or removed from the jurisdiction

subsequent to his election, the Grand Master may issue a dispensation

empowering the lodge to proceed to an election or to fill the vacancy at

any other specified communication; but he cannot grant a dispensation to

elect a new master in consequence of the death or removal of the old one,

while the two Wardens or either of them remain--because the Wardens

succeed by inherent right and in order of seniority to the vacant

mastership. And, indeed, it is held that while one of the three officers

remains, no election can be held, even by dispensation, to fill the other

two places, though vacancies in them may have occurred by death or

removal.

4. The Grand Master may grant a dispensation empowering a lodge to elect

a Master from among the members on the floor; but this must be done only

when every Past Master, Warden, and Past Warden of the lodge has refused

to serve,[16] because ordinarily a requisite qualification for the

Mastership is, that the candidate shall, previously, have served in the

office of Warden.

5. In the year 1723 a regulation was adopted, prescribing "that no Brother

should belong to more than one lodge within the bills of mortality."

Interpreting the last expression to mean three miles--which is now

supposed to be the geographical limit of a lodge's jurisdiction, this

regulation may still be considered as a part of the law of Masonry; but in

some Grand Lodges, as that of South Carolina, for instance, the Grand

Master will sometimes exercise his prerogative, and, dispensing with this

regulation, permit a Brother to belong to two lodges, although they may be

within three miles of each other.

6. But the most important power of the Grand Master connected with his

dispensing prerogative is, that of constituting new lodges. It has

already been remarked that, anciently, a warrant was not required for the

formation of a lodge, but that a sufficient number of Masons, met together

within a certain limit, were empowered, with the consent of the sheriff or

chief magistrate of the place, to make Masons and practice the rites of

Masonry, without such warrant of Constitution. But, in the year 1717, it

was adopted as a regulation, that every lodge, to be thereafter convened,

should be authorised to act by a warrant from the Grand Master for the

time being, granted to certain persons by petition, with the consent and

approbation of the Grand Lodge in communication. Ever since that time, no

lodge has been considered as legally established, unless it has been

constituted by the authority of the Grand Master. In the English

Constitutions, the instrument thus empowering a lodge to meet, is called,

when granted by the Grand Master, a Warrant of Constitution. It is granted

by the Grand Master and not by the Grand Lodge. It appears to be a final

instrument, notwithstanding the provision enacted in 1717, requiring the

consent and approbation of the Grand Lodge; for in the Constitution of the

United Grand Lodge of England, there is no allusion whatever to this

consent and approbation.

But in this country, the process is somewhat different, and the Grand

Master is deprived of a portion of his prerogative. Here, the instrument

granted by the Grand Master is called a Dispensation. The lodge receiving

it is not admitted into the register of lodges, nor is it considered as

possessing any of the rights and privileges of a lodge, except that of

making Masons, until a Warrant of Constitution is granted by the Grand

Lodge. The ancient prerogative of the Grand Master is, however, preserved

in the fact, that after a lodge has been thus warranted by the Grand

Lodge, the ceremony of constituting it, which embraces its consecration

and the installation of its officers, can only be performed by the Grand

Master in person, or by his special Deputy appointed for that purpose.[17]

III. The third prerogative of the Grand Master is that of visitation. He

has a right to visit any lodge within his jurisdiction at such times as he

pleases, and when there to preside; and it is the duty of the Master to

offer him the chair and his gavel, which the Grand Master may decline or

accept at his pleasure. This prerogative admits of no question, as it is

distinctly declared in the first of the Thirty-nine Regulations, adopted

in 1721, in the following words:--

"The Grand Master or Deputy has full authority and right, not only to be

present, but to preside in every lodge, with the Master of the lodge on

his left hand, and to order his Grand Wardens to attend him, who are not

to act as Wardens of particular lodges, but in his presence and at his

command; for the Grand Master, while in a particular lodge, may command

the Wardens of that lodge, or any other Master Masons, to act as his

Wardens, _pro tempore_."

But in a subsequent regulation it was provided, that as the Grand Master

cannot deprive the Grand Wardens of that office without the consent of the

Grand Lodge, he should appoint no other persons to act as Wardens in his

visitation to a private lodge, unless the Grand Wardens were absent. This

whole regulation is still in existence.

The question has been lately mooted, whether, if the Grand Master declines

to preside, he does not thereby place himself in the position of a

private Brother, and become subject, as all the others present, to the

control of the Worshipful Master. I answer, that of course he becomes

subject to and must of necessity respect those rules of order and decorum

which are obligatory on all good men and Masons; but that he cannot, by

the exercise of an act of courtesy in declining to preside, divest himself

of his prerogative, which, moreover, he may at any time during the evening

assume, and demand the gavel. The Grand Master of Masons can, under no

circumstances, become subject to the decrees and orders of the Master of a

particular lodge.

IV. Another prerogative of the Grand Master is that of appointment; which,

however, in this country, has been much diminished. According to the old

regulations, and the custom is still continued in the Constitutions of the

Grand Lodge of England, the Grand Master has the right of appointing his

Deputy and Wardens. In the United States, the office has been shorn of

this high prerogative, and these Officers are elected by the Grand Lodge.

The Deputy, however, is still appointed by the Grand Master, in some of

the States, as Massachusetts, North Carolina, Wisconsin, and Texas. The

appointment of the principal subordinate officers, is also given to the

Grand Master by the American Grand Lodges.

V. The last and most extraordinary power of the Grand Master, is that of

_making Masons at sight_.

The power to "make Masons at sight" is a technical term, which may be

defined to be the power to initiate, pass, and raise candidates by the

Grand Master, in a lodge of emergency, or as it is called in the Book of

Constitutions, "an occasional lodge," especially convened by him, and

consisting of such Master Masons as he may call together for that purpose

only--the lodge ceasing to exist as soon as the initiation, passing, or

raising, has been accomplished and the Brethren have been dismissed by the

Grand Master.

Whether such a power is vested in the Grand Master, is a question that,

within the last few years, has been agitated with much warmth, by some of

the Grand Lodges of this country; but I am not aware that, until very

lately, the prerogative was ever disputed.[18]

In the Book of Constitutions, however, several instances are furnished of

the exercise of this right by various Grand Masters.

In 1731, Lord Lovel being Grand Master, he "formed an occasional lodge at

Houghton Hall, Sir Robert Walpole's House in Norfolk," and there made the

Duke of Lorraine, afterwards Emperor of Germany, and the Duke of

Newcastle, Master Masons.[19]

I do not quote the case of the initiation, passing, and raising of

Frederick, Prince of Wales, in 1737, which was done in "an occasional

lodge," over which Dr. Desaguliers presided,[20] because as Desaguliers

was not the Grand Master, nor even, as has been incorrectly stated by the

New York Committee of Correspondence, Deputy Grand Master, but only a Past

Grand Master, it cannot be called _a making at sight_. He most probably

acted under the dispensation of the Grand Master, who at that time was the

Earl of Darnley.

But in 1766, Lord Blaney, who was then Grand Master, convened "an

occasional lodge" and initiated, passed, and raised the Duke of

Gloucester.[21]

Again in 1767, John Salter, the Deputy, then acting as Grand Master,

convened "an occasional lodge," and conferred the three degrees on the

Duke of Cumberland.[22]

In 1787, the Prince of Wales was made a Mason "at an occasional lodge,

convened," says Preston, "for the purpose, at the Star and Garter, Pall

Mall, over which the Duke of Cumberland, (Grand Master) presided in

person."[23]

But it is unnecessary to multiply instances of the right, exercised by

former Grand Masters, of congregating occasional lodges, and making Masons

at sight. It has been said, however, by the oppugners of this prerogative,

that these "occasional lodges" were only special communications of the

Grand Lodge, and the "makings" are thus supposed to have taken place under

the authority of that body, and not of the Grand Master. The facts,

however, do not sustain this position. Throughout the Book of

Constitutions, other meetings, whether regular or special, are distinctly

recorded as meetings of the Grand Lodge, while these "occasional lodges"

appear only to have been convened by the Grand Master, for the purpose of

making Masons. Besides, in many instances, the lodge was held at a

different place from that of the Grand Lodge, and the officers were not,

with the exception of the Grand Master, the officers of the Grand Lodge.

Thus the occasional lodge, which initiated the Duke of Lorraine, was held

at the residence of Sir Robert Walpole, in Norfolk, while the Grand Lodge

always met in London. In 1766, the Grand Lodge held its communications at

the Crown and Anchor; but the occasional lodge, which, in the same year,

conferred the degrees on the Duke of Gloucester, was convened at the Horn

Tavern. In the following year, the lodge which initiated the Duke of

Cumberland was convened at the Thatched House Tavern, the Grand Lodge

continuing to meet at the Crown and Anchor.

This may be considered very conclusive evidence of the existence of the

prerogative of the Grand Master, which we are now discussing, but the

argument _à fortiori_, drawn from his dispensing power, will tend to

confirm the doctrine.

No one doubts or denies the power of the Grand Master to constitute new

lodges by dispensation. In 1741, the Grand Lodge of England forgot it for

a moment, and adopted a new regulation, that no new lodge should be

constituted until the consent of the Grand Lodge had been first obtained,

"But this order, afterwards appearing," says the Book of

Constitutions,[24] "to be an infringement on the prerogative of the Grand

Master, and to be attended with many inconveniences and with damage to the

craft, was repealed."

It is, then, an undoubted prerogative of the Grand Master to constitute

lodges by dispensation, and in these lodges, so constituted, Masons may be

legally entered, passed, and raised. This is done every day. Seven Master

Masons, applying to the Grand Master, he grants them a dispensation, under

authority of which they proceed to open and hold a lodge, and to make

Masons. This lodge is, however, admitted to be the mere creature of the

Grand Master, for it is in his power, at any time, to revoke the

dispensation he had granted, and thus to dissolve the lodge.

But, if the Grand Master has the power thus to enable others to confer the

degrees and make Masons by his individual authority out of his presence,

are we not permitted to argue _à fortiori_ that he has also the right of

congregating seven Brethren and causing a Mason, to be made in his sight?

Can he delegate a power to others which he does not himself possess? And

is his calling together "an occasional lodge," and making, with the

assistance of the Brethren thus assembled, a Mason "at sight," that is to

say, in his presence, anything more or less than the exercise of his

dispensing power, for the establishment of a lodge under dispensation, for

a temporary period, and for a special purpose. The purpose having been

effected, and the Mason having been made, he revokes his dispensation, and

the lodge is dismissed. If we assumed any other ground than this, we

should be compelled to say, that though the Grand Master might authorise

others to make Masons, when he was absent, as in the usual case of lodges

under dispensation yet the instant that he attempted to convey the same

powers to be exercised in his presence, and under his personal

supervision, his authority would cease. This course of reasoning would

necessarily lead to a contradiction in terms, if not to an actual

absurdity.

It is proper to state, in conclusion, that the views here set forth are

not entertained by the very able Committee of Foreign Correspondence of

the Grand Lodge of Florida, who only admit the power of the Grand Master

to make Masons in the Grand Lodge. On the other hand, the Grand Lodge of

Wisconsin, at its last communication, adopted a report, asserting "that

the Grand Master has the right to make Masons at sight, in cases which he

may deem proper"--and the Committee of Correspondence of New York

declares, that "since the time when the memory of man runneth not to the

contrary, Grand Masters have enjoyed the privilege of making Masons at

sight, without any preliminaries, and at any suitable time or place."

The opinions of the two last quoted Grand Lodges embody the general

sentiment of the Craft on this subject.[25] But although the prerogative

is thus almost universally ceded to Grand Masters, there are many very

reasonable doubts as to the expediency of its exercise, except under

extraordinary circumstances of emergency.

In England, the practice has generally been confined to the making of

Princes of the Royal Family, who, for reasons of state, were unwilling to

reduce themselves to the level of ordinary candidates and receive their

initiation publicly in a subordinate lodge.

But in the exercise of this prerogative, the Grand Master cannot dispense

with any of the requisite forms of initiation, prescribed by the oral laws

of the Order. He cannot communicate the degrees, but must adhere to all

the established ceremonies--the conferring of degrees by "communication"

being a form unknown to the York rite. He must be assisted by the number

of Brethren necessary to open and hold a lodge. Due inquiry must be made

into the candidate's character, (though the Grand Master may, as in a case

of emergency, dispense with the usual probation of a month). He cannot

interfere with the business of a regular lodge, by making one whom it had

rejected, nor finishing one which it had commenced. Nor can he confer the

three degrees, at one and the same communication. In short, he must, in

making Masons at sight, conform to the ancient usages and landmarks of the

Order.

Section II.

_The Deputy Grand Master._

The office of Deputy Grand Master is one of great dignity, but not of much

practical importance, except in case of the absence of the Grand Master,

when he assumes all the prerogatives of that officer. Neither is the

office, comparatively speaking, of a very ancient date. At the first

reorganization of the Grand Lodge in 1717, and for two or three years

afterwards, no Deputy was appointed, and it was not until 1721 that the

Duke of Montagu conferred the dignity on Dr. Beal. Originally the Deputy

was intended to relieve the Grand Master of all the burden and pressure of

business, and the 36th of the Regulations, adopted in 1721, states that "a

Deputy is said to have been always needful when the Grand Master was nobly

born," because it was considered as a derogation from the dignity of a

nobleman to enter upon the ordinary business of the craft. Hence we find,

among the General Regulations, one which sets forth this principle in the

following words:

"The Grand Master should not receive any private intimations of business,

concerning Masons and Masonry, but from his Deputy first, except in such

cases as his worship can easily judge of; and if the application to the

Grand Master be irregular, his worship can order the Grand Wardens, or any

other so applying, to wait upon the Deputy, who is immediately to prepare

the business, and to lay it orderly before his worship."

The Deputy Grand Master exercises, in the absence of the Grand Master, all

the prerogatives and performs all the duties of that officer. But he does

so, not by virtue of any new office that he has acquired by such absence,

but simply in the name of and as the representative of the Grand Master,

from whom alone he derives all his authority. Such is the doctrine

sustained in all the precedents recorded in the Book of Constitutions.

In the presence of the Grand Master, the office of Deputy is merely one of

honour, without the necessity of performing any duties, and without the

power of exercising any prerogatives.

There cannot be more than one Deputy Grand Master in a jurisdiction; so

that the appointment of a greater number, as is the case in some of the

States, is a manifest innovation on the ancient usages. District Deputy

Grand Masters, which officers are also a modern invention of this

country, seem to take the place in some degree of the Provincial Grand

Masters of England, but they are not invested with the same prerogatives.

The office is one of local origin, and its powers and duties are

prescribed by the local regulations of the Grand Lodge which may have

established it.

Section III.

_Of the Grand Wardens._

The Senior and Junior Grand Wardens were originally appointed, like the

Deputy, by the Grand Master, and are still so appointed in England; but in

this country they are universally elected by the Grand Lodge. Their duties

do not materially differ from those performed by the corresponding

officers in a subordinate lodge. They accompany the Grand Master in his

visitations, and assume the stations of the Wardens of the lodge visited.

According to the regulations of 1721, the Master of the oldest lodge

present was directed to take the chair of the Grand Lodge in the absence

of both the Grand Master and Deputy; but this was found to be an

interference with the rights of the Grand Wardens, and it was therefore

subsequently declared that, in the absence of the Grand Master and Deputy,

the last former Grand Master or Deputy should preside. But if no Past

Grand or Past Deputy Grand Master should be present, then the Senior Grand

Warden was to fill the chair, and, in his absence, the Junior Grand

Warden, and lastly, in absence of both these, then the oldest

Freemason[26] who is the present Master of a lodge. In this country,

however, most of the Grand Lodges have altered this regulation, and the

Wardens succeed according to seniority to the chair of the absent Grand

Master and Deputy, in preference to any Past Grand Officer.

Section IV.

_Of the Grand Treasurer._

The office of Grand Treasurer was first established in 1724, in

consequence of a report of the Committee of Charity of the Grand Lodge of

England. But no one was found to hold the trust until the 24th of June,

1727, when, at the request of the Grand Master, the appointment was

accepted by Nathaniel Blackerby, Deputy Grand Master. The duties of the

office do not at all differ from those of a corresponding one in every

other society; but as the trust is an important one in a pecuniary view,

it has generally been deemed prudent that it should only be committed to

"a brother of good worldly substance," whose ample means would place him

beyond the chances of temptation.

The office of Grand Treasurer has this peculiarity, that while all the

other officers below the Grand Master were originally, and still are in

England, appointed, that alone was always elective.

Section V.

_Of the Grand Secretary._

This is one of the most important offices in the Grand Lodge, and should

always be occupied by a Brother of intelligence and education, whose

abilities may reflect honor on the institution of which he is the

accredited public organ. The office was established in the year 1723,

during the Grand Mastership of the Duke of Wharton, previous to which

time the duties appear to have been discharged by the Grand Wardens.

The Grand Secretary not only records the proceedings of the Grand Lodge,

but conducts its correspondence, and is the medium through whom all

applications on masonic subjects are to be made to the Grand Master, or

the Grand Lodge.

According to the regulations of the Grand Lodges of England, New York and

South Carolina, the Grand Secretary may appoint an assistant, who is not,

however, by virtue of such appointment, a member of the Grand Lodge. The

same privilege is also extended in South Carolina to the Grand Treasurer.

Section VI.

_Of the Grand Chaplain._

This is the last of the Grand Offices that was established, having been

instituted on the 1st of May, in the year 1775. The duties are confined to

the reading of prayers, and other sacred portions of the ritual, in

consecrations, dedications, funeral services, etc. The office confers no

masonic authority at all, except that of a seat and a vote in the Grand

Lodge.

Section VII.

_Of the Grand Deacons._

But little need be said of the Grand Deacons. Their duties correspond to

those of the same officers in subordinate lodges. The office of the

Deacons, even in a subordinate lodge, is of comparatively modern

institution. Dr. Oliver remarks that they are not mentioned in any of the

early Constitutions of Masonry, nor even so late as 1797, when Stephen

Jones wrote his "Masonic Miscellanies," and he thinks it "satisfactorily

proved that Deacons were not considered necessary, in working the business

of a lodge, before the very latter end of the eighteenth century."[27]

But although the Deacons are not mentioned in the various works published

previous to that period, which are quoted by Dr. Oliver, it is

nevertheless certain that the office existed at a time much earlier than

that which he supposes. In a work in my possession, and which is now lying

before me, entitled "Every Young Man's Companion, etc., by W. Gordon,

Teacher of the Mathematics," sixth edition printed at London, in 1777,

there is a section, extending from page 413 to page 426, which is

dedicated to the subject of Freemasonry and to a description of the

working of a subordinate lodge. Here the Senior and Junior Deacons are

enumerated among the officers, their exact positions described and their

duties detailed, differing in no respect from the explanations of our own

ritual at the present day. The positive testimony of this book must of

course outweigh the negative testimony of the authorities quoted by

Oliver, and shows the existence in England of Deacons in the year 1777 at

least.

It is also certain that the office of Deacon claims an earlier origin in

America than the "very latter end of the eighteenth century;" and, as an

evidence of this, it may be stated that, in the "Ahiman Rezon" of

Pennsylvania, published in 1783, the Grand Deacons are named among the

officers of the Grand Lodge, "as particular assistants to the Grand

Master and Senior Warden, in conducting the business of the Lodge." They

are to be found in all Grand Lodges of the York Rite, and are usually

appointed, the Senior by the Grand Master, and the Junior by the Senior

Grand Warden.

Section VIII.

_Of the Grand Marshal._

The _Grand Marshal_, as an officer of convenience, existed from an early

period. We find him mentioned in the procession of the Grand Lodge, made

in 1731, where he is described as carrying "a truncheon, blue, tipped with

gold," insignia which he still retains. He takes no part in the usual work

of the Lodge; but his duties are confined to the proclamation of the Grand

Officers at their installation, and to the arrangement and superintendence

of public processions.

The Grand Marshal is usually appointed by the Grand Master.

Section IX.

_Of the Grand Stewards._

The first mention that is made of Stewards is in the Old Regulations,

adopted in 1721. Previous to that time, the arrangements of the Grand

Feast were placed in the hands of the Grand Wardens; and it was to relieve

them of this labor that the regulation was adopted, authorizing the Grand

Master, or his Deputy, to appoint a certain number of Stewards, who were

to act in concert with the Grand Wardens. In 1728, it was ordered that the

number of Stewards to be appointed should be twelve. In 1731, a regulation

was adopted, permitting the Grand Stewards to appoint their successors.

And, in 1735, the Grand Lodge ordered, that, "in consideration of their

past service and future usefulness," they should be constituted a Lodge of

Masters, to be called the Stewards' Lodge, which should have a registry in

the Grand Lodge list, and exercise the privilege of sending twelve

representatives. This was the origin of that body now known in the

Constitutions of the Grand Lodges of England and New York,[28] as the

Grand Stewards' Lodge, although it has been very extensively modified in

its organization. In New York, it is now no more than a Standing Committee

of the Grand Lodge; and in England, although it is regularly constituted,

as a Lodge of Master Masons, it is by a special regulation deprived of all

power of entering, passing, or raising Masons. In other jurisdictions, the

office of Grand Stewards is still preserved, but their functions are

confined to their original purpose of preparing and superintending the

Grand Feast.

The appointment of the Grand Stewards should be most appropriately vested

in the Junior Grand Warden.

Section X.

_Of the Grand Sword-Bearer._

_Grand Sword-Bearer._--It was an ancient feudal custom, that all great

dignitaries should have a sword of state borne before them, as the

insignia of their dignity. This usage has to this day been preserved in

the Masonic Institution, and the Grand Master's sword of state is still

borne in all public processions by an officer specially appointed for that

purpose. Some years after the reorganization of the Grand Lodge of

England, the sword was borne by the Master of the Lodge to which it

belonged; but, in 1730, the Duke of Norfolk, being then Grand Master,

presented to the Grand Lodge the sword of Gustavus Adolphus, King of

Sweden, which had afterwards been used in war by Bernard, Duke of Saxe

Weimar, and which the Grand Master directed should thereafter be adopted

as his sword of state. In consequence of this donation, the office of

Grand Sword-Bearer was instituted in the following year. The office is

still retained; but some Grand Lodges have changed the name to that of

_Grand Pursuivant_.

Section XI.

_Of the Grand Tiler._

It is evident from the Constitutions of Masonry, as well as from the

peculiar character of the institution, that the office of Grand Tiler must

have existed from the very first organization of a Grand Lodge. As, from

the nature of the duties that he has to perform, the Grand Tiler is

necessarily excluded from partaking of the discussions, or witnessing the

proceedings of the Grand Lodge, it has very generally been determined,

from a principle of expediency, that he shall not be a member of the Grand

Lodge during the term of his office.

The Grand Tiler is sometimes elected by the Grand Lodge, and sometimes

appointed by the Grand Master.

Chapter V.

Of the Powers and Prerogatives of a Grand Lodge.

Section I.

_General View._

The necessary and usual officers of a Grand Lodge having been described,

the rights, powers, and prerogatives of such a body is the next subject of

our inquiry.

The foundation-stone, upon which the whole superstructure of masonic

authority in the Grand Lodge is built, is to be found in that conditional

clause annexed to the thirty-eight articles, adopted in 1721 by the Masons

of England, and which is in these words:

"Every annual Grand Lodge has an inherent power and authority to make new

regulations, or to alter these for the real benefit of this ancient

fraternity; PROVIDED ALWAYS THAT THE OLD LANDMARKS BE CAREFULLY

PRESERVED; and that such alterations and new regulations be proposed and

agreed to at the third quarterly communication preceding the annual Grand

Feast; and that they be offered also to the perusal of all the Brethren

before dinner, in writing, even of the youngest Entered Apprentice: the

approbation and consent of the majority of all the Brethren present being

absolutely necessary, to make the same binding and obligatory."

The expression which is put in capitals--"provided always that the old

landmarks be carefully preserved"--is the limiting clause which must be

steadily borne in mind, whenever we attempt to enumerate the powers of a

Grand Lodge. It must never be forgotten (in the words of another

regulation, adopted in 1723, and incorporated in the ritual of

installation), that "it is not in the power of any man, or body of men, to

make any alteration or innovation in the body of Masonry."

"With these views to limit us, the powers of a Grand Lodge may be

enumerated in the language which has been adopted in the modern

constitutions of England, and which seem to us, after a careful

comparison, to be as comprehensive and correct as any that we have been

able to examine. This enumeration is in the following language:

"In the Grand Lodge, alone, resides the power of enacting laws and

regulations for the permanent government of the craft, and of altering,

repealing, and abrogating them, always taking care that the ancient

landmarks of the order are preserved. The Grand Lodge has also the

inherent power of investigating, regulating, and deciding all matters

relative to the craft, or to particular lodges, or to individual Brothers,

which it may exercise either of itself, or by such delegated authority, as

in its wisdom and discretion it may appoint; but 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

in England."

In this enumeration we discover the existence of three distinct classes of

powers:--1, a legislative power; 2, a judicial power; and 3, an executive

power. Each of these will occupy a separate section.

Section II.

_Of the Legislative Power of a Grand Lodge._

In the passage already quoted from the Constitutions of the Grand Lodge of

England it is said, "in the Grand Lodge, alone, resides the power of

enacting laws and regulations for the government of the craft, and of

altering, repealing, and abrogating them." General regulations for the

government of the whole craft throughout the world can no longer be

enacted by a Grand Lodge. The multiplication of these bodies, since the

year 1717, has so divided the supremacy that no regulation now enacted can

have the force and authority of those adopted by the Grand Lodge of

England in 1721, and which now constitute a part of the fundamental law of

Masonry, and as such are unchangeable by any modern Grand Lodge.

Any Grand Lodge may, however, enact local laws for the direction of its

own special affairs, and has also the prerogative of enacting the

regulations which are to govern all its subordinates and the craft

generally in its own jurisdiction. From this legislative power, which

belongs exclusively to the Grand Lodge, it follows that no subordinate

lodge can make any new bye-laws, nor alter its old ones, without the

approval and confirmation of the Grand Lodge. Hence, the rules and

regulations of every lodge are inoperative until they are submitted to and

approved by the Grand Lodge. The confirmation of that body is the enacting

clause; and, therefore, strictly speaking, it may be said that the

subordinates only propose the bye-laws, and the Grand Lodge enacts them.

Section III.

_Of the Judicial Power of a Grand Lodge._

The passage already quoted from the English Constitutions continues to

say, that "the Grand Lodge has the inherent power of investigating,

regulating and deciding all matters relative to the craft, or to

particular lodges, or to individual Brothers, which it may exercise,

either of itself, or by such delegated authority as in its wisdom and

discretion it may appoint." Under the first clause of this section, the

Grand Lodge is constituted as the Supreme Masonic Tribunal of its

jurisdiction. But as it would be impossible for that body to investigate

every masonic offense that occurs within its territorial limits, with that

full and considerate attention that the principles of justice require, it

has, under the latter clause of the section, delegated this duty, in

general, to the subordinate lodges, who are to act as its committees, and

to report the results of their inquiry for its final disposition. From

this course of action has risen the erroneous opinion of some persons,

that the jurisdiction of the Grand Lodge is only appellate in its

character. Such is not the case. The Grand Lodge possesses an original

jurisdiction over all causes occurring within its limits. It is only for

expediency that it remits the examination of the merits of any case to a

subordinate lodge as a _quasi_ committee. It may, if it thinks proper,

commence the investigation of any matter concerning either a lodge, or an

individual brother within its own bosom, and whenever an appeal from the

decision of a lodge is made, which, in reality, is only a dissent from the

report of the lodge, the Grand Lodge does actually recommence the

investigation _de novo_, and, taking the matter out of the lodge, to whom

by its general usage it had been primarily referred, it places it in the

hands of another committee of its own body for a new report. The course of

action is, it is true, similar to that in law, of an appeal from an

inferior to a superior tribunal. But the principle is different. The Grand

Lodge simply confirms or rejects the report that has been made to it, and

it may do that without any appeal having been entered. It may, in fact,

dispense with the necessity of an investigation by and report from a

subordinate lodge altogether, and undertake the trial itself from the

very inception. But this, though a constitutional, is an unusual course.

The subordinate lodge is the instrument which the Grand Lodge employs in

considering the investigation. It may or it may not make use of the

instrument, as it pleases.

Section IV.

_Of the Executive Power of a Grand Lodge._

The English Constitutions conclude, in the passage that has formed the

basis of our previous remarks, by asserting 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." The power of the Grand Lodge to erase lodges is accompanied

with a coincident power of constituting new lodges. This power it

originally shared with the Grand Master, and still does in England; but in

this country the power of the Grand Lodge is paramount to that of the

Grand Master. The latter can only constitute lodges temporarily, by

dispensation, and his act must be confirmed, or may be annulled by the

Grand Lodge. It is not until a lodge has received its Warrant of

Constitution from the Grand Lodge, that it can assume the rank and

exercise the prerogatives of a regular and legal lodge.

The expelling power is one that is very properly intrusted to the Grand

Lodge, which is the only tribunal that should impose a penalty affecting

the relations of the punished party with the whole fraternity. Some of the

lodges in this country have claimed the right to expel independently of

the action of the Grand Lodge. But the claim is founded on an erroneous

assumption of powers that have never existed, and which are not recognized

by the ancient constitutions, nor the general usages of the fraternity. A

subordinate lodge tries its delinquent member, under the provisions which

have already been stated, and, according to the general usage of lodges in

the United States, declares him expelled. But the sentence is of no force

nor effect until it has been confirmed by the Grand Lodge, which may, or

may not, give the required confirmation, and which, indeed, often refuses

to do so, but actually reverses the sentence. It is apparent, from the

views already expressed on the judicial powers of the Grand Lodge, that

the sentence of expulsion uttered by the subordinate is to be taken in

the sense of a recommendatory report, and that it is the confirmation and

adoption of that report by the Grand Lodge that alone gives it vitality

and effect.

The expelling power presumes, of course, coincidently, the reinstating

power. As the Grand Lodge alone can expel, it also alone can reinstate.

These constitute the general powers and prerogatives of a Grand Lodge. Of

course there are other local powers, assumed by various Grand Lodges, and

differing in the several jurisdictions, but they are all derived from some

one of the three classes that we have enumerated. From these views, it

will appear that a Grand Lodge is the supreme legislative, judicial, and

executive authority of the Masonic jurisdiction in which it is situated.

It is, to use a feudal term, "the lord paramount" in Masonry. It is a

representative body, in which, however, it constituents have delegated

everything and reserved no rights to themselves. Its authority is almost

unlimited, for it is restrained by but a single check:--_It cannot alter

or remove the ancient landmarks_.

Book Second

Laws of Subordinate Lodges.

Having thus succinctly treated of the law in relation to Grand Lodges, I

come next in order to consider the law as it respects the organization,

rights, powers, and privileges of subordinate Lodges; and the first

question that will engage our attention will be, as to the proper method

of organizing a Lodge.

Chapter I.

Of the Nature and Organization of Subordinate Lodges.

The old charges define a Lodge to be "a place where Masons assemble and

work;" and also "that assembly, or duly organized society of Masons." The

lecture on the first degree gives a still more precise definition. It says

that "a lodge is an assemblage of Masons, duly congregated, having the

Holy Bible, square, and compasses, and a charter, or warrant of

constitution, empowering them to work."

Every lodge of Masons requires for its proper organization, that it should

have been congregated by the permission of some superior authority, which

may be either a Grand Master or a Grand Lodge. When a lodge is organized

by the authority of a Grand Master, it is said to work under a

Dispensation, and when by the authority of a Grand Lodge, it is said to

work under a warrant of constitution. In the history of a lodge, the

former authority generally precedes the latter, the lodge usually working

for some time under the dispensation of the Grand Master, before it is

regularly warranted by the Grand Lodge. But this is not necessarily the

case. A Grand Lodge will sometimes grant a warrant of constitution at

once, without the previous exercise, on the part of the Grand Master, of

his dispensing power. As it is, however, more usually the practice for the

dispensation to precede the warrant of constitution, I shall explain the

formation of a lodge according to that method.

Any number of Master Masons, not under seven, being desirous of uniting

themselves into a lodge, apply by petition to the Grand Master for the

necessary authority. This petition must set forth that they now are, or

have been, members of a regularly constituted lodge, and must assign, as a

reason for their application, that they desire to form the lodge "for the

conveniency of their respective dwellings," or some other sufficient

reason. The petition must also name the brethren whom they desire to act

as their Master and Wardens, and the place where they intend to meet; and

it must be recommended by the nearest lodge.

Dalcho says that not less than three Master Masons should sign the

petition; but in this he differs from all the other authorities, which

require not less than seven. This rule, too, seems to be founded in

reason; for, as it requires seven Masons to constitute a quorum for

opening and holding a lodge of Entered Apprentices, it would be absurd to

authorize a smaller number to organize a lodge which, after its

organization, could not be opened, nor make Masons in that degree.

Preston says that the petition must be recommended "by the Masters of

three regular lodges adjacent to the place where the new lodge is to be

held." Dalcho says it must be recommended "by three other known and

approved Master Masons," but does not make any allusion to any adjacent

lodge. The laws and regulations of the Grand Lodge of Scotland require the

recommendation to be signed "by the Masters and officers of two of the

nearest lodges." The Constitutions of the Grand Lodge of England require

that it must be recommended "by the officers of some regular lodge." The

recommendation of a neighboring lodge is the general usage of the craft,

and is intended to certify to the superior authority, on the very best

evidence that can be obtained, that, namely, of an adjacent lodge, that

the new lodge will be productive of no injury to the Order.

If this petition be granted, the Grand Secretary prepares a document

called a _dispensation_, which authorizes the officers named in the

petition to open and hold a lodge, and to "enter, pass, and raise

Freemasons." The duration of this dispensasation is generally expressed on

its face to be, "until it shall be revoked by the Grand Master or the

Grand Lodge, or until a warrant of constitution is granted by the Grand

Lodge." Preston says, that the Brethren named in it are authorized "to

assemble as Masons for forty days, and until such time as a warrant of

constitution can be obtained by command of the Grand Lodge, or that

authority be recalled." But generally, usage continues the dispensation

only until the next meeting of the Grand Lodge, when it is either revoked,

or a warrant of constitution granted.

If the dispensation be revoked by either the Grand Master or the Grand

Lodge (for either has the power to do so), the lodge of course at once

ceases to exist. Whatever funds or property it has accumulated revert, as

in the case of all extinct lodges, to the Grand Lodge, which may be called

the natural heir of its subordinates; but all the work done in the lodge,

under the dispensation, is regular and legal, and all the Masons made by

it are, in every sense of the term, "true and lawful Brethren."

Let it be supposed, however, that the dispensation is confirmed or

approved by the Grand Lodge, and we thus arrive at another step in the

history of the new lodge. At the next sitting of the Grand Lodge, after

the dispensation has been issued by the Grand Master, he states that fact

to the Grand Lodge, when, either at his request, or on motion of some

Brother, the vote is taken on the question of constituting the new lodge,

and, if a majority are in favor of it, the Grand Secretary is ordered to

grant a warrant of constitution.

This instrument differs from a dispensation in many important particulars.

It is signed by all the Grand Officers, and emanates from the Grand Lodge,

while the dispensation emanates from the office of the Grand Master, and

is signed by him alone. The authority of the dispensation is temporary,

that of the warrant permanent; the one can be revoked at pleasure by the

Grand Master, who granted it; the other only for cause shown, and by the

Grand Lodge; the one bestows only a name, the other both a name and a

number; the one confers only the power of holding a lodge and making

Masons, the other not only confers these powers, but also those of

installation and of succession in office. From these differences in the

characters of the two documents, arise important differences in the powers

and privileges of a lodge under dispensation and of one that has been

regularly constituted. These differences shall hereafter be considered.

The warrant having been granted, there still remain certain forms and

ceremonies to be observed, before the lodge can take its place among the

legal and registered lodges of the jurisdiction in which it is situated.

These are its consecration, its dedication, its constitution, and the

installation of its officers. We shall not fully enter into a description

of these various ceremonies, because they are laid down at length in all

the Monitors, and are readily accessible to our readers. It will be

sufficient if we barely allude to their character.

The ceremony of constitution is so called, because by it the lodge becomes

constituted or established. Orthoepists define the verb to constitute, as

signifying "to give a formal existence to anything." Hence, to constitute

a lodge is to give it existence, character, and standing as such; and the

instrument that warrants the person so constituting or establishing it, in

this act, is very properly called the "warrant of constitution."

The consecration, dedication, and constitution of a lodge must be

performed by the Grand Master in person; or, if he cannot conveniently

attend, by some Past Master appointed by him as his special proxy or

representative for that purpose. On the appointed evening, the Grand

Master, accompanied by his Grand Officers, repairs to the place where the

new lodge is to hold its meetings, the lodge[29] having been placed in the

centre of the room and decently covered with a piece of white linen or

satin. Having taken the chair, he examines the records of the lodge and

the warrant of constitution; the officers who have been chosen are

presented before him, when he inquires of the Brethren if they continue

satisfied with the choice they have made. The ceremony of consecration is

then performed. The Lodge is uncovered; and corn, wine, and oil--the

masonic elements of consecration--are poured upon it, accompanied by

appropriate prayers and invocations, and the lodge is finally declared to

be consecrated to the honor and glory of God.

This ceremony of consecration has been handed down from the remotest

antiquity. A consecrating--a separating from profane things, and making

holy or devoting to sacred purposes--was practiced by both the Jews and

the Pagans in relation to their temples, their altars, and all their

sacred utensils. The tabernacle, as soon as it was completed, was

consecrated to God by the unction of oil. Among the Pagan nations, the

consecration of their temples was often performed with the most sumptuous

offerings and ceremonies; but oil was, on all occasions, made use of as an

element of the consecration. The lodge is, therefore, consecrated to

denote that henceforth it is to be set apart as an asylum sacred to the

cultivation of the great masonic principles of Friendship, Morality, and

Brotherly Love. Thenceforth it becomes to the conscientious Mason a place

worthy of his reverence; and he is tempted, as he passes over its

threshold, to repeat the command given to Moses: "Put off thy shoes from

off thy feet, for the place whereon thou standest is holy ground."

The corn, wine, and oil are appropriately adopted as the Masonic elements

of consecration, because of the symbolic signification which they present

to the mind of the Mason. They are enumerated by David as among the

greatest blessings which we receive from the bounty of Divine Providence.

They were annually offered by the ancients as the first fruits, in a

thank-offering for the gifts of the earth; and as representatives of "the

corn of nourishment, the wine of refreshment, and the oil of joy," they

symbolically instruct the Mason that to the Grand Master of the Universe

he is indebted for the "health, peace, and plenty" that he enjoys.

After the consecration of the lodge, follows its dedication. This is a

simple ceremony, and principally consists in the pronunciation of a

formula of words by which the lodge is declared to be dedicated to the

holy Saints John, followed by an invocation that "every Brother may revere

their character and imitate their virtues."

Masonic tradition tells us that our ancient Brethren dedicated their

lodges to King Solomon, because he was their first Most Excellent Grand

Master; but that modern Masons dedicate theirs to St. John the Baptist and

St. John the Evangelist, because they were two eminent patrons of Masonry.

A more appropriate selection of patrons to whom to dedicate the lodge,

could not easily have been made; since St. John the Baptist, by

announcing the approach of Christ, and by the mystical ablution to which

he subjected his proselytes, and which was afterwards adopted in the

ceremony of initiation into Christianity, might well be considered as the

Grand Hierophant of the Church; while the mysterious and emblematic nature

of the Apocalypse assimilated the mode of teaching adopted by St. John the

Evangelist to that practiced by the fraternity. Our Jewish Brethren

usually dedicate their lodges to King Solomon, thus retaining their

ancient patron, although they thereby lose the benefit of that portion of

the Lectures which refers to the "lines parallel." The Grand Lodge of

England, at the union in 1813, agreed to dedicate to Solomon and Moses,

applying the parallels to the framer of the tabernacle and the builder of

the temple; but they have no warranty for this in ancient usage, and it is

unfortunately not the only innovation on the ancient landmarks that that

Grand Lodge has lately permitted.

The ceremony of dedication, like that of consecration, finds its archetype

in the remotest antiquity. The Hebrews made no use of any new thing until

they had first solemnly dedicated it. This ceremony was performed in

relation even to private houses, as we may learn from the book of

Deuteronomy.[30] The 30th Psalm is a song said to have been made by David

on the dedication of the altar which he erected on the threshing-floor of

Ornan the Jebusite, after the grievous plague which had nearly devastated

the kingdom. Solomon, it will be recollected, dedicated the temple with

solemn ceremonies, prayers, and thank-offerings. The ceremony of

dedication is, indeed, alluded to in various portions of the Scriptures.

Selden[31] says that among the Jews sacred things were both dedicated and

consecrated; but that profane things, such as private houses, etc., were

simply dedicated, without consecration. The same writer informs us that

the Pagans borrowed the custom of consecrating and dedicating their sacred

edifices, altars, and images, from the Hebrews.

The Lodge having been thus consecrated to the solemn objects of

Freemasonry, and dedicated to the patrons of the institution, it is at

length prepared to be constituted. The ceremony of constitution is then

performed by the Grand Master, who, rising from his seat, pronounces the

following formulary of constitution:

"In the name of the most Worshipful Grand Lodge, I now constitute and form

you, my beloved Brethren, into a regular lodge of Free and Accepted

Masons. From this time forth, I empower you to meet as a regular lodge,

constituted in conformity to the rites of our Order, and the charges of

our ancient and honorable fraternity;--and may the Supreme Architect of

the Universe prosper, direct, and counsel you, in all your doings."

This ceremony places the lodge among the registered lodges of the

jurisdiction in which it is situated, and gives it a rank and standing and

permanent existence that it did not have before. In one word, it has, by

the consecration, dedication, and constitution, become what we technically

term "a just and legally constituted lodge," and, as such, is entitled to

certain rights and privileges, of which we shall hereafter speak. Still,

however, although the lodge has been thus fully and completely organized,

its officers have as yet no legal existence. To give them this, it is

necessary that they be inducted into their respective offices, and each

officer solemnly bound to the faithful performance of the duties he has

undertaken to discharge. This constitutes the ceremony of installation.

The Worshipful Master of the new lodge is required publicly to submit to

the ancient charges; and then all, except Past Masters, having retired, he

is invested with the Past Master's degree, and inducted into the oriental

chair of King Solomon. The Brethren are then introduced, and due homage is

paid to their new Master, after which the other officers are obligated to

the faithful discharge of their respective trusts, invested with their

insignia of office, and receive the appropriate charge. This ceremony must

be repeated at every annual election and change of officers.

The ancient rule was, that when the Grand Master and his officers attended

to constitute a new lodge, the Deputy Grand Master invested the new

Master, the Grand Wardens invested the new Wardens, and the Grand

Treasurer and Grand Secretary invested the Treasurer and Secretary. But

this regulation has become obsolete, and the whole installation and

investiture are now performed by the Grand Master. On the occasion of

subsequent installations, the retiring Master installs his successor; and

the latter installs his subordinate officers.

The ceremony of installation is derived from the ancient custom of

inauguration, of which we find repeated instances in the sacred as well as

profane writings. Aaron was inaugurated, or installed, by the unction of

oil, and placing on him the vestments of the High Priest; and every

succeeding High Priest was in like manner installed, before he was

considered competent to discharge the duties of his office. Among the

Romans, augurs, priests, kings, and, in the times of the republic, consuls

were always inaugurated or installed. And hence, Cicero, who was an augur,

speaking of Hortensius, says, "it was he who installed me as a member of

the college of augurs, so that I was bound by the constitution of the

order to respect and honour him as a parent."[32] The object and intention

of the ancient inauguration and the Masonic installation are precisely the

same, namely, that of setting apart and consecrating a person to the

duties of a certain office.

The ceremonies, thus briefly described, were not always necessary to

legalize a congregation of Masons. Until the year 1717, the custom of

confining the privileges of Masonry, by a warrant of constitution, to

certain individuals, was wholly unknown. Previous to that time, a

requisite number of Master Masons were authorized by the ancient charges

to congregate together, temporarily, at their own discretion, and as best

suited their convenience, and then and there to open and hold lodges and

make Masons; making, however, their return, and paying their tribute to

the General Assembly, to which all the fraternity annually repaired, and

by whose awards the craft were governed.

Preston, speaking of this ancient privilege, says: "A sufficient number of

Masons met together within a certain district, with the consent of the

sheriff or chief magistrate of the place, were empowered at this time to

make Masons and practice the rights of Masonry, without a warrant of

constitution." This privilege, Preston says, was inherent in them as

individuals, and continued to be enjoyed by the old lodges, which formed

the Grand Lodge in 1717, as long as they were in existence.

But on the 24th June, 1717, the Grand Lodge of England adopted the

following regulation: "That the privilege of assembling as Masons, which

had hitherto been unlimited, should be vested in certain lodges or

assemblies of Masons, convened in certain places; and that every lodge to

be hereafter convened, except the four old lodges at this time existing,

should be legally authorized to act by a warrant from the Grand Master for

the time being, granted to certain individuals by petition, with the

consent and approbation of the Grand Lodge in communication; and that,

without such warrant, no lodge should be hereafter deemed regular or

constitutional."

This regulation has ever since continued in force, and it is the original

law under which warrants of constitution are now granted by Grand Lodges

for the organization of their subordinates.

Chapter II.

Of Lodges under Dispensation.

It is evident, from what has already been said, that there are two kinds

of lodges, each regular in itself, but each peculiar and distinct in its

character. There are lodges working under a dispensation, and lodges

working under a warrant of constitution. Each of these will require a

separate consideration. The former will be the subject of the present

chapter.

A lodge working under a dispensation is a merely temporary body,

originated for a special purpose, and is therefore possessed of very

circumscribed powers. The dispensation, or authority under which it acts,

expressly specifies that the persons to whom it is given are allowed to

congregate that they may "admit, enter, pass, and raise Freemasons;" no

other powers are conferred either by words or implication, and, indeed,

sometimes the dispensation states, that that congregation is to be "with

the sole intent and view, that the Brethren so congregated, admitted,

entered, and made, when they become a sufficient number, may be duly

warranted and constituted for being and holding a regular lodge."[33]

A lodge under dispensation is simply the creature of the Grand Master. To

him it is indebted for its existence, and on his will depends the duration

of that existence. He may at any time revoke the dispensation, and the

dissolution of the lodge would be the instant result. Hence a lodge

working under a dispensation can scarcely, with strict technical

propriety, be called a lodge; it is, more properly speaking, a

congregation of Masons, acting as the proxy of the Grand Master.

With these views of the origin and character of lodges under dispensation,

we will be better prepared to understand the nature and extent of the

powers which they possess.

A lodge under dispensation can make no bye-laws. It is governed, during

its temporary existence, by the general Constitutions of the Order and the

rules and regulations of the Grand Lodge in whose jurisdiction it is

situated. In fact, as the bye-laws of no lodge are operative until they

are confirmed by the Grand Lodge, and as a lodge working under a

dispensation ceases to exist as such as soon as the Grand Lodge meets, it

is evident that it would be absurd to frame a code of laws which would

have no efficacy, for want of proper confirmation, and which, when the

time and opportunity for confirmation had arrived, would be needless, as

the society for which they were framed would then have no legal

existence--a new body (the warranted lodge) having taken its place.

A lodge under dispensation cannot elect officers. The Master and Wardens

are nominated by the Brethren, and, if this nomination is approved, they

are appointed by the Grand Master. In giving them permission to meet and

make Masons, he gave them no power to do anything else. A dispensation is

itself a setting aside of the law, and an exception to a general

principle; it must, therefore, be construed literally. What is not granted

in express terms, is not granted at all. And, therefore, as nothing is

said of the election of officers, no such election can be held. The Master

may, however, and always does for convenience, appoint a competent

Brother to keep a record of the proceedings; but this is a temporary

appointment, at the pleasure of the Master, whose deputy or assistant he

is; for the Grand Lodge looks only to the Master for the records, and the

office is not legally recognized. In like manner, he may depute a trusty

Brother to take charge of the funds, and must, of course, from time to

time, appoint the deacons and tiler for the necessary working of the

lodge.

As there can be no election, neither can there be any installation, which,

of course, always presumes a previous election for a determinate period.

Besides, the installation of officers is a part of the ceremony of

constitution, and therefore not even the Master and Wardens of a lodge

under dispensation are entitled to be thus solemnly inducted into office.

A lodge under dispensation can elect no members. The Master and Wardens,

who are named in the dispensation, are, in point of fact, the only persons

recognized as constituting the lodge. To them is granted the privilege, as

proxies of the Grand Master, of making Masons; and for this purpose they

are authorized to congregate a sufficient number of Brethren to assist

them in the ceremonies. But neither the Master and Wardens, nor the

Brethren, thus congregated have received any power of electing members.

Nor are the persons made in a lodge under dispensation, to be considered

as members of the lodge; for, as has already been shown, they have none of

the rights and privileges which attach to membership--they can neither

make bye-laws nor elect officers. They, however, become members of the

lodge as soon as it receives its warrant of constitution.

Chapter III.

Of Lodges Working under a Warrant of Constitution.

Section I.

_Of the Powers and Rights of a Lodge._

In respect to the powers and privileges possessed by a lodge working under

a warrant of constitution, we may say, as a general principle, that

whatever it does possess is inherent in it--nothing has been delegated by

either the Grand Master or the Grand Lodge--but that all its rights and

powers are derived originally from the ancient regulations, made before

the existence of Grand Lodges, and that what it does not possess, are the

powers which were conceded by its predecessors to the Grand Lodge. This is

evident from the history of warrants of constitution, the authority under

which subordinate lodges act. The practice of applying by petition to the

Grand Master or the Grand Lodge, for a warrant to meet as a regular

lodge, commenced in the year 1718. Previous to that time, Freemasons were

empowered by inherent privileges, vested, from time immemorial, in the

whole fraternity, to meet as occasion might require, under the direction

of some able architect; and the proceedings of these meetings, being

approved by a majority of the Brethren convened at another lodge in the

same district, were deemed constitutional.[34] But in 1718, a year after

the formation of the Grand Lodge of England, this power of meeting _ad

libitum_ was resigned into the hands of that body, and it was then agreed

that no lodges should thereafter meet, unless authorized so to do by a

warrant from the Grand Master, and with the consent of the Grand Lodge.

But as a memorial that this abandonment of the ancient right was entirely

voluntary, it was at the same time resolved that this inherent privilege

should continue to be enjoyed by the four old lodges who formed the Grand

Lodge. And, still more effectually to secure the reserved rights of the

lodges, it was also solemnly determined, that while the Grand Lodge

possesses the inherent right of making new regulations for the good of the

fraternity, provided that the _old landmarks be carefully preserved_, yet

that these regulations, to be of force, must be proposed and agreed to at

the third quarterly communication preceding the annual grand feast, and

submitted to the perusal of all the Brethren, in writing, even of the

youngest entered apprentice; "_the approbation and consent of the majority

of all the Brethren present being absolutely necessary, to make the same

binding and obligatory_."[35]

The corollary from all this is clear. All the rights, powers, and

privileges, not conceded, by express enactment of the fraternity, to the

Grand Lodge, have been reserved to themselves. Subordinate lodges are the

assemblies of the craft in their primary capacity, and the Grand Lodge is

the Supreme Masonic Tribunal, only because it consists of and is

constituted by a representation of these primary assemblies. And,

therefore, as every act of the Grand Lodge is an act of the whole

fraternity thus represented, each new regulation that may be made is not

an assumption of authority on the part of the Grand Lodge, but a new

concession on the part of the subordinate lodges.

This doctrine of the reserved rights of the lodges is very important, and

should never be forgotten, because it affords much aid in the decision of

many obscure points of masonic jurisprudence. The rule is, that any

doubtful power exists and is inherent in the subordinate lodges, unless

there is an express regulation conferring it on the Grand Lodge. With this

preliminary view, we may proceed to investigate the nature and extent of

these reserved powers of the subordinate lodges.

A lodge has the right of selecting its own members, with which the Grand

Lodge cannot interfere. This is a right that the lodges have expressly

reserved to themselves, and the stipulation is inserted in the "general

regulations" in the following words:

"No man can be entered a Brother in any particular lodge, or admitted a

member thereof, without the unanimous consent of all the members of that

lodge then present, when the candidate is proposed, and when their consent

is formally asked by the Master. They are to give their consent in their

own prudent way, either virtually or in form, but with unanimity. Nor is

this inherent privilege subject to a dispensation, because the members of

a particular lodge are the best judges of it; and because, if a turbulent

member should be imposed upon them, it might spoil their harmony, or

hinder the freedom of their communication; or even break and disperse the

lodge, which ought to be avoided by all true and faithful."[36]

But although a lodge has the inherent right to require unanimity in the

election of a candidate, it is not necessarily restricted to such a degree

of rigor.

A lodge has the right to elect its own officers. This right is guaranteed

to it by the words of the Warrant of Constitution. Still the right is

subject to certain restraining regulations. The election must be held at

the proper time, which, according to the usage of Masonry, in most parts

of the world, is on or immediately before the festival of St. John the

Evangelist. The proper qualifications must be regarded. A member cannot be

elected as Master, unless he has previously served as a Warden, except in

the instance of a new lodge, or other case of emergency. Where both of the

Wardens refuse promotion, where the presiding Master will not permit

himself to be reelected, and where there is no Past Master who will

consent to take the office, then, and then only, can a member be elected

from the floor to preside over the lodge.

By the Constitutions of England, only the Master and Treasurer are elected

officers.[37] The Wardens and all the other officers are appointed by the

Master, who has not, however, the power of removal after appointment,

except by consent of the lodge;[38] but American usage gives the election

of all the officers, except the deacons, stewards, and, in some instances,

the tiler, to the lodge.

As a consequence of the right of election, every lodge has the power of

installing its officers, subject to the same regulations, in relation to

time and qualifications, as given in the case of elections.

The Master must be installed by a Past Master,[39] but after his own

installation he has the power to install the rest of the officers. The

ceremony of installation is not a mere vain and idle one, but is

productive of important results. Until the Master and Wardens of a lodge

are installed, they cannot represent the lodge in the Grand Lodge, nor, if

it be a new lodge, can it be recorded and recognized on the register of

the Grand Lodge. No officer can permanently take possession of the office

to which he has been elected, until he has been duly installed.[40] The

rule of the craft is, that the old officer holds on until his successor is

installed, and this rule is of universal application to officers of every

grade, from the Tiler of a subordinate lodge, to the Grand Master of

Masons.

Every lodge that has been duly constituted, and its officers installed, is

entitled to be represented in the Grand Lodge, and to form, indeed, a

constituent part of that body.[41] The representatives of a lodge are its

Master and two Wardens.[42] This character of representation was

established in 1718, when the four old lodges, which organized the Grand

Lodge of England, agreed "to extend their patronage to every lodge which

should hereafter be constituted by the Grand Lodge, according to the new

regulations of the society; and while such lodges acted in conformity to

the ancient constitutions of the Order, to admit their Masters and Wardens

to share with them all the privileges of the Grand Lodge, excepting

precedence of rank."[43] Formerly all Master Masons were permitted to sit

in the Grand Lodge, or, as it was then called, the General Assembly, and

represent their lodge; and therefore this restricting the representation

to the three superior officers was, in fact, a concession of the craft.

This regulation is still generally observed; but I regret to see a few

Grand Lodges in this country innovating on the usage, and still further

confining the representation to the Masters alone.

The Master and Wardens are not merely in name the representatives of the

lodge, but are bound, on all questions that come before the Grand Lodge,

truly to represent their lodge, and vote according to its instructions.

This doctrine is expressly laid down in the General Regulations, in the

following words: "The majority of every particular lodge, when

congregated, not else, shall have the privilege of giving instructions to

their Master and Wardens, before the meeting of the Grand Chapter, or

Quarterly Communication; because the said officers are their

representatives, and are supposed to speak the sentiments of their

Brethren at the said Grand Lodge."[44]

Every lodge has the power to frame bye-laws for its own government,

provided they are not contrary to, nor inconsistent with, the general

regulations of the Grand Lodge; nor the landmarks of the order.[45] But

these bye-laws will not be valid, until they are submitted to and approved

by the Grand Lodge. And this is the case, also, with every subsequent

alteration of them, which must in like manner be submitted to the Grand

Lodge for its approval.

A lodge has the right of suspending or excluding a member from his

membership in the lodge; but it has no power to expel him from the rights

and privileges of Masonry, except with the consent of the Grand Lodge. A

subordinate lodge tries its delinquent member, and, if guilty, declares

him expelled; but the sentence is of no force until the Grand Lodge, under

whose jurisdiction it is working, has confirmed it. And it is optional

with the Grand Lodge to do so, or, as is frequently done, to reverse the

decision and reinstate the Brother. Some of the lodges in this country

claim the right to expel, independently of the action of the Grand Lodge;

but the claim is not valid. The very fact that an expulsion is a penalty,

affecting the general relations of the punished party with the whole

fraternity, proves that its exercise never could, with propriety, be

intrusted to a body so circumscribed in its authority as a subordinate

lodge. Accordingly, the general practice of the fraternity is opposed to

it; and therefore all expulsions are reported to the Grand Lodge, not

merely as matters of information, but that they may be confirmed by that

body. The English Constitutions are explicit on this subject. "In the

Grand Lodge alone," they declare, "resides the power of erasing lodges and

expelling Brethren from the craft, a power which it ought not to delegate

to any subordinate authority in England." They allow, however, a

subordinate lodge to _exclude_ a member from the lodge; in which case he

is furnished with a certificate of the circumstances of his exclusion, and

then may join any other lodge that will accept him, after being made

acquainted with the fact of his exclusion, and its cause. This usage has

not been adopted in this country.

A lodge has a right to levy such annual contribution for membership as the

majority of the Brethren see fit. This is entirely a matter of contract,

with which the Grand Lodge, or the craft in general, have nothing to do.

It is, indeed, a modern usage, unknown to the fraternity of former times,

and was instituted for the convenience and support of the private lodges.

A lodge is entitled to select a name for itself, to be, however, approved

by the Grand Lodge.[46] But the Grand Lodge alone has the power of

designating the number by which the lodge shall be distinguished. By its

number alone is every lodge recognized in the register of the Grand Lodge,

and according to their numbers is the precedence of the lodges regulated.

Finally, a lodge has certain rights in relation to its Warrant of

Constitution. This instrument having been granted by the Grand Lodge, can

be revoked by no other authority. The Grand Master, therefore, has no

power, as he has in the case of a lodge under dispensation, to withdraw

its Warrant, except temporarily, until the next meeting of the Grand

Lodge. Nor is it in the power of even the majority of the lodge, by any

act of their own, to resign the Warrant. For it has been laid down as a

law, that if the majority of the lodge should determine to quit the lodge,

or to resign their warrant, such action would be of no efficacy, because

the Warrant of Constitution, and the power of assembling, would remain

with the rest of the members, who adhere to their allegiance.[47] But if

all the members withdraw themselves, their Warrant ceases and becomes

extinct. If the conduct of a lodge has been such as clearly to forfeit its

charter, the Grand Lodge alone can decide that question and pronounce the

forfeiture.

Section II.

_Of the Duties of a Lodge._

So far in relation to the rights and privileges of subordinate lodges. But

there are certain duties and obligations equally binding upon these

bodies, and certain powers, in the exercise of which they are restricted.

These will next engage our attention.

The first great duty, not only of every lodge, but of every Mason, is to

see that the landmarks of the Order shall never be impaired. The General

Regulations of Masonry--to which every Master, at his installation, is

bound to acknowledge his submission--declare that "it is not in the power

of any man, or body of men, to make innovations in the body of Masonry."

And, hence, no lodge, without violating all the implied and express

obligations into which it has entered, can, in any manner, alter or amend

the work, lectures, and ceremonies of the institution. As its members

have received the ritual from their predecessors, so are they bound to

transmit it, unchanged, in the slightest degree, to their successors. In

the Grand Lodge, alone, resides the power of enacting new regulations;

but, even _it_ must be careful that, in every such regulation, the

landmarks are preserved. When, therefore, we hear young and inexperienced

Masters speak of making improvements (as they arrogantly call them) upon

the old lectures or ceremonies, we may be sure that such Masters either

know nothing of the duties they owe to the craft, or are willfully

forgetful of the solemn obligation which they have contracted. Some may

suppose that the ancient ritual of the Order is imperfect, and requires

amendment. One may think that the ceremonies are too simple, and wish to

increase them; another, that they are too complicated, and desire to

simplify them; one may be displeased with the antiquated language;

another, with the character of the traditions; a third, with something

else. But, the rule is imperative and absolute, that no change can or must

be made to gratify individual taste. As the Barons of England, once, with

unanimous voice, exclaimed, "Nolumus leges Angliæ mutare!" so do all good

Masons respond to every attempt at innovation, "We are unwilling to alter

the customs of Freemasonry."

In relation to the election of officers, a subordinate lodge is allowed to

exercise no discretion. The names and duties of these officers are

prescribed, partly by the landmarks or the ancient constitutions, and

partly by the regulations of various Grand Lodges. While the landmarks are

preserved, a Grand Lodge may add to the list of officers as it pleases;

and whatever may be its regulation, the subordinate lodges are bound to

obey it; nor can any such lodge create new offices nor abolish old ones

without the consent of the Grand Lodge.

Lodges are also bound to elect their officers at a time which is always

determined; not by the subordinate, but by the Grand Lodge. Nor can a

lodge anticipate or postpone it unless by a dispensation from the Grand

Master.

No lodge can, at an extra meeting, alter or amend the proceedings of a

regular meeting. If such were not the rule, an unworthy Master might, by

stealth, convoke an extra meeting of a part of his lodge, and, by

expunging or altering the proceedings of the previous regular meeting, or

any particular part of them, annul any measures or resolutions that were

not consonant with his peculiar views.

No lodge can interfere with the work or business of any other lodge,

without its permission. This is an old regulation, founded on those

principles of comity and brotherly love that should exist among all

Masons. It is declared in the manuscript charges, written in the reign of

James II., and in the possession of the Lodge of Antiquity, at London,

that "no Master or Fellow shall supplant others of their work; that is to

say, that, if he hath taken a work, or else stand Master of any work, that

he shall not put him out, unless he be unable of cunning to make an end of

his work." And, hence, no lodge can pass or raise a candidate who was

initiated, or initiate one who was rejected, in another lodge. "It would

be highly improper," says the Ahiman Rezon, "in any lodge, to confer a

degree on a Brother who is not of their house-hold; for, every lodge

ought to be competent to manage their own business, and are the best

judges of the qualifications of their own members."

I do not intend, at the present time, to investigate the qualifications of

candidates--as that subject will, in itself, afford ample materials for a

future investigation; but, it is necessary that I should say something of

the restrictions under which every lodge labors in respect to the

admission of persons applying for degrees.

In the first place, no lodge can initiate a candidate, "without previous

notice, and due examination into his character; and not unless his

petition has been read at one regular meeting and acted on at another."

This is in accordance with the ancient regulations; but, an exception to

it is allowed in the case of an emergency, when the lodge may read the

petition for admission, and, if the applicant is well recommended, may

proceed at once to elect and initiate him. In some jurisdictions, the

nature of the emergency must be stated to the Grand Master, who, if he

approves, will grant a dispensation; but, in others, the Master, or Master

and Wardens, are permitted to be competent judges, and may proceed to

elect and initiate, without such dispensation. The Grand Lodge of South

Carolina adheres to the former custom, and that of England to the latter.

Another regulation is, that no lodge can confer more than two degrees, at

one communication, on the same candidate. The Grand Lodge of England is

still more stringent on this subject, and declares that "no candidate

shall be permitted to receive more than one degree, on the same day; nor

shall a higher degree in Masonry be conferred on any Brother at a less

interval than four weeks from his receiving a previous degree, nor until

he has passed an examination, in open lodge, in that degree." This rule is

also in force in South Carolina and several other of the American

jurisdictions. But, the law which forbids the whole three degrees of

Ancient Craft Masonry to be conferred, at the same communication, on one

candidate, is universal in its application, and, as such, may be deemed

one of the ancient landmarks of the Order.

There is another rule, which seems to be of universal extent, and is,

indeed, contained in the General Regulations of 1767, to the following

effect: "No lodge shall make more than five new Brothers at one and the

same time, without an urgent necessity."

All lodges are bound to hold their meetings at least once in every

calendar month; and every lodge neglecting so to do for one year, thereby

forfeits its warrant of constitution.

The subject of the removal of lodges is the last thing that shall engage

our attention. Here the ancient regulations of the craft have adopted many

guards to prevent the capricious or improper removal of a lodge from its

regular place of meeting. In the first place, no lodge can be removed from

the town in which it is situated, to any other place, without the consent

of the Grand Lodge. But, a lodge may remove from one part of the town to

another, with the consent of the members, under the following

restrictions: The removal cannot be made without the Master's knowledge;

nor can any motion, for that purpose, be presented in his absence. When

such a motion is made, and properly seconded, the Master will order

summonses to every member, specifying the business, and appointing a day

for considering and determining the affair. And if then a majority of the

lodge, with the Master, or two-thirds, without him, consent to the

removal, it shall take place; but notice thereof must be sent, at once, to

the Grand Lodge. The General Regulations of 1767 further declare, that

such removal must be approved by the Grand Master. I suppose that where

the removal of the lodge was only a matter of convenience to the members,

the Grand Lodge would hardly interfere, but leave the whole subject to

their discretion; but, where the removal would be calculated to affect the

interests of the lodge, or of the fraternity--as in the case of a removal

to a house of bad reputation, or to a place of evident insecurity--I have

no doubt that the Grand Lodge, as the conservator of the character and

safety of the institution, would have a right to interpose its authority,

and prevent the improper removal.

I have thus treated, as concisely as the important nature of the subjects

would permit, of the powers, privileges, duties, and obligations of

lodges, and have endeavored to embrace, within the limits of the

discussion, all those prominent principles of the Order, which, as they

affect the character and operations of the craft in their primary

assemblies, may properly be referred to the Law of Subordinate Lodges.

Chapter IV.

Of the Officers of a Subordinate Lodge.

Section I.

_Of the Officers in General._

Four officers, at least, the ancient customs of the craft require in every

lodge; and they are consequently found throughout the globe. These are the

Master, the two Wardens, and the Tiler. Almost equally universal are the

offices of Treasurer, Secretary, and two Deacons. But, besides these,

there may be additional officers appointed by different Grand Lodges. The

Grand Lodge of England, for instance, requires the appointment of an

officer, called the "Inner Guard." The Grand Orient of France has

prescribed a variety of officers, which are unknown to English and

American Masonry. The Grand Lodges of England and South Carolina direct

that two Stewards shall be appointed, while some other Grand Lodges make

no such requisition. Ancient usage seems to have recognized the following

officers of a subordinate lodge: the Master, two Wardens, Treasurer,

Secretary, two Deacons, two Stewards, and Tiler; and I shall therefore

treat of the duties and powers of these officers only, in the course of

the present chapter.

The officers of a lodge are elected annually. In this country, the

election takes place on the festival of St. John the Evangelist, or at the

meeting immediately previous; but, in this latter case, the duties of the

offices do not commence until St. John's day, which may, therefore, be

considered as the beginning of the masonic year.

Dalcho lays down the rule, that "no Freemason chosen into any office can

refuse to serve (unless he has before filled the same office), without

incurring the penalties established by the bye-laws." Undoubtedly a lodge

may enact such a regulation, and affix any reasonable penalty; but I am

not aware of any ancient regulation which makes it incumbent on

subordinate lodges to do so.

If any of the subordinate officers, except the Master and Wardens, die, or

be removed from office, during the year, the lodge may, under the

authority of a dispensation from the Grand Master, enter into an election

to supply the vacancy. But in the case of the death or removal of the

Master or either of the Wardens, no election can be held to supply the

vacancy, even by dispensation, for reasons which will appear when I come

to treat of those offices.

No officer can resign his office after he has been installed. Every

officer is elected for twelve months, and at his installation solemnly

promises to perform the duties of that office until the next regular day

of election; and hence the lodge cannot permit him, by a resignation, to

violate his obligation of office.

Another rule is, that every officer holds on to his office until his

successor has been installed. It is the installation, and not the

election, which puts an officer into possession; and the faithful

management of the affairs of Masonry requires, that between the election

and installation of his successor, the predecessor shall not vacate the

office, but continue to discharge its duties.

An office can be vacated only by death, permanent removal from the

jurisdiction, or expulsion. Suspension does not vacate, but only suspends

the performance of the duties of the office, which must then be

temporarily discharged by some other person, to be appointed from time to

time; for, as soon as the suspended officer is restored, he resumes the

dignities and duties of his office.

Section II.

_Of the Worshipful Master._

This is probably the most important office in the whole system of Masonry,

as, upon the intelligence, skill, and fidelity of the Masters of our

lodges, the entire institution is dependent for its prosperity. It is an

office which is charged with heavy responsibilities, and, as a just

consequence, is accompanied by the investiture of many important powers.

A necessary qualification of the Master of a lodge is, that he must have

previously served in the office of a Warden.[48] This qualification is

sometimes dispensed with in the case of new lodges, or where no member of

an old lodge, who has served as a Warden, will accept the office of

Master. But it is not necessary that he should have served as a Warden in

the lodge of which he is proposed to be elected Master. The discharge of

the duties of a Warden, by regular election and installation in any other

lodge, and at any former period, will be a sufficient qualification.

One of the most important duties of the Master of a lodge is, to see that

the edicts and regulations of the Grand Lodge are obeyed by his Brethren,

and that his officers faithfully discharge their duties.

The Master has particularly in charge the warrant of Constitution, which

must always be present in his lodge, when opened.

The Master has a right to call a special meeting of his lodge whenever he

pleases, and is the sole judge of any emergency which may require such

special communication.

He has, also, the right of closing his lodge at any hour that he may deem

expedient, notwithstanding the whole business of the evening may not have

been transacted. This regulation arises from the unwritten law of Masonry.

As the Master is responsible to the Grand Lodge for the fidelity of the

work done in his lodge, and as the whole of the labor is, therefore,

performed under his superintendence, it follows that, to enable him to

discharge this responsibility, he must be invested with the power of

commencing, of continuing, or of suspending labor at such time as he may,

in his wisdom, deem to be the most advantageous to the edifice of Masonry.

It follows from this rule that a question of adjournment cannot be

entertained in a lodge. The adoption of a resolution to adjourn, would

involve the necessity of the Master to obey it. The power, therefore, of

controlling the work, would be taken out of his hands and placed in those

of the members, which would be in direct conflict with the duties imposed

upon him by the ritual. The doctrine that a lodge cannot adjourn, but must

be closed or called off at the pleasure of the Master, appears now to me

to be very generally admitted.

The Master and his two Wardens constitute the representatives of the lodge

in the Grand Lodge, and it is his duty to attend the communications of

that body "on all convenient occasions."[49] When there, he is faithfully

to represent his lodge, and on all questions discussed, to obey its

instructions, voting in every case rather against his own convictions than

against the expressed wish of his lodge.

The Master presides not only over the symbolic work of the lodge, but

also over its business deliberations, and in either case his decisions are

reversible only by the Grand Lodge. There can be no appeal from his

decision, on any question, to the lodge. He is supreme in his lodge, so

far as the lodge is concerned, being amenable for his conduct in the

government of it, not to its members, but to the Grrand Lodge alone. If an

appeal were proposed, it would be his duty, for the preservation of

discipline, to refuse to put the question. If a member is aggrieved by the

conduct or decisions of the Master, he has his redress by an appeal to the

Grrand Lodge, which will, of course, see that the Master does not rule his

lodge "in an unjust or arbitrary manner." But such a thing as an appeal

from the Master of the lodge to its members is unknown in Masonry.

This may, at first sight, appear to be giving too despotic power to the

Master. But a slight reflection will convince any one that there can be

but little danger of oppression from one so guarded and controlled as a

Master is, by the sacred obligations of his office, and the supervision of

the Grand Lodge, while the placing in the hands of the craft so powerful,

and at times, and with bad spirits, so annoying a privilege as that of

immediate appeal, would necessarily tend to impair the energies and

lessen the dignity of the Master, while it would be subversive of that

spirit of discipline which pervades every part of the institution, and to

which it is mainly indebted for its prosperity and perpetuity.

The ancient charges rehearsed at the installation of a Master, prescribe

the various moral qualifications which are required in the aspirant for

that elevated and responsible office. He is to be a good man, and

peaceable citizen or subject, a respecter of the laws, and a lover of his

Brethren--cultivating the social virtues and promoting the general good of

society as well as of his own Order.

Within the last few years, the standard of intellectual qualifications has

been greatly elevated. And it is now admitted that the Master of a lodge,

to do justice to the exalted office which he holds, to the craft over whom

he presides, and to the candidates whom he is to instruct, should be not

only a man of irreproachable moral character, but also of expanded

intellect and liberal education. Still, as there is no express law upon

this subject, the selection of a Master and the determination of his

qualifications must be left to the judgment and good sense of the

members.

Section III.

_Of the Wardens._

The Senior and Junior Warden are the assistants of the Master in the

government of the lodge. They are selected from among the members on the

floor, the possession of a previous office not being, as in the case of

the Master, a necessary qualification for election. In England they are

appointed by the Master, but in this country they are universally elected

by the lodge.

During the temporary absence of the Master the Senior Warden has the right

of presiding, though he may, and often does by courtesy, invite a Past

Master to assume the chair. In like manner, in the absence of both Master

and Senior Warden, the Junior Warden will preside, and competent Brethren

will by him be appointed to fill the vacant seats of the Wardens. But if

the Master and Junior Warden be present, and the Senior Warden be absent,

the Junior Warden does not occupy the West, but retains his own station,

the Master appointing some Brother to occupy the station of the Senior

Warden. For the Junior Warden succeeds by law only to the office of

Master, and, unless that office be vacant, he is bound to fulfill the

duties of the office to which he has been obligated.

In case of the death, removal from the jurisdiction, or expulsion of the

Master, by the Grand Lodge, no election can be held until the

constitutional period. The Senior Warden will take the Master's place and

preside over the lodge, while his seat will be temporarily filled from

time to time by appointment. The Senior Warden being in fact still in

existence, and only discharging one of the highest duties of his office,

that of presiding in the absence of the Master, his office cannot be

declared vacant and there can be no election for it. In such case, the

Junior Warden, for the reason already assigned, will continue at his own

station in the South.

In case of the death, removal, or expulsion of both Master and Senior

Warden, the Junior Warden will discharge the duties of the Mastership and

make temporary appointments of both Wardens. It must always be remembered

that the Wardens succeed according to seniority to the office of Master

when vacant, but that neither can legally discharge the duties of the

other. It must also be remembered that when a Warden succeeds to the

government of the lodge, he does not become the Master; he is still only

a Warden discharging the functions of a higher vacated station, as one of

the expressed duties of his own office. A recollection of these

distinctions will enable us to avoid much embarrassment in the

consideration of all the questions incident to this subject. If the Master

be present, the Wardens assist him in the government of the lodge. The

Senior Warden presides over the craft while at labor, and the Junior when

they are in refreshment. Formerly the examination of visitors was

intrusted to the Junior Warden, but this duty is now more appropriately

performed by the Stewards or a special committee appointed for that

purpose.

The Senior Warden has the appointment of the Senior Deacon, and the Junior

Warden that of the Stewards.

Section IV.

_Of the Treasurer._

Of so much importance is this office deemed, that in English Lodges, while

all the other officers are appointed by the Master, the Treasurer alone is

elected by the lodge. It is, however, singular, that in the ritual of

installation, Preston furnishes no address to the Treasurer on his

investiture. Webb, however, has supplied the omission, and the charge

given in his work to this officer, on the night of his installation,

having been universally acknowledged and adopted by the craft in this

country, will furnish us with the most important points of the law in

relation to his duties.

It is, then, in the first place, the duty of the Treasurer "to receive all

moneys from the hands of the Secretary." The Treasurer is only the banker

of the lodge. All fees for initiation, arrearages of members, and all

other dues to the lodge, should be first received by the Secretary, and

paid immediately over to the Treasurer for safe keeping.

The keeping of just and regular accounts is another duty presented to the

Treasurer. As soon as he has received an amount of money from the

Secretary, he should transfer the account of it to his books. By this

means, the Secretary and Treasurer become mutual checks upon each other,

and the safety of the funds of the lodge is secured.

The Treasurer is not only the banker, but also the disbursing officer of

the lodge; but he is directed to pay no money except with the consent of

the lodge and on the order of the Worshipful Master. It seems to me,

therefore, that every warrant drawn on him should be signed by the Master,

and the action of the lodge attested by the counter-signature of the

Secretary.

It is usual, in consequence of the great responsibility of the Treasurer,

to select some Brother of worldly substance for the office; and still

further to insure the safety of the funds, by exacting from him a bond,

with sufficient security. He sometimes receives a per centage, or a fixed

salary, for his services.

Section V.

_Of the Secretary._

It is the duty of the Secretary to record all the proceedings of the

lodge, "which may be committed to paper;" to conduct the correspondence of

the lodge, and to receive all moneys due the lodge from any source

whatsoever. He is, therefore, the recording, corresponding, and receiving

officer of the lodge. By receiving the moneys due to the lodge in the

first place, and then paying them over to the Treasurer, he becomes, as I

have already observed, a check upon that officer.

In view of the many laborious duties which devolve upon him, the

Secretary, in many lodges, receives a compensation for his services.

Should the Treasurer or Secretary die or be expelled, there is no doubt

that an election for a successor, to fill the unexpired term, may be held

by dispensation from the Grand Master. But the incompetency of either of

these officers to perform his duties, by reason of the infirmity of

sickness or removal from the seat of the lodge, will not, I think,

authorize such an election. Because the original officer may recover from

his infirmity, or return to his residence, and, in either case, having

been elected and installed for one year, he must remain the Secretary or

Treasurer until the expiration of the period for which he had been so

elected and installed, and, therefore, on his recovery or his return, is

entitled to resume all the prerogatives and functions of his office. The

case of death, or of expulsion, which is, in fact, masonic death, is

different, because all the rights possessed during life cease _ex

necessitate rei_, and forever lapse at the time of the said physical or

masonic death; and in the latter case, a restoration to all the rights and

privileges of Masonry would not restore the party to any office which he

had held at the time of his expulsion.

Section VI.

_Of the Deacons._

In every lodge there are two of these officers--a Senior and a Junior

Deacon. They are not elected, but appointed; the former by the Master, and

the latter by the Senior Warden.

The duties of these officers are many and important; but they are so well

defined in the ritual as to require no further consideration in this

place.

The only question that here invites our examination is, whether the

Deacons, as appointed officers, are removable at the pleasure of the

officers who appointed them; or, whether they retain their offices, like

the Master and Wardens, until the expiration of the year. Masonic

authorities are silent on this subject; but, basing my judgment upon

analogy, I am inclined to think that they are not removable: all the

officers of a lodge are chosen to serve for one year, or, from one

festival of St. John the Evangelist to the succeeding one. This has been

the invariable usage in all lodges, and neither in the monitorial

ceremonies of installation, nor in any rules or regulations which I have

seen, is any exception to this usage made in respect to Deacons. The

written as well as the oral law of Masonry being silent on this subject,

we are bound to give them the benefit of this silence, and place them in

the same favorable position as that occupied by the superior officers,

who, we know, by express law are entitled to occupy their stations for one

year. Moreover, the power of removal is too important to be exercised

except under the sanction of an expressed law, and is contrary to the

whole spirit of Masonry, which, while it invests a presiding officer with

the largest extent of prerogative, is equally careful of the rights of the

youngest member of the fraternity.

From these reasons I am compelled to believe that the Deacons, although

originally appointed by the Master and Senior Warden, are not removable by

either, but retain their offices until the expiration of the year.

Section VII.

_Of the Stewards._

The Stewards, who are two in number, are appointed by the Junior Warden,

and sit on the right and left of him in the lodge. Their original duties

were, "to assist in the collection of dues and subscriptions; to keep an

account of the lodge expenses; to see that the tables are properly

furnished at refreshment, and that every Brother is suitably provided

for." They are also considered as the assistants of the Deacons in the

discharge of their duties, and, lately, some lodges are beginning to

confide to them the important trusts of a standing committee for the

examination of visitors and the preparation of candidates.

What has been said in relation to the removal of the Deacons in the

preceding section, is equally applicable to the Stewards.

Section VIII.

_Of the Tiler._

This is an office of great importance, and must, from the peculiar nature

of our institution, have existed from its very beginning. No lodge could

ever have been opened until a Tiler was appointed, and stationed to guard

its portals from the approach of "cowans and eavesdroppers." The

qualifications requisite for the office of a Tiler are, that he must be "a

worthy Master Mason." An Entered Apprentice, or a Fellow Craft, cannot

tile a lodge, even though it be opened in his own degree. To none but

Master Masons can this important duty of guardianship be intrusted. The

Tiler is not necessarily a member of the lodge which he tiles. There is no

regulation requiring this qualification. In fact, in large cities, one

Brother often acts as the Tiler of several lodges. If, however, he is a

member of the lodge, his office does not deprive him of the rights of

membership, and in ballotings for candidates, election of officers, or

other important questions, he is entitled to exercise his privilege of

voting, in which case the Junior Deacon will temporarily occupy his

station, while he enters the lodge to deposit his ballot. This appears to

be the general usage of the craft in this country.

The Tiler is sometimes elected by the lodge, and sometimes appointed by

the Master. It seems generally to be admitted that he may be removed from

office for misconduct or neglect of duty, by the lodge, if he has been

elected, and by the Master, if he has been appointed.

Chapter V.

Of Rules of Order.

The safety of the minority, the preservation of harmony, and the dispatch

of business, all require that there should be, in every well-regulated

society, some rules and forms for the government of their proceedings,

and, as has been justly observed by an able writer on parliamentary law,

"whether these forms be in all cases the most rational or not, is really

not of so great importance; for it is much more material that there should

be a rule to go by, than what that rule is."[50] By common consent, the

rules established for the government of Parliament in England, and of

Congress in the United States, and which are known collectively under the

name of "Parliamentary Law," have been adopted for the regulation of all

deliberative bodies, whether of a public or private nature. But lodges of

Freemasons differ so much in their organization and character from other

societies, that this law will, in very few cases, be found applicable;

and, indeed, in many positively inapplicable to them. The rules,

therefore, for the government of masonic lodges are in general to be

deduced from the usages of the Order, from traditional or written

authority, and where both of them are silent, from analogy to the

character of the institution. To each of these sources, therefore, I shall

apply, in the course of the present chapter, and in some few instances,

where the parliamentary law coincides with our own, reference will be made

to the authority of the best writers on that science.

Section I.

_Of the Order of Business._

When the Brethren have been "congregated," or called together by the

presiding officer, the first thing to be attended to is the ceremony of

opening the lodge. The consideration of this subject, as it is

sufficiently detailed in our ritual, will form no part of the present

work.

The lodge having been opened, the next thing to be attended to is the

reading of the minutes of the last communication. The minutes having been

read, the presiding officer will put the question on their confirmation,

having first inquired of the Senior and Junior Wardens, and lastly of the

Brethren "around the lodge," whether they have any alterations to propose.

It must be borne in mind, that the question of confirmation is simply a

question whether the Secretary has faithfully and correctly recorded the

transactions of the lodge. If, therefore, it can be satisfactorily shown

by any one that there is a mis-entry, or the omission of an entry, this is

the time to correct it; and where the matter is of sufficient importance,

and the recording officer, or any member disputes the charge of error, the

vote of the lodge will be taken on the subject, and the journal will be

amended or remain as written, according to the opinion so expressed by the

majority of the members. As this is, however, a mere question of memory,

it must be apparent that those members only who were present at the

previous communication, the records of which are under examination, are

qualified to express a fair opinion. All others should ask and be

permitted to be excused from voting.

As no special communication can alter or amend the proceedings of a

regular one, it is not deemed necessary to present the records of the

latter to the inspection of the former. This preliminary reading of the

minutes is, therefore, always omitted at special communications.

After the reading of the minutes, unfinished business, such as motions

previously submitted and reports of committees previously appointed, will

take the preference of all other matters. Special communications being

called for the consideration of some special subject, that subject must of

course claim the priority of consideration over all others.

In like manner, where any business has been specially and specifically

postponed to another communication, it constitutes at that communication

what is called, in parliamentary law, "the order of the day," and may at

any time in the course of the evening be called up, to the exclusion of

all other business.

The lodge may, however, at its discretion, refuse to take up the

consideration of such order; for the same body which determined at one

time to consider a question, may at another time refuse to do so. This is

one of those instances in which parliamentary usage is applicable to the

government of a lodge. Jefferson says: "Where an order is made, that any

particular matter be taken up on any particular day, there a question is

to be put, when it is called for, Whether the house will now proceed to

that matter?" In a lodge, however, it is not the usage to propose such a

question, but the matter being called up, is discussed and acted on,

unless some Brother moves its postponement, when the question of

postponement is put.

But with these exceptions, the unfinished business must first be disposed

of, to avoid its accumulation and its possible subsequent neglect.[51]

New business will then be taken up in such order as the local bye-laws

prescribe, or the wisdom of the Worshipful Master may suggest.

In a discussion, when any member wishes to speak, he must stand up in his

place, and address himself not to the lodge, nor to any particular

Brother, but to the presiding officer, styling him "Worshipful."

When two or more members rise nearly together, the presiding officer

determines who is entitled to speak, and calls him by his name, whereupon

he proceeds, unless he voluntarily sits down, and gives way to the other.

The ordinary rules of courtesy, which should govern a masonic body above

all other societies, as well as the general usage of deliberative bodies,

require that the one first up should be entitled to the floor. But the

decision of this fact is left entirely to the Master, or presiding

officer.

Whether a member be entitled to speak once or twice to the same question,

is left to the regulation of the local bye-laws of every lodge. But, under

all circumstances, it seems to be conceded, that a member may rise at any

time with the permission of the presiding officer, or for the purpose of

explanation.

A member may be called to order by any other while speaking, for the use

of any indecorous remark, personal allusion, or irrelevant matter; but

this must be done in a courteous and conciliatory manner, and the question

of order will at once be decided by the presiding officer.

No Brother is to be interrupted while speaking, except for the purpose of

calling him to order, or to make a necessary explanation; nor are any

separate conversations, or, as they are called in our ancient charges,

"private committees," to be allowed.

Every member of the Order is, in the course of the debate as well as at

all other times in the lodge, to be addressed by the title of "Brother,"

and no secular or worldly titles are ever to be used.

In accordance with the principles of justice, the parliamentary usage is

adopted, which permits the mover of a resolution to make the concluding

speech, that he may reply to all those who have spoken against it, and sum

up the arguments in its favor. And it would be a breach of order as well

as of courtesy for any of his opponents to respond to this final argument

of the mover.

It is within the discretion of the Master, at any time in the course of

the evening, to suspend the business of the lodge for the purpose of

proceeding to the ceremony of initiation, for the "work" of Masonry, as it

is technically called, takes precedence of all other business.

When all business, both old and new, and the initiation of candidates, if

there be any, has been disposed of, the presiding officer inquires of the

officers and members if there be anything more to be proposed before

closing. Custom has prescribed a formulary for making this inquiry, which

is in the following words.

The Worshipful Master, addressing the Senior and Junior Wardens and then

the Brethren, successively, says: "Brother Senior, have you anything to

offer in the West for the good of Masonry in general or of this lodge in

particular? Anything in the South, Brother Junior? Around the lodge,

Brethren?" The answers to these inquiries being in the negative on the

part of the Wardens, and silence on that of the craft, the Master proceeds

to close the lodge in the manner prescribed in the ritual.

The reading of the minutes of the evening, not for confirmation, but for

suggestion, lest anything may have been omitted, should always precede the

closing ceremonies, unless, from the lateness of the hour, it be dispensed

with by the members.

Section II.

_Of Appeals from the Decision of the Chair._

Freemasonry differs from all other institutions, in permitting no appeal

to the lodge from the decision of the presiding officer. The Master is

supreme in his lodge, so far as the lodge is concerned. He is amenable

for his conduct, in the government of the lodge, not to its members, but

to the Grand Lodge alone. In deciding points of order as well as graver

matters, no appeal can be taken from that decision to the lodge. If an

appeal were proposed, it would be his duty, for the preservation of

discipline, to refuse to put the question. It is, in fact, wrong that the

Master should even by courtesy permit such an appeal to be taken; because,

as the Committee of Correspondence of the Grand Lodge of Tennessee have

wisely remarked, by the admission of such appeals by _courtesy_, "is

established ultimately a precedent from which will be claimed _the right

to take_ appeals."[52] If a member is aggrieved with the conduct or the

decisions of the Master, he has his redress by an appeal to the Grand

Lodge, which will of course see that the Master does not rule his lodge

"in an unjust or arbitrary manner." But such a thing as an appeal from the

Master to the lodge is unknown in Masonry.

This, at first view, may appear to be giving too despotic a power to the

Master. But a little reflection will convince any one that there can be

but slight danger of oppression from one so guarded and controlled as the

Master is by the obligations of his office and the superintendence of the

Grand Lodge, while the placing in the hands of the craft so powerful, and,

with bad spirits, so annoying a privilege as that of immediate appeal,

would necessarily tend to impair the energies and lessen the dignity of

the Master, at the same time that it would be totally subversive of that

spirit of strict discipline which pervades every part of the institution,

and to which it is mainly indebted for its prosperity and perpetuity.

In every case where a member supposes himself to be aggrieved by the

decision of the Master, he should make his appeal to the Grand Lodge.

It is scarcely necessary to add, that a Warden or Past Master, presiding

in the absence of the Master, assumes for the time all the rights and

prerogatives of the Master.

Section III.

_Of the Mode of Taking the Question._

The question in Masonry is not taken _viva voce_ or by "aye" and "nay."

This should always be done by "a show of hands." The regulation on this

subject was adopted not later than the year 1754, at which time the Book

of Constitutions was revised, "and the necessary alterations and additions

made, consistent with the laws and rules of Masonry," and accordingly, in

the edition published in the following year, the regulation is laid down

in these words--"The opinions or votes of the members are always to be

signified by each holding up one of his hands: which uplifted hands the

Grand Wardens are to count; unless the number of hands be so unequal as to

render the counting useless. Nor should any other kind of division be ever

admitted among Masons."[53]

Calling for the yeas and nays has been almost universally condemned as an

unmasonic practice, nor should any Master allow it to be resorted to in

his lodge.

Moving the "previous question," a parliamentary invention for stopping all

discussion, is still more at variance with the liberal and harmonious

spirit which should distinguish masonic debates, and is, therefore, never

to be permitted in a lodge.

Section IV.

_Of Adjournments._

Adjournment is a term not recognized in Masonry. There are but two ways in

which the communication of a lodge can be terminated; and these are either

by _closing_ the lodge, or by _calling from labor to refreshment_. In the

former case the business of the communication is finally disposed of until

the next communication; in the latter the lodge is still supposed to be

open and may resume its labors at any time indicated by the Master.

But both the time of closing the lodge and of calling it from labor to

refreshment is to be determined by the absolute will and the free judgment

of the Worshipful Master, to whom alone is intrusted the care of "setting

the craft to work, and giving them wholesome instruction for labor." He

alone is responsible to the Grand Master and the Grand Lodge, that his

lodge shall be opened, continued, and closed in harmony; and as it is by

his "will and pleasure" only that it is opened, so is it by his "will and

pleasure" only that it can be closed. Any attempt, therefore, on the part

of the lodge to entertain a motion for adjournment would be an

infringement of this prerogative of the Master. Such a motion is,

therefore, always out of order, and cannot be; and cannot be acted on.

The rule that a lodge cannot adjourn, but remain in session until closed

by the Master, derives an authoritative sanction also from the following

clause in the fifth of the Old Charges.

"All Masons employed shall meekly receive their wages without murmuring or

mutiny, _and not desert the Master till the work is finished_."

Section V.

_Of the Appointment of Committees._

It is the prerogative of the Master to appoint all Committees, unless by a

special resolution provision has been made that a committee shall

otherwise be appointed.

The Master is also, _ex officio_, chairman of every committee which he

chooses to attend, although he may not originally have been named a member

of such committee. But he may, if he chooses, waive this privilege; yet he

may, at any time during the session of the committee, reassume his

inherent prerogative of governing the craft at all times when in his

presence, and therefore take the chair.

Section VI.

_Of the Mode of Keeping the Minutes._

Masonry is preeminently an institution of forms, and hence, as was to be

expected, there is a particular form provided for recording the

proceedings of a lodge. Perhaps the best method of communicating this form

to the reader will be, to record the proceedings of a supposititious

meeting or communication.

The following form, therefore, embraces the most important transactions

that usually occur during the session of a lodge, and it may serve as an

exemplar, for the use of secretaries.

"A regular communication of ---- Lodge, NO. ----, was holden at ----; on

----, the ---- day of ----A.: L.: 58--.

Present.

Bro.: A. B----, W.: Master.

" B. C----, S.: Warden.

" C. D----, J.: Warden.

" D. E----, Treasurer.

" E. F----, Secretary.

" F. G----, S.: Deacon.

" G. H----, J.: Deacon.

" H. I----, } Stewards.

" I. K----, }

" K. L----, Tiler.

_Members._

Bro.: L. M----

M. N----

N. O----

O. P----

_Visitors._

P. Q----

Q. R----

R. S----

S. T----

The Lodge was opened in due form on the third degree of Masonry.

"The minutes of the regular communication of ---- were read and

confirmed.[54]

"The committee on the petition of Mr. C. B., a candidate for initiation,

reported favorably, whereupon he was balloted for and duly elected.

"The committee on the application of Mr. D. C., a candidate for

initiation, reported favorably, whereupon he was balloted for, and the box

appearing foul he was rejected.

"The committee on the application of Mr. E. D., a candidate for initiation,

having reported unfavorably, he was declared rejected without a ballot.

"The petition of Mr. F. E., a candidate for initiation, having been

withdrawn by his friends, he was declared rejected without a ballot.

"A petition for initiation from Mr. G.F., inclosing the usual amount and

recommended by Bros. C. D.---- and H. I.----, was referred to a committee

of investigation consisting of Bros. G. H.----, L. M.----, and O. P.----.

"Bro. S.R., an Entered Apprentice, having applied for advancement, was

duly elected to take the second degree; and Bro. W.Y., a Fellow Craft,

was, on his application for advancement, duly elected to take the third

degree.

"A letter was read from Mrs. T. V.----, the widow of a Master Mason, when

the sum of twenty dollars was voted for her relief.

"The amendment to article 10, section 5 of the bye-laws, proposed by Bro.

M. N. ---- at the communication of ----, was read a third time, adopted by

a constitutional majority and ordered to be sent to the Grand Lodge for

approval and confirmation.

"The Lodge of Master Masons was then closed, and a lodge of Entered

Apprentices opened in due form.

"Mr. C. B., a candidate for initiation, being in waiting, was duly

prepared, brought forward and initiated as an Entered Apprentice, he

paying the usual fee.

"The Lodge of Entered Apprentices was then closed, and a Lodge of Fellow

Crafts opened in due form.

"Bro. S. R., an Entered Apprentice, being in waiting, was duly prepared,

brought forward and passed to the degree of a Fellow Craft, he paying the

usual fee.

"The Lodge of Fellow Crafts was then closed, and a lodge of Master Masons

opened in due form.

"Bro. W. Y., a Fellow Craft, being in waiting, was duly prepared, brought

forward and raised to the sublime degree of a Master Mason, he paying the

usual fee.

Amount received this evening, as follows:

Petition of Mr. G. F., $5

Fee of Bro. C. B., 5

do. of Bro. S. R., 5

do. of Bro. W. Y., 5--Total, $20

all of which was paid over to the Treasurer.

There being no further business, the lodge was closed in due form and

harmony.

E. F----,

_Secretary._

Such is the form which has been adopted as the most convenient mode of

recording the transactions of a lodge. These minutes must be read, at the

close of the meeting, that the Brethren may suggest any necessary

alterations or additions, and then at the beginning of the next regular

meeting, that they may be confirmed, after which they should be

transcribed from the rough Minute Book in which they were first entered

into the permanent Record Book of the lodge.

Book Third.

The Law Of Individuals.

Passing from the consideration of the law, which refers to Masons in their

congregated masses, as the constituents of Grand and Subordinate Lodges, I

next approach the discussion of the law which governs, them in their

individual capacity, whether in the inception of their masonic life, as

candidates for initiation, or in their gradual progress through each of

the three degrees, for it will be found that a Mason, as he assumes new

and additional obligations, and is presented with increased light,

contracts new duties, and is invested with new prerogatives and

privileges.

Chapter I.

Of the Qualifications of Candidates.

The qualifications of a candidate for initiation into the mysteries of

Freemasonry, are four-fold in their character--moral, physical,

intellectual and political.

The moral character is intended to secure the respectability of the Order,

because, by the worthiness of its candidates, their virtuous deportment,

and good reputation, will the character of the institution be judged,

while the admission of irreligious libertines and contemners of the moral

law would necessarily impair its dignity and honor.

The physical qualifications of a candidate contribute to the utility of

the Order, because he who is deficient in any of his limbs or members, and

who is not in the possession of all his natural senses and endowments, is

unable to perform, with pleasure to himself or credit to the fraternity,

those peculiar labors in which all should take an equal part. He thus

becomes a drone in the hive, and so far impairs the usefulness of the

lodge, as "a place where Freemasons assemble to work, and to instruct and

improve themselves in the mysteries of their ancient science."

The intellectual qualifications refer to the security of the Order;

because they require that its mysteries shall be confided only to those

whose mental developments are such as to enable them properly to

appreciate, and faithfully to preserve from imposition, the secrets thus

entrusted to them. It is evident, for instance, that an idiot could

neither understand the hidden doctrines that might be communicated to him,

nor could he so secure such portions as he might remember, in the

"depositary of his heart," as to prevent the designing knave from worming

them out of him; for, as the wise Solomon has said, "a fool's mouth is his

destruction, and his lips are the snare of his soul."

The political qualifications are intended to maintain the independence of

the Order; because its obligations and privileges are thus confided only

to those who, from their position in society, are capable of obeying the

one, and of exercising the other without the danger of let or hindrance

from superior authority.

Of the moral, physical and political qualifications of a candidate there

can be no doubt, as they are distinctly laid down in the ancient charges

and constitutions. The intellectual are not so readily decided.

These four-fold qualifications may be briefly summed up in the following

axioms.

_Morally_, the candidate must be a man of irreproachable conduct, a

believer in the existence of God, and living "under the tongue of good

report."

_Physically_, he must be a man of at least twenty-one years of age,

upright in body, with the senses of a man, not deformed or dismembered,

but with hale and entire limbs as a _man_ ought to be.

_Intellectually_, he must be a man in the full possession of his

intellects, not so young that his mind shall not have been formed, nor so

old that it shall have fallen into dotage; neither a fool, an idiot, nor a

madman; and with so much education as to enable him to avail himself of

the teachings of Masonry, and to cultivate at his leisure a knowledge of

the principles and doctrines of our royal art.

_Politically_, he must be in the unrestrained enjoyment of his civil and

personal liberty, and this, too, by the birthright of inheritance, and not

by its subsequent acquisition, in consequence of his release from

hereditary bondage.

The lodge which strictly demands these qualifications of its candidates

may have fewer members than one less strict, but it will undoubtedly have

better ones.

But the importance of the subject demands for each class of the

qualifications a separate section, and a more extended consideration.

Section I.

_Of the Moral Qualifications of Candidates._

The old charges state, that "a Mason is obliged by his tenure to obey the

moral law." It is scarcely necessary to say, that the phrase, "moral law,"

is a technical expression of theology, and refers to the Ten Commandments,

which are so called, because they define the regulations necessary for the

government of the morals and manners of men. The habitual violation of any

one of these commands would seem, according to the spirit of the Ancient

Constitutions, to disqualify a candidate for Masonry.

The same charges go on to say, in relation to the religious character of a

Mason, that he should not be "a stupid atheist, nor an irreligious

libertine." A denier of the existence of a Supreme Architect of the

Universe cannot, of course, be obligated as a Mason, and, accordingly,

there is no landmark more certain than that which excludes every atheist

from the Order.

The word "libertine" has, at this day, a meaning very different from what

it bore when the old charges were compiled. It then signified what we now

call a "free-thinker," or disbeliever in the divine revelation of the

Scriptures. This rule would therefore greatly abridge the universality and

tolerance of the Institution, were it not for the following qualifying

clause in the same instrument:--

"Though in ancient times Masons were charged in every country to be of the

religion of that country or nation, whatever it was, yet it is now thought

more expedient only to oblige them to that religion in which all men

agree, leaving their particular opinions to themselves; that is, to be

good men and true, or men of honor and honesty, by whatever denominations

or persuasions they may be distinguished."

The construction now given universally to the religious qualification of a

candidate, is simply that he shall have a belief in the existence and

superintending control of a Supreme Being.

These old charges from which we derive the whole of our doctrine as to the

moral qualifications of a candidate, further prescribe as to the political

relations of a Mason, that he is to be "a peaceable subject to the civil

powers, wherever he resides or works, and is never to be concerned in

plots and conspiracies against the peace and welfare of the nation, nor to

behave himself undutifully to inferior magistrates. He is cheerfully to

conform to every lawful authority; to uphold on every occasion the

interest of the community, and zealously promote the prosperity of his own

country."

Such being the characteristics of a true Mason, the candidate who desires

to obtain that title, must show his claim to the possession of these

virtues; and hence the same charges declare, in reference to these moral

qualifications, that "The persons made Masons, or admitted members of a

lodge, must be good and true men--no immoral or scandalous men, but of

good report."

Section II.

_Of the Physical Qualifications of Candidates._

The physical qualifications of a candidate refer to his sex, his age, and

the condition of his limbs.

The first and most important requisite of a candidate is, that he shall be

"_a man_." No woman can be made a Mason. This landmark is so indisputable,

that it would be wholly superfluous to adduce any arguments or authority

in its support.

As to age, the old charges prescribe the rule, that the candidate must be

"of mature and discreet age." But what is the precise period when one is

supposed to have arrived at this maturity and discretion, cannot be

inferred from any uniform practice of the craft in different countries.

The provisions of the civil law, which make twenty-one the age of

maturity, have, however, been generally followed. In this country the

regulation is general, that the candidate must be twenty-one years of age.

Such, too, was the regulation adopted by the General Assembly, which met

on the 27th Dec., 1663, and which prescribed that "no person shall be

accepted unless he be twenty-one years old or more."[55] In Prussia, the

candidate is required to be twenty-five; in England, twenty-one,[56]

"unless by dispensation from the Grand Master, or Provincial Grand

Master;" in Ireland, twenty-one, except "by dispensation from the Grand

Master, or the Grand Lodge;" in France, twenty-one, unless the candidate

be the son of a Mason who has rendered important service to the craft,

with the consent of his parent or guardian, or a young man who has served

six months with his corps in the army--such persons may be initiated at

eighteen; in Switzerland, the age of qualification is fixed at twenty-one,

and in Frankfort-on-Mayn, at twenty. In this country, as I have already

observed, the regulation of 1663 is rigidly enforced, and no candidate,

who has not arrived at the age of twenty-one, can be initiated.

Our ritual excludes "an old man in his dotage" equally with a "young man

under age." But as dotage signifies imbecility of mind, this subject will

be more properly considered under the head of intellectual qualifications.

The physical qualifications, which refer to the condition of the

candidate's body and limbs, have given rise, within a few years past, to

a great amount of discussion and much variety of opinion. The regulation

contained in the old charges of 1721, which requires the candidate to be

"a perfect youth," has in some jurisdictions been rigidly enforced to the

very letter of the law, while in others it has been so completely

explained away as to mean anything or nothing. Thus, in South Carolina,

where the rule is rigid, the candidate is required to be neither deformed

nor dismembered, but of hale and entire limbs, as a man ought to be, while

in Maine, a deformed person may be admitted, provided "the deformity is

not such as to prevent him from being instructed in the arts and mysteries

of Freemasonry."

The first written law which we find on this subject is that which was

enacted by the General Assembly held in 1663, under the Grand Mastership

of the Earl of St. Albans, and which declares "that no person shall

hereafter be accepted a Freemason but such as are of _able_ body."[57]

Twenty years after, in the reign of James II., or about the year 1683, it

seems to have been found necessary, more exactly to define the meaning of

this expression, "of able body," and accordingly we find, among the

charges ordered to be read to a Master on his installation, the following

regulation:

"Thirdly, that he that be made be able in all degrees; that is, free-born,

of a good kindred, true, and no bondsman, and that _he have his right

limbs as a man ought to have."_[58]

The old charges, published in the original Book of Constitutions in 1723,

contain the following regulation:

"No Master should take an Apprentice, unless he be a perfect youth having

no maim or defect that may render him uncapable of learning the art."

Notwithstanding the positive demand for _perfection_, and the positive and

explicit declaration that he must have _no maim or defect_, the remainder

of the sentence has, within a few years past, by some Grand Lodges, been

considered as a qualifying clause, which would permit the admission of

candidates whose physical defects did not exceed a particular point. But,

in perfection, there can be no degrees of comparison, and he who is

required to be perfect, is required to be so without modification or

diminution. That which is _perfect_ is complete in all its parts, and, by

a deficiency in any portion of its constituent materials, it becomes not

less perfect, (which expression would be a solecism in grammar,) but at

once by the deficiency ceases to be perfect at all--it then becomes

imperfect. In the interpretation of a law, "words," says Blackstone, "are

generally to be understood in their usual and most known signification,"

and then "perfect" would mean, "complete, entire, neither defective nor

redundant." But another source of interpretation is, the "comparison of a

law with other laws, that are made by the same legislator, that have some

affinity with the subject, or that expressly relate to the same

point."[59] Applying this law of the jurists, we shall have no difficulty

in arriving at the true signification of the word "perfect," if we refer

to the regulation of 1683, of which the clause in question appears to have

been an exposition. Now, the regulation of 1683 says, in explicit terms,

that the candidate must "_have his right limbs as a man ought to have_."

Comparing the one law with the other, there can be no doubt that the

requisition of Masonry is and always has been, that admission could only

be granted to him who was neither deformed nor dismembered, but of hale

and entire limbs as a man should be.

But another, and, as Blackstone terms it, "the most universal and

effectual way of discovering the true meaning of a law" is, to consider

"the reason and spirit of it, or the cause which moved the legislator to

enact it." Now, we must look for the origin of the law requiring physical

perfection, not to the formerly operative character of the institution,

(for there never was a time when it was not speculative as well as

operative,) but to its symbolic nature. In the ancient temple, every stone

was required to be _perfect_, for a perfect stone was the symbol of truth.

In our mystic association, every Mason represents a stone in that

spiritual temple, "that house not made with hands, eternal in the

heavens," of which the temple of Solomon was the type. Hence it is

required that he should present himself, like the perfect stone in the

material temple, a perfect man in the spiritual building. "The symbolic

relation of each member of the Order to its mystic temple, forbids the

idea," says Bro. W.S. Rockwell, of Georgia,[60] "that its constituent

portions, its living stones, should be less perfect or less a type of

their great original, than the immaculate material which formed the

earthly dwelling place of the God of their adoration." If, then, as I

presume it will be readily conceded, by all except those who erroneously

suppose the institution to have been once wholly operative and afterwards

wholly speculative, perfection is required in a candidate, not for the

physical reason that he may be enabled to give the necessary signs of

recognition, but because the defect would destroy the symbolism of that

perfect stone which every Mason is supposed to represent in the spiritual

temple, we thus arrive at a knowledge of the causes which moved the

legislators of Masonry to enact the law, and we see at once, and without

doubt, that the words _perfect youth_ are to be taken in an unqualified

sense, as signifying one who has "his right limbs as a man ought to

have."[61]

It is, however, but fair to state that the remaining clause of the old

charge, which asserts that the candidate must have no maim or defect that

may render him incapable of learning the art, has been supposed to intend

a modification of the word "perfect," and to permit the admission of one

whose maim or defect was not of such a nature as to prevent his learning

the art of Masonry. But I would respectfully suggest that a criticism of

this kind is based upon a mistaken view of the import of the words. The

sentence is not that the candidate must have no such maim or defect as

might, by possibility, prevent him from learning the art; though this is

the interpretation given by those who are in favor of admitting slightly

maimed candidates. It is, on the contrary, so worded as to give a

consequential meaning to the word "_that_." He must have no maim or defect

_that_ may render him incapable; that is, _because_, by having such maim

or defect, he would be rendered incapable of acquiring our art.

In the Ahiman Rezon published by Laurence Dermott in 1764, and adopted for

the government of the Grand Lodge of Ancient York Masons in England, and

many of the Provincial Grand and subordinate lodges of America, the

regulation is laid down that candidates must be "men of good report,

free-born, of mature age, not deformed nor dismembered at the time of

their making, and no woman or eunuch." It is true that at the present day

this book possesses no legal authority among the craft; but I quote it, to

show what was the interpretation given to the ancient law by a large

portion, perhaps a majority, of the English and American Masons in the

middle of the eighteenth century.

A similar interpretation seems at all times to have been given by the

Grand Lodges of the United States, with the exception of some, who, within

a few years past, have begun to adopt a more latitudinarian construction.

In Pennsylvania it was declared, in 1783, that candidates are not to be

"deformed or dismembered at the time of their making."

In South Carolina the book of Constitutions, first published in 1807,

requires that "every person desiring admission must be upright in body,

not deformed or dismembered at the time of making, but of hale and entire

limbs, as a man ought to be."

In the "Ahiman Rezon and Masonic Ritual," published by order of the Grand

Lodge of North Carolina and Tennessee, in the year 1805, candidates are

required to be "hale and sound, not deformed or dismembered at the time of

their making."[62]

Maryland, in 1826, sanctioned the Ahiman Rezon of Cole, which declares

the law in precisely the words of South Carolina, already quoted.

In 1823, the Grand Lodge of Missouri unanimously adopted a report, which

declared that all were to be refused admission who were not "sound in mind

and _all their members_," and she adopted a resolution asserting that "the

Grand Lodge cannot grant a letter or dispensation to a subordinate lodge

working under its jurisdiction, to initiate any person maimed, disabled,

or wanting the qualifications establishing by ancient usage."[63]

But it is unnecessary to multiply instances. There never seems to have

been any deviation from the principle that required absolute physical

perfection, until, within a few years, the spirit of expediency[64] has

induced some Grand Lodges to propose a modified construction of the law,

and to admit those whose maims or deformities were not such as to prevent

them from complying with the ceremonial of initiation. Still, a large

number of the Grand Lodges have stood fast by the ancient landmark, and it

is yet to be hoped that all will return to their first allegiance. The

subject is an important one, and, therefore, a few of the more recent

authorities, in behalf of the old law may with advantage be cited.

"We have examined carefully the arguments 'pro and con,' that have

accompanied the proceedings of the several Grand Lodges, submitted to us,

and the conviction has been forced upon our minds, even against our wills,

that we depart from the ancient landmarks and usages of Masonry, whenever

we admit an individual wanting in one of the human senses, or who is in

any particular maimed or deformed."--_Committee of Correspondence G. Lodge

of Georgia_, 1848, _page_ 36.

"The rationale of the law, excluding persons physically imperfect and

deformed, lies deeper and is more ancient than the source ascribed to

it.[65] It is grounded on a principle recognized in the earliest ages of

the world; and will be found identical with that which obtained among the

ancient Jews. In this respect the Levitical law was the same as the

masonic, which would not allow any 'to go in unto the vail' who had a

blemish--a blind man, or a lame, or a man that was broken-footed, or

broken-handed, or a dwarf, &c....

"The learned and studious Freemasonic antiquary can satisfactorily explain

the metaphysics of this requisition in our Book of Constitutions. For the

true and faithful Brother it sufficeth to know that such a requisition

exists. He will prize it the more because of its antiquity.... No man can

in perfection be 'made a Brother,' no man can truly 'learn our mysteries,'

and practice them, or 'do the work of a Freemason,' if he is not a _man_

with body free from maim, defect and deformity."--_Report of a Special

Committee of the Grand Lodge of New York, in_ 1848.[66]

"The records of this Grand Lodge may be confidently appealed to, for

proofs of her repeated refusal to permit maimed persons to be initiated,

and not simply on the ground that ancient usage forbids it, but because

the fundamental constitution of the Order--the ancient charges--forbid

it."--_Committee of Correspondence of New York, for 1848, p. 70._

"The lodges subordinate to this Grand Lodge are hereby required, in the

initiation of applicants for Masonry, to adhere to the ancient law (as

laid down in our printed books), which says he shall be of _entire

limbs_"--_Resolution of the G.L. of Maryland, November, 1848._

"I received from the lodge at Ashley a petition to initiate into our Order

a gentleman of high respectability, who, unfortunately, has been maimed. I

refused my assent.... I have also refused a similar request from the lodge

of which I am a member. The fact that the most distinguished masonic body

on earth has recently removed one of the landmarks, should teach _us_ to

be careful how we touch those ancient boundaries."--_Address of the Grand

Master of New Jersey in 1849._

"The Grand Lodge of Florida adopted such a provision in her constitution,

[the qualifying clause permitting the initiation of a maimed person, if

his deformity was not such as to prevent his instruction], but more

mature reflection, and more light reflected from our sister Grand Lodges,

caused it to be stricken from our constitution."--_Address of Gov. Tho.

Brown, Grand Master of Florida in_ 1849.

"As to the physical qualifications, the Ahiman Rezon leaves no doubt on

the subject, but expressly declares, that every applicant for initiation

must be a man, free-born, of lawful age, in the perfect enjoyment of his

senses, hale, and sound, and not deformed or dismembered; this is one of

the ancient landmarks of the Order, which it is in the power of no body of

men to change. A man having but one arm, or one leg, or who is in anyway

deprived of his due proportion of limbs and members, is as incapable of

initiation as a woman."--_Encyclical Letter of the Grand Lodge of South

Carolina to its subordinates in_ 1849.

Impressed, then, by the weight of these authorities, which it would be

easy, but is unnecessary, to multiply--guided by a reference to the

symbolic and speculative (not operative) reason of the law--and governed

by the express words of the regulation of 1683--I am constrained to

believe that the spirit as well as the letter of our ancient landmarks

require that a candidate for admission should be perfect in all his

parts, that is, neither redundant nor deficient, neither deformed nor

dismembered, but of hale and entire limbs, as a man ought to be.

Section III.

_Of the Intellectual Qualifications of Candidates._

The Old Charges and Ancient Constitutions are not as explicit in relation

to the intellectual as to the moral and physical qualifications of

candidates, and, therefore, in coming to a decision on this subject, we

are compelled to draw our conclusions from analogy, from common sense, and

from the peculiar character of the institution. The question that here

suggests itself on this subject is, what particular amount of human

learning is required as a constitutional qualification for initiation?

During a careful examination of every ancient document to which I have had

access, I have met with no positive enactment forbidding the admission of

uneducated persons, even of those who can neither read nor write. The

unwritten, as well as the written laws of the Order, require that the

candidate shall be neither a _fool_ nor an _idiot_, but that he shall

possess a discreet judgment, and be in the enjoyment of all the senses of

a man. But one who is unable to subscribe his name, or to read it when

written, might still very easily prove himself to be within the

requirements of this regulation. The Constitutions of England, formed

since the union of the two Grand Lodges in 1813, are certainly explicit

enough on this subject. They require even more than a bare knowledge of

reading and writing, for, in describing the qualifications of a candidate,

they say:

"He should be a lover of the liberal arts and sciences, and have made some

progress in one or other of them; and he must, previous to his initiation,

subscribe his name at full length, to a declaration of the following

import," etc. And in a note to this regulation, it is said, "Any

individual who cannot write is, consequently, ineligible to be admitted

into the Order." If this authority were universal in its character, there

would be no necessity for a further discussion of the subject. But the

modern constitutions of the Grand Lodge of England are only of force

within its own jurisdiction, and we are therefore again compelled to

resort to a mode of reasoning for the proper deduction of our conclusions

on this subject.

It is undoubtedly true that in the early period of the world, when

Freemasonry took its origin, the arts of reading and writing were not so

generally disseminated among all classes of the community as they now are,

when the blessings of a common education can be readily and cheaply

obtained. And it may, therefore, be supposed that among our ancient

Brethren there were many who could neither read nor write. But after all,

this is a mere assumption, which, although it may be based on probability,

has no direct evidence for its support. And, on the other hand, we see

throughout all our ancient regulations, that a marked distinction was made

by our rulers between the Freemason and the Mason who was not free; as,

for instance, in the conclusion of the fifth chapter of the Ancient

Charges, where it is said: "No laborer shall be employed in the common

work of Masonry, nor shall Freemasons work with those who are not free,

without an urgent necessity." And this would seem to indicate a higher

estimation by the fraternity of their own character, which might be

derived from their greater attainments in knowledge. That in those days

the ordinary operative masons could neither read nor write, is a fact

established by history. But it does not follow that the Freemasons, who

were a separate society of craftsmen, were in the same unhappy category;

it is even probable, that the fact that they were not so, but that they

were, in comparison with the unaccepted masons, educated men, may have

been the reason of the distinction made between these two classes of

workmen.

But further, all the teachings of Freemasonry are delivered on the

assumption that the recipients are men of some education, with the means

of improving their minds and increasing their knowledge. Even the Entered

Apprentice is reminded, by the rough and perfect ashlars, of the

importance and necessity of a virtuous education, in fitting him for the

discharge of his duties. To the Fellow Craft, the study of the liberal

arts and sciences is earnestly recommended; and indeed, that sacred

hieroglyphic, the knowledge of whose occult signification constitutes the

most solemn part of his instruction, presupposes an acquaintance at least

with the art of reading. And the Master Mason is expressly told in the

explanation of the forty-seventh problem of Euclid, as one of the symbols

of the third degree, that it was introduced into Masonry to teach the

Brethren the value of the arts and sciences, and that the Mason, like the

discoverer of the problem, our ancient Brother Pythagoras, should be a

diligent cultivator of learning. Our lectures, too, abound in allusions

which none but a person of some cultivation of mind could understand or

appreciate, and to address them, or any portion of our charges which refer

to the improvement of the intellect and the augmentation of knowledge, to

persons who can neither read nor write, would be, it seems to us, a

mockery unworthy of the sacred character of our institution.

From these facts and this method of reasoning, I deduce the conclusion

that the framers of Masonry, in its present organization as a speculative

institution, must have intended to admit none into its fraternity whose

minds had not received some preliminary cultivation, and I am, therefore,

clearly of opinion, that a person who cannot read and write is not legally

qualified for admission.

As to the inexpediency of receiving such candidates, there can be no

question or doubt. If Masonry be, as its disciples claim for it, a

scientific institution, whose great object is to improve the understanding

and to enlarge and adorn the mind, whose character cannot be appreciated,

and whose lessons of symbolic wisdom cannot be acquired, without much

studious application, how preposterous would it be to place, among its

disciples, one who had lived to adult years, without having known the

necessity or felt the ambition for a knowledge of the alphabet of his

mother tongue? Such a man could make no advancement in the art of Masonry;

and while he would confer no substantial advantage on the institution, he

would, by his manifest incapacity and ignorance, detract, in the eyes of

strangers, from its honor and dignity as an intellectual society.

Idiots and madmen are excluded from admission into the Order, for the

evident reason that the former from an absence, and the latter from a

perversion of the intellectual faculties, are incapable of comprehending

the objects, or of assuming the responsibilities and obligations of the

institution.

A question here suggests itself whether a person of present sound mind,

but who had formerly been deranged, can legally be initiated. The answer

to this question turns on the fact of his having perfectly recovered. If

the present sanity of the applicant is merely a lucid interval, which

physicians know to be sometimes vouched to lunatics, with the absolute

certainty, or at best, the strong probability, of an eventual return to a

state of mental derangement, he is not, of course, qualified for

initiation. But if there has been a real and durable recovery (of which a

physician will be a competent judge), then there can be no possible

objection to his admission, if otherwise eligible. We are not to look to

what the candidate once was, but to what he now is.

Dotage, or the mental imbecility produced by excessive old age, is also a

disqualification for admission. Distinguished as it is by puerile desires

and pursuits, by a failure of the memory, a deficiency of the judgment,

and a general obliteration of the mental powers, its external signs are

easily appreciated, and furnish at once abundant reason why, like idiots

and madmen, the superannuated dotard is unfit to be the recipient of our

mystic instructions.

Section IV.

_Of the Political Qualifications of Candidates._

The Constitutions of Masonry require, as the only qualification referring

to the political condition of the candidate, or his position in society,

that he shall be _free-born_. The slave, or even the man born in

servitude--though he may, subsequently, have obtained his liberty--is

excluded by the ancient regulations from initiation. The non-admission of

a slave seems to have been founded upon the best of reasons; because, as

Freemasonry involves a solemn contract, no one can legally bind himself to

its performance who is not a free agent and the master of his own actions.

That the restriction is extended to those who were originally in a servile

condition, but who may have since acquired their liberty, seems to depend

on the principle that birth, in a servile condition, is accompanied by a

degradation of mind and abasement of spirit, which no subsequent

disenthralment can so completely efface as to render the party qualified

to perform his duties, as a Mason, with that "freedom, fervency, and

zeal," which are said to have distinguished our ancient Brethren.

"Children," says Oliver, "cannot inherit a free and noble spirit except

they be born of a free woman."

The same usage existed in the spurious Freemasonry or the Mysteries of the

ancient world. There, no slave, or men born in slavery, could be

initiated; because, the prerequisites imperatively demanded that the

candidate should not only be a man of irreproachable manners, but also a

free-born denizen of the country in which the mysteries were celebrated.

Some masonic writers have thought that, in this regulation in relation to

free birth, some allusion is intended, both in the Mysteries and in

Freemasonry, to the relative conditions and characters of Isaac and

Ishmael. The former--the accepted one, to whom the promise was given--was

the son of a free woman, and the latter, who was cast forth to have "his

hand against every man, and every man's hand against him," was the child

of a slave. Wherefore, we read that Sarah demanded of Abraham, "Cast out

this bondwoman and her son; for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir

with my son." Dr. Oliver, in speaking of the grand festival with which

Abraham celebrated the weaning of Isaac, says, that he "had not paid the

same compliment at the weaning of Ishmael, because he was the son of a

bondwoman, and, consequently, could not be admitted to participate in the

Freemasonry of his father, which could only be conferred on free men born

of free women." The ancient Greeks were of the same opinion; for they used

the word δουλοπρεπεια or, "slave manners," to designate any very great

impropriety of manners.

The Grand Lodge of England extends this doctrine, that Masons should be

free in all their thoughts and actions, so far, that it will not permit

the initiation of a candidate who is only temporarily deprived of his

liberty, or even in a place of confinement. In the year 1782, the Master

of the Royal Military Lodge, at Woolwich, being confined, most probably

for debt, in the King's Bench prison, at London, the lodge, which was

itinerant in its character, and allowed to move from place to place with

its regiment, adjourned, with its warrant of constitution, to the Master

in prison, where several Masons were made. The Grand Lodge, being informed

of the circumstances, immediately summoned the Master and Wardens of the

lodge "to answer for their conduct in making Masons in the King's Bench

prison," and, at the same time, adopted a resolution, affirming that "it

is inconsistent with the principles of Freemasonry for any Freemason's

lodge to be held, for the purposes of making, passing, or raising Masons,

in any prison or place of confinement."

Section V.

_Of the Petition of Candidates for Admission, and the Action thereon_.

The application of a candidate to a lodge, for initiation, is called a

"petition." This petition should always be in writing, and generally

contains a statement of the petitioner's age, occupation, and place of

residence, and a declaration of the motives which have prompted the

application, which ought to be "a favorable opinion conceived of the

institution and a desire of knowledge."[67] This petition must be

recommended by at least two members of the lodge.

The petition must be read at a stated or regular communication of the

lodge, and referred to a committee of three members for an investigation

of the qualifications and character of the candidate. The committee having

made the necessary inquiries, will report the result at the next regular

communication and not sooner.

The authority for this deliberate mode of proceeding is to be found in the

fifth of the 39 General Regulations, which is in these words:

"No man can be made or admitted a member of a particular lodge, without

previous notice one month before given to the said lodge, in order to make

due inquiry into the reputation and capacity of the candidate; unless by

dispensation aforesaid."

The last clause in this article provides for the only way in which this

probation of a month can be avoided, and that is when the Grand Master,

for reasons satisfactory to himself, being such as will constitute what is

called (sometimes improperly) a case of emergency, shall issue a

dispensation permitting the lodge to proceed forthwith to the election.

But where this dispensation has not been issued, the committee should

proceed diligently and faithfully to the discharge of their responsible

duty. They must inquire into the moral, physical, intellectual and

political qualifications of the candidate, and make their report in

accordance with the result of their investigations.

The report cannot be made at a special communication, but must always be

presented at a regular one. The necessity of such a rule is obvious. As

the Master can at any time within his discretion convene a special meeting

of his lodge, it is evident that a presiding officer, if actuated by an

improper desire to intrude an unworthy and unpopular applicant upon the

craft, might easily avail himself for that purpose of an occasion when the

lodge being called for some other purpose, the attendance of the members

was small, and causing a ballot to be taken, succeed in electing a

candidate, who would, at a regular meeting, have been blackballed by some

of those who were absent from the special communication.

This regulation is promulgated by the Grand Lodge of England, in the

following words: "No person shall be made a Mason without a regular

proposition at one lodge and a ballot at the next regular stated lodge;"

it appears to have been almost universally adopted in similar language by

the Grand Lodges of this country; and, if the exact words of the law are

wanting in any of the Constitutions, the general usage of the craft has

furnished an equivalent authority for the regulation.

If the report of the committee is unfavorable, the candidate should be

considered as rejected, without any reference to a ballot. This rule is

also founded in reason. If the committee, after a due inquiry into the

character of the applicant, find the result so disadvantageous to him as

to induce them to make an unfavorable report on his application, it is to

be presumed that on a ballot they would vote against his admission, and as

their votes alone would be sufficient to reject him, it is held

unnecessary to resort in such a case to the supererogatory ordeal of the

ballot. It would, indeed, be an anomalous proceeding, and one which would

reflect great discredit on the motives and conduct of a committee of

inquiry, were its members first to report against the reception of a

candidate, and then, immediately afterwards, to vote in favor of his

petition. The lodges will not suppose, for the honor of their committees,

that such a proceeding will take place, and accordingly the unfavorable

report of the committee is always to be considered as a rejection.

Another reason for this regulation seems to be this. The fifth General

Regulation declares that no Lodge should ever make a Mason without "due

inquiry" into his character, and as the duty of making this inquiry is

entrusted to a competent committee, when that committee has reported that

the applicant is unworthy to be made a Mason, it would certainly appear to

militate against the spirit, if not the letter, of the regulation, for the

lodge, notwithstanding this report, to enter into a ballot on the

petition.

But should the committee of investigation report favorably, the lodge will

then proceed to a ballot for the candidate; but, as this forms a separate

and important step in the process of "making Masons," I shall make it the

subject of a distinct section.

Section VI.

_Of Balloting for Candidates._

The Thirty-nine Regulations do not explicitly prescribe the ballot-box as

the proper mode of testing the opinion of the lodge on the merits of a

petition for initiation. The sixth regulation simply says that the consent

of the members is to be "formally asked by the Master; and they are to

signify their assent or dissent _in their own prudent way_ either

virtually or in form, but with unanimity." Almost universal usage has,

however, sanctioned the ballot box and the use of black and white balls as

the proper mode of obtaining the opinion of the members.

From the responsibility of expressing this opinion, and of admitting a

candidate into the fraternity or of repulsing him from it, no Mason is

permitted to shrink. In balloting on a petition, therefore, every member

of the Lodge is expected to vote; nor can he be excused from the discharge

of this important duty, except by the unanimous consent of his Brethren.

All the members must, therefore, come up to the performance of this trust

with firmness, candor, and a full determination to do what is right--to

allow no personal timidity to forbid the deposit of a black ball, if the

applicant is unworthy, and no illiberal prejudices to prevent the

deposition of a white one, if the character and qualifications of the

candidate are unobjectionable. And in all cases where a member himself has

no personal or acquired knowledge of these qualifications, he should rely

upon and be governed by the recommendation of his Brethren of the

Committee of Investigation, who he has no right to suppose would make a

favorable report on the petition of an unworthy applicant.[68]

The great object of the ballot is, to secure the independence of the

voter; and, for this purpose, its secrecy should be inviolate. And this

secrecy of the ballot gives rise to a particular rule which necessarily

flows out of it.

No Mason can be called to an account for the vote which he has deposited.

The very secrecy of the ballot is intended to secure the independence and

irresponsibility to the lodge of the voter. And, although it is

undoubtedly a crime for a member to vote against the petition of an

applicant on account of private pique or personal prejudice, still the

lodge has no right to judge that such motives alone actuated him. The

motives of men, unless divulged by themselves, can be known only to God;

"and if," as Wayland says, "from any circumstances we are led to entertain

any doubts of the motives of men, we are bound to retain these doubts

within our own bosoms." Hence, no judicial notice can be or ought to be

taken by a lodge of a vote cast by a member, on the ground of his having

been influenced by improper motives, because it is impossible for the

lodge legally to arrive at the knowledge; in the first place, of the vote

that he has given, and secondly, of the motives by which he has been

controlled.

And even if a member voluntarily should divulge the nature of his vote and

of his motives, it is still exceedingly questionable whether the lodge

should take any notice of the act, because by so doing the independence of

the ballot might be impaired. It is through a similar mode of reasoning

that the Constitution of the United States provides, that the members of

Congress shall not be questioned, in any other place, for any speech or

debate in either House. As in this way the freedom of debate is preserved

in legislative bodies, so in like manner should the freedom of the ballot

be insured in lodges.

The sixth General Regulation requires unanimity in the ballot. Its

language is: "but 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."

This regulation, it will be remembered, was adopted in 1721. But in the

"New Regulations," adopted in 1754, and which are declared to have been

enacted "only for amending or explaining the Old Regulations for the good

of Masonry, without breaking in upon the ancient rules of the fraternity,

still preserving the old landmarks," it is said: "but it was found

inconvenient to insist upon unanimity in several cases; and, therefore,

the Grand Masters have allowed the lodges to admit a member, if not above

three black balls are against him; though some lodges desire no such

allowance."[69]

The Grand Lodge of England still acts under this new regulation, and

extends the number of black balls which will reject to three, though it

permits its subordinates, if they desire it, to require unanimity. But

nearly all the Grand Lodges of this country have adhered to the old

regulation, which is undoubtedly the better one, and by special enactment

have made the unanimous consent of all the Brethren present necessary to

the election of a candidate.

Another question here suggests itself. Can a member, who by the bye-laws

of his lodge is disqualified from the exercise of his other franchises as

a member, in consequence of being in arrears beyond a certain amount, be

prevented from depositing his ballot on the application of a candidate?

That by such a bye-law he may be disfranchised of his vote in electing

officers, or of the right to hold office, will be freely admitted. But the

words of the old regulation seem expressly, and without equivocation, to

require that _every member present_ shall vote. The candidate shall only

be admitted "by the unanimous consent of all the members of that lodge

then present when the candidate is proposed." This right of the members to

elect or reject their candidates is subsequently called "an inherent

privilege," which is not subject to a dispensation. The words are

explicit, and the right appears to be one guaranteed to every member so

long as he continues a member, and of which no bye-law can divest him as

long as the paramount authority of the Thirty-nine General Regulations is

admitted. I should say, then, that every member of a lodge present at

balloting for a candidate has a right to deposit his vote; and not only a

right, but a duty which he is to be compelled to perform; since, without

the unanimous consent of all present, there can be no election.

Our written laws are altogether silent as to the peculiar ceremonies which

are to accompany the act of balloting, which has therefore been generally

directed by the local usage of different jurisdictions. Uniformity,

however, in this, as in all other ritual observances, is to be commended,

and I shall accordingly here describe the method which I have myself

preferred and practised in balloting for candidates, and which is the

custom adopted in the jurisdiction of South Carolina.[70]

The committee of investigation having reported favorably, the Master of

the lodge directs the Senior Deacon to prepare the ballot box. The mode in

which this is accomplished is as follows:--The Senior Deacon takes the

ballot box, and, opening it, places all the white and black balls

indiscriminately in one compartment, leaving the other entirely empty. He

then proceeds with the box to the Junior and Senior Wardens, who satisfy

themselves by an inspection that no ball has been left in the compartment

in which the votes are to be deposited. I remark here, in passing, that

the box, in this and the other instance to be referred to hereafter, is

presented to the inferior officer first, and then to his superior, that

the examination and decision of the former may be substantiated and

confirmed by the higher authority of the latter. Let it, indeed, be

remembered, that in all such cases the usage of masonic _circumambulation_

is to be observed, and that, therefore, we must first pass the Junior's

station before we can get to that of the Senior Warden.

These officers having thus satisfied themselves that the box is in a

proper condition for the reception of the ballots, it is then placed upon

the altar by the Senior Deacon, who retires to his seat. The Master then

directs the Secretary to call the roll, which is done by commencing with

the Worshipful Master, and proceeding through all the officers down to the

youngest member. As a matter of convenience, the Secretary generally votes

the last of those in the room, and then, if the Tiler is a member of the

lodge, he is called in, while the Junior Deacon tiles for him, and the

name of the applicant having been told him, he is directed to deposit his

ballot, which he does, and then retires.

As the name of each officer and member is called he approaches the altar,

and having made the proper masonic salutation to the Chair, he deposits

his ballot and retires to his seat. The roll should be called slowly, so

that at no time should there be more than one person present at the box;

for, the great object of the ballot being secrecy, no Brother should be

permitted so near the member voting as to distinguish the color of the

ball he deposits.

The box is placed on the altar, and the ballot is deposited with the

solemnity of a masonic salutation, that the voters may be duly impressed

with the sacred and responsible nature of the duty they are called on to

discharge. The system of voting thus described, is, therefore, far better

on this account than the one sometimes adopted in lodges, of handing round

the box for the members to deposit their ballots from their seats

The Master having inquired of the Wardens if all have voted, then orders

the Senior Deacon to "take charge of the ballot box." That officer

accordingly repairs to the altar, and taking possession of the box,

carries it, as before, to the Junior Warden, who examines the ballot, and

reports, if all the balls are white, that "the box is clear in the South,"

or, if there is one or more black balls, that "the box is foul in the

South." The Deacon then carries it to the Senior Warden, and afterwards to

the Master, who, of course, make the same report, according to the

circumstances, with the necessary verbal variation of "West" and "East."

If the box is _clear_--that is, if all the ballots are white--the Master

then announces that the applicant has been duly elected, and the Secretary

makes a record of the fact.

But if the box is declared to be _foul_, the Master inspects the number

of black balls; if he finds two, he declares the candidate to be rejected;

if only one, he so states the fact to the lodge, and orders the Senior

Deacon again to prepare the ballot box, and a second ballot is taken in

the same way. This is done lest a black ball might have been inadvertently

voted on the first ballot. If, on the second scrutiny, one black ball is

again found, the fact is announced by the Master, who orders the election

to lie over until the next stated meeting, and requests the Brother who

deposited the black ball to call upon him and state his reasons. At the

next stated meeting the Master announces these reasons to the lodge, if

any have been made known to him, concealing, of course, the name of the

objecting Brother. At this time the validity or truth of the objections

may be discussed, and the friends of the applicant will have an

opportunity of offering any defense or explanation. The ballot is then

taken a third time, and the result, whatever it may be, is final. As I

have already observed, in most of the lodges of this country, a

reappearance of the one black ball will amount to a rejection. In those

lodges which do not require unanimity, it will, of course, be necessary

that the requisite number of black balls must be deposited on this third

ballot to insure a rejection. But if, on inspection, the box is found to

be "clear," or without a black ball, the candidate is, of course, declared

to be elected. In any case, the result of the third ballot is final, nor

can it be set aside or reversed by the action of the Grand Master or Grand

Lodge; because, by the sixth General Regulation, already so frequently

cited, the members of every particular lodge are the best judges of the

qualifications of their candidates; and, to use the language of the

Regulation, "if a fractious member should be imposed on them, it might

spoil their harmony, or hinder their freedom, or even break and disperse

the lodge."

Section VII.

_Of the Reconsideration of the Ballot._

There are, unfortunately, some men in our Order, governed, not by

essentially bad motives, but by frail judgments and by total ignorance of

the true object and design of Freemasonry, who never, under any

circumstances, have recourse to the black ball, that great bulwark of

Masonry, and are always more or less incensed when any more judicious

Brother exercises his privilege of excluding those whom he thinks unworthy

of participation in our mysteries.

I have said, that these men are not governed by motives essentially bad.

This is the fact. They honestly desire the prosperity of the institution,

and they would not willfully do one act which would impede that

prosperity. But their judgments are weak, and their zeal is without

knowledge. They do not at all understand in what the true prosperity of

the Order consists, but really and conscientiously believing that its

actual strength will be promoted by the increase of the number of its

disciples; they look rather to the _quantity_ than to the _quality_ of the

applicants who knock at the doors of our lodges.

Now a great difference in respect to the mode in which the ballot is

conducted, will be found in those lodges which are free from the presence

of such injudicious brethren, and others into which they have gained

admittance.

In a lodge in which every member has a correct notion of the proper moral

qualifications of the candidates for Masonry, and where there is a general

disposition to work well with a few, rather than to work badly with many,

when a ballot is ordered, each Brother, having deposited his vote,

quietly and calmly waits to hear the decision of the ballot box announced

by the Chair. If it is "clear," all are pleased that another citizen has

been found worthy to receive a portion of the illuminating rays of

Masonry. If it is "foul," each one is satisfied with the adjudication, and

rejoices that, although knowing nothing himself against the candidate,

some one has been present whom a more intimate acquaintance with the

character of the applicant has enabled to interpose his veto, and prevent

the purity of the Order from being sullied by the admission of an unworthy

candidate. Here the matter ends, and the lodge proceeds to other business.

But in a lodge where one of these injudicious and over-zealous Brethren is

present, how different is the scene. If the candidate is elected, he, too,

rejoices; but his joy is, that the lodge has gained one more member whose

annual dues and whose initiation fee will augment the amount of its

revenues. If he is rejected, he is indignant that the lodge has been

deprived of this pecuniary accession, and forthwith he sets to work to

reverse, if possible, the decision of the ballot box, and by a volunteer

defense of the rejected candidate, and violent denunciations of those who

opposed him, he seeks to alarm the timid and disgust the intelligent, so

that, on a _reconsideration_, they may be induced to withdraw their

opposition.

The _motion for reconsideration_ is, then, the means generally adopted, by

such seekers after quantity, to insure the success of their efforts to

bring all into our fold who seek admission, irrespective of worth or

qualification. In other words, we may say, that _the motion for

reconsideration is the great antagonist of the purity and security of the

ballot box_. The importance, then, of the position which it thus assumes,

demands a brief discussion of the time and mode in which a ballot may be

reconsidered.

In the beginning of the discussion, it may be asserted, that it is

competent for any brother to move a reconsideration of a ballot, or for a

lodge to vote on such a motion. The ballot is a part of the work of

initiating a candidate. It is the preparatory step, and is just as

necessary to his legal making as the obligation or the investiture. As

such, then, it is clearly entirely under the control of the Master. The

Constitutions of Masonry and the Rules and Regulations of every Grand and

Subordinate lodge prescribe the mode in which the ballot shall be

conducted, so that the sense of the members may be taken. The Grand Lodge

also requires that the Master of the lodge shall see that that exact mode

of ballot shall be pursued and no other, and it will hold him responsible

that there shall be no violation of the rule. If, then, the Master is

satisfied that the ballot has been regularly and correctly conducted, and

that no possible good, but some probable evil, would arise from its

reconsideration, it is not only competent for him, but it is his solemn

duty to refuse to permit any such reconsideration. A motion to that

effect, it may be observed, will always be out of order, although any

Brother may respectfully request the Worshipful Master to order such a

reconsideration, or suggest to him its propriety or expediency.

If, however, the Master is not satisfied that the ballot is a true

indication of the sense of the lodge, he may, in his own discretion, order

a reconsideration. Thus there may be but one black ball;--now a single

black ball may sometimes be inadvertently cast--the member voting it may

have been favorably disposed towards the candidate, and yet, from the

hurry and confusion of voting, or from the dimness of the light or the

infirmity of his own eyes, or from some other equally natural cause, he

may have selected a black ball, when he intended to have taken a white

one. It is, therefore, a matter of prudence and necessary caution, that,

when only one black ball appears, the Master should order a new ballot. On

this second ballot, it is to be presumed that more care and vigilance will

be used, and the reappearance of the black ball will then show that it was

deposited designedly.

But where two or three or more black balls appear on the first ballot,

such a course of reasoning is not authorized, and the Master will then be

right to refuse a reconsideration. The ballot has then been regularly

taken--the lodge has emphatically decided for a rejection, and any order

to renew the ballot would only be an insult to those who opposed the

admission of the applicant, and an indirect attempt to thrust an unwelcome

intruder upon the lodge.

But although it is in the power of the Master, under the circumstances

which we have described, to order a reconsideration, yet this prerogative

is accompanied with certain restrictions, which it may be well to notice.

In the first place, the Master cannot order a reconsideration on any other

night than that on which the original ballot was taken.[71] After the

lodge is closed, the decision of the ballot is final, and there is no

human authority that can reverse it. The reason of this rule is evident.

If it were otherwise, an unworthy Master (for, unfortunately, all Masters

are not worthy) might on any subsequent evening avail himself of the

absence of those who had voted black balls, to order a reconsideration,

and thus succeed in introducing an unfit and rejected candidate into the

lodge, contrary to the wishes of a portion of its members.

Neither can he order a reconsideration on the same night, if any of the

Brethren who voted have retired. All who expressed their opinion on the

first ballot, must be present to express it on the second. The reasons for

this restriction are as evident as for the former, and are of the same

character.

It must be understood, that I do not here refer to those reconsiderations

of the ballot which are necessary to a full understanding of the opinion

of the lodge, and which have been detailed in the ceremonial of the mode

of balloting, as it was described in the preceding Section.

It may be asked whether the Grand Master cannot, by his dispensations,

permit a reconsideration. I answer emphatically, NO. The Grand Master

possesses no such prerogative. There is no law in the whole jurisprudence

of the institution clearer than this--that neither the Grand Lodge nor the

Grand Master can interfere with the decision of the ballot box. In

Anderson's Constitutions, the law is laid down, under the head of "Duty of

Members" (edition of 1755, p. 312), that in the election of candidates the

Brethren "are to give their consent in their own prudent way, either

virtually or in form, but with unanimity." And the regulation goes on to

say: "Nor is this inherent privilege _subject to a dispensation_, because

the members of a lodge are the best judges of it; and because, if a

turbulent member should be imposed upon them, it might spoil their

harmony, or hinder the freedom of their communications, or even break and

disperse the lodge." This settles the question. A dispensation to

reconsider a ballot would be an interference with the right of the members

"to give their consent in their own prudent way;" it would be an

infringement of an "inherent privilege," and neither the Grand Lodge nor

the Grand Master can issue a dispensation for such a purpose. Every lodge

must be left to manage its own elections of candidates in its own prudent

way.

I conclude this section by a summary of the principles which have been

discussed, and which I have endeavored to enforce by a process of

reasoning which I trust may be deemed sufficiently convincing. They are

briefly these:

1. It is never in order for a member to move for the reconsideration of a

ballot on the petition of a candidate for initiation, nor for a lodge to

entertain such a motion.

2. The Master alone can, for reasons satisfactory to himself, order such a

reconsideration.

3. The Master cannot order a reconsideration on any subsequent night, nor

on the same night, after any member, who was present and voted, has

departed.

4. The Grand Master cannot grant a dispensation for a reconsideration, nor

in any other way interfere with the ballot. The same restriction applies

to the Grand Lodge.

Section VIII.

_Of the Renewal of Applications by Rejected Candidates._

As it is apparent from the last section that there can be no

reconsideration by a lodge of a rejected petition, the question will

naturally arise, how an error committed by a lodge, in the rejection of a

worthy applicant, is to be corrected, or how such a candidate, when once

rejected, is ever to make a second trial, for it is, of course, admitted,

that circumstances may occur in which a candidate who had been once

blackballed might, on a renewal of his petition, be found worthy of

admission. He may have since reformed and abandoned the vicious habits

which caused his first rejection, or it may have been since discovered

that that rejection was unjust. How, then, is such a candidate to make a

new application?

It is a rule of universal application in Masonry, that no candidate,

having been once rejected, can apply to any other lodge for admission,

except to the one which rejected him. Under this regulation the course of

a second application is as follows:

Some Grand Lodges have prescribed that, when a candidate has been

rejected, it shall not be competent for him to apply within a year, six

months, or some other definite period. This is altogether a local

regulation--there is no such law in the Ancient Constitutions--and

therefore, where the regulations of the Grand Lodge of the jurisdiction

are silent upon the subject, general principles direct the following as

the proper course for a rejected candidate to pursue on a second

application. He must send in a new letter, recommended and vouched for as

before, either by the same or other Brethren--it must be again referred to

a committee--lie over for a month--and the ballot be then taken as is

usual in other cases. It must be treated in all respects as an entirely

new petition, altogether irrespective of the fact that the same person had

ever before made an application. In this way due notice will be given to

the Brethren, and all possibility of an unfair election will be avoided.

If the local regulations are silent upon the subject, the second

application may be made at any time after the rejection of the first, all

that is necessary being, that the second application should pass through

the same ordeal and be governed by the same rules that prevail in relation

to an original application.

Section IX.

_Of the necessary Probation and due Proficiency of Candidates before

Advancement_.

There is, perhaps, no part of the jurisprudence of Masonry which it is

more necessary strictly to observe than that which relates to the

advancement of candidates through the several degrees. The method which is

adopted in passing Apprentices and raising Fellow Crafts--the probation

which they are required to serve in each degree before advancing to a

higher--and the instructions which they receive in their progress, often

materially affect the estimation which is entertained of the institution

by its initiates. The candidate who long remains at the porch of the

temple, and lingers in the middle chamber, noting everything worthy of

observation in his passage to the holy of holies, while he better

understands the nature of the profession upon which he has entered, will

have a more exalted opinion of its beauties and excellencies than he who

has advanced, with all the rapidity that dispensations can furnish, from

the lowest to the highest grades of the Order. In the former case, the

design, the symbolism, the history, and the moral and philosophical

bearing of each degree will be indelibly impressed upon the mind, and the

appositeness of what has gone before to what is to succeed will be readily

appreciated; but, in the latter, the lessons of one hour will be

obliterated by those of the succeeding one; that which has been learned in

one degree, will be forgotten in the next; and when all is completed, and

the last instructions have been imparted, the dissatisfied neophyte will

find his mind, in all that relates to Masonry, in a state of chaotic

confusion. Like Cassio, he will remember "a mass of things, but nothing

distinctly."

An hundred years ago it was said that "Masonry was a progressive science,

and not to be attained in any degree of perfection, but by time, patience,

and a considerable degree of application and industry."[72] And it is

because that due proportion of time, patience and application, has not

been observed, that we so often see Masons indifferent to the claims of

the institution, and totally unable to discern its true character. The

arcana of the craft, as Dr. Harris remarks, should be gradually imparted

to its members, according to their improvement.

There is no regulation of our Order more frequently repeated in our

constitutions, nor one which should be more rigidly observed, than that

which requires of every candidate a "suitable proficiency" in one degree,

before he is permitted to pass to another. But as this regulation is too

often neglected, to the manifest injury of the whole Order, as well as of

the particular lodge which violates it, by the introduction of ignorant

and unskillful workmen into the temple, it may be worth the labor we shall

spend upon the subject, to investigate some of the authorities which

support us in the declaration, that no candidate should be promoted,

until, by a due probation, he has made "suitable proficiency in the

preceding degree."

In one of the earliest series of regulations that have been

preserved--made in the reign of Edward III., it was ordained, "that such

as were to be admitted Master Masons, or Masters of work, should be

examined whether they be able of cunning to serve their respective Lords,

as well the lowest as the highest, to the honor and worship of the

aforesaid art, and to the profit of their Lords."

Here, then, we may see the origin of that usage, which is still practiced

in every well governed lodge, not only of demanding a proper degree of

proficiency in the candidate, but also of testing that proficiency by an

examination.

This cautious and honest fear of the fraternity, lest any Brother should

assume the duties of a position which he could not faithfully discharge,

and which is, in our time, tantamount to a candidate's advancing to a

degree for which he is not prepared, is again exhibited in the charges

enacted in the reign of James II., the manuscript of which was preserved

in the archives of the Lodge of Antiquity in London. In these charges it

is required, "that no Mason take on no lord's worke, nor any other man's,

unless he know himselfe well able to perform the worke, so that the craft

have no slander." In the same charges, it is prescribed that "no master,

or fellow, shall take no apprentice for less than seven years."

In another series of charges, whose exact date is not ascertained, but

whose language and orthography indicate their antiquity, it is said: "Ye

shall ordain the wisest to be Master of the work; and neither for love nor

lineage, riches nor favor, set one over the work[73] who hath but little

knowledge, whereby the Master would be evil served, and ye ashamed."

These charges clearly show the great stress that was placed by our ancient

Brethren upon the necessity of skill and proficiency, and they have

furnished the precedents upon which are based all the similar regulations

that have been subsequently applied to Speculative Masonry.

In the year 1722, the Grand Lodge of England ordered the "Old Charges of

the Free and Accepted Masons" to be collected from the ancient records,

and, having approved of them, they became a part of the Constitutions of

Speculative Freemasonry. In these Charges, it is ordained that "a younger

Brother shall be instructed in working, to prevent spoiling the materials

for want of judgment, and for increasing and continuing of brotherly

love."

Subsequently, in 1767, it was declared by the Grand Lodge, that "no lodge

shall be permitted to make and raise the same Brother, at one and the same

meeting, without a dispensation from the Grand Master, or his Deputy;"

and, lest too frequent advantage should be taken of this power of

dispensation, to hurry candidates through the degrees, it is added that

the dispensation, "_on very particular occasions only_, may be

requested."

The Grand Lodge of England afterwards found it necessary to be more

explicit on this subject, and the regulation of that body is now contained

in the following language:

"No candidate shall be permitted to receive more than one degree on the

same day, nor shall a higher degree in Masonry be conferred on any Brother

at a less interval than four weeks from his receiving a previous degree,

nor until he has passed an examination in open lodge in that degree."[74]

This seems to be the recognized principle on which the fraternity are, at

this day, acting in this country. The rule is, perhaps, sometimes, and in

some places, in abeyance. A few lodges, from an impolitic desire to

increase their numerical strength, or rapidly to advance men of worldly

wealth or influence to high stations in the Order, may infringe it, and

neglect to demand of their candidates that suitable proficiency which

ought to be, in Masonry, an essential recommendation to promotion; but the

great doctrine that each degree should be well studied, and the candidate

prove his proficiency in it by an examination, has been uniformly set

forth by the Grand Lodge of the United States, whenever they have

expressed an opinion on the subject.

Thus, for instance, in 1845, the late Bro. A.A. Robertson, Grand Master of

New York, gave utterance to the following opinion, in his annual address

to the intelligent body over which he presided:

"The practice of examining candidates in the prior degrees, before

admission to the higher, in order to ascertain their proficiency, is

gaining the favorable notice of Masters of lodges, and cannot be too

highly valued, nor too strongly recommended to all lodges in this

jurisdiction. It necessarily requires the novitiate to reflect upon the

bearing of all that has been so far taught him, and consequently to

impress upon his mind the beauty and utility of those sublime truths,

which have been illustrated in the course of the ceremonies he has

witnessed in his progress in the mystic art. In a word, it will be the

means of making competent overseers of the work--and no candidate should

be advanced, until he has satisfied the lodge, by such examination, that

he has made the necessary proficiency in the lower degrees."[75]

In 1845, the Grand Lodge of Iowa issued a circular to her subordinates,

in which she gave the following admonition:

"To guard against hasty and improper work, she prohibits a candidate from

being advanced till he has made satisfactory proficiency in the preceding

degrees, by informing himself of the lectures pertaining thereto; and to

suffer a candidate to proceed who is ignorant in this essential

particular, is calculated in a high degree to injure the institution and

retard its usefulness."

The Grand Lodge of Illinois has practically declared its adhesion to the

ancient regulation; for, in the year 1843, the dispensation of Nauvoo

Lodge, one of its subordinates, was revoked principally on the ground that

she was guilty "of pushing the candidate through the second and third

degrees, before he could possibly be skilled in the preceding degree." And

the committee who recommended the revocation, very justly remarked that

they were not sure that any length of probation would in all cases insure

skill, but they were certain that the ancient landmarks of the Order

required that the lodge should know that the candidate is well skilled in

one degree before being admitted to another.

The Grand Lodges of Massachusetts and South Carolina have adopted, almost

in the precise words, the regulation of the Grand Lodge of England,

already cited, which requires an interval of one month to elapse between

the conferring of degrees. The Grand Lodge of New Hampshire requires a

greater probation for its candidates; its constitution prescribes the

following regulation: "All Entered Apprentices must work five months as

such, before they can be admitted to the degree of Fellow Craft. All

Fellow Crafts must work in a lodge of Fellow Crafts three months, before

they can be raised to the sublime degree of Master Mason. Provided,

nevertheless, that if any Entered Apprentice, or Fellow Craft, shall make

himself thoroughly acquainted with all the information belonging to his

degree, he may be advanced at an earlier period, at the discretion of the

lodge."

But, perhaps, the most stringent rule upon this subject, is that which

exists in the Constitution of the Grand Lodge of Hanover, which is in the

following words:

"No Brother can be elected an officer of a lodge until he has been three

years a Master Mason. A Fellow Craft must work at least one year in that

degree, before he can be admitted to the third degree. An Entered

Apprentice must remain at least two years in that degree."

It seems unnecessary to extend these citations. The existence of the

regulation, which requires a necessary probation in candidates, until due

proficiency is obtained, is universally admitted. The ancient

constitutions repeatedly assert it, and it has received the subsequent

sanction of innumerable Masonic authorities. But, unfortunately, the

practice is not always in accordance with the rule. And, hence, the object

of this article is not so much to demonstrate the existence of the law, as

to urge upon our readers the necessity of a strict adherence to it. There

is no greater injury which can be inflicted on the Masonic Order (the

admission of immoral persons excepted), than that of hurrying candidates

through the several degrees. Injustice is done to the institution, whose

peculiar principles and excellencies are never properly presented--and

irreparable injury to the candidate, who, acquiring no fair appreciation

of the ceremonies through which he rapidly passes, or of the instructions

which he scarcely hears, is filled either with an indifference that never

afterwards can be warmed into zeal, or with a disgust that can never be

changed into esteem. Masonry is betrayed in such an instance by its

friends, and often loses the influence of an intelligent member, who, if

he had been properly instructed, might have become one of its warmest and

most steadfast advocates.

This subject is so important, that I will not hesitate to add to the

influence of these opinions the great sanction of Preston's authority.

"Many persons," says that able philosopher of Masonry, "are deluded by the

vague supposition that our mysteries are merely nominal; that the

practices established among us are frivolous, and that our ceremonies may

be adopted, or waived at pleasure. On this false foundation, we find them

hurrying through all the degrees of the Order, without adverting to the

propriety of one step they pursue, or possessing a single qualification

requisite for advancement. Passing through the usual formalities, they

consider themselves entitled to rank as masters of the art, solicit and

accept offices, and assume the government of the lodge, equally

unacquainted with the rules of the institution they pretend to support, or

the nature of the trust they engage to perform. The consequence is

obvious; anarchy and confusion ensue, and the substance is lost in the

shadow. Hence men eminent for ability, rank, and fortune, are often led to

view the honors of Masonry with such indifference, that when their

patronage is solicited, they either accept offices with reluctance, or

reject them with disdain."[76]

Let, then, no lodge which values its own usefulness, or the character of

our institution, admit any candidate to a higher degree, until he has made

suitable proficiency in the preceding one, to be always tested by a strict

examination in open lodge. Nor can it do so, without a palpable violation

of the laws of Masonry.

Section X.

_Of Balloting for Candidates in each Degree._

Although there is no law, in the Ancient Constitutions, which in express

words requires a ballot for candidates in each degree, yet the whole tenor

and spirit of these constitutions seem to indicate that there should be

recourse to such a ballot. The constant reference, in the numerous

passages which were cited in the preceding Section, to the necessity of

an examination into the proficiency of those who sought advancement, would

necessarily appear to imply that a vote of the lodge must be taken on the

question of this proficiency. Accordingly, modern Grand Lodges have

generally, by special enactment, required a ballot to be taken on the

application of an Apprentice or Fellow Craft for advancement, and where no

such regulation has been explicitly laid down, the almost constant usage

of the craft has been in favor of such ballot.

The Ancient Constitutions having been silent on the subject of the letter

of the law, local usage or regulations must necessarily supply the

specific rule.

Where not otherwise provided by the Constitutions of a Grand Lodge or the

bye-laws of a subordinate lodge, analogy would instruct us that the

ballot, on the application of Apprentices or Fellow Crafts for

advancement, should be governed by the same principles that regulate the

ballot on petitions for initiation.

Of course, then, the vote should be unanimous: for I see no reason why a

lodge of Fellow Crafts should be less guarded in its admission of

Apprentices, than a lodge of Apprentices is in its admission of profanes.

Again, the ballot should take place at a stated meeting, so that every

member may have "due and timely notice," and be prepared to exercise his

"inherent privilege" of granting or withholding his consent; for it must

be remembered that the man who was worthy or supposed to be so, when

initiated as an Entered Apprentice, may prove to be unworthy when he

applies to pass as a Fellow Graft, and every member should, therefore,

have the means and opportunity of passing his judgment on that worthiness

or unworthiness.

If the candidate for advancement has been rejected once, he may again

apply, if there is no local regulation to the contrary. But, in such a

case, due notice should be given to all the members, which is best done by

making the application at one regular meeting, and voting for it on the

next. This, however, I suppose to be only necessary in the case of a

renewed application after a rejection. An Entered Apprentice or a Fellow

Craft is entitled after due probation to make his application for

advancement; and his first application may be balloted for on the same

evening, provided it be a regular meeting of the lodge. The members are

supposed to know what work is before them to do, and should be there to

do it.

But the case is otherwise whenever a candidate for advancement has been

rejected. He has now been set aside by the lodge, and no time is laid down

in the regulations or usages of the craft for his making a second

application. He may never do so, or he may in three months, in a year, or

in five years. The members are, therefore, no more prepared to expect this

renewed application at any particular meeting of the lodge, than they are

to anticipate any entirely new petition of a profane. If, therefore, the

second application is not made at one regular meeting and laid over to the

next, the possibility is that the lodge may be taken by surprise, and in

the words of the old Regulation, "a turbulent member may be imposed on

it."

The inexpediency of any other course may be readily seen, from a

suppositions case. We will assume that in a certain lodge, A, who is a

Fellow Craft, applies regularly for advancement to the third degree. On

this occasion, for good and sufficient reasons, two of the members, B and

C, express their dissent by depositing black balls. His application to be

raised is consequently rejected, and he remains a Fellow Graft. Two or

three meetings of the lodge pass over, and at each, B and C are present;

but, at the fourth meeting, circumstances compel their absence, and the

friends of A, taking advantage of that occurrence, again propose him for

advancement; the ballot is forthwith taken, and he is elected and raised

on the same evening. The injustice of this course to B and C, and the evil

to the lodge and the whole fraternity, in this imposition of one who is

probably an unworthy person, will be apparent to every intelligent and

right-minded Mason.

I do not, however, believe that a candidate should be rejected, on his

application for advancement, in consequence of objections to his moral

worth and character. In such a case, the proper course would be to prefer

charges, to try him as an Apprentice or Fellow Craft; and, if found

guilty, to suspend, expel, or otherwise appropriately punish him. The

applicant as well as the Order is, in such a case, entitled to a fair

trial. Want of proficiency, or a mental or physical disqualification

acquired since the reception of the preceding degree, is alone a

legitimate cause for an estoppal of advancement by the ballot. But this

subject will be treated of further in the chapter on the rights of Entered

Apprentices.

Section XI.

_Of the Number to be Initiated at one Communication._

The fourth General Regulation decrees that "no Lodge shall make more than

five new Brothers at one time." This regulation has been universally

interpreted (and with great propriety) to mean that not more than five

degrees can be conferred at the same communication.

This regulation is, however, subject to dispensation by the Grand Master,

or Presiding Grand Officer, in which case the number to be initiated,

passed, or raised, will be restricted only by the words of the

dispensation.

The following, or fifth General Regulation, says that "no man can be made

or admitted a member of a particular lodge, without previous notice, one

month before, given to the same lodge."

Now, as a profane cannot be admitted an Entered Apprentice, or in other

words, a member of an Entered Apprentices' lodge, unless after one month's

notice, so it follows that an Apprentice cannot be admitted a member of a

Fellow Crafts' lodge, nor a Fellow Craft of a Masters', without the like

probation. For the words of the regulation which apply to one, will

equally apply to the others. And hence we derive the law, that a month at

least must always intervene between the reception of one degree and the

advancement to another. But this rule is also subject to a dispensation.

Section XII.

_Of Finishing the Candidates of one Lodge in another._

It is an ancient and universal regulation, that no lodge shall interfere

with the work of another by initiating its candidates, or passing or

raising its Apprentices and Fellow Crafts. Every lodge is supposed to be

competent to manage its own business, and ought to be the best judge of

the qualifications of its own members, and hence it would be highly

improper in any lodge to confer a degree on a Brother who is not of its

household.

This regulation is derived from a provision in the Ancient Charges, which

have very properly been supposed to contain the fundamental law of

Masonry, and which prescribes the principle of the rule in the following

symbolical language:

"None shall discover envy at the prosperity of a Brother, nor supplant him

or put him out of his work, if he be capable to finish the same; for no

man can finish another's work, so much to the Lord's profit, unless he be

thoroughly acquainted with the designs and draughts of him that began it."

There is, however, a case in which one lodge may, by consent, legally

finish the work of another. Let us suppose that a candidate has been

initiated in a lodge at A----, and, before he receives his second degree,

removes to B----, and that being, by the urgency of his business, unable

either to postpone his departure from A----, until he has been passed and

raised, or to return for the purpose of his receiving his second and third

degrees, then it is competent for the lodge at A---- to grant permission

to the lodge at B---- to confer them on the candidate.

But how shall this permission be given--by a unanimous vote, or merely by

a vote of the majority of the members at A----? Here it seems to me that,

so far as regards the lodge at A----, the reasons for unanimity no longer

exist. There is here no danger that a "fractious member will be imposed on

them," as the candidate, when finished, will become a member of the lodge

at B----. The question of consent is simply in the nature of a

resolution, and may be determined by the assenting votes of a majority of

the members at A---. It is, however, to be understood, that if any Brother

believes that the candidate is unworthy, from character, of further

advancement, he may suspend the question of consent, by preferring charges

against him. If this is not done, and the consent of the lodge is

obtained, that the candidate may apply to the lodge at B---, then when his

petition is read in that lodge, it must, of course, pass through the usual

ordeal of a month's probation, and a unanimous vote; for here the old

reasons for unanimity once more prevail.

I know of no ancient written law upon this subject, but it seems to me

that the course I have described is the only one that could be suggested

by analogy and common sense.

Section XIII.

_Of the Initiation of Non-residents._

The subject of this section is naturally divided into two

branches:--First, as to the initiation by a lodge of a candidate, who,

residing in the same State or Grand Lodge jurisdiction, is still not an

inhabitant of the town in which the lodge to which he applies is

situated, but resides nearer to some other lodge; and, secondly, as to the

initiation of a stranger, whose residence is in another State, or under

the jurisdiction of another Grand Lodge.

1. The first of these divisions presents a question which is easily

answered. Although I can find no ancient regulation on this subject,

still, by the concurrent authority of all Grand Lodges in this country, at

least, (for the Grand Lodge of England has no such provision in its

Constitution,) every lodge is forbidden to initiate any person whose

residence is nearer to any other lodge. If, however, such an initiation

should take place, although the lodge would be censurable for its

violation of the regulations of its superior, yet there has never been any

doubt that the initiation would be good and the candidate so admitted

regularly made. The punishment must fall upon the lodge and not upon the

newly-made Brother.

2. The second division presents a more embarrassing inquiry, on account of

the diversity of opinions which have been entertained on the subject. Can

a lodge in one State, or Grand Lodge jurisdiction, initiate the resident

of another State, and would such initiation be lawful, and the person so

initiated a regular Mason, or, to use the technical language of the Order,

a Mason made "in due form," and entitled to all the rights and privileges

of the Order?

The question is one of considerable difficulty; it has given occasion to

much controversy, and has been warmly discussed within the last few years

by several of the Grand Lodges of the United States.

In 1847, the Grand Lodge of Alabama adopted the following regulation,

which had been previously enacted by the Grand Lodge of Tennessee:

"Any person residing within the jurisdiction of this Grand Lodge, who has

already, or shall hereafter, travel into any foreign jurisdiction, and

there receive the degrees of Masonry, such person shall not be entitled to

the rights, benefits, and privileges of Masonry within this jurisdiction,

until he shall have been regularly admitted a member of the subordinate

lodge under this Grand Lodge, nearest which he at the time resides, in the

manner provided by the Constitution of this Grand Lodge for the admission

of members."

The rule adopted by the Grand Lodge of Maryland is still more stringent.

It declares, "that if any individual, from selfish motives, from distrust

of his acceptance, or other causes originating in himself, knowingly and

willfully travel into another jurisdiction, and there receive the masonic

degrees, he shall be considered and held as a clandestine made Mason."

The Grand Lodge of New York, especially, has opposed these regulations,

inflicting a penalty on the initiate, and assigns its reasons for the

opposition in the following language:

"Before a man becomes a Mason, he is subject to no law which any Grand

Lodge can enact. No Grand Lodge has a right to make a law to compel any

citizen, who desires, to be initiated in a particular lodge, or in the

town or State of his residence; neither can any Grand Lodge forbid a

citizen to go where he pleases to seek acceptance into fellowship with the

craft; and where there is no right to compel or to forbid, there can be no

right to punish; but it will be observed, that the laws referred to were

enacted to punish the citizens of Maryland and Alabama, as Masons and

Brethren, for doing something before they were Masons and Brethren, which

they had a perfect right to do as citizens and freemen; and it must

certainly be regarded as an act of deception and treachery by a young

Mason, on returning home, to be told, that he is 'a clandestine Mason,'

that he 'ought to be expelled,' or, that he cannot be recognized as a

Brother till he 'joins a lodge where his residence is,' because he was

initiated in New York, in England, or in France, after having heard all

his life of the universality and oneness of the institution."[77]

It seems to us that the Grand Lodge of New York has taken the proper view

of the subject; although we confess that we are not satisfied with the

whole course of reasoning by which it has arrived at the conclusion.

Whatever we may be inclined to think of the inexpediency of making

transient persons (and we certainly do believe that it would be better

that the character and qualifications of every candidate should be

submitted to the inspection of his neighbors rather than to that of

strangers), however much we may condemn the carelessness and facility of a

lodge which is thus willing to initiate a stranger, without that due

examination of his character, which, of course, in the case of

non-residents, can seldom be obtained, we are obliged to admit that such

makings are legal--the person thus made cannot be called a clandestine

Mason, because he has been made in a legally constituted lodge--and as he

is a regular Mason, we know of no principle by which he can be refused

admission as a visitor into any lodge to which he applies.

Masonry is universal in its character, and knows no distinction of nation

or of religion. Although each state or kingdom has its distinct Grand

Lodge, this is simply for purposes of convenience in carrying out the

principles of uniformity and subordination, which should prevail

throughout the masonic system. The jurisdiction of these bodies is

entirely of a masonic character, and is exercised only over the members of

the Order who have voluntarily contracted their allegiance. It cannot

affect the profane, who are, of course, beyond its pale. It is true, that

as soon as a candidate applies to a lodge for initiation, he begins to

come within the scope of masonic law. He has to submit to a prescribed

formula of application and entrance, long before he becomes a member of

the Order. But as this formula is universal in its operation, affecting

candidates who are to receive it and lodges which are to enforce it in all

places, it must have been derived from some universal authority. The

manner, therefore, in which a candidate is to be admitted, and the

preliminary qualifications which are requisite, are prescribed by the

landmarks, the general usage, and the ancient constitutions of the Order.

And as they have directed the _mode how_, they might also have prescribed

the _place where_, a man should be made a Mason. But they have done no

such thing. We cannot, after the most diligent search, find any

constitutional regulation of the craft, which refers to the initiation of

non-residents. The subject has been left untouched; and as the ancient and

universally acknowledged authorities of Masonry have neglected to

legislate on the subject, it is now too late for any modern and local

authority, like that of a Grand Lodge, to do so.

A Grand Lodge may, it is true, forbid--as Missouri, South Carolina,

Georgia, and several other Grand Lodges have done--the initiation of

non-residents, within its own jurisdiction, because this is a local law

enacted by a local authority; but it cannot travel beyond its own

territory, and prescribe the same rule to another Grand Lodge, which may

not, in fact, be willing to adopt it.

The conclusions, then, at which we arrive no this subject are these: The

ancient constitutions have prescribed no regulation on the subject of the

initiation of non-residents; it is, therefore, optional with every Grand

Lodge, whether it will or will not suffer such candidates to be made

within its own jurisdiction; the making, where it is permitted, is legal,

and the candidate so made becomes a regular Mason, and is entitled to the

right of visitation.

What, then, is the remedy, where a person of bad character, and having, in

the language of the Grand Lodge of Maryland, "a distrust of his

acceptance" at home, goes abroad and receives the degrees of Masonry? No

one will deny that such a state of things is productive of great evil to

the craft. Fortunately, the remedy is simple and easily applied. Let the

lodge, into whose jurisdiction he has returned, exercise its power of

discipline, and if his character and conduct deserve the punishment, let

him be expelled from the Order. If he is unworthy of remaining in the

Order, he should be removed from it at once; but if he is worthy of

continuing in it, there certainly can be no objection to his making use of

his right to visit.

Chapter II.

Of the Rights of Entered Apprentices.

In an inquiry into the rights of Entered Apprentices, we shall not be much

assisted by the Ancient Constitutions, which, leaving the subject in the

position in which usage had established it, are silent in relation to what

is the rule. In all such cases, we must, as I have frequently remarked

before, in settling the law, have recourse to analogy, to the general

principles of equity, and the dictates of common sense, and, with these

three as our guides, we shall find but little difficulty in coming to a

right conclusion.

At present, an Entered Apprentice is not considered a member of the Lodge,

which privilege is only extended to Master Masons. This was not formerly

the case. Then the Master's degree was not as indiscriminately conferred

as it is now. A longer probation and greater mental or moral

qualifications were required to entitle a candidate to this sublime

dignity. None were called Master Masons but such as had presided over

their Lodges, and the office of Wardens was filled by Fellow Crafts.

Entered Apprentices, as well as Fellow Crafts, were permitted to attend

the communications of the Grand Lodge, and express their opinions; and, in

1718, it was enacted that every new regulation, proposed in the Grand

Lodge, should be submitted to the consideration of even the youngest

Entered Apprentice. Brethren of this degree composed, in fact, at that

time, the great body of the craft. But, all these things have, since, by

the gradual improvement of our organization, undergone many alterations;

and Entered Apprentices seem now, by universal consent, to be restricted

to a very few rights. They have the right of sitting in all lodges of

their degree, of receiving all the instructions which appertain to it, but

not of speaking or voting, and, lastly, of offering themselves as

candidates for advancement, without the preparatory necessity of a formal

written petition.

These being admitted to be the rights of an Entered Apprentice, few and

unimportant as they may be, they are as dear to him as those of a Master

Mason are to one who has been advanced to that degree; and he is, and

ought to be, as firmly secured in their possession. Therefore, as no Mason

can be deprived of his rights and privileges, except after a fair and

impartial trial, and the verdict of his peers, it is clear that the

Entered Apprentice cannot be divested of these rights without just such a

trial and verdict.

But, in the next place, we are to inquire whether the privilege of being

passed as a Fellow Craft is to be enumerated among these rights? And, we

clearly answer, No. The Entered Apprentice has the right of making the

application. Herein he differs from a profane, who has no such right of

application until he has qualified himself for making it, by becoming an

Entered Apprentice. But, if the application is granted, it is _ex gratia_,

or, by the favour of the lodge, which may withhold it, if it pleases. If

such were not the case, the lodge would possess no free will on the

subject of advancing candidates; and the rule requiring a probation and an

examination, before passing, would be useless and absurd--because, the

neglect of improvement or the want of competency would be attended with no

penalty.

It seems to me, then, that, when an Apprentice applies for his second

degree, the lodge may, if it thinks proper, refuse to grant it; and that

it may express that refusal by a ballot. No trial is necessary, because no

rights of the candidate are affected. He is, by a rejection of his

request, left in the same position that he formerly occupied. He is still

an Entered Apprentice, in good standing; and the lodge may, at any time it

thinks proper, reverse its decision and proceed to pass him.

If, however, he is specifically charged with any offense against the laws

of Masonry, it would then be necessary to give him a trial. Witnesses

should be heard, both for and against him, and he should be permitted to

make his defense. The opinion of the lodge should be taken, as in all

other cases of trial, and, according to the verdict, he should be

suspended, expelled, or otherwise punished.

The effect of these two methods of proceeding is very different. When, by

a ballot, the lodge refuses to advance an Entered Apprentice, there is

not, necessarily, any stigma on his moral character. It may be, that the

refusal is based on the ground that he has not made sufficient proficiency

to entitle him to pass. Consequently, his standing as an Entered

Apprentice is not at all affected. His rights remain the same. He may

still sit in the lodge when it is opened in his degree; he may still

receive instructions in that degree; converse with Masons on masonic

subjects which are not beyond his standing; and again apply to the lodge

for permission to pass as a Fellow Craft.

But, if he be tried on a specific charge, and be suspended or expelled,

his moral character is affected. His masonic rights are forfeited; and he

can no longer be considered as an Entered Apprentice in good standing. He

will not be permitted to sit in his lodge, to receive masonic instruction,

or to converse with Masons on masonic subjects; nor can he again apply for

advancement until the suspension or expulsion is removed by the

spontaneous action of the lodge.

These two proceedings work differently in another respect. The Grand Lodge

will not interfere with a subordinate lodge in compelling it to pass an

Entered Apprentice; because every lodge is supposed to be competent to

finish, in its own time, and its own way, the work that it has begun. But,

as the old regulations, as well as the general consent of the craft, admit

that the Grand Lodge alone can expel from the rights and privileges of

Masonry, and that an expulsion by a subordinate lodge is inoperative until

it is confirmed by the Grand Lodge, it follows that the expulsion of the

Apprentice must be confirmed by that body; and that, therefore, he has a

right to appeal to it for a reversal of the sentence, if it was unjustly

pronounced.

Let it not be said that this would be placing an Apprentice on too great

an equality with Master Masons. His rights are dear to him; he has paid

for them. No man would become an Apprentice unless he expected, in time,

to be made a Fellow Craft, and then a Master. He is, therefore, morally

and legally wronged when he is deprived, without sufficient cause, of the

capacity of fulfilling that expectation. It is the duty of the Grand Lodge

to see that not even the humblest member of the craft shall have his

rights unjustly invaded; and it is therefore bound, as the conservator of

the rights of all, to inquire into the truth, and administer equity.

Whenever, therefore, even an Entered Apprentice complains that he has met

with injustice and oppression, his complaint should be investigated and

justice administered.

The question next occurs--What number of black balls should prevent an

Apprentice from passing to the second degree? I answer, the same number

that would reject the application of a profane for initiation into the

Order. And why should this not be so? Are the qualifications which would

be required of one applying, for the first time, for admission to the

degree of an Apprentice more than would subsequently be required of the

same person on his applying for a greater favor and a higher honor--that

of being advanced to the second degree? Or do the requisitions, which

exist in the earlier stages of Masonry, become less and less with every

step of the aspirant's progress? Viewing the question in this light--and,

indeed, I know of no other in which to view it--it seems to me to be

perfectly evident that the peculiar constitution and principles of our

Order will require unanimity in the election of a profane for initiation,

of an Apprentice for a Fellow Craft, and of a Fellow Craft for a Master

Mason; and that, while no Entered Apprentice can be expelled from the

Order, except by due course of trial, it is competent for the lodge, at

any time, on a ballot, to refuse to advance him to the second degree. But,

let it be remembered that the lodge which refuses to pass an Apprentice,

on account of any objections to his moral character, or doubts of his

worthiness, is bound to give him the advantage of a trial, and at once to

expel him, if guilty, or, if innocent, to advance him when otherwise

qualified.

Chapter III.

Of the Rights of Fellow Crafts.

In ancient times there were undoubtedly many rights attached to the second

degree which have now become obsolete or been repealed; for formerly the

great body of the fraternity were Fellow Crafts, and according to the old

charges, even the Grand Master might be elected from among them. The

Master and Wardens of Subordinate Lodges always were. Thus we are told

that no Brother can be Grand Master, "unless he has been a Fellow Craft

before his election," and in the ancient manner of constituting a lodge,

contained in the Book of Constitutions,[78] it is said that "the

candidates, or the new Master and Wardens, being yet among the Fellow

Crafts, the Grand Master shall ask his Deputy if he has examined them,"

etc. But now that the great body of the Fraternity consists of Master

Masons, the prerogatives of Fellow Crafts are circumscribed within limits

nearly as narrow as those of Entered Apprentices. While, however,

Apprentices are not permitted to speak or vote, in ancient times, and up,

indeed, to a very late date. Fellow Crafts were entitled to take a part in

any discussion in which the lodge, while open in the first or second

degree, might engage, but not to vote. This privilege is expressly stated

by Preston, as appertaining to a Fellow Craft, in his charge to a

candidate, receiving that degree.

"As a Craftsman, in our private assemblies you may offer your sentiments

and opinions on such subjects as are regularly introduced in the Lecture,

under the superintendence of an experienced Master, who will guard the

landmark against encroachment."[79]

This privilege is not now, however, granted in this country to Fellow

Crafts. All, therefore, that has been said in the preceding chapter, of

the rights of Entered Apprentices, will equally apply, _mutatis mutandis_,

to the rights of Fellow Crafts.

Chapter IV.

Of the Rights of Master Masons.

When a Mason has reached the third degree, he becomes entitled to all the

rights and privileges of Ancient Craft Masonry. These rights are extensive

and complicated; and, like his duties, which are equally as extensive,

require a careful examination, thoroughly to comprehend them. Four of

them, at least, are of so much importance as to demand a distinct

consideration. These are the rights of membership, of visitation, of

relief, and of burial. To each I shall devote a separate section.

Section I.

_Of the Right of Membership._

The whole spirit and tenor of the General Regulations, as well as the

uniform usage of the craft, sustain the doctrine, that when a Mason is

initiated in a lodge, he has the right, by signing the bye-laws, to

become a member without the necessity of submitting to another ballot. In

the Constitutions of the Grand Lodge of New York, this principle is

asserted to be one of the ancient landmarks, and is announced in the

following words: "Initiation makes a man a Mason; but he must receive the

Master's degree, and sign the bye-laws before he becomes a member of the

lodge."[80] If the doctrine be not exactly a landmark (which I confess I

am not quite prepared to admit), it comes to us almost clothed with the

authority of one, from the sanction of universal and uninterrupted usage.

How long before he loses this right by a _non-user_, or neglect to avail

himself of it, is, I presume, a question to be settled by local authority.

A lodge, or a Grand Lodge, may affix the period according to its

discretion; but the general custom is, to require a signature of the

bye-laws, and a consequent enrollment in the lodge, within three months

after receiving the third degree. Should a Mason neglect to avail himself

of his privilege, he forfeits it (unless, upon sufficient cause, he is

excused by the lodge), and must submit to a ballot.

The reason for such a law is evident. If a Mason does not at once unite

himself with the lodge in which he was raised, but permits an extended

period of time to elapse, there is no certainty that his character or

habits may not have changed, and that he may not have become, since his

initiation, unworthy of affiliation. Under the general law, it is,

therefore, necessary that he should in such case submit to the usual

probation of one month, and an investigation of his qualifications by a

committee, as well as a ballot by the members.

But there are other privileges also connected with this right of

membership. A profane is required to apply for initiation to the lodge

nearest his place of residence, and, if there rejected, can never in

future apply to any other lodge. But the rule is different with respect to

the application of a Master Mason for membership.

A Master Mason is not restricted in his privilege of application for

membership within any geographical limits. All that is required of him is,

that he should be an affiliated Mason; that is, that he should be a

contributing member of a lodge, without any reference to its peculiar

locality, whether near to or distant from his place of residence. The Old

Charges simply prescribe, that every Mason ought to belong to a lodge. A

Mason, therefore, strictly complies with this regulation, when he unites

himself with any lodge, thus contributing to the support of the

institution, and is then entitled to all the privileges of an affiliated

Mason.

A rejection of the application of a Master Mason for membership by a lodge

does not deprive him of the right of applying to another. A Mason is in

"good standing" until deprived of that character by the action of some

competent masonic authority; and that action can only be by suspension or

expulsion. Rejection does not, therefore, affect the "good standing" of

the applicant; for in a rejection there is no legal form of trial, and

consequently the rejected Brother remains in the same position after as

before his rejection. He possesses the same rights as before, unimpaired

and undiminished; and among these rights is that of applying for

membership to any lodge that he may select.

If, then, a Mason may be a member of a lodge distant from his place of

residence, and, perhaps, even situated in a different jurisdiction, the

question then arises whether the lodge within whose precincts he resides,

but of which he is not a member, can exercise its discipline over him

should he commit any offense requiring masonic punishment. On this subject

there is, among masonic writers, a difference of opinion. I, however,

agree with Brother Pike, the able Chairman of the Committee of

Correspondence of Arkansas, that the lodge can exercise such discipline. I

contend that a Mason is amenable for his conduct not only to the lodge of

which he may be a member, but also to any one within whose jurisdiction he

permanently resides. A lodge is the conservator of the purity and the

protector of the integrity of the Order within its precincts. The unworthy

conduct of a Mason, living as it were immediately under its government, is

calculated most injuriously to affect that purity and integrity. A lodge,

therefore, should not be deprived of the power of coercing such unworthy

Mason, and, by salutary punishment, of vindicating the character of the

institution. Let us suppose, by way of example, that a Mason living in San

Francisco, California, but retaining his membership in New York, behaves

in such an immoral and indecorous manner as to bring the greatest

discredit upon the Order, and to materially injure it in the estimation of

the uninitiated community. Will it be, for a moment, contended that a

lodge in San Francisco cannot arrest the evil by bringing the unworthy

Mason under discipline, and even ejecting him from the fraternity, if

severity like that is necessary for the protection of the institution? Or

will it be contended that redress can only be sought through the delay and

uncertainty of an appeal to his lodge in New York? Even if the words of

the ancient laws are silent on this subject, reason and justice would seem

to maintain the propriety and expediency of the doctrine that the lodge at

San Francisco is amply competent to extend its jurisdiction and exercise

its discipline over the culprit.

In respect to the number of votes necessary to admit a Master Mason

applying by petition for membership in a lodge, there can be no doubt that

he must submit to precisely the same conditions as those prescribed to a

profane on his petition for initiation. There is no room for argument

here, for the General Regulations are express on this subject.

"No man can be made or _admitted a member_ of a particular lodge," says

the fifth regulation, "without previous notice one month before given to

the said lodge."

And the sixth regulation adds, that "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."

So that it may be considered as settled law, so far as the General

Regulations can settle a law of Masonry, that a Master Mason can only be

admitted a member of a lodge when applying by petition, after a month's

probation, after due inquiry into his character, and after a unanimous

ballot in his favor.

But there are other rights of Master Masons consequent upon membership,

which remain to be considered. In uniting with a lodge, a Master Mason

becomes a participant of all its interests, and is entitled to speak and

vote upon all subjects that come before the lodge for investigation. He is

also entitled, if duly elected by his fellows, to hold any office in the

lodge, except that of Master, for which he must be qualified by previously

having occupied the post of a Warden.

A Master has the right in all cases of an appeal from the decision of the

Master or of the lodge.

A Master Mason, in good standing, has a right at any time to demand from

his lodge a certificate to that effect.

Whatever other rights may appertain to Master Masons will be the subjects

of separate sections.

Section II.

_Of the Right of Visit._

Every Master Mason, who is an affiliated member of a lodge, has the right

to visit any other lodge as often as he may desire to do so. This right is

secured to him by the ancient regulations, and is, therefore,

irreversible. In the "Ancient Charges at the Constitution of a Lodge,"

formerly contained in a MS. of the Lodge of Antiquity in London, and whose

date is not later than 1688,[81]it is directed "that every Mason receive

and cherish strange fellows when they come over the country, and set them

on work, if they will work as the manner is; that is to say, if the Mason

have any mould stone in his place, he shall give him a mould stone, and

set him on work; and if he have none, the Mason shall refresh him with

money unto the next lodge."

This regulation is explicit. It not only infers the right of visit, but

it declares that the strange Brother shall be welcomed, "received, and

cherished," and "set on work," that is, permitted to participate in the

work of your lodge. Its provisions are equally applicable to Brethren

residing in the place where the lodge is situated as to transient

Brethren, provided that they are affiliated Masons.

In the year 1819, the law was in England authoritatively settled by a

decree of the Grand Lodge. A complaint had been preferred against a lodge

in London, for having refused admission to some Brethren who were well

known to them, alleging that as the lodge was about to initiate a

candidate, no visitor could be admitted until that ceremony was concluded.

It was then declared, "that it is the undoubted right of every Mason who

is well known, or properly vouched, to visit any lodge during the time it

is opened for general masonic business, observing the proper forms to be

attended to on such occasions, and so that the Master may not be

interrupted in the performance of his duty."[82]

A lodge, when not opened for "general masonic business," but when engaged

in the consideration of matters which interest the lodge alone, and which

it would be inexpedient or indelicate to make public, may refuse to admit

a visitor. Lodges engaged in this way, in private business, from which

visitors are excluded, are said by the French Masons to be opened "_en

famille_."

To entitle him to this right of visit, a Mason must be affiliated, that

is, he must be a contributing member of some lodge. This doctrine is thus

laid down in the Constitutions of the Grand Lodge of England:

"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 in which he resides,

more than once during his secession from the craft."

A non-subscribing or unaffiliated Mason is permitted to visit each lodge

once, and once only, because it is supposed that this visit is made for

the purpose of enabling him to make a selection of the one with which he

may prefer permanently to unite. But, afterwards, he loses this right of

visit, to discountenance those Brethren who wish to continue members of

the Order, and to partake of its pleasures and advantages, without

contributing to its support.

A Master Mason is not entitled to visit a lodge, unless he previously

submits to an examination, or is personally vouched for by a competent

Brother present; but this is a subject of so much importance as to claim

consideration in a distinct section.

Another regulation is, that a strange Brother shall furnish the lodge he

intends to visit with a certificate of his good standing in the lodge from

which he last hailed. This regulation has, in late years, given rise to

much discussion. Many of the Grand Lodges of this country, and several

masonic writers, strenuously contend for its antiquity and necessity,

while others as positively assert that it is a modern innovation upon

ancient usage.

There can, however, I think, be no doubt of the antiquity of certificates.

That the system requiring them was in force nearly two hundred years ago,

at least, will be evident from the third of the Regulations made in

General Assembly, December 27, 1663, under the Grand Mastership of the

Earl of St. Albans,[83] and which is in the following words:

"3. That no person hereafter who shall be accepted a Freemason, shall be

admitted into any lodge or assembly, until he has brought a certificate

of the time and place of his acceptation, from the lodge that accepted

him, unto the Master of that limit or division where such a lodge is

kept." This regulation has been reiterated on several occasions, by the

Grand Lodge of England in 1772, and at subsequent periods by several Grand

Lodges of this and other countries. It is not, however, in force in many

of the American jurisdictions.

Another right connected with the right of visitation is, that of demanding

a sight of the Warrant of Constitution. This instrument it is, indeed, not

only the right but the duty of every strange visitor carefully to inspect,

before he enters a lodge, that he may thus satisfy himself of the legality

and regularity of its character and authority. On such a demand being made

by a visitor for a sight of its Warrant, every lodge is bound to comply

with the requisition, and produce the instrument. The same rule, of

course, applies to lodges under dispensation, whose Warrant of

Dispensation supplies the place of a Warrant of Constitution.

Section III.

_Of the Examination of Visitors._

It has already been stated, in the preceding section, that a Master Mason

is not permitted to visit a lodge unless he previously submits to an

examination, or is personally vouched for by some competent Brother

present. The prerogative of vouching for a Brother is an important one,

and will constitute the subject of the succeeding section. At present let

us confine ourselves to the consideration of the mode of examining a

visitor.

Every visitor, who offers himself to the appointed committee of the lodge

for examination, is expected, as a preliminary step, to submit to the

Tiler's Obligation; so called, because it is administered in the Tiler's

room. As this obligation forms no part of the secret ritual of the Order,

but is administered to every person before any lawful knowledge of his

being a Mason has been received, there can be nothing objectionable in

inserting it here, and in fact, it will be advantageous to have the

precise words of so important a declaration placed beyond the possibility

of change or omission by inexperienced Brethren.

The oath, then, which is administered to the visitor, and which he may, if

he chooses, require every one present to take with him, is in the

following words

"I, A. B., do hereby and hereon solemnly and sincerely swear, that I have

been regularly initiated, passed, and raised, to the sublime degree of a

Master Mason, in a just and legally constituted lodge of such, that I do

not now stand suspended or expelled, and know of no reason why I should

not hold masonic communication with my Brethren.

This declaration having been given in the most solemn manner, the

examination must then be conducted with the necessary forms. The good old

rule of "commencing at the beginning" should be observed. Every question

is to be asked and every answer demanded which is necessary to convince

the examiner that the party examined is acquainted with what he ought to

know, to entitle him to the appellation of a Brother. Nothing is to be

taken for granted--categorical answers must be required to all that it is

deemed important to be asked. No forgetfulness is to be excused, nor is

the want of memory to be accepted as a valid excuse for the want of

knowledge. The Mason, who is so unmindful of his duties as to have

forgotten the instructions he has received, must pay the penalty of his

carelessness, and be deprived of his contemplated visit to that society

whose secret modes of recognition he has so little valued as not to have

treasured them in his memory. While there are some things which may be

safely passed over in the examination of one who confesses himself to be

"rusty," or but recently initiated, because they are details which require

much study to acquire, and constant practice to retain, there are still

other things of great importance which must be rigidly demanded, and with

the knowledge of which the examiner cannot, under any circumstances,

dispense.

Should suspicions of imposture arise, let no expression of these

suspicions be made until the final decree for rejection is pronounced. And

let that decree be uttered in general terms, such as: "I am not

satisfied," or, "I do not recognize you," and not in more specific terms,

such as, "You did not answer this inquiry," or, "You are ignorant on that

point." The visitor is only entitled to know, generally, that he has not

complied with the requisitions of his examiner. To descend to particulars

is always improper and often dangerous.

Above all, the examiner should never ask what are called "leading

questions," or such as include in themselves an indication of what the

answer is to be; nor should he in any manner aid the memory of the party

examined by the slightest hint. If he has it in him, it will come out

without assistance, and if he has it not, he is clearly entitled to no

aid.

Lastly, never should an unjustifiable delicacy weaken the rigor of these

rules. Let it be remembered, that for the wisest and most evident reasons,

the merciful maxim of the law, which says, that it is better that

ninety-nine guilty men should escape than that one innocent man should be

punished, is with us reversed, and that in Masonry _it is better that

ninety and nine true men should be turned away from the door of a lodge

than that one cowan should be admitted_.

Section IV.

_Of Vouching for a Brother._

An examination may sometimes be omitted when any competent Brother present

will vouch for the visitor's masonic standing and qualifications. This

prerogative of vouching is an important one which every Master Mason is

entitled, under certain restrictions, to exercise; but it is also one

which may so materially affect the well-being of the whole

fraternity--since by its injudicious use impostors might be introduced

among the faithful--that it should be controlled by the most stringent

regulations.

To vouch for one, is to bear witness for him; and, in witnessing to truth,

every caution should be observed, lest falsehood should cunningly assume

its garb. The Brother who vouches should, therefore, know to a certainty

that the one for whom he vouches is really what he claims to be. He should

know this not from a casual conversation, nor a loose and careless

inquiry, but, as the unwritten law of the Order expresses it, from

"_strict trial, due examination, or lawful information_."

Of strict trial and due examination I have already treated in the

preceding section; and it only remains to say, that when the vouching is

founded on the knowledge obtained in this way, it is absolutely necessary

that the Brother so vouching shall be _competent_ to conduct such an

examination, and that his general intelligence and shrewdness and his

knowledge of Masonry shall be such as to place him above the probability

of being imposed upon. The important and indispensable qualification of a

voucher is, therefore, that he shall be competent. The Master of a lodge

has no right to accept, without further inquiry, the avouchment of a

young and inexperienced, or even of an old, if ignorant, Mason.

Lawful information, which is the remaining ground for an avouchment, may

be derived either from the declaration of another Brother, or from having

met the party vouched for in a lodge on some previous occasion.

If the information is derived from another Brother, who states that he has

examined the party, then all that has already been said of the competency

of the one giving the information is equally applicable. The Brother,

giving the original information, must be competent to make a rigid

examination. Again, the person giving the information, the one receiving

it, and the one of whom it is given, should be all present at the time;

for otherwise there would be no certainty of identity. Information,

therefore, given by letter or through a third party, is highly irregular.

The information must also be positive, not founded on belief or opinion,

but derived from a legitimate source. And, lastly, it must not have been

received casually, but for the very purpose of being used for masonic

purposes. For one to say to another in the course of a desultory

conversation: "A.B. is a Mason," is not sufficient. He may not be

speaking with due caution, under the expectation that his words will be

considered of weight. He must say something to this effect: "I know this

man to be a Master Mason," for such or such reasons, and you may safely

recognize him as such. This alone will insure the necessary care and

proper observance of prudence.

If the information given is on the ground that the person, vouched has

been seen sitting in a lodge by the voucher, care must be taken to inquire

if it was a "Lodge of Master Masons." A person may forget, from the lapse

of time, and vouch for a stranger as a Master Mason, when the lodge in

which he saw him was only opened in the first or second degree.

Section V.

_Of the Right of Claiming Relief._

One of the great objects of our institution is, to afford relief to a

worthy, distressed Brother. In his want and destitution, the claim of a

Mason upon his Brethren is much greater than that of a profane. This is a

Christian as well as a masonic doctrine. "As we have therefore

opportunity," says St. Paul, "let us do good unto all men, especially

unto them who are of the household of faith."

This claim for relief he may present either to a lodge or to a Brother

Mason. The rule, as well as the principles by which it is to be regulated,

is laid down in that fundamental law of Masonry, the Old Charges, in the

following explicit words, under the head of "Behavior towards a strange

Brother:"

"You are cautiously to examine him, in such a method as prudence shall

direct you, that you may not be imposed upon by an ignorant, false

pretender, whom you are to reject with contempt and derision, and beware

of giving him any hints of knowledge.

"But if you discover him to be a true and genuine Brother, you are to

respect him accordingly; and if he is in want, you must relieve him if you

can, or else direct him how he may be relieved. You must employ him some

days, or else recommend him to be employed. But you are not charged to do

beyond your ability, only to prefer a poor Brother, that is a good man and

true, before any other people in the same circumstances."

This law thus laid down, includes, it will be perceived, as two important

prerequisites, on which to found a claim for relief, that the person

applying shall be in distress, and that he shall be worthy of assistance.

He must be in distress. Ours is not an insurance company, a joint stock

association, in which, for a certain premium paid, an equivalent may be

demanded. No Mason, or no lodge, is bound to give pecuniary or other aid

to a Brother, unless he really needs. The word " benefit," as usually used

in the modern friendly societies, has no place in the vocabulary of

Freemasonry. If a wealthy Brother is afflicted with sorrow or sickness, we

are to strive to comfort him with our sympathy, our kindness, and our

attention, but we are to bestow our eleemosynary aid only on the indigent

or the destitute.

He must also be worthy. There is no obligation on a Mason to relieve the

distresses, however real they may be, of an unworthy Brother. The claimant

must be, in the language of the Charge, "true and genuine." True here is

used in its good old Saxon meaning, of "faithful" or "trusty." A true

Mason is one who is mindful of his obligations, and who faithfully

observes and practices all his duties. Such a man, alone, can rightfully

claim the assistance of his Brethren.

But a third provision is made in the fundamental law; namely, that the

assistance is not to be beyond the ability of the giver. One of the most

important landmarks, contained in our unwritten law, more definitely

announces this provision, by the words, that the aid and assistance shall

be without injury to oneself or his family. Masonry does not require that

we shall sacrifice our own welfare to that of a Brother; but that with

prudent liberality, and a just regard to our own worldly means, we shall

give of the means with which Providence may have blessed us for the relief

of our distressed Brethren.

It is hardly necessary to say, that the claim for relief of a worthy

distressed Mason extends also to his immediate family.

Section VI.

_Of the Right of Masonic Burial._

After a very careful examination, I can find nothing in the old charges or

General Regulations, nor in any other part of the fundamental law, in

relation to masonic burial of deceased Brethren. It is probable that, at

an early period, when the great body of the craft consisted of Entered

Apprentices, the usage permitted the burial of members, of the first or

second degree, with the honors of Masonry. As far back as 1754,

processions for the purpose of burying Masons seemed to have been

conducted by some of the lodges with either too much frequency, or some

other irregularity; for, in November of that year, the Grand Lodge adopted

a regulation, forbidding them, under a heavy penalty, unless by permission

of the Grand Master, or his Deputy.[84] As there were, comparatively

speaking, few Master Masons at that period, it seems a natural inference

that most of the funeral processions were for the burial of Apprentices,

or, at least, of Fellow Crafts.

But the usage since then, has been greatly changed; and by universal

consent, the law, as first committed to writing, by Preston, who was the

author of our present funeral service, is now adopted.

The Regulation, as laid down by Preston, is so explicit, that I prefer

giving it in his own words.[85]

"No Mason can be interred with the formalities of the Order, unless it be

at his own special request, communicated to the Master of the Lodge of

which he died a member--foreigners and sojourners excepted; nor unless he

has been advanced to the third degree of Masonry, from which restriction

there can be no exception. Fellow Crafts or Apprentices are not entitled

to the funeral obsequies."

This rule has been embodied in the modern Constitutions of the Grand Lodge

of England; and, as I have already observed, appears by universal consent

to have been adopted as the general usage.

The necessity for a dispensation, which is also required by the modern

English Constitutions, does not seem to have met with the same general

approval, and in this country, dispensations for funeral processions are

not usually, if at all, required. Indeed, Preston himself, in explaining

the law, says that it was not intended to restrict the privileges of the

regular lodges, but that, "by the universal practice of Masons, every

regular lodge is authorized by the Constitution to act on such occasions

when limited to its own members."[86] It is only when members of other

lodges, not under the control of the Master, are convened, that a

dispensation is required. But in America, Grand Lodges or Grand Masters

have not generally interfered with the rights of the lodges to bury the

dead; the Master being of course amenable to the constituted authorities

for any indecorum or impropriety.

Chapter V.

Of the Rights of Past Masters.

I have already discussed the right of Past Masters to become members of a

Grand Lodge, in a preceding part of this work,[87] and have there arrived

at the conclusion that no such inherent right exists, and that a Grand

Lodge may or may not admit them to membership, according to its own notion

of expediency. Still the fact, that they are competent by their masonic

rank of accepting such a courtesy when extended, in itself constitutes a

prerogative; for none but Masters, Wardens, or Past Masters, can under any

circumstances become members of a Grand Lodge.

Past Masters possess a few other positive rights.

In the first place they have a right to install their successors, and at

all times subsequent to their installation to be present at the ceremony

of installing Masters of lodges. I should scarcely have deemed it

necessary to dwell upon so self-evident a proposition, were it not that it

involves the discussion of a question which has of late years been warmly

mooted in some jurisdictions, namely, whether this right of being present

at an installation should, or should not, be extended to Past Masters,

made in Royal Arch Chapters.

In view of the fact, that there are two very different kinds of possessors

of the same degree, the Grand Lodge of England has long since

distinguished them as "virtual" and as "actual" Past Masters. The terms

are sufficiently explicit, and have the advantage of enabling us to avoid

circumlocution, and I shall, therefore, adopt them.

An _actual Past Master_ is one who has been regularly installed to preside

over a symbolic lodge under the jurisdiction of a Grand Lodge. A _virtual

Past Master_ is one who has received the degree in a chapter, for the

purpose of qualifying him for exaltation to the Royal Arch.

Now the question to be considered is this. Can a virtual Past Master be

permitted to be present at the installation of an actual Past Master?

The Committee of Correspondence of New York, in 1851, announced the

doctrine, that a Chapter, or virtual Past Master, cannot legally install

the Master of a Symbolic Lodge; but that there is no rule forbidding his

being present at the ceremony. This doctrine has been accepted by several

Grand Lodges, while others again refuse to admit the presence of a virtual

Past Master at the installation-service.

In South Carolina, for instance, by uninterrupted usage, virtual Past

Masters are excluded from the ceremony of installation.

In Louisiana, under the high authority of the late Brother Gedge, it is

asserted, that "it is the bounden duty of all Grand Lodges to prevent the

possessors of the (chapter) degree from the exercise of any function

appertaining to the office and attributes of an installed Master of a

lodge of Symbolic Masonry, and refuse to recognize them as belonging to

the order of Past Masters."[88]

Brother Albert Pike, whose opinion on masonic jurisprudence is entitled to

the most respectful consideration, has announced a similar doctrine in one

of his elaborate reports to the Grand Chapter of Arkansas. He does not

consider "that the Past Master's degree, conferred in a chapter, invests

the recipient with any rank or authority, except within the chapter

itself; that it no ways qualifies or authorizes him to preside in the

chair of a lodge: that a lodge has no legal means of knowing that he has

received the degree in a chapter: for it is not supposed to know anything

that takes place there any more than it knows what takes place in a Lodge

of Perfection, or a Chapter of Knights of the Rose Croix;" and, of course,

if the Past Masters of a lodge have no such "legal means" of recognition

of Chapter Masters, they cannot permit them to be present at an

installation.

This is, in fact, no new doctrine. Preston, in his description of the

installation ceremony, says: "The new Master is then conducted to an

adjacent room, where he is regularly installed, and bound to his trust in

ancient form, in the presence of at least _three installed Masters_"[89]

And Dr. Oliver, in commenting on this passage, says, "this part of the

ceremony can only be orally communicated, nor can any but _installed_

Masters be present."[90]

And this rule appears to be founded on the principles of reason. There can

be no doubt, if we carefully examine the history of Masonry in this

country and in England, that the degree of Past Master was originally

conferred by Symbolic Lodges as an honorarium or reward bestowed upon

those Brethren who had been found worthy to occupy the Oriental Chair. In

so far it was only a degree of office, and could be obtained only from the

Lodge in which the office had been conferred. At a later period it was

deemed an essential prerequisite to exaltation in the degree of Royal

Arch, and was, for that purpose, conferred on candidates for that

position, while the Royal Arch degree was under the control of the

symbolic Lodges, but still only conferred by the Past Masters of the

Lodge. But subsequently, when the system of Royal Arch Masonry was greatly

enlarged and extended in this country, and chapters were organized

independent of the Grand and symbolic Lodges, these Chapters took with

them the Past Master's degree, and assumed the right of conferring it on

their candidates. Hence arose the anomaly which now exists in American

Masonry, of two degrees bearing the same name, and said to be almost

identical in character, conferred by two different bodies under entirely

different qualifications and for totally different purposes. As was to be

expected, when time had in some degree obliterated the details of history,

each party began to claim for itself the sovereign virtue of legitimacy.

The Past Masters of the Chapters denied the right of the Symbolic Lodges

to confer the degree, and the latter, in their turn, asserted that the

degree, as conferred in the Chapter, was an innovation.

The prevalence of the former doctrine would, of course, tend to deprive

the Symbolic Lodges of a vested right held by them from the most ancient

times--that, namely, of conferring an honorarium on their Masters elect.

On the whole, then, from this view of the surreptitious character of the

Chapter Degree, and supported by the high authority whom I have cited, as

well as by the best usage, I am constrained to believe that the true rule

is, to deny the Chapter, or Virtual Past Masters, the right to install, or

to be present at the installation of the Master of a Symbolic Lodge. A

Past Master may preside over a lodge in the absence of the Master,

provided he is invited to do so by the Senior Warden present. The Second

General Regulation gave the power of presiding, during the absence of the

Master, to the last Past Master present, after the lodge had been

congregated by the Senior Warden; but two years afterwards, the rule was

repealed, and the power of presiding in such cases was vested in the

Senior Warden. And accordingly, in this country, it has always been held,

that in the absence of the Master, his authority descends to the Senior

Warden, who may, however, by courtesy, offer the chair to a Past Master

present, after the lodge has been congregated. Some jurisdictions have

permitted a Past Master to preside in the absence of the Master and both

Wardens, provided he was a member of that lodge. But I confess that I can

find no warrant for this rule in any portion of our fundamental laws. The

power of congregating the lodge in the absence of the Master has always

been confined to the Wardens; and it therefore seems to me, that when both

the Master and Wardens are absent, although a Past Master may be present,

the lodge cannot be opened.

A Past Master is eligible for election to the chair, without again passing

through the office of a Warden.

He is also entitled to a seat in the East, and to wear a jewel and collar

peculiar to his dignity.

By an ancient regulation, contained in the Old Charges, Past Masters alone

were eligible to the office of Grand Warden. The Deputy Grand Master was

also to be selected from among the Masters, or Past Masters of Lodges. No

such regulation was in existence as to the office of Grand Master, who

might be selected from the mass of the fraternity. At the present time, in

this country, it is usual to select the Grand officers from among the Past

Masters of the jurisdiction, though I know of no ancient law making such a

regulation obligatory, except in respect to the affairs of Grand Wardens

and Deputy Grand Master.

Chapter VI.

Of Affiliation.

Affiliation is defined to be the act by which a lodge receives a Mason

among its members. A profane is said to be "initiated," but a Mason is

"affiliated."[91]

Now the mode in which a Mason becomes affiliated with a lodge, in some

respects differs from, and in others resembles, the mode in which a

profane is initiated.

A Mason, desiring to be affiliated with a lodge, must apply by petition;

this petition must be referred to a committee for investigation of

character, he must remain in a state of probation for one month, and must

then submit to a ballot, in which unanimity will be required for his

admission. In all these respects, there is no difference in the modes of

regulating applications for initiation and affiliation. The Fifth and

Sixth General Regulations, upon which these usages are founded, draw no

distinction between the act of making a Mason and admitting a member. The

two processes are disjunctively connected in the language of both

regulations. "No man can be made, _or admitted a member_ * * * * without

previous notice one month before;" are the words of the Fifth Regulation.

And in a similar spirit the Sixth adds: "But 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."

None but Master Masons are permitted to apply for affiliation; and every

Brother so applying must bring to the lodge to which he applies a

certificate of his regular dismission from the lodge of which he was last

a member. This document is now usually styled a "demit," and should

specify the good standing of the bearer at the time of his resignation or

demission.

Under the regulations of the various Grand Lodges of this country, a

profane cannot, as has been already observed, apply for initiation in any

other lodge than the one nearest to his residence. No such regulation,

however, exists in relation to the application of a Mason for

affiliation. Having once been admitted into the Order, he has a right to

select the lodge with which he may desire to unite himself. He is not even

bound to affiliate with the lodge in which he was initiated, but after

being raised, may leave it, without signing the bye-laws, and attach

himself to another.

A profane, having been rejected by a lodge, can never apply to any other

for initiation. But a Mason, having been rejected, on his application for

affiliation, by a lodge, is not thereby debarred from subsequently making

a similar application to any other.

In some few jurisdictions a local regulation has of late years been

enacted, that no Mason shall belong to more than one lodge. It is, I

presume, competent for a Grand Lodge to enact such a regulation; but where

such enactment has not taken place, we must be governed by the ancient and

general principle.

The General Regulations, adopted in 1721, contain no reference to this

case; but in a new regulation, adopted on the 19th February, 1723, it was

declared that "no Brother shall belong to more than one lodge within the

bills of mortality." This rule was, therefore, confined to the lodges in

the city of London, and did not affect the country lodges. Still,

restricted as it was in its operation, Anderson remarks, "this regulation

is neglected for several reasons, and now obsolete."[92] Custom now in

England and in other parts of Europe, as well as in some few portions of

this country, is adverse to the regulation; and where no local law exists

in a particular jurisdiction, I know of no principle of masonic

jurisprudence which forbids a Mason to affiliate himself with more than

one lodge.

The only objection to it is one which must be urged, not by the Order, but

by the individual. It is, that his duties and his responsibilities are

thus multiplied, as well as his expenses. If he is willing to incur all

this additional weight in running his race of Masonry, it is not for

others to resist this exuberance of zeal. The Mason, however, who is

affiliated with more than one lodge, must remember that he is subject to

the independent jurisdiction of each; may for the same offense be tried in

each, and, although acquitted by all except one, that, if convicted by

that one, his conviction will, if he be suspended or expelled, work his

suspension or expulsion in all the others.

Chapter VII.

Of Demitting.

To demit from a lodge is to resign one's membership, on which occasion a

certificate of good standing and a release from all dues is given to the

applicant, which is technically called a _demit_.

The right to demit or resign never has, until within a few years, been

denied. In 1853, the Grand Lodge of Connecticut adopted a regulation "that

no lodge should grant a demit to any of its members, except for the

purpose of joining some other lodge; and that no member shall be

considered as having withdrawn from one lodge until he has actually become

a member of another." Similar regulations have been either adopted or

proposed by a few other Grand Lodges, but I much doubt both their

expediency and their legality. This compulsory method of keeping Masons,

after they have once been made, seems to me to be as repugnant to the

voluntary character of our institution as would be a compulsory mode of

making them in the beginning. The expediency of such a regulation is also

highly questionable. Every candidate is required to come to our doors "of

his own free will and accord," and surely we should desire to keep none

among us after that free will is no longer felt. We are all familiar with

the Hudibrastic adage, that

"A man convinced against his will,

Is of the same opinion still,"

and he who is no longer actuated by that ardent esteem for the institution

which would generate a wish to continue his membership, could scarcely

have his slumbering zeal awakened, or his coldness warmed by the bolts and

bars of a regulation that should keep him a reluctant prisoner within the

walls from which he would gladly escape. Masons with such dispositions we

can gladly spare from our ranks.

The Ancient Charges, while they assert that every Mason should belong to a

lodge, affix no penalty for disobedience. No man can be compelled to

continue his union with a society, whether it be religious, political, or

social, any longer than will suit his own inclinations or sense of duty.

To interfere with this inalienable prerogative of a freeman would be an

infringement on private rights. A Mason's initiation was voluntary, and

his continuance in the Order must be equally so.

But no man is entitled to a demit, unless at the time of demanding it he

be in good standing and free from all charges. If under charges for crime,

he must remain and abide his trial, or if in arrears, must pay up his

dues.

There is, however, one case of demission for which a special law has been

enacted. That is, when several Brethren at the same time request demits

from a lodge. As this action is sometimes the result of pique or anger,

and as the withdrawal of several members at once might seriously impair

the prosperity, or perhaps even endanger the very existence of the lodge,

it has been expressly forbidden by the General Regulations, unless the

lodge has become too numerous for convenient working; and not even then is

permitted except by a Dispensation. The words of this law are to be found

in the Eighth General Regulation, as follows:

"No set or number of Brethren shall withdraw or separate themselves from

the lodge in which they were made Brethren, or were afterwards admitted

members, unless the lodge becomes too numerous; nor even then, without a

dispensation from the Grand Master or his Deputy; and when they are thus

separated, they must either immediately join themselves to such other

lodge as they shall like best, with the unanimous consent of that other

lodge to which they go, or else they must obtain the Grand Master's

warrant to join in forming a new lodge."

It seems, therefore, that, although a lodge cannot deny the right of a

single member to demit, when a sort of conspiracy may be supposed to be

formed, and several Brethren present their petitions for demits at one and

the same time, the lodge may not only refuse, but is bound to do so,

unless under a dispensation, which dispensation can only be given in the

case of an over-populous lodge.

With these restrictions and qualifications, it cannot be doubted that

every Master Mason has a right to demit from his lodge at his own

pleasure. What will be the result upon himself, in his future relations to

the Order, of such demission, will constitute the subject of the

succeeding chapter.

Chapter VIII.

Of Unaffiliated Masons.

An unaffiliated Mason is one who is not connected by membership with any

lodge. There can be no doubt that such a position is contrary to the

spirit of our institution, and that affiliation is a duty obligatory on

every Mason. The Old Charges, which have been so often cited as the

fundamental law of Masonry, say on this subject: "every Brother ought to

belong to a lodge and to be subject to its bye-laws and the General

Regulations."

Explicitly as this doctrine has been announced, it has been too little

observed, in consequence of no precise penalty having been annexed to its

violation. In all times, unaffiliated Masons have existed--Masons who have

withdrawn from all active participation in the duties and responsibilities

of the Order, and who, when in the hour of danger or distress, have not

hesitated to claim its protection or assistance, while they have refused

in the day of their prosperity to add anything to its wealth, its power,

or its influence. In this country, the anti-masonic persecutions of 1828,

and a few years subsequently, by causing the cessation of many lodges,

threw a vast number of Brethren out of all direct connection with the

institution; on the restoration of peace, and the renewal of labor by the

lodges, too many of these Brethren neglected to reunite themselves with

the craft, and thus remained unaffiliated. The habit, thus introduced, was

followed by others, until the sin of unaffiliation has at length arrived

at such a point of excess, as to have become a serious evil, and to have

attracted the attention and received the condemnation of almost every

Grand Lodge.

A few Grand Lodges have denied the right of a Mason permanently to demit

from the Order. Texas, for instance, has declared that "it does not

recognize the right of a Mason to demit or separate himself from the lodge

in which he was made, or may afterwards be admitted, except for the

purpose of joining another lodge, or when he may be about to remove

without the jurisdiction of the lodge of which he may be a member."[93] A

few other Grand Lodges have adopted a similar regulation; but the

prevailing opinion of the authorities appears to be, that it is competent

to interfere with the right to demit, certain rights and prerogatives

being, however, lost by such demission.

Arkansas, Missouri, Ohio, and one or two other Grand Lodges, while not

positively denying the right of demission, have at various times levied a

tax or contribution on the demitted or unaffiliated Masons within their

respective jurisdictions. This principle, however, has also failed to

obtain the general concurrence of other Grand Lodges, and some of them, as

Maryland, have openly denounced it. After a careful examination of the

authorities, I cannot deny to any man the _right_ of withdrawing,

whensoever he pleases, from a voluntary association--the laws of the land

would not sustain us in the enforcement of such a regulation; and our own

self-respect should prevent us from attempting it. If, then, he has a

right to withdraw, it clearly follows that we have no right to tax him,

which is only one mode of inflicting a fine or penalty for an act, the

right to do which we have acceded. In the strong language of the Committee

of Correspondence of Maryland:[94] "The object of Masonry never was to

extort, _nolens volens,_ money from its votaries. Such are not its

principles or teaching. The advocating such doctrines cannot advance the

interest or reputation of the institution; but will, as your committee

fear, do much to destroy its usefulness. Compulsive membership deprives it

of the title, _Free_ and Accepted."

But as it is an undoubted precept of the Order that every Mason should

belong to a lodge, and contribute, so far as his means will allow, to the

support of the institution, and as, by his demission, for other than

temporary purposes, he violates the principles and disobeys the precepts

of the Order, it naturally follows that his withdrawal must place him in a

different position from that which he would occupy as an affiliated Mason.

It is now time for us to inquire what that new position is.

We may say, then, that, whenever a Mason permanently withdraws his

membership, he at once, and while he continues unaffiliated, dissevers all

connection between himself and the _Lodge organization_ of the Order. He,

by this act, divests himself of all the rights and privileges which belong

to him as a member of that organization. Among these rights and privileges

are those of visitation, of pecuniary aid, and of masonic burial.

Whenever he approaches the door of a lodge, asking to enter or seeking for

assistance, he is to be met in the light of a profane. He may knock, but

the door must not be opened--he may ask, but he is not to receive. The

work of the lodge is not to be shared by those who have thrown aside their

aprons and their implements, and abandoned the labors of the Temple--the

funds of the lodge are to be distributed only among these who are aiding,

by their individual contributions, to the formation of similar funds in

other lodges.

But from the well-known and universally-admitted maxim of "once a Mason,

and always a Mason," it follows that a demitted Brother cannot by such

demission divest himself of all his masonic responsibilities to his

Brethren, nor be deprived of their correlative responsibility to him. An

unaffiliated Mason is still bound by certain obligations, of which he

cannot, under any circumstances, divest himself, and by similar

obligations are the fraternity bound to him. These relate to the duties of

secrecy and of aid in the imminent hour of peril. Of the first of these

there can be no doubt; and as to the last, the words of the precept

directing it leaves us no option; nor is it a time when the G.H.S. of D.

is thrown out to inquire into the condition of the party.

Speaking on this subject, Brother Albert Pike, in his report to the Grand

Lodge of Arkansas, says "if a person appeals to us as a Mason in imminent

peril, or such pressing need that we have not time to inquire into his

worthiness, then, lest we might refuse to relieve and aid a worthy

Brother, we must not stop to inquire _as to anything_." But I do not think

that the learned Brother has put the case in the strongest light. It is

not alone "lest we might refuse to relieve and aid a worthy Brother," that

we are in cases of "imminent peril" to make no pause for deliberation. But

it is because we are bound by our highest obligations at all times, and to

all Masons, to give that aid when _duly_ called for.

I may, then, after this somewhat protracted discussion, briefly

recapitulate the position, the rights and the responsibilities of an

unaffiliated Mason as follows:

1. An unaffiliated Mason is still bound by all his masonic duties and

obligations, excepting those connected with the organization of the lodge.

2. He has a right to aid in imminent peril when _he asks for that aid in

the_ proper _and conventional way_.

3. He loses the right to receive pecuniary relief.

4. He loses the general right to visit[95] lodges, or to walk in masonic

processions.

5. He loses the right of masonic burial.

6. He still remains subject to the government of the Order, and may be

tried and punished for any offense as an affiliated Mason would be, by the

lodge within whose geographical jurisdiction he resides.

Book Fourth.

Of Masonic Crimes and Punishments.

Chapter I.

Of What Are Masonic Crimes.

The division of wrongs, by the writers on municipal law, into private and

public, or civil injuries and crimes and misdemeanors, does not apply to

the jurisprudence of Freemasonry. Here all wrongs are crimes, because they

are a violation of the precepts of the institution; and an offense against

an individual is punished, not so much because it is a breach of his

private rights, as because it affects the well-being of the whole masonic

community.

In replying to the question, "what are masonic crimes?" by which is meant

what crimes are punishable by the constituted authorities, our safest

guide will be that fundamental law which is contained in the Old Charges.

These give a concise, but succinct summary of the duties of a Mason, and,

of course, whatever is a violation of any one of these duties will

constitute a masonic crime, and the perpetrator will be amenable to

masonic punishment.

But before entering on the consideration of these penal offenses, it will

be well that we should relieve the labor of the task, by inquiring what

crimes or offenses are not supposed to come within the purview of masonic

jurisprudence.

Religion and politics are subjects which it is well known are stringently

forbidden to be introduced into Masonry. And hence arises the doctrine,

that Masonry will not take congnizance of religious or political offenses.

Heresy, for instance, is not a masonic crime. Masons are obliged to use

the words of the Old Charges, "to that religion in which all men agree,

leaving their particular opinions to themselves;" and, therefore, as long

as a Mason acknowledges his belief in the existence of one God, a lodge

can take no action on his peculiar opinions, however heterodox they may

be.

In like manner, although all the most ancient and universally-received

precepts of the institution inculcate obedience to the civil powers, and

strictly forbid any mingling in plots or conspiracies against the peace

and welfare of the nation, yet no offense against the state, which is

simply political in its character, can be noticed by a lodge. On this

important subject, the Old Charges are remarkably explicit. They say,

putting perhaps the strongest case by way of exemplifying the principle,

"that if a Brother should be a rebel against the State, he is not to be

countenanced in his rebellion, however he may be pitied as an unhappy man;

and, if convicted of no other crime, though the loyal Brotherhood must and

ought to disown his rebellion, and give no umbrage or ground of political

jealousy to the government for the time being, _they cannot expel him from

the lodge, and his relation to it remains indefeasible_"

The lodge can, therefore, take no cognizance of religious or political

offenses.

The first charge says: "a Mason is obliged by his tenure to obey the moral

law." Now, although, in a theological sense, the ten commandments are said

to embrace and constitute the moral law, because they are its best

exponent, yet jurists have given to the term a more general latitude, in

defining the moral laws to be "the eternal, immutable laws of good and

evil, to which the Creator himself, in all dispensations, conforms, and

which he has enabled human reason to discover, so far as they are

necessary for the conduct of human actions."[96] Perhaps the well known

summary of Justinian will give the best idea of what this law is, namely,

that we "should live honestly, (that is to say, without reproach,)[97]

should injure nobody, and render to every one his just due."

If such, then, be the meaning of the moral law, and if every Mason is by

his tenure obliged to obey it, it follows, that all such crimes as profane

swearing or great impiety in any form, neglect of social and domestic

duties, murder and its concomitant vices of cruelty and hatred, adultery,

dishonesty in any shape, perjury or malevolence, and habitual falsehood,

inordinate covetousness, and in short, all those ramifications of these

leading vices which injuriously affect the relations of man to God, his

neighbor, and himself, are proper subjects of lodge jurisdiction. Whatever

moral defects constitute the bad man, make also the bad Mason, and

consequently come under the category of masonic offenses. The principle is

so plain and comprehensible as to need no further exemplification. It is

sufficient to say that, whenever an act done by a Mason is contrary to or

subsersive of the three great duties which he owes to God, his neighbor,

and himself, it becomes at once a subject of masonic investigation, and of

masonic punishment.

But besides these offenses against the universal moral law, there are many

others arising from the peculiar nature of our institution. Among these we

may mention, and in their order, those that are enumerated in the several

sections of the Sixth Chapter of the Old Charges. These are, unseemly and

irreverent conduct in the lodge, all excesses of every kind, private

piques or quarrels brought into the lodge; imprudent conversation in

relation to Masonry in the presence of uninitiated strangers; refusal to

relieve a worthy distressed Brother, if in your power; and all "wrangling,

quarreling, back-biting, and slander."

The lectures in the various degrees, and the Ancient Charges read on the

installation of the Master of a lodge, furnish us with other criteria for

deciding what are peculiarly masonic offenses. All of them need not be

detailed; but among them may be particularly mentioned the following: All

improper revelations, undue solicitations for candidates, angry and

over-zealous arguments in favor of Masonry with its enemies, every act

which tends to impair the unsullied purity of the Order, want of

reverence for and obedience to masonic superiors, the expression of a

contemptuous opinion of the original rulers and patrons of Masonry, or of

the institution itself; all countenance of impostors; and lastly, holding

masonic communion with clandestine Masons, or visiting irregular lodges.

From this list, which, extended as it is, might easily have been enlarged,

it will be readily seen, that the sphere of masonic penal jurisdiction is

by no means limited. It should, therefore, be the object of every Mason,

to avoid the censure or reproach of his Brethren, by strictly confining

himself as a point within that circle of duty which, at his first

initiation, was presented to him as an object worthy of his consideration.

Chapter II.

Of Masonic Punishments.

Having occupied the last chapter in a consideration of what constitute

masonic crimes, it is next in order to inquire how these offenses are to

be punished; and accordingly I propose in the following sections to treat

of the various modes in which masonic law is vindicated, commencing with

the slightest mode of punishment, which is censure, and proceeding to the

highest, or expulsion from all the rights and privileges of the Order.

Section I.

_Of Censure._

A censure is the mildest form of punishment that can be inflicted by a

lodge; and as it is simply the expression of an opinion by the members of

the lodge, that they do not approve of the conduct of the person

implicated, in a particular point of view, and as it does not in any

degree affect the masonic standing of the one censured, nor for a moment

suspend or abridge his rights and benefits, I have no doubt that it may be

done on a mere motion, without previous notice, and adopted, as any other

resolution, by a bare majority of the members present.

Masonic courtesy would, however, dictate that notice should be given to

the Brother, if absent, that such a motion of censure is about to be

proposed or considered, to enable him to show cause, if any he have, why

he should not be censured. But such notice is not, as I have said,

necessary to the legality of the vote of censure.

A vote of censure will sometimes, however, be the result of a trial, and

in that case its adoption must be governed by the rules of masonic trials,

which are hereafter to be laid down.

Section II.

_Of Reprimand._

A reprimand is the next mildest form of masonic punishment. It should

never be adopted on a mere motion, but should always be the result of a

regular trial, in which the party may have the opportunity of defense.

A reprimand may be either private or public. If to be given in private,

none should be present but the Master and the offender; or, if given by

letter, no copy of that letter should be preserved.

If given in public, the lodge is the proper place, and the reprimand

should be given by the Master from his appropriate station.

The Master is always the executive officer of the lodge, and in carrying

out the sentence he must exercise his own prudent discretion as to the

mode of delivery and form of words.

A reprimand, whether private or public, does not affect the masonic

standing of the offender.

Section III.

_Of Exclusion from the Lodge._

Exclusion from a lodge may be of various degrees.

1. A member may for indecorous or unmasonic conduct be excluded from a

single meeting of the lodge. This may be done by the Master, under a

provision of the bye-laws giving him the authority, or on his own

responsibility, in which case he is amenable to the Grand Lodge for the

correctness of his decision. Exclusion in this way does not affect the

masonic standing of the person excluded, and does not require a previous

trial.

I cannot entertain any doubt that the Master of a lodge has the right to

exclude temporarily any member or Mason, when he thinks that either his

admission, if outside, or his continuance within, if present, will impair

the peace and harmony of the lodge. It is a prerogative necessary to the

faithful performance of his duties, and inalienable from his great

responsibility to the Grand Lodge for the proper government of the Craft

intrusted to his care. If, as it is described in the ancient manner of

constituting a lodge, the Master is charged "to preserve the cement of the

Lodge," it would be folly to give him such a charge, unless he were

invested with the power to exclude an unruly or disorderly member. But as

Masters are enjoined not to rule their lodges in an unjust or arbitrary

manner, and as every Mason is clearly entitled to redress for any wrong

that has been done to him, it follows that the Master is responsible to

the Grand Lodge for the manner in which he has executed the vast power

intrusted to him, and he may be tried and punished by that body, for

excluding a member, when the motives of the act and the other

circumstances of the exclusion were not such as to warrant the exercise of

his prerogative.

2. A member may be excluded from his lodge for a definite or indefinite

period, on account of the non-payment of arrears. This punishment may be

inflicted in different modes, and under different names. It is sometimes

called, _suspension from the lodge,_ and sometimes _erasure from the

roll_. Both of these punishments, though differing in their effect, are

pronounced, not after a trial, but by a provision of the bye-laws of the

lodge. For this reason alone, if there were no other, I should contend,

that they do not affect the standing of the member suspended, or erased,

with relation to the craft in general. No Mason can be deprived of his

masonic rights, except after a trial, with the opportunity of defense, and

a verdict of his peers.

But before coming to a definite conclusion on this subject, it is

necessary that we should view the subject in another point of view, in

which it will be seen that a suspension from the rights and benefits of

Masonry, for the non-payment of dues, is entirely at variance with the

true principles of the Order.

The system of payment of lodge-dues does not by any means belong to the

ancient usages of the fraternity. It is a modern custom, established for

purposes of convenience, and arising out of other modifications, in the

organization of the Order. It is not an obligation on the part of a Mason,

to the institution at large, but is in reality a special contract, in

which the only parties are a particular lodge and its members, of which

the fraternity, as a mass, are to know nothing. It is not presented by any

general masonic law, nor any universal masonic precept. No Grand Lodge has

ever yet attempted to control or regulate it, and it is thus tacitly

admitted to form no part of the general regulations of the Order. Even in

that Old Charge in which a lodge is described, and the necessity of

membership in is enforced, not a word is said of the payment of arrears to

it, or of the duty of contributing to its support. Hence the non-payment

of arrears is a violation of a special and voluntary contract with a

lodge, and not of any general duty to the craft at large. The corollary

from all this is, evidently, that the punishment inflicted in such a case

should be one affecting the relations of the delinquent with the

particular lodge whose bye-laws he has infringed, and not a general one,

affecting his relations with the whole Order. After a consideration of

all these circumstances, I am constrained to think that suspension from

alodge, for non-payment of arrears, should only suspend the rights of the

member as to his own lodge, but should not affect his right of visiting

other lodges, nor any of the other privileges inherent in him as a Mason.

Such is not, I confess, the general opinion, or usage of the craft in this

country, but yet I cannot but believe that it is the doctrine most

consonant with the true spirit of the institution. It is the practice

pursued by the Grand Lodge of England, from which most of our Grand Lodges

derive, directly or indirectly, their existence. It is also the regulation

of the Grand Lodge of Massachusetts. The Grand Lodge of South Carolina

expressly forbids suspension from the rights and benefits of Masonry for

non-payment of dues, and the Grand Lodge of New York has a similar

provision in its Constitution.

Of the two modes of exclusion from a lodge for non-payment of dues,

namely, suspension and erasure, the effects are very different. Suspension

does not abrogate the connection between the member and his lodge, and

places his rights in abeyance only. Upon the payment of the debt, he is

at once restored without other action of the lodge. But erasure from the

roll terminates all connection between the delinquent and the lodge, and

he ceases to be a member of it. Payment of the dues, simply, will not

restore him; for it is necessary that he should again be elected by the

Brethren, upon formal application.

The word exclusion has a meaning in England differing from that in which

it has been used in the present section. There the prerogative of

expulsion is, as I think very rightly, exercised only by the Grand Lodge.

The term "expelled" is therefore used only when a Brother is removed from

the craft, by the Grand Lodge. The removal by a District Grand Lodge, or a

subordinate lodge, is called "exclusion." The effect, however, of the

punishment of exclusion, is similar to that which has been here advocated.

Section IV.

_Of Definite Suspension._

Suspension is a punishment by which a party is temporarily deprived of his

rights and privileges as a Mason. It does not terminate his connection

with the craft, but only places it in abeyance, and it may again be

resumed in a mode hereafter to be indicated.

Suspension may be, in relation to time, either definite or indefinite. And

as the effects produced upon the delinquent, especially in reference to

the manner of his restoration, are different, it is proper that each

should be separately considered.

In a case of definite suspension, the time for which the delinquent is to

be suspended, whether for one month, for three, or six months, or for a

longer or shorter period, is always mentioned in the sentence.

At its termination, the party suspended is at once restored without

further action of the lodge. But as this is a point upon which there has

been some difference of opinion, the argument will be fully discussed in

the chapter on the subject of _Restoration._

By a definite suspension, the delinquent is for a time placed beyond the

pale of Masonry. He is deprived of all his rights as a Master Mason--is

not permitted to visit any lodge, or hold masonic communication with his

Brethren--is not entitled to masonic relief, and should he die during his

suspension, is not entitled to masonic burial. In short, the amount of

punishment differs from that of indefinite suspension or expulsion only

in the period of time for which it is inflicted.

The punishment of definite suspension is the lightest that can be

inflicted of those which affect the relations of a Mason with the

fraternity at large. It must always be preceded by a trial, and the

prevalent opinion is, that it may be inflicted by a two-thirds vote of the

lodge.

Section V.

_Of Indefinite Suspension._

Indefinite suspension is a punishment by which the person suspended is

deprived of all his rights and privileges as a Mason, until such time as

the lodge which has suspended him shall see fit, by a special action, to

restore him.

All that has been said of definite suspension in the preceding section,

will equally apply to indefinite suspension, except that in the former

case the suspended person is at once restored by the termination of the

period for which he was suspended; while in the latter, as no period of

termination had been affixed, a special resolution of the lodge will be

necessary to effect a restoration.

By suspension the connection of the party with his lodge and with the

institution is not severed; he still remains a member of his lodge,

although his rights as such are placed in abeyance. In this respect it

materially differs from expulsion, and, as an inferior grade of

punishment, is inflicted for offenses of a lighter character than those

for which expulsion is prescribed.

The question here arises, whether the dues of a suspended member to his

lodge continue to accrue during his suspension? I think they do not. Dues

or arrears are payments made to a lodge for certain rights and

benefits--the exercise and enjoyment of which are guaranteed to the

member, in consideration of the dues thus paid. But as by suspension,

whether definite or indefinite, he is for the time deprived of these

rights and benefits, it would seem unjust to require from him a payment

for that which he does not enjoy. I hold, therefore, that suspension from

the rights and benefits of Masonry, includes also a suspension from the

payment of arrears.

No one can be indefinitely suspended, unless after a due form of trial,

and upon the vote of at least two-thirds of the members present.

Section VI.

_Of Expulsion._[98]

Expulsion is the very highest penalty that can be inflicted upon a

delinquent Mason. It deprives the party expelled of all the masonic rights

and privileges that he ever enjoyed, not only as a member of the lodge

from which he has been ejected, but also of all those which were inherent

in him as a member of the fraternity at large. He is at once as completely

divested of his masonic character as though he had never been admitted

into the institution. He can no longer demand the aid of his Brethren, nor

require from them the performance of any of the duties to which he was

formerly entitled, nor visit any lodge, nor unite in any of the public or

private ceremonies of the Order. No conversation on masonic subjects can

be held with him, and he is to be considered as being completely without

the pale of the institution, and to be looked upon in the same light as a

profane, in relation to the communication of any masonic information.

It is a custom too generally adopted in this country, for subordinate

lodges to inflict this punishment, and hence it is supposed by many, that

the power of inflicting it is vested in the subordinate lodges. But the

fact is, that the only proper tribunal to impose this heavy penalty is a

Grand Lodge. A subordinate may, indeed, try its delinquent member, and if

guilty declare him expelled. But the sentence is of no force until the

Grand Lodge, under whose jurisdiction it is working, has confirmed it. And

it is optional with the Grand Lodge to do so, or, as is frequently done,

to reverse the decision and reinstate the Brother. Some of the lodges in

this country claim the right to expel independently of the action of the

Grand Lodge, but the claim is not valid. The very fact that an expulsion

is a penalty, affecting the general relations of the punished party with

the whole fraternity, proves that its exercise never could, with

propriety, be intrusted to a body so circumscribed in its authority as a

subordinate lodge. Besides, the general practice of the fraternity is

against it. The English Constitutions vest the power to expel exclusively

in the Grand Lodge.[99]

The severity of the punishment will at once indicate the propriety of

inflicting it only for the most serious offenses, such, for instance, as

immoral conduct, that would subject a candidate for initiation to

rejection.

As the punishment is general, affecting the relation of the one expelled

with the whole fraternity, it should not be lightly imposed, for the

violation of any masonic act not general in its character. The commission

of a grossly immoral act is a violation of the contract entered into

between each Mason and his Order. If sanctioned by silence or impunity, it

would bring discredit on the institution, and tend to impair its

usefulness. A Mason who is a bad man, is to the fraternity what a

mortified limb is to the body, and should be treated with the same mode of

cure--he should be cut off, lest his example spread, and disease be

propagated through the constitution.

The punishment of expulsion can only be inflicted after a due course of

trial, and upon the votes of at least two-thirds of the members present,

and should always be submitted for approval and confirmation to the Grand

Lodge.

One question here arises, in respect not only to expulsion but to the

other masonic punishments, of which I have treated in the preceding

sections:--Does suspension or expulsion from a Chapter of Royal Arch

Masons, an Encampment of Knights Templar, or any other of what are called

the higher degrees of Masonry, affect the relations of the expelled party

to Symbolic or Ancient Craft Masonry? I answer, unhesitatingly, that it

does not, and for reasons which, years ago, I advanced, in the following

language, and which appear to have met with the approval of the most of my

contemporaries:--

"A chapter of Royal Arch Masons, for instance, is not, and cannot be,

recognized as a masonic body, by a lodge of Master Masons. 'They hear them

so to be, but they do not know them so to be,' by any of the modes of

recognition known to Masonry. The acts, therefore, of a Chapter cannot be

recognized by a Master Masons' lodge, any more than the acts of a literary

or charitable society wholly unconnected with the Order. Again: By the

present organization of Freemasonry, Grand Lodges are the supreme masonic

tribunals. If, therefore, expulsion from a Chapter of Royal Arch Masons

involved expulsion from a Blue Lodge, the right of the Grand Lodge to hear

and determine causes, and to regulate the internal concerns of the

institution, would be interfered with by another body beyond its control.

But the converse of this proposition does not hold good. Expulsion from a

Blue Lodge involves expulsion from all the higher degrees; because, as

they are composed of Blue Masons, the members could not of right sit and

hold communications on masonic subjects with one who was an expelled

Mason."[100]

Chapter III.

Of Masonic Trials.

Having thus discussed the penalties which are affixed to masonic offenses,

we are next to inquire into the process of trial by which a lodge

determines on the guilt or innocence of the accused. This subject will be

the most conveniently considered by a division into two sections; first,

as to the form of trial; and secondly, as to the character of the

evidence.

Section I.

_Of the Form of Trial._

Although the authority for submitting masonic offenses to trials by lodges

is derived from the Old Charges, none of the ancient regulations of the

Order have prescribed the details by which these trials are to be

governed. The form of trial must, therefore, be obtained from the customs

and usages of the craft, and from the regulations which have been adopted

by various Grand Lodges. The present section will, therefore, furnish a

summary of these regulations as they are generally observed in this

country.

A charge or statement of the offense imputed to the party is always a

preliminary step to every trial.

This charge must be made in writing, signed by the accuser, and delivered

to the Secretary, who reads it at the next regular communication of the

lodge. A time and place are then appointed by the lodge for the trial.

The accused is entitled to a copy of the charge, and must be informed of

the time and place that have been appointed for his trial.

Although it is necessary that the accusation should be preferred at a

stated communication, so that no one may be taken at a disadvantage, the

trial may take place at a special communication. But ample time and

opportunity should always be given to the accused to prepare his defense.

It is not essential that the accuser should be a Mason. A charge of

immoral conduct can be preferred by a profane; and if the offense is

properly stated, and if it comes within the jurisdiction of the Order or

the lodge, it must be investigated. It is not the accuser but the accused

that Is to be put on trial, and the lodge is to look only to the nature of

the accusation, and not to the individual who prefers it. The motives of

the accuser, but not his character, may be examined.

If the accused is living beyond the jurisdiction of the lodge--that is to

say, if he be a member and have removed to some other place without

withdrawing his membership, not being a member, or if, after committing

the offense, he has left the jurisdiction, the charge must be transmitted

to his present place of residence, by mail or otherwise, and a reasonable

time be allowed for his answer before the lodge proceeds to trial.

The lodge should be opened in the highest degree to which the accused has

attained; and the examinations should take place in the presence of the

accused and the accuser (if the latter be a Mason); but the final decision

should always be made in the third degree.

The accused and the accuser have a right to be present at all examinations

of witnesses, whether those examinations are taken in open lodge or in a

committee, and to propose such relevant questions as they desire.

When the trial is concluded, the accused and accuser should retire, and

the Master or presiding officer must then put the question of guilty or

not guilty to the lodge. Of course, if there are several charges or

specifications, the question must be taken on each separately. For the

purposes of security and independence in the expression of opinion, it

seems generally conceded, that this question should be decided by ballot;

and the usage has also obtained, of requiring two-thirds of the votes

given to be black, to secure a conviction. A white ball, of course, is

equivalent to acquittal, and a black one to conviction.

Every member present is bound to vote, unless excused by unanimous

consent.

If, on a scrutiny, it is found that the verdict is guilty, the Master or

presiding officer must then put the question as to the amount and nature

of the punishment to be inflicted.

He will commence with the highest penalty, or expulsion, and, if

necessary, by that punishment being negatived, proceed to propose

indefinite and then definite suspension, exclusion, public or private

reprimand, and censure.

For expulsion or either kind of suspension, two-thirds of the votes

present are necessary. For either of the other and lighter penalties, a

bare majority will be sufficient.

The votes on the nature of the punishment should be taken by a show of

hands.

If the residence of the accused is not known, or if, upon due summons, he

refuses or neglects to attend, the lodge may, nevertheless, proceed to

trial without his presence.

In trials conducted by Grand Lodges, it is usual to take the preliminary

testimony in a committee; but the final decision must always be made in

the Grand Lodge.

Section II.

_Of the Evidence in Masonic Trials._

In the consideration of the nature of the evidence that is to be given in

masonic trials, it is proper that we should first inquire what classes of

persons are to be deemed incompetent as witnesses.

The law of the land, which, in this instance, is the same as the law of

Masonry, has declared the following classes of person to be incompetent to

give evidence.

1. Persons who have not the use of reason, are, from the infirmity of

their nature, considered to be utterly incapable of giving evidence.[101]

This class includes idiots, madmen, and children too young to be sensible

of the obligations of an oath, and to distinguish between good and evil.

2. Persons who are entirely devoid of any such religious principle or

belief as would bind their consciences to speak the truth, are incompetent

as witnesses. Hence, the testimony 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 indispensable 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; for it has been decided by Chief Baron Willes,

that "an infidel who believes in a God, and that He will reward and punish

him in this world, but does not believe in a future state, may be examined

upon oath."

3. Persons who have been rendered infamous by their conviction of great

crimes, are deemed incompetent to give evidence. This rule has been

adopted, because the commission of an infamous crime implies, as Sir

William Scott has observed, "such a dereliction of moral principle on the

part of the witness, as carries with it the conclusion that he would

entirely disregard the obligation of an oath." Of such a witness it has

been said, by another eminent judge,[102] that "the credit of his oath is

over-balanced by the stain of his iniquity."

4. Persons interested in the result of the trial are considered

incompetent to give evidence. From the nature of human actions and

passions, and from the fact that all persons, even the most virtuous, are

unconsciously swayed by motives of interest, the testimony of such persons

is rather to be distrusted than believed. This rule will, perhaps, be

generally of difficult 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 benefited by

either the acquittal or the conviction of the accused, his testimony must

be entirely rejected, or, if admitted, its value must be weighed with the

most scrupulous caution.

Such are the rules that the wisdom of successive generations of men,

learned in the law, have adopted for the establishment of the competency

or incompetency of witnesses. There is nothing in them which conflicts

with the principles of justice, or with the Constitutions of Freemasonry;

and hence they may, very properly, be considered as a part of our own

code. In determining, therefore, the rule for the admission of witnesses

in masonic trials, we are to be governed by the simple proposition that

has been enunciated by Mr. Justice Lawrence in the following language:

"I find no rule less comprehensive than this, that all persons are

admissible witnesses who have the use of their reason, and such religious

belief as to feel the obligation of an oath, who have not been convicted

of any infamous crime, and who are not influenced by interest."

The peculiar, isolated character of our institution, here suggests as an

important question, whether it is admissible to take the testimony of a

profane, or person who is not a Freemason, in the trial of a Mason before

his lodge.

To this question I feel compelled to reply, that such testimony is

generally admissible; but, as there are special cases in which it is not,

it seems proper to qualify that reply by a brief inquiry into the grounds

and reasons of 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

there to seek it, but it is obligatory on us so to do. This is the

principle of law as well as of common sense. Mr. Phillips, in the

beginning of his great "Treatise on the Law of Evidence," says: "In

inquiries upon this subject, the great end and object ought always to be,

the ascertaining of the most convenient and surest means for the

attainment of truth; the rules laid down are the means used for the

attainment of that end."

Now, if A, who is a Freemason, shall have committed an offense, of which B

and C alone were 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 Order?

We apprehend that in this instance the ends of justice would be defeated,

rather than subserved. If the veracity and honesty of B and C are

unimpeached, their testimony as to the fact cannot lawfully be rejected on

any ground, except that they may be interested in the result of the trial,

and might be benefited by the conviction or the acquittal of the

defendant. But this is an objection that would hold against the evidence

of a Mason, as well as a profane.

Any other rule would be often attended with injurious consequences to our

institution. We may readily suppose a case by way of illustration. 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 degradation of the offender upon the society which

shall sustain and defend him in its perpetration. But it may happen--and

this is a very conceivable case--that in consequence of the remoteness of

his dwelling, or from some other supposable cause, his Brethren have no

opportunity of seeing him, except at distant intervals. There is,

therefore, no Mason, to testify to the truth of the charge, while his

neighbors and associates, who are daily and hourly in his company, are all

aware of his habit of intoxication.

If, then, a dozen or more men, all of 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? And if rejected--if the accused with this weight of evidence

against him, with this infamy clearly and satisfactorily proved by these

reputable witnesses, were to be acquitted, and sent forth purged of the

charge, upon a mere technical ground, and thus triumphantly be sustained

in the continuation of his vice, and that in the face of the very

community which was cognizant of his degradation of life and manners, who

could estimate the disastrous consequences to the lodge and the Order

which should thus support and uphold him in his guilty course? The world

would not, and could not appreciate the causes that led to the rejection

of such clear and unimpeachable testimony, and it would visit with its

just reprobation the institution which could thus extend its fraternal

affections to the support of undoubted guilt.

But, moreover, this is not a question of mere theory; the principle of

accepting the testimony of non-masonic witnesses has been repeatedly acted

on. If a Mason has been tried by the courts of his country on an

indictment for larceny, or any other infamous crime, and been convicted by

the verdict of a jury, although neither the judge nor the jury, nor the

witnesses were Masons, no lodge after such conviction would permit him to

retain his membership, but, on the contrary, it would promptly and

indignantly expel him from the Brotherhood. If, however, the lodge should

refuse to expel him, on the ground that his conviction before the court

was based on the testimony of non-masonic witnesses, and should grant him

a lodge trial for the same offense, then, on the principle against which

we are contending, the evidence of these witnesses as "profanes" would be

rejected, and the party be acquitted for want of proof; and thus the

anomalous and disgraceful spectacle would present itself--of a felon

condemned and punished by the laws of his country for an infamous crime,

acquitted and sustained by a lodge of Freemasons.

But we will be impressed with the inexpediency and injustice of this

principle, when we look at its operation from another point of view. It is

said to be a bad rule that will not work both ways; and, therefore, if the

testimony of non-masonic witnesses against the accused is rejected on the

ground of inadmissibility, it must also be rejected when given in his

favor. Now, if we suppose a case, in which a Mason was accused before his

lodge of having committed an offense, at a certain time and place, and, by

the testimony of one or two disinterested persons, he could establish what

the law calls an _alibi_, that is, that at that very time he was at a

far-distant place, and could not, therefore, have committed the offense

charged against him, we ask with what show of justice or reason could such

testimony be rejected, simply because the parties giving it were not

Masons? But if the evidence of a "profane" is admitted in favor of the

accused, rebutting testimony of the same kind cannot with consistency be

rejected; and hence the rule is determined that in the trial of Masons, it

is competent to receive the evidence of persons who are not Masons, but

whose competency, in other respects, is not denied.

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 to interrogate the witnesses.

The only remaining topic to be discussed is the method of taking the

testimony, and this can be easily disposed of.

The testimony of Masons is to be taken either in lodge or in committee,

and under the sanction of their obligations.

The testimony of profanes is always to be taken by a committee, and on

oath administered by a competent legal officer--the most convenient way of

taking such testimony is by affidavit.

Chapter IV.

Of the Penal Jurisdiction of a Lodge.

The penal jurisdiction of a lodge is that jurisdiction which it is

authorized to exercise for the trial of masonic offenses, and the

infliction of masonic punishment. It may be considered as either

geographical or personal.

The geographical jurisdiction of a lodge extends in every direction, half

way to the nearest lodge. Thus, if two lodges be situated at the distance

of sixteen miles from each other, then the penal jurisdiction of each will

extend for the space of eight miles in the direction of the other.

The personal jurisdiction of a lodge is that jurisdiction which a lodge

may exercise over certain individuals, respective or irrespective of

geographical jurisdiction. This jurisdiction is more complicated than the

other, and requires a more detailed enumeration of the classes over whom

it is to be exercised.

1. A lodge exercises penal jurisdiction over all its members, no matter

where they may reside. A removal from the geographical jurisdiction will

not, in this case, release the individual from personal jurisdiction. The

allegiance of a member to his lodge is indefeasible.

2. A lodge exercises penal jurisdiction over all unaffiliated Masons,

living within its geographical jurisdiction. An unaffiliated Mason cannot

release himself from his responsibilities to the Order. And if, by immoral

or disgraceful conduct, he violates the regulations of the Order, or tends

to injure its reputation in the estimation of the community, he is

amenable to the lodge nearest to his place of residence, whether this

residence be temporary or permanent, and may be reprimanded, suspended, or

expelled.

This doctrine is founded on the wholesome reason, that as a lodge is the

guardian of the purity and safety of the institution, within its own

jurisdiction, it must, to exercise this guardianship with success, be

invested with the power of correcting every evil that occurs within its

precincts. And if unaffiliated Masons were exempted from this control, the

institution might be seriously affected in the eyes of the community, by

their bad conduct.

3. The personal jurisdiction of a lodge, for the same good reason,

extends over all Masons living in its vicinity. A Master Mason belonging

to a distant lodge, but residing within the geographical jurisdiction of

another lodge, becomes amenable for his conduct to the latter, as well as

to the former lodge. But if his own lodge is within a reasonable distance,

courtesy requires that the lodge near which he resides should rather make

a complaint to his lodge than itself institute proceedings against him.

But the reputation of the Order must not be permitted to be endangered,

and a case might occur, in which it would be inexpedient to extend this

courtesy, and where the lodge would feel compelled to proceed to the trial

and punishment of the offender, without appealing to his lodge. The

geographical jurisdiction will, in all cases, legalize the proceedings.

4. But a lodge situated near the confines of a State cannot extend its

jurisdiction over Masons residing in a neighboring State, and not being

its members, however near they may reside to it: for no lodge can exercise

jurisdiction over the members of another Grand Lodge jurisdiction. Its

geographical, as well as personal jurisdiction, can extend no further than

that of its own Grand Lodge.

5. Lastly, no lodge can exercise penal jurisdiction over its own Master,

for he is alone responsible for his conduct to the Grand Lodge. But it may

act as his accuser before that body, and impeach him for any offense that

he may have committed. Neither can a lodge exercise penal jurisdiction

over the Grand Master, although under other circumstances it might have

both geographical and personal jurisdiction over him, from his residence

and membership.

Chapter V.

Of Appeals.

Every Mason, who has been tried and convicted by a lodge, has an

inalienable right to appeal from that conviction, and from the sentence

accompanying it, to the Grand Lodge.

As an appeal always supposes the necessity of a review of the whole case,

the lodge is bound to furnish the Grand Lodge with an attested copy of its

proceedings on the trial, and such other testimony in its possession as

the appellant may deem necessary for his defense.

The Grand Lodge may, upon investigation, confirm the verdict of its

subordinate. In this case, the appeal is dismissed, and the sentence goes

into immediate operation without any further proceedings on the part of

the lodge.

The Grand Lodge may, however, only approve in part, and may reduce the

penalty inflicted, as for instance, from expulsion to suspension. In this

case, the original sentence of the lodge becomes void, and the milder

sentence of the Grand Lodge is to be put in force. The same process would

take place, were the Grand Lodge to increase instead of diminishing the

amount of punishment, as from suspension to expulsion. For it is competent

for the Grand Lodge, on an appeal, to augment, reduce or wholly abrogate

the penalty inflicted by its subordinate.

But the Grand Lodge may take no direct action on the penalty inflicted,

but may simply refer the case back to the subordinate for a new trial. In

this case, the proceedings on the trial will be commenced _de novo_, if

the reference has been made on the ground of any informality or illegality

in the previous trial. But if the case is referred back, not for a new

trial, but for further consideration, on the ground that the punishment

was inadequate--either too severe, or not sufficiently so--in this case,

it is not necessary to repeat the trial. The discussion on the nature of

the penalty to be inflicted should, however, be reviewed, and any new

evidence calculated to throw light on the nature of the punishment which

is most appropriate, may be received.

Lastly, the Grand Lodge may entirely reverse the decision of its

subordinate, and decree a restoration of the appellant to all his rights

and privileges, on the ground of his innocence of the charges which had

been preferred against him. But, as this action is often highly important

in its results, and places the appellant and the lodge in an entirely

different relative position, I have deemed its consideration worthy of a

distinct chapter.

During the pendency of an appeal, the sentence of the subordinate lodge is

held in abeyance, and cannot; be enforced. The appellant in this case

remains in the position of a Mason "under charges."

Chapter VI.

Of Restoration.

The penalties of suspension and expulsion are terminated by restoration,

which may take place either by the action of the lodge which inflicted

them, or by that of the Grand Lodge.

Restoration from definite suspension is terminated without any special

action of the lodge, but simply by the termination of the period for which

the party was suspended. He then at once reenters into the possession of

all the rights, benefits, and functions, from which he had been

temporarily suspended.

I have myself no doubt of the correctness of this principle; but, as it

has been denied by some writers, although a very large majority of the

authorities are in its favor, it may be well, briefly, to discuss its

merits.

Let us suppose that on the 1st of January A.B. had been suspended for

three months, that is, until the 1st day of April. At the end of the three

months, that is to say, on the first of April, A.B. would no longer be a

suspended member--for the punishment decreed will have been endured; and

as the sentence of the lodge had expressly declared that his suspension

was to last until the 1st of April, the said sentence, if it means

anything, must mean that the suspension was, on the said 1st of April, to

cease and determine. If he were, therefore, to wait until the 1st of May

for the action of the lodge, declaring his restoration, he would suffer a

punishment of four months' suspension, which was not decreed by his lodge

upon his trial, and which would, therefore, be manifestly unjust and

illegal.

Again: if the offense which he had committed was, upon his trial, found to

be so slight as to demand only a dismissal for one night from the lodge,

will it be contended that, on his leaving the lodge-room pursuant to his

sentence, he leaves not to return to it on the succeeding communication,

unless a vote should permit him? Certainly not. His punishment of

dismissal for one night had been executed; and on the succeeding night he

reentered into the possession of all his rights. But if he can do so after

a dismissal or suspension of one night, why not after one or three, six or

twelve months? The time is extended, but the principle remains the same.

But the doctrine, that after the expiration of the term of a definite

suspension, an action by the lodge is still necessary to a complete

restoration, is capable of producing much mischief and oppression. For, if

the lodge not only has a right, but is under the necessity of taking up

the case anew, and deciding whether the person who had been suspended for

three months, and whose period of suspension has expired, shall now be

restored, it follows, that the members of the lodge, in the course of

their inquiry, are permitted to come to such conclusion as they may think

just and fit; for to say that they, after all their deliberations, are, to

vote only in one way, would be too absurd to require any consideration.

They may, therefore, decide that A.B., having undergone the sentence of

the lodge, shall be restored, and then of course all would be well, and no

more is to be said. But suppose that they decide otherwise, and say that

A.B., having undergone the sentence of suspension of three months, _shall

not_ be restored, but must remain suspended until further orders. Here,

then, a party would have been punished a second time for the same offense,

and that, too, after having suffered what, at the time of his conviction,

was supposed to be a competent punishment--and without a trial, and

without the necessary opportunities of defense, again found guilty, and

his comparatively light punishment of suspension for three months changed

into a severer one, and of an indefinite period. The annals of the most

arbitrary government in the world--the history of the most despotic tyrant

that ever lived--could not show an instance of more unprincipled violation

of law and justice than this. And yet it may naturally be the result of

the doctrine, that in a sentence of definite suspension, the party can be

restored only by a vote of the lodge at the expiration of his term of

suspension. If the lodge can restore him, it can as well refuse to restore

him, and to refuse to restore him would be to inflict a new punishment

upon him for an old and atoned-for offense.

On the 1st of January, for instance, A.B., having been put upon his trial,

witnesses having been examined, his defense having been heard, was found

guilty by his lodge of some offense, the enormity of which, whatever it

might be, seemed to require a suspension from Masonry for just three

months, neither more nor less. If the lodge had thought the crime still

greater, it would, of course, we presume, have decreed a suspension of

six, nine, or twelve months. But considering, after a fair, impartial, and

competent investigation of the merits of the case (for all this is to be

presumed), that the offended law would be satisfied with a suspension of

three months, that punishment is decreed. The court is adjourned _sine

die_; for it has done all that is required--the prisoner undergoes his

sentence with becoming contrition, and the time having expired, the bond

having been paid, and the debt satisfied, he is told that he must again

undergo the ordeal of another trial, before another court, before he can

reassume what was only taken from him for a definite period; and that it

is still doubtful, whether the sentence of the former court may not even

now, after its accomplishment, be reversed, and a new and more severe one

be inflicted.

The analogy of a person who has been sentenced to imprisonment for a

certain period, and who, on the expiration of that period, is at once

released, has been referred to, as apposite to the case of a definite

suspension. Still more appropriately may we refer to the case of a person

transported for a term of years, and who cannot return until that term

expires, but who is at liberty at once to do so when it has expired.

"Another capital offense against public justice," says Blackstone, "is

the returning from transportation, or being seen at large in Great Britain

_before the expiration of the term for which the offender was sentenced to

be transported." _ Mark these qualifying words: "before the expiration of

the term:" they include, from the very force of language, the proposition

that it is no offense to return _after_ the expiration of the term. And so

changing certain words to meet the change of circumstances, but leaving

the principle unchanged, we may lay down the law in relation to

restorations from definite suspensions, as follows:

_It is an offense against the masonic code to claim the privileges of

Masonry, or to attempt to visit a lodge after having been suspended,

before the expiration of the term for which the offender was suspended_.

Of course, it is no crime to resume these privileges after the term has

expired; for surely he must have strange notions of the powers of

language, who supposes that suspension for three months, and no more, does

not mean, that when the three months are over the suspension ceases. And,

if the suspension ceases, the person is no longer suspended; and, if no

longer suspended he is in good standing, and requires no further action to

restore him to good moral and masonic health.

But it is said that, although originally only suspended for three months,

at the expiration of that period, his conduct might continue to be such as

to render his restoration a cause of public reproach. What is to be done

in such a case? It seems strange that the question should be asked. The

remedy is only too apparent. Let new charges be preferred, and let a new

trial take place for his derelictions of duty during the term of his

suspension. Then, the lodge may again suspend him for a still longer

period, or altogether expel him, if it finds him deserving such

punishment. But in the name of justice, law, and common sense, do not

insiduously and unmanfully continue a sentence for one and a former

offense, as a punishment for another and a later one, and that, too,

without the due forms of trial.

Let us, in this case, go again for an analogy to the laws of the land.

Suppose an offender had been sentenced to an imprisonment of six months

for a larceny, and that while in prison he had committed some new crime.

When the six months of his sentence had expired, would the Sheriff feel

justified, or even the Judge who had sentenced him, in saying: "I will not

release you; you have guilty of another offense during your

incarceration, and therefore, I shall keep you confined six months

longer?" Certainly not. The Sheriff or the Judge who should do so

high-handed a measure, would soon find himself made responsible for the

violation of private rights. But the course to be pursued would be, to

arrest him for the new offense, give him a fair trial, and, if convicted

again, imprison or otherwise punish him, according to his new sentence,

or, if acquitted, discharge him.

The same course should be pursued with a Mason whose conduct during the

period of his suspension has been liable to reproach or suspicion. Masons

have rights as well as citizens--every one is to be considered innocent

until he is proved guilty--and no one should suffer punishment, even of

the lightest kind, except after an impartial trial by his peers.

But the case of an indefinite suspension is different. Here no particular

time has been appointed for the termination of the punishment. It may be

continued during life, unless the court which has pronounced it think

proper to give a determinate period to what was before indeterminate, and

to declare that on such a day the suspension shall cease, and the offender

be restored. In a case of this kind, action on the part of the lodge is

necessary to effect a restoration.

Such a sentence being intended to last indefinitely--that is to say,

during the pleasure of the lodge--may, I conceive, be reversed at any

legal time, and the individual restored by a mere majority vote the of

lodge. Some authorities think a vote of two-thirds necessary; but I see no

reason why a lodge may not, in this as in other cases, reverse its

decision by a vote of a simple majority. The Ancient Constitutions are

completely silent on this and all its kindred points; and, therefore,

where a Grand Lodge has made no local regulation on the subject, we must

be guided by the principles of reason and analogy, both of which direct us

to the conclusion that a lodge may express its will, in matters

unregulated by the Constitutions, through the vote of a majority.

But the restoration of an expelled Mason requires a different action. By

expulsion, as I have already said, all connection with the Order is

completely severed. The individual expelled ceases to be a Mason, so far

as respects the exercise of any masonic rights or privileges. His

restoration to the Order is, therefore, equivalent to the admission of a

profane. Having ceased on his expulsion to be a member of the lodge which

had expelled him, his restoration would be the admission of a new member.

The expelled Mason and the uninitiated candidate are to be placed on the

same footing--both are equally unconnected with the institution--the one

having never been in it, and the other having been completely discharged

from it.

The rule for the admission of new members, as laid down in the Thirty-nine

Regulations, seems to me, therefore, to be applicable in this case; and

hence, I conceive that to reverse a sentence of expulsion and to restore

an expelled Mason will require as unanimous a vote as that which is

necessary on a ballot for initiation.

Every action taken by a lodge for restoration must be done at a stated

communication and after due notice, that if any member should have good

and sufficient reasons to urge against the restoration, he may have an

opportunity to present them.

In conclusion, the Grand Lodge may restore a suspended or expelled Mason,

contrary to the wishes of the lodge.

In such case, if the party has been suspended only, he, at once, resumes

his place and functions in the lodge, from which, indeed, he had only been

temporarily dissevered.

But in the case of the restoration of an expelled Mason to the rights and

privileges of Masonry, by a Grand Lodge, does such restoration restore him

to membership in his lodge? This question is an important one, and has

very generally been decided in the negative by the Grand Lodges of this

country. But as I unfortunately differ from these high authorities, I

cannot refrain, as an apology for this difference of opinion, from

presenting the considerations which have led me to the conclusion which I

have adopted. I cannot, it is true, in the face of the mass of opposing

authority, offer this conclusion as masonic law. But I would fain hope

that the time is not far distant when it will become so, by the change on

the part of Grand Lodges of the contrary decisions which they have made.

The general opinion in this country is, that when a Mason has been

expelled by his lodge, the Grand Lodge may restore him to the rights and

privileges, but cannot restore him to membership in his lodge. My own

opinion, in contradiction to this, is, that when a Grand Lodge restores an

expelled Mason, on the ground that the punishment of expulsion from the

rights and privileges of Masonry was too severe and disproportioned to the

offense, it may or may not restore him to membership in his lodge. It

might, for instance, refuse to restore his membership on the ground that

exclusion from his lodge is an appropriate punishment; but where the

decision of the lodge as to the guilt of the individual is reversed, and

the Grand Lodge declares him to be innocent, or that the charge against

him has not been proved, then I hold, that it is compelled by a just

regard to the rights of the expelled member to restore him not only to the

rights and privileges of Masonry, but also to membership in his lodge.

I cannot conceive how a Brother, whose innocence has been declared by the

verdict of his Grand Lodge, can be deprived of his vested rights as the

member of a particular lodge, without a violation of the principles of

justice. If guilty, let his expulsion stand; but, if innocent, let him be

placed in the same position in which he was before the passage of the

unjust sentence of the lodge which has been reversed.

The whole error, for such I conceive it to be, in relation to this

question of restoration to membership, arises, I suppose, from a

misapprehension of an ancient regulation, which says that "no man can be

entered a Brother in any particular lodge, or admitted a member thereof,

without the unanimous consent of all the members"--which inherent

privilege is said not to be subject to dispensation, "lest a turbulent

member should thus be imposed upon them, which might spoil their harmony,

or hinder the freedom of their communication, or even break and disperse

the Lodge." But it should be remembered that this regulation altogether

refers to the admission of new members, and not to the restoration of old

ones--to the granting of a favor which the candidate solicits, and which

the lodge may or may not, in its own good pleasure, see fit to confer, and

not to the resumption of a vested and already acquired right, which, if it

be a right, no lodge can withhold. The practical working of this system of

incomplete restoration, in a by no means extreme case, will readily show

its absurdity and injustice. A member having appealed from expulsion by

his lodge to the Grand Lodge, that body calmly and fairly investigates the

case. It finds that the appellant has been falsely accused of an offense

which he has never committed; that he has been unfairly tried, and

unjustly convicted. It declares him innocent--clearly and undoubtedly

innocent, and far freer from any sort of condemnation than the prejudiced

jurors who convicted him. Under these circumstances, it becomes

obligatory that the Grand Lodge should restore him to the place he

formerly occupied, and reinvest him with the rights of which he has been

unjustly despoiled. But that it cannot do. It may restore him to the

privileges of Masonry in general; but, innocent though he be, the Grand

Lodge, in deference to the prejudices of his Brethren, must perpetuate a

wrong, and punish this innocent person by expulsion from his lodge. I

cannot, I dare not, while I remember the eternal principles of justice,

subscribe to so monstrous an exercise of wrong--so flagrant an outrage

upon private rights.

Index.

Accused, to what he is entitled

Act passed in the reign of Henry VI., anno 1425

" " " it was never enforced

Actual Past Master, term defined

Adjournment, a term not recognized in Masonry

" motion for, cannot be entertained

Affiliated Masons only, can visit lodges

Affiliation, what it is

" mode of

" requires unanimity

" Master Masons only entitled to it

" rejected application for, may be renewed in other lodges

" may be made with more than one lodge

Age, qualifications of candidates as to

Appeal from Grand Master not permitted

" not to be entertained in a lodge

" cannot be taken from the chair

" doctrine of, discussed

" from the Master, must be to the Grand Lodge

" every Mason has a right to one, to the Grand Lodge

" pending one, the sentence is in abeyance

Apprentices, rights of _(see Entered Apprentice_)

Arrears, non-payment of

" to lodges, history of their origin

" do not accrue during suspension

Assembly, general-one held in 287 by St. Alban

" " " in 926 at York

" " governed the craft for nearly 800 years

" " how organized

Atheist cannot be a Mason

Authorities for masonic law

Balloting for candidates

every member must take a part in it

secrecy of, inviolable

must be unanimous

Mason irresponsible for it to the lodge

not disfranchised of it by non-payment of arrears

mode of

Balloting in each degree

not actually prescribed in the ancient constitutions, but implied

must be unanimous

Ballot, reconsideration of

motion for, out of order

cannot be granted by dispensation

Black ball is the bulwark of Masonry

Brother, a title to be always used in lodge

Burial, masonic, right of

must be requested except for strangers

Master Masons only entitled to it

dispensation for, not usually required

Business, order of

may be suspended at any time by the Master

By-laws must be approved and confirmed by Grand Lodge

Calling from labor to refreshment

Censure, a masonic punishment

Certificates, masonic

Chaplain, Grand (_see Grand Chaplain_)

Charges of accusation, how to be made

Closing lodge is at the discretion of the Master

Committee of investigation on character of candidates

Committees to be appointed by the Master

Master is chairman of, when present

Communication of a lodge, how terminated

Consecration of a lodge how performed

meaning of

Constituting a lodge, ceremony of

meaning of

Constitutions, how to be altered

" Gothic, adopted in 926,

Corn, wine, and oil, masonic elements of consecration,

" " " why elements,

Crimes, masonic,

" " definition of,

" " enumeration of

Deacons,

" two in each lodge,

" are appointed officers,

" not removable by Master or Senior Warden

" Grand _(see Grand Deacons_)

Dedication of a lodge, how performed

" to whom, and why,

" meaning of

Definite suspension

" " restoration from

Degrees, no candidate can receive more than two at one communication

Demitting

" right of, not denied until recently,

" regulations concerning

" of many at one time may be refused

Deputy Grand Master, duties and prerogatives of

" " office of, not very ancient

" " exercises prerogatives of Grand Master in his absence

"" cannot be more than one

"" originally appointed by Grand Master

Discussions, how to be conducted in lodge,

Dispensation what and where to be granted

"for a lodge

"" " tenure of its duration

"" " difference from a Warrant

District Deputy Grand Master, a modern invention

Dotage a disqualification of candidates

" meaning of the term

Dues to lodges, a modern usage

" non-payment of, does not disqualify from voting for candidates

Emergency, rule upon the subject

Entered Apprentice, rights of

formerly a member of his lodge

formerly permitted to attend the Grand Communications

may sit in a lodge of his degree

cannot speak or vote

cannot be deprived of his rights without trial

after trial may appeal to the Grand Lodge

Erasure from lodge, a masonic punishment

Evidence in masonic trials

Examination of visitors

how to be conducted

Exclusion, a masonic punishment

Executive powers of a Grand Lodge

Expulsion is masonic death

Expulsion, a masonic punishment

should be inflicted by Grand Lodge or with its approval

from higher degrees, its effect

restoration from

Extinct lodges, funds of, revert to the Grand Lodge

Family distressed, of a Mason, entitled to relief

Fellow Craft, rights of

they formerly constituted the great body of the Fraternity

formerly permitted to speak, but not vote

Finishing candidates of one lodge in another

Fool cannot be a Mason

Free, a candidate must be, at the time of making

Free-born, a Mason must be

reason for the rule

Funds of extinct lodges revert to the Grand Lodge

General Assembly. (_See Assembly, General._)

God, belief in, a qualification of a candidate

Gothic constitutions adopted in 926

Grand Chaplain,

office established in 1775

duties of

Grand Deacons

office more ancient than Oliver supposes

duties of

how appointed

Grand Lodge held in 1717

mode of organizing one

three lodges necessary to organize one

dormant may be revived if a Grand Officer remains,

all the Craft formerly members of

Masters and Wardens of lodges are members

Grand Officers are also members

Past Masters are not members by inherent right

its powers and prerogatives

may make new regulations

must observe the landmarks

Grand Lodges, historical sketch of

are comparatively modern institutions

Grand Marshal

appointed by the Grand Master

duties of

Grand Master, duties and prerogatives of

office of has existed since the origin of Masonry

an elective officer

by whom to be installed

prerogatives of, derived from two sources

no appeal from his decision

may convene Grand Lodge when he chooses

entitled to two votes

how to be punished

may grant dispensations

Grand Master may make Masons at sight

may constitute new lodges

cannot dispense with requisite forms in making Masons

his own lodge cannot exercise jurisdiction over him

Grand Pursuivant

Grand Secretary

office of established in 1723

duties of

Grand Secretary, may appoint an assistant

Grand Stewards

" " first mentioned in 1721

" " duties of

" " appointed by Junior Grand Warden

Grand Stewards' Lodge

Grand Sword-Bearer

" " duties of

" " office of, constituted in 1731

Grand Tiler

" " office of, must have existed from the earliest times

" " must not be a member of the Grand Lodge

" " sometimes appointed, and sometimes elected

Grand Treasurer

" " office of, established in 1724

" " duties of

" " has always been elected

Grand Wardens

" " originally appointed by the Grand Master

" " succeed the Grand Master and Deputy

Heresy not a masonic crime

Higher degrees, effect of expulsion from

Historical sketch

Idiot cannot be made a Mason

Impostor, how to be treated in examination

Incompetent witnesses, who they are

Indefinite suspension

" " restoration from

Innovations cannot be made in the body of Masonry

Insanity, if perfectly cured, no disqualification of a candidate

Installation

" whence the term derived

" necessary to legal existence of an officer

" of a Master of a lodge

" of the Grand Master

Instruction of representatives, right of, is vested in a lodge

Investigation of character must be by a committee

Irreligious libertine cannot be a Mason

" " definition of the term

Judicial powers of a Grand Lodge,

Junior Grand Warden

Junior Warden,

" " presides in absence of Master and Senior Warden,

" " does not take the West in absence of Senior Warden,

" " presides over the craft during refreshment

" " appoints the stewards

Jurisdiction of a lodge

" geographical or personal

" is over all its members

" " " unaffiliated Masons in its vicinity

" cannot extend beyond State lines,

" none over its Master

Knowledge of reading and writing necessary to a Mason

Labor, calling from, to refreshment

Landmarks, what they are,

" ritual and legislative

" must be observed by the Grand Lodge

Law of Grand Lodges

" subordinate lodges

" individuals

Lawful information, what it is

Laws, how to be interpreted

" of Masonry are of two kinds--written and unwritten

" written, whence derived

" unwritten, whence derived

" " same as ancient usage

Legislative powers of a Grand Lodge

Libertine, irreligious, cannot be a Mason

meaning of the term

Lodge, subordinate

definition of

how organized

must have been congregated by some superior authority

Lodge, under dispensation

definition of

generally precedes a warranted lodge

how formed

cannot make by-laws

cannot elect officers

cannot install officers

cannot elect members

Lodge, warranted

its powers and rights

must be consecrated

must be dedicated

must be constituted

its officers must be installed

ceremony of installation in

its powers are inherent in it

its reserved rights are secured by the regulations

an assembly of the craft in their primary capacity

may select its own members

elects its own officers

what officers of, are elected in England

may install its officers

Master of, must be installed by a past Master

may be represented in the Grand Lodge

representatives of

may instruct its representatives

may frame by-laws

may suspend or exclude a member

may declare a member expelled, the sentence to be approved by the Grand Lodge

may levy annual contributions

may select its name

cannot select its number

duties of

cannot alter the ritual

must elect officers at a particular time

Lodge, warranted, cannot interfere with business of another lodge

" " cannot initiate without previous notice

" " cannot confer more than two degrees on the same candidate at one time

" " cannot make more than five new Brothers at the same time

" " must meet once a month

" " neglecting to meet forfeits its warrant

" " cannot remove from the town, without the consent of the Grand Lodge

" " may remove from one part of the town to another, under restrictions

" " officers of

Madmen cannot be Masons

Maims, how far disqualifying candidates

" reason for the rule relating to

Mass meeting of the craft cannot organize a Grand Lodge

Master, Grand. _(See Grand Master_.)

Master Mason, rights of

" " becomes a member by signing the by-laws

" " how this right is forfeited

" " may apply to any lodge for membership

" " to whom subject for discipline

" " may speak and vote on all questions

" " may hold any office to which elected

" " but to serve as Master must have been a Warden

" " may appeal to the Grand Lodge

" " may visit any lodge, after examination

Master of a lodge

" " " must have previously served as Warden

" " " must see Grand Lodge regulations enforced

" " " must be installed by a Past Master

" " " has the warrant in charge

" " " may call special meetings of his lodge

" " " may close his lodge at any time

" " " presides over business as well as labor

" " " is supreme in his lodge

Master of a lodge, no appeal from his decision except to Grand

Lodge

moral qualifications of

intellectual qualifications of

who is to judge of them

is a member of the Grand Lodge

may exclude a member temporarily

Membership, right of

Members of Grand Lodge are Masters and Wardens with the Grand Officers

Minutes, when to be read

how to be amended

not to be read at special communications

formula for keeping

Moral law, what it is

a Mason must obey it

Motions, when to be entertained

Name of a lodge to be selected by itself

Non-residents, initiation of

Number of a lodge regulates its precedency

of candidates to be initiated at one communication

Office, can be vacated only by death, removal, or expulsion

not vacated by suspension

Officers of a Grand Lodge

subordinate lodge

warranted lodge must be installed

how to be installed

time of election determined by Grand Lodge

elected annually

vacancies in, how to be supplied

cannot resign

Order, rules of

whence derived

Parliamentary law not applicable to Masonry

Past Masters

rights of

not members of the Grand Lodge by inherent right

may install their successors

of two kinds--actual and virtual

may preside in a lodge

eligible to election to the chair

entitled to a seat in the East

eligible to be elected Deputy Grand Master, or Grand Warden

virtual, cannot be present at installing a Master

Penal jurisdiction of a lodge

Perfect youth, meaning of the term

Perfection, physical, why required of a candidate

Petition of candidate

must be read at a regular communication

referred to a committee of three

reported on at next regular communication

report on, cannot be made at a special communication

renewal of, in case of rejection

how to be renewed, if rejected

for advancement to a higher degree

if rejected, how to be renewed

Petitioners, not less than seven to form a lodge

what they must set forth

must be recommended by nearest lodge

Political offenses not cognizable by a lodge

Political qualifications of candidates

Postponed business, when to be called up

Precedency of lodges, regulated by their numbers

Presiding in a lodge, who has the right of

officer, has the prerogatives of the Master, for the time

Previous question, unknown in Masonry

Probation of candidates

for initiation

for advancement

Proceedings of a regular communication cannot be amended at a special one

Profanes, testimony of, how to be taken in trials

Proficiency of candidates

Proficiency of candidates, must be suitable

Punishments, masonic

Pursuivant, a title equivalent to Sword-Bearer

Qualifications of a Master of a lodge

of candidates,

moral

religious

physical

intellectual

political, 184

Quarterly communications of Grand Lodge, ordered in 1717

Question, how to be taken on a motion

Reading, a qualification of candidates

Recommendation of nearest lodge, necessary to form a new one

of candidate, must be by two members

Reconsideration of ballot

motion for, is out of order,

cannot be granted by dispensation

Rejected candidate cannot apply to any other lodge

renewed petition of, when to be made,

Relief, right of claiming it

unworthy Masons not entitled to it

Religion of a Mason, what it is required to be

Religious offenses not cognizable by a lodge

Removal of a lodge, rule on the subject of

Representatives of a lodge, who they are

Reprimand, a masonic punishment

Restoration

from definite suspension

indefinite supension

expulsion

must be at a stated communication

may be by Grand Lodge

requires a unanimous vote

to membership discussed

Secretary, Grand. (_See Grand Secretary._)

of a lodge

his duty

is a recording, corresponding, and receiving officer

is a check upon the treasurer

often receives compensation

in case of death, or expulsion, a successor may be elected

but not in case of removal, or sickness

Senior Grand Warden. (_See Grand Wardens._)

Senior Warden

presides in absence of Master

may invite a Past Master to preside

presides over the craft during labor

appoints the Junior Deacon

Sentence in trials, how to be obtained

---- is in abeyance pending an appeal

Stewards, Grand. (_See Grand Stewards._)

of a lodge

appointed by Junior Warden

duties of

not removable by Junior Warden

Stranger, initiation of

Suspension

definite

indefinite

Sword Bearer, Grand. (_See Grand Sword Bearer._)

Testimony, how to be taken on masonic trials

Tiler, Grand. (_See Grand Tiler._)

of a lodge

office existed from beginning of the institution

no lodge can be without one

must be a worthy Master Mason

if a member, the office does not disfranchise him

when voting, Junior Deacon takes his place

may be removed for misconduct

Tiler's obligation, form of it

Transient persons, initiation of

Treasurer, Grand. _(See Grand Treasurer_.)

" " of a lodge

" " duties of

" " is the only banker of the lodge

" " is a disbursing officer

" " a Brother of worldly substance usually selected

" " in case of death, a successor may be elected

" " but not in case of sickness, or removal

Trials, masonic

" " form of

" " evidence in

Unaffiliated Masons

" " tax sometimes levied on

" " position, rights, and duties of

Unaffiliation, contrary to the spirit of Masonry

" effect of, on a Mason

Unanimity in the ballot required by the ancient constitutions

Uneducated candidates not forbidden by positive enactment

" " their admission opposed to the spirit of the institution

Virtual Past Masters, who they are

Visit, right of

" only affiliated Mason entitled to it

" must be preceded by an examination

" requires a certificate to insure it

Visitors, examination of, described

" must take the Tiler's obligation

Voting must always be by a show of hands

Voting in trials, obligatory on all members present

Voucher must be a competent Mason

Vouching for a visitor

Wardens, Grand. (_See Grand Wardens._)

of a lodge are assistants of the Master

entitled to membership in Grand Lodge

Warden, Senior. (_See Senior Warden._)

Warden, Junior. (_See Junior Warden._)

Warrant of constitution

what it is

its difference from a dispensation

can be revoked only by the Grand Lodge

confers powers of installation and succession

not necessary before 1717

cannot be resigned by a majority of the lodge

Warranted lodges. (_See Lodges, Warranted._)

Witnesses in masonic trials, qualifications of

definition of incompetent ones

Woman cannot be made a Mason

Writing, a qualification of candidates

Yeas and nays, calling for, unmasonic

Young man under age cannot be made a Mason

Youth, perfect, meaning of the term

Footnotes

[1] They will be found in Oliver's edition of Preston, p. 71, note,

(U.M.L., vol. iii., p. 58), or in the American edition by Richards,

Appendix i., note 5.

[2] Found in Ol. Preston, n. 3 (p. 162. U.M.L., vol. iii., p. 134).

[3] In all references to, or citations from, Anderson's Constitutions, I

have used, unless otherwise stated, the first edition printed at London in

1723--a fac simile of which has recently been published by Bro. John W.

Leonard, of New York. I have, however, in my possession the subsequent

editions of 1738, 1755, and 1767, and have sometimes collated them

together.

[4] The Gothic Constitutions are that code of laws which was adopted by

the General Assembly at York, in the year 926. They are no longer extant,

but portions of them have been preserved by Anderson, Preston, and other

writers.

[5] Preston, book iv., sec, 2., p. 132, n. (U.M.L.,vol. iii., p. 109).

[6] General Regulations, art. xxxix.

[7] Chancellor Walworth, in his profound argument on the New York

difficulties, asserted that this fact "does not distinctly appear,

although it is, pretty evident that all voted."--p. 33. The language of

Anderson does not, however, admit of a shadow of a doubt. "The Brethren,"

he says, "by a majority of hands, elected," &c.

[8] Opinion of Chancellor Walworth upon the questions connected with the

late masonic difficulties in the State of New York, p. 37. There is much

historical learning displayed in this little pamphlet.

[9] Preston, p. 131, n., Oliver's Edit. (U.M.L., vol. iii.,p. 109).

[10] Of the thirty-six Grand Masters who have presided over the craft in

England since the revival of Masonry in 1717, thirty have been noblemen,

and three princes of the reigning family.

[11] Article xxxiv.

[12] His most important prerogatives are inherent or derived from ancient

usage.

[13] Proceedings G.L. Maryland, 1849, p. 25.

[14] Art. xxxix.

[15] The word "time" has been interpreted to mean _communication_.

[16] And this is not because such past officer has an inherent right to

the mastership, but because as long as such an one is present and willing

to serve, there does not exist such an emergency as would authorize a

dispensation of the law.

[17] What further concerns a lodge under dispensation is referred to a

special chapter in a subsequent part of the work.

[18] It is well known, although it cannot be quoted as authority, that the

Athol Constitutions expressly acknowledged the existence of this

prerogative. See Dermott's Ahiman Rezon.

[19] Book of Constitutions, edit. 1767, p. 222.

[20] Book of Const., p. 233.

[21] Book of Const., p. 313.

[22] Book of Constitutions, p. 319.

[23] Preston, p. 237, ed. 1802, (U.M.L., vol. iii., p. 223).

[24] Book of Constitutions, p. 247

[25] The existence of this prerogative is denied by the Grand Lodges of

Missouri, Tennessee, Louisiana, and Massachusetts, while it is admitted by

those of New York, Kentucky, North Carolina, South Carolina, Wisconsin,

Vermont, Mississippi, Ohio, New Hampshire, Maryland, Indiana, Texas and

Florida; in the last two, however, subject to limitation.

[26] That is, the one who has longest been a Freemason.

[27] Book of the Lodge, p. 115 (U.M.L., vol. i., book 2, p. 78).

[28] It was abolished in New York in 1854.

[29] This is a small chest or coffer, representing the ark of the

covenant, and containing the three great lights of Masonry.

[30] "What man is there that hath a new house and hath not dedicated it?

Let him go and return to his house, lest he die in the battle and another

man dedicate it." Deut. xx. 5.

[31] De Syned. Vet. Ebræor., 1. iii., c. xiv., § 1.

[32] Cicero, Brut. i.

[33] See such a form of Dispensation in Cole's Masonic Library, p. 91.

[34] Preston, Append., n. 4 (U.M.L., vol. iii., pp. 150, 151).

[35] Book of Constitutions, orig. ed, p., 70 (U.M.L., vol. xv., book 1, p.

70).

[36] General Regulations of 1722. A subsequent regulation permitted the

election of a candidate, if there were not more than three black balls

against him, provided the lodge desired such a relaxation of the rule. The

lodges of this country, however, very generally, and, as I think, with

propriety, require unanimity. The subject will be hereafter discussed.

[37] Every lodge shall annually elect its Master and Treasurer by ballot.

Such Master having been regularly appointed and having served as Warden of

a warranted lodge for one year. _Constitutions of the Ancient Fraternity

of Free and Accepted Masons, published by authority of the United Grand

Lodge of England_, 1847, _p_. 58 (U.M.L., vol. ix., book 1).

[38] The Wardens, or officers, of a lodge cannot be removed, unless for a

cause which appears to the lodge to be sufficient; but the Master, if he

be dissatisfied with the conduct of any of his officers, may lay the cause

of complaint before the lodge; and, if it shall appear to the majority of

the Brethren present that the complaint be well founded, he shall have

power to displace such officer, and to nominate another. _English

Constitutions, as above, p._ 80 (U.M.L., vol. ix., book 1).

[39] It is not necessary that he should be a Past Master of the lodge.

[40] No master shall assume the Master's chair, until he shall have been

regularly installed, though he may in the interim rule the lodge. _English

Constitutions_ (U.M.L., vol. ix., book 1).

[41] Every Warranted Lodge is a constituent part of the Grand Lodge, in

which assembly all the power of the fraternity resides. _English

Constitutions, p_. 70 (U.M.L., vol. ix., book 1).

[42] We shall not here discuss the question whether Past Masters are

members of the Grand Lodge, by inherent right, as that subject will be

more appropriately investigated when we come to speak of the Law of Grand

Lodges, in a future chapter. They are, however clearly, not the

representatives of their lodge.

[43] Preston, p. 167 (U.M.L., vol. iii., p. 151).

[44] General Regulations. Of the duty of members, Art. X, (U.M.L., vol.

xv., book 1, p. 61).

[45] English Constitutions, p. 59 (U.M.L., vol. ix., book 1).

[46] In selecting the name, the modern Constitutions of England make the

approbation of the Grand Master or Provincial Grand Master necessary.

[47] Such is the doctrine of the modern English Constitutions.

[48] "No Brother can be a Warden until he has passed the part of a Fellow

Craft; nor a Master until he has acted as a Warden."--_Old Charges_, IV.

(U.M.L., vol. xv., book 1, p. 52).

[49] Regulations on Installation of a Master, No. III. Preston, p. 74

(U.M.L., vol. iii., p. 61).

[50] Hats. quoted in Jefferson, p. 14.

[51] One of the ancient charges, which Preston tells us that it was the

constant practice of our Ancient Brethren to rehearse at the opening and

closing of the lodge, seems to refer to this rule, when it says, "the

Master, Wardens, and Brethren are just and faithful, and _carefully finish

the work they begin_."--Oliver's Preston, p. 27, _note_ (U.M.L., vol.

iii., p. 22).

[52] Proceedings of G.L. of Tennessee, 1850. Appendix A, p. 8.

[53] Book of Constitutions, edition of 1755, p. 282.

[54] If it is an extra communication, this item of the transaction is, of

course, omitted, for minutes are only to be confirmed at regular

communications.

[55] Oliver's Preston, p. 163, note (U.M.L., vol. iii., p. 135).

[56] Such is the provision in the modern constitutions of England, but the

4th of the 39 Regulations required the candidate to be at least

twenty-five.

[57] See these regulations in Preston, p. 162, Oliver's ed. (U.M.L., vol.

iii., p. 135).

[58] Oliver's Preston, p. 72, (U.M.L., vol. iii., p. 59).

[59] Blackstone, Com. I., Introd., § 2.

[60] In an able report on this subject, in the proceedings of the Grand

Lodge of Georgia for 1852. In accordance with the views there expressed,

Bro. Rockwell decided officially, as District Deputy Grand Master, in

1851, that a man who had lost one eye was not admissible.

[61] Potter, 184.

[62] Page 18. In December, 1851, the Committee of Correspondence of North

Carolina, unregardful of the rigid rule of their predecessors, decided

that maimed candidates might be initiated, "provided their loss or

infirmity will not prevent them from making full proficiency in Masonry."

[63] Proceedings of the G.L. of Mo. for 1823, p. 5. The report and

resolution were on the petitions of two candidates to be initiated, one

with only one arm, and the other much deformed in his legs.

[64] When the spirit of expediency once begins, we know not where it will

stop. Thus a blind man has been initiated in Mississippi, and a one-armed

one in Kentucky; and in France a few years since, the degrees were

conferred by sign-language on a deaf mute!

[65] Namely, the incorrectly presumed operative origin of the Order. The

whole of this report, which is from the venerable Giles F. Yates, contains

an able and unanswerable defense of the ancient law in opposition to any

qualification.

[66] See proceedings of New York, 1848, pp. 36, 37.

[67] Such is the formula prescribed by the Constitutions of England as

well as all the Monitors in this country.

[68] See Mackey's Lexicon of Freemasonry, 3d Edit., art, _Ballot_.

[69] Book of Constitutions. Edit. 1755, p. 312.

[70] See Mackey's Lexicon of Freemasonry, 3d Edit., art. _Ballot_

[71] Except when there is but one black ball, in which case the matter

lies over until the next stated meeting. See preceding Section.

[72] Masonry founded on Scripture, a Sermon preached in 1752, by the Rev.

W. Williams.

[73] That is, advance him, from the subordinate position of a serving man

or Apprentice, to that of a Fellow Craft or journeyman.

[74] This is also the regulation of the Grand Lodge of South Carolina.

[75] Proceedings of Grand Lodge of New York, for 1845. He excepts, of

course, from the operation of the rule, those made by dispensation; but

this exception does not affect the strength of the principle.

[76] Preston, edition of Oliver, p. 12 (U.M.L., vol. iii., p. 10).

[77] Transactions of the G.L. of New York, anno 1848, p. 73.

[78] Edition of 1723, page 71 (U.M.L., vol. xv., book 1, p. 71).

[79] Preston, p. 48 (U.M.L., vol, iii., p. 40).

[80] Const. New York, 1854, p. 13. The Constitutions of the Grand Lodge of

England (p. 64) have a similar provision; but they require the Brother to

express his wish for membership on the day of his initiation.

[81] Preston, Oliver's Ed., p. 71, _note_ (U.L.M., vol. iii., p. 60).

[82] See Oliver, note in Preston, p. 75 (U.M.L., vol. iii, p. 61).

[83] Oliver's Preston, p. 162 (U.M.L., vol. iii., p. 135.)

[84] See Anderson's Const., 3d Edit., 1755, page 303.

[85] Preston, Oliver's Edit., p. 89 (U.M.L., vol. iii., p. 72).

[86] Preston, Oliver's Edit" p. 90 (U.M.L., vol. iii., p. 73).

[87] Book I., chap. iii.

[88] Proceedings of Louisiana, an. 1852.

[89] Preston, Oliver's Edit., p. 76 (U.M.L., vol. iii, p. 62).

[90] Ibid

[91] See Mackey's Lexicon of Freemasonry, _in voce_.

[92] Constitutions, Second Edition of 1738, p. 154.

[93] Proceedings for 1853.

[94] Proceedings for 1847.

[95] The right to visit is restricted to once, by many Grand Lodges to

enable him to become acquainted with the character of the lodge before he

applies for membership.

[96] Blackstone, Introd., § i.

[97] For so we should interpret the word "honeste."

[98] I have treated this subject of expulsion so fully in my "Lexicon of

Freemasonry," and find so little more to say on the subject, that I have

not at all varied from the course of argument, and very little from the

phraseology of the article in that work.

[99] In England, ejection from a membership by a subordinate lodge is

called "exclusion," and it does not deprive the party of his general

rights as a member of the fraternity.

[100] Lexicon of Freemasonry.

[101] Phillips, on Evidence, p. 3.

[102] Chief Baron Gilbert.

End of Project Gutenberg's The Principles of Masonic Law, by Albert G. Mackey

*** END OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE PRINCIPLES OF MASONIC LAW ***

***** This file should be named 12186-0.txt or 12186-0.zip *****

This and all associated files of various formats will be found in:

http://www.gutenberg.net/1/2/1/8/12186/

Produced by Distributed Proofreaders

Updated editions will replace the previous one--the old editions

will be renamed.

Creating the works from public domain print editions means that no

one owns a United States copyright in these works, so the Foundation

(and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United States without

permission and without paying copyright royalties. Special rules,

set forth in the General Terms of Use part of this license, apply to

copying and distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works to

protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm concept and trademark. Project

Gutenberg is a registered trademark, and may not be used if you

charge for the eBooks, unless you receive specific permission. If you

do not charge anything for copies of this eBook, complying with the

rules is very easy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose

such as creation of derivative works, reports, performances and

research. They may be modified and printed and given away--you may do

practically ANYTHING with public domain eBooks. Redistribution is

subject to the trademark license, especially commercial

redistribution.

*** START: FULL LICENSE ***

THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE

PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK

To protect the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting the free

distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work

(or any other work associated in any way with the phrase "Project

Gutenberg"), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full Project

Gutenberg-tm License (available with this file or online at

http://gutenberg.net/license).

Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project Gutenberg-tm

electronic works

1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg-tm

electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to

and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property

(trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all

the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or destroy

all copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in your possession.

If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a Project

Gutenberg-tm electronic work and you do not agree to be bound by the

terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the person or

entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph 1.E.8.

1.B. "Project Gutenberg" is a registered trademark. It may only be

used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who

agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few

things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works

even without complying with the full terms of this agreement. See

paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with Project

Gutenberg-tm electronic works if you follow the terms of this agreement

and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg-tm electronic

works. See paragraph 1.E below.

1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation ("the Foundation"

or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection of Project

Gutenberg-tm electronic works. Nearly all the individual works in the

collection are in the public domain in the United States. If an

individual work is in the public domain in the United States and you are

located in the United States, we do not claim a right to prevent you from

copying, distributing, performing, displaying or creating derivative

works based on the work as long as all references to Project Gutenberg

are removed. Of course, we hope that you will support the Project

Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting free access to electronic works by

freely sharing Project Gutenberg-tm works in compliance with the terms of

this agreement for keeping the Project Gutenberg-tm name associated with

the work. You can easily comply with the terms of this agreement by

keeping this work in the same format with its attached full Project

Gutenberg-tm License when you share it without charge with others.

1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern

what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are in

a constant state of change. If you are outside the United States, check

the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this agreement

before downloading, copying, displaying, performing, distributing or

creating derivative works based on this work or any other Project

Gutenberg-tm work. The Foundation makes no representations concerning

the copyright status of any work in any country outside the United

States.

1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg:

1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other immediate

access to, the full Project Gutenberg-tm License must appear prominently

whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg-tm work (any work on which the

phrase "Project Gutenberg" appears, or with which the phrase "Project

Gutenberg" is associated) is accessed, displayed, performed, viewed,

copied or distributed:

This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with

almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or

re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included

with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.net

1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is derived

from the public domain (does not contain a notice indicating that it is

posted with permission of the copyright holder), the work can be copied

and distributed to anyone in the United States without paying any fees

or charges. If you are redistributing or providing access to a work

with the phrase "Project Gutenberg" associated with or appearing on the

work, you must comply either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1

through 1.E.7 or obtain permission for the use of the work and the

Project Gutenberg-tm trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or

1.E.9.

1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is posted

with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution

must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any additional

terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms will be linked

to the Project Gutenberg-tm License for all works posted with the

permission of the copyright holder found at the beginning of this work.

1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg-tm

License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this

work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg-tm.

1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this

electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without

prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with

active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project

Gutenberg-tm License.

1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary,

compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including any

word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access to or

distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg-tm work in a format other than

"Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other format used in the official version

posted on the official Project Gutenberg-tm web site (www.gutenberg.net),

you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense to the user, provide a

copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means of obtaining a copy upon

request, of the work in its original "Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other

form. Any alternate format must include the full Project Gutenberg-tm

License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1.

1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying,

performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg-tm works

unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.

1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing

access to or distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works provided

that

- You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from

the use of Project Gutenberg-tm works calculated using the method

you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is

owed to the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark, but he

has agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the

Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty payments

must be paid within 60 days following each date on which you

prepare (or are legally required to prepare) your periodic tax

returns. Royalty payments should be clearly marked as such and

sent to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the

address specified in Section 4, "Information about donations to

the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation."

- You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies

you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he

does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg-tm

License. You must require such a user to return or

destroy all copies of the works possessed in a physical medium

and discontinue all use of and all access to other copies of

Project Gutenberg-tm works.

- You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of any

money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the

electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days

of receipt of the work.

- You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free

distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm works.

1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project Gutenberg-tm

electronic work or group of works on different terms than are set

forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing from

both the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation and Michael

Hart, the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark. Contact the

Foundation as set forth in Section 3 below.

1.F.

1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable

effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread

public domain works in creating the Project Gutenberg-tm

collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg-tm electronic

works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may contain

"Defects," such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate or

corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other intellectual

property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or other medium, a

computer virus, or computer codes that damage or cannot be read by

your equipment.

1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the "Right

of Replacement or Refund" described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project

Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project

Gutenberg-tm trademark, and any other party distributing a Project

Gutenberg-tm electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all

liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal

fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT

LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE

PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH F3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE

TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE

LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR

INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH

DAMAGE.

1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a

defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can

receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a

written explanation to the person you received the work from. If you

received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium with

your written explanation. The person or entity that provided you with

the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in lieu of a

refund. If you received the work electronically, the person or entity

providing it to you may choose to give you a second opportunity to

receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund. If the second copy

is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing without further

opportunities to fix the problem.

1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth

in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you 'AS-IS' WITH NO OTHER

WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO

WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTIBILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE.

1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied

warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of damages.

If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement violates the

law of the state applicable to this agreement, the agreement shall be

interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or limitation permitted by

the applicable state law. The invalidity or unenforceability of any

provision of this agreement shall not void the remaining provisions.

1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the

trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone

providing copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in accordance

with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the production,

promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works,

harmless from all liability, costs and expenses, including legal fees,

that arise directly or indirectly from any of the following which you do

or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this or any Project Gutenberg-tm

work, (b) alteration, modification, or additions or deletions to any

Project Gutenberg-tm work, and (c) any Defect you cause.

Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg-tm

Project Gutenberg-tm is synonymous with the free distribution of

electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of computers

including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It exists

because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations from

people in all walks of life.

Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the

assistance they need, is critical to reaching Project Gutenberg-tm's

goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg-tm collection will

remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project

Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure

and permanent future for Project Gutenberg-tm and future generations.

To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation

and how your efforts and donations can help, see Sections 3 and 4

and the Foundation web page at http://www.pglaf.org.

Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive

Foundation

The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non profit

501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the

state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal

Revenue Service. The Foundation's EIN or federal tax identification

number is 64-6221541. Its 501(c)(3) letter is posted at

http://pglaf.org/fundraising. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg

Literary Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent

permitted by U.S. federal laws and your state's laws.

The Foundation's principal office is located at 4557 Melan Dr. S.

Fairbanks, AK, 99712., but its volunteers and employees are scattered

throughout numerous locations. Its business office is located at

809 North 1500 West, Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887, email

[email protected]. Email contact links and up to date contact

information can be found at the Foundation's web site and official

page at http://pglaf.org

For additional contact information:

Dr. Gregory B. Newby

Chief Executive and Director

[email protected]

Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg

Literary Archive Foundation

Project Gutenberg-tm depends upon and cannot survive without wide

spread public support and donations to carry out its mission of

increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be

freely distributed in machine readable form accessible by the widest

array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small donations

($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt

status with the IRS.

The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating

charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United

States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a

considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up

with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations

where we have not received written confirmation of compliance. To

SEND DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any

particular state visit http://pglaf.org

While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we

have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition

against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who

approach us with offers to donate.

International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make

any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from

outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff.

Please check the Project Gutenberg Web pages for current donation

methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other

ways including including checks, online payments and credit card

donations. To donate, please visit: http://pglaf.org/donate

Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg-tm electronic

works.

Professor Michael S. Hart is the originator of the Project Gutenberg-tm

concept of a library of electronic works that could be freely shared

with anyone. For thirty years, he produced and distributed Project

Gutenberg-tm eBooks with only a loose network of volunteer support.

Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks are often created from several printed

editions, all of which are confirmed as Public Domain in the U.S.

unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not necessarily

keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper edition.

Each eBook is in a subdirectory of the same number as the eBook's

eBook number, often in several formats including plain vanilla ASCII,

compressed (zipped), HTML and others.

Corrected EDITIONS of our eBooks replace the old file and take over

the old filename and etext number. The replaced older file is renamed.

VERSIONS based on separate sources are treated as new eBooks receiving

new filenames and etext numbers.

Most people start at our Web site which has the main PG search facility:

http://www.gutenberg.net

This Web site includes information about Project Gutenberg-tm,

including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary

Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to

subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks.

EBooks posted prior to November 2003, with eBook numbers BELOW #10000,

are filed in directories based on their release date. If you want to

download any of these eBooks directly, rather than using the regular

search system you may utilize the following addresses and just

download by the etext year.

http://www.gutenberg.net/etext06

(Or /etext 05, 04, 03, 02, 01, 00, 99,

98, 97, 96, 95, 94, 93, 92, 92, 91 or 90)

EBooks posted since November 2003, with etext numbers OVER #10000, are

filed in a different way. The year of a release date is no longer part

of the directory path. The path is based on the etext number (which is

identical to the filename). The path to the file is made up of single

digits corresponding to all but the last digit in the filename. For

example an eBook of filename 10234 would be found at:

http://www.gutenberg.net/1/0/2/3/10234

or filename 24689 would be found at:

http://www.gutenberg.net/2/4/6/8/24689

An alternative method of locating eBooks:

http://www.gutenberg.net/GUTINDEX.ALL

Livros Grátis
( http://www.livrosgratis.com.br )
 
Milhares de Livros para Download:
 
Baixar livros de Administração
Baixar livros de Agronomia
Baixar livros de Arquitetura
Baixar livros de Artes
Baixar livros de Astronomia
Baixar livros de Biologia Geral
Baixar livros de Ciência da Computação
Baixar livros de Ciência da Informação
Baixar livros de Ciência Política
Baixar livros de Ciências da Saúde
Baixar livros de Comunicação
Baixar livros do Conselho Nacional de Educação - CNE
Baixar livros de Defesa civil
Baixar livros de Direito
Baixar livros de Direitos humanos
Baixar livros de Economia
Baixar livros de Economia Doméstica
Baixar livros de Educação
Baixar livros de Educação - Trânsito
Baixar livros de Educação Física
Baixar livros de Engenharia Aeroespacial
Baixar livros de Farmácia
Baixar livros de Filosofia
Baixar livros de Física
Baixar livros de Geociências
Baixar livros de Geografia
Baixar livros de História
Baixar livros de Línguas

Baixar livros de Literatura
Baixar livros de Literatura de Cordel
Baixar livros de Literatura Infantil
Baixar livros de Matemática
Baixar livros de Medicina
Baixar livros de Medicina Veterinária
Baixar livros de Meio Ambiente
Baixar livros de Meteorologia
Baixar Monografias e TCC
Baixar livros Multidisciplinar
Baixar livros de Música
Baixar livros de Psicologia
Baixar livros de Química
Baixar livros de Saúde Coletiva
Baixar livros de Serviço Social
Baixar livros de Sociologia
Baixar livros de Teologia
Baixar livros de Trabalho
Baixar livros de Turismo
 
 