^ ANNEX ^04622^ QJocnell ItttoEtattg Hthrarg JItiiata, N^m lork FROM THE BENNO LOEWY LIBRARY COLLECTED BY BENNO LOEWY 18S4-1919 BEQUEATHED TO CORNELL UNIVERSITY •me date shows when this volume was taken. To renew this book copy the call No. and give to the librarian. HOME USE RULES All books subject to recall All borrowers must regis- "." » ter in the library to borrow books for home use. -""* '." All books must be re- turned at end of college year for inspection and repairs. Limited * books must be • returned within the four week limit and not renewed. Students must return all •t books before leaving town. Officers should arrange for the return of books wanted during their absence from town. Volumes of periodicals * and* of pamphlets are held in tfie library as much as possible. For special pur- poses they are given out for a limited time. Borrowers should not use their library privileges for the benefit of other persons. Books of special value and gift books, when the giver wishes it, are not allowed to circulate. Readera are asked to re- port all cases of books marked or mutilated. ^ , Do not deface books by marks and writing. Cornell University Library HS445.N56 A3 1911 Compilation and digest of ,decisigns 3 1924 030 300 648 olin.anx Cornell University Library The original of tiiis book is in tine Cornell University Library. There are no known copyright restrictions in the United States on the use of the text. http://www.archive.org/details/cu31924030300648 COMPILATION AND DIGEST DECISIONS AND RELEVANT MATTER CONTAINED IN PROCEEDINGS GRAND LODGE OF FEEE AND ACCEPTED MASONS OF THE STATE OF NEW TOEK TOPICAL INDEX BY ABEL CROOK Judge Advocate, 1906, 1907 and 1910-1911 MAY, 1911 6^#. HrS^au* ■' Jl- /3rir^t^ i^ili SiMce^^ ! CoPTKiaHT, 1911, BT ABEL CROOK Press o! J. J. Little & Ives Co. New York TO THE GEAND LODGE 0¥ FREE AND ACCEPTED MASONS OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, ITS GEAND MASTERS AND COMMITTEES, THIS VOLUME IS FRATEENALLY DEDICATED. PART ONE— COMPILATION PART I. COMPILATION OF DECISIONS AND EELEVANT MATTEE8 FEOM THE OFFICIAIi PEOCEEDINGS, FEOM OEGANIZA- TION OF THE GEAND LODGE OF THE STATE OF NEW YOEK TO MAY 2, 1911. Vol. I. — Kane Lodge Eeprint. Grand Lodge Proceedings. 1770. — P. 24. Members and officers fined for coming late to Lodge and for leaving witliout permission. P.^ 26. Fines applied to purchase of refreshments. 1786. — P. 49. Masonic clothing at theatre disapproved. 1789. — P. 77. Masonic funeral denied because of severity of the weather. P. 92. Temporary Dispensation to hold Lodge in absence of warrant granted. P. 95. Differences in Lodge adjusted by granting warrant to one party to exclusion of the other. 1791. — P. 117. Letter from Brethren, etc., northwest of the Eiver Ohio. December, 1795, and March, 1796, asking recognition of new Grand Lodge. 1796. — Pp. 177 and 180. Making Masons at sight in private Lodges under auspices of officers of the Grand Lodge approved as a prerogative of the Grand Master and the Constitution of the Fraternity. P. 203. Promoter of clandestine Lodges expelled. 1797. — P. 212. Eeport that in 1797, as a " signal that harmony had been restored " in a Lodge, the ' ' Fraternal Kiss was passed in the Lodge." It was a French Lodge in New York. Pp. 209-213. Mercantile differences not cause for expulsion. 1800. — P. 283. New Constitution recommended in 1800, but rejected (p. 289) by the Lodges. 1801. — P. 314. Lodges of Albany initiated a movement to hold the Grand Lodge in that City, which was disapproved by the Grand Lodge (p. 318) in 1802. 1 804. — Pp. 342-343. Eegular Lodge election of officers cannot be avoided at subsequent Lodge meeting. J 806. — P. 380. Dispensation to prisoners within jail limits to open and hold a Lodge. 1807. — P. 401. Loss of one eye such a defect as ought to preclude a candidate from initiation. 1808. — P. 429. A Master of a Lodge was permitted by the Grand Lodge to have and use a cypher book. 1809. — P. 448. The Grand Lodge approved a report that members in arrears for one year 's dues might be ' ' suspended by 8 COMPILATION OF DECISIONS OF their respective Lodges from all Masonic communications." They were permitted to discharge or commute the same within twelve months from date of notice, and if not paid in that period, could be formally expelled " from all communications with or benefit from the institution." 1810. — ^p. 458. Grand Lodge held it improper to restore a petitioner to a subordinate Lodge from which he had been expelled, and re- ferred it to the subordinate Lodge. 1811. — P. 479. A member whose name has been expunged from the Lodge rolls was restored by the Grand Lodge "to his common rights as a Mason, though not to his seat as a member of * * * Lodge, and is to be taken and received as duly qualified to join any Lodge that may see fit to elect him a member thereof. ' ' P. 489. The Committee on Fiscal Concerns of the Grand Lodge were " invested with discretionary and unlimited power over the said stock and funds, having first satisfied the Grand Treasurer for all moneys which he may be in advance on account of this Grand Lodge, and taking special care to keep him at all times supplied with so much money as may be necessary to meet the draughts of the Grand Stewards Lodge and its Committee of Charity." P. 494. Stiffness of the knee not such a defect as to disqualify a candidate for initiation. P. 494. The Grand Lodge declined the proposition to send delegates to a Convention to organize a General Grand Lodge to superintend and control the Grand Lodges of North America. P. 49.5. The Committee on Fiscal Concerns was made a " Committee to adjust the accounts of the Grand Treasurer and to perform the duties of that office until a successor shall be appointed. ' ' 1812. — At p. 502 the Committee transferred the stock to the Grand Secretary and Grand Treasurer. 1813. — At p. 524 a resolution was adopted — that no " person of this State or of the United States, or a foreigner, should be initiated — unless the Lodge be satisfied whether he hath at any time made application to a Lodge for admission and been re- jected or otherwise refused admission into the same, and if it shall appear that the candidate has been rejected, then not until the Lodge to which the candidate applies is satisfactorily con- vinced that such rejection has not been on account of any cir- cumstances that ought to preclude him from the benefits of Ma- sonry. ' ' In the same year (p. 538) the Grand Lodge afiirmed a convic- tion, stating that while the ' ' charges taken abstractly do not appear entirely suflSeient to justify ' an expulsion,' yet taken in connection with his incorrigible disposition — it is not improper to satisfy and confirm the expulsion. ' ' 1815. — P. 577. The Grand Lodge prohibited the publication (except it be to the Fraternity or within the walls of the Lodge) the expulsion of any member. P. 5S4. Use of distilled spirits in Lodge room discussed. THE GRAND LODGE OF NEW YORK Vol. II. — Kane Lodge Eeprint. 1816. — P. 10. The use of distilled spirits in Lodge rooms at the meet- ings of Lodges was forbidden. 1816. — P. 11. Loans by Lodges to individuals prohibited. 1819.— P. 135. Matter McBurney. No Lodge of Tree Masons is competent to investigate any m?it- ter of private contract or pecuniary claim and none should attempt to exercise a power of that nature except by mutual con- sent of the parties. 140. Ordinance proposed giving any ' ' particular Lodge juris- diction to discipline ' sojourning brethren or brethren unattached to any particular Lodge while residing or sojourning in the vicinity of such Lodge.' " To report the proceedings to the Grand Lodge to which shall be right of appeal. 155. Adopted by the Grand Lodge and ordered engrafted in its particular rules. 1820. — P. 158. Application for a " dispensation to authorize the mak- ing a person a Mason who has lost an arm — held incompatible with the Book of Constitution." 207. Eesolution offered that presiding officer of a Lodge may deny privilege of a visitor if he deem his presence would ' ' disturb the harmony * * * or embarrass the work. ' ' 210. Adopted by Grand Lodge. 1821. — P. 213. Ordered that expenses of Committees of Grand Lodge to settle ' ' difference or misunderstanding between Masons or between a Lodge and its members ' ' shall be borne by one or both of the parties if the Committee so decide. 1822. — P. 267. Ordered — that no ' ' person shall be entered in any Lodge under this jurisdiction who shall not have attained the age of twenty-one years. ' ' 273 to 281. Eeport of convention held at Washington, D. C, to consider advisability of a General Grand Lodge of the United States. 288. Plan disapproved by Grand Lodge. 296. A resolution to form two Grand Lodges in the State of New York and to divide the funds was laid on the table. 329. Eesolution condemning " the use of all books or manu- scripts, the purport or tendency of which is to elucidate and ex- plain Free Masonry. ' ' 1823. — ^P. 342. The resolution to form two Grand Lodges was adopted; one to be in New York City and the other in such town or place out of said City " as a majority of the Lodges out of this said! City consenting to form a part of the same may designate. ' ' That the Lodges in good standing out of the City be permitted to- select 'the Grand Lodge from under whose jurisdiction they will hail." 361. Circular letter to Lodges detailing the causes of resolu- tion to form two Grand Lodges. 1824. — P. 382. Plan reported for building a Free Mason's Hall in: New York City. 386. Adopted by Grand Lodge of Emergency. 10 COMPILATIOX OF DECISIONS OF 1825.— P. 413. Committee appointed by Grand Stewards Lodge recom- mend : " That a Board of Trustees be elected consisting of five to be stvled the Trustees of the Permanent Fund whose duty it shall be to invest all Funds of the Grand Lodge in their names in such way as they, or a majority, may deem most expedient for the Grand Lodge, always reserving in the hands of the Grand Treas- urer sufficient funds to answer all demands drawn on him by the Grand Stewards' Lodge or their Committee of Charity, the same not to exceed $3,000 per annum." " That the Grand Secretary and Grand Treasurer be members of the Board of Trustees ex-officio and that the other three be elected for three years." Then followed a provision for filling vacancies and a direction — " That the Grand Secretary and Grand Treasurer be directed to transfer to the Trustees all stock, bonds, and mortgages now held by them in and for this Grand Lodge, or in any wise apper- taining thereto. The recommendations were adopted by the Grand Lodge. 416. The transfer was reported. P. 425. Eeport of a Committee on plant of " settling the un- happy difference existing in the great Masonic Family in this State: the following proposition from the Country Brethren: "To divide the St:Kc in two distinct Grand Lodges, the juris- diction of the first to consist of the counties of Long Island, the county of Eichmond, the City and county of New York and the county of Westchester, to be called the Southern Grand Lodge of the State of Xew York. " The jurisdiction of the other to consist of the residue of this State and to be called the Xorthern Grand Lodge of the State of Xeiv York. ' ' If the above proposition is agreed to, in that case the funds to be equitably divided between the two Grand Lodges agreeably to the sums paid by each subordinate Lodge into the Treasury of the Grand Lodge. ' ' The Committee had replied that ' they never, iu the event of a division could consent to a jurisdiction more limited than the County of Albany and that part of the State which lies south of the said county.' " 1826. — P. 457. Admission to a Lodge of one under indictment was reported as indiscreet and injudicious notwithstanding the pre- sumption of innocence until found guilty. 1S27. — P. 470. Eeport adopted — agreeing upon the proposition of both Committees of the City and Country Lodges. ' ' That there ought to be but one Grand Lodge in the State of Xew York and that it ought to be held in the City of Xew York and be considered as a continuation of the old Grand Lodge. That all allusions to former differences shall be avoided as far as possible. ' ' That the proceedings of the bodies known by the name of the Grand Lodge shall be confirmed, and that the "Warrants THE GKAND LODGE OF NEW YORK 11 granted to subordinate bodies by the two bodies and the proceed- ings of the said bodies shall be deemed regular. ' ' That the records and archives of the Grand Lodge being in the City of New York, the Grand Secretary shall be chosen from the City. " That the Grand Master or Deputy Grand Master shall be chosen from the City of New York, the other from the country; the two Wardens from the country; the Grand Secretary and Grand Treasurer from the City. ' ' That the Permanent Fund be managed by five Trustees, viz. : The Grand Master, the Deputy Grand Master, the two Wardens, and the Grand Secretary, whose duty it shall be to invest all funds over $3,000, agreeably to the resolution presented to this Committee. " That for the present session the representatives of Lodges shall be entitled to all the rights and privileges to which they are at present, but that it be recommended for the future that the number of Lodges that one Master or Past Master may repre- sent shall not exceed three, and that Past Masters shall not be represented by proxy and that representatives be paid as hereto- fore. ' ' That a Committee ought to be appointed to revise the Con- stitution. ' ' 476. A Committee was appointed to " revise the Constitution of this Grand Lodge, in the performance of which duty they will take for their guide the resolutions upon which this happy union has been effected, the old Constitution and the existing regulations of the Grand Lodge. ' ' 478 to 483. The Committee to revise the Constitution report was adopted and directed to be " transmitted to the several subordinate Lodges for approval and if the same be approved by two-thirds of the said Lodges the same shall be the Constitution of this Grand Lodge. ' ' The actual Constitution and Eegulations with the proposed amendments and articles of union which have been already rati- fied, your Committee considers as adequate for its government until a revised Constitution can be framed after more mature consideration. Your Committee propose that the following amendments be adopted : The 1st Chapter and the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th Sections of the 2nd Chapter of the old Constitution to be adopted. In the place of Sections 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th and 9th of Chapter 2nd, the following rules are proposed: Subordinate Lodges. 1. A subordinate Lodge shall consist of a Master, a Senior and Junior Warden, a Secretary, Treasurer, Senior and Junior Deacon, a Tyler, and as many members as may be convenient. 8. No Brother shall be eligible to the office of Master of a Lodge unless he has been Warden of some regularly constituted 12 COMPILATION" OF DECISIONS OF Lodge; except in ease of the formation of a new Lodge, no past or former Warden can be found among the members, or such Warden shall decline serving. 3. The Master of every Lodge shall be annually chosen by bal- lot at the regular meeting next preceding the festival of St. John the Evangelist. Each member in good standing shall have one vote; and when the number of votes happens to be equal, the Master shall have two votes. 4. , "When the election is closed the Secretary and Treasurer shall carefully examine the ballots, and report the same to the Lodge, and the Brother having the majority of all the votes shall be duly elected. 5. The Senior Warden, Junior Warden, Secretary and Treas- urer shall be elected at the same time, and in like manner as the Master; and all other officers shall be elected or appointed in such manner as may be prescribed in the By-Laws of each Lodge, respectively. 6. The Master of a Lodge shall have the right of congre- gating the members of his Lodge upon any emergency which in his judgment may require a meeting. 7. Every motion for the removal of a Lodge shall be made at a stated meeting, and lie over until the next stated meeting. The Master or presiding officer shall, immediately upon the mak- ing of the said motion, order summonses to be issued to the mem- bers of the Lodge, in which shall be specified the business and time of meeting, which said summonses shall be served at least ten days previous thereto. And no Lodge shall be removed unless the motion for that purpose be decided in the affirmative by at least two-thirds of the members present. S. The Senior Warden shall succeed to all the duties of the Master in his absence; and in the absence of both, the Junior Warden shall succeed to said duties. 9. The Secretary, under the direction of the presiding officer, shall record the proceedings of the Lodge, which shall be read and corrected, if necessary, and approved by the Lodge before it is closed; also receive all moneys paid into the Lodge, and pay the same to the Treasurer. 10. It shall be the duty of the Secretary, on or before the first Wednesday in June, to transmit to the Secretary of the Grand Lodge an annual return of all the members of the Lodge, agreeably to the form prescribed by the Grand Lodge. 11. It shall be the duty of the Treasurer to receive all moneys paid into the Lodge from the hands of the Secretary; keep a just and regular account thereof, and pay them out by direction of the Master and consent of the Brethren. 12. The Tyler shall be subject in all things relating to his official duties to the direction of the Master or presiding officer. THE GEAND LODGE OF NEW YORK 13 In Place of Chapter III. Of the Grand Lodge in General. 1. The style of this Grand Lodge shall be ' ' The Grand Lodge of the Most Ancient and Honorable Fraternity of Free and Accepted Masons of the State of New York." 2. It shall be composed of all the Grand Officers, the Past Grand Masters, Deputy Grand Masters, Senior Grand Wardens, Junior Grand Wardens, Grand Secretaries, Grand Treasurers, the Grand Stewards of Charity for the time being, and the Past Masters, Masters, and Wardens of all Lodges under its jurisdic- tion, and representatives appointed according to the rules herein prescribed. 3. The representatives of ten Lodges, convened on due notice, shall be a quorum for the transaction of business. 4. The Grand Officers shall be elected annually, and be styled and take rank as follows: The Most Worshipful Grand Master. The Eight Worshipful Deputy Grand Master. The Eight Worshipful Senior Grand Warden. The Eight Worshipful Junior Grand Warden. The Eight Worshipful Grand Secretary. The Eight Worshipful Grand Treasurer. The Eight Worshipful Grand Chaplains. The Eight Worshipful Grand Marshal. The Eight Worshipful Grand Standard-Bearer. The Eight Worshipful Grand Sword-Bearer. Worshipful Grand Stewards. Worshipful Senior Grand Deacon. Worshipful Junior Grand Deacon. Grand Pursuivant, and Grand Tyler. 5. The Grand Lodge shall meet in the City of New York an- nually, on the first Wednesday in June, at which Communication the Grand Officers shall be elected. And quarterly Communica- tions shall be held on the first Wednesdays of September, De- cember and March. Special meetings may also be called by the Grand Master; but no regulation affecting the general interest of the Craft shall be changed or adopted, except at the meeting in June. 6. The Grand Master, Deputy Grand Master, Senior Grand Warden, Junior Grand Warden, Grand Secretary, Grand Treas- urer, Grand Chaplains, Grand Pursuivant, and GrS,nd Tyler shall be chosen by ballot, unless a special resolution shall be unani- mously passed at the time to take the vote by show of hands. A majority of all the votes shall be necessary to make a choice, and in case of a tie, the ballot must continue until a choice be made. All other Grand Officers shall be appointed by the Grand Master during his pleasure. 14 COMPILATION OF DECISIONS OF 7. Each regular member of the Grand Lodge as such shall have one vote, and each proxy or representative shall have the number of votes to -n-hich he is entitled, on all questions. Gkand Officers. 1. The Grand Master has the right to convene any Lodge within the Jurisdiction, to preside therein, to inspect their pro- ceedings, and require their conformity to the rules of the Fra- ternity. He may require the attendance of any one of the Grand Ofiicers, and demand from him information respecting his office. He may make Masons at sight, and for this purpose may sum- mon such Brethren as he may deem necessary to assist him. He may, by written dispensation, delegate this power to a private Lodge, on any emergency which, in his opinion, may render such measure proper. During the recess of the Grand Lodge he shall have full power to grant dispensations for holding new Lodges, on proper application for that purpose. 2. In case of the death, absence, or inability of the Grand Master, the Deputy Grand Master, Senior or Junior Grand War- den, will, in succession, assume his prerogatives and duties for all regular and necessary purposes. 3. The Grand Wardens are to assist in the affairs of the Grand Lodge, and diligently to preserve the ancient landmarks throughout the Jurisdiction. 4. The Grand Secretary shall record the transactions of the Grand Lodge. He shall enter in a suitable register all Warrants, Dispensations, Certificates, and the name of every member of a Lodge under this Jurisdiction, returned for registry. He shall, as soon as possible, furnish the first named person of every Com- mittee with a copy of the records and papers which relate to the business of such Committee. He shall receive and duly file or record all petitions, applications, and appeals, and sign and certify all instruments in writing from the Grand Lodge. He is to receive, regularly credit, and record all moneys of the Grand Lodge, and pay over the same without delay to the Grand Treas- urer. He is charged with the correspondence of this Grand Lodge, under its general rules, the directions of its presiding offi- cer, and the" established usages of Masons. It shall be his duty to attend, with aU necessary writings under his control, on all meetings of the Grand Lodge, or the requisition of the acting Grand Master. He shall receive such compensation for his serv- ices as the Grand Lodge shall from time to time direct. 5. The Grand Treasurer shall have charge of all the funds, property, securities, and vouchers of the Grand Lodge, and pay all orders duly drawn, under general regulations or special direc- tions of the same. It shall be his duty to attend on the Grand Lodge or its presiding officer, when required, with the books and all necessary documents relating to his office, and also to meet with any Grand Committee whose general or special duty it may be to act in relation to the fiscal concerns of the Grand Lodge Upon going out of office he shall forthwith pay and deliver to his THE GRAND LODGE OF NEW YORK 15 successor in office, or to such other person or persons as the Grand Lodge may appoint to receive the same, all moneys, securi- ties, evidences of debt, books, writings, and property of the Grand Lodge, in his keeping, or under his control, with all proper assignments where the same shall be necessary. He shall receive such compensation for his services as the Grand Lodge shall from time to time direct. 6. It shall be the duty of the Grand Chaplains to attend the Grand Lodge, and to perform the religious solemnities. 7. The Grand Marshal is to proclaim the Grand Officers at their installation, and to conduct processions of the Grand Lodge. 8. The Grand Sword-Bearer shall carry the sword in pro- cessions, and perform such other duties as by ancient usage per- tain to his office. 9. The Grand Stewards are to have the immediate superin- tendence in the provisions to be made for festivals. 10. The duty of the Grand Deacons is to assist within the body of the Grand Lodge. 11. The duty of the Grand Pursuivant is to communicate with the Grand Tyler, and announce all applicants for admission by their names, Masonic address, and connection; as also to take charge of the jewels and regalia. 12. The Grand Tyler must be a Master Mason, but shall have no vote during his continuance in office. It shall be his duty to guard the door of the Grand Lodge on the outside, to report all persons claiming admission, and to see that none enter but such as may be duly authorized. He shall summon the Grand Lodge when required, and attend to such other duties as may be required of him by the same. He, together with the Grand Pursuivant, shall receive such compensation as the Grand Lodge shall from time to time deem proper. Funds. 1. The revenue of this Grand Lodge shall be derived from the following sources: For every Warrant or Dispensation to form a new Lodge $32.00 For every Dispensation to confer three degrees at one meeting 5.00 For every Grand Lodge Certificate 75 For every person initiated in a Lodge 1.00 For every Entered Apprentice or Fellowcraft from without the Jurisdiction of the Grand Lodge .... 1.00 Every Lodge shall pay annually for each of its members 50 For every Master Mason joining a Lodge other than that in which he was initiated or had previously belonged to 1-00 2. The management of the permanent funds shall be vested in a Board of Trustees, to be denominated the Trustees of the 16 COMPILATIOX OF DECISIOXS OF Permanent Fund. The Grand Master, the Deputy Grand llaster, the Senior Grand Warden, the Junior Grand Warden, and the Grand Secretary for the time being, shaU compose the said Board of Trustees. AU the funds of the Grand Lodge shaU be placed in the hands and stand in the names of the said Trustees, whose duty it shall be to take the best measures for its security and increase, and to invest from time to time, as a majority may decide upon, all money which shall come into the hands of the Grand Treasurer after paying representatives, salaries, and rents, and after leaving in his hands at the disposal of the Grand Stewards' Lodge, for charitable and contingent purposes, the sum of three thousand dollars annually. The said Trustees shall deposit in the hands of the Grand Treasurer the securities and vouchers of the said invested funds, and shall not have the power to transfer, sell, dispose of. or appropriate any part of the said invested fund without a. vote of the Grand Lodge at the annual June Communication. 3. The Grand Secretary and the Grand Treasurer shall each of them, previous to entering upon the duties of their offices, execute to the Grand ilaster and the Deputy Grand Master for the time being, a bond with two sufficient sureties, in such sum as the Grand Master and Deputy Grand Master shall determine, not less than five thousand dollars each, conditioned for the faithful performance of their several duties. The Grand Lodge holding its meetings in the City of New York for the convenience of transacting its business, and also for the purpose of having every portion of this Grand Body fairly and equally represented in its Grand Officers, it is deemed proper that the residence of certain officers shall be permanently located. The Grand Master or the Deputy Grand Master shall be chosen from the members residing in the City of Xew York, and one or the other of those officers shall be chosen from members residing in other parts of the State. The Senior Grand Warden and the Junior Grand Warden shall be chosen from members residing in some other part of the State than the City of Xew York. The Grand Secretary and Grand Treasurer shall be chosen from the members residing in the City of Xew York. Each subordinate Lodge shall be entitled to three votes in the Grand Lodge; a Master or a Warden may represent the Lodge of which he is a member; a Master or Past Master may repre- sent any number of Lodges, not exceeding three. One represen- tative from each Lodge out of the City of Xew York shall be entitled to receive from the funds of the Grand Lodge one dollar and fifty cents for every thirty miles travel going to and return- ing from the Grand Lodge at the annual meeting in June; pro- vided that none shall be entitled to more travel than is actusilly and necessarily performed, nor for a greater distance than from the place of meeting of the Grand Lodge to the Lodge he repre- sents; and also one dollar and fifty cents per day for attendance, and notwithstanding he may represent three Lodges, he shall re- ceive pay for only one, nor more than he pays for the dues of THE GRAND LODGE OF NEW YORK 17 the Lodges he represents. Grand OflBoers residing out of the City of New York, and not representing a Lodge, shall be entitled to the like compensation from the funds of the Grand Lodge. P. 483. Amendments adopted. P. 491. No subordinate Lodge under the jurisdiction of this Grand Lodge shall encourage, promote, or permit the delivery of any lecture, said to be Masonic, without authority from the Grand Lodge, or Dispensation from the presiding officers there- of; and before such authority or Dispensation shall be granted, such lecture or course of Masonic instruction shall be delivered in the presence of the Grand Lodge, or of the officers thereof, with such other enlightened and intelligent Masons as may be invited or appointed for the purpose. And if any Lodge shall so en- courage, promote, or permit such lecture, or course of Masonic instruction, to be delivered without such authority or Dispensa- tion, such Lodge shall be suspended from their work or be de- prived of their Warrant, as the Grand Lodge in their wisdom may think proper to direct; and any Freemason so lecturing without the authority of the Grand Lodge, or the presiding officers as aforesaid, shall, on due proof thereof before the Grand Lodge, be expelled from the Masonic order, and his name and offense transmitted to every Grand Lodge with whom a cor- respondence is interchanged. Besolved, That the management of the Permanent Fund shall be vested in a Board of Trustees, to be denominated the Trustees of the Permanent Fund, and that the Grand Master, the Deputy Grand Master, the Senior Grand Warden, the Junior Grand Warden, and the Grand Secretary, for the time being, compose the said Board of Trustees. All the funds of the Grand Lodge shall be placed in their hands, and stand in the name of said Trustees, whose duty it shall be to take the best measures for its security and increase, and to invest, from time to time, as a majority may decide upon, all moneys which shall come in the hands of the Grand Treasurer, after paying representatives' sal- aries and rent, and after leaving in his hands, at the disposal of the Grand Stewards' Lodge, for charitable and contingent purposes, the sum of three thousand dollars annually. The said Trustees shall deposit in the hands of the Grand Treasurer the securities and vouchers of the said invested fund, and shall not have the power to transfer, sell, or dispose of, or appropriate any part of the said invested fund, without a vote of the Grand Lodge. Proceedings or Countet Grand Lodge. Prom 1823 to 1827, Vol. II, Kane Lodge Eeport, following page 494 — including the re-union and compact adopted in 1827 — numbered from pages 1 to 89. 1823. — P. 8. Eesolution of suspension of a member of the Grand Lodge " without any notice or evidence of notice to appear and show cause which is secured to every brother by the Constitutions of the Grand Lodge " was declared " unconstitutional, irregu- lar and void. ' ' 18 COMPILATION OF DECISIOXS OF Pp. 11 and 14. Grand Secretary and Grand Treasurer sus- pended for ten years for coutumaey in failure to appear in answer to a summons to produce books, papers, funds and vouchers. Pp. 31-34. Appointment and report of Committee relative to course to pursue toward seceding Lodges. P. 51. Appointment and report of Committee relative to dif- ferences between Xew York City Lodges and this Grand Lodge. P. 54. Sunday Communications except for funerals prohibited. 1825. — P. 60. Paeticulak Eules of the Gean-d Lodge of the State OF Xet\- Toek (Col'xtrt). Every Grand Lodge has an inherent power and authority to make local ordinances and new regulations as well as to amend and explain the OLD ones for their own particular benefit, and the good of Masonry in general; provided always that the AX- CIEXT LAXDMAEKS be carefully preserved, and that such regulations be first duly proposed, in writing, for the considera- tion of the members, and be at last duly enacted with the con- sent of the majority. This has never been disputed; for the members of every Grand Lo'lge are the true representatives of all the Fraternity in communication, and are an absolute and independent body, with legislative authority, provided (as aforesaid) that the Grand Masonic Constitution be never vio- lated, nor any of the OLD LANDMARKS removed. XTpon these principles the following Particular Eules have been made and adopted in the Grand Lodge of Xew York, viz. : I. The Grand Secretary shall make an annual communication to the several Grand Lodges in correspondence with this Grand Lodge, and to the respective Lodges under its jurisdiction, im- mediately after the election of Grand OfiScers, of the persons so elected, and of such other matters generally as have relation to the Craft at large, or may effect the government of such Lodges in particular. II. All moneys that may be exjiended by the Grand Secretary and Grand Treasurer, for books, stationery, or in any other manner, in the discharge of the duties of their office, shall be allowed and paid by the Grand Lodge. III. All members of Lodges who are or shall be in arrear for dues for two years and upwards shall be suspendeil by their respective Lodges from all Masonic communication; and if they do not discharge the same within one year from the date of their suspension, they may be expelled. IV. Any subordinate Lodge may, in aggravated cases, publish in the newspapers the expulsion of a member, after the same shall have been confirmed by the Grand Lo.lge, provided all the members present of such Lodge shall be in favor of such publi- cation. T. The Grand Master shall be elected immediately after the reading of the minutes at the annual meeting, and before the THE GRAND LODGE OF NEW YORK 19 transaction of any other business, except the examination and admission of members, representatives, and proxies. VI. No warrant shall be granted for the establishment of a Lodge, except on the petition of at least seven Master Masons, in good standing, which petition shall be recommended by the Lodge nearest to the place where such Lodge is intended to be established, signed by the Master and Wardens, with the seal of the Lodge aiExed thereto, and certified by the Secretary. VII. No Warrant or Dispensation shall be granted for con- stituting a Lodge out of this State, within the jurisdiction of any other Grand Lodge. VIII. Each Lodge, forfeiting its Warrant, shall surrender to the Grand Lodge all its books, jewels, furniture, funds and property. IX. No person shall be entitled to a Grand Lodge Certificate, without a previous Certificate from the Lodge of which he is a member, setting forth his regular behavior and that he hath dis- charged all Lodge dues. X. Refreshment with ardent spirits, at the meetings of Lodges, is of evil example, and may be productive of pernicious effects, and the same is therefore expressly forbidden under any pretence whatever. XI. No subordinate Lodge shall, at any time, initiate any candidate for Masonry who has been rejected in another Lodge, without the recommendation of the Masters and Wardens of the Lodge rejecting such candidate. XII. XIII, XIV cover transmission of certificates of election to the Grand Secretary with Proxies. XV, XVI cover returns for dues. XVII Proxies. XVIII Standing Committees. Eesolution repealing former Eules and Eegulations of the Grand Lodge. 1827. — Pp. 87-88. All business suspended for the purpose of considering the subject of differences between the Grand Lodge and the Lodges in the City of New York. The " Compact " which was presented to the New York Lodge (ante), p. 470, was adopted. Abstract of Grand Lodge Decisions and Eelevant Matter prom Eegulab Official Proceedings. In the following years no decisions of note are reported: 1828, 1829, 1830 and 1831. 1832. — P. 14. Resolution of Grand Lodge. That all Lodges under the jurisdiction of the Grand Lodge shall hold their meetings only at such places as are or may be set apart for Masonic purposes. P. 15. Committee on Grievances recommend — suspension " of such members as do not pay their dues. ' ' 20 . COMPILATIOX OF DECISIONS OF P. 23. Resolution of Grand Lodge. ' ' The funds or stocks of this Grand Lodge cannot be constitu- tionally sold Tvithout a TOte of this Grand Lodge." 1833. — P. 5. Master of a Lodge summoned to show cause why he should not be expelled for conversion of Lodge funds. Not appearing he was expelled on resolution of Grand Stewards Lodge. 1834.— Nothing. 1835. — p. 20. Deputy Grand Master llyers advises that he has become " domiciliated " in Columbia Co. and thereby that his office became vacant. P. 25. At the annual election of Grand Lodge after the poll was closed, one of the candidates requested to withdraw his name. Held the ballots must first be counted. P. 26. An illegal vote being cast — on challenge — a new ballot was ordered. 1836.— Nothing. 1837. — P. 6. Grand Master Morgan Lewis reported he had on June 6th, conferred the three degrees of Masonry on Bev. Chas. Yemon Kelly at sight and appointed him Grand Chaplain pro tern of the Grand Lodge. He was assisted by the Deputy Grand Master and other Brethren summoned for the purpose. P. 8. When only one candidate is in nomination at Grand Lodge, election shall be by " shore of harids." Pp. 9 to 29. Grand Stewards' Lodge. A Lodge warrant for- feited and officers and members expelled from all the rights and privileges of Masonry for contumacy of the Grand Lodge in holding a public procession prohibited by the Deputy Grand Master. P. 39. Approved by Grand Lodge. 1838. — Nothing. 1839. — ^P. 9. Grand Secretary reports that the expelled Masons had undertaken to form a Grand Lodge. A Committee recommended " that all intercourse with the expelled Masons or their clan- destine Lodges should be studiously guarded against. The Grand Lodge referred to styled itself ' St. John's Grand Lodge.' " P. 22. Grand Lodge approved a report ' ' that it is deemed ex- pedient for the Masonic Fraternity of this State to have an organ of communication " * * * an^ adopted and recom- mended a ' ' proposed publication to the kind wishes of the Pra- temity wherever dispersed." P. 24. Secretaries of Grand Lodge and subordinate Lodges ordered to keep a book to be subscribed by members, visitors and applicants for relief, promising ' ' upon the pledge of our Ma- sonic obligations and honor, that while we continue within the jurisdiction of the Grand Lodge of the State of New York, vre will support and conform to the Constitution and Eegulations thereof. ' ' 1840.— Nothing. 1841. — Nothing. 1842. — ^P. 23. Committee on General Eegulations of a Convention of Grand Lodges held at Washington disapproved of the practice THE GRAND LODGE OF NEW YORK 21 of accepting promissory notes in payment of dues to subordinate Lodges. This was reported to New York Grand Lodge by its delegate. P. 24. Suspension for non-payment of dues defined to be " a deprivation for the time being of all Masonic privileges." P. 55. Subordinate Lodges required to submit their By-Laws to the Grand Stewards ' Lodge for examination, etc. P. 58. Eeceipt of promissory notes for dues prohibited. 1843. — P. 21. Deputy Grand Master Willis acting as Grand Master, Master can only be tried by his peers. 1844.- — P. 66. Refusal to take office by appointment of the Master. Held an ' ' Act of insubordination deserving of reproof. ' ' 1845.— Nothing. 1846.— Nothing. 1847.— Nothing. 1848. — P. 33. Grand Lodge claims the right of determining for itself as to every body of men claiming to be Masonic throughout the world whether they are regular or clandestine. This applies to Grand Lodges and subordinate bodies. P. 45. No plan can be devised for taxing Masons who are not members of any Lodge nor to require them to unite with a Lodge. 1849. — P. 16. Lodges under Dispensation not authorized to vote on amendments to the Grand Lodge Constitution. P. 52. A Brother withdrawing from his Lodge and so reported to the Grand Secretary may rejoin the Lodge without payment of a rejoining and registry fee to the Grand Lodge. A Lodge cannot remove beyond the limits prescribed by its warrant. A Brother becomes a member of a Lodge on signing its By- Laws. A Lodge may deal with him Masonically before he has signed the By-Laws. All fees to be paid before initiation. Initiation constitutes a Mason. Lodges may engraft benefits in their By-Laws. Revival of a forfeited charter does not constitute a new Lodge, and former initiates and members need not pay a rejoining fee to the Grand Lodge. Pp. 53-55. Past Grand Treasurer cited to appear before Grand Lodge to show cause why he should not be expelled for dis- obeying Grand Lodge summons and for other un-Masonic conduct. He was expelled by resolution. Pp. 58 to 74. A riot occurred in the Grand Lodge resulting in the formation of another so-called Grand Lodge. 1850. — ^P. 65. A Grand Master cannot be displaced against his will until the expiration of his term. He remains Grand Master until his successor is installed. P. 69. No appeal lies from the decision of the Grand Master in the chair. 1850. — Special Meeting, p. 4. Proposition for union of the two Grand Lodges consummated (pp. 11 et seq.) 22 COMPILATIOX OF DECISIONS OF 1851. — (June Session) P. 84. Eesolution adopted that " no Supreme Council or Consistory of the Ancient or Scottish Bite has any authority or power over the first three degrees or any right to issue charters to establish Lodges for those degrees." P. 91. An elected Warden who remained absent from his sta- tion during the entire term not eligible to election as Master. 1851, June to June, 1S52. — Grand Stewards' Lodge. An Appendix contains a proposed Eevised Constitution to be acted on at next Grand Lodge. 1852.— P. 71. Sules of Order of the Grand Lodge reported and adopted. 1853. — Nothing of importance. 1854, June. — P. 193. Committee on Condition of Masonry: Advance of an Entered Apprentice not to be arrested because of claimed physical disqualification. The Committee report: ■" Were the question before us whether Brother is a suitable subject to he made a ilason we might be inclined to hesitate, but under the circumstances we judge that his dis- qualification ought not to prevent his advancement. ' ' 1855, August. — P. 119. Committee on Condition of Masonry: Advancement of a physically disqualified Mason denied on the ground he is not qualified for the wdrk. Grand Lodge resolvecl " it is a violation of a Landmark to make a Mason of one who has the disability of lameness occasioned bv a shortened and crooked limb." P. 120. Committee on Condition of Masonry: Nothing to prevent an applicant adjoining a, lodge in another locality than that in which he resides after having been rejected on application to the latter. P. 128. Clandestine Masonry Considered. Remedy suggested. The exercise of prudence and vigilance in the examination of visitors and the requirement that they shall acknowledge the authority of and promise to pay obedience to this or some other Grand Lodge which is recognized as regular by the Grand Lodge of New York. 1855. — Session covering August, 1554, to June, ISoo. P. 7. — Resolutions by Grand Stewards' Lodge reversing judg- ment of expulsion and other errors on trial and ordering new atrial as follows: First. In not furnishing the Brother with a copy of the charges and specification. Second. In not giving him an opportunity to plead guilty or not guilty to them. Third. In examining the accused as a witness against himself. Fourth. In taking the evidence of Brothers as to what had leeu stated to them by other persons. Fifth. In refusing to examine, as witnesses, persons who were not Masons. Sixth. In not reducing the proceedings of the trial, and the testimony taken, to writing, and having it signed by the wit- nesses examined. Seventh. In excluding the accused from the room during the examination of the witnesses. THE GRAND LODGE OF NEW YOEK 23 Eighth. In taking the vote on his expulsion out of the regular order of business, immediately after the opening of the Lodge, and without any motion for that purpose having been made. Mesolved, That the action of said Lodge, in expelling the Brother be and the same is hereby reversed. Mesolved, That the case be sent back to said Lodge for a new trial, and that the said Lodge is hereby directed to furnish the accused a copy of the charges, give him an opportunity to plead thereto, examine witnesses that shall be offered, in the presence of the accused, and give him an opportunity to cross-examine them, and reduce the testimony taken to writing, and have it signed by the person testifying. Resolved, That the evidence of persons not Masons shall be taken, under the following restrictions: The witness shall be sworn before some one authorized to administer an oath, his testimony reduced to writing, and subscribed by him, in the pres- ence of the parties, who shall have full opportunity to examine. P. 9. Charges preferred against a Master of a Lodge were dis- missed upon the ground that his act was the result of no evil intention, on his part, but at most of indiscretion, and produced by circumstances calculated to irritate and excite his passions, he having expressed sorrow and offered to submit to any sacrifice for the peace and harmony of the Lodge, and the evidence given not convincing the Grand Lodge that any punishment should be in- flicted. 1856. — Committee on Appeals. P. 116. ' ' And your Committee desire to express their disapprobation of the attempt of Brothers to screen themselves from liability by pretending to act under advice of the Grand Secretary, and con- demn the action of the Commissioners in pretending that any such advice was given by the Grand Secretary, as they are satis- fied Ms advice in that respect was misunderstood and perverted." P. 147. Committees on Appeals: ' ' It appears that the Brothers had no charges preferred against them, or served upon them; and that it does not appear what the offence was upon which they were tried and convicted; neither does it appear that the Brothers charged had any notice of the charges, or opportunity to introduce evidence in their defence. We therefore find, that the Lodge erred in the manner of pre- ferring the charges and conducting the trial." P. 1.54. Committee on Condition of Masonry: "1. In the absence of the W.'. M.'. of a Lodge, have the War- dens a legal right to confer the degrees of Masonry ? 2. Has the Master a legal right to refuse the admission of a member of his own Lodge, providing, in his judgment, such admission would tend to disturb the peace and harmony of his Lodge? ' ' Tour Committee beg leave most respectfully to report, in an- •swer to the first query, in the afftrmative, as will be seen by refer- ence to Section 43 of the Constitution of this Grand Lodge. ' ' In answer to the second query, they also report in the afliirma- tive. " The W.'. M.'. is supreme in his Lodge, being accountable for 24 COMPILATION OF DECISIONS OF the proper government of it, not to its members, but to the Grand Lodge alone, who will, of course, see that he does not rule in an unjust or arbitrary manner. ' ' Tour Committee have no doubt of the legal right of the Master, on his own responsibility, to exclude, temporarily, any Mason, whether a member of his own Lodge or otherwise, if in his judg- ment his admission to, or continuance within, the Lodge will dis- turb its peace or harmony. Such exclusion does not affect the Masonic standing of a Brother, nor require any previous action of the Lodge. " This power, although it may seem an arbitrary one, is neces- sary to the faithful and eflScient administration of his duties, as must be clear to all, when they reflect upon his great responsi- bility to the Grand Lodge for the proper government of the Lodge intrusted to his care. " By reference to the ancient form of constituting a Lodge, the Master was, among other things, charged ' to preserve the cement of the Lodge.' Why give him such a charge, and impose upon him so important a duty, unless he possesses the power to exclude whatever may prevent the W.'. M.'. from using his trowel in spreading that cement so necessary to the perpetuity and welfare of his Lodge? " But while this vast power is intrusted to the Master, he is responsible to the Grand Lodge for the manner in which he executes it, and may be tried and punished by that body for excluding a member, when the motives for that act and other circumstances connected therewith were not such as to warrant such an exercise of his prerogative. " In conclusion, your Committee recommend the adoption of the foUowing resolution: " Sesoh-ed, That the blaster of a Lodge has the legal right to exclude, temporarily, any Brother, whenever, in his opinion, his presence will disturb the peace and harmony of his Lodge. ' ' 160. As to the part of the Grand Master's address relative to ' ' initiation of deformed or dismembered candidates. ' ' That they entirely concur with the views of the M.'. W.'. Grand Master, and call attention to the reasoning and deduction of this Committee, at the last Annual Communication, to be found on Page 119 of the Transactions, as divided from the resolution with which it concludes. The apparent contradiction between the report and the resolution was occasioned by an amendment to the report of the Committee, voted by the Grand Lodge. Sesolved, That no dispensation or action of this Grand Lodge can alter or disturb the principle contained in subdivision 9, of section 8, of the Constitution, it being an Ancient Landmark, the violation of which subjects the offender to the penalties of Masonic law. 160. Committee on Condition of Masonry: That the facts of the case, which induced Brother Eeed to offer the resolution, as we are informed by him, was that an appli- cation has been made to said Lodge for membership by a person who received his degrees in a Lodge declared by the Grand Lodge THE GKAND LODGE OF NEW TOEK 25 to be clandestine, and that they ivish for information as to the mode of proceeding. A subordinate Lodge cannot admit to membership a clandes- tinely made Mason, without permission from the Grand Lodge. This has, as yet, not been obtained or asked for. This, therefore, presupposes the idea that the Grand Lodge is the primary source of this power, in the exercise of its sover- eignty, and may dictate the mode, providing no Landmark be vio- lated. If satisfied that a candidate was not properly made, they may require the degrees to be conferred anew. If the only ques- tion be as to the regularity of the body, when made, they may re- quire a new obligation, or impose such other conditions as the case may require. 1856. — P. 167. Beport on following resolution adopted last Annual Communication : " Sesolved, That the Committee on Constitution and By-Laws be instructed to report to the Grand Lodge, the true meaning of the words ' Past Grand Officers,' in section 90 of the Consti- tution, and who are considered such; and that they have until the next Annual Communication to make their report, "do now report as follows: The phrase " Grand Officers " and " Past Grand Officers " has purely a conventional meaning, widely different from what the words literally import. Those who contend for the latter con- struction, claim that it includes all officers, of whatever grade, who have performed or do now discharge the duties of officers in the Grand Lodge, whether elective or appointed. The Committee, however, are constrained to arrive at a diiferent conclusion, from the following facts and reasons: Prior to the publication of Anderson's Constitutions, in 1723, there does not appear to have been but four Grand Officers in the Grand Lodge of England, the Grand Master and Deputy, and the Grand Wardens, upon the first two of whom were devolved the duties of Grand Secretary and Grand Treasurer. These Consti- tutions, however, made provision for the election of those neces- sary officers, and in 1722, "William Cowpee, Esq., was elected the first Grand Secretary, according to the authority of Preston. The same Constitutions, it is true, makes mention of Stewards and Tiler, but evidently does not recognize them as officers, but servants of the Grand Lodge, and the Stewards were not allowed to vote till 1735, when the twelve Grand Stewards were first rec- ognized. So much to show who were " Grand Officers " under the old Constitutions in England. Past Grand Officers were admitted to sit as members of the Grand Lodge, at an early period, but their number was limited. " Past Grand Masters " were thus admitted in 1724. "Past Deputy Grand Masters" in 1726; and "Past Grand Wardens " in 1727. At a later period, and according to the recollection of the Committee, about forty years afterward, the number was increased by the addition of " Past Grand Treasur- ers," and " Past Grand Secretaries "; but at the union, in 1813, these last were not recognized and only Past Grand Masters, 26 COMPILATIOSr OF DECISIONS OF Past Deputies and Past Grand Wardens, with the addition of Past Prov. Grand Masters," (officers not known in this country) were made members of the Grand Lodge, as Past Grand Officers. Perhaps this would be sufficient to sustain the Committee in their assertion that the term Past Grand Officers, as applicable to members of the Grand Lodge, has a purely conventional meaning, and is applicable only to the first six elective Grand Officers, who were thus admitted to membership in the Grand Lodge of England. But we propose to follow it still further, and show who have been thus admitted members of the Grand Lodge in this State. In the edition of the Constitution of 1785, published in 1801, the oldest to which the Committee had access, we find the same six Past Grand Officers only named as members of the Grand Lodge, and it is particularly stated that this privilege of membership, in the Grand Lodge to Past Officers, is only con- ditioned upon their continued membership in some Lodge on rec- ord, and that it exists by " courtesy and custom " only; clearly showing, that it was not intended to be a vested right. Now, it is in the ' ' custom ' ' of Grand Lodges, and especially of our own Grand Lodge, that we are to find the true meaning of the Con- stitution, in the section under consideration, for we suppose the custom originally grew out of the ' ' courtesy ' ' which extended it. In the revision of the Constitutions, in 1828 (we quote from the edition of 1832), the number of Past Grand Officers was the same as before; but this time the language is express and author- itative, it being that the Grand Lodge " shall be composed of," etc., naming what Grand Officers shall thus be members. In the Constitution of 1845, the same provision is made in similar man- ner; and in this, as well as the previous edition, the " Grand Officers ' ' are spoken of collectively, without designation in the particular section or article. We infer from this, that the Grand Lodge, in the revision of 1854, intended to use the term ' ' Past Grand Officers, ' ' in connec- tion with membership, in its strictly limited and conventional sense, as applicable to the first six elective Grand Officers. An additional reason for this construction is to be found in the fact that it was evidently the intention of the Constitution to limit and restrict, and not to enlarge the membership in the Grand Lodge, and that had the latter been the intention, the provision would have been specific, altering then, as it would have done, the unbroken custom of seventy years, in one Grand Lodge. We therefore submit this resolution: " JSesolved, That the true meaning of the words ' Past Grand Officers,' in section 90 of the Constitution, is that it refers to and embraces only Past Grand Masters, Past Deputy Grand Masters, Past Grand Wardens, Past Grand Treasurers, and Past Grand Secretaries, and no others who may have held office in the Grand Lodge." Adopted. 1857. — Committee on General Bules. Pp. 107-114. The undersigned were appointed at the annual Communication THE GRAND LODGE OF NEW YORK 27 of this Grand Lodge, in 1855, a Committee " to ascertain and report what resolutions and regulations have been passed by this Grand Lodge within the past thirty years, if any, that are now binding, and have not been repealed or rescinded by the repealing clauses of the Constitution of 1845; and the amendments to said Constitution, adopted in 1854; and that said Committee have, until the next Annual Communication to present their report." The time at which said report was to be made was last year extended to the present time, and the Committee now desire to present the following as their report: The repealing clause of the Constitution of 1845 will be best understood by presenting it in this report, it reads as follows, viz.: " The former written Constitution of this Grand Lodge is hereby repealed, and all general regulations and resolutions oper- ating as such, which have been heretofore adopted by this Grand Lodge, and which are not embraced in this Constitution, are hereby revoked and annulled." It is difficult to conceive of a more sweeping repeal than this clause of the Constitution of 1845 effected. Though, from the cursory examination which the Com- mittee were only enabled to make, on submitting their last year's report, they were unprepared to state a definite and reliable con- clusion; they have now little hesitation in declaring, that this repeal extended to all resolutions and regulations then stand- ing upon the records of the Grand Lodge, which were designed to operate either as resolutions or regulations, except those em- bodied in the provisions of the aforesaid Constitution; it has, therefore, been unnecessary for the undersigned to go back of that time. Perhaps the most prominent of these regulations or resolu- tions were the provisions of the compact of 1827, and yet, singu- lar as it may seem, that instrument, and every part and parcel thereof, except those portions which were included in the aforesaid Constitution, had no legal force or existence whatever, as con- cerned its control over the movements of the Craft in this State, after the adoption of the repealing clause aforesaid. It is proper that the Committee should remark that of the subjoined lesolu- tions, those which were adopted anterior to 1854, were only bind- ing upon the Grand Lodge and its constituents for the period of one year, unless adopted at a second Annual Communication. And, from the examination which the Committee have been able to make, they find that the only resolution thus adopted is that numbered 17; yet, from the language and general scope of the twenty-four other resolutions, from 1 to 25 inclusive, excepting 17, it is quite evident they were designed to be continued in force, and we have, therefore, copied them and recommend them to the favorable consideration of the Grand Lodge. If the Committee rightly interpret the present Constitution, the adoption of a reso- lution, of general application, at one Annual Communication, makes it permanent until rescinded or repealed. It follows,^ therefore, that all resolutions adopted by the Grand Lodge at and since the Annual Communication of 1854, during the annual meetings, are now binding upon this Grand Lodge, and will con- tinue so until repealed or rescinded, as before stated. Although 28 COMPILATION OP DECISIONS OF many of these have been tiviee adopted, upon the supposition doubtless that this was necessary to make them permanent. The series of standing resolutions, with the qualifications above stated, are as follows, viz. : 1. Besolved, That it is inexpedient for this Grand Lodge to adopt any regulation to compel Masons, who are not members of any Grand Lodge, to pay a tax for the support of the institu- tion, or to require such ilasons to unite with Lodges, contrary to their inclination, or against the dictates of their own judg- ment. Adopted, 1848. 2. Sesolved, That the Committee on Foreign Correspondence be authorized to hold foreign correspondence. Adopted, 1848. 3. Sesolved, That when the forfeited charter of a Lodge is re- vived, it is not to be considered as a new Lodge, and former initiates and members have the privilege of rejoining, on vote of the Lodge, without paying the Grand Lodge fees, as is provided in article 20 of the Constitution. Adopted, 1849. 4. Sesolved, That every Lodge making its returns, and paying its dues, or remitting moneys to the Grand Secretary, for any purpose whatever, transmit, at the same time, a duplicate state- ment of the amount so sent or paid, to the Grand Treasurer; and that the Grand Treasurer keep a true and faithful record of the same, for the use and benefit of the Grand Stewards' Lodge and Grand Lodge. Adopted, 1850. 5. Sesolved, That it be earnestly recommended to the Lodges to guard against loss from fire, to effect a reasonable insurance upon their property ; and that in future this Grand Lodge will extend no relief to Lodges, not so insured, except under very pe- culiar circumstances. Adopted, 1850. 6. Sesolved, That for the future, and until otherwise ordered, the oflScers of Lodges subordinate to this Grand Lodge, be in- structed, in all cases, in which visitors residing within this State apply to visit such Lodges, to put to such visitors the question whether they acknowledge the authority of this Grand Lodge, and, if they answer in the negative, that such person be excluded from visiting such Lodges. Adopted, 1850. 7. Sesolved, That it be the decision of this Grand Lodge, that no subordinate Lodge, can, in any case, make a Mason of any person residing within the proper bounds or jurisdiction of any other subordinate Lodge (the location of the candidate, and cir- cumstances of the case being duly considered), without a derelic- tion from Masonic usage, and proper courtesy due their Brethren, until the initiating Lodge shall receive, officially certified, the consent and approbation of the sister Lodge, and the same be entered upon the records. Adopted, 1851. 8. Sesolved. That in the opinion of this Grand Lodge, no Su- preme Council, or Consistory of the Ancient or Scottish rite, has any authority or power over the first three degrees, or any right to issue Charters to establish Lodges for those degrees, and that the act of doing so ought to be repudiated and discountenanced by all regular Masons. Adopted, 1851. 9. Sesolved, 1st. That those provisions in the By-Laws of THE GEAND LODGE OF NEW YORK 89 Lodges, compelling tlieir members to contribute to charitable re- lief, are at variance -with the principles of our Order. 2d. That such By-Laws, if any there may be among our Lodges, should be abandoned and other voluntary associations, if desirable, be raised to obtain the same objects; at least, no Lodge shall sus- pend any Brother from the rights and privileges of Masonry for non-payment of such dues. Adopted, 1851. 10. Itesolved, That the Grand Secretary be directed to prepare a tabular statement of the contents of the Lodge returns, at least so far as to exhibit the number of members, and the yearly amount of work performed, and publish the same, with the trans- actions of the Graud Lodge. Adopted, 1852. 11. Eesoh'ed, That such Lodges whose warrants were forfeited for acts arising out of the difficulties of 1849, not yet surrendered to the Grand Lodge, unless surrendered within thirty days shall be and are hereby declared forever annulled, and incapable of being revived. Adopted, 1S52, and rescinded in 1857. 12. Sesolvecl, That the Grand Secretary be directed to pro- cure the publication of blank certificates, on paper of firm texture, for widows and orphans of deceased Brethren, in pursuance of the eleventh resolution appended to the report of the Committee on Foreign Correspondence of 1851 ; and that he transmit them to the several Lodges, in the same manner that other blanks are distributed. Adopted, 1852. 13. Besolved, That no person who has been expelled by this Grand Lodge, at an annual meeting, shall be restored, except at an annual meeting of the same. Adopted, 1852, 14. Resolved, That the Grand Lodge do hereby adopt the Hasonie Manual, compiled, arranged and published by E. W. Bro. Macot, as in its opinion, a correct guide to the Eitual of the De- grees conferred under its jurisdiction, and do recommend each Lodge in the State to possess themselves of this work, and to follow it in the work in the Lodges. Adopted, 1852. 15. Sesolved, That there be appointed, as heretofore, a Stand- ing Committee of Finance, to whom shall be referred all ques- tions for the appropriation of money; and no money shall be appropriated from the treasury of this Grand Lodge, unless reported from said Committee, except claims of charity, and such claims as shall be referred to, or may belong to the Grand Stewards' Lodge. Adopted, 1852. 16. Sesoh-ed. That in the opinion of this Grand Lodge, the constitutional provisions will be best sustained by Lodges requir- ing a candidate for initiation to be an actual resident in the im- mediate vicinity of the Lodge to which he applies, for at least four months before his application, ' ' the same applying only to citizens of this State." Adopted, 1852. 17. Sesolved, That no Lodge under the jurisdiction of this Grand Lodge shall initiate, pass, or raise any candidate from an- other jurisdiction, until he has been a resident within this State for twelve months, without the recommendation of the Lodge or Grand Lodge within whose jurisdiction he last previously resided; 30 COMPILATION OF DECISIONS OF provided that this rule shall not be construed to apply to applica- tions from seafaring or military men. Adopted, 1853. IS. Sesolved, That the representatives of the Grand Lodge of Kew York be fraternally and respectfully requested to detail, in their annual reports or communications to this Grand Lodge, in such form as they may deem proper, all such matters and par- ticulars in the movements of the jurisdiction, or Grand Lodge at which they are accredited, as shall be of interest to this Grand Lodge, or to the Fraternity in general. Adopted, 1853. 19. Sesolved, That it be recommended to every subordinate Lodge under the jurisdiction of this Grand Lodge, to keep a visitors' book, in which they shall require every visitor to sign his name, the Lodge and locality whence he hails, and the date of his visit ; such particulars to be taken before the visitor shall enter the Lodge room. Adopted, 1S53. 20. Sesolved, That we regard the fact of the establishment of Lodges, to confer any degrees of Masonry (under whatever rite they may claim), by any INIasonic authority other than this Grand Lodge, upon any person who is not a Master Mason, as an in- vasion of the rights and privileges of this Grand Lodge, and, as such, it shall be sternly rebuked and resisted, as this Grand Lodge has, of undoubted right, sole, original and exclusive juris- diction over those degrees in this State. Adopted, 1S53. 21. Sesolved, That any Lodge in this jurisdiction which shall hold its meetings in the same room with any Lodge of irregular and clandestine ^lasons, subjects itself to the disciplinary action of this Grand Lodge, such acts being strictly forbidden. Adopted, 18.33. '22. Sesolved, That a Business Committee be appointed at the commencement of each annual session of this Grand Lodge, whose duty it shall be to arrange and present subjects for the action of the body, in order that all important business may be consid- ered and acted upon in the early part of the session; and it is hereby ordered that no member of this Grand Lodge shall receive pay for his attendance at any subsequent session, unless he remain till the close of the session, or shall have been excused by the unanimous vote of all the members present. Adopted, 1853. 23. Sesolved, That there should be but one Grand Lodge in the State of Xew York, to continue, as it is, the representative and head of the whole Masonic Fraternity in the State; and that, therefore, a division of the jurisdiction is inexpedient. Adopted, 1854. 24. Sesolved, That the use of profane language is declared by this Grand Lodge to be grossly un-Masonic, and highly injurious to the character of Freemasonry ; and any Mason using such language is liable to the disciplinary laws of the Craft. Adopted, 1854. 25. Sesolved, That it is incompetent for the Master of a Lodge to take its warrant, and open, in conjunction with another Lodge, for the purpose of conferring degrees, without first sum- moning the Lodge, that each member may have due and timely notice. Adopted, 1854. THE GEAND LODGE OF NEW YOKK 31 Preamble, For the purpose of establishing a unity of interest among the Grand Lodges of the United States — a unity of "l.esign and pur- pose — and of securing nautual confidence between them, and pro- moting the general welfare of the Fraternity, said Grand Lodges do ordain and establish the following: Articles op Confederation. 26. Art. I. All matters of difficulty which may hereafter arise in any Grand Lodge, or between two or more Grand Lodges of the United States, which cannot, by their own action, be satis- factorily adjusted or disposed of, shall, if the importance of the case or the common welfare of the Fraternity demand it, be submitted, with accompanying evidence and documents, to the several Grand Lodges in their individual capacities; and the concurrent decision thereon of two-thirds of the whole number, ofl&cially communicated, shall be held authoritative, binding, and final on all parties concerned. Adopted, 1856. 27. Art. II. When any matter of difficulty shall arise in any Grand Lodge belonging to this Confederacy, between such Grand Lodge and its subordinates, of a revolutionary or other character, it shall be submitted, as prescribed in article 1, upon the request or direction of the Grand Lodge in which the same may have occurred. Art. III. When a difficulty may have occurred between two or more Grand Lodges, of the character mentioned in article 1, it shall be so submitted upon the request or direction of either of the Grand Lodges immediately interested therein. Art. IV. Any member of the Confederacy shall have the right to submit to the several members of the same, any question of Masonic jurisprudence or Masonic action contemplated within its own jurisdiction, which may be deemed by it of sufficient im- portance to call for the united opinions of the members thereof; and in all such cases, the like action shall be had by the said Grand Lodges as herein provided in other cases, and the decisions there- upon shall be conclusive. Adopted, 1856. 28. Art. V. Each Grand Lodge belonging to this Confederacy shall take action upon the matter so submitted to it, and make a decision thereupon at its first Annual Communication, after the evidence and documents relating thereto shall have been received; unless, for want of time or information, it shall be unable to arrive at a decision, and in this case it shall have until the next Annual Communication, at which time a decision shall be made. Adopted, 1857. 29. Art. VI. When any difficulty shall have arisen in any Grand Lodge, or between a Grand Lodge and its subordinates, or between two or more Grand Lodges, as mentioned in articles 2 and 3, the Grand Lodge submitting such difficulty, in manner as aforesaid, shall give notice to the other party or parties con- cerned therein, of its intention to submit the same to the Con- 32 COMPILATION OF DECISIONS OF federacy; and in case of the omission, neglect or refusal of such other party or parties to supply the evidence and documents relat- ing to such difficulty, in the manner prescribed in article 1, for three months from the time of the service of such notice, the members of the Confederacy may proceed in the examination and decision of the difficulty so submitted, upon the evidence and documents before them. Provided, that when such difficulty exists between two or more Grand Lodges, the Grand Lodge or Grand Lodges which shall not have first decided upon such submission, shall have three months after its next succeeding Annual Com- munication to supply such evidence and documents as aforesaid. Adopted, 1856. 30. Art. VII. From and after these articles shall have been adopted by twenty of the Grand Lodges of the United States, their provisions shall be considered ratified ; and aU matters there- in contemplated for adjustment shall then and thereafter take the course therein prescribed. 31. Art. "\"III. Xo Grand Lodge, which shall have united in this Confederacy, in manner as aforesaid, shall withdraw there- from until it shall have given twelve months' notice to each and every member of the Confederacy of its intention to do so. Adopted, 1856. 32. Art. IX. These articles may be altered, revised or amended, by proposition in writing, submitted by any one Grand Lodge, and concurred in by two-thirds of the Grand Lodges in this Confederacy ; and such alteration, revision or amendment shall be operative and binding upon each and every member of the Confederacy from the time of its adoption, in manner as aforesaid. Adopted, 1856. 33. Hetolved, That it is a violation of a Landmark to make a ilason of one who has the disability of lameness, occasioned by a shortened or crooked limb. Adopted, 1855. 34. Sisolied, That the first five Grand Officers be a Standing Committee, and styled ' ' Library Committee, ' ' whose duty it shall be to organize and commence the formation of a Grand Lodge Library. That they be empowered to draw on the Grand Treas- urer for a sum not exceeding $500 for the ensuing year, for the selection and purchase of such books, in their view, most desirable and useful for the purpose designed, and for other necessary expenses. Adopted, 1S55. 35. JResoIied, That such of the subordinate Lodges in the juris- diction as are in a financial condition to do so (this being left to their own judgment), are hereby recommended to appropriate an annual sum for the purchase of lUasonic books and periodicals, and the establishment of a Lodge library for the use of their members. Adopted, 1855. 36 Hesolved, That the Grand Lodge hereby discourages the subordinate Lodges from affording relief, as a mere matter of convenience, to traveling Brethren. Adopted, 1855. 37. Setolved. That all subordinate Lodges be forbidden the giving of Masonic relief to any who shall not, to the satisfaction THE GRAND LODGE OF NEW YOKK 33 of such Lodge, have proved themselves regularly affiliated Masons. Adopted, 1855. 38. Besolved, That the Lodges of this jurisdiction be, and they are hereby directed to exercise prudence and vigilance in the examination of all visitors; so that none be admitted unless, in addition to the requisites prescribed by the laws of the Grand Lodge and the usages of the Fraternity, they also acknowledge the authority of, and promise to pay obedience to, this or some other Grand Lodge, which is recognized as regular by the Grand Lodge of New York. Adopted, 1855. 39. Besolved, That no subordinate Lodge, under the jurisdic- tion of this Grand Lodge shall hereafter recommend a petition for a Dispensation, until such Lodge shall satisfy itself, first, of the good Masonic standing of the petitioners; and, secondly, that a sufficient number of the petitioners are Masonically competent to undertake the government of a Lodge; and, for this purpose, said recommending Lodge shall cause one or more of the petitioners to come before it, and, in open Lodge, satisfactorily exemplify the work and lectures in the first three degrees of Masonry. Adopted, 1855. 40. Eesohed, That any. Lodge, under the jurisdiction of this Grand Lodge, which shall permit the first degree in Masonry to be conferred, before the candidate has paid the amount required by the Constitution, for the first three degrees, (viz. $15), violates the letter and spirit of the Constitution of the Grand Lodge; and any Lodge that in any way or manner compromises that part of the Constitution, subjects itself to forfeiture of its Charter. Adopted, 1855. 41. Resolved, That in every town or city, except New York or Brooklyn, where there is more than one subordinate Lodge, it shall be the duty of the Secretary of every such Lodge to furnish all other Lodges in the place the names of those who petition such Lodge for the degrees of Masonry, so that the other Lodges shall receive such notice at their next Communication; and also, give notice of all rejections as soon as they occur. AdApted, 1854. Whereas, A doubt has been expressed as to the constitutional adoption of the instrument called the ' ' Revised and Amended Constitution, ' ' which, although unfounded, it is desirable should be wholly removed; therefore, 42. Besolved, That the evidence that said Revised and Amended Constitution, and every part and section thereof, has been right- fully and constitutionally approved, assented to and adopted, and •the sanction and affirmative vote of the Grand Lodge, and of a majority of the subordinate Lodges given thereto, heretofore, as required by the former Constitution, is full, ample and suf- ficient, as appears by the certificate hereinafter mentioned, and the proof upon which said certificate was founded, and other evidence in possession of this Grand Lodge. Adopted, 1855. 43. Besolved, That the following certificate of the adoption of said Constitution by the subordinate Lodges, 149 of which voted in the affirmative, and 19 of which voted in the negative, be spread upon the record ; and to avoid all dispute, the said Con- 34 COMPILATION OF DECISIOXS OF stitution, General Eegulations, By-Laws, Rules of Order, and Ancient Charges, are hereby adopted by this Grand Lodge, as passed at the last Annual Communication, and the Grand Lodge do hereby give their affirmative vote thereto, and to every part thereof. Adopted, ISoo. 45. Sesolved, That a Committee of one be appointed by the Grand Master, to compile and write a history of Masonry in. Xew York; and said Committee is hereby authorized to hold correspondence, with the view to collect the materials for said history, whether the same be found in this or foreign countries. Adopted. 18.5(3. 46. HesoJved, That as at present advised, the Grand Lodge of Xew York cannot recognize, as a Grand Lodge, the newly formed body in Canada, claiming to be " the Grand Lodge of Canada.'' Adopted, lSo6. 47. Sesolved, That the Committee appointed under resolution number three be authorized to draw upon the Grand Treasurer for the necessary expenses attending the collection of materials for said history, not to exceed the sum of twenty-five dollars in any year; and he shall report his progress in the work at the next Annual Communication, and as often, at other times, as practicable. Adopted, 1S."6. 4S. Saoh.iil. That it is the right of the accused, on all trials to be present at the time the testimony of witnesses are given against him ; and that no Commissioners can refuse it without the violation of a rule of Masonic jurisprudence. Adopted, 1S56. 49. Eeiolved, That the Constitution of this Grand Lodge does not confer upon the M.'. W.'. G. M. the power to grant Dispensa- tions to hold new elections for "Wardens of subordinate Lodges. Adopted, 1856. 50. Sesohed, That the Committee appointed by the Grand Lodge, at its Communication in June, 1835, for the purpose of founding a Grand Lodge Library, be continued. Adopted, 1856. 51. Stsolved, That it be earnestly recommended by this Grand Lodge to all the subordinate Lodges within its jurisdiction, to adopt such measures as they may deem most expedient and effec- tive, to found and encourage libraries, for the use and instruc- tion of members. Adopted, 1856. 52. EesoJved, That no Dispensation or action of this Grand Lodge can alter or disturb the principle contained in subdivision 9, of section S, of the Constitution, it being an Ancient Land- mark, the violation of which subjects the offender to the penalties of Masonic law. Adopted, 1S56. 53 Sesolved, That the true meaning of the words, " Past Grand Officers," in section 90 of the Constitution, is, that it refers to, and embraces only Past Grand Masters, Past Deputy Grand Masters, Past Grand Wardens, Past Grand Treasurers, and Past Grand Secretaries, and no others, who may have held office in the Grand Lodge. Adopted, 1S56. 54. Sesolved. That the word majority, in title 4, section 17 of the Constitution of the Grand Lodge, shall be deemed to include all the members of said Lodge, so far as to reduce the minority THE GRAND LODGE OF NEW YORK 35 below the constitutional number of seven required to constitute a new Lodge. Adopted, 1856. First resolution adopted. Second resolution adopted. Third resolution laid on the table. On motion, the whole matter was laid over until the next June Communication, ordered to be printed in circular form and sent to the Lodges. The Grand Master decided that all the resolutions in the fore- going report are still in force, except those which are in conflict with the present Constitution. 1857. — P. 163. Committee on Condition of Masonry: I. The Committee on the Condition of Masonry, to whom was referred a resolution of inquiry into the powers of the Deputy Grand Master, beg leave to report : that we have given the subject of inquiry due consideration and investigation, and find that the powers of the Grand Officers are clearly defined in the Constitu- tion, part 2, title 1 ; and in section 41 defines the powers of officers, and it is there laid down as a constitutional point : "In case of the death, absence or inability of the Grand Master, or a vacancy in his office, the Deputy Grand Master, Senior Grand "Warden and Junior Grand Warden, will, in succession, succeed to his prerogatives and duties for all purposes. ' ' Your Committee cannot find any resolutions or regulations granting or defining any other powers as belonging to the Deputy Grand Master other than those in the Constitution. P. 165. Your Committee do not deem it unreasonable to permit the minutes of this Lodge, composed, as it is, of persons speaking only the German language — to be kept in that language with which they are alone familiar, more particularly as there is noth- ing in the Constitution adverse to this permission. They there- fore recommend to this Grand Lodge the following resolution: Besolved, That Modestia Lodge, No. 340, have permission to keep their minutes in the German language, subject, however, to their being obliged to render correct translations of the whole, or any portion thereof, when called upon by the proper authority; also, that they transmit to the Grand Secretary, as soon as possi- ble, an English translation of their Bj'-Laws. P. 167. And that all the subordinate Lodges, the work of which is done in a language foreign to the English tongue, be, and they are hereby directed to cause their By-Laws to be printed in the language in which they work, and the English tongue on counter- part pages — and that, whenever required, each of such Lodges shall forward to this Grand Lodge, or to any Committee thereof, or to any Committee having the legal right to require the same, a tabulation of any portion of their minutes which may be required. II. This is a petition from several members of Pultneyville Lodge, Xo. 159, requesting your Grand Body to review the action of this Lodge in removing its place of meeting from Pultneyville to WilHamstown. Your Committee report that, after a mature and deliberate consideration of this subject, they find that the 36 COIIPILATIOX OF DECISIONS OF requirements of the Constitution (title 4. sec. 20) have not been complied with. " A Lodge may not remove its place of meeting from thq city, town or village named in its warrant, nor from one place to another in the same city, etc., except by ? concurrent vote of two-thirds of the members present, at a meeting to be ap- pointed by the summons to attend such meeting, stating its object, and which summons must be served at least ten days previous to such meeting," etc. Tour Committee, finding that the summons, as required by the Constitution, was not duly served upon the members, they there- fore recommend the following, viz. : Sesolved, That the removal of Pultneyville Lodge, Xo. 159. was and is hereby declared unconstitutional. 1858. — The report of the Committee on Conference relative to Articles of Union to which unit the two Grand Lodges of the State of Xew York concluded with a proclamation that the Grand Lodge of the State of New York of which JoHx L. Lewis was then Grand Master was the regular Grand Lodge. To THE il.'. W.'. Graxd Lodge of the State of Xew York: the Committee on Conference respectfully report: That on the morning of June 5th, your Committee met a Com- mittee from the Grand Lodge of which JoHX L. Lewis is Grand Master, consisting of Fixlay M. King, James W. Powell, Eev. H. C. A'OGEL, Thomas Sommers and James B. Taylor, and after a pleasant interview, agreed to adopt the Articles of Union pre- pared by the Committee in 1S57, as the basis for any new arrange- ment that may be necessary to propose. The preamble was merely modified to suit the altered time. The first article, by providing for the jurisdiction of the Grand Lodge extending over the whole territorial limits of the State. The second article by omitting the last clause, which contained the assertion of an agreement, that would, by the act of union itself, be as effectually asserted. The third article was agreed to without modification. The fourth article was amended by insert- ing a requirement on the parties of record in the pending suits, to acquiesce in their withdrawal and discontinuance. The fifth article was agreed to without amendment. The sixth article was renritten, and made to provide for the provisional recognition of the Constitutions and General Regulations, as in force in the Grand Lodge, of which John L. Lewis, Jr., is Grand Master, until amended under its own provisions. The seventh article was amended in phraseology, without affecting its purport. A new ar- ticle was introduced as eighth, proriding that " all allusions to past differences shall be avoided. ' ' A new article was introduced as ninth, providing that the archives and properties of the parties shall be placed in the custody of the proper Grand Officers. And the eighth article of 1S57 was made article tenth, and slightly modified, without changing its purport, viz. : " Whereas, The honor, usefulness and beneficent object of the Institution of Free Masonry, in the State of Xew Y'ork, have suffered, and are now suffering by reason of differences and disagreements among the Fraternity; TH1-: GRAND LODGE OF NEAT .YORK 37 Now, therefore, the undersigned Committee, appointed by the parties hereinafter mentioned, in view of amicably* and per- manently ending such differences and disagreements, to the end that the harmony which is compatible with the true principles of DTree-Masonry may prevail, do mutually assent and interchange- ably subscribe to the following provisions for Union. And if the said provisions are adopted and confirmed by the parties respectively, to wit: that known as the Grand Lodge of the State of New York, of which John L. Lewis, Jr., is Grand Master, and that known as the Grand Lodge of the State of New York, of which James Jenkinson is Grand Master, then these provisions for Union shall be considered and constituted the fundamental regulation of the Grand Lodge of the State of New York. Provisions foe Union. 1. That there shall be but one Grand Lodge of Masons in the territorial limits of the State of New York. 2. That all proceedings had in relation to expulsions or sus- pensions arising out of the transactions known as the ' ' difficul- ties of 1849, ' ' shall be and are hereby rescinded. And all such persons as may have been so suspended or expelled, are hereby restored to full membership, and entitled to all the rights and privileges of Masonry. 3. That all Grand Officers and Past Grand Officers of both bodies shall be considered as Past Grand Officers, and recognized as such. For the purpose of obviating embarrassments in cases where Lodges in both bodies have the same number, the follow- ing plan shall be adopted: If the two Lodges bearing the same number cannot mutually agree to consolidate into one Lodge, then the Lodge having the original warrant, or warrant of senior date, shall retain its number, while the other Lodge shall change its number and pass to the next junior vacant number in the list of Lodges, and its warrant shall be so numbered, endorsed and registered. 4. That all suits at law of whatever nature or kind, arising out of the aforesaid " difficulties of 1849," shall be withdrawn and discontinued, and the parties of record in said snits shall assent thereto; the expenses of both parties shall be paid from the fund known as the ' ' Permanent Fund ' ' and the balance of the moneys of said Permanent Fund, together with all interest accruing thereon, and all other moneys belonging to the Grand Lodge, on the 5th of June, A. L. 5849, shall be paid into, and become, and are hereby constituted a part of the fund known as the " Hall and Asylum Fund "; and the Trustees are hereby authorized to make the transfer. The " Hall and Asylum Fund," now held in trust for the Grand Lodge, together with the moneys above-named, shall remain intact, and be applied, with such addi- tions and accumulations as may hereafter be made thereto, to the purposes for which said fund was created. 5. That the Grand Lodge shall be composed of all the Grand Officers, and of all such Past Grand Masters, Past Deputy Grand 38 COMPILATION OF DECISIONS OF Masters, Past Grand Wardens, Past Grand Secretaries, and Past Grand Treasurers, as shall have been elected and installed in this jurisdiction prior to June A. L. 5849; and of the Masters and Wardens, or the representatives, legally appointed, of all the Xiodges under the jurisdiction; and of all such Past Masters of Lodges under this jurisdiction as shall have been elected, installed, and served one year in the chair as Master, prior to Dec. 31st, A. L. 5849. 6. The Constitution and General Regulations as now in force in the Grand Lodge, of which John L. Lewis, Jr., is Grand Master, so far as they may not eontliet with these provisions, shall remain in force until altered in pursuance to their provisions. 7. Any future amendments to the Constitution or General Eeg- ulations of the Grand Lodge shall not affect the rights, privileges, or franchises which any member thereof may have previously acquired. 8. The archives and properties of parties thereto, shall be the property of the Grand Lodge, and be placed in the custody of the appropriate ofBcers. 9. All allusion to past differences shall be avoided. 10. On the ratification of these provisions by the parties there- to, all their several subordinates shall be considered of equally regular Masonic standing, and as such are hereby declared united in ^Masonic Fellowship under one common jurisdiction, and en- titled to all those rights and privileges pertaining to the Fra- ternity as freely and as fully as though no differences had here- tofore occurred. The time occupied in arranging these articles, made it necessary for the Committee on the other part to lay the result of our delib- eration before their Gr^nd Lodge, which was remaining in session for the purpose, in their crude form, without awaiting the delay necessary for a proper engrossment and the signatures of the Committee. Your Committee after having had the Provisions engrossed, returned to the place of meeting for the purpose of having the same consummated, when they were informed that the articles were under a, process of amendment in the body of the other Grand Lodge; your Committee awaited their action, and when the other Committee returned, the paper, in the form in which it had been so modified, was submitted for our approval, in lieu of the form previously agreed upon between us. The modifications made in themselves, are of a character to preclude your Committee from giving their sanction to the paper in its altered condition. But as the Committee of the other party were constrained to decline placing their signatures to the un- amended form of the agreement, and as the form in which it has been presented to your Committee had received the formal sanction of the other Grand Lodge, it is respectfully submitted for your consideration, and is hereto appended, marked B. EespeetfuUy submitted, JOHN A. KENNEDY, JAMES JENKINSON, Committee. TFIE GRAND LODGE OF NEW YORK 39 (B) Pri^amble. Whereas, The honor, usefulness and beneficent objects of the Institution of Free Masonry of the State of Xew York have suffered, and are now suffering, by reason of differences and disagreements among the Fraternity of this State. Now, Therefore, the undersigned Committees, appointed by the parties hereinafter mentioned, in view of amicably and per- manently ending such differences and disagreements, to the end, that the harmony which is compatible with the true principles of Free Masonry, may prevail, do mutually assent and interchange- ably subscribe to the following provisions, as a proper and equit- able manner of ending such differences and disagreements. And if said provisions are adopted and confirmed by the parties respectively, to wit : that known as the Grand Lodge of the State of New York, of which John L. Lewis, Jr., is Grand Master, and that known as the Grand Lodge of the State of New York, of which James Jenkinson is Grand Master, then these provisions shall be considered and constituted a fundamental regulation of the Grand Lodge of the State of New York. Peovisioxs. Sec. 1. There is but one Grand Lodge in the State of New York, that of which the M.'. W.'. John L. Leavis, Jr., is now Grand Master, whose territorial jurisdiction is eo-extensive with the limits of the State. Sec. 2. That all proceedings had in relation to suspensions or expulsions arising out of the transactions known as the ' ' difiicul- ties of 1849," shall be and hereby are rescinded, and all such persons as may have been so suspended or expelled are hereby restored to full membership, and entitled to all the rights and privileges of Masonry. See. 3. That all Grand OfiScers and Past Grand Officers of the last-named party mentioned in the Preamble, shall have the rank and title of Past Grand Officers and be recognized as such. For the purpose of obviating embarrassments in cases where Lodges in both bodies have the same number, the following plan shall be adopted: If the two Lodges bearing the same number cannot mutually agree to consolidate into one Lodge, then the Lodge bearing the original warrant, or warrant of senior date, shall retain its number, while the other Lodge shall change its number and pass to the next junior vacant number in the list of Lodges, and its warrant shall be so numbered, endorsed and registered. Any Lodge working under a warrant granted since 1S49, by the body of which James Jenkinson is Grand Master, shall surrender its warrant and a new warrant be granted without charge. Sec. 4. That all suits at law of whatever nature and kind arising out of the aforesaid difFculties of 1S49, shall be with.lrawn and discontinued, and the parties of record in the said suits shall 40 COMPILATION OF DECISIONS OF assent thereto. The expenses of both parties shall be paid from the fund known as the " Permanent Fund," and the balance of the moneys of the said Permanent Fund, together with all inter- est accruing thereon, and all other moneys belonging to the Grand Lodge on the 5th of June, 1849, shall be paid into and become, and are hereby constituted a part of the fund known as the ' ' Hall and Asylum Fund ' ' and the Trustees are hereby authorized to make the transfer. The Hall and Asylum Fund now held in trust for the Grand Lodge, together with the moneys above- nameil, shall remain intact, and be applied, with such additions and accumulations as may hereafter be made thereto, to the purposes for which said fund was created. Sec. 5. The Grand Lodge is composed of all the Grand Officers, Past Grand Officers and of the Masters and Wardens, or the representatives legally appointed, of all the Lodges under this jurisdiction and of all such Past Masters of Lodges under this jurisdiction, as shall have been elected, installed, and served one year in the chair as Master, prior to December 31st, 1849. Sec. 6. The Constitutions and General Regulations as now in force in the Grand Lodge of which M.'. W.'. John L. Lewis, Jr., is Grand ^Master shall remain in force until amended, in pursu- ance of its provisions. See. 7. The archives and properties of the parties hereto, shall be the property of the Grand Lodge, and be placed in the custody of the appropriate Grand Officers. Sec. S. All allusions to past differences shall be avoided. Sec. 9. On the ratification of these provisions by the parties hereto, all their several subordinates, on complying with the pro- visions of Sec. 3 shall be considered of equally regular Masonic standing, and as such are hereby declared united in Masonic Fellowship, under one common jurisdiction, and entitled to all those rights and privileges pertaining to the Fraternity, as freely and fully as though no differences had heretofore occurred. June Vth, A. D. 1S5S. The W.'. John A. Kennedy offered the following, which was unanimously adopted: The M.'. AV.'. Grand Lodge of Free and Accepted Masons of the State of New York, in Annual Session assembled, while regarding some of the provisions unnecessary, and others, in some respects, deiicient, do hereby Ordain, That the proposal for ending the " differences and disagreements ' ' between the two bodies, as submitted from the Grand Lodge of which M.'. W.". John L. Lewis, Jr., is Grand Master, be and the same is hereby adopted and confirmed, in the following form, viz. . Sesolved, That the Committee of Conference be and are hereby instructed to agree and assent to the propositions for the Union of the two bodies of Masons in the State of Xew York, and to interchangeably affix their signatures to the same. The W'.'. John A. Kennedy offered the following, which was unanimously adopted : Eeiioh-eil, That a Committee of ten be appointed, with full THE GRAND LODGE OF KEW YORK 41 power to act ^Tith any Committee from the other body, in making arrangements for the consummation of the objects contemplated in the fundamental regulation for the union of the two bodies of Masons in the State of New York. 1858. — P. 21. The W.'. John A. Kennedy stated, that in accordance with a resolution adopted this morning, the Committee of Confer- ence had had the ' ' Provisions for a Union ' ' properly engrossed, and presented them to this body interchangeably signed by the two Committees. On motion they were ordered to be entered upon the minutes, and the doonument placed in the archives; and they are as follows : (0) Preamble. " TThcrcas, The honor, usefulness, and beneficent objects of the Institution of Free Masonry of the State of New York have suffered and are now suffering, by reason of differences and dis- agreements among the Fraternity of this State: Note, therefore, The undersigned Committee, appointed by the parties hereinafter mentioned, in view of amicably and per- manently ending such differences and disagreements, to the end that the harmony which is compatible with the true principles of Free Masonry, may prevail, do mutually assent, and interchange- ably subscribe to the following provisions, as a proper and equit- able manner of ending such difference and disagreements. And if said provisions are adopted and confirmed by the parties respectively, to wit : that known as the Grand Lodge of the State of New York, of which .John L. Lewis, Jr., is now Grand Master, and that known as the Grand Lodge of the State of New York, of which James Jexkinsox is Grand Master, then these provisions shall be considered and constituted a fundamental regulation of the Grand Lodge of the State of New York. Provisions. Sec. 1. There is but one Grand Lodge of the State of New York, that of which the M.'. \Y.'. John L. Lew'IS, Jr., is now Grand Master, whose territorial jurisdiction is co-extensive with the limits of the State. Sec. 2. That all proceedings had in relation to suspensions or expulsions arising out of the transactions known as the " diffi- culties of 1849, ' ' shall be and hereby are rescinded, and all such persons as may have been so suspended or expelled are hereby restored to full- membership, and entitled to all the rights and privileges of Masonry. Sec. 3. That all Grand Officers and Past Grand Officers of the last named party mentioned in the Preamble, shall have the rank and title of Past Grand Officers, and be recognized as such. For the purpose of obviating embarrassments in cases where Lodges in both bodies have the same number, the following plan shall be adopted : If the two Lodges bearing the same number cannot 42 COMPILATION OF DECISIONS OF mutually agree to consolidate into one Lodge, then the Lodge bearing the original warrant, or warrant of senior date, shall retain its number, while the other Lodge shall change its num- ber, and pass to the next junior vacant number in the list of Lodges, and its warrant shall be so numbered, endorsed, and reg- istered. Au}' Lodge working under a warrant granted since 1849, by the body of which James Jekkixsom is Grand Master, shall surrender its warrant, and a new warrant be granted without charge. Sec. 4. That all suits at law of whatever nature and kind, arising out of the aforesaid diflScuIties of 1849, shall be with- drawn and discontinued, and the parties of record in the said suits shall assent thereto. The expenses of both parties shall be paid from the fund known as the " Permanent Fund," and the balance of the moneys of the said Permanent Fund, to- gether with all interest accruing thereon, and all other moneys belongiug to the Grand Lodge on the 5th of June, 1849, shall be paid into, and become and are hereby constituted a part of the fund known as the ' ' Hall and Asylum Fund, ' ' and the Trustees are hereby authorized to make the transfer. The Hall and Asylum Fund now held in trust for the Grand Lodge, to- gether with the moneys above named, shall remain intact, and be applied, with such additions and accumulations as may here- after be made thereto, to the purposes for which said fund was created. Sec. 5. The Grand Lodge is composed of all the Grand Offi- cers, Past Grand Officers and of the Masters and Wardens, or the representatives legally appointed, of all the Lodges under this jurisdiction, and of all such Past Masters of Lodges under this jurisdiction, as shall have been elected, installed, and served one year in the Chair of Master, prior to December 31st, 1849. Sec. 6. The Constitution and General Eegulations as now in force in the Grand Lodge of which John L. Lewis, Jr., is Grand Master, shall remain in force until amended in pursuance of its provisions. Sec. 7. The archives and properties of the parties hereto, shall be the property of the Grand Lodge, and be placed in the custody of the appropriate Grand Officers. Sec. 8. All allusions to past differences shall be avoided. Sec. 9. On the ratification of these provisions by the parties hereto, all their several subordinates, on complying with the provisions of See. 3, shall be considered of equally regular Ma- sonic standing, and as such are hereby declared united in Masonic Fellowship, under one common jurisdiction, and entitled to all those rights and piivikges pertaining to the Fraternity as freely and fully as though no differences had heretofore occurred. The following was afterwards appended to the original docu- ment: (I hereby certify that the above is a true copy of the " Arti- cles of Union " adopted by the M.'. "\V.'. Grand Lodge of the Ancient and Honorable Fraternity of Free and Accepted Masons of the State of New York, on the 7th of June, A. L., .58.58.) THE GRAND LODGE OF NEW YORK 43 Proclamation. Of the M.'. W.". James Jexkinson, Grand Master on the con- summation of the I'nion of the two Grand Lodges in the State of New York. OiSce of the Grand Master of the Grand Lodge of Free and Accepted Masons of the State of New York. Xew York, Nov. 1st, A. L. 5858. To the Officers and Members of the Lodges hailing under the jurisdiction of the Grand Lodge of this State, and to the Grand Officers, Officers and Brethren of other States and Countries of our Correspondence: Brethren : The Committee appointed by the Grand Lodge at its Annual Meeting in June last, with full powers to carry out and con- summate the provisions of the ' ' Articles of Union ' ' then agreed to, have this day completed their labors. The unhappy difficulties which have so long existed, have been amicably adjusted, and the Masonic Fraternity in this State again united in honorable and equal terms, satisfactory to 'both parties, and in strict conformity to Masonic Law. Xoic, therefore, I, James Jexkixsom, Grand Master, do hereby declare and proclaim the aforesaid ' ' Union " to be fully consum- mated. The subordinate Lodges within this jurisdiction are united, and henceforth will be governed by the provisions of the Constitution of the Grand Lodge of the State of New York, of which the M.'. W.'. John L. Lewis, Jr., is now Grand Master. In conformity with the ' ' Articles of Union ' ' and in refer- ence to the last clause of the Minutes of the Grand Lodge, on the 7th June. A. L. 5S5S, I declare the Grand Lodge of the State of New York of which I am Grand Master to be closed, sine die. Pro. 1859. — P. 2S. Decisions of the Gkaxd JIaster. 1. That a majority of commissioners appointed for a trial, are competent to act and come to a conclusion, even although one or more members do not act at all; provided such majority agree in the conclusions. 2. That witnesses on such trials need not, and should not be sworn. 3. That the By-Laws of a Lodge, limiting the number of bal- lotings for a candidate to two, is repugnant to the Landmarks and void; but that it is advisable that the discretion of the Master should not be exercised beyond a second ballot, and that for the purposes of avoiding mistakes. 4. That where a Brother is expelled by resolution, without charges and without trial, it being irregular and void, he is not thereby deprived of membership in his Lodge. 5. That although the warrant of a Lodge locates it in a par- ticular town, and it may be held anywhere in that town, on com- 44 COJIPILATIOX OF DECISIONS OF piiarce with the provisions of section 20; yet its territorial jur- isdiction extends but half ^Yay to the nearest Lodge, although such last-mentioned Lodge be in .a different town, and thereby acquires jurisdiction over the largest portion of such adjoining town. 6. That where more than one Lodge is situated in the same city or village, their jurisdiction is concurrent in all respects in said city or village. 7. That where a brother has been afiiliated by a unanimous vote, without the reference of his petition, or its being laid over till the following communication; and had been enrolled, and registered as a member, had paid dues regularly, and voted and exercised all the privileges of a member for three years, without objection, although irregular, yet it was too late to question his bona fide membership. S. That where charges had been preferred against a Brother for a criminal offense, and served vipon him, and commissioners appointed, who attended his trial for the same offense in a court of law, and heard the testimony of the witnesses on both sides; it was unnecessary for them to put him on trial before them, • but they might report on the evidence thus heard. 9. That a Brother might be tried by a Lodge on charges of having embezzled the funds of a Chapter. in. That the " resignation " referred to in section 39 of the Constitution is inapplicable to Masters and Wardens, and applies only to officers who may resign. 11. That the ' ' jurisdiction ' ' referred to in the same section, means the jurisdiction of the Grand Lodge, co-e.xtensive with the State. m. That it is the right of a blaster to determine the validity of objections to a request to visit; he being responsible for the abuse of his discretion. 13. That in Masonic trials, the aid of counsel, not being Masons, is contrary to the rules of Masonry. 14. That in such trials, the denial of a charge by the accused, on his Masonic word, cannot counterbalance the unimpeaehed testimony of witnesses who are not Masons. 15 That a Lodge has a right to tax its members above their ordinary dues for necessary and strictly Masonic purposes. 16. That a Brother may be disciplined for refusing to obey a summons to attend a ^Masonic funeral, when he has no excuse for non-attendance; it being the disobedience, and not the non- attendance which contributes the offense. 17. That a Lodge XJ. D. has the same territorial jurisdiction over candidates, and also over offenders, as a warranted Lodge. 18. That a Lodge may appropriate its funds for benevolent purposes, disconnected from Masonry, if its ability to meet all its obligations is not thereby impaired. 19. That the use of legislative manuals or systems of parlia- mentary law should be discountenanced in Masonic Lodges. 20. That where a candidate has been rejected on the ballot for his advancement, it is irregular for another Lodge to confer THE GRAND LODGE OF NEW YORK 45 the degree upon him, even on request of the Lodge where he was thus rejected. 21. That it is highly irregular to postpone a ballot on candi- dates for an unreasonable or unlimited time, and that a vote to postpone, when the purpose is obviously to prevent the exercise of the right of objection, is void. 22. That challenges to commissioners in Masonic trials, must be made before the trial commences; but if for a cause after- . ward discovered, it is reasonable ground for a new trial. 23. That charges made on political or religious grounds should not be entertained by a Lodge. 24. That honorary mwnbers have no other rights than non- afaiiated members, and are only relieved by their position, from certain constitutional disabilities. 25. That a Lodge may properly and lawfully hear appropriate literary or scientific lectures, where it does not hinder or em- barrass its work. 26. That it is highly censurable for a Lodge to " call off " from its work for the purpose of conferring the so-called " female degrees," and then resume its labors. 27. That when the Past Master's degree is conferred upon a newly-elected Master out of a Chapter, it must be by at least three Past Masters by rank; but Past Masters by degree may be present. 28. That a Lodge may elect a Master duly qualified, who resides out of the jurisdiction, if he be a member of a Lodge within it. 29. That the executive powers of the Grand Master, during recess, do not authorize him to restore an expelled Mason to the rights and privileges ol Masonry, when the proceedings have been in all respects legular. 30. That the right of a Master over the record of a Lodge does not extend to the erasing or omitting anything actually done and proper to be recorded, but only to the correctness of the record of things done and the omission of matters improper or unnecessary to be recorded. 31. That the deposit of a candidate (the By-Laws providing for its return, in case of rejection), is not money belonging to the Lodge, before action is had on the petition. 32. That to require a bond from the Treasurer of a Lodge, is unknown to Masonic usage. 33. That the ilaster of a Lodge may be suspended from office by the Grand Master, for proper cause, after charges made, and before trial. 34. That a Brother cannot be twice tried for the same offense, on the ground of newly discovered or newly produced evidence, or any other ground. 35. That where officers of a Lodge were irregularly chosen, through inadvertence, their subsequent regular installation, at a stated Communication, without objection, corrects the error 36. That where a Lodge omitted to entertain charges against one of its members, transacting business in a distant county, 46 COMPILATIOX OF DECISIONS OF the nearest Lodge to such place of business, and ivhere the alleged offense was committed, might lawfully entertain jurisdiction of the matter, and try the Brother. 37. That a non-affiliated Mason may become an adjoining member of any Lodge within the jurisdiction; care being taken to consult the Lodge whence he demitted, and nearest his resi- dence. 38. That demission from membership in a Lodge is not the . absolute right of the individual Mason, but requires the assent of his Lodge, for satisfactory cause shown. 39. That the vote of such demission is but a majority vote, unless otherwise prescribed by the By-Laws of the Lodge. 40. That all votes in a Lodge are but majority or plurality votes (except those on candidates and for affiliation or honorary membership), unless the By-Laws of the Lodge otherwise pre- scribe. 41. That where a member is stricken from the roll for non- payment of dues, no proposition for his affiliation can be en- tertained till such dues be paid, or discharged. 42. That the dues of such member cease to run when stricken from the roll ; and if he has paid his dues previous to his propo- sition for affiliation, he has but discharged an honest obligation, and therefore they need not be returned to him, in case his proposition be rejected. 1859.— P. 256. To the M.'. W.'. Grand Lodge of the State of New York: The CommittiJe on the Condition of Masonry, having examined the various subjects and resolutions referred to them, submit the following report: 1. The Committee are of the unanimous opinion that this Grand Lodge is clothed with full power and authority to levy a tax upon the several subordinates within the several ilasonic lecture districts under its jurisdictions, for the purpose of de- fraying the expenses of the Grand Lecturer, necessarily incurred by him in the discharge of his official duties. P. 257. The tweiitv-seventh point is as follows: ' ' That when the Past Master 's degree is conferred upon a newly elected Master out of a chapter, it must be by at least three Past Masters by rank; but Past Masters by degree may be present. " The Committee, in the main, concur; but suggest that Past Masters only should be present who have been duly elected to preside over a Lodge of Master Masons. The twenty-eighth point, the Committee think, should be so qualified as to allow a Lodge to elect a Master duly qualified, and who resides out of the jurisdiction, if he be a member of the Lodge for which he is elected. P. 258: To the M:. W.". Grand Lodge of the State of New York: The Committee on Condition of Masonry, to whom were referred the following inquiries of Bro. William Hoag, "W. M. of No. 218 to wit • THE GRAND LODGE OF NEW YOEK 47 First. What action is necessary to properly strike from the roll the name of non -paying members? Second. What relation does a Mason hold whose name has been thus stricken from the roll of his Lodge? Third. What action is necessary to the restoration to actual membership of a Mason whose name has been stricken from the roll? To the first inquiry, your Committee report: By section 49 of the Constitution of the Grand Lodge, arrears for one year's dues shall subject a member to be stricken from the roll of his Lodge. The Committee are of the opinion that it requires a vote of the Lodge for that purpose. The mere fact of non-payment does not operate to sever the relation he holds. He is only subject to having his name thus stricken from the roll, which, of course, requires some action on the part of the Lodge. Second. By being stricken from the roll he becomes a non- affiliated Mason, and has no claim upon the Fraternity for its charity. He is, however, subject to the control and discipline (see Sec. 24, Sub. 4, of the Constitution) of the Grand Lodge, or to a subordinate Lodge, within whose jurisdiction he may reside. See Sec. 52. Third. Your Committee do not find, in the Constitution, any direct mode by which a member whose name has been thus stricken from the roll, can be restored. In the absence of any direct authority, the Committee entertain no doubt of the pro- priety of restoring the Brother by a vote of the Lodge, on pay- ment of his dues. We recommend, however, an amendment of the Constitution, so as to remove all doubt, and for that purpose submit the following amendment : " Sec. 49. Arrears for one year's dues shall subject a mem- ber to be stricken from the roll of his Lodge; and if stricken from the roll, such fact shall be stated in the annual return, and the Lodge thereafter shall not be liable to the Grand Lodge for such dues; and the member shall, thereupon, remain as if non- affiliated; but may be restored by a vote of two-thirds of the members present at any stated meeting of the Lodge, on payment of his dues; but no act of censure, suspension or expulsion shall be pronounced thereon for non-payment of dues only. ' ' P. 263. On the appeal, before this M.'. W.'. Body, the Com- mittee on Appeals reported, that ' ' When the complaint is sus- tained, no charges for services of commissioners should be assessed against the complainant, etc.", which report was adopted. And it is the opinion of your Committee that charges for serv- ices of commissioners cannot and should not be assessed against the Brother preferring charges, but only, actual expenses, as the commission only takes the place "of trial by the Lodge, and Brethren would not, if the trial should be by Lodge, as by ancient usage, be permitted to charge for services. Tour Committee deem it radically wrong to compel a Brother preferring a substantial charge against an evil-minded and un- 4S COMPILATIOX OF DECISIONS OF ^orthv member of our Order, to pay even the expenses of the commission, much less the charges of commissioners, especially where the charges hare been fully sustained. As it is the duty of the Lodge to enforce discipline among the Order under its jurisdiction, the particular member calling attention to the of- fense should not be compelled to pay the expenses of bringing the offender to punishment. P. 263. When Brethren resort to the courts of law for relief or redress, they must take the law as administered in those courts, and cannot afterwards apply for a reversal of such de- cisipns, to our Lodges, especially on such conflicting evidence as exists in the case under hearing. Bro. Smith has, with full knowledge, made his election; he had a right to go with his demand for relief against the Brother to the Lodge, or to the courts of law ; and having chosen his tribunal, he should be held to his election. P. 266. The Lodge imposed on the accused the penalty of suspension. As one ground of appeal is, that the Lodge did not inflict a penalty adequate to the offense, your Committee have necessarily examined the whole case, to ascertain whether there was any ground for this cause of appeal. It would require, in the opinion of your Committee, a gross case of abuse of its discretion, on the part of a Lodge, in the infliction of punishment, especially where the error, if any, was on the side of mercy, to justify this Grand Lodge in reversing the sentence. 1860. — Pp. 167-16S. The Grand Lodge confirms the report on Committee of Appeals that evidence not introduced on a trial cannot be of- fered on appeal. If the evidence be desired application should have been made to the Grand Master to make a supplementary return before appeal to the Grand Lodge. Pp. 16S-169. A judgment of indefinite suspension from all the rights and privileges of Masonry, was reversed upon the grounds: The charges were too indefinite to require the Lodge to put the accused on trial. There was no specification of the time when, or place where, or to whom the accused uttered the language charged as un-Masonic, The charges were presented at a meet- ing of the Lodge, but were not acted upon or received by the Lodge or in any form approved by the Lodge as sufBcient, or by the Senior Warden acting as Master, but upon their presentation commissioners were appointed. Notices of these proceedings and of the time and place of the trial were served on the accused. At the appointed day the accused objected to the trial stating that the charges were too vague and indefinite. This objection was sustained by the Committee of Appeals of the Grand Lodge. P. 170. Money collected by a Brother, a Deputy Sheriff, was used by him and his bondsman required to make this good to the parties entitled to the money because of the insolvency of the Deputy Sheriff, who believed he could use the money with safety, as he would be able to return it to the owners. Held an offense against the moral and M.Tsonie law. THE GEAXD LODGE OF XEW YORK 49 Pp. 177-178. OiScers of a Lodge Avere suspended for violation of the Constitution in receiving a proposition, not petition, for initiation and taking a ballot thereon and conferring the de- grees. P. 180. A Lodge conferring the degrees of Masonry upon a resident within a territorial jurisdiction of another Lodge was required to pay over to the latter the initiation fee received. P. ISl. A Committee of Investigation of applicants for afBlia- tion ought always to require proof that the applicant is non- atliliated and in good standing before making a report and for neglect of this are liable to discipftne. Pp. 183-184. The Grand Master of the Grand Lodge may ar- rest the progress of an Entered Apprentice who is charged with being a convict or possessing a bad character. GEAXD ilASTEE 'S DECISIONS. 1861. Siiioxs, G. M. Address. P. 18 el seq. 1. An Entered Apprentice may be put on trial and disci- plined for un-Masonie conduct, but his trial must be had before a Commission of Master Masons. 2. Charges may be preferred through the Junior Warden, but in all eases the Brother against whom complaint is made has a right to know the name of his real accuser. 3. "\Miere objection is made against one or more of the Com- missioners for bias, they should either resign, and others be named in their place, or triers be appointed, and the defendant given an opportunity to show cause. ■ 4. A Mason may be tried for a grave offense committed pre- vious to his initiation, the knowledge of which had been purposely withheld from the Lodge at time of his making. 5. Where a Mason has been convicted of a felony by a jury of his country, the Lodge, to administer discipline, must proceed in the usual form, only that a copy of the charges made need not be served on him, and a certified copy of the record of con- viction is sufficient evidence for the prosecution. 6. A Brother, against whom charges have been preferred, remains in good standing until the decision of the Commissioners appointed to try him has been finally and adversely passed upon by the Lodge. 7. That when charges are preferred against a Master of a Lodge, the Grand Master may, in his discretion, suspend him from the functions of his office during the investigation. S. When the Grand Lodge reverses the finding of a Lodge for irregularity or want of proof, the defendant thereby becomes en- titled to all the rights and privileges he enjoyed before charges were preferred against him. 9. A Mason residing in this jurisdiction, though a member of a Lodge in another State, is nevertheless subject to the penal jurisdiction of the Lodge nearest the place of his residence. 10. A candidate who has been rejected on his appUeation for 50 COMPILATIOX OF DECISIOXS OF advancement, may apply again at the next meeting; but that in such case the ilaster should direct the application to lie over at least tyro weeks in order that all the Brethren may have an opportunity to exercise their right. 11. The only religious test to be applied to a candidate is as to his belief in a Supreme Being, the Greater and Euler of the Universe, and in the immortality of the soul. 12. That a Lodge has a right to make a By-Law requiring the payments of dues, and to enforce a lesser penalty than strik- ing from the roll, for non-compliance therewith. 13. That a Master must be installed at each election; that none but Past ^Masters, by actual service, can qualify him or be present at that ceremony; but that, after the first installa- tion, he need not again be qualified. 14. That a rejected candidate can not be initiated in any other Lodge without the consent of the Lodge that rejected him. 1.5. When the members of a Lodge so far lose their interest in its welfare as to neglect its meetings and refuse to pay their dues, thereby preventing the Lodge from discharging its obli- gations, they should save their remaining credit (if any) by surrendering the warrant. 16. That the Master of a Lodge has a right to refuse to initiate a candidate, notwithstanding his acceptance by the Lodge, if in his judgment such initiation would be improper. 17. That it is highly un-Masonie for Lodges to send notices of rejection, suspension or expulsion, with the names of the parties thus dealt with printed therein, or otherwise publish the same. 15. That when the first ballot for a candidate appears to be unfavorable, the Master has the right to order a second, the nec- essary precautions having been observed, provided that it be done forthwith, or before any of the Brethren participating in the first ballot have left the Lodge. 19. That a Lodge may not initiate a candidate, unless, in addition to the usual qualifications, it shall be ascertained that he has been a bona fide resident of the jurisdiction for at least twelve months prior to his application. 20. That when a member is stricken from the roll for non- payment of dues, his contributions cease from that moment, but that he must pay the amount charged to him at the time of strik- ing off, before his application for reinstatement can be enter- tained, unless the Lodge choose to remit it. 21. A ri^port of a Committee of Investigation, if made in writ- ing, signed by the Committee, and delivered to the Secretary, is lawfully in possession of the Lodge, and on its presentation by the Secretary of the Lodge may proceed to act upon it whether the Committee are present or not. 22. The ballot for each degree, separately, is an undeniable right when demanded, but where the ballot for the first degree has already been taken, the right to demand applies only to the remaining degrees, unless cause be shown. 23. That during the recess of the Grand Lodge, the Grand THE GRAND LODGE OF NEW YOKK 51 Master alone, or in his absence, the Deputy Grand Master, has power to decide questions of Masonic law in his jurisdiction. 24. The system of pecuniary benefits belongs to modern So- cieties, is unknown to Ancient Craft Masonry, and is in conflict with its well-known principles. 25. Under the Constitution, the Master and Wardens being absent from the meetings of a Lodge, their power does not revert to the last or any other Past Master, nor can the Lodge supply their places. 26. A dimit can only be lawfully granted on the personal ap- plication of the Brother desiring it, or on a written request signed by him. 27. The power given to District Deputy Grand Masters, in sub-division 4 of section 120 of the Constitution, enabling them to decide in what cases a Brother stricken from the roll shall be restored without ballot, applies only to cases where there has been a manifest irregularity in the proceedings. 28. Section 110 (in relation to work and lectures) is impera- tive and binding on all Lodges and Masons in this jurisdiction, and that hence any Master of a Lodge, or other Mason entering into a combination (secret or otherwise) for the purpose of teaching and disseminating any other system of work than that approved by the Grand Lodge, and taught by the Grand Lecturer and his assistants, is guilty of violating his covenant and subject to discipline. In addition to these, I have been asked orally, and in writing, innumerable questions in regard to the physical qualifications of applicants; and cases have been submitted to my inspection, from that of a gentleman who had lost a portion of one of his fingers by the accidental discharge of a pistol, on through a, regular chromatic scale of blemishes, accidents and imperfections. As, in such cases, there is no discretion in the Grand Master, I could only reiterate the advice, that, in case of doubt, it is always better to refuse such applicants, and cast the responsibility on the Grand Lodge. This is, however, merely temporizing; and as with the natural increase of Lodge and Masons, and frequent changes of oiEcers, new men are constantly advancing to posi- tions of responsibility, and as one of the most ordinary effects of such positions is to render the conservative more careful, and even the radical somewhat conservative, it seems to be imperative on the Grand Lodge to make a definitive settlement of this prac- tically vexed question. The subject of physical qualifications has been abundantly 'and ably discussed by the best writers of the Craft, and I find the average result of a somewhat extensive course of reading on this topic to be in favor of a strict construc- tion of the regulation that " Men made Masons must be hale and sound, not deformed or dismembered at the time of making." Some attribute this requirement to the old Mosaic law in regard to the priesthood; others to the exclusively operative nature of the Institution in days gone by. With all suitable deference to the learned Brethren referred to, it is respectfully submitted that neither reason is properly applicable to the present state of the 52 COilPILATIOX OF DECISIONS OF Fraternity, if indeed they ever were. The perfections required of those who were to be admitted to the Inner Sanctuary of the Temple, to behold in the effulgence of the Shekina, the ineffable and visible glory of Jehovah, and to minister in His name, ought not, in reason, to be exacted of fallible men seeking ad- mission to the privileges of a merely human institution. And again : it does not appear that the Fraternity was ever exclusively operative, either in the days to which our legends refer, or even in the Jliddle Ages when they wrought in various lands as travel- ling architects, and therefore the exclusively operative idea is but a frail basis wherein to rest a Landmark. Arguments that depend for their force on the dim traditions of remote antiquity are necessarily too speculative to be properly appreciated in this matter-of-fact age, and in connection with practical every-day transactions. We shall be more likely to arrive at a satisfactory conclusion by assuming a more tangible point of departure. The Ancient Charges and General Eegulations first published in 1723, and the sanction of the Grand Lodge of England and commonly known as the Anderson Constitutions, are the basis of all Constitutions made since that time, and of the super- structure of more recent Masonic jurisprudence. In his elaborate work on the subject, Dr. Mackey terms them the foundation of the llasonic law, and all Masons — at least, aU speaking the English tongue — agree in accepting them as containing the es- sential and immovable Landmarks of the Cralt. In the third of those charges we find these words : ' ' The persons admitted members of a Lodge must be good and true men, free-born, and of mature and iliscreet age; no bondmen, no women, no immoral or scandalous men, but of good report ' ' ; and in the fourth, these : ' ' That no ilaster should take an Apprentice unless he has sufficient employment for him, and unless he be a perfect youth, having no maim or defect in his body that may render him incapable of learning the art. ' ' Here we have the law of physical qualifications, as laid down in the earliest written Con- stitution acknowledged as law, with a palpably qualifying pro- viso attached. The law does not require, you wiU observe, that a candidate should be physically perfect ; but that he should not be so maimed or blemished as to render him incapable of learn- ing and practicing the art. In the edition of the English Consti- tution, published in 173S, from which the charges prefixed to our Constitution are copied, the language of the two charges here quoted is materially altered,, as is also the case of the spurious Constitutions of Lawrence Dermott; in the Entick edi- tions, the language of that of 1723 is restored, and it seems to be a. fair inference that the first edition is right, and that the stronger language used in our copy is not the original law (for in that case it would have been in the original publication), and therefore entitled to no more weight than a recently adopted amendment by which a Landmark was removed. But the same difficulty that has always been in the way still presents itself. If we relax the present stringency of our Eegulation, who shaU say where the end may be, or how long before the crevice scarcely THE GEAND LODGE OE NEW YORK 53 large enough to admit a man's hand shall furnish room for the passage of a coach and four? The fear of such a manifest evil has evidently prevented the Grand Lodge from making a definite rule in this matter; yet it must be confessed, that while it is difficult to see why a worthy man, who has simply lost a small portion of his finger or toe, should not be capable of learning and practicing our art, Ave may with propriety gravely hesitate ere we commit to the discretion of the Lodges so serious a question, lest they come little by little, to consider legs and arms of no special importance to Masons. I venture the opinion, nevertheless, that it is a question that may very safely be in- trusted to the Grand Master, who, of all others, is most solemnly bound to preserve the ancient Landmarks of the Craft, and who, of all others, would be least likely to countenance the initiation of an improper person. The 49th section of the Constitution, relative to striking from the roll, under sanction of which there have been enacted more acts of injustice than ought ever to fall to the charge of a Masonic body, is also the text for numerous inquiries. One of its most repulsive features was partially removed by the amend- ment of last year, but even as it now stands, it is worse than the old law of suspension, for under that the delinquent was restored by payment of his arrears, instead of, as now, being treated as a stranger, and having all his previous rights ignored. Membership is the result of a mutual agreement between a Lodge and its members; and while of a right a Lodge ought to have the means of enforcing payment of dues, a just regard for the rights of the Brethren ought to incite us to provide that, inasmuch as a penalty is inflicted for default in the payment of a certain sum of money, the payment of that sum, in removing the cause, ought also to remove the effect, and the member become thereby restored to his former rights and privileges, without, as of old, undergoing any other ordeal. The consideration of these topics naturally leads us to the Constitution itself, to several sections of which your attention is invited. The 9th subdivision of section 8, which is cited as a Landmark, is in the exact language of the Ahiman Eezon by Dermott, admitted to be a spurious publication, and differing, as has already been remarked, from the original, or Anderson Constitution; from this last-mentioned, you will pardon me the suggestion, future editions of our Constitution should copy the Ancient Charges. So much of section 19 as enumerates the pre- requisites to granting Dispensations for new Lodges has under- gone several changes since the first adoption of the instrument in 1854, and its present form is such that while, out of cities, the recommendations of all the Lodges to be affected by the establish- ment of the proposed new Lodge is required in them, neither the recommendation of the nearest Lodge, nor indeed any other, is provided for. This is evidently an oversight; but it is, never- theless, an unseemly blank, and unless corrected, will in time lead to the usual amount of difference of opinion, and perhaps worse consequences. 54 COilPILATIOX OF DECISIONS OF Section 23 provides, that " A Lodge may not initiate any person without due inquiry, and being satisfied in a ilasomc manner, that he has not been previously rejected, or otherwise refused admission to Masonry; and if, upon inquiry, it shall be so ascertained, then not till six months after such rejection or refusal." " Take this section as it stands, and the evident infer- ence is, that, the six months having elapsed, any Lodge may en- tertain the petition of a previously rejected applicant, and if they think proper, initiate and advance him; while, in fact, it is held by all authorities that the consent of the rejecting Lodge must be had prewous to initiation elsewhere. There is no provision as to the number required to expel, and I have therefore held that, as a majority could adopt the report of commissioners ap- pointed to try a Brother, the same rule must necessarily apply to the adoption of the resolution of expulsion. It is, however, generally held that a two-thirds vote is necessary to expel, and it remains with you to decide whether any change is necessary. .Several cases have occurred ' in which a decision was required as to the majority required to surrender a warrant, and great diversity of opinion seems to exist. The one expressed by a Committee of this body in lb56, is, in my judgment, the correct one, viz. : that, as long as a minority of seven remains steadfast, the warrant cannot be surrendered; but section 17 of the Con- stitution provides for the voluntary surrender of the warrant by a majority of the members, when duly summoned for the pur- pose. This seems to be an exception to the rule laid down by il.'. W.'. Bro. Lewis, that all votes in a Lodge, except as other- wise provided by the Bay-Laws, are, of right, majority votes. In all ordinary matters before a Lodge it seems clear that the majority ought to rule, but when the question is one that, in terminating all others, concludes the very existence of the Lodge, and non-affiliates all its members, there appears to be a propriety in guarding the rights of the minority beyond the power of a simple majority. Section 20 forbids the removal of a Lodge from the town or city named in its warrant, to another, without the previous sanction of the Grand Lodge. This is an old Eegulation, and time has proved its wisdom; but cases have been presented to me — and my predecessors have doubtless had similar experience — where the Grand blaster, if invested with power, might, in the exercise of a sound discretion, add materially to the prosperity of a Lodge, if not at times, preserve its very existence, by per- mitting its removal to a more convenient locality. In one case where the Lodge was deprived of its place of meeting, and thus forced to seek one elsewhere, or suspend its labors, I have as- sumed authority to legalize such removal until this meeting of the Grand Lodge. 1861. — P. 175. On motion of Committee on Condition of llasonry, the following resolution was adopted: That a candidate having been initiated in a Lodge, and objections being raised against his ad- vancement, that the Master must order a ballot; and should a black-ball appear, the candidate must remain as an Entered Ap- THE GRAND LODGE OF ^■E^V YOUK 55 prentice in the Lodge, until it be the pleasure of the Lodge to confer upon him the remaining degrees. P. 176. Meport of decisions of Committee on Condition of Masonry relative to decisions of Grand Master: The fifth decision will be understood to mean, that the require- ments of our Constitution and Eegulations directing the service of a copy of charges on the accused, is to be understood as only to be dispensed with when the accused, by his own act, such as confinement in prison, or absconding, has rendered a compliance impossible. The fourteenth decision was dissented from by a part of the Committee. The sixteenth decision is not intended to affirm any arbi- trary or unjust exercise of power in a Master, but only to pre- vent injury to the Craft when his executive position renders it imperative. From the nineteenth decision the Committee dissent, as now being a matter of established law, but think the doctrine of the Grand Master a sound one, which should become a regulation, and report a resolution accordingly. They cannot, in passing the subject, refrain from an expression of their high sense of the ability and fidelity of P. G. M. Simons, displayed in the decisions they have had under review. On the subject of physical qualifications they do not perceive the necessity of further legislation, even had they still to qualify and adapt to particular cases the well-known rules on the sub- ject. They do not think it possible to express in any general regulation precisely how far any given case or class of cases should form exceptions, or come within the rule. If left to the discretion of particular Lodges, its application would be as varied and different as are the circumstances of each case, and sympathy or interest would control the calmer judgment. They deem it wisest, therefore, to adhere to the old Landmarks laid down in the old Constitution and Charges, which ' each Master and each particular Lodge must adopt as the rule of action, and which no Grand Officer or Grand Lodge can change or modify, and the applications to the former for constructions are only in vain. To observe the Landmarks is the only path of safety. The Committee do not conceive it expedient to alter the rule, heretofore laid down by this Grand Lodge and writers on Ma- sonic jurisprudence, respecting the jurisdiction of subordinate Lodges. If it works injuriously in special cases, it is doubtless the true doctrine as a General Eegulation. To the question, ' ' Are blank ballots cast in an election for officers to be counted as votes ? ' ' the Committee reply that they are not so to be counted, although it is proper to add that there is not an unanimous opinion. In cases of definite suspension, we are of opinion that the Brother suspended is liable for dues during the suspension. He is stiU a member of the Fraternity, forfeiting by his misconduct a temporary enjoyment of its rights and privileges, which at the expiration of the time of suspension he is again fully to enjoy. 56 COMPILATION OF DECISIONS OF and receive the benefit therefor, perhaps on the very next day after such restoration, to an extent far greater than his previous contributions. In the matter of the Candidates in Acacia Lodge, the Commit- tee cannot perceive that any action on this point is necessary or proper. The only principle involved is contained in another report from this Committee. On the subject of balloting for candidates, the Committee do not find any new legislation or advice necessary. There have been numerous decisions on the subject, our elementary writers have discussed the subject, and the il.'. W.'. Grand Master, in his eighteenth decision, has settled an important question on that point. The Committee having also carefully considered the resolution of B.'. W.'. Beo. Holmes on the subject embraced in the fifth decision of the il.'. W.". Grand Master, the first resolution is now a part of the law of this Grand Lodge, although the penalty is not defined; from the second they have (Jissented, as will be seen by their opinion heretofore expressed, and the third they have adopted as a part of the resolutions subjoined. We also subjoin a resolution relative to dispensations for the third degrees. 1. Sesoh-ed, That a Lodge shall not initiate a candidate unless, in addition to the usual qualifications, he shall be an actual bona fide resident of the State, having his home therein; but this shall not apply to inhabitants of countries where regular Lodges do not exist, nor to mariners in the actual practice of their profession, nor to persons in the military or naval service while in service. P. 178. The above resolution was laid on the table, as it had already been adopted by the Grand Lodge at this session. P. 1S7. Indefinite suspension recognized but modified under facts of case. P. 1S8. Lodges not required to enforce pecuniary rights of Masons between each other. P. 189. Charges entertained against one who had been con- victed of a crime but became a Mason under assumed name. 1862. King, G. M. Address, p. 28. Fhysical Qualifications. 1. If a candidate can see with but one eye, and is deformed or dismembered thereby, he is not eligible to the degrees of Masonry; but if the loss of sight in the imperfect eye does not extend to deformity it is not an insuperable barrier to his ad- mission into our Fraternity. 2. If a candidate be in a condition to receive and impart any and all parts of the ceremonies and duties of the Fraternity, he is, as a general rule, entirely eligible to the degrees; yet it is in the province of the Lodge to exercise some discretion in the matter; though, if a doubt exist, the petition should be withdrawn (only, however, before its reference to a Committee), or he should be rejected. THE GRAND LODGE OF NEW YORK 57 3. It is a violation of the Landmarks of Masonry to make a Mason of one who has the disability of lameness, occasioned by a shortened or crooked limb. 4. The Constitution of the Grand Lodge of New York is more restrictive as to the qualifications requisite to make a Mason than the ancient Landmarks, and hence it is requisite that a, person " must be at least twenty-one years of age, free-born, of good report, hale and sound, not deformed or dismembered, ' ' in order to become a Mason in this State. Advancement of Candidates. 5. On an application for advancement in the same Lodge, no investigation Committee is necessary unless required by the By-Laws or by resolution, if made in another Lodge than that in which the candidate was initiated; a Committee must be ap- pointed to act. 6. A Brother has the right to demand a ballot for the second and third degrees without showing cause therefor. The Grand Lodge has no power to abridge this right and did not intend to do so in the case referred to. (Trans. 1861, p. 185). 7. A candidate who has been rejected on his application for advancement, may apply again at the next meeting; but in such case the Master should direct the application to lie over at least two weeks. 8. A Brother having received the first two degrees in another State can only receive the third degree in a Lodge in this State by consent of the Lodge, Grand Lodge, or Grand Master of the State in which he was initiated. 9. Though a Brother has not the right to demand a reballot on a candidate who has been elected and received the first degree, he has a right to demand a ballot on the second and third degrees, or to object to the initiation of a candidate who has not already been initiated. 10. A member has a right to vote as he thinks proper, on the reception or advancement of a candidate, and cannot be deprived of the right thus to vote, whether his object be declared or not. 11. The lapse of two and a half years does not disqualify an Entered Apprentice from advancement to the other degrees in the same Lodge, providing no objections are made, but if ob- jections are made a ballot should be taken. Military Lodges. 12. In the case of applications for a dispensation for a Mili- tary Lodge, the petition must be framed as in other cases, and be recommended by some other Lodge in this State. There should be seven petitioners to such petition. 13. The candidates for the degrees of Masonry in Military Lodges are limited to the particular military organizations with which they and the Lodge are connected, as a regiment, brigade, or division; and these Lodges cannot make Masons of .persons 58 COilPILATION OF DECISIONS OF from other Grand Lodge jurisdictions without consent from the Grand Master, Lodge, or Grand Lodge, from whose jurisdic- tions they may have come. 14. Military Lodges are not limited to any particular locality in holding their meetings, but may hold them in any place where their convenience may dictate. 15. The fee of $40 must be paid for a Dispensation for Mili- tary Lodges, the same as in other cases, and it will be for the Grand Lodge to say whether this shall be refunded or not by appropriation of that amount in each case. Neither the Grand Lodge or Grand Master has any right to remit the fee. 16. No person can acquire a residence in the place where his military duties are being performed, if performed within this State, until the expiration of four months from the time of his removal from the Lodge jurisdiction in which he previously re- sided; and it is the duty of an Investigating Committee to look beyond the petition to ascertain where the residence of the can- didate really is, and has been during the aforesaid period. Political Duties — Powers and Privileges of the Grand Master. 17. The Grand Master has no right to give his official sanc- tion to the raising of a military regiment to be formed of Masons to be engaged in the civil war in which this or any other country is invohcd. 18. Jlasonry, as an organization, has nothing to do with politi- cal governments, and the institution, as such, has no right to mingle in their affairs. 19. Neither the Grand Master or Past Grand Masters of New York have any authority to represent the Fraternity of this State in any national convention of a political character. 20. The duty of all ^Masons is to be loyal to the government of the country under which they live, and not to be concerned in plots and conspiracies against the same. 21. Though the Grand Master has, in my estimation, the power to grant a Dispensation for the organization of a Lodge XJ. D., without the recommendation of the nearest Lodge, this being a prerogative which has come do^vn with his office through centuries past, and before a Grand Lodge was known, he will not do so, in any case, while either the fundamental laws or resolutions of the Grand Lodge forbid it. 22. The Grand Master has no power to authorize the election of a Master from the floor of the Lodge. He must have served as Master before, or as Warden for the term of one year. Expelled and Suspended Masons — Restoration of. 23. An expelled or suspended Mason can only be restored to the rights and privileges of Masonry, and to membership, by petition, its reference to a Committee, a favorable report thereon, and his unanimous acceptance by the Lodge. 24. A Lodge has no right after the first suspension has ex- THE GEAND LODGE OF NEW YOEK 59 pired, it being for a time limited, to extend the term of suspen- sion without new charges and a new trial. 25. A Brother who has contracted a just debt, ought to pay it, and will pay it if he conforms to the requirements of Ma- sonic law, providing it is in his power to do so; and this rule applies to all Masons in respect to debts owing to those outside, as well as to those who are members of our Fraternity, but no Mason can be expelled or suspended from his rights and privileges as a Mason, or from his membership in a Lodge, for the non-pay- ment of a debt, unless it be made affirmatively to appear in evi- dence that it was contracted with intent or design to deceive, cheat, or defraud the creditor. Foreign Grand Bodies. 26. The only supreme Masonic body we recognize in France is the Grand Orient of France, sitting at Paris, over which the M.'. W.'. the Prince Lucien Murat recently presided, and hence, a person hailing from the ' ' Supreme Council ' ' so-called, of that country, is not eligible to admission into our Lodges. Honorary Members. 27. An honorary member of a Lodge has no right to vote therein, and is not eligible to any office therein except that of Tiler. 2S. There are but two classes of Masons eligible to honorary membership in a subordinate Lodge, and these are: 1. Brothers who belong to some other Lodge than that in which they are made honorary members. 2. Non-affiliated Masons seeking to form a connection with some Lodge. Hence it is improper, under sections 24 and 50 of the Constitution of the Grand Lodge of New York, to make an honorary member of one who is already a full member of the same Lodge in which he is proposed to be made an honorary member. Qualifications and Powers of the Master of a Lodge. 29. Past Masters who have only been made such in a Chapter of Eoyal Arch Masons are entitled to be present on conferring this order on the Master-elect of a Lodge. The action of the Grand Lodge in 1859, in adopting the Report of a Committee who ' ' suggested ' ' a different course, does not militate against this decision. 30. The permanent removal of the Master of a Lodge from this State to another vacates his office, but not his membership, in the Lodge. 31. A member who has received the degree or order of Past Master, whether in a convention of Past Masters or in a Chapter of Eoval Arch Masons, is eligible to the office of Master, pro- vided he is a present or past blaster by service, or a present or past Warden, otherwise not, unless that order be conferred upon him before his installation. €0 COMPILATIOX OF DECISIONS OF 32. The pendency of charges against a member of a Lodge who is being voted for as Master does not vitiate the votes east for him, or render him ineligible to an election. 33. The Master of a Lodge has the power to direct the with- drawal of a visiting brother therefrom, if, in his opinion, the presence of such visiting brother will disturb its harmony, or cause its withdrawal of any member on account of suQh presence. Dispensation for the Degrees. 34. The expression of a disposition on the part of the Grand Master to grant a Dispensation for conferring the second and third degrees of Masonry in less time than allowed by the Con- stitution, on the Lodge complying with certain conditions, does not authorize the Lodge to confer said degrees until the Dispensa- tion is supplied; and an Entered Apprentice receiving the de- grees under such circumstances, is regularly passed and raised, and should be healed in respect to these degrees. He is, not- withstanding, a regularly made Mason, as to the first degree. Charity — Powers of Grand Lodge Officers. 35. The three Brethren designated by a Grand oflScer to decide and report on an application for charity or relief must be selected from two or more Lodges, Hut not necessarily from three. Constitution, sections 55, 65. Bemoval of Lodges. 36. Before a Lodge can be removed from one place to an- other all the members must be summoned to attend to decide on the question of removal, and two-thirds of the members must vote therefor. Secretary and Treasurer. 37. If a Secretary or Treasurer withhold funds belonging to the Lodge, and refuse to pay them over, charges should be preferred and the delinquent tried by a commission, as pre- scribed in section 60 of the Constitution. Election of Lodge Officers. 38. The annual election of Lodge officers must take place on the regular meeting next preceding the Festival of St. John, December 27, and any election prior to that time, unless to fill a vacancy, is irregular and void. Surrender of Warrants. 39. The voluntary surrender of a Lodge Warrant suspends the Master from the functions of his office, and all his powers and privileges as Master thereupon cease, except the respect due to his standing, position, and intelligence. THE GRAND LODGE OF NEW YORK 61 Decisions of the District Deputy Grand Masters. 40. The Grand Master will not interfere with the acts or decisions of the District Deputy Grand Masters without giving them a chance to be heard in respect to the matters complained of. They must be notified of appeals from their acts and decisions. Dimits. 41. When a dirait is granted by a vote of the Lodge it ter- minates the connection of the member with the Lodge, and he can only renew his membership by a new application and the unanimous vote of the Lodge. The written paper certifying to a dimission is only evidence of a fact already existing, and its being made out by the Secretary, or his failure to make it out, cannot change the act of the Brother or the Lodge. The di- mission dates from the time of the withdrawal, and he is not liable for dues afterward until restored. Mernbers of a Lodge V. D. 42. The membership of Brethren signing a petition for a Dispensation is in abeyance in respect to the Lodge in which they were previously members, during the life of the Dispensa- tion, and will be terminated as to that Lodge on granting a Charter to the new Lodge, unless they signify their desire to remain connected with the former Lodge. Fees, Dues, Taxes, and Funds. 43. It is competent for a Lodge to provide in its By-laws what disposition shall be made of the fees accompanying a peti- tion ; but if no such By-law has been passed it forms part of the petition, and does not go into the funds of the Lodge, nor need it be paid to the Treasurer, until affirmative action shall, have been taken on the petition. ^ It forms a part of the initia- tion fee in case of the candidate 's acceptance, or is to be re- turned to him by the Secretary in case of his rejection. 44. A Lodge has no right to remit the dues of a member, though there is nothing in our laws to forbid a, Lodge making such donations to Brethren for charitable objects as it may think proper. 45. A Lodge has the right to levy a tax or assessment on its members for the purpose of paying its just debts or necessary expenses; and if a member refuses to pay such tax he may be dealt with under our disciplinary code. 46. Dues are collectable from a member who has signed the petition for a new Lodge, up to the time of granting a Dispensa- tion: and though he only signed the petition for a Dispensation of the Lodge of which he was thus a member, never having signed the By-laws, he is a member thereof. The rule making it 62 COMPILATION OF DECISIONS OF necessary to sign the By-laws seems to be limited to newly made Masons, and to ttose offering for affiliation. 47. The funeral expenses of a deceased Brother should be borne by the Lodge of which he was a member, and not by the Lodge in whose care he might have died. The principles of equity and Masonic justice require this in the absence of any positive law on the subject. 48. The Grand Master has no authority to grant a Dispensa- tion to remit the fees for the degrees. The Grand Lodge itself has no such authority. They must be paid in all cases, except in those special cases provided for by the Constitution, on the initiation of the candidate. 49. Neither the Grand Master or the Grand Lodge has any authority to remit the fee for the organization of a Military or .any other Lodge, but the Grand Lodge has authority to make an appropriation to an amount equal to the fees for a Dispensa- tion. 50. The express mention in the Constitution that " it shall be lawfvil for a Lodge to make By-laws exempting its Secretary, Chaplain, and Tiler from dues " is a denial of such authority as to any other member, except in the case of an indigent Brother applying for affiliation, this class of cases being also expressly mentioned. By-Laws. 51. When a Lodge adopts a code of By-laws, they are the governing rules of the Lodge, when not in conflict with the Con- stitution, until changed by the Lodge itself, or until modified, or revoked by the Grand Lodge. Lawful Information. 62. Sitting in open Lodge with a Brother, or avouchment by a Brother, who has done so, or through personal examination, either constitutes " lawful Masonic information." Dimits. 53. A Lodge is not bound to grant a dimit to a member who is in constant violation of the Eules of Masonry, by the enter- tainment of feelings of malignity toward members of the Lodge. Masonry tolerates no deception, no duplicity. 54. A non-affiliated Mason, made such by having been stricken from the roll for non-payment of dues, can only have a dimit from his Lodge after payment thereof up to the time he was stricken from the roll and being restored by a two-thirds vote. Expulsions. 55. A majority of the members of any Lodge may expel any member thereof who has been tried by a Commission who recom- mend this penalty. THE GRAND LODGE OF NEW YORK 63 nic Emblems. 56. A liotel keeper who makes use of Masonic emblems on liis sign, or in liis bar, for the purpose of drawing custom, or for any other improper purpose, is liable to be disciplined for it, and if, after being admonished by the Master to remove them, -he persists in the practice, charges should be preferred against him, and he tried and punisTied. Appeals and Neiv Trials. 57. It is not competent for a Lodge to order a new trial on the same charges as before; this duty belongs to the officer who hears the appeal; but the Lodge may, if it think proper, appeal directly to the Grand Lodge. Trials iy Commission. 58. In deference to the decisions heretofore made by the Grand Lodge, I must hold that it is competent for a Lodge to change an acquittal by a commission to a suspension, though I am not at all satisfied of the correctness of this interpretation of the provision of the Constitution on this subject. 59. The Eeport of Commissioners on the trial of a brother must be submitted to the Lodge for its approval, disapproval or modification. 60. It is competent for Trial Commissioners to authorize the issuing of a commission to take the evidence of a foreign wit- ness, and if, on a proper case being made therefor, they err in the denial of the application, their decision will be corrected on appeal. Questions of Lodge Jurisdiction. 61. If a candidate live out of the jurisdiction of the Lodge in which his petition is offered, the petition should be dismissed as soon as this fact is ascertained, and the fee paid should be returned to him. No ballot is necessary. 62. A Lodge has no corporate rights under the law of this State, and can only acquire such rights by a special act of incor- poration from the Legislature or by certificate from any supreme court or county judge, or from the mayor or recorder of the City where the premises nre situated, as provided by Chapter 186, Laws of 182.5. 6.3. A Lodge has no right to initiate candidates residing within the jurisdiction of other Lodges without their consent, and the payment to such other Lodges of the fees received Mill not excuse a Lodge from the penalties of this act. 64. A Lodge has no right to hold its meetings on Sundays, or install its officers on that day. This is strictly forbidden by the laws of the Grand Lodge. 65. Any member has the right to present the petition of an 64 COMPILATIOK OF DECISIONS OF applicant for the degrees who has been rejected', for the purpose of obtaining the consent of the Lodge to the renewal of the application in another Lodge, and it is for the Lodge to decide and, not the Master, whether this consent will be given. 66. Profanity is an offence against Masonic law, for which a member may be reprimanded, suspended or expelled, in the dis- cretion of the Lodge, and the Lodge must act upon the report of the commissioners, and a majority vote will expel the member found guilty, after the offender has been thrice admonished. WorTc, Lectures, and Symbols. 67. Every Lodge must adopt and practice the work and lec- tures imparted by the Grand Lecturer or Assistant Grand Lec- turers, and no other ; and any Lodge practicing any other system of work, their Charter will be arrested if they do not desist therefrom after a prudent yet respectful admonition of the consequences to ensue therefrom. 68. It is not proper for nay person to impart the work and lectures without being ' ' duly authorized, ' ' unless it is a " com- petent Brother " invited by a Master or one of the Wardens to officiate. 69. It is not proper for a Lodge to hold meetings for the purpose of instructing the Brethren in the Standard work and lectures by others than its own officers and members, unless the person so giving instruction is the Grand Lecturer, or a brother authorized by him therefor. 70. The points of compass when placed on the altar should point to the west. The other great lights and their position and direction will be fixed from this starting point, in the mind of any intelligent Mason. 71. The triangle (or Delta) is not a proper emblem to have suspended over the Master's chair in the Masonic rite we culti- vate, to the exclusion of the letter G, although in many respects it means the same thing as the letter G. It is because that it would be an innovation upon our uniform customs, and would destroy the unity and universality of our symbolism in this country that its use in that place should be discontinued. Candidates for the Degrees Bejected. 72. When a candidate is rejected in one Lodge he may apply to another for initiation with the consent of the former, which consent may be given by a majority vote. 73. A ballot on the application of a candidate for the degrees cannot be indefinitely postponed, but must be acted upon by the Lodge. Dispensations for New Lodges and Powers of the Lodge. 74. It would be very improper for the Grand Master to promise or decide beforehand what he will do on an application THE GEAND LODGE OF NEW YOKE 65 for a Dispensation for a new Lodge. Each application of this character must stand upon its own merits, after all the circum- stances shall haA'e been considered, and no Dispensation shall be issued without the maturest consideration. 75. A Lodge under Dispensation can and ought to make rules for its government. Dr. Mackey 's opinion is to the contrary of this, and he is a very learned Mason, but he is not immaculate. airiking from the Molls. 76. Any member of the Lodge is liable to be stricken from the roil on being in arrear for one year's dues; and any indebt- edness of the Lodge to the delinquent does not debar the Lodge the right of this action, unless there is an agreement on the part of the Lodge that the indebtedness shall apply in payment of dues. 77. A Lodge has no right to publish the names of those stricken from the roll, but should report them to the Grand Lodge in its annual returns. 78. If a member is stricken from the roll for non-payment of dues for more than one year, he can be restored on application by a two-thirds vote, but only on payment of the dues which had accrued up to the time he was so stricken irom the roll. 79. The amendment of the Constitution adopted in 1860, limiting the restoration to one year on a vote of two-thirds applied to all persons who were non-affiliated at the time of its passage. 80. A Lodge has not the right or power, legally, to suspend a member for non-payment of dues. SI. Under the Constitution of the Grand Lodge of Xew York a Lodge has no right to suspend a member for non-payment of dues; and nnder the ancient Landmarks and old regulations I do not think it competent for any Grand Lodge to authorize its subordinates to suspend a member for this cause alone. Xoii'Affiliatcil MufOiis and Applications for Affiliation. si. It is entirely competent ior any Lodge to receive and act upon the petition of a non-affiiiated Mason, whose Lodge has ceased to exist, on proper evidence of this fact being offered. The most authentic evidence of this character would be the cer- tificate of the Grand Secretary in whose jurisdiction the Brother formerly resided. 83. A Brother has a right to affiliate with any Lodge he thinks proper, and is not restricted to the Lodge in whose jurisdiction he resides. 84. A Lodge may receive an adjoining member with or with- out fee, as it may decide, though the Lodge itself must pay fifty cents theretor to the Grand Lodge. So. If a Brother petitions for affiliation, is duly elected, and signs the By-laws, he is a member of the Lodge, and his member- ship can only be terminated. 66 COilPILATIOX OF DECISIONS OF 1, by voluntary dimission; 2, by the Lodge ceasing to have a legal existence; 3, by suspension or expulsion, or 4, by being stricken from the rolls for non-payment of dues. The fees to be paid on aflSliation are not dues, and no member can be stricken from the roU for non-payment thereof. The proper course is to prefer charges. 86. In the case of an application for membership of a non- aflaiiated Mason Tvho has been rejected, I know of no law for- bidding him to renew the same at the nest or anv other regular meeting. 87. If a non-affiliated Mason apply for affiliation at a regular meeting, and his petition is received, referred to a Committee, and reported upon favorably, and he is elected at a subsequent regular meeting by an unanimous vote, he thereby becomes a member of the Lodge, and no reballot can be taken to deprive him of his membership at a future meeting unless upon charges and trial. This law is contrary to my convictions of what the law ought to be, as a rule, yet it is a part of the Constitution and must be obeyed. Constitution, section 25. The law which gives the right to reballot applies to petitioners for the degrees and not for affiliation. Id., section S. rule 14. SS. A non-affiliated Mason (or one who was such at his de- cease) is not entitled to Masonic burial, but any Lodge may bury him with Masonic honors, if a majority of its members by vote so decide. Eepokt of Committee ox Coxditiox of Masoxey Eelati^t; to the Decisioks of Ghaxd Master. 1862. — P. 206. The first decision upon the much mooted but long estab- lished Masonic doctrine of physical qualifications: The principle intended to be settled is, that mere loss of sight of one of the eyes is not necessarily a disqualification, but if it be attended with such circumstances as to amount to deformity or unsoundness, thus coming within the letter of the rule, the candidate cannot be a " perfect stone " in our moral temple and should be rejected; and the second decision very clearly explains the Uttle, the very little, discretion left to Lodges on the subject. All this was unquestionably fully expressed in the full opinion itself; and then, again, the fact should be remembered that all of the deci- sions upon a single topic should be taken together, as they seem to explain each other. We do not understand, however, that the Constitutions of Xew York are more restrictive on the subject of physical qualifications than the ancient Landmarks, for it is but the Landmark itself expressed in one of the various forms which have come down to us, being a variance in language and not in sentiment. 8. If by the eighth decision it is meant to state that the Brother ceases to be a resident of the jurisdiction in which ha received his first and second degrees, then we cannot conceive that the consent there spoken of is required. He is no longer a THE GKAXD LODGE OF XEW YOEK 67 part of the material to whieli the jurisdiction whence he came can lay any just claim. 9. We do not conceive the right of objection to the initiation here mentioned can have the effect to prevent the candidate from being made a Mason. 11. The same remark applies to his objection here. It is proper that a, ballot should be taken under such circumstances, but it is not imperative. 21. If the Grand Master were creating Lodges beyond the jurisdiction of a Grand Lodge, he might dispense with the recommendation of the nearest or any other Lodge, but while in the jurisdiction of a Grand Lodge and in the establishment of new Lodges to be governed by it, but acting as its agent, he is necessarily subject to its Constitutional rules. 2,3. An expelled Mason is deprived of all his Masonic rights as completely as if he had never possessed them, and hence unanimity is required to restore him to Masonry and member- ship; but as the removal of a suspension restores the member- ship, a majority is sufficient. 26. A mistake. The Supreme Council is recognized by the Grand Orient, and is technically said to be " in its bosom," a subordinate power within its immediate jurisdiction. The Lodges created by it are recognized by, and represented in, the Grand Orient. Under the new Dispensation in France, tl:e Cirand Orient will issue all warrants, but that does not militate against the legality of those previously created by the Supreme Council. The present title of the body is "Grand Orient of Prance and Supreme Council of France and its possessions. ' ' 29. The reverse of this proposition was reported to, and con- confirmed by, the Grand Lodge at its last Communication. (See Transactions, 1861, pp. 19 and 176.) 31. The degree has nothing to do with it. The fact of pre- vious ser^'ice as Master or Wardens constitutes the eligibility whether the individual has the degree of Past Master or not. 41. Approved after striking out all after the first sentence ending with a period. 46. Approved after striking out all after the word ' ' Dispensa- tion ' ' where it first occurs. 66. This is approved with this addition : ' ' After the offender has been admonished as required by Subdivision 2.5, Section 8, of the Constitution. ' ' 68. This is approved with this addition: " for the time being, while engaged in the regular labors of the Lodge. ' ' 70. This has already been disposed of by the adoption of a special report. 72. But this is not to be understood to be within the time, prescribed by the condition or General Regulations, to elapse before the application is made. 87. The word " reballot " has no signification in connec- tion with the following words: " upon charges and trial "; for in such it would be another mode of proceeding. The concluding part of this paragraph it will be understood to be no part of the 68 COIIPILATIOX OF DECISIONS OF decision, but an opinion of what the rule should be, and not what in fact is. The matter referred to in the Memorial of Montauk Lodge has received due consideration, and a hearing has been granted to all desiring to speak. The subject of difference is this: On a report of the District Deputy Grand JIaster of the Third District, wherein ilontauk Lodge is located, to the M.'. W.'. Grand Master, that distinguished brother seems to have been impressed with the idea that the triangular light suspended in the East of Montauk Lodge was thus placed as a substitute for the letter G, usually suspended in that place, and he, deeming such a change an irreg- ularity, directed the District Deputy Grand Master to correct it. To this, Montauk Lodge demurs, on the ground that the triangle exhibited in their hall was not in any sense a substitute for the usual letter, nor was it so intended by them, that in ceremonies of Masoury they are governed by the usual formula, and exhibit the letter G at the proper time and place; and hence, that in being ordered to correct an irregularity which has no existence, they were unjustly brought under censure. Your Committee believe the whole difficulty to have originated in a misappre- hension of the facts in the case. Xo one will contend that in the ornamentation of a Lodge-hall, the appropriate symbols of ilasonry may not with propriety be exhibited, nor that there is any limit to be placed on the number or style of such decorations, "Except that of the taste of the Brethren having direction of it ; nor wiU it be contended that the triangle or Delta is not one of the most ancient and revered emblems of Masonry. The irregu- larity in this case would have been the substitution of the Delta for the emblem required by the Bitual, and as this is implicitly denied by the Lodge, there seems to be an end of the matter. Craxe, G. M. Address, p. 18. Deciiions. 1863. — 1. That a Brother cannot be received as an afBliating member of a Lodge, unless he produces his demit, or shows sufficient cause for its non-production. i. That a Lodge has a right to donate a sufficient sum of money to pay the dues of a member who has been stricken from the roll for the non-payment of dues. 3. That it is irregular to propose or ballot for a candidate at a special Communication, notwithstanding the Lodge may be specially summoned for that purpose, and although notice of the intention to do so may have been openly proclaimed at its last previous regular Communication. 4. That a demit once having been granted by a vote of the Lodge, that vote cannot be reconsidered, even though the non- affiliated Brother should again petition, and the Lodge should unanimously vote to reconsider. When once a demit has been granted and accepted, the Brother demitting can return to the Lodge in the same manner only as any other unaffiliated Mason would enter it. THE GBAND LODGE OF NEW YOEK 69 5. That it is the duty of a Lodge to receive all eommnnioa- tions from the Grand Master, and place them on file, or spread them on its minutes, as the Lodge by its vote may direct. Such communications must be received and acted upon. 6. That clergymen cannot be received without fee; but the Lodge may donate a sum equivalent to the amount of the fee, for the purpose of paying the same. 7. At any meeting of a Lodge, any member in good standing may demand a ballot on the advancement of a candidate; but should such demand be made at a special Communication, the balloting shall lie over until the next regular Communication, and, in the meantime, and until such balloting shall be had, all proceedings on the advancement of the candidate must be abso- lutely stayed. 8. Charges having been preferred against a Brother, and the charges and a summons having been served upon him, and he failing to appear in accordance with the summons, and no cause having been shown for his non-appearance, the Lodge may pro- ceed, either Ss for a contempt, and inflict a penalty, or the charges may be proceeded with to judgment, in the same manner as if the alleged delinquent had appeared, in which case, how- ever, it would be the duty of the ^Master to appoint some intelli- gent and disinterested Brother to act before the Commission in behalf of the accused. 9. That in a case where charges have been preferred against a Brother who may reside at a distance from the locality of the Lodge, the following rules shall prevail until there shall have been some legislation disposing of the subject: A. That the Secretary, under the direction of the Master, shall cause the accused to be served a copy of the charges, and a summons stating the time and place of trial. B. If the residence of the accused is known, and is within thirty miles of the place where the Lodge may be located, he shall' be entitled to personal service at least ten days before the time of trial. C. If his residence be at a greater distance than thirty miles, but within this State, a like copy of charges, and a like summons, forwarded to him by mail, at least twenty days before the time of trial, shall be deemed sufficient. D. If his residence be out of the State, and known to the Lodge and more than thirty miles distant from its place of meeting, a like copy of charges, and a like summons, may be forwarded to him by mail, at least thirty days before the time of trial, which shall be deemed sufficient. E. If his residence be unknown, the Lodge may proceed ex parte, and conduct the case to judgment, and like pro- ceedings may.be had when he refuses to obey the summons. 10. That it is the province of the Commissioners during the examination of charges to exclude from the room all persons except the witness under examination if they should deem it proper to do so. 11. That after a Commission has reported, the report, if 70 COJIPILATION OP DECISIONS OF accepted, is the property of the Lodge. Any Brother of the Lodge has a right to call for the reading of the evidence, and it is the duty of the Master to order it to be read. If an appeal should be taken to the Grand Lodge, a copy of the proceedings of the Commissioners should be filed in the Grand Secretary's ofSce. 12. That a ilaster has no right to order a ballot on a candi- date to lie over to a subsequent Communication, after the candi- date has once been balloted for. The Master has a right to order a second ballot, when the first has been unfavorable; but the ballot must be continuous and uninterrupted by any other business or proceeding. 13. That it is un-Masonic for any Brother to be allowed to know how another Brother may hare voted on the admission of a candidate. 14. That a Commission for the trial of charges have no powers, excepting those which are specially delegated to them by the Grand Lodge, the Grand Master, or other ofScer appointing them, or by a particular Lodge, and hence that they cannot amend or in any manner alter the charges or the specifications which were referred to them tor trial; that the accused must be tried on the charges as the Commission received them, or they must report the charges back to the Lodge for informality in form, texture, or substance (if either should be found to be the fact), and then await its action on that report. 1.5. That in all cases where a Master Mason, or a Brother of a lesser degree, is sought to be tried for alleged offenses against the person, reputation, or property of an alleged aggrieved party, the name of the party so alleged to have been aggrieved must be set forth at length, or with reasonable certainty in the specifica- tions, as well as the time and incidents of the alleged offenses, so that the accused Brother may be able to take issue on the facts, and come to his defense with a full knowledge of the misconduct sought to be proved against him. 16. That a Brother residing in another State is not eligible to the office of Master of a Lodge in this jurisdiction, and hence, that any election of such, under these circumstances, is not only voidable but absolutely void. I can see no valid reason why a Brother in good standing, if not a Master or Warden, who has discharged all his pecuniary obligations to his Lodge, and so long as he leaves enough mem- bers to form a working Lodge, should not be allowed to demit of his own volition, and without taking any vote whatever on the subject. Many things might be said which would sustain this view, but I will only cite a single case. Tt is impossible to enforce the regular attendance of a member of a Lodge who has been foiled in his effort to withdraw from it. except by the service of a summons upon him previously to each Communica- tion. Even that compulsory process might be evaded by a Brother, if he should so choose, without making him liable to the infliction of any penalty. We will suppose that such a Brother had conscientious scruples which, if ilisclosed, would involve the THE GRAND LODGE OF NEW YORK 71 honor of his family against associating with a member of his Lodge; or suppose any other cause to exist, leading to the same result, what becomes the necessary effect of this? The Brother either suffers his name to be struck from the rolls for the non- payment of dues, or pays dues for privileges which he cannot conscientiously enjoy, and avoids attendance on his Lodge. Hence it is that the Craft loses the services of a good member, and virtually puts him out of the pale of association with a Lodge which he can call his own, by preventing his affiliation with one more congenial to his taste or his sense of propriety. I can see no good reason why we should not return to the voluntary system under which we very happily worked in year's that are past. I most fully concur in the opinion expressed by my able predecessor, M.'. W.'. Brother Simons, as to the hardship of the 49th Section of the Constitution. In 5861, in his Annual Address, he uses the following language: ' ' The 49th Section of the Constitution, relative to striking from the roll, under sanction of which there have been enacted more acts of injustice than ought ever to fall to the charge of a Masonic body, is also the text for numerous inquiries. One of its most repulsive features was partially removed by the amend- ment of last year, but, even as it now stands, it is worse than the old law of suspension, for under that the delinquent was restored by payment of his arrears, instead of, as now, being treated as a stranger, and having all his previous rights ignored. ^Membership is the result of a mutual agreement between a Lodge and its members; and while of right a Lodge ought to have the means of enforcing payment of dues, a just regard for the rights of the Brethren ought to incite us to provide that, inasmuch as a penalty is inflicted for default in the payment of a certain sum of money, the payment of that sum, in removing the cause, ought also to remove the effect, and the member became thereby restored to his former rights and privileges, without, as of old, undergoing any other ordeal. ' ' P. 173. Keport of Committee on Condition of JIasoxrt. They fully approve each of the first fifteen decisions. The fourth decision is peculiarly opportune at the present time, to correct an impression which seems to have obtained, that demission was incomplete until the certificate was issued. In fact, the act of demission is entirely complete without it ; the entry upon the record and the certificate being but two modes of perpetuating the evidence of the fact in ivriting. In this connection we take occasion to say that the views of the II.'. W.'. Grand Master, in respect to the voluntary system of demission, are eminently deserving of consideration. We regard the provision of the Constitution, which defines what is demission, to be but little more than an affirmance of the fact that the joint act of which it speaks is that the member must apply for, and the Lodge must grant, the demit asked, if the applicant be in 72 COMPILATION OF DECISIONS OF good standing, and be not a Master or Warden of his Lodge. And we respectfully submit that it is best, both for the welfare of the Lodge and the rights of the Brethren, that so much action should be taken in order that the Lodge may be able at all times to determine the relations of the individual Brethren to it, and to preserve the evidence of the separation of the connection between them, and to more strongly guard the rights of each individual , l^rother. The sixth decision is also proper to correct a prevalent error; and although it may be said that the requirement of a fee from a clergyman, which may be immediately after donated to him, is but an etapty form, yet we hold that, a Lodge has absolute control over its own funds which it may have acquired, and that it. may make such disposition of them as it may deem proper, if it be prepared to meet all engagements which the laws and usages of the Fraternity impose upon it. The Grand Lodge has such a remote contingent interest in the funds of a Lodge in case of forfeiture that it would be unjust and oppressive to impose arbitrary restrictions with a view to protect that interest. The sevenlh, eighth, ninth, tenth and fifteenth decisions should be incorporated into the form of proceeding in Masonic trials, heretofore adopted by this Grand Lodge, as valuable additions to that directory. The seventh decision, however, is to be under- stood that the ballot is to be demanded only when the candidate applies for such advancement. " The twelfth and thirteenth decisions are but correct interpre- tations of long existing fundamental law and usage, and yet they are required to be repeated year after year in order to enforce them. P. 209. Majority Report or Committee on Jukispkudexce amd Condi- tion or Masonry — Refers to Decision XVI. XVI. Viz: " That a Brother residing in another State is not eligible to the office of Master of a Lodge in this jurisdiction, and hence that any election of such, under those circumstances, is not only voidable but absolutely void. ' ' If the excellent and intelligent officer who has made this deci- sion is right in his conclusion, it must change a custom that has prevailed in this jurisdiction for many years past, and abridge privileges that have been supposed to exist and be enjoyed by members of all Lodges from time immemorial. It is believed by your Committee that the ancient Landmarks of Masonry authorize and allow each and every member of a Lodge, with the qualifications hereinafter named, to enjoy all the rights, privileges, and immunities of any member thereof. This is a law in Masonry which has come down to us through the vista of unnumbered generations in the past, and certainly for nine centuries, if not since the time when the Roman Cresar visited England in the first century of the Christian era. Sup- pose, however, the rule was first established when the first General Assembly of Masons was held in Britain, in the tenth century. THE GRAND LODGE OF NEW YOliK 73 we have a period of over nine hundred years, through all of which time these rights, privileges and immunities have been unquestioned. We are confirmed in this belief by the Constitu- tion of the Grand Lodge of Ne^v York, which incorporates many of the old charges and laws, and among them those which declare that : 1. "All preferment among Masons is grounded upon real worth and personal merit only. ' ' Charge 18. 2. "That no one can be elected Master of a warranted Lodge (except at its first election) but a Muster Mason who shall have served as Warden. ' ' Section 8, sub-divi- sion 19. 3. " Every member in good standing is entitled to one vote, and every voter is eligible to any oflSce in the Lodge, except that of Master." Section 36. The exception here made has reference to sub-division 19 of section 8 ; which requires that the Master-elect shall have previ- ously served as Warden. This is the only exception or reserva- tion. In all other respects each and every member is eligible to any oflSce in the Lodge. The Committee conclude their report with the following propositions, which they recommend to the consideration and adoption of the Grand Lodge, viz : 1. That each and every member of a Lodge in good standing is eligible to the office of Master thereof, with the single qualifi- cation that he shall have previously served as Warden. 2. That if such membership be constitutionally and lawfully acquired, he is personally not only under the jurisdiction of his particular Lodge, but of the Grand Lodge under which that Lodge hails, and that it is not necessary that either have terri- torial jurisdiction over the place of his domicile; it is his Masonic and not his actual home which gives this jurisdiction. 3. Eemoval beyond the "jurisdiction" only destroys the right to office after it is filled, and must follow and not precede the election, and the sole fact of non-residence is no bar to an election. P. 212. A Minority Eeport Was Presented. This portion of your Committee believes that a non-resident Master of a Lodge is an anomaly, which should be unknown to Masonry. That it is a like violation of the spirit of the Constitu- tion and of good Masonic policy, that a Mason who is an actual resident of a foreign State should be permitted to be elected to the Mastership and afterward perform the functions of a Master of a Lodge in the State. The Constitution inflicts (section 39, sub-division 3) a penalty on any Master who shall remove out of this jurisdiction, ;inil that penalty is that his office shall become vacant and he be stripped of his powers. Why should this be if it is not the direct intention of the Constitution to declare that Masters of 74 C03IPILATI0X OF DECISION'S OF our Lodges must resitle in this jurisdiction? It cannot be claimed that this glaring anomaly may be presented, that removal from the jurisdiction strips of office, and yet that a Brother who resides out of the jurisdiction, and who never resided in it, can be clothed with the powers of that office. Good sense and sound reason appear, in my judgment, to forbid that any such illogical interpretation shall be put on the fundamental law. In the section referred to, ' ' death ' ' and ' ' removal ' ' have the same effect — ^they vacate the office. Every Master of a, Lodge is eligible to the office of Grand Master, and, hence, to that of Deputy Grand Master. The com- pact which was made at the first union of Lodges in this State subsequently to the troubles of 1S20, and, if I mistake not, in 1S27, was declared to be "a fundamental law of the Grand Lodge never to be disturbed." This compact also declared cer- tain things, which have been embodied in our Constitution in section 93. A perusal of that section will show that when it treats of different sections of the State that it means an actual and not a mere Masonic residence in such portions, on the part of the officials there named. The Grand Master must be chosen " from the city, or within ten miles of the City Hall," and the " Deputy Grand Master shall be chosen from the country," or vice versa. How, then, can a Master of a Lodge who lives in Pennsylvania. Xew Jersey, Iowa, England or China, be eligible to the office of Grand Master, or Deputy Grand Master, on the fiction that he resides in either the city or country sections of this State because he belongs to a Lodge in one of these sec- tions? Yet, says the old charge, every Mason who has acted as the Master of a particular Lodge can be the Grand Master. How stands the matter in this point of view? If you decide that a non-resident Master of a Lodge here is not eligible to the office of Grand or Deputy Grand Master, you make a singular distinc- tion between such and those Masters of Lodges who actually reside in this State. If you decide that a non-resident Master of a Lodge i^' eligible to those offices you clearly, in my humble judgment, violate section 93 in letter as well as in spirit. P. 215 The majority report was adopted by the Grand Lodge. ISiU. Address — Paige, 6. M. P. 25. [The Legislature of the State at its recent session passed an act incorporating the Trustees of this Fimd, a copy of which will be laid before you by the Grand Secretary.] (Above refers to Trustees of Hall and Asylum Fund.) 1. "When a Lodge has approved the Secretary 's miuutes, at the close of its Communication, they cannot at a subsequent meeting order the Secretary to expunge any portion of the correct record, unless it contains something improper to be written. 2. That, in the absence of the Senior Warden, or when he is acting as Master, the Junior Warden does not succeed to his THE GKAXD LODGE OF XEW YORK 73 duties; but the station must be filled by temporary appointment by the Master. 3. That, although a candidate has been initiated, if it is ascertained that he has been previously rejected by another Lodge, his further progress must be stayed until consent to his advancement has been obtained from the Lodge that rejected him. 4. That the rejection of a candidate by a Lodge having no jurisdiction over him at the time of such rejection does not debar the Lodge having jurisdiction from receiving and initiating such candidate. 5. That where a petitioner for the degrees resides within the jurisdiction of the Lodge to which he applies, his subsequent removal to the jurisdiction of another Lodge does not deprive the former Lodge of jurisdiction. 6. That a candidate, who has been initiated and passed in a Lodge under Dispensation, may, after the expiration of such Dispensation, if no warrant is subsequently granted to such Lodge, apply to any lawfully constituted Lodge for the remaining degree, and is not restricted to the Lodge nearest his residence. 7. Members of Lodges not under the jurisdiction of this Grand Lodge, cannot be petitioners for a Dispensation to form a new Lodge in this State without first demitting from their former Lodge. S. A Brother cannot be received as an affiliating member of a Lodge unless he produces a certificate of dismission or shows sufficient cause for its non-production. An inability to procure a dimit from a Lodge iu one of the seceded States, on account of the troubled state of the country, is not sufficient cause for the non-production of such certificate, but rather conclusive evidence that his former membership has not been honorably discharged. The political condition of a State does not affect the Masonic relations of a Brother. 9. The authority to impart the standard work and lectures to a subordinate Lodge alluded to in Section 117 of the Constitution may be conferred by the Grand Master or Grand Lecturer, but must not be given to persons hailing from other jurisdictions, or to impart other than the work and lectures approved liy this Grand Lodge. 10. That it is the duty of the Lodges to adopt and practice the standard work and lectures of this Grand Lodge, and a refusal so to do subjects them to discipline; and while the Grand Master may not deem it advisable to take official cognizance of mere remissness in this regard, yet, where a Lodge already proficient in the standard work substitutes another system there can be no excuse for such defiance of Grand Lodge authority, and it will not be disregarded. 11. A Lodge may refund the dues of an indigent member; but this will not relieve them from the payment of dues for such member to the Grand Lodge. 12. All stated Communications of a Lodge must be opened on the third degree; but special Communications, for work and 7G COMPILATION OF DECISIONS OF instructions only, need not be opened on that degree, unless the work requires it. 13. The Master may, in person, summon the members of the Lodge verbally; but when served by a third person, a summons must be in writing, and signed by the Master; or by the Secre- tary, attested by the seal of the Lodge. 14. It is irregular to call a Lodge from labor to refreshment from one day to another. The Lodge should always be duly closed. 15. The provision of section 22 of the Constitution, prohibiting a Lodge from making more than five new Brethren at ' ' the same time," evidently means at the same Communication, and must be so regarded. I also regard it as improper to pa£s or raise more than that number at the same Communication. 16. That a person made a Mason in a legally constituted Lodge, although in violation of the Constitution or Landmarks of Masonry, is not clandestine, but a regular Mason, and cannot be denied the rights and benefits of the Fraternity. It is the Lodge alone that is at fault, and it alone should be punished. 17. A Brother stricken from the roll for non-payment of dues, upon payment of his arrearages, being free from charges, becomes a non-affiliated Mason in good standing, and is entitled to a certificate to that effect, if he demands it; and he may apply either for restoration to membership in his former Lodge, or affiliation in another, as he chooses. IS. A Fellow-Craft, who possesses all the necessary physical quaUfieations at the time of his initiation, is not necessarily disqualified for the third degree by a dismemberment occurring subsequent to his initiation. The ancient Landmarks define the qualifications necessary ' ' at the time of making, ' ' and not when applying for advancement. 19. Although an unaffiliated Mason has no claim upon the Fraternity for relief or Masonic burial, yet a Lodge may grant either, or both, to those otherwise worthy. It is only unworthy, suspended or expelled Masons that are forbidden these privileges by section 51 of the Constitution. 20. By the terms of all Warrants issued by this Grand Lodge, the members of a Lodge must be duly summoned for the- annual election of officers. 21. The Wardens of a Lodge chartered in June are, at the expiration of their term of office in December following, eligible to the office of Master. 22. Where the Dispensation or Warrant fixes the location of a Lodge in a particular ward or locality in a city, it cannot be removed from that ward or locality, without permission of the Grand Master or Grand Lodge. 23. District Deputy Grand Masters have no jurisdiction, upon petition or memorial, to reverse or set aside a sentence of expul- sion pronounced by a Lodge, after the time of appeal has elapsed. Their judicial powers are limited to cases of appeal, as specified in Subdivision 2 of Section 120 of the Constitution. 24. The power given to District Deputy Grand Masters in THE GRAND LODGE OF NEW YOEK 77 Subdivision 4 of Section 120, to determine and order in what cases a Brother stricken from tlie roll lor non-payment of dues shall be restored without ballot, applies only to eases where there has been manifest irregularity in the original proceedings, or the Brother was illegally stricken from the roll; for if legally stricken from the roll, no po•\^er can restore him to membership except the Lodge. 25. It is the right of a District Deputy Grand Master to visit the Lodges, in his district at any and ,all times, and the duty of Lodges to receive and acknowledge him as such; and a Master refusing to admit him when announced in his official character is subject to discipline. 26. An expelled Mason may be restored to the rights and privileges of Masonry at any time by a majority vote of the Lodge that expelled him, or by the Grand Lodge after one year from sentence; but in neither case can he be restored to Lodge membership, except by petition for affiliation after such restora- tion, and an unanimous ballot thereon, as in the case of any other non-affiliated Mason. In addition to these, I have received many inquiries in regard to the physical qualifications of candidates, and my opinion asked upon every conceivable case of unsoundness, deformity and dismemberment, until it seemed to me that these must be new words in our vocabulary, and their significance vague and uncer- tain. I have in all cases advised a strict construction of the Landmarks as published in our Constitutions, and the rejection of all applicants that did not meet its requirements. P. 136. Committee on Condition of Masonry. "Whether Lodge funds may be appropriated to the purposes of convivial entertainments: We say, as a general rule, they cannot; but the rule may have exceptions and restrictions. The usage of the Craft has been, from time immemorial, to observe the festivities of St. John the Baptist and St. John the Evange- list, either with or without a festal observance. If the By-laws of a Lodge, or its long and unbroken usage, recognize a con- vivial entertainment, the expense of which is defrayed from the Lodge Treasury, on the occasion of such or other festivals, thej form exceptions to the rule. Sesolved: 1. That, as a general rule, a Lodge has no right to appropriate its funds for the purpose of convivial entertain- ments. 2. That a Lodge without the jurisdiction may make a ifasnn of one duly accepted by a Lodge within the juris- diction, upon lawful Masonic information, or finish the work of such Lodge in like manner. 3. That the further establishment or continuance of Military Lodges is expedient on the ground both of right and utility. 78 COMPILATION OF DECISIONS OF 4. That a Mastnr has no right to close his Lodge inclefi- nitely, subject to his call or summons. P. 145. Committee on Jueispeudence. They have considered the following interrogatory : 1. " May a candidate who was bom with a hump upon his back, and who is in other respects eligible, be made a Mason in, a Lodge in this jurisdiction without a violation of the ancient Landmarks? " And for reply thereto would say, that the question implies that there is an ancient Landmark on the subject, and that the interrogator is aware of its existence. It is among the old regu- lations, and its substance is incorporated into our Constitution. No explanations that we could make; no definition that we could give; no illustration that we could employ, would make it more or less distinct or conspicuous. There is the Landmark, and so long as the peculiar features of Masonry shall be preserved, there it will remain forever. The candidate, says Section 8, Subdivision 9, of the Constitu- tion, must not be ' ' deformed or dismembered. ' ' What is de- formity? What is dismemberment? We could no more define deformity than we could describe in words the " hue of beauty." We could no more describe dismemberment than write a treatise upon aU ' ' the ills that flesh is heir to. ' ' Deformity to one might seem ' ' the hue of beauty ' ' to another ; dismemberment, to one eye, would be a blemish; to another, hideousness. We might refer the curious inquirer to the qualifications of the Levitieal priesthood, and he would still be wandering in the mazes of uncertainty. Grand blasters cannot define the limits of deformity or dismemberment, or, by Dispensation, alter one jot or tittle of the Landmark. It must, therefore, be left to the judgment and conscience of every Master and every individual Mason to determine when and how far the qualification is applica- ble. Our only injunction and our only rep'y is, and but can be, " read, ponder, and act upon the old Landmark," and if you have any doitita on the subject, let them prevail against the admission of the candidate. P. 160. Committee on Appeals. Your Committee are of opinion that the report of a Commis- sion, and the record of a Lodge of the proceedings had on charges preferred, are in ilasonic judicatories of a Lodge of like nature and effect as a record of the Judgment of the civil courts is in legal proceedings, and one can no more be contradicted than the other. The record of the conviction of the accused on the charges is, therefore, evidence of the proceedings had thereon, and, not having been disproved, is clearly abundant evidence to prove jurisdiction ia the Commission to try the accused, and in the Lodge to direct his expulsion on the report of the Commission. THE GEAND LODGE OF XEW TOEK 79 P- 162. Committee ox Appeals. Manhattan Lodge referred the charges to a Commission, who proceeded to the trial, and after taking the evidence and hearing the case argued, adjourned for deliberation; and at a subsequent meeting of the Commission, they invited the blaster of Manhattan Lodge to attend them, and give his advice as to certain questions raised on the argument bv the counsel for the accused. The Master attended the Commission, as requested, and, at the same time, the Junior Warden of the Lodge, who had presented and prosecuted the charges, was also present. There was no notice given to the accused of this meeting, nor did he attend at or know of the same till subsequently. The ilaster was then asked and gave his opinion, and a majority of the Commission adjudged the accused guilty of the charges, and the Lodge expelled him from all rights and privileges of Masonry. Tour Committee are of the opinion that the Commission com- mitted a gross error in extending an invitation to the Master of the Lodge to attend them and give his advice as to the question pending before them; that this error was aggravated by the presence, at the same time, of the accuser and prosecuting officer; and that it was an imlawfnl interference with the duties of tho Commission for the Master to give them any counsel, advice, or direction, whatever, on the questions pending before them, and, more especially, when given at a private meeting, without notice to the accused and in his absence. P. 164. Committee ox Jueispeudexce. The Committee were not unanimous in favor of sustaining decision Xo. 4, or decisions Xos. 2i and 25, but in all other respects they are unanimous in their action. They have dissented from the opinion of the Grand Master, in Xo. 14, contained in these worils; " I also regard it as irregular to pass or raise more than that number at the same Communication; ' ' for the following reasons : The Committee find, by a reference to the printed transactions for 1859 Con page 2.56), that this Granil Lodge then decided that " Sec. 22, Title 4, of the Constitutions, declaring that a Lodge has power to make but five new brethren at the same time, only applies to the Entered Apprentice degree. ' ' Tour Committee believes this to be the true construction and that it was the intention of the framers of the Constitution that such should be the rule. The Committee therefore recommend that the last paragraph or all after the word ' ' regarded, ' ' in the fourteenth decision of the M.'. W.'. Grand Master, be not approved by this Grand Lodge. And your Committee also recommend that the words " at the same Communication," in the first paragraph of said decision, shall be construed to mean " on the same day." The Committee find themselves unable to report, at the present so COMPILATION OF DECISIOXS OF Communication, on the subject of objections to aiivancement ol candidates and the po\rers and rights of a Lodge under Dispensa- tion, but must defer action thereon till the next Annual Com- munication, We submit the following resolutions: That the several decisions of the M.'. W.'. Grand Master be, and are hereby approved, except the opinion as to the construc- tion of Section 22 of the Constitution, as to the number of brethren who mar be passed and raised at the same Communica- tion, contained in decision Xo. l-l. That the words " at the same Communication," contained in the first clause of said decision, be construed to mean " on the same <3ay." 1865. Paige, G. il. P. 24. I hare decided — 1. Where the By-Laws of a Lodge authorize a Master, at his discretion, to close the Lodge from May to October, and he has closed it accordingly; any meeting called by him in the interim is a special meeting, at which it would be improper to receive or act upon petitions for initiation or membership. 2. That a Lodge having surrendered its charter, members who have been stricken from the roll for non-payment of dues must pay the amount of their arrearages to the Grand Secretary, and upon his certificate of the facts, any Lodge- may receive such member by affiliation. 3. That the officers of a Lodge can not be stricken from the roll for non-payment of dues during their term of office without violating the provisions of section 39 of the Constitution. 4. That the proper interpretation of section 19 of the Con- stitution is, that in cities a Dispensation may issue to form a new Lodge without the recommendation of all the Lodges whose jurisdiction shall be affected by such Dispensation, for aU such Lodges have concurrent jurisdiction. But it was not in- tended to exempt them from procuring any recommendation what- ever. 5. That a new Lodge may be established in another incorpor- ated village in the same township, without violating section 129 of the Constitution. 6. That an officer to whom charges are preferred is not obliged to appoint commissioners, but may in his discretion dismiss them if, upon their face, they are clearly frivolous, or would not con- stitute an offense if proven. 7. That an expelled Mason cannot testify before a Masonic commission. S. A Master Mason testifying before a Masonic commission cannot be impeached by testimony as to reputation only. Until he is tried and excluded from the Craft, he is entitled to the credit attached to regular standing. 9. That charges against a non-affiliated Mason may be pre- ferred to the Grand Lodge, Grand Master, or the Lodge in whose jurisdiction the accused resides. Each have jurisdiction. THE GEAND LODGE 01 XEW YOEK 81 10. That there is no impropriety in Lodges joining civic pro- cessions, but Masonic clothing and insignia should only be worn when engaged in Masonic duties. 11. That an unfavorable report by the Committee of Investi- gation does not reject a candidate. A ballot is necessary in all eases. 12. That Lodges under Dispensation have no jurisdiction to try charges against the members composing it. Such charges must be presented to the Lodge from which the petitioners hailed at the time of issuing Dispensation, or to the Grand ilaster. 13. Past Grand Officers from other jurisdictions, upon affiliat- ing with a Lodge in this jurisdiction, do not become members of our Grand Lodge. 14. That an Apprentice or Fellow Craft cannot be buried with Masonic honors. 15. That where a candidate has been rejected, and a new Lodge is afterward established having jurisdiction over his place of residence, he must present his petition to the new Lodge, but he cannot be initiated without consent of the Lodge that rejected him. 16. That a dimit is simply the severance of Lodge membership, and is complete when the Brother has paid his indebtedness to the Lodge, and the Lodge has, by resolution, consented to such severance. The act of the Lodge severs the membership, not the issuing of the certificate by the Secretary. The certificate of di- mission is merely evidence of the joint act of the Lodge, and the member by which such membership was terminated, and does not necessarily include a recommendation of a Brother. 17. That a Warden can preside and open a Lodge in the presence of the blaster, at his request, and in the absence of the Master he assumes all duties of that office; and the Master may call upon any Master Mason to preside mi his presence, and under his direction, but the Master is responsible for all that is done, the same as if he were actually presiding in person. 18. That a petition for affiliation may be withdrawn before ballot with consent of the Lodge, but a petition to be made a Mason cannot be withdrawn after reference under any circum- stances. 19. The effect of a rejection upon a new ballot before initia- tion is the same as if the rejection had occurred upon the original lialloting, and the petition cannot be renewed until after the expiration of six months; but when the rejection is upon an application for advancement, it is only for that communication, and the application may be removed whenever and as often as the candidate may think proper. 20. That all discussion as to the merits or demerits of a candi- date are improper, as tending to impair the secrecy of the ballot by disclosing the preferences of the members. 21. An application for affiliation, if rejected, may be renewed in the same Lodge, or presented to another at any time, and as often as it may please the Brother to do so. 82 COMPILATION OF DECISIOXS OF 22. That definite suspension does not exonerate a member from payment of dues during such suspension. P. 195. Committee ox Jubispeubence. Decisions of the il.'. W.'. Grand Master: These are contained in his annual address at the opening of the Grand Lodge, and there numbered from 1 to 22, inclusive. These decisions are approved by the Committee as consistent with the general principles of Masonic law. In Eeference to Special Maiters Seferred to our Committee, p. 196. 1. Can charges be preferred against a Brother for an ofEense committed previous to his initiation? We answer most decidedly in the affirmative. 2. Is it optional in case of a Brother stricken from the rolls for non-payment of dues, whether they require payment, petition, and clear ballot, or like payment, application, and a two-third vote ; It is not. The Lodge cannot require any stricter rule in the ballot or vote than what the regulation of the Grand Lodge pre- scribes, and the Brother is entitled to the benefit of the most liberal provision. 3. Can a Brother, having received the first and second degrees, and afterward losing a leg or other limb, then receive the third degree ? We answer in the affirmative. The physical disqualifications contained in the Landmarks must exist prior to being made a Mason. In the matter of the Worshipful Brother of City Lodge, No. 408, referred to this Committee, the facts are these: A Dispen- sation was issued to establish Architect • Lodge (afterwards Xo. 519), in which the Worshipful Brother was named as First Master. The Lodge was Warranted in June, 1S62. and the Wor- shipful Brother acted as Master till December, 1862, when his successor was chosen. He afterward affiliated with City Lodge, and in December, 1864, he was elected and installed as Master, never having been a Warden, and never having served as Master prior to his election in City Lodge, Xo. 408. The question propounded to us — was he eligible to the office of Master in City Lodge under the provisions of our Constitu- tion? We are reluctantly compelled to come to the conclusion that he was not eligible. . Seiolied, That the decisions of the Grand ilaster, numbered in his annual address from one to twenty-two, are hereby ap-' proved and affirmed as explained by this Committee in this report. THE GKAND LODGE OF NEW YORK 83 1866. I-IoLMES, a. M. p. 19. Of the aumerous decisions which I have been called upon to make, it is necessary that I should report the following only: I. That when a person assumes a name which is not his own for the purpose of deception and with a view to being proposed and' accepted in Masonry and is thus proposed and accepted, he commits an offense against Masonry for which he should be disciplined, if he should have been made before the discovery of his error. If not previously made a Mason, then he should im- mediately become the subject of a new ballot, which the Master must order to be had, on motion or without. II. That a Brother has a right to act as a trial commissioner and join his colleagues in making a report, should he have entered on the trial of a case, though during the trial he should, by being a petitioner for a Lodge U. D., become a member of that Lodge on receiving its warrant. III. That a member of a Lodge U. D. does not, by becoming such member, defeat the warranted Lodge in which his member- ship has become suspended, of jurisdiction over him for Masonic offenses. That he can demand to be admitted into such Lodge as matter of right; that he has a right to be heard orally in his defense before the Lodge, should charges be preferred against him. That he has a right to prefer charges against a member of the warranted Lodge, and to prosecute the same; but that for all other purposes he has no rights in the warranted Lodge. IV. That if a resident rejected candidate should by inad- vertanee or by a concealment of facts be proposed in a Lodge, other than that which rejected him, in less than six months after such rejection, the Lodge in which he has been thus lastly pro- posed must ballot on his application, even though it is known that his receiving the degree after his election would be illegal. A penalty for deceit or concealment should be inflicted. V. That if there should be proposed in a Lodge a resident of a foreign jurisdiction, and that fact should be discovered pre- viously to the report of the Investigating Committee, a ballot is not necessary; the Lodge never having had territorial jurisdic- tion of the candidate, and should cease to exercise control over the material belonging to another State or country as soon as its mistake has been discovered. VI. That after a lapse of six months from the time when a candidate has been rejected, he cannot be initiated in another Lodge without the unanimous consent of all the Brethren pres- ent at a regular communication of the rejecting Lodge. When any Masonic body has the right to vote on the question of the initiation of a candidate into Masonry, or the advancement of a Brother, that vote should be unanimous. The real question in- volved is: " Shall the man be made a Mason? " Not what particular Lodge shall be the portal through which he may pass into the Fraternity. VII. That when a second ballot, after a first favorable one, is demanded on a candidate, the Lodge cannot lay the balloting 84 COMPILATIOX OF DECISIONS OF over, but must proceed forthwith to ballot, if the demand be made at a regular communieation. If the demand be made at a special communioation, the candidate becomes immediately estop- ped and the ballot must be taken at the next regular communica- tion. That the Brother making the demand, may at any time withdraw it pre^-iously to the taking of the ballot. VIII. That when a year has elapsed after a favorable ballot on the question of initiation, and after a demand for a new ballot has been made and laid over, and the candidate had been notified to come forward for initiation, the Lodge has lost all jurisdiction over him, and the candidate can be proposed in a second Lodge and initiated without recourse to the former Lodge. IX. A warranted Lodge rejected a candidate and a year after- ward a Lodge under dispensation was created, and the candidate was found to live nigher to the Lodge TJ. D. than to the war- ranted Lodge; subsequently that Lodge made the candidate, and the Lodge IJ. D. applied to me to make an order that the initia- tion fee be paid over to that Lodge. I decided adversely to the application on the ground that the warranted Lodge had full jurisdiction of the candidate before the Lodge TJ. D. was estab- lished and that such jurisdiction was continuous and unbroken. X. That the power of a Lodge to assess its members is not absolute ; and when objection is made to the assessment, its propriety should be submitted to and approved by some higher power betore the assessment can become binding. If an assess- ment can be made for $1. it can be made for $100 per capita. A Lodge may dissipate its funds and assess its members; or it may le^-y an assessment for a purpose not strictly Masonic. It will be for one of youi committees to regulate this important feature of law. XI. That Lodges U. D. have a right to affiliate ilasons. Our Senior Grand Warden, eminently deserves our thanks for having procured the passage of a bill through the last Legisla- ture, by which individual Lodges are now enabled to hold real estate through Trustees. This, of course, does away with all necessity for Lodges applying for corporate powers. Several Lodges in this State are now holding real estate under such powers; but I suggest that it would be better that all such should cease their corporate existence and take advantage of this enabling act. The reasons for this suggestion must be apparent to every reflecting mind. One strong argument in- its favor is found m the fact, that aU Lodges in any given jurisdiction should stand on the perfect level of equality and the second one is, that no Lodge should have any existence save that which is derived from its warrant. If an incorporated Lodge should offend against the laws of the Fraternity the Grand Lodge might reclaim its warrant and such a Lodge still exist, as a Lodge, under its act of incorporation and the general laws of the State would sustain it, no matter how indefensible its position toward the Grand Lodge might be, so long as it would refrain from any act violative of its corporate existence. THE GRAND LODGE OF NEW TOEK 85 P. 77. Committee on Appeals. On the question of power, your Committee have searched the Constitution in vain, to find any authority in the Grand Master to try and determine the election of a Master, or to depose one installed and in possession. Whatever in ancient days may have been the powers of the Grand Master, they are not now unknown, illimitable, or despotic; but are defined, bounded, and limited by the Constitution, and whatever is not granted to him therein, and is not fairly incident thereto, is not possessed by him, but remains inherent in the Grand Lodge. Such is the plain spirit and language of the Con- stitution. By section 13, ' ' all governmental powers, whether executive, legislative or judicial, not expressly delegated by the Grand Lodge, are inherent in it and reserved to it, as the supreme governing body. ' ' And as if to preclude question as to what powers are conferred on the Grand Master, it is enacted in section 10 that, " all the exeoutive powers of the Grand Lodge, when not in session, are reposed in its Grand Master." And among the express powers of the Grand Master, in section 67, will be found the same language. The Grand Master is not above or beyond the Constitution, nor are his powers in this jurisdiction unrestricted by that instru- ment. So far from it, any one who listened to the obligation taken by the Grand Master this day could not fail to see that he bound himself to " conform to and maintain the Constitution, Laws, Eules, and Eegulations of the Grand Lodge of the State of New York," and, of course, whatever may have been the case before, so long as that obligation has been required of and taken by the Grand Master, it is clearly binding upon him. This has been so since our new Constitution was formed, many years since. The Constitution provides how charges shall be presented against a Master, and how tried; and the expression of this pre- cludes implication that he can be tried in any other way. P. 81. Committee on Jukispbudencb and Conditions of Masonry. We approve of the several decisions of the M.'. W.'. Grand Master reported in his address, excepting that we cannot concur in the conclusion in the sixth question, that the consent required by a rejecting Lodge must be unanimous; for we respectfully differ from the Grand Master in the opinion as to what is the real question involved. In our judgment it is not, shall the man be made a Mason; but, shall we waive our jurisdictional rights over the candidate? Which may be done by a less than unanimous vote. Upon the Lodge to whom the petition was pre- sented, and not to the rejecting Lodge, devolves the responsi- bility of his acceptance in the Fraternity. It would clearly be their positive duty to inform the second Lodge as to the charac- 86 COMPILATION OF DECISIOJ^^S OF ter of the candidate, but the jurisdietional question is one merely arbitrary, and of modern enactment for purposes of convenience. We think, also, that the proposition in the ninth question that a Lodge retains jurisdiction over rejected candidates who live nearer to a Lodge tJ. D., established after the rejection, should be qualified with the remark, which was doubtless intended to have been made, that the consent of the Lodge U. D. must first be obtained. As to the tenth question, we have only to say that this Grand Lodge has more than once affrmed the right of taxation by subordinate Lodges for Masonic purposes. (See Trans. 1859, pp. 29, 256; and 1862, pp. 33, 206.) We think tbat the Grand Lodge of Connecticut err in their conclusion that residents of that State made Masons in regular Lodges out of that jurisdiction to be clandestine. It is not the fact of such making that makes them clandestine, not even when the Lodge has acted improperly; but there must be fault in the candidate also. If his conduct be blameless, we hold that, being made in a regularly constituted Lodge, he must be recognized as regular throughout the world. When a profane, he is not sup- posed to be acquainted with the laws and customs of the Fra- ternity, unless there be proof of knowledge. The Lodge, if it acted improperly in any manner in receiving and acting upon his proposition, may and should be subject to discipline by the proper Grand Lodge — a corrective which the Grand Lodge of New York will never fail to apply in every proper case. To the question as to what is the status of a candidate rejected on his application, and which seems to be made upon the sup- position that an objection once made is an insuperable bar to further progress, "with out being renewed or without further ballot- ing, we would reply, that the candidate may ask for a new ballot at each successive meeting of the Lodge, provided such appli- cation lie over one regular meeting. Discretion wUl, of course, be used to prevent annoyance by repeated ballotings, when it is well known that it will be in vain. The decision made in 1864 (Trans., pp. 25, 185): " that such exception shall be a bar to the further progress of the candidate until withdrawn, ' ' is not at variance with the principles laid down here. It only means that the objection must be renewed whenever application for a new ballot is made, and not that once having been made it re- mains in force although " the Brother so objecting be accidentally taken away, ' ' — to quote the language of the interrogative. The question is submitted whether a Brother is exempted from paying Lodge dues under a By-Law reading as follows: " A Brother who shall have been a faithful member in this Lodge, in good standing for ten years consecutively, shall be a privileged member, entitled to all the benefits of the Lodge by paying Grand Lodge dues only." Such a By-Law was passed in 1852, and repealed in 1860, a Brother having regularly paid his annual dues under it and claiming that it was a contract. This question was passed upon by this Grand Lodge, in 1865, adversely to the right of exemption so claimed, and assuming THE GR^VND LODGE OE NEW VOltK 87 that such By-Law is not a contract any more than any other, and may be repealed at any time in a proper manner. We refer to the report of the very able Committee on Grievances relative to this subject, to be found on pp. 86, 87, of the Trans, of 1865, and to its bearings and conclusions, which wc adopt as our own, although not then adopted by the Grand Lodge. 1867. Holmes, G. M. P. 22. I have decided — I. That a member of a Lodge U, D., if in affiliation with a warranted Lodge, within a reasonable time, and before the By- Laws of the warranted Lodge make the next installment of his dues — after the granting of the warrant to the Lodge U. D. — payable, must notify the warranted Lodge either in writing or orally in person and in open Lodge, of his intention to remain with the Lodge formerly tJ. D., and pay all of his dues up to the time of the granting of the Dispensation, or he becomes liable to be stricken from the roll for the non-payment of dues by the elder Lodge, as prescribed by the laws of that Lodge, or the Constitution. That being thus stricken off the roll he becomes non-affiliated in both Lodges. In view of this decision I recom- mend that a penalty be prescribed by this Grand Lodge, and in- flicted upon Brethren who neglect their duties in this respect. II. That when charges are drawn loosely or without sufficient certainty, and for either of these causes are dismissed by a commission, the accused is not thereby discharged from liability, but new charges may be preferred to the Lodge or to the Grand Officer having jurisdiction, as jurisdiction is defined by sections 54, 60 and 62 of the Constitution. That as to mere clerical errors, or errors in dates, the charges can be amended before the commission on the motion of the complainant, or by action of the commissioners, who may, of their own volition, make the complaint conform to the facts; and if the accused should claim to be surprised by this action, that time be given him for the purpose of preparing his defense as to any newly added matter which he may assert that he was unprepared to meet. III. That no proxy to represent a Lodge in this Grand Body can be appointed by the Master, or conjointly by him and the Wardens of a Lodge, during the recess of the Lofo. 292, on charges against Bro. Henry Zeigel, be, and the same is hereby, so modified, as to reverse the sentence of expulsion inflicted by the Lodge, and adopt that of a suspension for three years, reported by the Commission. 1868. JoHxsox, G. JI. P. 20. A number of Brethren desired to establish a new Lodge in one of our interior counties; they appUed to the nearest Lodge for consent and for the usual certificate. The Lodge thus ap- plied to, at a Communication summoned for the purpose, granted the required consent. At a subsequent Communication, however, a motion was made and adopted to reconsider and withdraw the consent previously given; and when application was made to me for the Dispensation, a protest was also presented by several members of the Lodge against granting it. Much feeling ensued, which induced me to make a personal visit to the locality and THE GRAND LODGE OF NEW YOKK 31 acquaint myself with all the facts in the case, so far as it waa in my power to do so. After a full hearing of all parties, and an inspection of the books of the Lodge, I granted the Dispensa- tion. I thus decided for myself, and now I present for your consideration the question involved, viz.: " Can a Lodge, after having (at a Communication, summoned for the 'purpose) given its consent to the foundation of a new Lodge, revoke that consent at a subsequent Communication?" I withhold my own opinion, in order that there may be no bias, and respectfully ask an expression of the opinion of this Grand Lodge. P. 44. Committee on Jurisprudence and Condition of Masonry. As to the questions contained in the address of the Grand Master: " Can a Lodge, after having (at a Communication summoned for the purpose) given its consent to the foundation of a new Lodge, revoke that consent at a subsequent Com- munication?" Your Committee are not aware of any law governing this question, except such as might be deduced from the usual prac- tice in analogous cases. Thus a Lodge having adopted a By-law in the usual way, could not , by a mere vote, without the legal notice, revoke that law; or a Lodge having on application granted a dimit, could not by merely rescinding the resolution, reinstate the Brother; or the Grand Lodge, having adopted an amendment to its Constitution, could not by a subsequent resolution rescind that amendment, but only in the legal way pointed out in the instrument itself. So it appears to us, that the Lodge by formal vote having given up its lawful jurisdiction over a certain territory, and allowed that jurisdiction to vest in the proposed new Lodge, is not at liberty to revoke that consent at pleasure; or perhaps, to speak more precisely, the Lodge by rescinding its first vote cannot recall a jurisdiction over which it no longer has control. We therefore answer the question, propounded by the Grand Master, in the negative. The Grand Master also presents this question : ' ' Can one or more of the petitioners for a Dispensation, after a war- rant has been granted, separate from the newly warranted Lodge by simply signifying a desire to remain with the old one?" This question, it will be recollected, has reference to section 26 of the Constitution, which declares that " a member may withdraw to assist in forming a new Lodge, and on the granting of its warrant ceases to be a member of his former Lodge. ' ' The practice has been to allow a member to elect whether to remain with the new Lodge, or return to the old one at any time before the new Lodge is duly constituted; but it is deemed most prudent to enforce the law in this respect, as it stands in the Constitution, and it is therefore decided that a member of a Lodge under Dispensation remaining with it until the war- rant is granted thereby becomes permanently affiliated in the 93 COirPILATIOX OF DECISIONS OF new Lodge, and can only withdraw by regular application for a diinit. II. 'SI.'. W.'. Bro. Holmes presents the following question: ' ' When twenty members of a Lodge are charged ' with the commission of a joint offense, the charge being the signing by all of a document claimed to be libelous, can each of the twenty claim a separate trial and a separate and different commission!" Your Committee hold the object of all ^Masonic inquests to be the discovery of truth, that substantial justice be rendered in all cases; and they believe that all unnecessary formalities tend- ing to retard and complicate the administration of justice, are in contravention of the established principles of the Craft. Where, then, as in the case submitted, the act charged is a joint one and measure of guilt (if any) must be precisely the same in every case, and hence the establishment of the facts charged, or the failure to do so, must bear with equal weight for or against each and all of the accused, to require or to admit that on the simple demand of the accused there should be twenty repetitions of the same evidence before twenty different com- missions, is a supposition so extreme as not to be within the limits of a simple inquiry into the truth or falsity of a given and well-defined state of facts. Your Committee are of the opinion that such a claim cannot be allowed. III. E.'. W.'. Bko. Eichshoppee, asks, " Whether it is op- tional with a Lodge to refuse a payment on account of arrears of dues, and strike a member from the roll, after that member has been duly summoned to pay his arrears, not a part thereof, and when a majority of members, duly assembled, deem it proper not to have the provisions of section 49 of the Constitution evaded by such a payment on account?" The right of a subordinate Lodge to assess dues and collect the amount thereof from its members is one not admitting of debate, and from its nature must be left to the decision of the Lodges as between themselves and their members. Every Mason on being admitted a member of a Lodge, agrees to observe its By-laws, one of which, in this jurisdiction at least, always pro- vides for the payment of a certain sum as dues, in return for which the Lodge agrees to afford him the rights and privileges of membership and its Masonic protection. The Grand Lodge recognized this principle by deciding that a Lodge might enforce the payment of dues by a penalty less than that named in the Constitution. That the Grand Lodge has always intended to leave this matter as far as possible within the control of its subordinates is evident from the tenor of section 49. which pro- vides that a member one year in arrears shall be liable to be stricken from the roll, leaving it optional with the Lodges whether the penalty shall be inflicted or not. These premises being true, and to your Committee they do not appear to admit of contro- versy, it seems to be clear that when a member has allowed him- self to fall into arrears, so as to be liable to the penalty of being stricken from the roll, there is no law to compel a Lodge to forfeit its own iliscretion in the matter and accept part payment where THE GRAND LODGE OF NEW YORK 93 it has a right to the whole. ^\'e therefore conclude, that where a member renders himself liable to be stricken from thB roll, a Lodge may exei'cise its own disevotion as to whether it will re- ceive a payment on account or not. IV. W.'. Bko. Kelsey presents the following questions: ' ' After a candidate has been elected for initiation and advance- ment, can a Brother at a subsequent Communication call for a ballot? And if such ballot result in a rejection, does not the candidate stand in the same position as if originally rejected?" We answer both questions in the affii'mative. This Brother further asks: " Alter a candidate has been in- itiated, and a Brother called for a ballot resulting in a rejection, is it not necessary for the Brother to prefer charges against the candidate so initiated, or would it not be competent for the Master to proceed and confer the second and third degrees ? ' ' We answer that there is no obligation resting upon the Brother calling for the ballot to prefer charges, nor is it proper to as- sume that on account of such call he is the depositor of the con- trary ballot. The rule that no Brother can be held responsible • for the manner of his ballot, if he chooses to keep it secret, applies here as well as in the first instance; and as it cannot be lawfully known who deposits the negative ballot, neither can any member be held obliged to prefer charges because such a ballot has been east. It follows, of course, that the Master cannot proceed to confer the remaining degrees until the objec- tion has been lawfully removed. 1868. — P. 47. Committee on Jukispeddbnce. " Is a Brother, who was a Warden of a Lodge U. D., and also Warden of a Lodge from the time it received its warrant until the next annual election, but who has not since held office, eligi- ble for Master?" It is decided that a Warden having served up to the annual election next after the reception of the warrant is eligible to the Jlastership, then or at any further time; and in like manner, a blaster performing similar service in a Lodge becomes a regular Past ilaster. ' ' When permission is asked by one Lodge to initiate a candi- date previously rejected in another, is it necessary to have such permission before the candidate is elected?" It is for the consenting Lodge to decide, when and under v,hat circumstances they will yield jurisdiction over the candi- date. If, therefore, they require him to be accepted before giving consent, that course must be adopted, otherwise not. " A Brother from a Lodge in Wisconsin, fourteen years in arrears to that Lodge, became a petitioner for a new Lodge in this State, without having paid his arrears or taken his dimit from his former Lodge. He is now Junior Warden of a Lodge in this jurisdiction. Do these circumstances affect his standing here; and if so, how?" The Brother having failed to sever his connection with another 94 COMPILATION OF DECISIONS OF jurisdiction, has never lawfully come under this, and is therefore not a member of the Lodge. Two W.'. Brethren present a communication setting forth the names of some thirty persons said to have been initiated in a clandestine Lodge, and asking what relief can be extended to them. We can only recommend that the gentlemen named pocket whatever loss of time and money they may have incurred on account of their supposititious reception into Masonry, and that they petition a regular Lodge in the usual way for initiation. 1868. — P. 162. Committee osr Appeals. Matter of Sills. The judicial power of the Grand Lodge over Lodge and in- dividual Masons is general; and by the 12th section of the Constitution is divided into original and api)ellate jurisdictions, and embraces the enforcement of the duties of Lodges as well as the rights of their members. By virtue of this general power over the subject-matter and the person, this Grand Body' can, in the judgment of your Committee, affirm, reverse, or modify the decision of a subordinate Lodge in any matter arising judi- cially; and where the Lodge has suspended a member, thus con- stitutionally terminating his membership, the Grand Lodge may restore the party to all the rights and privileges of Masonry or only such portion of those privileges as they shall deem best. 1869. James Gibsox, G. M., Address. P. 27. By the Constitution it is required, " that men, to be made Masons, must be at least twenty-one years of age, free born, of good report, hale and sound; not deformed or dismembered, and no woman — no eunuch. ' ' The ancient Gothic Constitution was equally plain, and required him " to be without blemish, and to have the full and proper use of his limbs." By the Holy Law, the qualifications of one for the service of the Temple were written thus: " For whatsoever man he be that hath a blemish, he shall not approach; a blind man, or a lame, or he that hath a flat nose, or anything superfluous; or a man that is broken-footed or broken-handed, or crook-backed, or a dwarf, or that hath a blemish in his eye, or be scurvy, or scabbed. ' ' It thus mattered not how good and proper the man might otherwise be. but for this purpose he could not be accepted, unless thus physically qualified. This strict rule of physical qnaUfieation is not only a Land- mark, but in this jurisdiction has the additional sanction, as we have seen, of a Constitutional enactment. It seems to be supposed, however, that it can be evaded by collusion, fraud, or judicial blindness, or disregarded with im- punity, or dispensed with by vote of a Lodge, or by the edict of the Grand Master. THE GRAKD LODGE OF XE^T TOEK 95 Holding the principles I have stated as the rule and guide to my official action on the question of the external physical qualifications of one seeking to be a Mason, and knowing -noth- ing but the line of duty, and trying to do it myself, and holding all others in authority to the same strict rule, I have, in the particular cases specified in the decisions appended hereto, ex- cluded or stopped the candidates, as soon as reported officially, being disqualified within the rule. To all applications for the dispensing power on this subject I have returned the uniform answer, that the Grand Master, not even the Grand Lodge, can dispense with its requirement. It is a Landmark, and cannot be removed. If the right exists to take it down stone by stone, it may be taken down bodily, and it thus ceases to be a Landmark. To complaints of the removal, or at- tempted removal, of the Landmark by Lodges, I have given prompt attention, and have stopped the attempt at the point where the knowledge of it reached me, and have interdicted the further communication of light in Masonry to initiated candi- dates thus situated, or any light to those not initiated. No ancient Landmark, nor, imleeil, any other rule of law can be maintained in strict force, without there occasionally arising a case of apparent hardship. We should, then, consider whether it is not better to maintain the harmony and universality of Masonry by keeping up our Landmarks, or sacrifice them merely to enable the stranger and profane, the maimed, halt, blind, de- formed, or with something superfluous, to become initiates in our Fraternity. The commandment of the law is : " Thou shalt not remove the Landmark ; ' ' and again : ' ' Eemove not the ancient Landmark thy fathers have set. ' ' Applications have been made to me to remove the Landmark in favor of "an eminently worthy citizen " of "an excellent and highly intelligent man, whom every member of the Lodge desired to admit " ; of "an honored and respected man, ' ' and one of ' ' who, while in the United States Army, and in the service of his country, lost one of his limbs ' ' ; and of many others, the particulars of which it is not necessary to state. I have uni- formly refused to relax the rule, and have inflexibly upheld the ancient Landmark in all its purity and simplicity. My Brethren, we cannot reward merit and honor in civil life, or bravery and valor on the battlefield, by making such civilian or warrior a Mason in violation of our principles. We confer no honor thereby, only stultify ourselves. We may, as citizens, confer the honors in our gift on him who has faithfully served the State or the Nation in its councils or oflSces, or crown the brave defender of his country with loving gifts in life, and erect an imperishable monument to his memory at his death. But there are some things beyond our power to confer; and if the candi- date has become maimed, whether in the civil or military service of his country, or how otherwise. Masonry is one of the gifts that cannot then be conferred on him; and this not on account of his unworthiness, but of our inability. We can no more confer these degrees on him lawfully than we can restore naturally the 96 COMPILATION OF DECISIONS OF limb which he has lost. And the most that we could even attempt toward that restoration, would be to make for him a substitute for the thing lost — a limb of wood or other substance, wliic)i would be no more like a natural limb, one of flesh and blood, and containing the principles of life, than he, if made a Mason, would be like a perfect ashlar in the Masonic temple. Ordinarily, no doubt, a Lodge is the exclusive judge of the worthiness, morally, of the material whereof they will construct their Masonic temple. Of course, there are bounds within which this must be limited; and should a Lodge undertake to work upon material so grossly unworthy, morally, as to create just cause of fear that theii' Masonic temple would fall, through or from such unworthiness, it would, no doubt, become the duty of the Grand Master to interfere, and suspend their work, and of the Grand Lodge to deprive it of its authority. The secrecy of the ballot, on an application for initiation, is a Landmark, and the Constitution also ordains that it " shall be inviolably secret. ' ' This principle should be preserved because it is a Landmark; and it should be respected and obeyed, because the regulation is necessary to preserve the unity ' and welfare of our Institution. There is no of&cer in the Fraternity so high that he can disregard this commandment, and no member, junior or senior, but is entitled to shelter himself, from any questiou on the subject, under the broad privilege of its in- violable secrecy. How can the ballot be secret, if there is any one in the Lodge entitled to know its character"? If the reasons or motives of a Brother in casting a black-ball can be inquired into, then it follows that the like inquisition can be had as to the motives of those casting white balls. And if motives can be inquired for, and a bad one is stated, it logically follows that the Brother who is not actuated by mo- tives satisfactory to others is subject to charges and a trial. Every Brother voting on a petition has a Masonic right to vote as he thinks proper. He ought to vote with a conscience void of oflfense against God or man, but he is not responsible for the act to any human tribunal. When a rejection takes place, the balloting should have been so ' ' inviolably secret ' ' that no one could possibly know how any other voted, or who cast a rejecting ballot. No one has any right to know, or even to inquire. On a ballot being spread, the Brethren are placed under Masonic honor that each will vote secretly, and that each one will bear his share of the burden of the result, be it what it may. If a re- jection is declared, each one voting should stand as one who might have cast the rejecting ballot, and no one should inquire of another as to his vote, or inquire at all, much less go about the Lodge making confusion and strife, and angrily seeking un- lawfully to know by whom the rejecting ballot was east. On the contrary, when a rejection occurs, no Brother ought to take offense. He who proposed the candidate exercised a Masonic right, no stronger than his who rejected the petition. The Brother who recommended the candidate should recollect that the stranger's admission would give offense to a Brother, and THE GEJiND LODGE OE NEW YOKE 97 compel him to either leave the Lodge or fraternally acknowledge one whom he may consider degraded or dishonored, or whom he may despise. What is the applicant to us, my Brethren, that we should have strife on his account'? He is nothing but a stranger, while we, as Father Abraham said to Lot, " be brethren," and I trust will ever cultivate with each other " Brotherly love, the foundation and cap-stone, the cement and glory of our an- cient Fraternity. ' ' The question of the right to Masonic relief, and the extent, and by what authority, if any, it shall be compelled or measured, has been several times presented to me for determination and action, and from various causes has become a subject of great importance to the Fraternity. It is laid down in the teachings of the first degree of Masonry, that brotherly love, relief, and truth are the jsrincipal tenets of a Mason 's profession. The duty of assisting poor and distressed Master Masons, their widows and orphans, is so inflexible a rule of the Institution, that no Lodge of Master Masons can be opened without expressly teaching the dufy to the Brethren. If we look at the Ancient Charges, we will find that, this is no modem fungus; but as far back as our customs can be traced, to ' ' times whereof the memory of man runneth not, ' ' it was well known and taught. But it is equally clear that there was never a time when cer- tain requisites were not well known, and always demanded bcfoi'e extending relief. Thus the applicant must be worthy, must be in distress, and the Lodge or ilason to whom the application was made could not be required, in granting relief, to exceed their ability. If an individual Mason were applied to, he need give no more than he could without injury to himself or his family; and the like rule was applied to the Lodge; it was not, in the measure of relief given, required to exceed its ability, or to give to the injury of the Lodge. In giving relief, it is not only the right of the Lodge, but it is its bounden duty to scrutinize the calls on its bounty, and to husband its resources, not to give lavishly, and for slight causes; nor, on the contraiy, to stint and dole out its charities with miserly hand. But in all its acts of relief, give so as not to impoverish; grant so as not to exhaust the fountain of its liberality, bearing ever in mind the counsel of our ancient Grand Master, that: " There is that scattereth, and yet increaseth; and there is that withholdeth more than is meet." In granting relief, it is incumbent on the Lodge, in justice to itself and to other meritorious claims on its bounty, that it should scrutinize the ease thoroughly, and ascertain the facts; and if the applicant has means of his own sufficient for his neces- sity, the application should be entirely denied; or, if there is any other person or property legally liable for, and able or sufficient to meet the obligation of his support, that should be called for before exhausting the funds of the Lodge. Lodges, therefore, should not yield to such demands in favor of Masons having 98 COMPILATION OF DECISIONS OF wealthy relatives legally and morally liable for their maintenance ; and it is shameful that such applications should be made. The question has been distinctly presented, whether a Lodge could be compelled to contribute to the relief of a distressed Brother. The duty imposed on a Lodge is one of charity and love, and it would seem to be that no superior authority could compel its performance, or prescribe the extent of the relief to be granted. There is a great error prevailing quite generally, that Lodges of Free and Accepted Masons are in some respects beneficial so- cieties, and partake of their duties. Xow this is totally erroneous. Our Lodges are not founded for life, or health, or accident insur- ance purposes, nor for giving relief or funeral benefits. If any one wishes to secure these objects, there are many excellent or- ganizations to which he can resort, and accomplish his object, and be certain of a fixed and determinate sum, without any regard to the will, or the pleasure, or the feeling of the society or organization which he has joined. But Lodges of Free and Accepted ilasons are not of that kind, and do not give, or profess to give, any such privileges or benefits. Their fees for initiation, and their charges for dues, are not based on any calculation of the duration of health, or the liability to disease of the petitioner. These are wholly foreign to the objects of the Fraternity. 1869. — P. 41. Decisions op the Grand Master. Territorial Jurisdiction of Lodges. The territorial jurisdiction of a Lodge extends to a point equi- distant between it and the nearest Lodge in this jurisdiction. Material, or Personal Jurisdiction of Lodges. Material, or personal jurisdiction, is that which is obtained over a resident within its territorial jurisdiction, by a Lodge receiving his petition, the same being in due form, for the degrees of Masonry, or for initiation in the Lodge. This due form is that prescribed by the regulations, and must either contain the answers, over his signature, to the questions specified on page 6S of the printed proceedings of the Grand Lodge for 1S67, or those questions must be thus answered before he can be initiated. And if so not required to be answered, the Lodge and its Master will be subject to discipline for neglecting to comply with what the Grand Lodge has charged on them as " an imperative duty." Jurisdiction thus lawfully obtained is perpetual, if the candi- date is rejected. There is no such thing as the carrying of material for inspec- tion from one symbolic Lodge to another. Being once presented to a Lodge for inspection, it cannot be taken to another for that purpose, without the rejecting Lodge shall consent. THE GRAND LODGE OF NEW YORK 99 The subsequent removal of a eandidate to the jurisdietion of another Lodge, makes no difference with his Masonic condition. He can carry himself where he pleases, but cannot change his status, Masonically, without the consent of the Lodge that origin- ally rejected his application. If, by falsehood or fraud, he subsequently obtains the degrees, he obtains them unlawfully. He should for this offense be sub- ject to discipline, and expelled from the enjoyment of the rights and privileges of a fraternity, whose laws he has abused, and whose hospitality he has violated. One who makes application and answers the questions appended over his own signature, cannot be permitted to stultify himself, and say he did not read what he signed, or did not know that his answers were false. If the latter, he was guilty of falsehood; and if the former, he treated with indifference and contempt the very foundation of his attempted entrance into Masonry. He was required to read and know what he subscribed, and know it w-as true, and is held to a strict accountability for his mis- conduct. The pretended excuse, so far from exculpating, adds to the offense. He cared so little for what he stated to a Lodge, that he did not even take time to know its contents. But a Lodge may waive its right over its rejected or accepted material, and transfer its jurisdiction over it to another Lodge, and give its consent that such other Lodge may act upon the same; and such consent, unless otherwise directed by its By- Laws, *may be given by merely a majority vote, and such vote is taken in the usual manner of voting on business matters. This consent once given and acted on by another Lodge trans- fers jurisdiction; and the latter once lost, is lost forever. And where the consent is not obtained till after the acceptance of the petition and the initiation of the applicant, it has a retrospective effect when obtained, as between the two Lodges, and renders the acceptance and the subsequent proceedings valid; for the subsequent approval was as good as an original consent. Umcorthy Material of Lodges. The Lodges are judges of the moral fitness of the material they will put in their temple; but ought not to put in any unworthy material, and are constitutionally required to make " due in- quiry. ' ' And if they persist in accepting that which is grossly unworthy, after notice, or with knowledge, of its being such, or if the knowledge could with due inquiry have been obtained, their warrants ought to be arrested. P. 42. Initiation Fee. The entire fee received on the initiation of a candidate belongs to the Lodge and Grand Lodge, and nothing is charged for the other degrees; and if they are never conferred by reason of a candidate 's unworthiness, or indolence, or from objection being made to his advancement, or any other cause, he does not thereby become entitled to have any part of the money refunded. 100 COirPILATIOX OF DECISION'S OF P. 43. Of the Ballot — Its Secrecy — And Duty of Brethren in Voting. It is to be inviolably secret; is to be always so spread that no one present will know, .or can know how any other votes. Every member present is to vote; no one can be excused, or ask to be excused, or state reasons for voting or not voting, or state ob- jections to the candidate, or arguments in his favor, or discuss the subject at aU; nor after the result is declared can any debate be had. The subject is closed for six months, at the shortest, by the rejection. In casting a ballot, the Brother should vote con- scientiously; and so also in demanding a ballot, or objecting to an initiation or advancement. But his motives cannot be made the subject of trial or investigation by the Lodge. He is an; swerable for them to no earthly tribunal. P. 43. Demand of a Ballot — Or Objection to the Candidate. One who demands a ballot, or objects to the initiation or ad- vancement of a candidate, having a right to do so, cannot be called on for his reasons. He is not accountable for the act. as it is a lawful one. He votes as he chooses, and his vote stands as the reason for the act, and the like is the rule as to his demand or objection. The Master, or anyone else, cannot require his reason for objecting, or msiking demand, or voting; nor can they be made in open Lodge, or anywhere else. On a candidate pre- senting himself for initiation, and a demand for a ballot being made, a ballot must be had, and the result declared. The ballot- ing 'cannot be held open, or adjourned, or taken " informally," or " collectively," or otherwise than final, or at any other time than when commenced, and must then be finished and the result declared, or a new ballot ordered before it is declared, and an unfavorable ballot cannot be reconsidered then, or at any other time. When a candidate applied for advancement, and, on balloting, his application is rejected, he cannot keep the Craft in con- fusion by constant renewals of the application. But each appU- eation, when made, must lie over to the next regular communica- tion, and if additional rejections are made, a new application may be laid over a longer time in the discretion of the Master. Objection may be made to the initiation or advancement of a candidate at any time before O. B., which has the same effect as an original rejection. If a Brother in good standing is ill, or otherwise physically unable to attend and make objection in person, he may make it in writing over his signature, and cause it to be presented to the Lodge, and it must be noticed on the minutes, and stands as a bar to such advancement. The Lodge is a family — the household of the faithful Brethren — the stranger knocks for admission, and if his entrance will drive out one of the family, he ought not to be allowed to enter. THE GEAXD LODGE OF XE-R' YORK 101 P- 43. Initiation — Eight to, Not Lost iy Mere Delay. A candidate does not lose his right to initiation by mere delay- in presenting himself for the purpose, unless there is a By-Law or regulation of the Lodge limiting the time. P- 44. Masonic Offenses. It is a contempt of the authority of the Grand Master, or of the Lodge, or of the Master, as the case may be, for one sum- moned to stand his trial, or to do a specific legal Masonic act, or to show cause why not done, or to attend and submit to an order, judgment, or decision duly rendered, or to obey an order lawfully made not to obey. One guilty of a contempt may be disciplined for the offense; or, when it arises for not standing trial, or showing cause, the guilty party may be punished therefor, on proof of due service of the order or summons, or the officer or Commission may pro- ceed with the hearing, without the attendance of such party. When it arises in open Lodge it may be punished by a reason- able penalty, not greater than exclusion for the evening, or repri- mand inflicted by the Lodge, by order adopted at the same Com- munication; but such order shall not be a bar to a future trial. When it is for refusal to attend, and submit to a penalty, the party guilty may, by resolution, be declared in contempt, and reasonably punished therefor, or may again be summoned as be- fore. On charges for immorality, unless the offense is one substan- tive in its character, or is a criminal offense, or is made out by one act, the offender must be thrice admonished before he can be put upon trial. One who recommends the petition of another for initiation in a Lodge, knowing that within six months previous he had been duly rejected in the same or in another Lodge, or knowing that the same was presented in violation of Masonic law, or that the candidate was physically or otherwise disqualified, is liable to discipline therefor. Charges — When and How Brawn, and to Whom Presented. Procedure on and Service of. The Masonic code of procedure printed in full in the Appen- dix to the Proceedings of the Grand Lodge in 1859, and to the edition of the Constitution in 1860, contains the rules for pro- ceedings on charges in Masonic courts, subject to alterations, or new or other rules since adopted. When charges are too indefinite, insufficient, or uncertain, they must be reported back to the officer or authority originally ordering their trial, for the purpose of making them more definite and certain. If this objection is not seasonably made by an accused party, it is waived, and if any offense is stated, he may be tried. 103 COMPILATION OF DECISIONS OF There are certain offenses in Masonry that admit of a generaJ charge. One who is an habitual drunkard or liar, or habitually licentious or immoral and has been thrice dealt with as con- stitutionally required, may be generally charged as such, and con- victed and punished accordingly. The charges must be accepted by the Lodge before a Commis- sion can be ordered by the Master. That officer cannot order an entry of the acceptance of charges to be made, unless upon a vote, authorizing it, by the Lodge. P. 44. Summons and Charges. The summons, with a copy of the charges, may be served on the accused, when he resides outside of the State, by mail, ad- dressed to him at his last known place of residence, or by leaving the same at his residence, or last known residence, with some person of suitable age and discretion, or by personal delivery to him. P. 45. Commission, Trial, Decision. Xo one but a Master Mason can be appointed as a Commissioner for trial on charges, even though the accused is only an Entered Apprentice or a Fellow Craft. The Commissioners may be challenged for good cause at any time before obligating a witness on the trial. The right of challenge is not exhausted till a fair and impar- tial Commission is obtained. The right of challenge exists not only in favor of the accused, but also in the Junior Warden. The time and place of trial is to be assigned by the Commis- sion, but must be reasonable as to location, for convenience of parties and witnesses, and as to time, so as to give sufficient notice. The trial cannot be had in open Lodge, as the Master there rules, and the Commission must not be under the control, or even the advice, of the Master. The Commission having, under an order duly made, entered upon the work appointed, being a proper Masonic duty, must exe- cute it, ^nd finish the work unless, for sufficient cause, the proper authority shall discharge the order. The Commission, when appointed by the Grand Master or Dis- trict Deputy Grand ilaster, must report the finding and judgment to the officer appointing it; and when appointed by the Master, to the Lodge, but in the latter case, report a finding, not a judg- ment, only a resolution or recommendation as to the proper judg- ment or sentence. It is presumed that a Commission, when appointed, is competent to hear and determine the case properly, and the Grand Master, or any other officer, has no authority to advise or direct them as to their decision. When one of the Commissioners dies before making a report, his place on the Commission must be filled by the authority that made the original appointment. The proceeding does not abate THE GHAND LODGE OE NEW YORK 103 by such death, but in such case a rehearing may be had if deemed necessary. There must alT\-ays be a quorum of the Commission present during the trial, consisting of not less than a majority of the lYhole number, and a majority of the ^vhole Commission must concur in the report. Thus three is the most convenient number to ajppoint, and two can then act, but both must agree on the report. AVhen a Commission of seven has been iinprovidently appointed the appointing power before the trial has commenced may reduce the number to three and notify again. The decision, including the finding and judgment imposing a penalty of a Commission appointed by the Grand Master or District Deputy Grand Master, does not require any approval of the ofScer appointing the Commission. It is in full force from its signing and its being communicated to that officer and is final unless duly appealed from within six months after notice thereof to the accused. He must be served with new notice in writing, to limit his appeal. There is no necessity of serving a copy on the Lodge of which he is or was a member, but it should be notified of the decision, so that it shall govern itself accord- ingly. The rules of evidence on trial before Masonic judicatories are the same substantially as are in force in the courts of Law in the ■ State. Hearsay evidence, being information derived from some other person, will not be received in Masonic tribunals as evidence of any fact. P. 46. tVitnesses — Hoiv Compelled to Attend — Eoiv Ohligated — When Sworn — TVhen and How to be Examined on a Commission. The attendance of witnesses is to be produced by summons to be issued by any Master or by the Commission. The summons can only be issued for a necessary and material witness, and the ofiicer issuing it must be satisfied of the necessity and mate- riality. "Where the witness resides, or is at a great distance from the place of trial, he may require the party to be obligated, and to state the grounds for the necessity; and if not satisfied he need not issue it. The witness must attend; or if he will not wdthout having good reason for his neglect or refusal, he will be punished for non-attendance. The Commission may put over the trial for absence of such witness. P. 46. Notice and Hearing. Notice and hearing must precede any judicial action. No Lodge officer or Brother should be permanently deprived of any right, power, or privilege by the Grand Master or by any subor- dinate officer without notice and without a hearing. Arrest of the warrant -of a Lodge or of its Communications or suspension of the functions of an officer may be made for cause satisfactory to the Grand Master without any notice or 104 COMPILATION OF DECISIONS OF hearing. But it should be followed by notice and a hearing at as early a day as possible. The Grand Master should give no judicial decision of any question involving the determination of a right or duty as above without notice to and hearing both sides. This rule does not apply to mere questions of work or usage, or executive advice or direction. When a Lodge is duly required to show cause before the Grand Master why its action should not be set aside, and none is shown, the action specified may be set aside if it appears to have been unlawful or irregular. The same rule applies to the official action of a Master. Bight to Belief. In order to be entitled to relief, as a right, the applicant must be a Master Mason in good standing; or if he died such, then liis widow and children, if in distress and worthy, are entitled to relief. If he has property, or relatives legally liable and of pecuniary ability to support him, resort must be had to that source before the right to Lodge charity arises; and when these sources are exhausted the Lodge duty arises. That the extent of the relief, and when it shall be granted, is in the control of the Lodge; and they are not bound to give relief further than their means will permit, with just regard to other calls on their charity. P. 47. Dimit — Bight to, Hon' Obtained. Master Masons in good standing have a right to dimit from a Lodge, and an application :^or such dimit must be made per- sonally, or in writing under signature of the Brother, and in open Lodge; and the Lodge cannot lawfully without any cause and arbitrarily refuse to grant it; if refused without sufficient cause, the action is subject to correction by appeal to the Grand Lodge or Grand JIaster. Entered Apprentices and Fellow Crafts have no right to a dimit. P. 47. Burial — Bights of, and JVho Compelled to Attend, and How. When a Brother dies and is buried Masonically by and at the expense of a Lodge with which he has affiliated, and his remains are subsequently removed to the vicinity of the Lodge by which he was originally made a Mason, a second Masonic burial cannot be demanded of the latter Lodge as a right. In such case the Lodge, at its discretion, may bury the remains with suitable Masonic ceremony. THE GKAND LODGE OF NEW TOllK 105 P. 47. Of Strilcing from Boll — TFlien Lawful or Irregular; Eoiv Cor- rected; WJioi Regularly Done Cannot lie Eesoinded on Appeal, unless Oppressive. The name of an insane Brother, in good standing, when attacked with the disease causing the insanity, or when becoming insane suddenly, cannot be stricken from the roll of the Lodge for non-payment of dues. The Brother is in distress, from loss of reason, and while in that condition cannot be proceeded against for not doing what it requires reason and recollection to do. He is under God 's hand, and his Lodge cannot afflict him. When a Lodge regularly strikes the name of a member from the roll, unless done in a conclusive, tyrannical, or oppressive manner, it cannot be compelled to restore him. Healing, TVhen Sequired — JVhen Applicable — How Done — One Made in a Clandestine Lodge Cannot be ' Accepted in Lodge or Healed. Healing is always required when a candidate has been unlaw- fully made a Mason. A clandestine Mason cannot be healed; such person having un- lawfully sought light cannot be accepted in any Lodge except as a profane; nor then without consent of the Grand Lodge or Grand Master. Healing is Masonically by 0. B. But a new proposition, reference, report, and unanimous consent may and should be required where a Landmark was originally violated, and in extreme cases of wrongful act iu the original making of a regular Lodge. Tl\e Master — Mights, Poicer, and Duties of, and How and When Charged, and for What, and How and When Suspended. The Master controls work in the Lodge; one important por- tion of the work of a Lodge is the inspection of material offered for the building of their Masonic temple. This is therefore subject to his direction, and he may order a second ballot to be spread, or he may refuse. The Lodge can do neither, nor control him on the subject; nor can he voluntarily submit the question to the Lodge. The Master does not follow the order of the Craft as to the work. He cannot open his Lodge to confer degrees other than those of Free and Accepted Masons, or to allow others to confer them. The Master can refuse admission to a Brother during the opening, or while any work is progressing, after it has been com- menced; and he can order consideration of a question to lay over. He is bound, when presiding, 'to be courteous, and yet firm, ruling always with patience and faithfulness. He is ex-officio chairman of all Committees of the Lodge, and may act as such if he chooses. If a Committee will not or do not report season- ably, when directed, he may summon the Committee to assemble 106 COMPILATION OF DECISIONS OF and cleeide and himself report the determination of the majority. He cannot resign or dimit from the Lodge. Charges for official misconduct cannot be presented against him except during his term, or within one year after its expira- tion. But if money came to his hands while Master, belonging to the Lodge, demand thereof may be made by direction of the Lodge after the official year has expired, and he may be disci- plined for not paying it over. In such case, a retention of the money is a continuing offense till restored. Proceedings, Powers, Sights, and Duties of the Lodges. After a Lodge has regularly approved the minutes of a Com- munication, they cannot expunge anything therefrom proper to have been written. When a Lodge is not working the Standard work of the il.'. W.'. Grand Lodge and its attention, or that of the Master, is called to the fact, and it neglects to learn and practice such standard of work, it will be restrained from working any other than the Standard work. ■WTien such Lodge shall subsequently fximish satisfactory evi- dence to the Grand Master that its officers have learned and intend to practice the standard of work and lectures aforesaid, it will be permitted to proceed in such work, and in no other. Sequisites for Dispensation for the Opening of Xew Lodges. There must be a petition substantially in the form described in the Appendix to the proceedings of the Grand Lodge for 1S6^, and it must be subscribed with the signatures of the peti- tioners in their own proper handwriting, and opposite their names their place of residence, the name, number, and location of the Lodge of which they are members; and if unaffiliated, the name, number, and location of the Lodge from which they have been dimited. or to which they last belonged. 2. There must accompany the petition a certificate or other evidence that the petitioners are in good standing, and have paid their dues in the Lodges of which they are members up to the probable date of the Dispensation. 3. If any of the Brethren are unaffiliated, or have been members of Lodges not within this jurisdiction, their dimits must accompany the petition. 4. If any of them were members of an extinct Lodge, or one which has surrendered its warrant, the certificate of the Grand Secretary must be produced that they were in good standing in the Lodge when it became extinct or surrendered its warrant. 5. If any of the petitioners were members of a suspended or expelled Lodge, they must furnish the Grand Master the most ample evidence that they did not participate in the offenses which caused such suspension or expulsion, or must have been restored. 6. The consent of all the Lodges whose jurisdiction wiU be THE GRAND LODGE OF NEW YORK 107 affeeted by the opening of the new Lodge must be presented, in accordance with the Constitution. 7. The certificate of the nearest Lodge to the location pro- posed for the new Lodge that the petitioners are ilaster Masons, and that the persons named in the petition for ilaster and Wardens of the proposed Lodge are in possession of the Standard work and lectures of the il.'. \Y.'. Grand Lodge, and are com- petent to confer the three degrees of Free and Accepted Masons, and impart the lectures, in conformity to the standard afore- said, they having exhibited the same in the presence of said Lodge. Miscellaneous. The two-thirds vote of a Lodge, when required, is to be two- thirds of the members present. The Grand Master should not give his oflicial approval of, or recommend to, the Lodges of the Fraternity the patronage or support of any particular business corporation, though such business might in his opinion be beneficial to the Institution and the Brethren. The Master-elect of a Lodge must be in possession of the Past Master 's degree prior to or at the time of his installation. The time to serve notice on the adverse parties of appeal from the action of the Lodge on a decision of a Commission appointed by the Master is thirty days after notice of the decision, in writing to the accused. In case of appeal, and probable cause existing therefor, the proceedings on the decision, or action appealed from, may be stayed by the Grand Master. Entered Apprentices or Fellow Crafts have no right to travel Masonioally, or visit other Lodges, though open in the degree to which they have attained. But the Master of such Lodge may allow them to enter from courtesy. An Entered Apprentice, though refused advancement in the Lodge, has the right to be present when that degree is being worked, if ho other objection exists. A Fellow Craft from another Grand Lodge jurisdiction, having received a discharge, and depositing the same, and therewith making application for the third degree in a Lodge in this Juris- diction, may be accepted and raised; his discharge may be treated as a reasonable compliance with the 124th Section of our Constitution, and also as satisfying our requirement of the consent of his former Lodge. One who removes into this Jurisdiction from another State must reside one year before he can be made a Mason in a Lodge here, unless consent thereto is given by the proper authority of the Jurisdiction from whence he removed. Where a Lodge has tried and expelled a member, and on appeal the action of the Lodge is reversed and the Brother restored, the Lodge is not bound to pay any part of the expenses of his defense, or of his appeal, unless so ordered by the appellate power. 108 COMPILATION OE DECISIONS OF When the Senior Warden, after Ms election, and before his installation, dies, a Dispensation can be issued to hold a new election. When the Senior Warden has been duly installed and dies, or removed from the State, his station can only be filled by the Master, making a temporary appointment at each Communica- tion, during the remainder of the year, of a Brother to fill the station. A petition for initiation may be withdrawn after it has been presented to the Lodge, and before it has been accepted or referred. 1870. — ^P. 30. Gibson, Grand Master. The question thus raised for decision was conceded by both sides to be of great importance. It was substantially whether a Mason, being duly summoned to appear as a witness before the courts of law of a State, can appear and testify to the truth, when such testimony will disgrace or implicate a Brother Mason or a Brother Mason's wife. This was the sole question raised by the appeal, as there was no evidence given or offered, nor was it charged that the testimnoy given by the appellant before the judge was false. In determining the appeal, it seemed to me that Brother West- lake "s position was one of great difiiculty as to what he should do in order to avoid punishment by the Lodge. He testified to the truth, and they suspended him. What would the Lodge have done if he had testified falsely? Certainly the penalty imposed would not have been less for a higher oifense. He would then have been suspended at least. He was therefore certain of suspension by the Lodge, whichever way he testified, whether falsely or truly. Had he testified falsely, would not the court have punished him by indictment for perjury, and sent him to State prison as- a felon J Should he have refused to answer? The only reason he could have given for 'such refusal would be that his answer would implicate or disgrace a Brother Mason, or a Brother Mason "s wife ; no such excuse would haVe been allowed by the court, and he would have been compelled to answer Had he still refused, his imprisonment for contempt would have followed, and he would have been an inmate of the county jail till he did answer, and make suitable atonement for his misconduct. Masonry inculcates, as a duty on its members, obedience to the civil authority and the laws of the State, and indeed will, in its own tribunals, punish crimes against those laws by suitable Masonic penalties. The appellant, therefore, when giving his evidence was ' ' obedient unto the law, ' ' and did his duty by civil as well as by Masonic jurisprudence. He could not do otherwise with either safety or security. He thus conformed to the Holy Law, as well as to that of man's devising, and it was a gratification to be able to decide that in so doing he did also his Masonic duty. THE GRAND LODGE OF NEW YOEK 109 He had taken an oath in the presence of the Great Master of the Universe, with his hand on the Book of the Holy Law, that he would " testify to the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. ' ' Is there anything in the obligations of a Mason or his duty toward a Brother Mason that forbids, nullifies, or absolves him from the full force of the oath taken? The Grand Master was not and is not aware of anything in those obligations or duties that gives, or professes to give, any such absolution. On the contrary, we are taught distinctly that there is nothing in our obligations that in any wise conflicts with our duties to God, our f ellowmen, or the State. The appellant was therefore bound by his solemn oath to tell the truth on the examination in question. This duty he faith- fully observed, and he could not be punished by any Masonic tribunal for so answering. The question was presented whether an alien could be initiated in one of our Lodges, though he had resided in this State over one year, and was in all other respects duly qualified, except his alienage. My answer was in the affirmative. That in the Fraternity of Masonry alienage was unknown. The question was presented whether a Mason, a member of a Lodge in good standing, dyiug of the disease commonly called delirium tremens, was entitled to Masonic burial. The decision was in the affirmative. Can the Master of a Lodge testify against a Brother, to facts, communicated by the Brother to him in the course of Masonic discipline, or when asking his advice as Master of the Lodge? Pro., pp. 33-34. The answer was in the negative. This is the uniform rule of the church, of the legal, and also of the medical professions, and in each of the above cases is sanctioned by law. The law is founded on the principle that every facility should be given to an erring man to confess his offenses to and take the advice of some one in authority over him, and in whom he places full confidence. There is no one between whom that rela- tion is stronger and more capable of good than between the Master and Brethren. At all events, when the Master has thus received the confessions of a Brother, he should not be allowed to testify to the facts thus obtained before any Masonic tribunal. The 49th Section of the Constitution has provided what may be done by a Lodge for non-payment of dues, and nothing more can be done than is thus authorized. For it is a rule of law, especially in construing powers granted in Constitution, that the specification of a particular penalty, or censure, or manner of punishment for an act, virtually excludes all other penalties and censures, and all other modes of punishment. It is a rule as old as the common law, that " when a statute limits a thing to be done in a particular form, it includes in itself a negative, that it shall not be done otherwise. ' ' This is emphatically so, when the new penalty sought to be imposed is penal in its character. 110 COMPILATION OF DECISIONS OF The offense sought to be punished by those censures was non- payment of dues. The Constitution in Section 49 calls this offense ' ' Arrears for dues. ' ' The offense is the same, and is that of default in paying dues. The only penalty "given by the Constitution is that " arrears for one year's dues shall subject a member to be stricken from the roil " * * * " But no act of CENSURE, suspension, or expulsion, shall be pronounced thereon for non- payment of dues only. ' ' It will thus be seen that the section itself provides, from greater caution, that no other penalty than the one specified shall be inflicted for this offense. It seems to be that though the Constitution says, ' ' no cen- sure shall be imposed, ' ' yet the Lodge may impose disfranchise- ment and deprival of other Masonic rights, such as the right of speech, the right of visit, the right to charity, and, above all, the right of Masonic burial of his remains, if the Brother in arrears dies after having omitted the payment of his dues. If these things are not " censures," what are they? Surely they are not kindnesses or fraternal 'acts. The term ' ' censure ' ' is defined: " Condemning; reproving; reprehending; reprimand- ing; blaming." Now the Constitution, by the use of that term, and it being one favorable to liberality, is to be liberally con- strued, has forbidden any of these punishments being imposed for this offense; and yet By-laws are found containing them, in plain violation of the enactment. The only excuse for these provisions is that a Committee of this body, in ]S(31, with its approval, reported " that a less penalty than striking from the roll might be inflicted by the Lodge for such non-payment." Now, if by that report is meant that any censure can be inflicted therefor, then the decision would authorize a violation of the Constitution, and would itself be void. It is difficult to see what penalty, that was not a " censure," could be imposed by a Lodge. In all the By-laws that have been presented for approval, not one of those less penalties imposed but was a censure, and all of them have been disapproved and held to be of no validity. The only way given in the law whereby a member of a Lodge can be deprived of any Masonic right, privilege, or authority, for ' ' non-payment of dues only, ' ' is the constitutional penalty of striking from the roll, after he has been in arrears for such dues for one year. On being sum- moned to pay his dues, and not complying or excusing his de- fault, he is in arrears, and may be stricken off the roll. P. 42. Decisions or tue Geaxd Master. Powers and Prerogatives of the Grand Master. The Grand Master being satisfied that a profane has obtained one or more of the degrees of the Free and Accepted ilasonry by falsehood or fraud, or in violation, knowingly, of any Consti- THE GEAND LODGE OF NEW YOEK 111 tution or general regulation, or any Landmark, or by other un- lawful act, may forbid his reception in any Lodge, or further light in Masonry being extended to him, and order his trial on charges before a Commission to be appointed by the Grand Master. If an attempt is being made to so obtain the degrees, the Grand Master may restrain all proceedings thereon by the Lodge. P-^3. Besidence of Candidates. One who votes at a particular place conclusively elects that to be his residence. The rules of law as to residence, how obtained and changed, are applicable to jurisdiction of Lodges over candidates. Eesidence of a person once existing in a place, it remains there till a new residence is lawfully obtained in another place. P. 43. Sequisites to Initiation. 1. Before any candidate can be lawfully initiated, it is im- peratively required by the Grand Lodge that he be asked, and answer in writing, over his signature, whether he has ever been rejected, and where he resides, and how long he has resided there, etc. 2. If the candidate has been rejected, he cannot be initiated without the consent, in writing, of the Lodge that rejected him, nor until six months after rejection. 3. If he has not resided in this State one whole year at the time of his application he cannot be initiated without the consent of the proper Masonic authority within whose jurisdiction he last previously resided out of the State. 4. No Lodge can lawfully initiate one who, in addition to residing in the State one year, has not for the last preceding four months resided within its territorial jurisdiction, unless it has obtained the consent in writing of the Lodge within whose jurisdiction he had last previously resided. 5. Nor can a Lodge lawfully initiate one who does not at the time reside within its territorial jurisdiction, unless it has the consent, in writing, of the Lodge within the jurisdiction of which he does reside. P. 44. Territorial Jurisdiction. Jurisdiction of a Lodge over its territory or material is not absolutely forfeited by its suspension; it is only suspended, and while thus situated other Lodges cannot enter upon, and seize, and work such material. The consent required by Grand Lodge regulation for a Lodge here to iuitiat? one residing in the jurisdiction of a Lodge in another State is the consent of the latter Lodge, unless otherwise provided by the regulations of the Grand Lodge under which the consenting Lodge is working. 113 COMPILATIOSr OF DECISIONS OF P. 44. Petition. and Bejection. One who is rejected from a Lodge without having applied, or being proposed without his knowledge or consent, is unlawfully rejected. The rejection is without jurisdiction by the Lodge over its candidate and is void. Such rejection is no bar to the candidate applying to any Lodge having lawful territorial jurisdiction over him for initia- tion, and being initiated without the consent of such rejecting Lodge. The facts, if known by him, should be stated with his petition, or to the Committee of Investigation, or to the Lodge. No Lodge can obtain jvirisdiction over a candidate by his rejection without application by him, or with his knowledge or consent. When a Lodge lawfully obtains jurisdiction over a candidate and rejects his petition, he cannot be initiated in any other Lodge without the consent of the rejecting Lodge. But if he removes into the jurisdiction of another Lodge, then the rejecting Lodge loses its territorial jurisdiction, and neither can initiate him without the other's consent. But the fee, in case of initia- tion, can only be demanded by the Lodge having territorial juris- diction. If the Lodge initiate without the consent of the reject- ing Lodge, it is a violation of the twenty-third section of the Constitution and punishable. Petition is defunct by rejection, and a new one is required for any new action. When one acting on a Committee of Investigation neglects to exercise due scrutiny as to the eligibility and worthiness of a candidate, and reports favorably, and the candidate, was not eligible, or not worthy, such committeeman becomes subject to discipline, and ought to be punished. Where a ilason, having good reason to believe that one is in- eligible or unworthy, recommends him to the Lodge, he becomes liable to discipline, and ought to be punished. P. 44. . Trials. One accused of an offense and tried before a Commission may testify in his own behalf. In such case he must be obligated, and is examined and cross-examined the same as any other witness. He cannot be called as a witness against himself; but if he takes the stand in his own behalf, he waives all privilege that his answer will criminate him. If he refuse to answer any question decided to be competent, the Commission should report him to the officer or Lodge ordering his trial, as guilty of a contempt, and he may be disciplined • for that offense. One of the Commission may be obligated as a witness. The Commission may exclude all other witnesses when a wit- ness is being examined. It may also exclude all spectators, and allow only the prose- THE GEAND LODGE OF NEW YOEK 113 cutor and his counsel, and the accused and his counsel, to be present. The Commission may put over the trial for absence of a necessary witness; or if he is at considerable distance, or his attendance cannot be obtained, his evidence may be taken by order of the Commission, or of the Grand Master, before the Master of any Lodge near his residence, or by a suitable person to be named in the order. "When a Mason is called as a witness, he testifies on his honor as a Mason. "When the evidence of a profane is used, it must be taken down by the Commission in the presence of the parties, and his signature made thereto, and then verified by him before a magistrate or notary. There is generally one convenient who is a Tree and Accepted Mason, and he can attend in presence of the Commission, or an officer can be called upon for that purpose. This verification should be made after his entire exam- ination is finished. When the action of a Commission, or Lodge, on charges is oppressively severe, it will be set aside, or the sentence termi- nated, or the extreme penalty remitted by the appellate power. When, for mere words spoken by an accused Brother, he has been indefinitely suspended, the penalty is too severe, and will be terminated at once, on appeal, and especially should this be so when the appellant has been for several months under sus- pension. A Commission must find on all the issues; that is, determine all the charges. On the coming in of the report of a Commission on charges, the Lodge may recommit the report to the Commission with specific directions to take further evidence, etc. Or the Lodge may reject the report, and order a new hearing generally or on the whole case. After a trial has commenced, on charges, the accuser cannot, without the consent of the accused, withdraw the charges. The accused is, in such case, entitled to have a report from the Commission on the question of his guilt or innocence. One accused, and on trial, may have the evidence of persons as witnesses in his behalf who are not Masons. The prosecution have the like right. Both sides are entitled to have the benefit of their evidence, given by the witnesses under the sanctity of an oath, binding on their consciences, and therefore they are to be sworn by an officer authorized by law to administer oaths, if the witnesses are profane. This verification may be made either before they are exam- ined, or else their deposition, when taken, is to be thus verified, and then read in evidence. P. 45. By-Laws Disapproved. Authorizing the Secretary of a Lodge to issue a dimit to a Brother, on his written request, without a vote of the Lodge. Requiring every candidate on being raised, in the Lodge, to sign the By-laws. 114 COMPILATION OF DECISIOXS OF The candidate may do as he chooses on that subject. If he does not sign, he does not become a member of the Lodge. If he is willing to sign, any member of the Lodge may object, and then he cannot sign. Requiring or allowing sick or funeral benefits to be paid by the Lodge. Lodges do not pay " benefits." They do acts of charity and mercy, but these are duties, not benefits. Suspension for being two years in arrears for dues is not allowed. ' No Mason can be suspended for not paying over Lodge funds without a trial on charges specifying the offense. Pines cannot be imposed ' ' at the discretion of the Lodge. ' ' By-law providing that one entering the Lodge disguised in liquor shall be suspended is void. He must be tried. The Master should order him to retire. One whose term of suspension has expired cannot be kept under suspension an hour longer for the original offense. By-law providing for the handing in of the name of a candi- date for initiation, and report by Committee and a balloting thereon, is void. There must be a petition signed by the candidate, accepted by the Lodge, duly referred to a Committee, regular report, and then the ballot may be spread. The Master controls the balloting. It is part of the work. Lodge cannot require or direct a second ballot, either by resolu- tion or a By-law. By-law providing for a " Lecture Master" to instruct in the work is void. The Lodge has a constitutional " Lecture Master, ' ' and any other is unauthorized. The Master controls all work in the Lodge, and the time and manner thereof, and cannot be superseded in this by any By-law, or rule of order, or vote of the Lodge. P. 46. Assessments. A Lodge may lawfully assess its members equally, by resolu- tion, to pay a sum suflScient to satisfy the amount of its existing lawful indebtedness. This assessment may be collected by summoning all the members to attend at a fixed and reasonable time, and pay the amount assessed. Disobedience to the summons may be punished by charges, and a trial for the offense, and a proper penalty imposed, such as suspension till payment is made, if non-payment is not justified or excused. Such assessment is not what is called in the Constitution " dues." One who does not pay such an assessment cannot be stricken from the roll as for non-payment of dues. The Grand Master, or Grand Lodge, except in some extreme case, will not order such an assessment to be made. The Master of a Lodge has no power to order it to be made. THE GEAND LODGE OF NEW YORK 115 It can be ordered by a majority vote of all the members present and voting at a Stated Communication of the Lodge. It should be ordered only on the vote of a majority of all the members, duly summoned for the purpose of considering the subject. An assessment can only be directed for a lawful Masonic object. The building of a new hall for the Lodge- is not such an object as will justify a compulsory assessment on the members. P. 47. Striking from Moll. It is irregular to strike the name of a member from the roll for alleged arrears of dues without reasonable previous notice to him to pay his dues. Members ought to be summoned regularly to pay dues before striking from the roll for non-payment. Where one, by trick, sharp practice, or without due notice, has been stricken from the roll for non-payment of dues, the action is irregular, being unknown to Masonry, and will be set aside. A member of a Lodge in good standing cannot be deprived of the right to speak and vote, or be voted for, or hold office, or to visit the Lodge, or to Masonic burial if he shall die, unless for other offense than non-payment of dues, so long as his name is not stricken from the roll. The only penalty or censure that can be imposed for such non- payment is to strike his name from the roll. Eligibility to office, etc., is fixed by the Constitution, and can- not be altered by the Lodge. P. 47. Changing Location of Lodge. The location of a Lodge cannot be changed so as to injuriously affect the jurisdiction of an existing Lodge, without the previous consent of such latter Lodge; nor with such consent, without the approval of the Grand Lodge or Grand Master. P. 47. Lodges and Officers. One who is a member of a suspended or expelled Lodge cannot affiliate with another Lodge, unless he was expressly exempted from such suspension or expulsion; and if the Lodge was expelled he cannot without leave of the Grand Master or the Grand Lodge. One who was a member of an extinct Lodge may aifiliate with another Lodge on filing the Grand Secretary 's certificate that he was in good standing in the Lodge when it became extinct, and has paid all indebtedness then owing to said Lodge, by him, to the Grand Secretary. The unlawful making of one a Mason confers no right on him to any further light in Masonry, nor did the Lodge thereby gain any right over him Masonically. One wrongful act cannot be the foundation for a lawful one. Indeed, a wrong-doer must restore what he has got unlawfully before he can receive the 116 COiTPILATION OF DECISIOXS OF same thiBg lawfully. This, on the familiar principle that the law discourages the getting anything by unlawful means. An Organist may be an officer of the Lodge, if so expressly provided in its By-laws. In such case he may be elected or appointed, as shall be provided in the By-laws. Or he may be employed or dismissed by a mere vote of the Lodge, the same as a janitor. The Master can call an emergent Communication of the Lodge, and summon the Brethren to the burial of a Brother's remains, and the members must obey the summons; and any one refiising to attend without good cause is liable to discipline. When one, after initiation, in due time requests advancement in ilasonry in the Lodge, and is refused, he is not therefore entitled to any trial, as upon charges. Those who rejected his application exercised a Masonic right, and he must exercise the virtue of patience and wait, and perhaps the objection may be avoided. Dues accrue from a member during a definite suspension. More than five candidates cannot be passed or raised at the same Communication. A mistake by a voter in casting a black ball, as to the identity of a candidate, cannot be corrected after the balloting has been closed, and the candidate declared duly rejected. Xor can the candidate, on that account, present his petition again any sooner than the period required by law on rejection. He is duly rejected, and the usual consequences must follow. One hailing from the Grand Orient de France cannot be affiliated in any Lodge in this jurisdiction, unless his dimit was granted before the June Communication of the Grand Lodge of 1869. One adjudged under suspension for a definite time, and the time elapsed, becomes by the mere lapse of the time a member of the Lodge in good standing. Lodge-rooms cannot be used by political organizations, the Grand Army of the EepubUc, or by the Orders of Temperance. Membership in Lodge on taking the degrees, or by af&liation, is not obtained till the By-laws are signed, and objection before signing prevents membership. Lodge must record its proceedings in its minutes. It is the duty of a Lodge to grant a certificate to any Brother who has been stricken from its roll, and subsequently pays his dues, in pursuance of the form on page 245, Transactions of 1869. When the Grand Master, or District Deputy Grand Master, officially visits a Lodge, it becomes subject to his authority and direction, on his giving notice to the Master that he is present in the Lodge or ante-room for the purpose of official action or visitation. By its warrant, every Lodge is required to summon all its members to attend the annual election of officers. It is a neglect of duty in a Lodge not to comply with this requirement. THE GRAND LODGE OF NEW YORK 117 Lodges and officers sending Communications to the Grand Master must attest them by the Lodge seal. If they have none, one must be obtained immediately. It must be suitable for the' purpose for which used; that is, to attest easily and securely the action of the Lodge in written or printed instrument. Corporations, or joint-stock associations, or partnerships of Masons, will be interdicted from using any Masonic emblem as a trade-mark. The Craft will be warned against the fraudulent conduct of those using such emblems for business purposes who are not Masons, and those who are Masons must not use them. Annual election held in a Lodge after the constitutional time will be set aside. Where the By-laws of a Lodge do not provide for the election of a Senior Deacon, the Master will appoint. If the By-laws do not provide, an election cannot be ordered by a resolution of a Lodge, not adopted as a By-law. By the Constitution, this can only be done by adopting a By-law so enacting. Committee on Jurisprudence: That it fully and cordially indorses and approves the said decisions, except as otherwise noted, as containing sound princi- ples of Masonic law. That in this conclusion the Committee is unanimous, except as to the fourth decision, respecting additional penalties for Brethren suspended for non-payment of dues. But a majority of the Committee are of opinion that the provisions of the Con- stitution are too plain and explicit to leave a doubt that the conclusions of the Grand Master and the reasoning by which he arrives at them are correct. Exceptions have heretofore been made to the fact that the Committee on Jurisprudence should doubt or criticise the deci- sions of the Grand Master. This is founded upon the principle that the acts of the Grand Master are not subject to review by his Grand Lodge. This position cannot be maintained. That the edicts and decisions of a Grand Master during the recess are the law of the Craft until modified or altered by the Grand Lodge, and should as such com- mand implicit obedience, is true. And his executive acts, as a general rule, should never be disturbed. But in matters of a judicial character, he gives expression to his individual opinion, entitled, certainly, to the highest respect, but the Committee may entertain a different opinion, and the common arbiter must there- fore be found in the collective wisdom or judgment of the Grand Lodge. 1871. — Anthon, Grand Master. P. 32. Decisions. I. The physical qualifications of a candidate are that he must be a man, free born, of lawful age, being neither too young nor too old for the Master's work, hale and sound, not deformed or 118 COMPILATIOX OF DECISIONS OF dismembered. This is a Landmark in which no man or body of men can make change or innovation. If, therefore, a Master of a Lodge cannot be conscientiously satisfied in his own mind, as his own unbiased opinion, that the candidate has in fact these necessary qualifications, he cannot conscientiously, therefore, Masonically initiate, nor can a Brother not so satisfied conscientiously or Masonically vote for or be present at the initiation of such a candidate. The same rule applying to passing and raising when the defect has not arisen since initiation. The Master or Brother cannot in this matter substitute for his own conscience or opinion the conscience or opinion of any other man or body of men; no Dispensation or advice can protect the offender; it can only make sharers in his guilt. II. I have decided the following ease: In 1864 a candidate was proposed in Lodge A and rejected; in 1S66 he applied to Lodge B, which applied to Lodge A for consent, was refused, and notwithstanding, balloted for the can- didate and rejected him. In the early part of 1870 he applied to Lodge C, which, know- ing of the former rejections, asked no consent, but balloted for and rejected him. Subsequently, ha^^ng made further inquiries, Lodge C received a renewed proposition from the candidate in the latter part of 1S70, and asked the consent of Lodge A, which was given. Lodge B now claims jurisdiction, and refuses consent. Held, That Lodge A held jurisdiction till it consented to the initiation by Lodge C, in which, by that consent, jurisdiction became and was, at the date of the opinion, vested. III. What is commonly termed the Past Master's degree, as preliminary to the iastallation of the Master of a Lodge, is not in any sense a degree, nor is the degree knovra under that name in Capitular Masonry, acknowledged in Lodges of the rite of which this is the Grand Lodge. Therefore, in the installation of Masters of our Lodges, no Brother can take any special part by reason of any degree con- ferred in a Chapter. The ceremony intended by the term. Past Master's Degree, is simply the private imposition, in a certain traditionsil form, of an obligation suitable to the mastership by a Past Master by actual election in a Lodge, either in the presence of other actual Masters, or without, if none can be obtained, but in no case either by or in the presence of Brothers only Past Masters by virtue of a Chapter Degree. IV. The question in Ballard's appeal from the decision of the Master of Farmersville Lodge, transferred to me for deci- sion by M.'. W.'. Bkothee Gibsox, was simply this: After favorable report by an examining Committee on applica- tion of a candidate, can the Master refuse to ballot or initiate on the ground that the Lodge has not jurisdiction over the candi- date by reason of non-residence? I decided that he had the right to do so. THE GRAND LODGE OF NEW YOKE 119 P- 170. ' Committee on Appeals. Matter of Fish House Lodge. A complaint against the Lodge was referred by the Grand Master to the District Deputy Grand Master, to report on the same with his opinion. On such report the Grand Master dis- missed the charges and assessed the expenses against each Lodge equally. An appeal was taken on the ground that the Grand Master had no power and that the charges should have been tried by a Commissioner. The Committee hold that the proceeding was regular and au- thorized. Matter of Brunell (p. 171). Defendant did not appear before the Commissioners. The Master appointed counsel to appear for him, who asked for an adjournment, which was denied. The trial proceeded and judg- ment of expulsion recommended and was adopted. Eeld, That a good excuse for defendant not being present ha\'ing been furnished by affidavit, an opportunity should be afforded him to be heard in his defense; also Held, the degree of punishment may have been affected injuriously by the finding of guilt of the matters charged in the complaint. Therefore a new trial was awarded. 1872. — Anthon, Grand Master. P. 141. Committee on Jurisprudence. To the question propounded by Brother Griffin, as to whether a Lodge upon the presentation of charges against one of its members by another member can divest itself of jurisdiction, or delegate the power and duty specifically imposed by Section 60 of the Constitution of the Grand Lodge, to appoint Commis- sioners to try such charges without the assent of the accused, your Committee answer in the negative. The question presented by H. O. Jewett, W.'. M.'., and re- ferred to your Committee, ask whether: ' ' While it is accorded to each Lodge the right to scan and select its own material, is it unmasonie, and a breach of Masonic courtesy, for any Lodge to initiate, pass, or raise a candidate after having been duly advised of the unfitness of said candidate by a sister Lodge, or by Brethren of good standing in a sister Lodge? " Your Committee answer that by the twenty-third section of the Constitution of this Grand body, our Lodges are expressly forbidden from ' ' initiating any person without due inquiry ' ' ; and if, by the terms of the question presented, it is intended to ask whether a Lodge can initiate one who after due inquiry is found to be unworthy, your Committee answer in the negative. 120 COMPILATION OP DECISIONS OF Our Lodges are forbidden expressly to initiate without du& inquiry; of course, it is implied from the new terms of this provision that such initiation shall not take place, if, on such inquiry, the material offered is found unfit for the temple. The Committee are of the opinion that an approval by the Lodge of the report of a Commission on charges can be law- fully made by a majority vote. That only those who vote on the question, one way or the other, can be counted. If one does not actually vote, he cannot be counted. But your Committee are of opinion that every member of the Lodge present, and in good standing, must vote, and that the performance of this duty must be required by the Master. 1873. — Fox, Grand Master. P. 185. Committee on Bevision of Constitution. Proposed Constitution which was adopted. No decision upon questions of Masonic Law appear in this year's proceedings. Pages 285-319. Revised Constitution and Statutes adopted 1873. 1874. — Pox, Grand Master. P. 26. The provisions relating to the penalty for the non-payment of dues, and those in regard to unaffiliation, restoration to member- ship, and dismission, require such modifications as will result in a consistent course of action in accordance with Masonic usage, and at the same time protect the interests of the subordinate bodies, the rights of their members, and those of unaflSliated members as well. The imposition of Lodge dues, admittedly a resource of modern times, is nevertheless a necessity that none will question; aa, without the revenues derived from that source, Lodges could not be properly sustained and their works of charity continued, unless resort was had to the requirement of excessive fees for initiation, which in effect would restrict the privileges of the Pratemity to the wealthy alone, or lead to the indiscriminate admission of members on the payment of an inconsiderable sum, for the sake of the money thus produced — a result that would marferially weaken the institution and tend to destroy its influence, power and dignity. The Grand Lodges on this continent, with scarcely an exception, permit their subordinates to exact from their mem- bers quarterly and annual dues, and to provide a penalty for their non-payment; but this provision is not uniform as to its terms, and while the punishment is light in some jurisdictions, in others the offense involves the most severe punishment known to Masonry. The refusal or neglect to pay dues, when there is ability to discharge the obligation, indicates a want of integrity, and is a clear violation of a solemn compact; and in either case deserves THE GEAND LODGE OF NEW YORK 121 the condemnation of all just men, and ought, In common fairness to the faithful and diligent Craftsmen, to subject the delinquent to a deprivation of certain privileges. My opinion is that the just penalty for the non-payment of Lodge dues should be SUSPEN- SION from all the rights and privileges of Masonry, save that of charity (for that right is derived from a higher than the written law, and, in its application, the Masonic teaching recog- nizes no distinction among Masons). This penalty should only be inflicted in accordance with safeguards established by the Grand Lodge, and should continue until removed by the payment of the amount due at the time of suspension. Kane Lodge (p. 251). Authorized to copy and print the proceedings from 1816 to 1852. Commissioners of Appeals. Matter of Oriental Lodge (p. 251). Retirement of members from Lodge before ballot is spread cannot complain of the Master 's action in spreading the ballot in their absence. The following resolutions adopted: When a vote is taken in a Lodge upon the guilt or innocence of a brother under charges, or upon the measure of his punish- ment, the vote to constitute a majority must be a majority of all the members of the Lodge present when such vote is taken. Matter of Continental Lodge. Grand Lodge trial Commissioners must inflict the penalty. Matter of Jaynes. Under the Constitution and Statutes indefinite suspension is abrogated and unknown, and while it may have been lawful when this sentence was pronounced, yet it is too severe even if the acts complained of justified any punishment. It is practically expul- sion, and entire deprivation of all Masonic rights. 1875.^ Thokne, Gband Master. P. 30 et seq. Decisions of Grand Master. 1. That citizenship is not requisite to Masonic affiliation. 2. That Sections 50 and 51 of the Statutes have reference to candidates for initiation and advancement. A member of a Lodge, or an unaffiliate, has a right to present an application for affiliation to any Lodge recognized as regular by this Grand Lodge, without regard to limitation of time or locality. 3. That it is not necessary, on an application for affiliation, 123 COMPILATION OF DECISIONS OF to require the questions,' provided for in Section 49 of the Stat- utes, to be propounded. 4. That Article XXIII, Section 45, of the Statutes, does not, by its provisions, prevent unaflBliates from afSliating. It is in- tended to prevent the granting of dimits to the individual Brother. 5. That a Master Mason in good standing is at liberty to affiliate with any Lodge in this jurisdiction, without reference to residence, which will accept his application. It is the DUTY of a, Lodge, after receiving notice of a Brother's petition for affiliation in another Lodge, to forward his dimit to that Lodge. That Section 50 of the Grand Lodge Statutes has reference only to jurisdiction over candidates for the degrees of Masonry. 6. That the rejection of an application for affiliation confers no jurisdiction on the Lodge so acting, and it is not necessary for the Secretary of the Lodge to notify other Lodges of the fact. 7. That a Brother who has been dropped from the roll of a Lodge at his own request may be received as an affiliate by any Lodge in this jurisdiction. S. That if an applicant for afSliation has lost his dimit, the Lodge to which he applies must satisfy itself in a reasonable way that no other Lodge has a claim upon him, and it may then receive him in the ordinary way. For any concealment or mis- representation made at the time of application the petitioner may be disciplined. 9. A Brother who has lost his dimit, granted before the adoption of the present Constitution, is entitled to a duplicate dimit, said duplicate to be dated as of the time when originally granted. 10. That where a Brother s name is dropped from the roH of a Lodge at his own request, it is proper that a certificate to that effect should be given the Brother, simply stating the fact. 11. That charges may be preferred in a Lodge against a Brother unaffiiliated from the Lodge for non-payment of dues. 12. That in order to unaffiliate a member for non-payment of dues, a Lodge must 'act under a By-law passed in accordance with the sections of the Constitution and Statutes of Grand Lodge, for that purpose made and provided. 13. A Brother was " stricken from the roll " of Lodge A, in 1856, for non-payment of dues. At the expiration of one year thereafter he became entirely unaflBliated by operation of law. Lodge A lost all claim on him, except for the amount of his indebtedness, and he lost all claims of membership on said Lodge. He might at that time (1S57) have paid his debt, taken a receipt in full, and made application to any Lodge for affilia- tion, without reference to his former relations to Lodge A. What he might have done then, he may do with equal right to-day. It is not necessary for him to apply for restoration in Lodge A before applying for affiliation in any other Loclge. He must pay to Lodge A the amount due at the time he was unaffiliated, take his receipt therefor; he may then make application for member- ship and be affiliated in any Lodge. THE GRAND LODGE OF NEW TOKK 123 While on this subject let me proceed one step further. If the Brother desire to resume his membership in Lodge A, his petition must be treated in every respect as that of any petitioner for afl&liation. The Lodge having collected from him the amount of his debt, must refer his petition to a Committee for investiga- tion; on the reception of the report of that Committee a ballot must be spread; his acceptance "nill depend on the unanimity of the ballot; and Lodge A will be entitled to the affiliation fee pre- scribed by its By-laws. To put an interpretation on Section 46 of the Statutes, incon- sistent Tilth the above view, would be to give the section such retrospective force as would be inequitable, and consequently not within the proper scope of any Constitutional provision. The obligation of the Brother to pay dues was in the nature of a contract with the Lodge; a breach of this contract on the part of the Brother justified the Lodge in inflicting a penalty for its non-performance; that is, striking his name from the roll of members. Now, to give a meaning to any provision of the Grand Lodge Constitution which would, at this late day, disturb 1875. the hitherto settled relations of the Brother with Lodge A, or alter or increase the amount of his indebtedness to Lodge A, hitherto fixed and determined, would be repugnant to every prin- ciple of justice and contrary to every precedent heretofore estab- lished in our Grand Body. But it does not seem that the lan- guage of Section 46 of the Statutes is at all equivocal or doubtful in meaning. It looks entirely to the future. It differs in almost every particular from the former provision on the subject. It permits the infliction of the penalty for two years' dues instead of one; it requires that the Brother shall be summoned to pay his dues thirty days iireiious to the act of the Lodge unaffiliating him; it then provided that " any SUCH unaffiliated Brother may be restored to membership by a majority vote," etc. The plain significance of the section is: that a Brother who, under the present Constitution, shall, at any time after its adoption (June, 1^73), fail to pay two years' dues, may, under certain restrictions, be rendered an unaffiliate, and that " ANY SUCH " unaffiliate may be restored, in the manner and under the condi- tions contained in Section 46 of the Statutes. 14. That where a candidate presented himself for the second degree, anil was stopped by an adverse ballot; afterwards the Brother who demanded the ballot " removed his objection," it was necessary for a clear ballot to be had before the candidate could be advanced. 15. That it is a well-established principle of Masonic law that the individual responsibility, on the acceptance or rejection of a candiilate for ilasonry, cannot be delegated or transferred. A Brother cannot cast a black-ball by proxy. 16. That the blaster of a Lodge has a right to expect that those who are opposed to the advancement of a Brother shall deem it a duty to be present at the Communication of the Lodge and demand a ballot. 17. That a Brother's ballot on a petition for initiation or 124 C0MPILATI02f or DECISIONS OF affiliation, or the motives thereof, must not, under any circum- stances, be questioned. 18. That although a degree in Masonry may be conferred at a special Communication of a Lodge, such a course would be mani- festly improper, unless, at the previous regular Communication the Master shall have signified his intention so to do, and shall have given an opportunity for a ballot to be demanded. 19. That if it has been announced to a profane that his petition for initiation has been accepted in a Lodge, and a new ballot is subsequently spread, by which he is rejected, there is no impropriety in announcing to him the fact and its eflEect. 20. Question. — '■' A candidate was balloted for and declared rejected by the Master. A motion was made for another ballot. It was granted and resulted ' clear ' (none having left the Lodge meantime). Was the action of the Lodge and of the Master legal, or must the candidate be regarded as rejected material?" Answer. — The candidate, having been declared rejected, " no Lodge shall initiate him until the expiration of six months after such rejection " (section 56, Constitution), " and then only on a new petition of the candidate " (section 35, Statutes). The action of the Lodge was illegal and void. 21. That a ballot for initiation may be demanded at any Communication, whether the candidate appears for his degree or not; and it will be effective if adverse, to keep the applicant out of Masonry, until consent shall be given to another Lodge to confer the degrees, or until, after the expiration of six months, a second petition shall be accepted; unless, prior to the demand for a ballot, the applicant shall have been proposed and initiated in another Lodge having concurrent jurisdiction. 22. That when a ballot is demanded on the petition of a can- didate for initiation or advancement, it is not proper to enter on the minutes of a Lodge the name of the Brother making the demand. 23. That if a Brother, in a Masonic trial, is called on to testify as to facts, which have come to his knowledge in his con- fidential relation, as counsel, it would be improper to require him to give evidence against his client. That if the facts, concerning which he is called to testify, came to the knowledge of the Brother before he became coXinsel, or are entirely disconnected from his profession or privileged relations to the accused, there can be no reason why he should be excused from performing a duty incumbent on every Brother, whatever his station in the Praternity. 24. That where but one Commissioner at a Masonic trial is challenged by either party, it is the right and duty of the other Commissioners to try the challenge. 25. That there is no inherent right in the Grand Master to grant a Dispensation to a Lodge to confer a degree at an interval less than that fixed by the Statutes of the Grand Lodge. 26. That it is competent for a Master to refuse to confer a degree upon any candidate, until such time as, in his judgment, it will be wise to do so. THE GRAND LODGE OF NEW YOEK 125 27. That a Masonic tribunal will not interfere to establish the civil rights of Brethren, nor will Masonry allow itself to be made a convenient means through which a yjreditor may collect what is due him from his Masonic debtor. 2S. That where officers of a Lodge were irregularly chosen through inadvertence, their subsequent regular installation, at a stated Communication, without objection, corrected the error. (Decision of 1859 renewed.) 29. That a Lodge must be summoned for the annual election of officers. A ilaster refusing to summon the Lodge for that purpose is liable to discipline, and if the election be held at a meeting to which the members are not summoned, it may be set aside for irregularity. .SO. That the Master has a right, and it is his duty, to exclude from the Lodge, a Brother, who by his perverseness or contumacy, may interfere with the proper working of the Lodge or disturb its harmony. 31. That expulsion, in every case, is from the rights and privileges of Masonry, and carries with it the loss of member- ship in a Lodge. Restoration, by act of a Lodge, or Grand Lodge, is to the forfeited rights of Masonry, but not to mem- bership, which ceased wheh the act of expulsion took effect, and which can only be resumed by regular affiliation. 32. That the provisions of sections 96, 97, and so much of section 100 of the Code of Procedure as ordains that an expelled Brother may be restored to membership by a majority vote of the Lodge from which he was expelled, being in conflict with the provisions of sections 76 and 78 of the Statutes of the Grand Lodge, are void. 33. That a resolution passed in a Lodge, restoring an expelled Brother, has no force beyond the declaration of the Constitution. It restores him to the rights of Masonry, but not to membership in his Lodge. Thereafter he ' ' stands as an unaffiliated Mason, ' ' and may be affiliated only on regular petition and by a unani- mous acceptance. 34. That the fee refeTred to in section 63 of the Statutes of Grand Lodge is for initiation, and unless By-laws prescribe otherwise, the whole amount of the fee is due at the time of initiation. A Brother whose advancement has been stayed by the ballot, cannot, under any law of Masonry, claim a return of the fee or any part thereof. 85. That a Master of a Lodge should be installed after each re-election. 36. That it is irregular to install a Master-elect over a Lodge, previous to his being put in possession of the secrets of the chair. 37. That a member of a Lodge may be installed by proxy in any office of which he has signified his acceptance, except that of Master, in the discretion of the installing officer. An installation by proxy is rendered valid by any subsequent act of the Brother thus installed, which would tend to show his acceptance of the office. 126 COMPILATION OF DECISIOXS OF 3S. That the eeremdiiT of installation must be performed by an actual Master or Past Master of a Lodge. 39. That a Lodge, having be^n illegally opened by a Past Master in the absence of the Master and Wardens, could not transact business of any kind, after either of said oflBcers had entered, without being again and regularly opened. That the contcrring of the third degree in Masonrr. under such circum- stances, was illegal, and that it will be necessary again to confer said degree on the Brothers before they can be acknowledged as regularly made Master Masons. 40. That though the action of a Lodge in spreading a second ballot, the first having been declared adverse, was irregular and rendered the Lodge or its Master subject to discipline, still the candidate having been accepted in a regular Lodge, and initiated therein, is a regularly made Mason, and is entitled to all the rights of an Entered Apprentice. There is nothing " clandestine " in his relations to Masonry or to his Lodge. 41. That a Lodge which rejects a candidate for initiation cannot grant any general release of jurisdiction. It will act only on application of a Lodge which shall have shown its willingness to accept the candidate. 42. That the jurisdiction of a Lodge over a candidate extends to a point half way between it and the nearest Lodge. Such point to be ascertained on an air-line from Lodge to Lodge. 43. A candidate was rejected in Lodge A. He removes to the village occupied by Lodge B. After a constitutional time has elapsed, he applies for initiation in Lodge C. situated at a dis- tance from his home. Held, that Lodge C must obtain consent from Lodges .\ and B before said Lodge C may initiate the candidate. 44. That where a candidate for initiation and advancement is balloted for and accepted by a Lodge and afterwards petitions for initiation, is balloted for and accepted in another Lodge hav- ing concurrent jurisdiction, he may elect to be initiated in either Lodge. But, if a ballot is afterwards called for and the candi- date is rejected in either Lodge before his initiation in the other, he is thereby estopped, and the Lodge rejecting him ob- tains jurisdiction. 45. The removal of a Lodge " within its jurisdiction " is an impossibility, except in the case specially provided for in the Statute of Grand Lodge; for as soon as a Lodge has legally re- moved its place of meeting from one village to another, its jurisdictional limits are altered. 46. ' ' Does a candidate rejected in a Lodge, and afterwards released from its jurisdiction, come under the jurisdiction of the next nearest Lodge, or is he at liberty to send in his petition to any Lodge he chooses ? " ' The submission of the above question for my decision, re- vealed to me the existence of such a vague comprehension of the rules affecting Lodge jurisdiction, that in my reply. I found it necessary to discuss the subject more at length than would ordi- THE GRAND LODGE OF NEW YOKE 127 narily be requisite in answering communications with reference to interpretation of Masonic Law. The subjbct of jurisdiction of Lodges over candidates involves the consideration of two questions: I. "What gives a Lodge jurisdiction over a candidate? II. How may a Lodge, not having original jurisdiction over a candidate, obtain jurisdiction? In the examination of the first question we are to be guided by the provisions of article XIII, section 56 of the Constitution, and of article XXV, sections 50 and 51 of the Statutes of Grand Lodge. The meaning of article XIII, section 56 (Constitution), is too well understood to need comment here. Take it in connection with the two sections of the Statutes referred to, and we deter- mine the method of obtaining jurisdiction at the outset. We find that the candidates must : First. — Beside within the territorial jurisdiction of the Lodge which accepts him. (See section 50, Statutes.) Si-condly. — He must have resided within that territory a certain length of time. (See section 51, Statutes.) Thirdly. — He must satisfy the Lodge to which he applies that he has not been previously rejected. (See section 56, Constitu- tion.) These three requirements determine the jurisdiction of a Lodge over candidates in the first instance. In reference to the second question, namely: How may a Lodge not having original jurisdiction over a candidate, obtain jurisdiction? The Constitution and Statutes point out but one tcaii. and that is, by receiving permission from the Lodge having jurisdiction at the time the candidate's application is made. Here, let it be observed, that a Lodge can relinquish its juris- diction over a rejected candidate in either of two cases : First. — Where, having original jurisdiction, it rejects him, and then grants permission to another Lodge, making application therefor, to initiate and advance him. Second. — Where, having once rejected a candidate, the Lodge afterwards elects him, and he then petitions another Lodge hav- ing concurrent jurisdiction, is accepted, and decides to take his degrees in the second Lodge. In this case, the jurisdiction is lost by force of law. The conclusion of the whole matter seems clear : That a candidate rejected in a Lodge having territorial jurisdiction over him at the time of rejection, remains under the jurisdiction of that Lodge, until consent is given to some other Lodge, which has accepted his petition, to confer the degrees of Masonry upon him. This consent may be given to any Lodge, on applica- tion, without regard to locality. The rejection of a candidate in a Lodge does not bar the right of another Lodge to receive his petition and to spread a ballot thereon: it simply qualifies and limits the right to confer the degrees of Jlasonry upon him, until consent is obtained. In this connection, it might be well to add that the rejection of a candidate by a Lodge not having 128 . COMPILATION OF DECISIONS OF jurisdiction over him at the time of his application will not operate to prevent another Lodge from accepting him and mak- ing him a Mason. 47. That " Masonic burial " (in section 42 of the Statutes), has particular reference to the performance of the services and ceremonies over a deceased Brother. 48. Although there is nothing mandatory in the laws or Land- marks against the use of Masonic lodge-room by other associations not Masonic; still correct Masonic sentiment teaches that a lodge-room, under the control of a Masonic Lodge, and dedicated to the purposes of Masonry, should not be let or used for other than Masonic purposes. Only under extraordinary circumstances should this rule admit of an exception, and then the conscience of the Brethren must determine for them the propriety of a de- parture from the well-approved custom. 49. That the issues in a trial having once been finally de- termined upon the merits, a Lodge may not proceed to a new trial upon the same charges and specifications. 50. Where a Lodge passed a By-law, which prescribed that ' ' a Brother, who shall have been a faithful member of his Lodge in good standing for ten years consecutively, shall be a privileged member, entitled to all benefits of the Lodge, by paying Grand Lodge dues only, ' ' and a member of the Lodge had complied with all provisions of said law, after which the Lodge rescinded the By-law. Held that the Brother could not be compelled to pay dues to his Lodge, other than Grand Lodge dues. 51. That there is no provision in the Constitution or Statutes, under which a Lodge can claim jurisdiction over material passed and raised in said Lodge at the request of another Lodge, but the Brother is to be considered a member of the Lodge which received his petition and initiated him. 52. That honorary membership in a Lodge depends entirely upon active membership in some other Lodge. It carries with it no lights or privileges in the Lodge wherein it is conferred, and imposes no duties. If the honorary member gives up his acti^■e membership, he is subject to the disabilities of an un- affiliate. His honorary membership is virtually held in abeyance until he is again affiliated. 53. That a Committee, appointed in pursuance of the 52d section of the Statutes of the Grand Lodge, must make a report, in terms " favorable " or " unfavorable," before a ballot shall be spread on the application of a candidate. The nature of the report, whether favorable or unfavorable, should be placed on the minutes. 54. That the decision and sentence of a Lodge in the trial of a Brother, on charges, is always subject to appeal, and if the appellate officer, or commission or body reverses the decision or sentence, the Brother 's status is as if the decision of the lower tribunal lad not been rendered, 55. A Lodge may not reverse its own action after sentence has been pronounced, and while the accused is undergoing punishment, so as to prejudice his standing or rights. THE GKAXD LODGE OF NEW YORK 129 56. That a Lodge, having sentenced a Brother to be repri- manilod for a Masonic offense, has exhausted its right to punish for that offense. The subject may not be judicially reviewed or reconsidered by the Lodge. Only on . appeal may the action of the Lodge be reversed or set aside. .57. That, where tlie Commissioners, after the trial of a Brother charged with a Masonic offense, reported the accused guilty and recommended his expulsion, and an amendment was offered to change the penalty to suspension, it was the duty uf the blaster to take the vote of the Lodge on the greater penalty first. •jS. The confession of a Brother of a Masonic crime, accom- panied by a plea for mercy, does not in anywise entitle him to a milder punishment than the offense demands. In dealing with the offense, and determining the penalty, two things must be kept in view : 1. Charity for the Brother who confesses a fault ; 2. Duty to the Lodge and the Craft in general. 39. That the physical qualifications of a candidate for Masonry cannot be determined by the Grand JIaster. The Grand Master cannot issue a Dispensation allowing a Lodge to disobey a Land- mark of Masonry. Whether a candidate is such " a hale man, sound, not deformed or dismembered, ' ' as the Landmarks of Masonry prescribe to be eligible material for the temple, is a question that must be settled by the conscientious judgment of the Master, and each Brother of the Lodge. If the Master of a Lodge is not satisfied after thoroughly and scrupulously consider- ing the matter, that the candidate is such a man, it will be his duty to reject him. 60. That it is entirely improper, except by way of appeal, for a Brother of a Lodge to criticise the action of his Master, or to seek to obtain from higher authority a reversal of a Mas- ter 's action, without giving notice to the Master of his intention so to do, and either furnishing the Master with a copy of his communication to the reviewing officer, or sending the questions, concerning which he seeks an opinion, through the hands of the Master; in this way giving him notice that his ruling is called in question. 61. That there is no law in ilasonry, or reason for a law, which will prevent a Lodge from reconsidering an action im- properly or unadvisedly taken. The right to reconsider a mo- tion, ho^vever, must depend on its nature and the facts of the case. 62. That the refusal of a Lodge to donate to a Brother his dues on one occasion will not prevent the body from granting the same relief at another and subsequent time. A resolution donating money to a Brother to pay his dues, having been adopted by a Lodge, cannot be, subsequently reconsidered and negatived. 6.'?. That an officer of a Lodge, against whom charges are preferred, continues to hold his office, until, after due Masonic trial, a penalty has been decreed ; and it will depend on the dura- tion of the penalty whether he may at any time resume his offieial functions. It is in the power of the Grand Master, if. 130 COMPILATION or DECISIONS OF on a presentation of charges, he shall deem it advisable for the interests of the Craft to suspend such officer until the issues shall have been determined. 64. That the provisions of the Constitution of the Grand Lodge, adopted in June, 1873, have no retrospective or retro- active effect, either to lessen or increase punishment inflicted before its adoption. It will be necessary toi a Lodge to act on the question of restoration, before a Brother, heretofore in- definitely suspended, can resume his good standing among Ma- sons; provided the Brother shall not be restored by the Grand Lodge. 65. That the JIaster of a Lodge was justified in suspending a Tiler, who was temporarily unfitted for the performance of the functions of his office by intoxication. It does not matter that the Tiler was elected under the By-laws of the Lodge. The Master's obligations to the Craft approved the exercise of a very necessary prerogative. 66. That the Master of a Lodge has a right to one vote on any question brought before his Lodge. He may vote in the original count, or to determine a tie vote, but may not exercise the privilege in both instances on the same question. 1875. — P. 231. Committee ox Condition op Masonry. M.'. "W.'. John L. Lewis, from the Committee on Condition of Masonry, presented the following report, which was adopted, except that portion which dissents from decisions Nos. 10, 18, 25 and 37 contained in the address of the Grand Master, which portion of the report was rejected, and the said decisions were sustained : To the Grand Lodge of the State of New Torlc: The undersigned, the Standing Committee on the Condition of Masonry, having had assigned to it by special resolution, the de- cision of the M.". W.'. Grand Master, on various questions of Masonic law, as set forth in his annual address, respectfully re- port : That the Committee has carefully discharged the duty so devolved upon it, and fully considered the decisions numbered from 1 to 66. That it has unanimously arrived at the conclusion, that they should be approved and affirmed as reported, except those num- bered Nos. 10, 11, 16, 17, 18, 19, 25, 34, 37, 46, 49, 50, 53, 57 (in all fourteen), four of which are disagreed to by the Commit- tee, and the others modified or explained. As explained by the Grand Master in his address, many of these decisions are of elementary questions rendered necessary by the provision of the new Constitution and Statutes repealing all past regulations, and have long been recognized as correct principles of Masonic law, and our thanks are eminently due to the Grand Master for his clear, concise and emphatic restatement, and enunciation of them. In making a note of decisions, it is extremely difficult so to THE GRAND LODGE OF NEW yOKK 131 state them as to make them at once clear and concise, and for this reason it is not impossible that we may not have fully appre- hended them. We have annexed resolutions expressive of our conclusions upon these decisions. Nos. 10, 18, 25 and 37 have not been approved by the Com- mittee. We propose to amend decision 11, so that it shall read: ' ' 11. That charges may be preferred in a Lodge against a Brother who has been declared unaffiliated by reason of non- payment of dues." Other decisions are proposed to be amended by the Com- mittee as follows: ' ' 16. That the Master of a Lodge has a right to expect, and it shall be the duty of those who are opposed to the advancement of a Brother, to be present at the Communication of the Lodge and demand a ballot." " 17. Amend by adding at the end thereof, ' except in the case provided in section 65 of the Statutes. ' ' ' " 19. Amend by adding at the end thereof, ' provided it be by the ilaster or Secretary only. ' ' ' ' ' .34. Amend by striking out the words, ' and unless the By-laws prescribe otherwise. ' ' ' " 49. Amend by adding at the end, ' unless a new trial be granted upon appeal.' " With decision 46, we had more diffi- culty. While the rules of law are correctly laid down, yet in the conclusion of the whole matter we cannot fully concur, and think it should be modified, and certainly cannot concur in the conclusion expressed in the sentence : ' ' This consent may be given to any Lodge upon application, without regard to locality, ' ' for which we propose to substitute other words, so that it shall thus read : ' ' This consent may be given to any Lodge in whose jurisdiction such candidate resides at the time of such applica- tion. The case is as if it stood thus: A Brother applies in Buffalo and is rejected, and by the rejection the Buffalo Lodge acquires jurisdiction over him. He subsequently removed to Rochester and a Lodge then acquired territorial jurisdiction over him, which would be absolute, but for his previous rejection in Buffalo. Xow we do not think that the Brother could go to Auburn and apply, and be accepted and initiated there with the consent of the Buffalo Lodge, but must apply, and with the requisite consent be received at Rochester. In other words, Buf- falo only releases its right of jurisdiction, and cannot transfer it to any other locality. ' ' Decision 50 we think should be understood, with the qualifica- tion, that it only applies to regular annual dues, and not to other extraordinary assessments for JIasonic purposes. Decision 5.3 should be amended by striking out the last sen- tence, requiring the nature of the report to be entered on the minutes. Xeitlier the Constitution or Statutes require such regulation, and we do not deem it e.xpedient that it should be established. 132 COMPILATIOX OF DECISIONS OF Decisions 55 and 56 will be best understood by reading them together, with the nord ' ' therefor ' ' between them. The principles contained in the matters refer to the Commit- tee, by request of the Commission of Appeals, will be found embraced in the decisions of the Grand Master above approved. The matter in the communication from North Star Lodge, No. 107, is a question of fact as to the residence of a candidate and must be determined by that Lodge for itself. To the question: " Has an honorary member of a Lodge the right to visit said Lodge when a member of it objects thereto?" the answer is in the negative. An honorary member is only on the same footing as other visitors in good standing. We propose to amend the second subdivision of rule XII by striking out the words, " the condition of Masonry within the jurisdiction," and inserting the words, "Masonic jurispru- dence, ' ' and inserting the words, ' ' Masonic law, and to, ' ' so that the subdivision shall read : "2. A Committee on Masonic Jurisprudence to consist of seven members. To .this Committee shall be referred all domestic correspondence requiring action, and questions relative to Masonic law, and to the usages, privileges and customs of the Fraternity. ' ' We submit the following resolutions: 1. He solved, That the several decisions of the Grand Master, reported in his annual address, be approved and affirmed, except ^ as herein stated. 2. Eesoh-ed, That decisions 10, 18, 25 and 37 be not approved. 3. Sesolved, That decisions 11, 16, 17, 19, 34, 46, 49, 50, 53, 55, 56 and 57 be approved as modified in this report. 4. Sesolved, That an honorary member of a Lodge has not the right to visit said Lodge when a member of it objects thereto. 5. Sesolved, That rule XII of this Grand Lodge be amended as recommended in the above report. 1875. — P. 237. Commissioner ox Appeals. The Commission of a Lodge clearly erred in depriving the ac- cused of the benefit of counsel, on the ground that the counsel was a non-affiliated Mason, yet in view of the aggravated char- acter of the offense committed, and his proceeding with the trial, the Commission of Appeals believed that the judgment of the Lodge should be affirmed. 1876. — Elwood E. Thornb, Grand JIastee. Decisions (p. 29). I. A Brother who received a dimit under the " old Consti- tution," an3 now wishes to join a Lodge, may be proposed in the way provided in section 52 of the Statutes. If rejected, he may immediately apply to the same Lodge. Every time the ap- plication is made it must be referred to a committee for investi- gation under said section. II. As the election or rejection of an application for affilia- THE GliAXD LODGE OF NEW YOEK 133 tion does not give a Lodge control over the applicant, he may withdraw his application after it has been presented, referred to and reported on by the Committee. III. When a member of a Lodge has been summoned, under a By-law enacted in accordance with article XXIV, section 46 of the Statutes, to pay his dues, he must, to avoid unaflfiliation, tender the whole amount of his indebtedness. IV. A Brother unaffiliated for non-payment of dues, under the present Constitution, has a right to visit for one year from the date of his unaffiliation. His dues continue to accrue against him after such unaffiliation. He may be reinstated by a ma- jority vote at any time, on payment of the amount charged against him on the books of the Lodge, under a By-law framed in accordance with section 46 of the Statutes. V. A Lodge may levy an assessment only on extraordinary occasions, and when levied it is not (so have been the decisions) to be regarded as dues. A failure to pay such assessment, is a failure to perform a Masonic duty, punishable on charges and by trial. VI. An amendment was offered to the By-laws of a Lodge. Under those By-laws, it was " offered in writing, read before the Lodge and laid over two weeks, and the members notitied of the pendency of the amendment. ' ' At the Communication to which it was laid over, it is properly before the Lodge for action. At the subsequent meeting it may be thoroughly dis- cussed and modified in any particular, not in conflict with the general intent of the notice previously given. For instance, if an alteration of the By-laws of a Lodge is proposed, fixing the dues at a certain amount, it is competent for the Brethren on the night when action is to' be taken (under the provisions above stated) to reduce or increase the amount named in the original amendment, without further delay or notice to the Brethren. It is a fair presumption that ' ' opportunity for reflection ' ' Avas afforded in the first instance and that the Brethren having had notice of the proposed change have studied the subject in all its bearings, and are prepared, when they come to act on the pro- posed amendment, to discuss: Firstly. — ^Whether an alteration of the law should be made; and. Secondly. — The best change to make, and to settle the matter then and there. VII. When the balloting on a petition has been commenced, it must be completed and the result thereof declared (see section 58 of the Statutes). The action of the Master of a Lodge in postponing the balloting — having once been commenced, in such a case — to a subsequent Communication was a grievous error, and would subject him to discipline. VIII. A demand for a ballot may be made at any time, but after a candidate has received the first degree, an adverse ballot will defer his advancement only until a subsequent Communication of the Lodge, when he may present himself, and after a clear ballot, may be advanced. 134 COMPILATION OF DECISIONS OF IX. If the ilaster of a Lodge has begun the work of confer- ring a degree and a Brother has reason to object to the initia- tion or advancement of the candidate, his proper course is to state to the Master that he has an objection, and it wiU rest with the Master whether he will proceed or not. X. The motive of casting a ballot will not alter the effect of a rejection of a candidate, but if a Brother discloses the ballot he has cast he may be disciplined therefor (see section 65 of the Statutes). XI. Although there is no positive enactment limiting the Master 's authority over the declaration of the ballot, I am strongly of opinion that no Master who ia faithful to his obliga- tions will allow a ballot to be destroyed more than once without declaring the result. XII. Section 73 of the Statutes, directing that charges for official misconduct against a Master shall be made during his term of office, or within one year thereafter, does not prevent a Lodge from trying and punishing a Brother for so grave an offense as the embezzlement of its funds, while holding the office of Master, on discovery of the crime. XIII. Xo action a Lodge may take can bar the right of a Brother to appeal to the Grand Master or Grand Lodge. A sen- tence of reprimand should fix the time of execution at a date sufficiently remote to enable the accused to serve notice of appeal and to obtain, if possible, a stay of proceedings. XIV. Question. If the majority of members of a Lodge are implicated in a Masonic offense, how can they be proceeded against, and can any Mason except a member of the Lodge so offending, prefer charges? Answer. — Charges may be preferred in such a case, by any Brother, and if by a member of the Lodge, and the Master be implicated, the District Deputy will appoint a commission of Masters and Past Masters, in the case of the Master, and of members of the Lodge, in case of the other offending Brothers. If a majority of the members are charged, still let the complaint against them be preierred, tried, and if justice be trifled with, the Grand Master or Grand Lodge will remedy the wrong, on ap- peal. In such a case the Grand Master would, perhaps, con- sider it his duty to suspend the -warrant until the meeting of the Grand Lodge. XV. If a Grand Lodge restore an expelled Brother to the rights and privileges of Masonry, the action will be recognized as conclusive, wherever such Grand Lodge may have affiliation or correspondence. A Grand Lodge will not restore a Brother expelled from the rights of Masonry in another jurisdiction. XVI. A Master of a Lodge, or any member thereof, is liable to Masonic discipline for the violation of any moral law, or for an offense deemed criminal by the law of the land. XVII. If a Lodge refuses to receive charges against a mem- ber, an appeal will lie to the Grand Master, who may order the Lodge to reeei%'e the complaint and refer it for trial. XVIII. An expelled Mason is Masonically dead. When re- THE GRAND LODGE OF NEW YORK 135 stored, it is to Masonic life. He has no more to do with the Lodge from which he was expelled than with any other Lodge after restoration. To affiliate, h'e must make application in the regular form for that purpose and may apply to any Lodge. XIX. A ifasou may be punished for offenses committed either against the Craft or against society, and during the period of punishment he is deprived of all his Masonic rights and privi- leges, but his obligations, once assumed, cannot be thrown aside. It is in this way that the expression " once a 'Mason always a Mason " is to be understood. XX. The duty of a member of a Committee appointed to in- vestigate the fitness of a candidate for Masonry does not require him to ascertain the special religious views of a candidate. If a profane is desirous of entering our Institution it is sufficient if he comes a worthy man, well qualified intellectually, morally and physically. Masonry neither reciprocates nor retaliates the harshness of bigotry or sectarianism. The whole matter of admissibility is left, to the conscience of the applicant and of the Brethren to whom he makes application. XXI. Question. — If a party of Masters of Lodges should wish to meet together on business of the Order, at one of their houses, would it be necessary for them to get permission from the Grand Master, etc.f The answer to this question depends very much on the charac- ter of the business which the Masters of Lodges desire to trans- act. If it be their wish to meet in their official or representative capacity it should for many reasons be done with the knowledge . and consent of the Grand Master or his representative. If it be without design to take action tor the purpose of affecting or infiuencing the' Craft generally, I know of no reason which would require the assent of the Grand Master or which would necessitate the interference of the governing power. XXII. A Lodge lost its charter in 1870. An Entered Appren- tice of said Lodge now wishes advancement in a Lodge in his jurisdiction, in accordance with the provisions of Article XII, section .34, subdivision 3 of the Constitution. I know of no way by which the Lodge can charge any fee. Certainly, it may not charge an initiation tee,' and as the Brother, if accepted and advanced, would become a member of the Lodge by force of said section, I do not see how an affiliation fee can be lawfully charged. I do not deem the law equitable, but the conclusion seems to me unavoidable. XXIII. The minutes of every Communication, whether regular or special, should be read and approved before the Lodge is close.!. XXIV. The minutes of a Lodge having been approved, may not be altered, but a minute may be ordered and made at a subsequent Communication, in the proceedings of said Com- munication, explaining or correcting the errors of record of the previous Communication. XXV. That a Brother, who had been a Warden of a Lodge, 136 COMPILATION OF DECISIONS OF and while holding that office, took up his residence in another State, and then was elected Master of said Lodge, was eligible to the said office and might be lawfully installed. XXVI. The presence of the Master of a Lodge as a represen- tative at a session of the Grand Lodge vacates any proxy given by the Lodge for that purpose. XXVII. It is not proper for a Lodge to require bonds from its officers elected under the Constitution of this Grand Lodge. It would be to demand from a Brother other security than Masonry requires for the performance of his obligations. Strictly speak- ing, it is a Brother's duty to accept an office to which his Brethren have seen fit to elect him; hence it would be harsh to make the induction into office more difficult ■ than Masonry ordinarily has in view. P. 105. Commissioner or Appeals. Matter of Mauger. « The question raised by this appeal is important, if not novel, and is, whether the Grand Lodge, in the exercise of its judicial functions, can remit the proceedings to the subordinate Lodge in a case where it has failed to declare and enter a judgment upon the report of Commissioners after trial, and carry such judgment into effect. The Constitution confers upon the Grand Lodge judicial- powers, and such judicial powers may be exercised; and are: 1. Original. 2. Appellate, embracing all matter of controversy and discipline over which it has or has not original jurisdiction. When the Grand Lodge is exercising its appellate function, in the hearing of a Masonic appeal, it is purely and simply a judicial body, a Masonic court of appeals, of ultimate resort, and every duly accredited representative to it is performing, in the consideration of the case before it, an independent judicial act in determining it ; and the judgm'ent of the Court upon the appeal before it becomes the law of the case, and of the juris- diction. The office of an appeal is to bring before such tribunal for review and correction any errors of fact or of law which are by record assigned and alleged to have been- committed by the subordinate Lodge in the trial, and from whose judgment the appeal is taken, so that justice may be done to all parties. .- - The Grand Lodge has in its Code prescribed that a -Masonic trial should be conducted in all respects, as near as may be, like the trial of an action at law in a Court of Record; and be governed by the same general rules; and by the 75th section of its Statutes declared, that all appeals taken in pursuance of the provisions of the Constitution and Statutes shall be conducted, as far as the same may be applicable, in accordance with such rules and forms as may be adopted by it. I>Jow, ' ' the Court of Appeals is a court of last resort in this State, of exclusive appellate jurisdiction; and it may reverse, THE GKAND LODGE OF NEW YOKE 137 affirm, or modify the juclgment appealed from in whole, or in part, and as to any, or all of the parties ; and its judgment shall be remitted to the court below to be enforced according to the law. ' ' If appeals before the Grand Lodge, sitting as an appellate judicial body, are to be conducted in all respects, as near as may be, like the same proceeding at law, or in equity in a court of record, then this body has, in virtue of its fundamental law, the right to reverse, aflEirm, or modify any judgment or pro- ceeding in appeal brought up before it for review, and to remit its judgment to the Lodge below to be carried into effect. An accused party was reported guilty upon a trial of the charge and specifications contained in the complaint against him, and the Lodge adopted the judgment of the tribunal try- ing him, and then failed or neglected in its manifest duties to enforce such judgment, or pass such sentence upon him, as it might deem appropriate, while he stood convicted before it of an offense against both the moral and Masonic code. From the judgment of the subordinate body an apjjeal is taken to this court, by one of the parties, which must either reverse, affirm, or modify such judgment. If the appellate reverse, the accused party will remain, as now, in fu.ll membership and in good and regular standing in his Lodge, and be entitled to continue to Masonry; if it affirm, he will not be entitled to any of such rights and privileges; and to vindicate its own authority, make potent and effective its decision, and support its own dignity, it should either remit the whole case to the subordinate Lodge or take such action thereon as it might determine would be just and proper in the premises. There must be an inherent power, as there is a constitutional right, vested in the Grand Lodge, as the highest judicial author- ity in the jurisdiction over the acts and proceedings of subordinate Lodges in their disciplinary powers and functions, to compel them by appropriate proceedings, in the nature of mandamus if necessary, to observe and obey the law which alike creates and controls them as courts and bodies of subordinate judicial Ma- , sonic authority; and to contravene any assumed prerogative in setting up a standard of morals, conduct, or practice for itself or its members, which is' not in accord or harmony with the established Masonic, moral, or civil standards and tests. And while the Commission would not recommend any vigorous course with respect to the dealings of the Grand Lodge with the Lodges under its jurisdiction, still it does not hesitate to declare the power and duty of the Grand Lodge in the premises, when- ever the occasion demands its exercise. All that is offensive to good morals, all that is violative of the laws of the land, all that militates against the peace and security of a well-regulated social polity, and all that pollutes the temples of the living God, should fearlessly receive the impress of the seal of Masonic condemnation. 'Pp. 140-143, Appendix (Chap. 317): Laws of 1SS6 entitled " An Act to Enable Lodges and Cliap- 138 COMPILATION OF DECISIOXS OF ters of Free and Accepted Masons to take, hold and convey real and personal estate. ' ' 1877. — P. 46. CoMMISSIO^^EKS of Appeals. The Commissioners of Appeals have had under consideration the Masonic Code of Procedure for Masonic trials and appeals under the Constitution approved hj the Grand Lodge in June, 1873, and as it contains much that is in conflict with well-estab- lished principles of Masonic jurisprudence, is frequently quoted as law, and is believed by many to be as binding upon all con- cerned as the Constitution itself, the Commissioners take this method to bring to the special attention of the Grand Lodge cer- tain sections of the said Code of Procedure which the members of the Commission believe to be unsound, and to ask the Grand Lodge to take such action upon them as will aflSrm or deny their correctness as well as to determine the question whether or not the said Code is to be regarded as a part of the funda- mental law of this jurisdiction. It is the opinion of the Commissioners of Appeals that the said " Code of Procedure " when presented by the Committee to the Grand Lodge in 1873, was not read before the members of the body, but was adopted without reading or discussion in the belief that it contained nothing more than a standard of forms for complaints, answers, notices, summonses, minutes, ap- peals, etc., etc., for Masonic trials similar to a standard form of By-laws for Lodges, and that it did not presume to make law not contained in the Constitution and Statutes of the Grand Lodge. Section 46, subdivision 3 of the Code, provides that when the testimony in a case is balanced, the party holding the affirmative cannot fail. This is clearly wrong, for by it a Brother may prefer charges against another Brother and his unsupported testimony, though balanced by the denial of the accused, would be sufficient to con- vict the accused of Masonic crime; thus totally reversing the well-known axiom of sound jurisprudence, that an accused shall be deemed to be innocent until proven to be guilty. Por the above reason the Commissioners recommend the substitution of the word must for the word ' ' cannot, ' ' so that when the sub- stitution be made, the sentence will read as follows: " When the testimony in a case is balanced, the party holding the affirma- tive must fail." Section 46, subdivision 5, provides " That in eliciting facts from a witness leading questions (that is, those requiring a simple affirmative or negative answer) are not permitted. ' ' So much of this sentence as is contained in the parenthesis, and presumes to define what are leading questions, should be stricken out, and the Commission so recommend, so that the sen- tence when amended will be read as follows: " That in eliciting facts from a witness, leading questions are not permitted." Section 49, subdivision 2, provides that, ' ' On the trial the THE GRAND LODGE OF NEW YOEK 139 Junior Warden should properly act as the prosecutor, but another Brother may be employed. ' ' The Commissioners of Appeals are of the opinion that the only cases in which the Junior Warden, as such, should necessarily act as prosecutor are those when the charges are preferred by direction of the Lodge, or when the evidence of the offense is communicated to him by some person or persons not members of the Lodge. In every case an accused Brother is entitled to know who his real accuser is, and if such accuser be a member of the Lodge, he must sign his name to the charges and be responsible for them, as well as responsible for the expenses incurred, should he fail to substantiate them. The accuser may employ the Junior Warden, or any other Brother, to act as counsel for him, by mutual agreement, and so may the accused. The Commissioners therefore recommend that subdivision 2 of section 49 and so much of section 6 as relates to the Junior Warden be stricken from the Code. Section 49, subdivision 4, provides that, ' ' Witnesses who are Masons testify by virtue of their obligations as such, other witnesses make their statements without reference to any such oath or obligation, their credibility depending upon their general character, which may be impeached by testimony, and so may that of other witnesses. ' ' The Commissioners of Appeals are of the opinion that wit- nesses who are not Masons should sign their names to their testimony when written out, and verify it before a notary or some other oflficej: duly authorized to administer an oath. The Commissioners therefore recommend the ameitdment of subdivision 4 of section 49, so that when amended it may be read as follows : 4. Witnesses who are Masons testify by virtue of their obligations as such; other witnesses must sign their names to their testimony and verify it before some officer duly authorized to administer an oath. The credibility of witnesses depending upon their general character, which may be impeached. Section 96 recites that " Expulsion is of two kinds: 1. From the rights and privileges of Masonry; 2. from a particular Lodge; and Section 97 provides that " A Brother may be expelled from his Lodge without being expelled from the rights and privileges of JIasonry. The Commissioners of Appeals are of the opinion that there is but one kind of expulsion known to Masonic law and usage, and certainly but one kind provided for by our Constitution and Statutes. That is the expulsion referred to in our Masonic covenant, and known as Masonic death, and which deprives the victim of all the rights and privileges. The word expulsion applied to unaf&liation, or loss of membership in a particular Lodge is a misnomer, and such a penalty cannot be lawfully in- flicted for any Masonic offense. A Lodge may provide by law for unaffiliation for non-payment of dues in accordance with the 140 COMPILATION OF DECISIONS OF Constitution, but that penalty is not expulsion and is pronounced without a Masonic trial. Therefore, sections 96 and 97 should be stricken from the Code, and the Commiasion of Appeals so recommends. Section 100 provides that, " A Brother may be restored to membership upon application, by a majority vote of the Lodge, except in a ease where the Grand Lodge has, on appeal, affirmed a judgment of expulsion; and being thus restored to membership he is necessarily restored to all the rights and privileges of Masonry; and he may thus be restored at any time after expul- sion, notice of motion to restore having been given at the preceding stated Commumcation. ' ' The Commissioners of Appeals are of the opinion that the doctrine enunciated in section 100 is all wrong, not only as being violative of ancient usage, but as being in clear violation of the Constitution and Statutes of the Grand Lodge. Expulsion being Masonic death, carries with it complete loss of membership in a particular Lodge, as well as the loss of all rights and privileges of Masonry. A Lodge may, so far as lies in its power, extend its mercy to an expelled Brother, and by a majority vote, after notice of a motion to restore, restore him to ^Masonic life; that is, to the rights and privileges of an un- affiliated JIason. But it cannot restore him to membership until after he has been restored to Masonic life, nor then except by a unanimous vote of its members upon a proper petition therefor. It would be absurd to receive a petition for membership in a Lodge from one who is not a Mason, and such has ever been regarded as the condition of an expelled Mason. He is as if he never were a Mason so far as the Fraternity is concerned. Section 78 of the Statutes of the Grand Lodge provides that ' ' A Lodge having expelled a member may restore such expelled Mason to the rights of Masonry at any time and by a majority vote, notice of a motion to do so having been made at a pre- ceding stated Communication." This clause, containing the exact words " rights of Masonry," necessarily excludes the words " and membership in the Lodge." Section 54 of the Constitution provides the mode for acquir- ing membership in a Lodge which under subdivision i of said section is by regular affiliation, and section 54 of the Statutes provides that imless the ballot be unanimous, the petition of a Brother for membership by affiliation in a Lodge shall be re- jected. The Commissioners of Appeals for the reasons stated above, recommend that section 100 be stricken from the Code, and that form 36, which is a resolution for the restoration to membership in a Lodge of an expelled Mason, and form 35, which is a peti- tion for such restoration, be also stricken from the Code. Section 57 of the Code is in these words: " The Lodge may by resolution reverse the decisions of the Commissioners in every particular, except as herein stated; or, it may modify or change it by increasing or diminishing the penalty; but it may not THE GRAND LODGE OF NEW YOKE 141 reverse or modify the decision as to expenses, which can only be reversed, modified or changed on appeal." The gross injustice which may be inflicted upon an innocent party in a Masonic trial by the decision of the Commissioners in relation to the expenses of the Commission as provided in the above section of the Code seems to be warranted by section 72 of the Constitution, and it does not even admit of appeal to the Grand Lodge as stated in the above-quoted section of the Code. The Constitution and Statutes provide for all other appeals in cases of Masonic trial, but no appeal is provided which will remedy the injustice which may be inflicted by a trial Com- mission in assessing expenses upon the wrong party in the controversy. Section 72 of the Statutes of the Grand Lodge is in these words : ' ' The expenses which may be incurred by the Com- missioners in conducting a Masonic trial shall be borne by one or both of the parties to the controversy, as may be determined by. the Commissioners and set forth in their report, and pay- ment of such expenses may be enforced in the same manner, as Lodge or Grand Lodge dues or by proper Masonic discipline. ' ' This section of the Statutes should be amended in such a manner as to provide that the Lodge may pass upon the whole report of the Commissioners, the expenses incurred as well as the finding of the Commission. The whole matter of the trial will then become the act of the Lodge, from whose judgment an appeal may be taken to the Grand Master or to the Grand Lodge. The Commissioners of Appeals earnestly lecomraend a refer- ence of this matter to the Committee on Constitution and Laws with instructions to present an amendment to section 72 of the Statutes covering the views in relation thereto above presented. As there can be no appeal to the Deputy Grand blaster, or to a District Deputy Grand Master, all relating to those officers should be stricken from forms 25 and 29, and the Commissioners of Appeals so recommend, as the said forms are calculated to mislead the parties who desire to take an appeal. In 1874 the Grand Lodge amended the Code in several im- portant particulars; the printed editions of the Code do not con- tain the amendments. P. 79. Commissioners of Appeals. Matter of Demarest. The Grand Master sustained the judgment and sentence of the Lodge, but expressed a belief that the sentence was too severe, and recommended that appeal be at once taken to the Com- missioners of Appeals, in order that the Commissioners may settle the question of the penalty to be imposed, should they agree that an offense had been committed worthy of Masonic con- demnation and punishment. The Commissioners of Appeals have carefully examined the questions submitted with the case, and have reached the conclu- 143 COMPILATION OF DECISIONS OF sion that a heinous ofEense Tvas committed by the appellant — one warranting severe punishment — not only in appropriating to his own use the money sacredly confided to him by his friend and Brother, George Decker, for a specific use, but in failing to confess his crime to the Lodge at the time when the question of unaffiliating Beo. Decker for non-payment of dues was before it. The Commissioners of Appeals are of the opinion that in all such cases as the one under consideration, the question of punish- ment should be left with the Lodge, and should not be dis- turbed by the Grand Lodge. The Grand Lodge may extend for- giveness and clemency, and, through its Committee on Grievances, restore the appellant to the rights and privileges of an unaffil- iated ilason, but the judgment of the Lodge should not be in- terfered with on appeal. Matter of iioiikman (p. 81). By provisions of section 72 of the Statutes, it is provided that the trial commission shall determine which of the parties to the controversy shall bear the trial expenses. The Lodge itself has no power to assess the expenses upon anybody; and if the trial commission assess the expenses upon one or both of the parties to the controversy, there can be no appeal from its de- termination. If Beo. JIonkman were the complainant in this case, and also became one of the parties to this controversy, and the trial commission had determined that he should bear the expenses of the trial, then such action would be final upon all parties con- cerned, and there could be no appeal; but the Commissioners of Appeals find from the papers in this case that Beo. iloXKiiAX was not one of the parties to the controversy, and therefore should not have been adjudged to bear the trial expenses by anybody. The only parties to the controversy were the Lodge, through its Junior Warden, who signed the charges, and the accused. Al- though Beo. iloxKMAN brought the matter of the charges to the attention of the Lodge — which was his bounden duty to do — and also prepared the form in which they should be presented, yet he did not sign them, but left the whole matter to the Lodge. As the matter of the charges was not of personal nature, but affected equally every member of the Lodge, the Commissioners of Appeals believe that it was eminently proper that the Junior Warden should sign the charges, and thus make the Lodge the complainant in the case. The trial commission not having assessed the expenses upon either of the parties to the con- troversy, it is the opinion of the Commissioners of Appeals that the whole matter should be referred back to the trial commission, with instructions to determine which of the parties to the con- troversy (viz.: the Lodge or the accused) shall bear the expenses of the trial. 1877. — P. 70. — Committee on Condition of Masonry: A member desiring to change his affiliation from one Lodge to another, made application to that effect to Cortlandt Lodge, No. THE GRAND LODGE OF NEW YORK 143 189, and was duly balloted for and dedai-ed elected. A certifi- cate to that effect ^as furnished to tlie Lodge of which the appli- cant was a member, and in due time a certificate of dimit was received from the mother Lodge. The member, did not, however, sign the By-laws of Cortlandt Lodge until some days afterward — actually the 10th of May. His name was returned to the Grand Lodge as a member of Cortlandt Lodge on the 1st day of May. The question propounded is : " Was he a member on that day? ' ' Held, that the notice contemplated by section 45 of the Statutes was given to the mother Lodge, and accepted by it, in returning a dimit which consummated the membership. Signing the By-laws, though necessary, is not, and, in the nature of things, cannot be indispensable. Here follows pages 26, 27, Pro. 1878, a discussion by the Grand Master of proposed amendments to the Constitution and among others specifies the following generally proposed amendments: 1878. — Matter of Goiich. Page 25, Grand Master, holds. Lodge dues do not accrue against a Brother unaffiliated for non-payment of Lodge dues during the period of his unaffiliation. Page 26 refers to the new departure in 1873, relative to sec- tion 62 of the Constitution then adopted, which contained the following words, ' ' and all former written Constitutions are here- by repealed and all general regulations and decisions heretofore made and adopted are also hereby repealed, ' ' and adds, p. 26. The necessity for this sweeping provision existed and was keenly felt by those engaged in the difficult and arduous labor of revision. This clause, more than any other, made the written law of this jurisdiction simple, compact, and comprehensible, for, by a word, it brought our entire government at once and com- pletely under the letter and spirit of the revised law. How to preserve this simplicity, and yet provide for such modifications and changes as our welfare in the future may require, is a prob- lem that challenges our earnest and thoughtful attention. In this connection it is well to note that by our present Consti- tution " All general government powers, whether executive, leg- islative or judicial," are reposed in the Grand Lodge. The Grand Master is empowered and charged " to exercise all the executive functions of the Grand Lodge, when it is not in session." He is also clothed with certain judicial functions. But he is nowhere invested with legislative powers; and in doing such things as are inherent in and pertain to his office, he is controlled by the proviso, that they " are not in conflict with this Constitu- tion." Under the law, then, it follows that Grand Masters' decisions are made in the discharge of executive or judicial du- ties, and in no way partake of the nature of legislative enact- ments. They express the force and effect of existing laws, applied to specific cases. They are in essence, authoritative conclusions, derived from mixed premises of law and facts, and should 144 COJIPILATIOX OF DECISIONS OF find their full justification in the law and facts that called them forth. To separate these conclusions from their premises and give them the force of General Eegulations, certainly tends to con- fusion. There can hardly be a doubt that our Kves will be better defined and more easily understood if we discriminate clearly, and always between the several functions of enactment, or ad- ministration, and of adjudication. ■ ' Xor shall any Lodge expend any portion of its receipt from initiation or afliliation fees, for any purpose other than the relief of the sick, destitute and needy, the burial of a deceased Brother, or for the payment of Grand Lodge dues." If any Lodge de- sires to adopt this provision, for its own government, there is nothing in the law as it stands to prevent; but when it is pro- posed that the Grand Lodge, by an act of legislation, shall thus directly interfere with the Lodges in the management of their domestic affairs, it is well to consider whether such action finds a warrant in the Constitution and is in harmony with the theory of our government. At the very beginning, the Constitution declares: " That the government of Free and Accepted Masons is reposed in Grand Lodges and in subordinate or particular Lodges." Unless this is a vain use of words without meaning, the language quoted shows that both Grand and subordinate Lodges wield a delegated power, derived from a common source. Add the fact that the Grand Lodge is a representative body, standing in the place of the general assembly of Masons; that in this general assembly every Pree and Accepted ilason within the realm was entitled to a voice and a vote; and it becomes clear that Grand and subor- dinate Lodges alike, derive both their existence and their author- ity from the free will and consent of the Craft. That will and consent is expressed in the Constitution, which establishes the Grand Lodge and determines its relations to its subordinates; and as a necessary consequence all Masonic rights, powers and privileges not thus delegated remain in the rightful possession of the body of the Fraternity, or of the individual Mason. The Constitution ordained and established by the Free and Ac- cepted Masons of New York, is, therefore, the measure, and the sole measure, of the rights and powers of this Grand Lodge; and any legislative act contrary to its. provisions, whether in the form of a Statute or otherwise, would be without validity; and its enforcement would be an act of usurpation. Xow, it is true that the Constitution vests all general govern- mental powers in the Grand Lodge; but it is also true that it confers local governmental powers upon the subordinate Lodge; and among these, legislative power " over all matters relating to its internal concerns." Under this plain provision the right of the Lodge to control its financial affairs is established beyond dispute; and so long as this right is exercised legally, the power of the Grand Lodge to interfere is constitutionally denied. This being so, the proposed amendment may be suitable matter for consideration in the subordinate Lodge, but certainly not in the Grand Lodge. THE GRAND LODGtE OF NEW YORK 145 1878. — (P. 253, Adoption of Constitutional Amendments.) 1. Relative to unaflSliation of non-payment of dues. 2. Strikes out sea-faring men from the provision exempting candidates from the jurisdictional question of residence. Committee on Warrants, p. 74: Condemns the practice of framing a warrant and hanging it in the Lodge-room. Destruction by fire of buildings and warrants cannot always be entirely guarded against, but the carelessly placing a warrant where it is liable to be destroyed can. The practice of leaving the warrant continually in the Lodge-room, unless in u. safe, or of framing and hanging it, cannot be too strongly condemned. The Master should regard the preservation of his Lodge Warrant to be a, sacred trust, which nothing should cause him to neglect or betray. It is not supposed that any Master would willfully destroy his warrant or purposely allow it to be destroyed; but if the Grand Lodge will more closely scrutinize all applications for new warrants in place of those lost or destroyed, we think it probable that Masters will be more careful not to incur cen- sure or reproach for any carelessness or neglect of duty in that regard. Pp. Sl-82. Commissioner or Appeals. Majority Seport. Adopted l>y Grand Lodge. On the argument of the appeal before the Commission of ■Appeals, the counsel for the appellant raised the question that there had been a mistrial before the Commissioners, because during its progress one of the Commissioners was, for a portion of its session, absent by reason of illness, and moved its dis- missal. It appears that when the Commissioner was absent, the counsel of both parties proceeded with the proofs and, as arranged, the same were furnished to him for perusal, and when the session was held at which the case was summed up, he attended and took part in the trial, deliberated with his two colleagues, and joined in making the report. Thus is presented the question whether the absence of a mem- ber of the Trial Commission from a portion of its sittings during the taking of testimony is such error as to vitiate them and render the trial void. Applying the rule of the criminal law to such a case where the life or the liberty of the accused is at stake, there is no difficulty in determining the quality or effect of the error, and in considering the proposition presented in this case, the circumstances and acts of the parties alleging the error must be invoked to its correct understanding and determination. There was no refusal to proceed with the trial by the accused when the absence of the Commissioner occurred; nor was there any objection made by him or by anyone. Both parties at least agreed to proceed in his absence and subsequently made or assented to an arrangement by which he 146 COMPILATIOIT OF DECISIONS OF became acquainted with the testimony taken in his absence, and on the submission bf the case he occupied his seat in the Com- mission and exercised, without challenge or objection, all his functions and powers as such. The report they made was unanimous in its findings of facts and in the judgment it inflicted, and it thus appears that the result of the trial was the same and would not have been changed had the alleged error not occurred. And as the fact of the absence of the Commissioner produced no injury to the accused nor to the complainants, and occurred under the circumstances above detailed, it was not such error or irregularity as to vitiate the proceedings and render the trial void; Matter op Niver, p. 83. ilinority Seport. It is objected by counsel for accused, that this absence of Commissioner Stevexsox was fatal to the decision rendered by the Commissioners, and without going into or considering the other points raised upon this appeal, we are of opinion that this objection is fatal to the judgment rendered by the Trial Com- missioners, and that the case must be remanded to the District Deputy Grand Master for a new trial. By subdivision S, section 49, of the Masonic Code of Procedure, it is enacted as follows: " A Masonic trial should be conducted in all respects as near as may be like the trial of an action of a criminal nature in a court of record, and be governed by the same general rules. ' ' It is also provided by section 44, Masonic Code: " The Commissioners being duly organized, and the accused having answered the complaint, are prepared to hear and receive the evidence in the case. ' ' Now, in the case at bar, Commissioner Stevexsox heard only a portion of the evidence for prosecution and none of the evidence for the defense, and yet joined in the findings of the Commis- sion. On the merits, as matter of principle, we are of opinion, that a tribunal which is to pass sentence upon a Masonic accused, should hear the evidence, see the witnesses, and be prepared to give such weight to what they say as their appearance and man- ner of testifying shall entitle it. But as by the Masonic Code of this jurisdiction above cited, we are bound so far as mere matters of practice are concerned, by the general rules in force in criminal courts, we propose briefly to refer to a decision of the Court of Appeals of this State, when the identical question in consideration in this case was passed upon. One Shaw was on trial for murder. The court constituted to try him was composed of a Justice of the Supreme Court, the County Judge of Washington County, and the two Justices of Sessions. During the trial one of the Justices of Sessions THE GRAND LODGE OP NEW YOKK 147 was absent a single day, but was present at the question of the verdict, and the passing of sentence upon the accused. This case is reported in 63 N. Y., at page 36. The syllabus is as follows: ' ' A Court of Oyer and Terminer before whom defendant in error was tried, consisted at the beginning of the trial, of a Justice of the Supreme Court, County Judge, and two Justices, members of the Court of Sessions. During the progress of the trial one of the latter absented himself for a day during which the trial proceeded. Upon his return he took part in the subsequent proceedings. " Held: That the Sessions Justice, by his absence, disqualified himself from further sitting, and his subsequent participation in the trial was error. ' ' And that the verdict was received by a Court not legally constituted. ' ' This is good' law- in the criminal courts of the State of New York, and we submit must be good law in this Grand Lodge. Masonic trials must be conducted orderly, and it is to the in- terest of the Craft to enunciate here and now the rule, that no man can pass judgment of Masonic death upon a Brother, or even a lesser penalty, unless he hears all the testimony, and sees all the witnesses, etc. A different doctrine would be extremely dangerous. If one Commissioner might vacate his seat upon the judicial bench, so might two, and a decision might be made by one only of the three Commissioners, if formally and nominally concurred in by the other two. Such a conclusion cannot be tolerated. Committee on Masonic Jurisprudence, p. 90: Considers the subject of unaffiliation for non-payment of dues and in substances holds : ' ' An nnafiSliate remains a Mason entitled to be hailed but as such without a home. The argument was presented that dues ought to be paid which accrued during suspension basing it on the language of section 46 of the Statutes, that the amount to be paid on restoration is to amount due at the time of restoration. Ig79. — Grand Master's Address. Pp. 22, 23. Life membership in a Lodge is acquired in two ways: First, by the payment, at once, of a specified sum in lieu of all other dues; and, secondly, by the payment of ten years' dues, without default, after which the member becomes privileged, or in other words, exempt from the regular annual dues. This latter is effected by a clause in the By-laws to that effect, and it is claimed that the Lodge, by repealing the law, at any time previous to the expiration of the time named, sets aside the whole pro- ceeding and the payments made go for nothing so far as the exemption is concerned. On the other hand, it is held that the adoption of such a By-law is a, special contract entered into by 148 COMPILATION OF DECISIONS OF the Lodge with its members, and that those who faithfully comply therewith, cannot be deprived of their prospective benefit by the repeal of the law, for otherwise, it would be ex post facto in its effect, and contrary to the spirit of Masonic as well as civil law. A case in point has arisen in a Lodge in the City of New York, which adopted a By-law to that effect, " Any member who shall have paid dues for ten consecutive years, shall be a privileged member, subject only to Grand Lodge dues." Some three years later the By-law was repealed. On one side, it is claimed that all members who, at the adoption of the By-law had paid ten consecutive years' dues, at once became privileged members, and that all others were entitled to the benefit of the law who con- tinued to pay the regular dues until ten years had elapsed, and finally, that the repeal of the law would only affect those who might become members after such repeal. The Lodge, however, claims that all who had not paid ten years consecutively, before the repeal of the law, lost all claim to its benefits. The question to be decided is, whether a By-law as above quoted is a special contract; if so, then clearly all who are members at the time of its enactment, are entitled to the benefit by continuing to pay as contracted. If, on the other hand, en- gagements of this character are subject to repeal at any time, then it were well that fact should be understood. 1879 — ^P. 85. CoMMissioxER OP Appeals. Matter of Harris. A person by rfason of misfortune and business reverses is unable to discharge his pecuniary obligations, and thereby loss is occasioned to others. No intention on the part of TTarris to do any wrong is apparent; on the contrary he made an assign- ment which was the only means at his command for the protec- tion of his creditors and made an honest and complete surrender of his property for that benefit. Held no offense. Matter of Hubbard (p. 87). A letter was claimed to be a Ubel. It did not appear to be written with bad motive nor inspired with malicious feelings, but it was a private letter not intended for public use. Its pur- pose was to discover the cause of a fire by which defendant suf- fered loss. He did not intend to defame or injure the person referred to in the letter. Held no offense. Secret Ballot Upon the Report of Trial Commissioners TVas Error. The action of the Lodge in considering and voting upon the report of the Trial Commissioners, was a part of the trial at least, if not the trial; and the accused was deeply interested in the mode by which his guilt or innocence was to be declared, as well as in the result, and the vote should have been by the ancient sign of a Mason, and not by a secret ballot, which was error. THE GRAND LODGE OF NEW YORK 149 Matter of Beolcner (p. 89). Conviction of a libelous publication in a weekly newspaper sustained. Committee on Jurisprudence, p. 98. Considers the Grand Master's address upon the subject of privi- leged membership, as follows: The subject of a privileged membership is one which is not devoid of difficulty; but the great principle upon which the de- termination of the question is to rest is distinctly and clearly pointed out by the Grand Master, and that is, how far and in what cases a By-law is a contract between a Lodge and its mem- bers. All will admit that it is essential to a contract and that there must be mutuality, or, in other words, a consideration, to give it vitality as such. The one under examination, and which is cited by the Grand Master in its exact words, it appears to us does not possess this vital feature. Each member was bound to contribute a stated periodical sum for the interest of the Lodge, and thus indirectly for that of the Craft at large, which is known by the technical name of dues. A Lodge chooses out of mere grace and its own free-will to adopt a By-law by which that class of its members, who has ' ' borne the heat and burden of the day, ' ' who have discharged the whole duty faithfully for ten years, shall be relieved in the future from the payment of other dues than those accruing to the Grand Lodge. It requires no new Act; it is not even a pledge of fidelity for the future. Times change; the generosity which has curtailed a main source of revenue on which it is de- pendent for contingent current expenses finds its resources ex- hausted and is compelled to revive the old fountain of income or tax its members to meet exigencies of the case. But in such restoration of former dues is no breach of contract, and not even a breach of moral good faith. Like the parent who gives a gratuity to his son of ripe age out of affectionate generosity, but finds himself, under the pressure of the times, compelled to curtail his too exuberant bounty extended to one under his own roof -tree, revokes the gift, and simply says he shall in the future as in the past require remuneration for that which he has freely given from love and affection. But suppose the Lodge had adopted a By-law that upon the payment of any sum, how- ever small, not alone the traditional, typical, ' ' penny-a-day, ' ' but even " a penny-a-year " in advance for any period however brief, and performed such condition, there would have been a conH:act having the element of mutuality, and based upon con- sideration; but this By-law lacking those elements, and therefore creating no vested rights, it was therefore perfectly competent for such Lodge to alter, modify, or repeal such By-law, and we subjoin a resolution accordingly. (Page ICro.) ' ' A petitions a Lodge for the degrees and membership. The petition is received and accepted, the fees paid, and the first 150 COMPILATION OF DECISIONS OF degree is conferred. Objections are made to his further advance- ment; a ballot was taken, Trhich resulted unfavorably. Further applications for advancement were made and rejections follow, showing the impossibility of any different result in the future." Upon this statement five interrogatories were propounded, which it is unnecessary here to repeat, relating to the claim of the candidate for two-thirds of the fees, and whether there be any obligation upon the Lodge to confer degrees fully paid for. There seems to be a misapprehension as to the payment of the fees (which in this ease was by the By-laws of the Lodge thirty dollars), and a correction of that error will dispose of the whole question presented. The parties concerned seem to have acted upon the erroneous supposition that the sum paid, although thirty dollars in the whole, was in fact ten dollars for each of the three degrees. It is the principle of the Masonic law that the sum paid previous to initiation is for that only, or, in other words, " to be made a ilason ' ' ; and the second and third degrees are con- ferred without fee or pecuniary reward, as honorariums for skill, improvement, and good conduct, and which the Lodge may confer or withhold at pleasure. But it does not necessarily follow that an application for advancement may be denied for want of the requisites above mentioned. A Lodge may withhold such honora- rium, where it deems that the welfare and best interests of the Lodge or the Craft at large require it. (P. 101.) The Master of a Lodge, after assembling the Craft, may authorize any qualified Brother to open his Lodge in his presence, under the same restrictions and regulations as he might permit the performance of any other portion of the Lodge work by such Brother. 1880. — Graxd Masteb's Address. P. 26. First: That membership in a New York Lodge can neither be created nor destroyed, save by the operation of New York law.. Second: That membership in a New York Lodge is not affected by the residence of the members. Third: That the laws of the Grand Lodge of Connecticut have no extra territorial force, and cannot create, destroy, or in any wise affect membership in a Lodge beyond that State. That each Grand Lodge has sovereign and exclusive jurisdic- tion within its own territory is an established principle of Masonic jurisprudence, upon this continent at least, and to the mainte- nance of that principle each of these propositions is indispensable. (P. 28.) Technically the power of a Master of a Lodge, while presiding, is absolute, but it is guarded by the fact too often forgotten that there is power above the Master to conserve the rights of the members as well as his own. There is no appeal from his decision while presiding, but a decision may be reversed in brief time by an appeal to higher authority. THE GRAND LODGE OF NEW YOEK 151 Commissioners or Appeals. Matter of Watson (pp. 53, 54). This is an appeal brought by Ionian Lodge, No. 679, of Oswego, New York, from the ilecision of the Grand ilaster, reversing the proceedings, decision and judgment of the Lodge, in adjudging Frank AVatson, the Respondent, guilty of immoral and un-Masonic conduct, and in expelling him from the Lodge and from all the rights and privileges of Masonry. On May 22, 1879, the Junior Warden of the Lodge preferred a complaint against the Respondent, charging that at the City of Oswego, on the 8th day of May, 1879, in a conversation with a member of Oswego Lodge, No. 127, he declared Masonry a fraud; and that on the 1st day of March, 1879, in a public store in said city, and in the presence and hearing of a member of the Lodge, and of a profane, he also stated that Masonry is a fraud, and that a man could lie in a ditch and not be picked up by one; also that on or about the first day of January, 1879, at Oswego, aforesaid, in a conversation with another member of the Lodge, he stated that ' ' Ionian Lodge would not do any work this year "; and also that a Brother of the Lodge was a dirty, lying male descendant of a female dog. He was tried by a Commission appointed by the Master of the Lodge, on these charges, on the twenty-third day of June, 1879, he having by his answer denied each and every of them. The Commission made a report, dated June 26th, 1879, by which the charges were sustained, and the accused declared guilty thereof, and recommended a resolution of expulsion. The Chairman of the Commission signed a notice, dated June 2.5th, addressed to the accused, and on that day served upon him, advising him that the Commission had agreed in its findings and would report accordingly at the next regular Communication of the Lodge, on the 26th day of June then instant. From this decision and judgment the accused on the twenty- fourth day of July following, appealed to the Grand Master, who, on the fifth day of November, 1879, filed his decision, ordering and adjudging that the decision and sentence of the Lodge be reversed and set aside; and that the Lodge have liberty to proceed to a new trial; holding that the Lodge had no juris- diction to consider the report, nor convict, nor sentence, the accused, as the notice did not conform to the requirement of Section 51 of the Code, in that it did not state what the decision of the Commission was, nor of Subdivision 6 of Section 91 of the Code of Procedure. The Lodge, in its appeal from the decision of the Grand Master, avers that the accused appeared at the Communication at which action was taken in his case, and as he did not object to the informality of the notice of the decision of the trial Commission, nor to the irregularity in its service, he thereby waived his right to raise the question on the appeal, and to 152 COMPILATION OF DECISIONS OF demand a compliance on the part of the Lodge ivith the require- ments of the sections of the Code above referred to. This position cannot be held to be tenable, for in this case, so far as it can be considered here, the question of jurisdiction is an important and vital one. It is too well settled to be ques- tioned in this or in any judicial tribunal, that its jurisdiction may be challenged, and that question raised at any stage of the proceedings; and that the effort of an accused person to protect and defend himself from an unwarranted conviction and sentence cannot operate as an estoppel to his questioning the jurisdiction of the Court which is proceeding to his condemnation. A person charged with a Masonic offense is presumed to be innocent until proved to be guilty, and it is an incumbent on the body conducting the trial to observe every requirement of the law prescribed for its conduct, and to furnish the testimony which shall aflSrmatively establish the charge and prove his guilt. It is reasonably to be presumed that when the Lodge was • acting in its judicial capacity, it knew, and especially its Master, the law and prescribed regulations authorizing and gov- erning its functions, and any violation of, or departure from, the spirit, if not the letter, of its plain provisions was subversive of substantial rights of the accused. The Master was presumed to know, and, knowing, was bound to see that they were observed, as well for the validity of the action the Lodge was about to take in the premises, as to secure to the person on trial the rights accorded to him. Matter of Downey (p. 55). A Mason is obliged in his tenure not only to obey the laws of the State or country in which he may dwell, to keep the moral law, but to observe and protect the Landmarks of the Fraternity, and to be true and loyal to its Constitutions, Statutes and regulations. The Ancient Charges declare that " the most expert shall be chosen the over-seer of the Lord's work." He is to be skilled in the important work committed to his hands, and observe and meet all the responsibilities devolved upon him in the station to which he has been assigned by the suffrages and partiality of his Brethren, so that in his walk, intercourse and deportment among them he may be an example worthy of imitation " by all those that work under him. ' ' Obedience to constituted authority, and to the laws prescribed for the government, protection, and benefit of aU is the first duty which Masonry by all her traditions, teachings and true example inculcates; and the obligation rests equally upon the highest In position, and the humblest in the service of a common Praternity. The powers of the Master of the Lodge while performing the functions of his station may be and are absolute, but absolute within the prescribed limitations of fundamental law, and held in check by due regard to, and observance of, the safeguards of THE'^aHAN-D LODGE OF NEW YOEK 153 corporate and individual right, and most eflfeotively and benignly exercised when within the purview of the law of obedience. The most successful administration is that which will secure to the Lodge 's harmony and prosperity, and to individual members good- will and happiness. ' A Master of a Lodge issued a notice to a portion of the members to attend a special Communication without giving the required ten days' notice. At such Communication he enter- tained a motion to remove the Lodge to another hall. Subse- quently, the Grand Master ordered him to return to the room formerly occupied by the Lodge, which he disobeyed on account of inability so to do. The Deputy Grand Master ordered of him the Warrant of the Lodge, which he refused to surrender. Neither the Master nor the Lodge had jurisdiction to determine the subject, and their action was unauthorized and void. The refusal of obedience to the lawful order of the Grand Master was contumacy. P. 62. Committee on Jueispbudence. , By a resolution reported by this Committee, and adopted in 1879, the subject of Privileged Membership was referred back to it, with the object of more fully expressing its views upon the subject, more especially in consequence of difference of opinion of some of the members of the Committee. Circumstances have prevented the attainment of this object, and yet the differ- ences of opinion so far remain that we are not unanimous in this report on that question, although there is a decided majority in its favor. For the views expressed at that time by a part of the Committee, see Transactions 1879, p. 98. Since then we have heard able and learned counsel before us upon the question, and have very fully and fairly discussed it in all its bearings among ourselves. Let it be remembered that the precise question before us arises upon the construction of a. By-law of Pacific Lodge, No. 233, adopted in 1865, and repealed in 1868, under the - amendatory clause of their By-laws which gave that power, and which is in these words: " A Brother who shall have been a faithful member of this Lodge for ten years consecutively shall be a Privileged Member and entitled to all the benefits of the Lodge by paying Grand Lodge dues only." This has been dis- cussed as though it constituted a contract between the Lodge and its members, which may well be douljted; but as the entire By- laws of that Lodge must have been embraced in the engagement, including the right to repeal as one of its conditions before the expiration of the ten years, and as no new or additional con- sideration was given beyond that which each member was already required to give, we are of the opinion that no one has acquired any vested right under it at the time of the repeal, and that even if viewed in the light of a contract it was not completed till the ' ' Brother ' ' should ' ' have been a faithful member of the Lodge for ten years consecutively. ' ' The Committee have confined themselves to an exposition of 15i COMPILATION OF DECISIONS OF this By-law only; and if it has expressed different opinions at any time, it has had other eirenmstanees to control them and other lights to guard them. This Committee takes leave of this question by unanimously expressing the opinion that this and other like questions had better be construed by the moral law of Masonry than be confounded with the " tithes of mint, anise, and cummin " of other tribunals, however respectable and hon- ored, and that the privileged membership of which it has been speaking has been fraught with evil rather than benefit to the Praternity and should be avoided in future. Kesolved, That a privileged member under a By-law relative to payment of dues for a period of years and to be thereafter exempt acquired thereby no vested right, the contract, if such it be between him and his Lodge, being executory only, and subject to the amendatory clause of the By-laws to be amended, changed or repealed; the whole period not having elapsed so as to make it an executed contract, and the members having been only required to pay the amount of dues prescribed by the By-laws and no more, and hence only having performed their duty. 1881.- -Eemovaii op Lodges (Grand Master 's Address) . Pp. 32, 33. By the term teviporary removal we wish to be understood as meaning the removal of a Lodge within its own territory without any alteration of territorial lines, and by a permanent removal, one which offsets a change in its lines of jurisdiction. Section 20, of the Statutes, does not in any way define the difference between the two, by establishing any additional requirements in the case of a permanent removal other than those required of one designed to be simply a temporary change of location within its own jurisdiction, and hence we must be governed by the principle of law applicable to such cases. This seems to me to have been the construction placed upon the sec- tion, and that a compliance with its provisions effected a perma- nent removal. Such having been the custom in many cases in years past, and the Grand Lodge having authorized the removals, it was deemed that a permanent change of location had been effected, and the line of jurisdiction with surrounding Lodges has been accepted as governed by the new locations. This we will admit has been wrong in principle, for it is evident that no Lodge can be deprived of its territory except by its own consent, duly and lawfully given or by due process of law. Nevertheless, it has been done, accepted as regular by the surrounding Lodges, and no objection being made thereto, it is fair to presume that it was considered to be legal and in accordance with the Statutes. When we apply to all such removals the strict interpretation of law, we must decide that they were merely temporary changes of location and did not alter the jurisdictional lines in any way. But, on the other hand, when we consider that it has been understood that it was unnecessary to obtain the consent of sur- rounding Lodges (if the Grand Lodge duly authorized the THE GRAND LODGE OF NEW YORK 155 change), then we must admit that such removals have been regarded as itcrmanent in their nature, for otherwise the Grand Lodge would not have sanctioned, as it has in one case, the removal of a Lodge entirely outside of its original jurisdictional lines. I have no doubt that such was the interpretation of the Statutes previous to the year 1878, when the question of such removals was brought before the Grand Lodge, and the report of the Committee thereon enunciated the correct and true prin- ciple of law in regard to the territorial rights of a Lodge. Hence, while we are prepared to admit that an error has been committed in these removals, as to the question of their irregu- larity in all respects, it would seem to me to be unwise to raise any question affecting them at the present time. On the other hand, I do not think the Grand Lodge can allow the matter to remain in its present shape, and take no action thereon to settle the question of the legality of all removals which had taken place previous to 1876. My opinion is that the Grand Lodge must waive the question of regularity of all these removals, and hold and decide, that all removals of Lodges pre- vious to the year 1878, which had obtained the consent of the Grand Lodge thereof, were legal and the jurisdictional lines established by the new location. It should also amend Section 20, of the Statutes, defining the difference between a temporary and a permanent removal by the addition of the following, or some other clause to the same effect : ' ' And in addition thereto, if the removal is designed to effect a permanent change of location, the consent of all the Lodges whose jurisdiction would be effected by such removal. ' ' There is another point raised in relation to removals on which my decision has been asked, and as it is germain to the above I embrace it under this head: " Claim is made that a Lodge having legally obtained new territory from Lodges in the direction toward which it moved, that it thereby, while gaining territory in that direction, still retained its old territory as heretofore estab- lished by the former location, with regard to jurisdiction as between it and the Lodges on the side from which it moved. ' ' My decision is that the claim is not sound in law. Jurisdiction cannot be claimed except from one point, and the moving Lodge, while gaining territory on one side voluntarily, cedes or relinquishes, by the due operation of law, a certain portion of the territory formerly occupied by it to the Lodges on the side from which it moved. In closing the point, I present the law governing the removals of Lodges in the following order: 156 COMPILATION OF DECISIONS OF 1. When a Dispensation is issued, it is upon consent of the Lodges whose jurisdiction is affected by the establishment of the new Lodge, and the jurisdiction of the Lodge is one-half way from the place of meeting, designated in the Dispensation or Warrant, to the nearest Lodge in all directions. (Article XXTV, Section 50, of Statutes.) 2. Jurisdiction so obtained continues as long as the Lodge is in existence, and cannot be changed except by its own consent, by the legal act of adjacent Lodges, or by the due course of law. 3. A Lodge can temporarily change its place of meeting within its own territory, in accordance with the law (Article IX, Section 20, of the Statutes) , and the consent of the Grand Lodge, but such change of place of meeting does not alter the jurisdiction of the Lodge which is to be governed by the location named in the Warrant. 4. Fermanent removal of a Lodge from the place of meeting designated in the Warrant requires not only a compliance with the Statutes (Article tX, Section 20), but also the consent of all the Lodges whose jurisdiction would be affected prejudicially by such removal, together with the consent of the Grand Lodge thereto. These requirements having been complied with, a permanent removal is effected, and the line of jurisdiction changes on all sides, and the jurisdiction of the Lodge is the same as if the Warrant had originally located it at that point. 18S1. — Graxd Master's Address. P. .35. Axthoxt, Gkaxd ilASTEE. Questions and Decisions. My decision has been asked in regard to the following: Whether under Article XII, of the Constitution, a candidate who has been accepted and received the third degree, is to be regarded as a member and subject to the charge of annual dues, provided he does not sign the By-laws: (1) I decided that under the present Constitution, member- ship was acquired in a subordinate Lodge by the fact of having been accepted as a candidate, and aftenvard received the third degree. That having attained that grade, he is to be deemed a member of the Lodge so accepting him and as such he would be liable for Lodge dues. There remains, it is true, a duty enjoined upon the candidate, which is, that " immediately on receiving such degrees to sign the By-laws of the Lodge." This act completes the ties of mem- bership, and forms part of it, being the execution of the contract between him and the Lodge. The question was asked: In ease of a member dimitting from one Lodge to join another in this jurisdiction, when does the membership begin in the accepting Lodge, and when terminate in the Lodge granting the dimit? In other words, is the Brother petitioning for afSliation to be considered as a member on his being accepted, or when he signs the By-laws? THE GItAXD LODGE OF NEW YOEE 157 (2) I decided: That a Brother does not lose his membership in his former Lodge until he consummates his membership in the accepting Lodge, which is by signing the By-laws. Without giving in full the reason advanced for my decision in the case alluded to, it will be sufifieient to say that the mere fact that a Lodge has granted a dimit to a Brother to enable him to join another Lodge in this jurisdiction does not terminate his membership therein until two things have been accomplished. (1) The member must consummate his membership in the other Lodge, i.e., sign the By-laws. (2) Having done so, on a receipt of a notice from the accept- ing Lodge of that fact, then his dimit becomes operative, and his membership is terminated in his former Lodge. Thus it will be evident that a Lodge granting a dimit to enable a member to join another Lodge in this jurisdiction must retain his name on the roll of membership until notice is received from the accepting Lodge that he has consummated membership therein. This dimit is provisional in its nature, and it is intended that if the affiliation is not promptly perfected in the accepting Lodge, then the dimit is to be returned. There appear to have been cases when the Brother 's member- ship has been returned to the Grand Secretary, as terminated at the time when the dimit was granted, which is an error. If Brethren will bear this in mind, there would be no confusion in the returns to the Grand Secretary, and no loss to the income of the Grand Lodge. In this connection, to guard against neglect of duty in promptly signing the By-laws of the accepting Lodge by the member desiring to affiliate, it would seem a wise provision to limit the time in which to consummate membership, or otherwise the dimit be returned to the original Lodge. This might be limited to thirty days after being notified of his election. Or the adop- tion of the following would cover the point at issue: " A •member neglecting to complete his membership within a reason- able time, say, thirty days after notification of election, shall not be allowed to sign the By-laws of the accepting Lodge until evidence is furnished that he has paid dues to his original Lodge during the interval which has elapsed between the time of grant- ing the dimit and the date of his application to sign the By-laws of the accepting Lodge. ' ' I also report the following: (3) A Brother unaffiliated for non-payment of dues, applying for restoration, must receive a majority vote by show of hands; failing to receive such a vote on the first application, he can only be elected at a subsequent application by an unanimous secret ballot. Inquiry having been made in regard to whether Lodges in this jurisdiction could affiliate Brethren formerly members of Lodges under the Grand Lodge of Connecticut, I decided: (4) That a Brother dimitted from a Lodge, under the Grand Lodge of Connecticut, -was to be regarded as an unaffiliated 158 COMPILATION OF DECISIONS OF Mason, and as such could make application in due form to any Xiodge in this jurisdiction, and if elected become a member. (5) That on the trial of a Brother who has been convicted by the Civil Court, the record thereof being in evidence, does not prevent evidence being offered in mitigation of the offense on the part of the defense. The same rule applies as in case of acquittal through possibly some technicality of the law. The fact of such acquittal would not prevent a ilason being tried ilasonieally, and punished if found guilty. A Commission having been appointed, the trial commenced, tes- timony in part taken, and one of the Commissioners is obliged to be absent for a length of time, the question was asked: Can the other two Commissioners proceed and take testimony, with the assent of the absentee, and the further understanding that such testimony shall be submitted to him before a decision is made in the case? My decision was: (6) " That it was not competent for the other two Commis- sioners to proceed with the trial in the absence of one of the Commissioners. " ' The question being of importance and liable to occur in any Masonic trial, I will state my reasons for the opinion advanced. A Commission is the same as a jury; they are appointed to hear the case, weigh the evidence, decide upon its oredibility and submit their conclusions in the form of resolutions for the action of the Lodge. They are to be governed by the laws.of the Grand Lodge, and act in accordance with the code of procedure adopted for the regulation of trials. In the Code of Procedure, Sec. 49, Sub. 8, it is enacted that ' ' A Masonic trial should be conducted in all respects as near as may be like the trial of an action of a criminal nature in a Court of Record, and be governed by the same general rules. ' ' By the laws of the court it is held and decided that a trial cannot be complete, except there is a full and legal jury, and that not even by the consent or agreement of all parties inter- ested can the essentials of the law be dispensed with. The law is very strict on this point, and while it is not expected that a Masonic trial will be conducted in all respects in accordance with the legal forms, yet we must conform as near as can be to the requirements of a court. The strict rule of criminal law is that the absence of one of the jurors during the progress of a trial, or a mutilated court, will vitiate the verdict, and that an appeal would be sustained in all such eases. Masonic expulsion is the severance of the life of Masonic mem- bership, and is termed Masonic death; consequently, it is of the utmost importance that nothing should be done which would oper- ate in the slightest degree to the injury or detriment of a member on trial. The object of a Masonic trial is to ascertain the truth in the most direct way, and in accordance with legal custom. In order for a Commissioner to have an intelligent opinion, and give due consideration to the evidence, it is of vital importance THE GRAND LODGE OF NEW YORK 159 that he should be present at all times, and during the whole of a trial. Decisions hj the Supreme Court might be quoted to sub- stantiate this opinion. Suspension of the Secretary of the Lodge by the Master (p. 37). The Master sustained, in suspension of the Secretary of the Lodge from the functions of his oflSce for refusal to deliver up the books and papers of the Lodge, or to allow him to have access to them. I issued an order vacating the order of the Worshipful Master, on the ground that he had exceeded his authority; the exercise of that power being vested only in the Grand Master, and convinced that the urgency of the case de- manded prompt action, I also issued an order suspending the said Brother from the functions of his office as Secretary, and further ordered him to deliver to the Worshipful Master of said Lodge the books and papers in his possession. This order was duly served upon him, but the Secretary refusing to obey the same, charges were duly preferred in the Lodge, and after due trial he was expelled from all the rights and privileges of , Masonry. From this decision the defendant appealed; and, after a thor- ough consideration of the ease I aflfirmed the decision of the Lodge. The main ground of the appeal was as to the power of the Grand Master to suspend an elective officer, alleging that there was no just cause, and the act was unjust and arbitrary. In my opinion I have given my reasons for the act, and have only to say I consider there was good and sufficient cause, and that the power given the Grand Master, under Section 23, Sub- division 3, of the Constitution, is designed to cover just sucU eases. The power to suspend is vested in the Grand Master, to be exercised when the interests of the Lodge would seem to demand that an elective officer be temporarily suspended from the functions of his office, until the facts can be legally deter- mined, and thereby prevent further injury to a Lodge. The exer- cise of this prerogative by the Grand Master does not in any way operate prejudicially against the rights of the Brother on the trial. 1881. — Fortuna Lodge Case (p. 38). A ilaster was expelled for initiating a candidate who did not possess the proper qualifications. The question involved in this case is whether there has been any violation of the ancient law governing the physical qualifica- tion of candidates for Masonry, and to this end we must, for a few moments, consider the subject of ancient Landmarks. At this point let me say that I have had many applications the past year to issue Dispensations to permit the initiation of candidates who were not hale and sound, who had lost an arm, and were in some other respect deficient in their members. These applications have been uniformly denied, and I have referred the Brethren to the requirements of the ancient law, and to the deci- sion of this Grand Lodge, adopted in 1875. 160 COIIPILATIOX OF DECISIONS OF The umyritten law, or customs of Masonry, constitutes its Land- marks. Blaclcstone, in his commentary, defines ' ' unwritten laws ' ' as those " whose original institution and authority are not set down in writing, as acts of Parliament are, but received their binding power and the force of law by long and universal usage, and by their universal reception throughout the kingdom." The first requisite, therefore, of a custom or rule of action, to constitute it a Landmark, is that it must have existed from the ' ' time whereof the memory of man runneth not to the contrary. ' ' Its antiquity gives it weight and authority, and, fortunately for the stability of Masonry, it has for the foundation of its funda- mental law Landmarks which cannot be repealed or disturbed. It has ever been held and maintained that certain qualifications of a candidate for initiation are Landmarks for the Fraternity. These are universally accepted to include " that he that is to be made be able in all degrees; that is, free-born, of a good kindred, true and no bondman, and that he have his right limbs, as a man ought to have. ' ' "\Ve find the same principle embraced in the charges ap- proved in 1722, " that men made Masons must be free-born- (or no bondman), of mature age, and of good report, hale and sound, not deformed or dismembered at the time of their making, but no ivoman or eunuch. ' ' Under the old Constitution of this Grand Lodge, the Land- marks were enumerated and formed a part of the Constitution, thus defining our construction of certain points which might be termed Landmarks. Under the present Constitution, Article III, Section 19th, it is declared that ' ' the action of Freemasons in their Grand or Subordinate Lodges, or in their individual character, is regulated and controlled (1) by ancient Landmarks, or the unwritten law of INIasonry "; and, furthermore, in explanation, under Section 20th. ' ' The ancient Landmarks are those principles of Masonic government that may never be altered or disturbed, and such of them as are lawful to be written are usually, but not wholly, ingrafted in written Constitutions, and general or special legisla- tion." It was deemed to be unnecessary to recite what were to be defined as ancient Landmarks, leaving the Grand Lodge and subordinate Lodges to be governed by the principles of the ancient Landmarks, which in some points cannot be disturbed. Claim is made in this special case that, inasmuch as the law of physical qualifications is lawful to be written, and is embraced as a prefix to the present Constitution, under the recapitulation of the old charges, and inasmuch as the Grand Lodge has not seen fit to define what are to be considered ancient Landmarks, there can be no rule in regard to physical qualifications except sueh as is embraced in the old charges aforesaid, or subject to the discre- tion of the Master and Brethren of a subordinate Lodge. In considering this point we must say that, although the Grand Lodge has not thought it necessary to particularly define what are to be considered Landmarks, yet, nevertheless, the great THE GEAND LODGE OF NEW YOHK 161 principles which are to be considered as embraced therein, are still in force, and ire are bound as Freemasons to obey them in spirit as well as letter. It is a wise provision that wc have certain principles termed Landmarks, which cannot be disturbed, and, although the applica- tion thereof is in a certain degree left to the discretion of the W.'. M.'. and Brethren of a Lodge, it is also a discretion which cannot be abused, and for a wilful violation of the strict law enjoined upon us as a Fraternity must receive proper punishment. It is also claimed that under the decision of the Grand Lodge in Is 75 discretionary power is given to the Master and Brethren of a Lodge. That decision was to the efEect " that the physical qualifications of a candidate for Masonry cannot be determined by the Grand Master. The Grand Master cannot issue a, Dis- pensation allowing a Lodge to disobey a Landmark of Masonry. "Whether a candidate is such a hale man, sound, not deformed, or dismembered, ' as the Landmarks prescribed to be eligible mate- rial for the temple, ' is a question that must be settled by the conscientious judgment of the Master and each Brother of the Lodge. If the Master of a Lodge, after thoroughly and scrupu- lously considering the matter, ' ' is not satisfied that the candidate is such a man, it will be his duty to reject him. It will be readily seen that the discretionary power given is very limited, and only requires an answer to the question. Does the candidate conform to the requirements of the ancient Law'? And that fact each Lodge must determine for itself. If it is not in the power of the Grand blaster to authorize the disobedience of a Landmark, how can the excuse be valid that, under the privilege given the Master, he can in his discretion disobey one? There is no question in my mind that it is a well-established principle of the Fraternity at large, and embraced in its essence in the old Constitutions, the ancient charges, and, in fact, has come down to us from time immemorial ' ' that men to be made Masons must be free-born, of lawful age, hale and sound, not deformed or dismembered, and no woman, no eunuch. ' ' This is also enumerated in its principle in the ' ' old charges, prefixed to the present Constitution,'' that " a candidate must be a perfect youth, having no maim or defect in his body, that may render him incapable of learning the art of serving his Master's Lord, and of being made a Brother. ' ' This, it has been said, admits of a qualification, viz : " Of no defect that would render him incapable of learning the art. ' ' These ' ' old charges ' ' are based upon and have reference to the nature of the institutions as in existence before the change into its speculative character, and in that light they are to be construed. Based upon that, I claim that one who has the defect of the loss of an arm or a leg cannot be considered even under the most favorable construction which can be placed upon the " old charges " as capable of learning the art, or of serving his Master's Lord; he would not then, or now, be considered in any sense a perfect youth, eligible to conform to and perform all the requirements of a Craftsman. 162 COMPILATION OF DECISIONS OF While some jurisdictions are incliiied to modify and in some instances do away entirely with the requirements thus laid down, yet others are steadfast to the ancient Landmarks, and hold to a strict compliance with them. This Grand Lodge has ever been strenuous in upholding the ancient law, and, beUeving that to be the only safe course I have been governed in my action accord- ingly. 1881. — Appendix to Grand Master's Address (p. 46). It is conceded that a Lodge may effect a temporary removal within its own jurisdiction, by due process of law, without any alteration of its territorial lines. This requires no consent of the surrounding Lodges, for the jurisdiction as to candidates remains the same as defined by the Warrant. 1882. — GOMMISSIOKEBS OP APPEALS. P. 91. Matter of Waldo. Secret baUot on report of Trial Commissioners is error justify- ing reversal (citing decision of Grand Lodge, page So, Proceed- ings 1879). P. 92. Matter of Tygert. It should appear that injustice was done before the finding of a Lodge should be reversed upon a question of fact. P. 93. Matter of Griffin. Appeal to Grand Master, who referred it to the Commissioners of Appeals without decision. SELD jurisdictional error.. Be- fendant could not be placed in the position of appellant to the Grand Lodge without his consent. The Grand ilaster is an independent tribunal, and defendant cannot be deprived of his right to two appeals under present Code. The consequences of afiirmatiou of conviction by a subordinate Lodge differ as a result of these distinct appeals. On afiirmance of the former appeal the subordinate Lodge may pardon, but it is divested of such power after affirmance by the Grand Lodge. Proceedings referred back to the Grand Master for hearing and determina- tion. 1883. — COMillTTEE ox JUKISPEUDEXCE. p. 91. Defines a summons and says : "It should not be lightly used or when the purpose to be accomplished may be attained as well by a notice." Commission or Appeals. P. 93. (Matter of Barret.) Tiler entitled to ballot on application for affiliation. Master cannot deny Tiirn this right. THE GRAND LODGE OF NEW YORK 163 P. 95. {Matter of Bntteivspool.) Uniting a conviction for a Masonic offense with a conviction for something else not a Masonic offense is fatal error. P. 96. (Matter of Weler.) Dismissal of appeal by Grand Master upon the ground that it was not taken in time was error unless it appears by the record that the defendant was actually present in the Lodge when resolution was adopted sustaining Trial Commissioners or unless he were served with notice of the judgment. P. 97. {Matter of Griffin.) Examination of defendant as a witness against himself repug- nant to settled law. If he be so called and testify it cannot be asserted his testimony is false or that he is unworthy of belief. Guilt must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. Circumstantial e^^dence must be such as necessarily to exclude every reasonable hypothesis save that of guilt. P. 102. {Matter of Graves.) Defendant charged with obtaining goods from another Brother and not paying for them, also that he had been in the habit of obtaining goods on the ground of his connection with the Fra- ternity and failing to pay therefor. He did not answer, bvit pleaded ' ' guilty. ' ' No testimony was offered. Conviction reversed on the ground the specifications were not suflSciently specific to establish a Masonic offense. " If the accused Brother has contracted debts fraudulently or with intent not to pay them, or if being able to pay his debts he has habitually and dishonestly evaded their payment, he may be Masonically tried and punished therefor. * * * " Mere non-payment of debts is not an offense punishable under our laws. ' ' " The plea of guilty was merely an admission of the truth of the facts stated in the complaint." P. 103. {Matter of Sigley.) Charges that defendant offered to contribute part of his salary as Secretary if elected, toward Lodge indebtedness; use of Lodge funds for his personal purposes without stating time, place and amounts which are necessary under the Code. Failure to keep the books correctly — insufficient to make out Masonic offense in the absence of any allegation of wrong-doing or intent to defraud the Lodge. 1884.— P. 112. (Matter of Light.) A confession of guilt insufficient to convict without further proof. Defendant was Senior "Warden when the offense was committed and tried hij his Lodge after his term as Master had expired. HELD proper. .ludgment affirmed. on corrobora- tive evidence. 164 COMPILATION OF DECISIONS OF P. 114. {Matter of Griffin.) At one of the hearings the defendant and his counsel applied for a postponement, which was denied, and trial proceeded in their absence; HELD regular. 1885. — Gbaxd Master's Address. P. 23. An unaflSliated ilason who petitions a Lodge for affiliation and is rejected still remains under the ban of our law and cannot visit. The force of the law has not been broken by such peti- tion. He may present a petition to another Lodge without limitation as to time or place. Approved by the Committee on Jurisprudence, p. 12S, and by the Grand Lodge. P. 27. Eerersal of judgment of guilty on appeal does not exonerate the defendant from payment of expenses of the trial assessed against him under Section 56, Code. P. 28. Eeversal of Commissioners' report cannot be by secret ballot. P. 12S. Committee on Jurisprudence. A privileged member under a By-law relative to payment of dues for a period of years and to be thereafter exempt acquires thereby necessarily no vested interest; the contract, if such it be,"between him and his Lodge being executory only and subject to an amendatory clause of the By-laws of the Lodge,, by which it may be at any time amended, changed or repealed. 1886.— P. ISl. Committee on Jurisprudence. Definition of " Good ila.fonic Standing." ' ' Eequires that a Brother shall have been duly initiated, passed and raised in a regular and lawfully constituted Lodge of Free and Accepted Masons working under the sanction of a Warrant or Dispensation issued by a Grand Lodge having com- petent jurisdiction, and who has not been suspended or expelled, or if so has been duly restored, and who having no charges pending against him, is ' ' under the tongue of good report. ' ' This is the primary law of the Fraternity, but upon this the Grand Lodge, by their General Eegulations and Subordinate Lodges by their By-laws, may impose conditions and restrictions. ' ' P. 184. Commissioners of Appeals — (Matter of MacGregor.) Failure to serse notice of trial with the complaint remedied by subsequent service within the required time. After the trial had commenced a subpoena was served on the Chairman, who declined to submit himself as a witness. He. had been challenged as a Commissioner and his examination dis- closed he was not a witness for either party within the meaning of the Code. It was apparent the purpose was solely to dis- qualify him as a Trial Commissioner. Judgment of conviction sustained. THE GEAND LODGE OE NEW YORK 165 1887. — Grand Master's Address. P. 30. No authority for Dispensation to confer degrees within less than the lawful time fixed by the Statutes (Constitution). P. 193. Commissioners of Appeals. (Matter of Butts.) Reference by the Grand Master of an appeal to the D. D. Grand Master for action.. The D. D. Grand Master rendered a decision addressed not to the Grand Master, but to the " Wor- shipful Master, Wardens and Brethren " .of the subordinate Lodge. The notice of Appeal was to the Commissioners of Appeals and not to the Grand Lodge. These irregularities, though to some extent formal, are not important. The " Stat- utes provide for but two appeals: one to the Grand Master and the other to the Grand Lodge, either of which an appellant has the right to take at his own option." The decision of the L. D. Grand Master was not the deci- sion of the Grand Master, and until approved or disapproved by him cannot be considered, but must be treated as still pend- ing before him. 1888. — ■ Grand Master's Address. P. 26. Matter of MicJcle. Indefinite suspension unauthorized. No appeal taken. The proceedings cannot be superseded by resolution of the Grand Lodge. Penalty excessive. Eestoration recommended. On re- port of special committee adopted, p. 135. P. 185. Commissioners of Appeals. (Matter of Boyd.) Costs and expenses of trial assessed upon defendant were not itemized er explained. It may have included a per diem for the Commissioners. This is improper (Matter Downey, Transactions 1880, p. 57). In absence of reported explanation of the fine, judgment reversed. (Matter of Brown, Transactions 1883, p. 95.) A stipulation for submission and exchange of briefs by counsel was made, but not complied with. A decision of the ease with- out notice to the counsel to furnish the briefs or an opportunity to be heard orally was reversed and new trial ordered before new Commissioners. to be appointed by the Grand Master. P. 187. (Matter of Pascall.) All intendments in favor of the regularity of the judgment. Error not presumed for the purpose of 'reversal, but it must clearly appear from the record. An answer to an appeal not necessary. As to severity of sentence: " The Code of Procedure pre- scribes three penalties * * * leaving It to the particular tribunal * * * to determine in its discretion which of these penalties shall be inflicted in a particular case, and if suspen- 166 COMPILATION OF DECISIONS OF sion, the duration thereof. No particular penalty is prescribed for any particular class of offenses, and except in rare and excep- tional cases Tve do not believe it would be well to change this condition of our laws. "The general character and conduct of the accused and the particular circumstances surrounding the commission of any offense are considerations which must largely enter into the determination of the extent of the punishment to be imposed upon him if found guilty, eonsidera,tions of which cannot well be brought to our attention upon an appeal. We have, how- ever, carefully examined the record in this respect and, finding no error, are unable to say that the punishment imposed was not merited. ' ' The Commissioners add that a number of the grounds set forth in the appeal would be proper in a petition for restoration. 1889. — Commissioners op Appeals. P. 149. {Matter of Salisbury.) An amendment to the By-laws of a Lodge assessing the mem- bers to pay the per capita tax to the Hall and Asylum Fund is binding on the members, and a dimit subsequently applied for can be only granted on payment thereof. P. 150. (Matter of Soosa.) A special answer (demurrer) to a complaint not specifying name, date or place other than the name of a village in which an offense is charged was sustained. Errors in evidence — affidavits and hearsay pointed out. P. 152. (Matter of Smith.) Failure to serve notice of time and place of meeting of Trial Commissioners. Defendant did not appear and counsel was appointed by the Commissioners to represent him. Judgment reversed on the ground that Commissioners had no jurisdiction to proceed. The complaint had been served upon defendant. 1890. — Co.MMissioxERS OP Appeals. P. 161. (Matter of Coxford.) Indefinite suspension unauthorized and sentence void. P. 162. (Matter of Wood.) Objection that the full time to answer was not given waived by appearance and answer without objection. It cannot be raised for the first time on appeal. Xotice of appeal not served in time. Xo jurisdiction to hear the appeal. P. 163. (Matter of MeXaughton.) Answer admitted he had been convicted of the same offense in a criminal court. HELD sufBeient to sustain judgment. Sec- tion 46, Code, construed as based on rule that a judment of a THE GRAND LODGE OF NEW YOKK 167 court of competent jurisdiction cannot be questioned collaterally in another court or proceeding. Appellant claimed the punishment was excessive. In affirming the judgment reference is made to the Pascall case. (Transac- tions 1888, p. 188.) Note: The Commission did not interfere with the sentence. 1891.— NOTHING. 1892. — Grand Master's Address: Pp. 15, 16. Masonic material should not be treated in a commercial sense. He denies the propriety of paying the initiation fee to the Lodge whose territorial jurisdiction has been invaded as an " amende." 1892.' — Commissioners of Appeals. Pp. 135-136. (Matter of Abrams.) It is no excuse for a petitioner for initiation who has signed an untrue petition to allege that it was filled out under the direction of a member of the Lodge, to whom he fully stated all the facts concerning a previous rejection. At most it makes the Lodge member equally guilty of the offense of misrepresenta- tion. Pp. 136-137. {Matter of Bernstein.) Objections to regularity of proceedings not taken on the trial waived. Two or more defendants jointly charged may be tried together unless a separate trial be demanded. Failure to make such demand is a waiver. 1893. — Commissioners of Appeals. P. 157. {Matter of Patterson.) Mental Soundness — Not to he tried. Allegations that defendant was ' ' non compos mentis " in a complaint should have been eliminated. The Commissioners had no jurisdiction to try the question. Judgment reversed. New trial ordered. P. 159. {Matter of Prone.) Absence of one of three Trial Commissioners during part of the trial a fatal error. " At the adjourned session of the Commissioners on the 17th day of November, 1892, two of the three Commissioners only were present. The defendant insisted that the trial should not proceed in the absence of the third Commissioner, and to the ruling of the two Commissioners present that the trial should proceed, notwithstanding the absence of one of their number, took a proper exception, and the trial then went on. It does not appear from the record that the third Commissioner was present at any time during the session mentioned, or heard any 168 COMPILATION OF DECISIONS OF of the evidence then given. The absent Commissioner was present at the subsequent sessions, took part in the deliberations of the Commissioners and signed the report. We are of the opinion that the two Commissioners had no power, in the face of the objection of the defendant, to proceed, and that their error in so doing is fatal. " Section 71 of the Statutes provides that not less than three Commissioners shall be appointed to take the testimony, in a case when charges are preferred in a Lodge, and Section 67 provides that a majority of the Commissioners must concur in the judg- ment. The court, therefore, competent to try an accused Brother must consist of at least three members; and when ' duly organ- ized, and the accused having answered the complaint, are pre- pared to hear and receive the evidence in the case. ' (Section 43, Code of Procedure.) " We are of the opinion that, in the contemplation of the Statute, every Brother against whom charges are preferred has the right to insist that all the Commissioners shall hear all the evidence, shall see every witness produced, and shall have per- sonal knowledge of every proceeding occurring on the trial. This right may be waived; but when objection is properly taken and in due season, as it was in the case at bar, the Commissioners have no power to proceed with the trial in the absence of one of their number, and if they do so the error is fatal. These views are supported by the authorities when in civil actions the trial is had before three referees. " Moreover, Section iS, Subdivision 7, Code of Procedure, pro- vides that ilasonic trials should be conducted in all respects, as near as may be, like the trial of an action of a criminal nature in a Court of Eecord, and be governed by the same general rules. The decision of the Court of Appeals of this State, in the case of the People vs. Shaw, 63 New York, 36, is decisive of the rule in criminal proceedings where similar conditions exist. " In that case the defendant was brought to trial before the Court of Oyer and Terminer for Washington County. The Statute provides that such court should consist of a Justice of the Supreme Court, who shall preside; the County Judge, and the justices of the peace designated as members of the Court of Sessions; and that the presiding justice and any two of the other oiScers above mentioned shall have power to hold said court. ' ' It will be seen that, legally organized, the court could con- sist of not less than three members. The court sitting in the case cited originally organized with four members. One of these judges absented himself for a day, during which evidence was received, and returned, taking his place upon the bench. The Court of Appeals held that by his absence the judge had become disqualified from taking part further in the case. After the jury had been- charged, but before the jury returned with its verdict, a second judge left the bench and was not present when the jury came in. The Court of Appeals reversed a conviction upon the ground that the two judges present when the verdict was ren- THE GEAND LODGE OP NEW YORK 169 dered did not constitate a legal court; and that the language of the Statute providing that the court should be composed of at least three members excluded the idea that any less number possessed the power. We are unable to perceive any difference in the principle of the case cited from that involved in the ease at bar. " The Statute of the Grand Lodge prescribes that courts for the trials of Masons shall consist of not less than three nor more than fiye members. If it had been intended that two should constitute a legal court, the Grand Lodge would have so enacted, and the language employed negatives any such inten- tion. " One of the Trial Commissioners being absent on the 17th of November, 1892, there was not a legally constituted Court for the trial of Brother Frone; and the two Commissioners had no power to proceed to take testimony. Trial Commis- sioner TowNLET, by his absence, disqualified himself from fur- ther acting in the case, and, consequently, the Commissioners were not legally constituted to render any judgment whatever in the case. Our attention has been directed to the NiMS case, decided in 1876; we consider that case as distinguishable because the defendant assented to the absence of the Trial Commissioner and agreed to his participating in the further proceedings in the case." 1894. — Grand Master's Address. P. 18. Asserts power of Grand Master to grant Dispensation to form a ' ' Traveling Lodge ' ' in France for the use of Americans and other English speaking persons sojourning in that country (cit- ing opinion of Grand Master Law'RENCB in 1886), providing the territory be not occupied or under the jurisdiction of any governing Masonic body with which we are in fraternal inter- course. Application, however, was denied, and this was approved by the Committee on Jurisprudence, p. 165. P. 162. Committee on Jurisprudence. Amendment of By-laws Exemptinrj Members from Payment of Dues. A Lodge (Continental) adopted a By-law which exempted " life members " from payment of dues. An amendment was proposed to strike out such exemption. The Master refused to submit the amendment, and on appeal the Grand Master reversed such ruling, holding: " If the By-laws of a Lodge are to be regarded as a con- tract between the Lodge and its members the contract must be taken in its entirety. A member relying on these By-laws as a contract must take them all. He cannot claim the benefit of one and reject another. He cannot single out one By-law and say that thi^ is absolute and that it cannot be amended or repealed because the power to amend or repeal is contained in 170 COMPILATION OF DECISIONS OF another By-law. The power to amend was as much a part of this contract into which the Lodge entered as was the By-law conferring life membership. Hence when these By-laws provide for the way in which they can be amended any right or privi- leged membership which may have been given thereby is to con- tinue only so long as the By-laws in this respect remain un- changed by amendment, duly accepted in the prescribed form. The right to amend is as much a part of this contract as that provision which conferred privileged membership, and either or any of those provisions may be changed at any time. * * » The Lodge certainly had the right as to future members to refuse to permit them to acquire privileged membership." The Committee considered the question similar to rights granted by the State to corporations, which are subject to amendment or repeal. 1895. — Committee ox Jdrispeudence. P. 206. BisaiiUty of Master and Wardens. Removal of Master and both Wardens from the County and District of their Lodge and inability to attend its Communica- tions does not create a vacancy in any of their respective ofiSces. HELD, The Grand Master can by Dispensation delegfite to any Past Master of the Lodge the power to convene the Lodge and to preside therein. COMMISSIOXEBS OP APPEALS. p. 207. {Matter of Frone.) IXCOMPETEXT EVIDEXCE XOT IXVOLVIXG MEKITS DISREGAKDED ON APPEAL. Commissioners differ as to competency of evidence, but hold that " the ends of Masonic justice should not be thwarted by so strict an adherence to purely legal technicalities as to enable a defendant whose guilt is practically confessed to avoid the consequences thereof by repeated appeals based upon grounds wholly technical in their character and not involving the merits. ' ' 1896.— Pp. 133 to 169. Xew Constitutiox adopted. CoMMissioxERS OF APPEALS. (Matter of Wade.) P. 199. AMEXDMEXT COMPLAINT — COUXSEL. Charge was for circulation of a document which was not attached to the complaint, or sufficiently set forth. SELD, the complaint could be amended, so that the offense alleged could be properly charged. THE GRAND LODGE OF NEW TOEK 171 The defendant was denied the assistance of counsel, a Mason of his choice, and another Brother was appointed by the Trial Commissioners. SELD, error and judgment reversed and new trial directed to be had before a new Trial Commission. 1897.— P. 30. Ess^cTCLicAL calling attention to changes, and effect, of New Constitution on previous decisions. Committee on Jurisprudence. P. 161. Assessments. It is a strictly Masonic purpose within the provisions of Sec- tion 63, Constitution, for a Lodge to levy an assessment in accordance with the rules and regulations of this Grand Lodge and the subordinate Lodge to provide for the necessities of a worthy, indigent Brother in good and regular standing. Eeiterated by Commissioners of Appeals, p. 174, in case of assessment to raise funds for treatment to cure a Brother who had the morphine habit. Perpetual Jurisdiction Abandoned (p. 161). Our Grand Lodge, after due consideration, has recently aban- doned the old usage of " perpetual jurisdiction," and at the adoption of our Eevised Constitution of 1896, Section 110, fixed the limit at one year. P. 162. Legitimacy of Master Masons made in lodges of the A & A Eite in countries where that is the dominant Eite recognized * * * those of the obedience of the Grand Orient of Prance excepted (citing resolution of Grand Lodge, 1896). Clandestine Mason can only heal himself by renouncing all connection with the clandestine body, and then as pure as any other profane may petition for membership in a regular Lodge. 1898. — ' Address Grand Master. P. 24. Eeports amendment to act of incorporation of Trustees and its attendant dif&culties. 1899. — Address Sutherland, Grand Master. Page 31 recommends enlarged duties for Grand Eepresenta- tives and Annual Eeports to the Grand Master. Bequests for waiver of jurisdiction, assistance and relief and other matters of like tenor should pass from one Grand Lodge to another through the media of their respective Eepresentatives. 173 COMPILATION OF DECISIONS OF 1899. — Master's Power to Exclude JIembek fkom Lodge Boom. Op. Sutherland, G. M. P. 216. Matter of Tompkins. The complaint charged the Master of the Lodge with un- Masonie conduct in two particulars: First, in that the Master overruled an objection made by the complainant to the introduc- tion of a visitor to the Lodge; and second, that the Master dismissed the complainant from the Lodge, and in the order of dismissal directed that the complainant should not be admitted to the Lodge until he should have made a written apology to the Lodge for his conduct in the Lodge. It was argued by the complairant that there can be no excep- . tion to the rule requiring the Master of a Lodge to exclude a visitor upon the objection of a single member of the Lodge, and it was insisted with equal strenuousness that the Master of the Lodge has no power to dismiss from the Lodge-room any member of his Lodge under any circumstances. I consider the latter proposition first, as, in my judgment, the powers and duties of the Master in the latter case throw light upon his powers and duties in the other. It was insisted for the complainant that in case a member of a Lodge should prove so obstreperous and should be guilty of conduct so subversive of the good order and harmony of the Lodge as to demand immediate and prompt action by the Mas- ter, the only remedy in the ilaster 's hands is to summarily close his Lodge; but that, so long as the obstreperous member remains undisciplined as the result of the charges, the Master has no power to administer discipline himself. This argument, if sound, would lead to the conclusion that a single obstreperous member could indefinitely prevent his Lodge ' from holding its Communications. Charges by one member of a Lodge against another can only be preferred within the Lodge and at a stated Communication. But if the offending member can indulge in such tactics, in disregard of the lawful com- mands of his Master, as to leave the Master no remedy save to close the Lodge, he may commence those tactics immediately at the opening of the Lodge, and continue them until the Lodge shall be summarily closed, thus preventing the Lodge from doing business, and, of course, from receiving or acting upon charges against him. Independent of prior decisions on this question, I cannot concur with the argument made for the complainant. The Master of a Masonic Lodge is clothed with power un- known to the presiding officer of any other organization, so far as I am aware, save only the Grand Master when presiding in the Grand Lodge. He may close debate on any question pending before his Lodge according to his judgment, and not the judgment of his Brethren as to the time when debate should cease. He may change the order of business from that laid down in the By-laws of his Lodge. He may determine how much or how little of the ceremonies of any degree shall be exemplified at any THE GRAND LODGE OF NEW TOEK 173 one Communication. He may determine whether or not, in the absence of objection, he will or will not proceed to confer de- grees upon candidates, and even though the oldest and most respected Past Master of Ms Lodge stands by the side of the Tiler seeking admission, that admission cannot be had until the Worshipful Master is informed of his request and his answer returned. These and other great and autocratic powers inhere in the office of the Master of a Lodge for reasons which the history of the Craft has most amply justified. Our Institution has been held together in large part because of the extraordinary power symbolized by the gavel in the hands of the Master of the Lodge. Whenever any Masonic Lodge has been detected in wrong- doing the Craft at large has most righteously held the Master of that Lodge responsible, and has not stopped to ask the names of the Brethren who might have been sitting by, nor whether they were Past Masters, or wise men, or not. The Craft always has and always will look to the Master of a Lodge to preserve the dignity, the honor and the integrity of the Lodge over which he presides. If, therefore, a member of a Lodge should enter one of its Communications in an intoxicated condition, and 'be- come boisterous and riotous so as to interfere with the work of the Lodge; or if one should become inflamed with passion and indulge in verbal or physical attacks upon any person else in the room, I am of the opinion that the duty rests with the Master of the Lodge to quell the disturbance, and that, in order to enable his Lodge to proceed with its business, he not only may, but most emphatically should, eject the distvirber from the room, provided he could not otherwise secure obedience to the sound of the gavel. This subject was considered by the Grand Lodge of 1875. M.'. W.'. Elwood B. Thorns among other decisions (p. 32, Proceedings, 1875) held: " That the Master has a. right, and it is his duty, to exclude from the Lodge a Brother who, by his perverseness or contumacy may interfere with the proper working of the Lodge or disturb its harmony. ' ' On pages 232 and 233 of the same volume of Proceedings is the report of the Committee approving this and other decisions, which report is signed by John L. Lewis, Joseph D. Evans, Clinton P. Paige, Isaac Phillips, Stephen H. Johnson, Nathaniel P. Waeing, and Chkistopher G. Pox. The report of this Committee was adopted by unanimous -vote of the Grand Lodge. The decision by the Grand Lodge of 1875 was not presented to the Trial Commissioners in this ease, nor was it cited before me nor commented upon by either party. I must assume, there- fore, that the Trial Commissioners were not informed of this action of the Grand Lodge, else they would not have adjudged the Worshipful Master guilty of violating Masonic law in ex- cluding the complainant from the Lodge-room that evening, be- cause the Commissioners also report that the conduct of the complainant on the evening in question was wellnigh riotous and would have justified charges and discipline. 174 COMPILATION OF DECISIONS OF As this objectionable conduct of the plaintiff was more fully considered by the Trial Commissioners with reference to the overruling of the complainant 's objection to the introduction of a visiting Brother, I proceed now to that question. The Commissioners at the conclusion of their report state that the objection of the complainant to the visitor did not spring from worthy motives, and in effect they have determined that the objection at the time it was offered was but a part of a line of operations upon which the complainant had entered from malicious motives, intending thereby to harass, annoy and humiliate the Worshipful ilaster, and to produce such disorder and confusion in the Lodge as would induce the Master and his Brethren to yield to the dictates of the complainant in order that peace and quiet might follow. The Commissioners, among other things, say: "Fourth, That the conduct of the complainant from and including the month of May, 1897, to his dismissal in February, ISPS, whenever E.'. W.'. Tatlcr was present at the Communica- tion of Eadiant Lodge, was impolite, offensive, irritating and humiliating to the Master of said Lodge, and intentionally and pertinaciously emphasized by said Hartmax, so as not only to disturb the harmony of the Lodge, but as well as to maliciously intensify the discord between said Hartmau and the presiding officer of the Lodge; that all acts of said Hartmax while in the Lodge during said period had taken place in the presence of W.'. ToMPKixs (during most of which time said V^.'. Tompkins was not the Master), who was familiar with the conduct and temper of said Hartjiax, accentuated by Ms statement that he (said W.'. ToMPKJxs) would have a hard time during his ad- ministration, and was aggravated almost beyond the limit of endurance by the annoying behavior of said Hartmax — and though the conduct of W.". Hahtman was and had been un- necessary and intentionally offensive and aggravating to the Master of the Lodge, and without worthy motives, and on several occasions would, in our judgment, have justified proceedings against said Hartmax in the manner prescribed by the Con- stitution for un-Masonic conduct, we cannot approve," etc. I have read with great care all the evidence taken before the Trial Commissioners, and I find therein much more justification for the language quoted from the report. It seems that the complainant had for a long time prior to the occurrence in ques- tion demonstrated an intention to so disturb the regular work- ing of the Lodge, either on account of animosity towards its Master, or some other equally improper motive, as that it had, long before the occurrence in question, become the duty of the Master of the Lodge to assert his prerogatives in order to main- tain the dignity and the peace, not to say perpetuity, of his Lodge. The evidence shows that on several of these ocasions the complainant criticised the rulings of the Master, indulged at hissing at various things occurring in the Lodge, engaged iii loud and boisterous talk, going so far on one occasion as to fling his apron on the floor and depart from the Lodge-room without THE GRAND LODGE OF NEW YOEK 175 saluting the Worshipful Master, accompanying his exit with very- objectionable language. It is testified that he has on more than one occasion indulged in profane expressions respecting the future of the Lodge, even to the extent of wishing the charter consigned to the abode of his Satanic majesty. Not only then do the Trial Commissioners find that the objec- tions made at previous Communications and renewed at thS Communication on February 1, 1898, by the complainant to the admission of the visitor did not spring from worthy motives, but it is plain that the conduct of the complainant on the night in question, and the objection which he then made, was one of a series of acts born only out of a desire to create disturbances within the Lodge. It was, however, argued before me for the complainant that as the Lodge is a sort of family circle, and as the rights of each member of that Lodge are superior within the Lodge to the rights of any one not a member of the Lodge, and that as the Constitution of the Grand Lodge at section 64 provides that " An honorary member of a Lodge has not the right to visit said Lodge when a member of it objects thereto," that the Master of a Lodge has no discretion when an objection is made to the introduction of any visiting Brother, but no matter how base the motives of the objector, nor how entirely willing the objector might actually be to hold Masonic intercourse with the proposed visitor — in short, that no matter if the Brother made his objection for the sole and only purpose of harassing and annoying the Master and interfering with his work, yet the Master is bound to obey the command of his Brother and direct the -sdsitor to depart. The clause in the Constitution above quoted seems to have confused the minds of more than one Brother. It does not, in fact, touch the question now under discussion. True, an honor- ary member does not possess, that is to say, there does not inhere in the honorary member, an absolute and unqualified " right "to go into a Lodge notwithstanding the objection of a Brother. But neither does an actual member of a Lodge possess an inherent, positive, and unqualified " right " to enter his Lodge. As shown above, there are various" circumstances under which it would become the right and the duty of the Master to refuse admission even to a member of his own Lodge, the remedy of the Brother thus rejected being only by appeal to the Grand Master in case the action of the Master was arbitrary and unjustified. Nevertheless, we speak in general language of the right of a member of a Lodge to attend his own Lodge, and we speak of his right to visit. Now, not only does no member of a Lodge possess the inlierent and unqualified " right " to force his way, under any and all circumstances, even into his own Lodge, but no Free Mason, no matter how excellent his standing (save only the Grand Master and his Deputy in and for the district embrac- ing the Lodge in question), has the right to force his way into any Lodge as a visitor. 176 COMPILATIOX OF DECISIOXS OF An excellent description of the right of visitation is given by ilACOY in " The Worshipful Master's Assistant," at page 266, in these words: ' ' A Master Mason in good standing possesses the right of Tisiting any Masonic Lodge wherever he may go, pro«ided th* Lodge to which he applies will receive him. . . . The right of a Master Mason in good standing to visit a Lodge is subor- dinate to the paramount right of a Lodge to refuse him admis- sion. ' ' The general right of visitation being thus qualified and limited and liable to a denial at any time, a Master Mason ap- proaching another Lodge than his own is very like one approach- ing the house of his personal friend. Thus approaching, he believes that he will be made welcome, as distinguished from an intruder, an outsider, a person regarded with hostility or animos- ity. The one approaching has what all men usually call a right to visit. Xevertheless, one as matter of law may not enter the honse of his friend except by permission of that friend, and I take it that even the objection of a servant in the house of this friend made known to the visitor, as he stands at the door, would, in the absence of the master of the house, render the visi- tor an intruder should he enter notwithstanding. A visiting Brother enters a Lodge by virtue of an invitation, either expressed or implied, and therefore, strictly speaking, as matter of courtesy rather than of " right." To my mind, therefore, the Consti- tution intends to place an honorary member of a Lodge upon the same footing with the active members of a Lodge so far as sitting in the Lodge is concerned, except that if upon any occa- sion a member of the Lodge should object to the presence of the Brother, the honorary member would, by that objection, be reduced to the same status as that of any other Master Mason in good standing proposing to visit the Lodge. The rights, the powers, the prerogatives of the Master of the Lodge, in case objection is made to a visitor, were carefully considered by that eminent jurist and most distinguished Mason, M.'. W.'. JoHX L. Levtis, in 1859. In the Grand Lodge Pro- ceedings of that rear, at pages 28 and 31, may be found forty- tTTo decisions rendered by Grand Master Lewis during the year then closing. At page 29 is decision No. 12, in these words: ' ' That it is the right of a Master to determine the validity of objection to a request to visit; he being responsible for the abuse of his discretion." At pages 256 and 258 of the same Proceedings may be found the report of the Committee of the Grand Lodge upon the de- cisions thus announced by the Grand Master. After expressing dissent from some, and adding qualifications to a few, the de- cision above quoted from not being among these, the Committee say at page 257: " With these exceptions and qualifications, the Committee fully concur in the positions taken, and believe them to be In accord- ance uith the ancient usages of the Fraternity." This report, presented by a distinguished Craftsman, Stephen THE GRAND LODGE OF NEW TOUK 177 H. Johnson, afterwards Grand Master, and noted for Ms sound legal mind, was adopted by the unanimous vote of the Grand Lodge, among whom and approving the same were John W. Simons, then the Deputy Grand Master; Finlay M. King, then the Senior Grand Warden; Clinton F. Paige, then the Junior Grand Warden; Salem Town, then one of the Grand Chaplains; Past Grand Masters Willard, Milnor, Coles and Evans, and by many distinguished representatives of their Lodges, including such Brethren as Edmund L. Judson, Ebes G. Williams, John J. Gorman, James Gibson and Ezra Graves. In the light of this determination by the Grand Lodge of 1859, it seems to me the ri-ght to object to a visitor must be held to be given to a member of the Lodge for one purpose only, that of protecting him against a real injury to his feelings, and that the Master is only bound to respect this objection when con- vinced that the objector is honest and sincere in making his objection. It seems also to follow that whenever a member of a Lodge shall seize upon this right of objection simply and only to use it as a club with which to beat down- the authority of the Master, or to harass him in the performance of his duties, or to disturb the harmony of the Lodge, that section 64 of the Constitution, pro- viding that ' ' no visitor shall be admitted into any Lodge . . . if his admission will disturb the harmony of the Lodge or em- barrass its work," will be religiously respected and literally and absolutely followed by the Master of the Lodge when he shall overrule the objection and, if need be, exclude the objector. The evidence shows that on the night of Feb. 1st, after the Master of Eadiant Lodge overruled the objection of the com- plainant and dismissed him from the Lodge-room, the entire membership present broke out into loud applause. It thereby appears that the harmony of all those members who remained in the Lodge-room was actually promoted by the conduct of the Master. The Trial Commissioners did not have before them the decision of the Grand Lodge of 1859, and the same was not cited before me on the argument of this appeal. The Commissioners evi- dently reached their conclusion adverse to the Master of the Lodge with great reluctance, and only because they felt them- selves compelled to so decide because of their interpretation of Masonic law. Their summary is in these words: "We therefore adjudge and determine as follows: First, That Worshipful Uriah W. Tompkins, under greatly extenuating circumstances, violated Masonic law, and the charges of un-Masonie conduct are sus- tained. Second, That Worshipful Tompkins be and is hereby censured. ' ' These two determinations of the Trial Commissioners cannot stand against the appeal of the Master, W.". Uriah W. Tomp- kins, and they are and each of them is hereiy u-hoUy and in all things reversed. The third finding in judgment of the Trial Commissioners re- 178 COMPILATION OF DECISIO^TS OF lates to a provision in the order excluding the complainant from the Lodge-room whereby he was forbidden to enter again until he should first make written apology to the Lodge. This order of the Worshipful Master the Trial Commissioners vacated and set aside by their finding and judgment. It is by no means clear to me that the Master was wrong even in this part of his order. If the complainant had appeared in the Lodge-room in an intoxicated condition, would it not have been the duty of the Master not only to dismiss him from the body of the Lodge, but also to command the Junior Deacon not to readmit him until he should become sober? Such an order in the case of a man on an extended spree, would amount to an exclusion from the Lodge for more than one Communication. In the present case, the Trial Commissioners have found and determined that the conduct of the complainant was contumacious, not by acci- dent, but by design, and intended to provoke disturbances in the Lodge. I am not so sure but that the Master might prop- erly say that such an offender should not come again into his Lodge until he should give some evidence of an intention to take due notice of the authority of the Master and govern himself accordingly. 1899. — P. 229. Committee on" Griev.4nces. " We know of no way for a person who is and always has been a resident of (another jurisdiction) to become a member of a Xew York Lodge except by Dispensation of (the Grand Lodge of the other jurisdiction) or upon a regular demit from a Lodge of (the other jurisdiction)." 1900. — Grand Master's Address. P. 55. History of claim' of perpetual jurisdiction and its abandon- ment in Xew York by adoption of amendment to Constitution of 1896. The candidate still must answer as to former rejection and the Investigating Committee must investigate the cause. The claim of a Lodge in this State over rejected material terminates in one year after rejection. P. 391. Committee ox Jurisprudence. Eefusal of a Lodge to grant JVaiver of Jurisdiction to a sister Lodge within its o^vn jurisdiction; the courtesy of a waiver of territorial jurisdiction over a candidate who has been elected does not constitute or establish any claim whatsoever upon the candidate for Masonic light. A Lodge of a foreign jurisdiction cannot retard or prohibit a candidate who has resided in this jurisdiction for the Consti- tutional period of time from receiving the degrees' in this jurisdiction. THE GEAND LODGE OF NEW YORK 179 1901. — Nothing. 1902. — P. 225. Committee on Jukispeudbnoe. Perpetual Jurisdiction. In all cases of applicants for initiation and membership in the Lodges of this jurisdiction previously rejected by Lodges under the jurisdiction of Grand Lodges with which we are in fraternal relation, the law governing in such jurisdiction must be complied with before such candidate can be initiated in this jurisdiction. Commissioners or Appeals. P. 233. Lodge sentence of suspension modified. P. 234. Matter of Lewis. Judgment in civil action presumptive evidence which may be rebutted. Grand Master's discretion on motion to correct record not reviewable. The record of a Civil Court judgment in a civil action is on a Masonic trial " prima facie " evidence of its contents. It is sufficient to justify a conviction if it be not rebutted. It is not necessary for the prosecution to repeat the evidence. The civil judgment may be based upon mere preponderance of proof 'not necessarily conclusive in a criminal proceeding where proof must be such as to establish guilt beyond a reasonatle doubt. The accused is not prohibited from offering evidence to rebut the presumption. A motion to the Grand Master to correct the record rests in his direction and is not reviewable. 1903. — P. 226. Committee on Jukisprudence. A Lodge cannot legally confer degrees outside a regular Lodge- room except by authority of a Dispensation. 1904. — P. 270. Commission of Appeals. Report clandestine methods and expulsion of promoters. P. 272. Printing a libel against a member in a newspaper published by a member of the Craft a Masonic offense. P. 278. Proposed that Commissioners of Appeals have title of Eight Worshipful. 1905. — EoBiNSON, Grand Master. Address. Blank Ballots. P. 40. A majority of the ballots cast necessary to election of Lodge officers notwithstanding some of the ballots may be blanks. Pp. 43, 57 and 222. Legislation against clandestines reported. 180 COMPILATION OF DECISIONS OF P. 262. Committee ox Jurisprudence. Lodge refusal to grant dimit upon proper application is a Masonic offense. 1906. — ^P. 150. CoMMissiox OP Appeals. Bieder's Case. Motion to Grand Master to amend return of trial Commissioners after aflSrmance of judgment by him is too late. It would be proper procedure if the matter ivere pending before him and undecided. Pp. 151-345. Commission of Appeals. Westchester Lodge Case. Power of Grand Master on appeal to modify action of a Lodge in the imposition of a sentence affirmed. Penalty of ex- pulsion imposed. Held too severe and modified to suspension for three years. Cites matter Pascall, G. L. P., 1888, p. 187; McXaughton, G. L. P., 1890, p. 163. P. 308. Committee ox Jurisprudence. Matter Lucas. Non-payment of dues accruing after refusal by Lodge to grant dimit to member entitled thereto not punishable by suspension or unafiiliation. The Lodge liable to suspension of charter for attempt to enforce such collection in such manner. 1907. — ScuDDEE, Grand Master. Address, pp. 54-55. Perpetual jurisdiction denied. A resident of this jurisdiction who has been rejected in another jurisdiction may apply to and be accepted by a Lodge in New York at the expiration of twelve months since the rejection. Pp. 218-220. Commission of Appeals. Gallauners Case. {Approved by Grand Lodge.) Jurisdiction of the Grand Lodge to discipline is conferred by the Constitution. Hence a complaint need not disclose as a juris- dictional fact that the controversy is between members of dif- ferent Lodges. Direction of the charges in such case to the officers of defendant's Lodge and not to the Grand Master or D. D. G. M. is not fatal. The provisions of the Code in such matters are directory and not mandatory. A judgment should not be reversed upon the sole ground that in the opinion of the appellate court where evidence is con- flicting the trial court should have reached a different conclusion. THE QKAND LODGE OF NEW TOEK 181 There must he such preponderance in favor of a contrary con- clusion that it can be said with a reasonable degree of cer- tainty that the trial court erred. Office of Judge Advocate Created by amendment to the Con- stitution adopted May 9, 1907. Tentative appointment of Abel Crook was made in 1906 and renewed in 1907 (p. 257). Judge Advocate's Eepokt, Pro. 1907, p. 195. Committee on Revision of Constitution and Code of PrO' CEDURE appointed in 1907, consisting of M.'. W.". John Stew- art, E.". W.'. Abel Crook, E.". W.'. S. Nelson Sawyer, E, W.'. Thomas Pennbt, E.'. W.'. John Lloyd Thomas, E.'. W.", William C. Prime, E.". W.'. George E. Van De Water, E.'. W.' Eupus L. Scott. Buty — Of revising the Constitution and the Code of Procedure in accordance with the suggestion contained in the Grand Mas- ter's address (p. 259). Grand Master's address (p. 69). 1908. — Grand Master's Address. Methods of clandestine Masonry (p. 70). Gifts to D. D. G. M. criticised (pp. 77-78). Use of Masonry for advertising business condemned (p. .80). Past Masters Associations approved (p. 80). Eeport of the Judge Advocate (p. 269). This reports the existence and methods of clandestine bodies. P. 324. Committee on Jurisprudence. Matter of Fooahontas Lodge. An unaffiliate for non-payment of dues accrued at the date of his unaffiliation, on tender, of payment is entitled to a receipt in full payment and satisfaction of such indebtedness and such other and further relief as may be just, proper and in accord- ance with the laws of the Order. The Committee on Eevision of the Constitution made a report with recommendations and proposed revision which were adopted so far as possible at one Communication (pp. 328-398). 1909. — Grand Master's Address. P. 61. Clandestine Masonry discussed. P. 64. A Brother unaffiliated for non-payment of dues tendered the amount owed which was accepted and receipt given. He applied for reinstatement but was rejected. The Grand Master decided that having paid in full his indebtedness to his Lodge, his status thereupon became the same as that of one who had paid his dues and been, at his own request, dropped from the roll. That having discharged his obligation to his Lodge, his punishment could not be longer continued; and that if the Lodge did not care to restore him to membership, he was free to apply to any other Lodge for affiliation and could be lawfully received. (Approved by Committee on Jurisprudence, p. 480.) 182 COMPILATION OF DECISIONS OF Physical Qqalipications. The addreno ^t the Grand Master contained the following (p. 66): This subject, while old as Preemasonry, has never in this juris- diction been spoken of in our book of Constitutions. We have always rested upon the Landmark, which provides that a candi- date for Freemasonry shall be a hale, sound man, not deformed or dismembered. The responsibility of deciding whether a pro- posed candidate is physically within the meaning of the Land- mark has been, as in other jurisdictions, left to the sound judg- ment of the Lodge to which the candidate makes appUeation. In 1875 the Grand Lodge approved the following decision of M.'. W.'. Elwood E. Thorne: ' ' That the physical qualifications of a candidate for Masonry cannot be determined by the Grand ilaster. The Grand Master cannot issue a Dispensation allowing a Lodge to disobey a Land- mark of Masonry. Whether a candidate is such ' a hale man, sound, not deformed or dismembered,' as the Landmarks of Masonry prescribe to be eligible material for the temple, is a question that must be settled by the conscientious judgment of the Master and each Brother of the Lodge. If the Master of a Lodge is not satisfied after thoroughly and scrupulously considering the matter, that the candidate is such a man, it will be his duty to reject him." Thus giving actual legal effect to the practice theretofore invariably followed in this regard. I find that in recent years this decision has been sometime construed to mean that the decision of a Lodge upon this question is final, and a candidate not physically whole might, if the Lodge saw fit, be received into the Fraternity. This is not so. In 1881 the Grand Lodge, in the matter of Fortuna Lodge, held the proper construction of this decision to be only, that the Grand Master hard no authority to grant a Dispensation allowing the admission of a candidate whom the Lodge itself would not otherwise be permitted to admit; that the decision of 1875 in no manner changed the ancient law of the Craft. Because of the erroneous construction of the decision of 1875, however, it appears that a number of persons have been initiated in absolute violation of the ancient Landmark. Twice during the past year such violations have been called to my attention. In one instance the degrees were conferred upon a man who had lost his left arm between the wrist and the elbow; in the other, one received two degrees who had lost his left , leg between the ankle and the knee. In both eases the Lodges involved had seriously considered the question of eligi- bility and concluded that, because the candidates, by the aid of artificial members, were able to conform to some extent to the requirements of the Ritual, no barrier existed to their admission. Under the circumstances justice did not seem to require the drastic punishment this Grand Lodge has heretofore inflicted in such eases, viz.: the arrest of the charters of the Lodge. The Grand Master, however, in each instance, caused charges to be THE GRAND LODGE OE NEW YOHK 183 preferred against the Master who permitted the violation; both have been tried, found gttilty, and such punishment inflicted as seemed to the Trial Commissioners commensurate with the of- fense. One of the Eegulations adopted at the last Annual Com- munication specifically defines the meaning of the Landmark relating to physical qualifications, and I am persuaded that if it shall again be adopted, it will gp far toward avoiding future troubles of this kind. P. 93. Trustees of the Masonic Hall and Asylum Fund. Powers discussed by Grand Master, including the following: In 1884, upon motion of M.'. W.'. JTrank Lawbenob, the Grand Lodge appointed a Committee to procure such legislation amendatory to the act " Incorporating the Trustees of the Hall and Asylum Fund as will give to this Grand Body, or to such oflBcer or Committee as it may direct, such supervising power over the Trustees as the Legislature may consider necessary to render them properly accountable to this Grand Body. ' ' The report of M.'. W.'. William A. Beodie to the Grand Lodge the following year, as well as the report of the Special Com- mittee referred to, shows that the desired legislation was pro- cured, its nature was such that the Trustees became, and for a time remained, the servants of the Craft and accountable to the Grand Lodge. The Grand Master has examined the records since 1884 and fails to find anywhere a change in the law whereby the power and authority of the Trustees was lessened, but discovers that additional powers have been constantly granted. This has gone on gradually, but none the less surely, until to-day the Trustees of the Masonic Hall and Asylum Fund are free from restriction of any kind, save legal restrictions govern- ing their incorporation and Trustees generally, and the restric- tions of their own conscience. It is fortunate for us that so far these Trustees have been men of high character. Let me call to your attention some of their powers, as our laws now stand. For any purpose directly or remotely connected with the man- agement of our charities they may: First. — Without asking, and without reference to the Craft, tear down this hall and build upon its site another of such design and such cost as they may deem proper. Second. — Without regard to our wishes, purchase any adjoin- ing property, at any price they think reasonable, and build thereon another annex to this building as their judgment dic- tates. Third. — Make any contracts in reference to the management of the property intrusted to them and bind the Craft to the payment of any amount despite the Grand Lodge or its officers. Fourth. — Borrow all the money they can procure for any purpose which can be stretched to come within the scope of their incorporation and pledge as security for its payment our entire property, without any consultation with us. 184 COMPILATION OF DECISIONS OF These things and many others of equal importance the Trus- tees may do without let or hindrance. As matters are now the Trustees are an independent body, controlled by no one. Under our present system the Grand Lodge is not superior, but inferior to the Trustees; the Fraternity has no part in their concerns save to furnish with regularity and generosity the nec- essary moneys. The Grand Treasurer is but a receiving agent, whose only duty is to receive the income of the Grand Lodge, pay its com- paratively small expenses, and turn the balance over to the Brethren who, from time to time, may comprise the Board of Trustees. The Grand Master, chosen by the Brethren to become the head of the Craft, and supposed by them to be endowed with authoritj' to supervise its destinies, becomes simply a dispenser of the title of Eight Worshipful, a figurehead at banquets, and the general supervisor of the troubles of the Brethren and the Lodges. He is charged with full responsibility, yet is abso- lutely without power to assert his judgment or protect, as he may from time to time think best, the vast financial interests of the Fraternity, upon which, after all, our strength and pros- perity must be founded. The Grand Masters nominate Brethren for Trustees whom they believe in all respects competent for the position, and the nominations are passed upon by the Grand Lodge. This plan of selection was adopted some years ago in place of a direct election by the Grand Lodge, and its results are beneficial, as thereby the selection of the Board is taken out of what I have heard called ' ' Grand Lodge Politics. ' ' When once elected, as our law stands, it is very doubtful if a Trustee can be removed by the Grand Lodge. This, I believe, ought not to be, but that the Grand Lodge should retain to itself the sole power of removal. At present a Trustee can be removed by the Grand Master when the Grand Lodge is not in session upon the written rec- ommendation of the Committee on Hall and Asylum Fund; under the proposed new Constitution adopted • last year, the Grand Master may, whenever the Grand Lodge is not in session, by his written order, remove any Trustee. The Grand Master recommended as a result of his study of our law relating to the Board of Trustees, and the Grand Master is of the opinion that without first obtaining specific consent of the Grand Lodge, the Trustees should not be authorized: First. — To purchase or to mortgage real estate, or limited or leasehold title to real estate. Second. — To erect any building, except such as may be required in connection with our Home, and then not to cost more than, say, $50,000 for any one building, or in any one year, unless by reason of fire or other calamity it became necessary to im- mediately replace buildings already in existence. Third. — To expend in repairs and betterments to our real THE GKAKD LODGE OF NEW TOEK 185 estate in any one year (other than authorized new buildings) more than such limited sum as is necessary to keep it in good condition and reasonably modern. Fourth. — To borow money or contract debts except for the maintenance of our Home, or as required by their authorized enterprises. Fifth. — That a Trustee should only be removed by the Grand Lodge upon recomniendation of the Grand Master, and for rea- sons to be by him stated. Sixth. — That when in his judgment the interests of the Craft require, the Grand Master should have power to suspend a Trustee until the next meeting of the Grand Lodge. Seventh. — That the Grand Master should have some kind of veto power over all acts of the Trustees outside the ordinary routine of their work. Pp. 102, 103. Edict of Grand Master (Dated August 29, 1908). Clandestine Masonry. GRAND LODGE, F. & A. M. Office of the Grand Master of Masons in the State of New York. Palmyra, N. Y., August 29, 1908. To the Worshipful Master, Wardens and Brethren of the several Lodges of Free and Accepted Masons of the State of New York: Edict— Whereas, There have been established in the City of New York, in violation of the law, several fraudulent and spurious bodies, claiming to be Freemasons and assuming the names, to wit : of Hudson, Ocean, Evergreen, Oriental and the names of other regular and duly constituted Lodges of Free and Accepted Masons, as it may suit the purpose of these impostors to deceive the public; and. Whereas, Efforts are being made to establish in other por- tions of the State of New York fraudulent and spurious bodies claiming to be Freemasons; and. Whereas, Fraudulent and spurious organizations of so-called Grand Lodges exist in the State of Massachusetts and Ohio, and. Whereas, The Grand Orient of France has established a Lodge named Atlantide in the City of New York, and the Grand Orient of Spain has established various lodges in the State of Pennsyl- vania, thereby invading the territories of these jurisdictions, in violation of Masonic law; and. Whereas, One Ange Eomeos, styling himself " the Minister Plenipotentiary of the Grand Lodge of Greece, Argentine Repub- lic, and Sovereign Grand Symbolic Lodge of Spain, for the 186 COMPILATION OF DECISIONS OF United States and Canada, ' ' and giving his post-office address as Boston, Massachusetts, announces that if the Lodges estab- lished by him with charters from the Grand Orient of Italy, the Grand Orient of Spain, the Grand Orient of Greece and the Grand Orient of the Argentine EepubUe, and from other Orients which may issue charters to establish Lodges in America, are not recognized by the Lodges of Ancient Craft Masonry in the United States and Canada, such territories will be considered open to establish Lodges under foreign jurisdictions: Xow, therefore, I, S. Nelson Sawyeb, Grand Master of Masons in the State of New York, hereby direct, until die further pleasure of the Grand Lodge shall be made known by appropriate legislation, that the name and Lodge of any person presenting himself as a visitor to one of the regular Lodges in this jurisdiction, must be announced in open Lodge, and must either be there vouched for by a, member of the Lodge to which he presents himself, or before being examined there must be produced a certificate of his standing in the Lodge of which he is a member, and the regularity of such Lodge must be certified by the Grand Secretary of the jurisdiction in which the Lodge is located, to the end that it may be made impossible for the fraudulent, spurious or clandestine Mason to receive Masonic recognition in this State. Let this Edict be read in each Lodge the first Communication after its receipt and entered in full upon the record. Witness my hand and private seal the day and year first above written. [seal] S. NELSON SAWYER, Grand Master. By the Grand Master: Edward M. L. Ehlbes, Grand Secretary. BuEiAi Service. Edited and compiled by M.". W.'. Edwaed M. L. Ehlees. Authorized to be inserted in the Monitor (p. 355). Judge Advocate's Eepobt. Judge Advocate, Jerky T. Durham, for 1908, Pro. 1909, p. 367. No decision filed. A compilation and publication of Masonic decisions recommended (p. 367). Constitution and Code of Procedure Bevision. Report of the Committee and action of the Grand Lodge thereon (p. 370), with report of the Committee on Constitution and action thereon and Constitution as adopted May 6, 1909 (pp. 370-i72). THE GRAND LODGE OF NEW YORK 187 1910. Constitution, Eegulations and Code of Pbocedube. Suggestions of the Grand Master in address -(pp. 71-78). Committee on Grievances. Reported in favor of restoration to the rights of Masonry of John H. Conway. His application did not conform to the provisions of section 81 of the Code of Procedure, in that the petition is not accompanied by any recommendation from the Lodge of -n-hich the applicant was a member, nor is there any proof of service upon such Lodge or any of the trial commis- sioners of notice of filing of the petition herein, but in view of the facts that such Lodge is not, and at the time of filing such petition, was not in existence, and that all of the trial com- missioners are dead, your Committee would respectfully recom- mend that such failure to comply with the provisions of the Code of Procedure be waived by the Grand Lodge and the applicant be restored (p. 372). This report was adopted by the Grand Lodge (p. 371). Report of the Commission of Appeals. Matter of J. Fred Cryer (p. 372). The charge made was that in return for his infiuence in pro- curing a Dispensation from the Grand Master to institute a new Lodge of Free and Accepted Masons while District Deputy Grand Master he was to receive some gift or other emolument, and in pursuance of such agreement received a diamond' ring. At the trial the Commissioners permitted the amendment of the charges which was neither necessary, neither set up new matter nor increased the gravity of the charges; they simply set forth the charges more in detail and inserted the formal allegations usual in criminal pleadings. The original charges were sufSeient to sustain a verdict of conviction. He was found guilty. He was tried under the Constitution and Code of Procedure in existence prior to the revision of 1909. At the trial a Brother appeared as counsel but was ex- cluded under a general order that all witnesses be excluded from the trial except the one under examination. Charges had also been presented against the counsel and had been referred to ' the same Commission. The Commissioners of Ap- peals held that charges against a Brother do not before trial render him ineligible to office or suspend him from office, he being entitled to the presumption of innocence until the charges are proved (citing Ionian Lodge, No. 679 vs. Watson, Grand Lodge Proceedings, 1880, p. 53), also the report of the Com- mission of Appeals in the matter of Wade (Grand Lodge Pro- ceedings, 1896, pp. 199-201), which held that "it is an inalien- able right of every man who is "charged with an offense to call to his aid upon the trial the assistance of any person or per- sons whom he shall select, in whom he shall have confidence. 1S8 COMPILATION OF DECISIOXS OF as being capable through their especial training or otherwise, of assisting him in the conduct of a matter of which he has or- dinarily no previous experience. The law of the land allows in any case to each man charged with an offense, the benefit of counsel. The Masonic law does no less for its members, re- quiring, however, that such counsel should be a Master Mason in good standing. ' ' The Commission recommended that the decision of the Grand Master herein, reversing the judgment of the Trial Commis- sioners, and ordering a new trial and the appointment of new Trial Commissioners be affirmed. The Grand Lodge rejected this recommendation. The action of the Grand Lodge was based largely upon the fact that they believed the evidence established the guilt of the defendant and that his rights were sufficiently protected inde- pendent of the exclusion of the Brother counsel. CoJiMissioN OF Appeals. Matter of Haines (p. 375). An appeal from an order of the Grand Master' vacating Trial Commissioners and appointing others in their place and stead under the Code of Procedure in force prior to the revision in 1909. On appeal held : The Grand Master had inherent power to remove appointed officers for cause. The order directed the trial to be completed and the report of the Commissioners filed not later than the second Saturday in Februaiy, 1910. Held: Directory not mandatory. However, the appellant cannot complain thereof, because an appeal was taken before the time fixed for completion of the trial. Matter of Haines (p. 376). This is an appeal to the Grand Lodge from a judgment of the Trial Commissioners dismissing the complaint herein. The defendant moved the Commissioners for an adjournment until the determination of an appeal from the order appointing the Trial Commissioners, which was not granted. Two of the Commissioners were challenged in writing and the challenges were overruled by the Commission. The Commissioners of Ap- peals held as follows: ' ' Xo specific pro\ision is contained in the old Code of Procedure relative to the disposition of the challenges by Trial Commis- sioners appointed by the Grand Master or the District Deputy Grand Master, but section 37 of the old Code reads: " Pro- ceedings in eases provided for by section 126 of the Book of Constitutions in which Trial Commissioners can be appointed by the Grand Master, or District Deputy Grand Master, will be conducted in like manlier as in cases where the Commissioners are appointed by the Master of a Lodge except in the particulars mentioned in sections 38 to 42 following." Sections 38 to 42 THE GRAND LODGE 01" NEW TOEK 189 have no bearing upon the question as to the challenge of Trial Commissioners. It is the opinion of the Commissioners of Appeals that it is clearly intended that Commissioners appointed by the Grand Master or the District Deputy Grand Master shall proceed in the same manner as Trial Commissioners appointed by the Master of a Lodge, except as is provided in sections 38 to 42 of the old Code of Procedure, and as two of the Trial Commissioners were challenged, the challenges being substantial, the Trial Commis- sioners should have submitted them to the Grand Master for trial by analogy with the practice under section 17 of the old Code, and for that reason the Commissioners of Appeals rec- ommend that the decision of the Trial Commissioners be re- versed and a new trial had (p. 377). Keport adopted by the Grand Lodge. Report of Special Committee on Powers of Trustees (pp. 378-379). In pursuance of the adoption by the Grand Lodge one year ago of the following resolution: " Resolved, That the Grand Master be and hereby is em- powered to appoint a Special Committee of five to prepare an amendment to the Act of Incorporation, and when necessary to the Constitution of the Grand Lodge, and submit the same to the annual Communication of the Grand Lodge in 1910," a Special Committee on the Powers of Trustees was appoined by M.'. W.'. S. Nelson Sawtek, Grand Master. The Grand Master in a communication to the Committee, said : " Pursuant to the recommendation of the Grand Master, the Grand Lodge at its last Annual Communication directed the ap- pointment of a Special Committee to consider and submit recom- mendations for proposed legislative amendments to the Act in- corporating the Board of Trustees. "It is styled Special Committee on Powers of Trustees, but it appears to refer generally to the entire basic law of this incorporation. " The matters, which at the time, had impressed the Grand Master as demanding consideration, are set forth in his annual address and need not be here alluded to. Of fully as great importance, however, are questions such as these: " Our right to retain moneys of inmates which have been turned over to us, in event of death or withdrawal of inmate. " Our right to retain children placed in our charge until such time as, in our judgment, they should be discharged. ****** " It seems that this Special Committee should prepare such proposed changes to the Act of Incorporation as shall strictly define the powers, duties and rights of the Trustees and of the Fraternity, and make this law a complete and harmonious work- ing instrument." Your Committee entered upon the duty assigned it, with, as the members thought, due appreciation of the magnitude of the work 190 COilPILATION OF DECISIONS OF before us, and rrith no desire to avoid a responsibility which we regard as having an important future bearing upon the wel- fare of the Craft, its wards, its finances, its large property holdings and general welfare, but as we progressed in the study and consideration of our task, its importance and magnitude grew upon us to such an extent that your Committee became con- vinced that more time was necessary for the proper consideration of the subject and the formulation of suet proposed changes in our basic law, both civic and Masonic. Your Committee has not come to this conclusion unadvisedly or hastily, but has called to its aid for advice and counsel the Grand Master, Deputy Grand Master, President of the Trustees of the Hall and Asylum Fund, and the Judge Advocate, all of whom are in accord with the opinion of your Committee in this respect. The original incorporation has been often amended by addi- tions and subtractions, but in no specific part thereof has there been any portion repealed, only as a section " All acts or parts of acts inconsistent herewith are hereby repealed," has been incorporated in the various amendments. The original act of incorporation is chapter 272 of the Laws of 1864, amended in 1873, again in 1875, later in 1877, yet again in 1885, another in 1890, and the last being chapter 666 of the Laws of 1898. Thus our basic law is fragmentary and not easily interpreted by the average lay mind. As an e\-idence of this, it may be stated that Past Judge Advocate Abel Crook, in an exhaustive report on the subject, occupied one hundred pages of typewritten matter to present his views on the matter, and the present Judge Advocate in a re- port practically agreeing with the opinion of his predecessor presented a dozen pages of closely typewritten matter. Your Committee believes that a consolidation of the legislative acts of incorporation can be framed which will be understood not only by the acute legal mind, but by the average representa- tive in this Grand Lodge. As a Committee we therefore report progress, and should this Grand Lodge continue the Committee, we will endeavor to suggest such changes in our basic law as will appeal, we believe, to the good name of this Grand Lodge (pp. 378-379). Proposed Histobical Lodge. Seport of Committee on Jurisprudence (p. 379). At the Annual Communication of the Grand Lodge in 1909 there was referred to the Committee on Jurisprudence the fol- lowing memorial for action at this Grand Lodge (see page 364 of of Proceedings of 1909) : " To the Grand Lodge of Masons, State of New York: " The undersigned Master Masons, in good and regular stand- ing, desire the Grand Lodge to establish by charter, or other- wise should they desire, an Historical Lodge that will have for THE GEAND LODGE OP NEW YOEK 191 its purposes the investigation of the History, Philosophy, Sym- bolism, Jurisprudence, and other general subjects pertaining to Treemasonry, that will tend to the enlightenment of the Craft and provide a center and bond of union for Masonic students, who desire to work for the benefits of Freemasonry. ' ' "We would suggest the following provisions relative to its; work and relations to other Lodges and the Grand Lodge: "1. That it confer no degrees. " 2. Membership to be composed of Master Masons looking to other Lodges, wherever located and are in fraternal relations with the Grand Lodge of New York. "3. To be represented it the Grand Lodge by its Master, or proxy, who will have a voice and one vote. "4. To pay no charter fees or dues to the Grand Lodge, as its members will be contributing through their several Lodges. " 5. The usual sources of revenue being out off and its work being for the general good and Uplift of Masonry, the Grand Lodge to furnish a place for its meetings in the Grand Lodge building. " 6. Privilege to meet, by invitation from other Lodges, at other meeting places of Masonic Lodges. " 7. Conform with the requirements of the Grand Lodge as to opening, closing and reporting proceedings as the Grand Lodge may direct. " 8. Tentative scope of work: " A — Give each year a general course of lectures on the History, Symbolism and Jurisprudence of Freemasonry open to all Master Masons. " B — Furnish information to Lodges or Masons upon ques- tions for which it was established. " C — Conduct research in Masonry, the results given such publicity as the Grand Lodge may desire or direct. " Albbet Meeeitt, Bedford, No. 574, P. M. & Grand Sword Bearer; George Feeifeld, Anglo-Saxon, No. 137, P. D. D. G. M.; Amos H. Stephens, Eoome Lodge, No. 746, P. D. D. G. M., and five others. ' ' It seems to be a petition for the chartering of a new Lodge, not to be entitled to confer degrees; not to pay any charter fee; not to be required to pay dues to the Grand Lodge; but practically to be a literary society. In this last respect it is not unlike a Lodge under the jurisdiction of the Grand Lodge of England. The Quatuor Coronati Lodge, No. 2076, located in Lon- don is a regular Lodge under the jurisdiction of the Grand Lodge of England. It was warranted in November, 1884. It is a regular Lodge, warranted in the usual way, paying warrant fees, paying Grand Lodge dues, and is in all respects a regular Lodge. Its members, who are registered as members of the Lodge, in full and regular standing, are well-known men of high degree, and literary men in England, such as Major-General Sir Charles Waeren, the great Oriental explorer; Sir Waltee Besant, the author; Sir Caspae Puedon Claek, formerly director of the South Kensington Museum in London, and now director of the 192 COIXPILATIOX OF DECISIONS OF Metropolitan iluseum in Xew York, and less than fifty others, all of like standing in England. The Lodge is authorized to confer degrees, but seldom does, acquiring its membership by afiEUiation from other Lodges. In actual practice its principal work is literary, and it publishes its works and distributes them to libraries and its members. Tour Committee have grave doubts whether the petition which is before your Comnoittee ought to have a favorable consideration, for the reason that it does not propose to be a genuine Lodge, that it proposes to be purely a literary club under the Grand Lodge, without the power to perform any of the ordinary Lodge functions, and without standing on the same floor with other Lodges, as to contributions to the Grand Lodge, and it pro- poses to violate the principle established in New York against dual membership. We have in this jurisdiction a regularly chartered Lodge work- ing somewhat after the system of the English Lodge abov^ re- ferred to — Johnkher Lodge, No. 865, at Yonkers, N. Y. — ^which in addition to the regular work of the Lodge has pursued lit- erary work and research along Masonic lines. Your Committee is in hearty sympathy with the educational features of the plan proposed, but we do not see how under our Constitution this petition can be favorably acted upon, and we therefore present the following resolution for your action: " Eesohed, That while recognizing the admirable features presented by the Brethren in their petition, we are of the opinion that the carrying out of their plan as outlined would conflict with our Constitution, and we are constrained to advise that the peti- tion be denied " (pp. 380-381). Eecogxitiox or Xon-Afpiliates Denied. "We have also referred to us a petition presented to the Grand Master by a number of residents of New York, not members of any constituent Lodges in this jurisdiction, and asking to be recognized as regular Masons. The Constitution of the Grand Lodge defines the method of procedure in the matter of the erection of new Lodges. Com- pliance with the provisions of this constitution will bring a peti- tion thereunder made to the consideration of the action of the Grand Master. Our Constitution for the healing of clandestine Masons makes no provision nor does it for the acceptance of men with Masonic relationship as a body who have not complied with the provisions of our Constitution. We can therefore recommend no relief under this petition (pp. 381-382). Report of Committee on Constitution and Sules of Order. Adopted by Grand Lodge (pp. 399-413). THE GHAND LODGE OF NEW YORK 193 Eepoet or Committee on Revision of Constitution and Code OF Procedure. Adopted by Grand Lodge (pp. 413-415). Eepoet of Judge Advocate E.'. W.'. Charles G. F. Wahle (pp. 415-420). First — Considers office and duties of Judge Advocate. Second — Discusses generally the law of Masonry and Masonic jurisprudence and its source and recommends that a digest or subject matter index of decisions be prepared. Third — Eecommends the appointment of a Committee to report to the Annual Communication of the Grand Lodge upon the advisability of and method to be adopted for the preparation and compilation of an index to and digest of opinions and decisions on Masonic law found in the reports of the Proceedings of the Grand Lodge since 1850. So much of the Judge Advocate 's Eeport as refers to a digest was referred to the Committee on Constitution by the Grand Lodge. 1911. — ^P. 61. Grand Master's Address. Constitutional Amendment Belative to Blank Ballots Becom- mended. P. 362. — M.'. W.'. TowNSEND Scuddbr presented the five following resolutions, which were received and on motion adopted : Sesolved, That a committee of three be appointed by the Grand Master, and it hereby is, authorized to prepare a design for each jewel emblematical or symbolical of each of the several offices provided for by the Constitution of this Grand Lodge, which design, when approved by the Grand Master, shall be the design of the official jewel or insignia of such office, in addition- to the jewel now loaned by the Grand Lodge for use during tenure of office, and no other shall be hereafter used or recognized and no other shall be worn at Masonic functions. And be it further Besolved, That each such jewel be thereafter issued under the sanction and authority of this Grand Lodge upon the payment of the cost thereof to the Grand Secretary, not to exceed fifty dollars, and shall become the property of the Brother to whom it is issued. The jewel of each office shall be identical with the jewel theretofore issued for such office. Besolved, That the Grand Secretary shall, upon issuing any such jewel as aforesaid, cause to be inscribed thereon the name of the Brother to whom it is issued and the date of his services in the office for which the jewel is designated. Besolved, That the designs of the aforesaid jewels, when ap- proved, be copyrighted by the Grand Lodge and the copyrights held in trust for the Grand Lodge. ' Besolved, That Past Grand Lodge officers be permitted to pro- cure the appropriate jewel of the office heretofore held by them. This resohition shall not be retroactive. 194 COMPILATION OF DECISIONS OF P. 363. — M.'. W.'. TowNSEND ScuDDEB presented the following resolu- tion, which was adopted: Resolved, That the Grand Secretary have the custody of all records of Masonic trials and disciplinary proceedings, under the Code of Procedure, now deposited or that may hereafter be deposited, or, kept in his office, and it shall be his duty, from time to time, carefully to attend to the arrangement, separate indexing and preservation of all papers and documents in said proceedings, and to keep an index to those hereafter instituted arranged in alphabetical order under the names of the respective defendants, with a reference to the filing number of each proceeding, which number shall be designated at the time of the filing of the first paper therein, and be continued upon each paper filed in said pro- ceeding with the date of such filing. Said index shall also de- scribe the character of each paper so deposited. P. 363.— Committee ox Grand IIastek 's Addeess. (Adopted) 6th. That so much as relates to the matter of the appointment of Eepresentatives for a specified term, and the matter of blank ballots be referred to the Committee on Jurisprudence. P. — 395. Commission op Appeals. The Commission of Appeals begs to submit the following report: The Commission found, immediately after its appointment, that there were a number of pending matters in the oflice of the Grand Secretary, and notice was duly given to all the parties interested to perfect appeals in them and bring the matters on for hearing before the Commission on any of the days fixed for sessions dur- ing the year. Of these matters two appeals were perfected and heard by the Commission. (1.) In the matter of the appeal of Conrad Stoeveb, from the judgment of Trial Commissioners, both the appellant and respon- dent had the benefit of 'able counsel, and there were submitted to the Commission all papers and proceedings with the briefs of counsel. The appellant was in 1908 a Master of Pythagoras Lodge, No. 86, P. & A. il. After the expiration of his term as Master, the following charge and specifications signed by his suc- cessor in office and by the Wardens for the year 1909, were filed. Trial Commissioners were thereupon appointed by the Grand Mas- ter, M.". W.'. S. Nelson Sawyer, and trial was had. To the Most "Worshipful Samuel Nelson Sawyer, Grand Master of Masons, State of New TorTc. Chasg_e. Past Master Conrad Stoever is hereby charged with un-Masonic conduct and violations of the written and unwritten laws of Masonry during his term of office. PiRST Specification. Past Master Conrad Stoevek wasted THE GRAND LODGE OF NEW YORK 195 Lodge money unlawfully in the matter of charges against Bro. Adolph Johannes and Bro. Paul A. Frank. Second Specification. Past Master Conead Stobver never submitted the letter in which Eiverhead Lodge, No. 645, protested against the further advancement in Masonry of Bro. Eenest A. Buchmuller, of Good Ground, L. I., who was at the time a Fel- low Craft. In place of bringing this letter before the Lodge, he took the letter away from the Secretary and kept it for himself, and, over the protest of Eiverhead Lodge, No. 645, advanced the said Brother to the degree of Master Mason. Third Specification. Past Master Conrad Stoeveb wanted to have Brother Albert Eufp to try to get Bro. Ernest A. BucHMuLLER to pay fifty dollars as hush money to Eiverhead Lodge. Fourth Specification. Past Master Conrad Stoevbe per- suaded Fred Hagens to make false statements in his application to become a Mason. In fact, Conrad Stoevee himself filled out parts of the application blank and got the said Fred Hagens to give fictitious references. Further, Past Master Conead Stoevee persuaded Bro. Job Wagner to sign the application of Fred Hagens, knowing it was a wrong statement, of facts. Fifth Specification. Past Master Conead Stobver brought up the application of Fred Hagens before Pythagoras Lodge, No. 86, F. & A. M., himself, and had said application accepted, know- ing same was wrongly filled out. He appointed the Usual In- vestigating Committee, and misled them in his statements in refer- ence to Fred Hagens. Sixth Specification. In the matter of bringing the second charges against Paul A. Frank, Pythagoras Lodge, No. 86, F. & A. il., did not accept same. Past Master Stoevee kept the papers in this matter for himself and has never turned them over to his successor in the chair. Wherefore, It is demanded that the said Past Master Conrad Stobver be brought to trial and be dealt with according to Ma- sonic law and usage. New York, October 20, 1909. The Trial Commissioners reported to the Lodge, which report was filed on March 28, 1910, finding the defendant guilty of each and every charge and specification alleged in the complaint, except that portion of Specification 4, wherein it is charged that said Conrad Stobver got Fred Hagens to give fictitious references and also persuaded Bro. Jacob Wagnbe to sign the application of Fred Hagens knowing it was a wrong statement of facts. The Commissioners adjudged and determined that the said charges had been sustained and that Conrad Stoever be expelled from Pytha- goras Lodge, No. 86, F. & A. M,, and from all rights and privi- leges of Masonry. They further adjudged that the defendant pay the costs and expenses of the trial, which amounted to $157.34. After due and careful deliberation, and mindful of the provi- sions of Sections 65, 66 and 67 of the Code of Procedure, the Commission of Appeals finds and reports as follows: As to the First, Third and Sixth Specifications, we find no evi- 196 COMPILATIOK OF DECISIONS OF dence to support finding of guilty, and therefore reverse the find- ing of the Trial Commissioners. As to the Fourth and Fifth Specifications, -sve find there was not sufficient evidence to support the finding of guilty against the appellant, and therefore reverse the finjling of the Trial Com- missioners to the extent that the same is in conflict vrith this finding. As to the Second Specification, we affirm the finding of guilty made by the Trial Commissioners. We modify the sentence of expulsion inflicted by the Trial Commissioners, because of its severity under all the circumstances. Our judgment is that complete justice will be done by a sentence of suspension upon the appellant from Pythagoras Lodge and from all the rights and privileges of ilasonry for the space of five years from the date of his conviction. As to the order made by the Trail Commissioners that the ap- pellant pay the costs and expenses of the proceedings, amount- ing to the sum of $157.34, we find no evidence to justify such a finding or order, and therefore reverse it. It has been held in similar proceedings that Trial Commis- sioners, to justify the infliction of money damages, must have some evidence to make a basis for a finding of fact to that effect. In this ease, there was no evidence given at the trial on this point. (See matter of appeal of Brown — G. L. Proceedings IS?-?. p. 95. In re appeal of Boyd — G. L. Proceedings 1888, p. 185.) (2.) In the matter of charges preferred by Bro. Buentee, of Lafayette Lodge, respondent, against ilessrs. Eoler, YTheeloek and Cram, appellants, lately members of Lafayette Lodge. Complaints quite similar in nature were brought against above- named appellants, in which they were charged with having made false statements against the Master and Wardens of Lafayette Lodpe, with reference to their declaration of a ballot had on a petition to membership in said Lodge. The report of the Trial Commissioners found the defendants guilty and contained a rec- ommendation that they be suspended for a year. This recom- mendation was not followed by the Lodge, and one of expulsion was adopted. Thereafter an appeal was duly taken to the Grand Master, il.". W.'. S. Xelsox Sawtee, who rendered the follow- ing decision: BEFOEE THE GEAXD MASTER. In the Matter of Charges Preferred by Beothee T. J. Bueniee, against Brothees C. Eobeet Cram, John D. Eoler and J. Otis Whee- LOCK, of Lafayette Lodge, Xo. 64, F. & A. M. These defendants are before the Grand Master upon appeals from judgments of expulsion from Lafayette Lodge, Xo. 64, F. & A. M. . The charges against them, while separate, arose out of the same transaction, are similar in nature, and were tried and have been submitted to me, probably for economy of time and expense, together. THE GRAND LODGE OF NEW YOEK 197 The Brethren were accused with having made and published certain false affidavits reflecting upon the integrity of some of the principal officers of the Lodge; the statements therein con- tained, if untrue, were clearly libelous; slanders or libels made and uttered by one Master Mason against another constitute a Masonic offense subjecting the perpetrator to discipline. This has always been held to be the law. An examination of the Proceedings of the Grand Lodge will disclose that many judg- ments of conviction for such offenses have been affirmed upon the recommendation of the Commission of Appeals. The record in this case discloses, that, while no controversy exists as to the making and uttering of the affidavits in question, there is a sharp conflict of fact upon the question as to the truth or falsity of the statements in them made. From the .evidence, the Commissioners might well have found either for or against the defendants. They were the judges of the facts, and, having upon the evidence determined the defend- ants to be guilty, that conclusion cannot here be disturbed. The decision is not against the evidence, nor against the weight of evidence; but, as has been said, is founded upon conflicting evi- dence, the truth of which has been found against defendants. Their counsel calls to the attention of the Grand Master certain alleged errors in the trial, claimed to be of sufficient importance to have prejudiced the rights of defendants and require a reversal of judgment. All have been carefully examined, and I find my- self unable to agree with counsel in regard to any of them. PiBST. — It is claimed that two of the Commissioners were pres- ent at the Communication at which the charges were received, and with others voted for the reference of same to Commis- sioners. Our law provides that before Commissioners can be appointed all the Brethren must be summoned to attend the Communication at which the charges are to be considered, and that the members of the Commission must be members of the Lodge. Suppose it should transpire that every member of a Lodge, in a, given ease, found it within the length of his cable to obey the mandate of such a summons, and in the exercise of his duty as a Mason should vote to refer the charges under consideration to Commis- sioners. In such case, if the law is as claimed, it would be im- possible to try a defendant, no matter how guilty, because there would be no member of the Lodge competent to act as a Com- missioner. The very statement of this proposition, it seems to me, illustrates the fallacy of defendants' contention. The same argument is applicable with increased force to the criticism that the Master of the Lodge, being one of the Brethren assailed in the affidavit, had no power to appoint Trial Com- missioners. It may be that a nice attention to the delicacies of the situation should have prompted him, for the time being, to resign his position to some Brother qualified to act who could not be in any manner directly interested; nevertheless, it is the duty of the Master, when charges are received and adopted, to appoint the Trial Commissioners. The Master of Lafayette Lodge, in 198 COMPILATION OF DECISIONS OF this instance, performed only the duty which our system of pro- cedure placed upon him, and no reversible error can be predicated upon his act. If the Commissioners appointed were open to objection, it was the duty, of the defendants, before proceeding with the trial, to raise the question by appropriate challenge, and procure the appointment of new Commissioners, free from suspicion. The defendants at first did avail themselves of this remedy, but subsequently withdrew the challenge, and consented to proceed before the forum, as constituted. Any error which might have entered into the original appointment was waived by that act, and defendants are estopped from further criticism. Secoxd. — Xo uncertainty or vagueness exists in the charges upon which defendants were brought to trial. It is possible that a strict practitioner in the courts of law would have found it ad- visable to frame the complaint with more detail and in closer accord with the scientific rules of pleading. The ^lasonic Code of Procedure, however, is intended for the guidance, not only of lawyers, but of laymeu, by whom most ilasonie trials are conducted outside the large cities; for this reason it provides in substance that charges shall be so Iramed that the defendant may know with exactness what he is accused of, and be able to jjrepare for his defense. Nothing more is required. There can be no question but what these defendants, from the charges preferred, knew exactly what they were accused of. Third. — It is claimed that, after the verdict, and in the con- sideration of the resolution inflicting penalty, the Master permit- ted certain Brethren to speak intemperately, and that the Lodge, as a result of such intemperate talk, increased the punishment from that recommended by the Trial Commissioners. Lea^•ing out of consideration all question of right of the Grand Master to interfere with the discretion of a Master in the exercise of his duties, it is sufficient to say that the record fails to disclose what, if anything, was improperly said, nor to show that the Brethren were influenced in their decision by anything other than the actual facts. If every judgment of the courts was upset be- cause enthusiastic counsel made overly strong statements in the argument to the jury, few, if any, judgments would be sus- tained. Counsel further insists that the resolution for expulsion was actually defeated, and was improperly declared to be adopted by the Master. The record contains a certificate of the Secre- tary of the Lodge, under its seal, stating that there were about sixty-five Brethren present at the meeting when the matter was settled, five of whom voted against the resolution, and the re- mainder of whom voted for it; I am forced to accept the solemn and official statements of the Secretary of the Lodge in preference to the hearsay statements of counsel upon this subject. The judgment is aflSrmed. S. Nelson Sawyer, Grand ilasier. THE GEAND LODGE OF NEW YORK 199 From this decision an appeal was duly taken on various grounds to the Commission of Appeals. We were favored in this ease also with able and elaborate briefs on the part of counsel representing the parties to the appeal.' After due deliberation, this Commission of Appeals has unani- mously voted for afSrmauce of the decision of the Grand Master. The recommendation regarding Eoler, WheelocTc and Cram was amended upon motion of M.'. W.'. Townsbnd Scudder as follows, and as amended the report of the Commission was adopted : Resolved, That the report of the Commission of Appeals in the matter of Burnier vs. Cram, Eoler and Wheelock, be not ac- cepted; that the judgment of the Lodge and the decision of the Commissioners be reversed and that the defendants be tried by a new Commission, to be appointed by the Grand Master, to try the issues in these cases — the charges to be brought by a member of another Lodge, under the direction of the Grand Master. 1911. — The above resolution was passed upon the ground of newly discovered evidence material to the issue and subsequently the following Preamble and Eesolution were adopted-. On motion of M.'. W.". Townsend Souddee, the following resolutions were adopted to take the place of yesterday's resolu- tion upon the acceptance of the report of the Commission of Appeals : Mesolved, That the report of the Commission of Appeals, in re charges preferred by Bro. Burnier, of Lafayette Lodge, against Messrs. Eoler, Wheelock and Cram, be not accepted, for the reason that upon the presentation of that report this Grand Lodge has received notice of evidence not contained in the record upon which the Commission of Appeals based their judgment. That the action of the Commission was in accordance with and justified by the record before it. Resolved, That the judgment of Lafayette Lodge and the decision of the Trial Commissioners be reversed, and that the defendants be tried by a new Commission, to be appointed by the Grand Master to try the issues in these cases, the charges to be brought by a member of another Lodge, under the direction of the Grand Master. Resolved, That these resolutions, be and they are hereby sub- stituted in place of the resolution on this matter adopted in Grand Lodge on May 3, 1911. Committee on Constitution. P. 407. M.'. W.'. Townsend Scudder reported as follows in reference to the proposed amendment to Section 85 of the Constitution recommending its adoption so far as can be done at one Annual Communication. Amend Section 85, by adding the following paragraph: " The jurisdiction of the Lodge or Lodges in the City of 200 COMPILATION OF DECISIOXS OF Lackawanna, as at present constituted, shall be limited to candi- dates residing in the said city." TOWXSEXD SCTJDDER, GEOEGE CEOMWELL. Committee ox Coxstitution. P. 407 et seq. JI.'. W.'. TowxsEXD Scudder presented the following re- port of the Committee on Constitution covering the amendments proposed to the Constitution, Eegulations and Code of Procedure submitted and adopted at the last Annual Communication of the Grand Lodge : The recommendations of the Committee on the final adoption of the proposed amendments to the Constitution and their amend- ment of Sections 44, 45 and 64 of the Code of Procedure were adopted and said sections finally adopted. The proposed amend- ment to Section 37 of the Code of Procedure was adopted so far as same can be done at one Annual Communication. The disapproval of the Committee to the proposed amendment to the Eegulations and the balance of the proposed amendments to the Code of Procedure adopted at last Grand Lodge was ac- cepted and, on motion, the report of the Committee was adopted. To the Grand Lodge of the State of Xew York: The Committee on Constitution, to whom were referred by resolution of the Grand Lodge, 1910, the proposed amendments to the Code of Procedure adopted at that session, report that they have met and conferred and carefully considered the amendments to the Constitution, Eegulations and Code of Procedure proposed at the Annual Communication of the Grand Lodge, 1910, printed at pages 614 to 622 of the Proceedings of 1910. They approve of the following amendments to the Constitu- tion: (1) Subdv. 4, Section 9. (7) Section 55. (2) Section 14. (8) Section 57. (3) Section 15. (9) Section 65. (4) Section 20. (10) Section 88. (5) Section 46. (11) Section 90. (6) Section 49. They disapprove an amendment to Section 16 of Eegulations. It is proposed to strike out the requirement of a Lodge accepting an afiiliating member to give notice to his former Lodge that he has signed the By-Laws of the latter. Other provisions of the Constitution make the membership consummate upon signature of the By-Laws. If notice be not given by the accepting Xodge, the m.ember 's name may be upon the roll of both Lodges, which will be called upon to pay Grand Lodge dues. In such ease, the Lodge omitting to give the notice should indemnify the Lodge which has been wrongerl. The penalty should not be visited upon the innocent affiliate. THE GEAXD LODGE OF NEW YOIiK 201 They disapprove the proposed amendment to Section 4, Code of Procedure, for the reason that in their opinion an indefinite suspension, insofar as it is provided by the provisions of Subdi- vision 4 of Section 4 of the C'oile of Procedure is not without authority and to impose a penalty of suspension for a definite time in the alternative of a fine would, in our oj)inion, make the imposition of a fine idle, since it would be entirely possible for the defendant to avoid the payment of the fine by submitting to the penalty of suspension, and he would doubtless do so if it were not too long. The object of the suspension is to compel the pay- ment of the fine. To provide a penalty of suspension long enough to induce the payment of the fine, rather than submit thereto, would be difficult, always subject to the varying opinions of Trial Commissioners or of members of Lodges, and unsatisfactory in operation. It is within the power of the defendant to terminate the suspension at any time by payment, or if he be financially unable, then to apply to the Grand Lodge or C+rand Master to terminate it, under Section 84 of the Code. They disapprove the proposed amendment to Section 13 of the Code of Procedure. The proposed amendment is to strike out of the present Section 13 the w'ords " and reference " in the third line. These words were in the old Coile. There has been no change, and we see no good reason for eliminating them. They disapprove the proposed amendment to Section 14 of the Code of Procedure. This amendment intends to strike out the words ' ' and reference ' ' in Section 14. It is the same amend- ment proposed to Section 13, and we make the same observation regarding it as we have for Section 13. They disapprove the proposed amendment to Section 42 of the Code of Procedure. The purpose of this amendment is to 'strike out the word " decision " and insert the word " judgment " to describe the action of the Lodge on a report of a Trial Commis- sion. In the old Code and in the jiew, there was a consistent distinction between " judgment " and " decision," the action of a Lodge on a report of the Trial Commission being uniformly de- nominated as a " judgment," and the determination of a Trial Commission, of a Grand Master, or of the Grand Lodge, being uniformly denominated a ' ' decision. ' ' "We think there was merit in this distinction and that it should be preserved. Solely for the purpose of preserving this distinction, we approve continuing to denominate the action of the Lodge as a " judgment "; other- wise, we should approve simplifying, at least in terms, all these proceedings by denominating them all ' ' decisions, ' ' which is a term more equally understood by the average lay mind. Through some error or oversight in the second line of Section 37, the action of a Lodge Trial Commission has been denominated a " judg- ment, ' ' which has gone unnoticed until now. AVe recommend that the word " judgment," in line two, of Section 37, be stricken out, and the word ' ' decision ' ' inserted in place thereof, so that the only connection in which the word " judgment " shall be used shall be in reference to the action of the Lodge upon the report of a Trial Commission. ?02 COMPILATION OF DECISIOXS OF "We disapprove the proposed amendment to Section 44 of the Code of Procedure in the form in which it is proposed. The amendment is undoubtedly a ivise one, but it is rather verbose, and, we think, ill-expressed. We propose in place of that pro- posed amendment the following: ' ' Proceedings in cases provided for by Section 43 of the Code of Procedure will, excepting the determination of challenges, be conducted in like manner as in eases where the Trial Commis- sioners are appointed by the Master of a Lodge, except in the particulars mentioned in Sections 4.5 and 49 following. All challenges of Grand Lodge Trial Commissioners shall be tried by the Grand OflScer appointing them. The decision of such chal- lenge shall be reviewable only upon an appeal from the decision, of the Commission. In eases provided for by Section 43 of the Code of Procedure, all papers and notices shall be sen-ed or caused to be served by the Grand Secretary." We approve in principle the proposed amendment to Section 45, which is intended to cover proceedings against a Past Master by a member of his Lodge, a new provision. We have already approved the proposed amendment to Section 20 of the Constitu- tion, extending the jurisdiction of the Grand Lodge in the same manner, but we prefer a slight variation of the language of the proposed amendment, and therefore recommend that Section 4.5 be amended so as to read as follows: ' ' Complaints against an unaffiliated or non-affiliated Mason, where the Grand Lodge has exclusive jurisdiction; against a Lodge or Lodges ; against a Master ; against a, member of the Grand Lodge; by a Lodge against its Master; by a member of one Lodge against a member of another Lodge; by a member of a Lodge against a Master or Past blaster thereof for misconduct while holding the office of Master, should be distinctly addressed to the Grand Master or to the District Deputy Grand Master having jurisdiction of the offense charged. ' ' Such complaints should be definite and specific in their nature, conforming to constitutional and legal provisions, and are to be acted upon by Trial Commissioners appointed by such Grand Officer. " Charges against a Master or a Past Master of a Lodge, tor official misconduct while holding the office of Master, shall be pre- sented to the Grand Master or to the Grand Lodge only during the term of said Master or within one year after the expiration of the term in which such offense was committed. ' ' We disapprove of the proposed amendment to Section 51, the objection to which is the same which we have urged against the proposed amendment to Section 42, to-wit. : the change of the word ' ' determination ' ' in the old section to read ' ' judgment ' ' in the new. For the same reasons, we disapprove the proposed amendments to Sections -33, .54, .j5, 56, 60 and 63. The same objection applies to the proposed amendment to Section 64, but we have determined that the word ' ' decision, ' ' as used in Section 64 as it now stands, would be more exjiressive if we alter it to read " action," and we so recommend. The same objection also THE GRAND LODGE OF NEAV YORK 203 applies to the proposed amendment to Section 67, which we disap- prove. All of which is respectfully submitted. TOWNSEND SCUDDEE, GEORGE CROMWELL, Committee. P. 419. Committee on Constitution. M.". W.\ TowNSBND ScuDDEK, from the Committee on Con- stitution, presented the following report, which was received and its resolution adopted, so far as can be done at one Annual Com- munication. The Committee on Constitution recommend and move the adop- tion of the following resolution; Eesoh-ed, That Section 41, of the Constitution of the Grand Lodge, be amended by inserting therein after the words in the third line thereof, " and by a majority of votes," the words, ' ' excluding blank ballots. ' ' P. 419. — Committee on Jurisprudence. (Adopted by Grand Lodge). (2) Brothee Chaeles N. Hammond, President of Highland Club, of Elmira, presents a request for the ' ' Grand Lodge to give us the privilege to meet and get thoroughly posted in the work, and when we are proficient we may ask for a charter for a Lodge." Your Committee know of no law forbidding Brethren meeting together for consultation concerning the good of Masonry, and to secure harmony of work, but as our law now provides for the manner of procedure for the creation of new Lodges, we do not deem any action needed in the premises, and therefore recom- mend none. (3) In Most Worshipful Grand Master Sawyer's address to the Grand Lodge in 1910, he made the following recommendation: ' ' I recommend the adoption of a regulation providing that hereafter all accredits of Grand Representatives from other Grand Lodges shall be for a definite time of either three or five years, and that any sister Grand Lodge not desiring to commission a Representative subject to that regulation be still held in fraternal relations, but without exchange of Representatives. ' ' This was referred to Committee on Jurisprudence at the last Annual Communication of this body, but did not reach the Com- mittee. Most Worshipful Grand Master Kenwortht, in his address to the Grand Lodge at its opening, referred to the failure to act on such recommendation last year, and refers to the question as follows: " The clamor for recognition has continually beset the Grand Master, and, in endeavoring to meet the situation, the same trying experiences have come to him as well. ' ' Tour Committee recommend the following action: « 204 C03IPILATI0X OF DECISIONS OF Sc.-oh-nh That hereafter all accreilits ,for Grand Eepresenta- tives from other Grand Lodges shall be for not exceeding three years, and that any sister Grand Lodge not desiring to commis- sion a Eepresentative subject to that resolution, be still held in fraternal relations, but without exchange of Eepresentatives. (,4) ilost Worshipful Grand Master Kexwortht, in his ad- dress to this Grand Body, refers to the question of blank ballots cast at an annual election, in the following terms: ' ' Under a provision of our Book of Constitutions, the officers of a constituent Lodge must be ' chosen annually by ballot, and by a majority of votes.' The question is repeatedly asked when blank ballots are cast if these are to be considered a part of the whole number of votes cast, and whether the successful Brother must receive a majority of that number. ' • Simons, in his ' Jurisprudence, ' holds that a majority of all the votes cast is necessary, although among these there may be blanks. This rule has been followed many years, and whenever the matter has been submitted for a decision, the contention of Simons has been maintained. • ' To the end that we may have a clear understanding of the matter, the subject will be referred to the Committee on Juris- prudence for an opinion, and if the Grand Lodge determines to change the rule followed in the past, an amendment to Section 41, of the Book of Constitutions, liy striking out the word ' majority,' in the third line of that Section, and substituting the word ' plurality, ' would accomplish that purpose. ' ' Your Committee would recommend the following action: Eesolved, That Section 41, of the Book of Constitutions, be amended by inserting in the third line, following the words, " majority of votes," " excluding blank ballots,'' and that the same be referred to the Committee on Constitution. P. 420. — Committee ox Coxstitutiox. The Committee on Constitution recommend and move the adoption of the following resolution: liesoJved. That Section 41, of the Constitution of the Grand Lodge, be amended by inserting therein after the words in the third line thereof, " and by a majority of votes,'' the words, ' ' excluding blank ballots. ' ' P. 420. — On motion of il.'. W.'. Towxsexd Scudder, the following resolutions were adopted to take the place of yesterday 's resolu- tion upon the acceptance of the report of the Commission of Appeals : Sfsolrtd, That the report of the Commission of Appeals, in re charges preferred by Bro. Burxier, of Lafayette Lodge, against Messrs. Eoler, Wheelock and Cram, be not accepted, for the reason that upon the presentation of that report this Grand Lodge has received notice of evidence not contained in the record upon which the Commission of Appeals based their judgment. That the action of the Commission was in accordance with and justified by the record before it. THE GRAND LODGE OF NEW YOEE 205 Resolved, That the judgment of Lafayette Lodge and the de- cision of the Trial Commissioners be reversed, and that the de- fendants be tried by a new Commission, to be appointed by the Grand Master to try the issues in these cases, the charges to be brought by a member of another Lodge, under the direction of the Grand Master. Resolved, That these resolutions be, and they are hereby sub- stituted in place of the resolution on this matter adopted in Grand Lodge on May 3, 1911. P. 421. E.'. W.'. George Freiheld submitted the following proposed amendment to the Constitution, which was received and referred to the Committee on Constitution : Mesolved, That Section 97, of the Constitution of the Grand Lodge, be amended so as to read as follows: ' ' Section 97. Any Brother, who shall in any way make known the kind of ballot cast by himself or another on the application for the degrees of Masonry, or any of them, or for affiliation, or if, after any such balloting as aforesaid, at which such application has been rejected, any Brother shall in any way declare that he or any other Brother cast a certain kind of ballot at such balloting, or shall declare that any specified or indicated number of white balls or ballots, or black balls or ballots, was east at any balloting aforesaid, it shall be deemed a Masonic offense, and such Brother so offending may, on conviction thereof, be suspended for a period not exceeding one year. " Only on a trial of a Brother for any offense specified in this Section shall it be permitted to prove the kind of ballot cast by any Brother, or the number of white balls or ballots, or black balls or ballots, cast at any such balloting. ' ' Committee on Constitution. P. 421. M.'. W.'. TowNSEXD ScuDDER, from the Committee on Consti- tution, presented the following report and resolution, which were received and the amendment adopted so far as can be done at one Annual Communication. The Committee on Constitution report, recommend and move. Resolved, That Section 97, of the Constitution of the Grand Lodge, be amended to read as follows, by inserting therein in place of the last paragraph thereof, the following: " Only on a trial of a Brother for any offense specified in this Section shall it be permitted to prove the kind of ballots cast by any Brother, or the number of white balls or ballots, or black balls or ballots, east at any such balloting." P. 421. M.'. W.'. TowNSEND ScuDDER presented the following amend- ment to his resolution of yesterday in reference to Grand Lodge jewels, which was adopted: Provided, That nothing in this resolution contained shall in any way prohibit a Brother from wearing a jewel heretofore pre sented to him. 206 COMPILATIOX OF DECISIONS OF 1911. — P. 219. Eepoet or the Judge Advocate. E.". TV.'. Abel Crook, Judge Advocate, presented the following re- port, Trhich was ordered printed in the Proceedings, together with his opinions: To il.'. W.'. Robert Judso>- Kexwortht, Grand Hosier of Masons in tlie State of yew York. il.'. ir.'. >^ir and Dear Bro.. As Judge Advocate, I submit the fol- lowing report for the past year : Jly views upon matters of an executive and confidential nature have been communicated to you and are not included in this report Ques- tions of general interest and opinions herewith repprted cover : (1) The mode of enforcement of a reprimand adjudged by Grand Lodge trial commissioners. (2) The procedure for enforcement of a fine. (3) A suspended sentence, upon conviction in a criminal court, no bar to Masonic charges and trial. (4) Lodge Minutes, when approved, "prima facie" evidence against a member as to the result of a ballot. If the minutes are incorrect, pro- cedure for new ballot. (5) The territorial jurisdiction of Lodges in Larchmont village. (6) A trespass on territorial jurisdiction charged by Grand Master of another jurisdiction. (Tl Testimony before an invalid commission not admissible upon a subsequent trial before a lawful commission. I S I Method of collection of stenographer's fees upon a Masonic trial. (9) Installation of elected ofiicer. The power of installing officer. The duty and remedy of one desiring to object that the officer is un- worthy. ( 10 1 The consent required for a dispensation to form a new Lodge in the Borough of Queens. (11) The distinction between written or printed appeals to Lodges or Jlemlwrs for donations and a personal appeal, the former, only, re- quiring consent of the Grand Master. (12) Documents soliciting donations from Lodges or individuals not to be issued without Grand Master's approval. (13) The arrest of a Lodge charter for contumacy of Grand Master and violation of Constitution. Procedure against the Lodge and against the officers distinguished. (14) Whether blank ballots at an election of officers are to be counted. (l.'i) The Warden of a Lodge under dispensation, who has not been subsequently installed and served as Master of a chartered Lodge ineligi- ble to office of Master. Effect of such decision on Warden elected and installed at the same election. (IG) The status of one unaffiliated for non-payment of dues, includ- THE GEAND LODGE OF NEW YORK 207 iDg liis right to a cei'tificate and to apply for restoration or affiliation on payment oJ! arrears. (17) Lodge minutes evidence of service of summons on a delinquent member unaffiliated for non-payment of dues. (IS) The form of certificate to be given to an unaffiliate for non- payment of dues upon payment of arrears. (10) A dimit not used by one changing residence to anotlier .Juris- diction, but returning to another portion of the State. Waiver not necessary from Lodge of latter residence to entitle him to affiliaie. (20) Lodge has power to amend By-Laws to discriminate as lo dues between classes of Jlemliers. but its exercise disapproved. (21) Power of the JIaster to determine proficiency of candidate for advancement, regardless of a verbal objection by u Member not di'maud- ing a ballot. (22) The necessity of a waiver of jurisdiction by a Loilge in 'Far Eocljaway for a resident of that place making application to a Lodge iu another Borough for initiation and advancement. (23) Jurisdiction of a Lodge to maintain disciplinary proceedings against a fugitive unaffiliated JIason. (24) Lodge jurisdiction over college students having a dual residence in the State. (2.5) Power of Trustees of the Masonic Hall and Asylum Fund relative to admission to the Home of a Mason's child whose mother has died, the father still living. (2G) Ballot for candidate not governed by Constitution lint by Landmarks. (27) Plea of guilty under indictment iu a Criminal Court not pre- sumptive evidence on trial of charges. Report of Lodge Trial Com- missioners dismissing proceedings without prejudice not to be received by Lodge but case referred back for trial. (28) Physical Disqualification. Status of .candidate who has re- ceived Entered Apprentice and Fellow Craft Degrees. (29) Effect on territorial jurisdiction in case of change of meeting place within the town designated in Charter. Clandestines and Clandestine Masonry have not required attenlion during the past year. The edict of the Grand Master, dated August 29, lOliy, requiring the announcement in open Lodge of names of visitors, and that they be there vouched for by a member of the Lodge, and re- quiring, as a condition of examination the production of a certificate of the visitor's standing in his Lodge, and the regularity of such Lodge ath'sted liy the Grand Secretary of the Jurisdiction in whicli the Lodge is located, has proven efficient, and the recommendation of the Grand Master tliat a provision to such effect be incorporated in the Constitu- tion, was adopted at the last Annual Communication, and has relieved the Judge Advocate from active efforts such as were necessary in former years. One of the two chief promoters of Clandestine Masonry has divd, and the other is a fugitive from justice. The several Judge Advocate reports for 1908, 1009 and 1010, sug- gested the advisability of a compilation of Masonic legal decisions and relevant matter contained in the official proceedings. '20S C03IPILAII0X OF DECISIOXS OF At the Aiiiuial Coimiuuiicntion of 1010. tlie Grand Lodge, by resoiu- tiou, referred tlie luatter to the (Committee ou Coiistitutiou. Work in this direction, conmienced l>y me in 1000 and continued at various times during tlie past live years, lias been completed during the piist year and submitted to the Committee on Coiistitutiou for its consideration. In accordance with the intention expressed in my report of 1908, I now present a manuscript cop.v to the Grand Lodge for its disposition. In view lit the fact that it represents the views of many eminent and learnid Craftsmen, who have held exalted positions as Grand Master or a . members of important Committees, the hook is dedicated to the Gran I Lodge of Free and Accepted Masons oi the Srale of New York, its Grand Masters, Oflicers and Committees, that all entitled tliereto may receive due recognition. It necessarily involved a perusal of the Pro- ceedings of the Grand Lodge from its organization, and the compilation of such matter therein contained as my experience as Judge Advo( ate led me to believe advisable. It is not intended to be an abstract of the entire Proceedings, nor to include every judgment or action of the Grand Lodge involving discipline or legislation. Determinations involving mere matters of fact, without presentation of Masonic legal questions, have been omitted. While perfection cannot be claimed, it is the result of a conscientious attempt to gather together matter's which should be before the Craft for its guidance in the determination of Masonic questions fre- quently presented for consideration. If it shall meet with the approval of the Craft, and enable them to more readily understand and determine Masonic rulings, your Judge Advocate will feel fully compensated for liis effort in this direction. It is proposed to copyright the work and transfer it to the (irand St'cretary and his successors in office in trust for ihe Grand Lodge. An index Digest has been prepared, with topical headings for convenience of reference. In conclusion, I wish to express my sincere regards to you for yo:ir uniform courtesy and consideration, which have been an ever piesent stimulus to performance. With every wish for your future happiness, Simerely yours. ABEL CROOK, ■Judge Advocate. 1911. P. 406. CoilMITTEE ox CONSTITUTIOX. EelatUe to Compilation and Index Digest of Decisions. M.'. W.'. TowxsEXD ScrDDER, from the Committee on Consti- tution, presented the following report, which was received and the resolution therein contained adopted: To the Grand Lod'jt : The Committee on Constitution, to whom was referred, at the Communication of 1910. the subject of the preparation of a Digest of Decisions of the Grand Lodge, report: That a Digest of Decisions and relevant matter compiled from the official Proceedings of the Grand Lodge, from its organization to elate, has been prepared by the Judge Advocate, R.'. W.". Abel THE GRAND LODGE OF KEW TOBK 209 Crook, who has dedicated the same to the Grand Lodge, its Grand Masters and Committees, and proposes to copyright and transfer the same to the Grand Secretary and his successors in office, in trust for the Grand Lodge. Your Committee has examined and approved the same, and recommend that it be accepted by the Grand Lodge and that the following preamble and resolution be adopted : Whereas, R.'. W.'. Abel Crook, Judge Advocate, has pre- pared a Digest of Decisions and relevant matter compiled from the oiBcial Proceedings of the Grand Lodge, from its organization to date, and dedicated the same to the Grand Lodge, its Grand Masters and Committees, and which he proposes to copyright and transfer to the Grand Secretary and successors in office, in trust for the Grand Lodge : And the Committee on Constitution, to whom the subject was referred at the last Annual Communication, having approved the same : Besolved, That the Grand Lodge accept, and express its appre- ciation of, the work, and that two thousand copies be printed and bound separately from the Proceedings, and that one copy be sent, by the Grand Secretary, to each Lodge in the State, and to the Grand Secretary of each other Jurisdiction, and that the remaining copies be disposed of as the Grand Master shall direct. TOWNSEND SCUDDER, S. NELSON SAWYER, GEORGE CROMWELL, CommHtee. OPINIONS BY R.'. W.'. ABEL CROOK, JUDGE ADVOCATE 1906- 1908, APPROVED BY M.'. W.". TOWNSEND SCUDDER, GRAND MASTER. (Proceedings 1910, pp. 494 to .576.) I, Physical Qualifications of Candidates for Masoney. In the Matter of Kilwinning Lodge. The inquiry is: " Is a man eligible for Masonry who has met with the loss of a part of the third and fourth fingers of his right hand?" iluch diversity of opinion has existed relative to this question of physical qualification of a candidate for Masonic degrees. It is better to consider the subject broadly rather than to attempt to answer the question categorically. General rules may be formulated as a guidance in determining specific cases leaving the application of these rules in the respective instances to those empowered to decide. The qualifications of a candidate are said to be governed by the 210 LOMPILATIOX OF DECISIONS OF " Ancient Landmarks." Thtse constitute the unwritten law of Masonry and tlepc'uding on tradition alone for autlientieity are in a measure vague, indefinite and uncertain. Some of ttie recognized Landmarks liave been declared in the written law of Constitutions, statutes and regula- tions of the several Jurisdictions and thus become controlling therein. The Landmarks originated and were intended to regulate eligibility to practice the operative art particularly those relative to qualifications of candidates. Our language has changed from time to time and words have possessed different meanings in succeeiling eras and this must be considered. In the Gothic York Constitutions adopted at York in the year 926, we read : " A candidate must be with out blemish and have the full and proper use of his limbs; for a maimtd man can do the Craft no good." The words " blemish " and " maimed " were probably synonymous terms ; otherwise the limitation would be prohibitive, especially if mod- ern definition be applied. The Century Dictionary defines a " blemish '' to be "a defect or imperfection, something that mars beuntii. completeness or perfection." If this definition be applied the Fraternity would dwindle away in the present age of activity. Where would we look for physically perfect men without anything to mar beauty ? A scar received in the defense of one's countiy mars beauty, and this was as true in ancient times as in nuidcrn. It may well be claimed that a stricter rule applied to operative Masonry than pertains to speeulative work, and yet there may be a common ground upon which both may stand. Hence, if we treat the words " bletnish " and " maim " as synonymous much of the diversity of opinion can be reconciled. The Century Dictionary defines " maim " to be " a disabling u-ound or mutilation, the di privation of a necessary part or of the use of it as a limb — a crippling or that which cripples; in old law deprivation by in- jury or removal of the use of some member serviceable in fight or self- protection." and this is substantially the definition of Bishop and other law T\"riters. This clearly indicates a permanent crippling injury and not a trivial ur minor defect. We finil in Eegulations of 1663, under the Grand JIastership of the Earl of St. Albans, the language modified to read: " Xo person shall be accepted a Free Mason but such as are of able body." In the " An- cient Charges at Makings " of James II. — 16^-ii-s^ the reading is: ' ' That he be made able in all d*grei.-s ; that is, that he have his right limbs as a man ought to have. ' ' Tn the charges of a Freemason, extracted from the ancient records of Loiluis beyond sea and those of England, S.dtland and Ireland for the use of the Lodges in London, 1720-1722, Regulation IV provides: " Xo Master shall take an Apprentice unless . . he be a per- fect youth, having no maim or defect in his body that may rejider liim incapable of learning the art of si rving his Master's Lord and of being made a Brother." This would seem decisive but for the apparent controversy and dif- ferences of subsequent writers. In 17.56 Dermott states as the qualification that he must be " Hale and Sound : not deformed or dismembered at the time of making. Xo TI-IE GRAND LODGE OF NEW YOIiK 211 Master should take an Apprentice that is not . . . without maim or defect in his body and capable of learning the mysteries of the art; that so the lords or founders may be well served and the Craft not de- spised; and that when of age and expert he may become an Entered Apprentice or a Free Mason of the lowest degree; and upon his im- provements a Fellow Craft and a Master Mason capable to undertake the Lord 's work. ' ' Here we note that the limitation is that the maim must not be such as to prevent proper service to the lords or founders and to render Mm unable to undertake his work. Mackay says that Dermott 's Ahiman Eeizon emanated from a body now acknowledged to have been irregular, and that it has no authority in Masonic law and yet deems it worthy of consideration as showing the general feeling of the Fraternity of both sides on this question. Mackay urges a strict interpretation of the word " Flemish," and cites opinions from several jurisdictions, including that of Bro. Giles F. Yates, as Chairman of a Special Committee of the Grand Lodge of New York in 1845, to the effect that ' ' no one should be accepted who has a ' ilemish,' " giving as instances " a blind man or a lame man, or a man that was broken-footed or broken-handed or a dwarf. ' ' Yates asks : ' ' What degree of disability must be established — a quarter, half, three-fourths or total?" He asserts that the Masonic law is the same as the Levitieal law ' ' which would not allow any to go in unto the veil ' ' who had a blemish, and specifies those above enumerated. Careful examination of the Constitutions and rulings of the several Jurisdictions in this country discloses that the modern tendency is to- wards a practical and flexible rule which will not exclude men because of imperfections which do not substantially interfere with capacity to discharge their Masonic or secular duties. Maine provides: " That when the deformity of the candidate is not such as to prevent him from being instructed in the arts or mysteries of Freemasonry, and does not amount to an inability honestly to acquire the means of subsistence, the admission will not be an infringement upon the Ancient Landmarks, but will be perfectly consistent with the spirit of our Institution. ' ' Massachusetts: " Where the deformity does not amount to an in- ability to meet the requirements of the ritual and honestly to acquire the means of subsistence, it constitutes no hindrance to initiation." Pennsylvania: " The applicant must be hale and sound, so as to be capable of gaining a livelihood for himself and family and to perform the work of a member of the Lodge. ' ' Among the concurring Jurisdictions are Alabama, California, Florida, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Maryland, Nebraska, North Carolina, and Ohio, and while in some of the other American jurisdictions the rule is apparently stricter, yet the instances cited to support their contention are such as would justify their decision within the general rule above stated. These cases are such as loss of a limb — a leg, arm, foot, hand — one eye or both eyes, or the use of a member necessary to instruction. Some other Jurisdictions are still more liberal and hold all qualified who are ' ' able to receive the possession of the Ancient Landmarks and to exemplify the same so as to be recognized as a member of the Craft. ' ' '2Vi COIIPILATIOX OF.DECISIOXS OF In Xew York, in 1S56, lameness occasioned by a shortened or crooked limb was held to be a disqualification. Finally, we find in the Appendix to our Book of Constitutions and summary of the Landmarks, as defined by il.'. TV.'. Joseph D. Evaxs, that " every candidate for the honors of Freemasonry must be a man having no maim or defect in his body or mind that may render him incapable of learning and practicing the art." This is a practical adoption of the limitation declared by the Juris- dictions above cited and would seem to control us. Within this view a man otherwise eligible is not debarred from Masonry if he is physically able, without artificial aid or substitution of members or parts thereof to conform to the ritual and to learn atid practice the art ai a Brother shoidd. This includes not only Masonic work within the Lodge room, but ability to earn his livelihood in his chosen occupation outside the Lodge room. It does not include those whose dismemberment is such as to require or permit the substitution of an artificial member or part thereof, even though with such substitution the same result could be attained. This view harmonizes the apparently inconsistent opinions to which reference has been made. A further question remains to be considered. Who is to apply the general rule and within it determine the specific case? Manifestly each case must be decided within its individual facts. Here, again, let us quote from Evans' compilation of the Landmarks, ' ' The right of a Lodge to judge for itself who shall be admitted to initiation . therein is inherent and indefeasible, not subject to Dispensation or leiri'^lation of any kind or from any source whatever." At one time the Irish authorities held that a Dispensation from the Grand Master, or his Deputy, was required to suspend the rule, but this, however, has never been conceded in this country so far as I have dis- covered. On the contrary, in 1^63. Missouri held that no Dispensation could be granted by the Grand Lodge to a subordinate Lodge to initiate any person maimed, disabled or wanting the qualifications established by ancient usage. Finally, in 1S7.0, our Grand Master decided that — ' ' The physical qualifications of a candidate for Masonry cannot be determined by the Grand Master. " The Grand Master cannot issue a Dispensation allowing a Lodge to disobey a Landmark of Masonry. " Whether a candidate is such a ' hale man, sound, not deformed or dismembered, as the Landmarks of ilasonry prescribe to be eligible ma- terial for the temple,' is a question that must be settled by the conscien- tious judgment of the Master and each Brother of the Lodge. If the Master of a Lodge is not satisfied after thorou^ly and scrupulously con- sidering the matter, that the candidate is such a man, it will be his duty to reject him. ' ' This power of determination also rests witti each member of the sub- ordinate Lodge to which application is made. Section, 117 of the Book of Constitutions authorizes a demand for a ballot ' ' after a candidate has been accepted and before he has been initiated, and if such ballot result in a rejection, it shall have the same effect as if it had occurred when such candidate was accepted. ' ' THE GRAND LODGE OF NE^V YOBK 213 Under this provision, any member of the Lodge doubting the qualifi- cations of a candidate can prevent his initiation by demanding such new ballot. The District Deputy Grand Master can have no greater power than the Grand Master. Hence, he cannot decide the matter, which must rest exclusively with the subordinate Lodge or its Master. Each individual case must be decided within the foregoing limita- tions by the Master unless a member demands a ballot, and this de- termination is not open to criticism or question except for flagrant violation of the landmarks. It follows that the Master of the Lodge must decide on his own re- sponsibility the question of qualification in the present case within the above limitation, unless the new ballot be demanded. II. Physical Qualification. Matter of Livingston Lodge. The question proposed is whether a candidate can be initiated who is required through infirmity to wear a steel brace running up the outer side of his left leg, from the sole of his shoe to a band of leather at his right knee, without which he is unable to walk. This question has been heretofore considered and an opinion was given by me summarized as follows : 1. The candidate must 'be physically able, without artificial aid or substitution of any members, or parts thereof, to conform to the ritual and to learn and practice the art as a Brother should. This includes not only Masonic work in the Lodge room, but ability to earn his liveli- hood in his occupation outside the Lodge room. It does not include those whose dismemberment is such as to require or permit the substitu- tion of an artificial member, or part thereof, even though with such sub- stitution the same result could be obtained. 2. The physical qualifications cannot be determined by the Grand Master, nor can a dispensation be issued allowing a Lodge to disobey a Landmark of Masonry. 3. The Master of the Lodge must decide upon his own responsibility the question of qualification within the above limitation. Any member of the Lodge possesses the same right under a demand for a new ballot authorized by section 117 of the Book .of Constitutions. Any opinion given to the Master must be of necessity advisory and not mandatory. Can it be seriously claimed that a candidate who cannot walk with- out a steel plate or some other metallic mo^ able attachment could eon- form to the ritual of the first degree, having with him at all times the steel brace as a necessity? If I were the Master of the Lodge, my judgment would be against the qualification of the candidate. 51-i COMPILATION OF DECISIOXS OF III. Physical Qualification. In Ee Ltfeire. An inquiry is maile ' ' Whether a man can be initiated in our Fra- ternity who cannot stand on the ^tip or walk aithout a crutch, due to the deformity of one of his legs." I refer to my opinion relative to Physical Qualifications published in the Musonic !y any two of these several phrases." The learned .ludge then compares the above power with the Consti- tutional prohibition upon any State " to lay any imposts or duties except what may be absolutely necessary for executing its inspec- tion laws," and points to the use of the word '• absoJutely '' to empha- size the distinction, aud adds: ' ' Let the end be legitimate ; let it be within the scope of the Consti- tution, and all means which are appropriate and which are plainly adapted to the end, and which are not prohibited, but are consistent with the letter and spirit of the instrument, are constitutional." It is difficult to lay down any arbitrary rule for the determination of what is necessary for a Lodge. It may be desirable and very beneficial and even nectssary for the prosperity of a Lodge that social functions be had, and that a portion of the Lodge treasury be applied to this purpose. In the present ease this seems to have been the unanimous opinion of the Scotia Lodge members with the exception of the Treasurer, whose views are extremely conservative in this respect, but giving him full credit for his undoubted sincerity the united judgment of the other Lodge members should prevail. It appears the ilaster and Past Masters felt that interest in the Lodge was waning, and that something was necessary to awaken it, and their judgment was confirmed by the occasion and the sultsoquent Lodge meeting at which the resolution to pay its expense was overwhelmingly adopted. It would seem that this question should be left with the Lodge whose members create the treasury and presumably know best how it should be used, and in the absence of anything which would justify a charge of unmasonic conduct, it is difficult to perceive why the Grand Lodge or the Grand Master should interfere with its action. THE GUAXD lodge OF NEW YOEK 221 IX. Effect op Neglecting to Vote by Members Present on Application TO Dispose of Lodge Funds. Matter of Lexington Lodge. It appears that Lexington Lodge was summoned to consider a propo- sition to invest a portion of its funds in certificates of indebtedness of the Brooklyn Masonic Guild. About .57 members entitled to vote on the proposition attended. The vote was 35 in the affirmative and 10 opposed ; whereupon the Master declared the resolution adopted. From this Bbo. Pouch appeals to the Grand Master under Section 76 of the Constitu- tion of the Grand Lodge, and claims that the Master was in error. He cites in support of this contention Article VII. of the By-laws of Lexington Lodge, which are as follows; ' ' No donations to grant testimonials of any description shall be made out of the funds of this Lodge. The stocks, investments, securities, or funds of this Lodge shall not be disposed of or transferred in whole or in part, unless by motion made at a regular communication; said motion to lay over two weeks and the Lodge summoned to take action, when if two-thirds of the members present concur in the proposition, it shall be adopted; provided, however, this Article shall not apply to bills for contingent expenses, nor for the aid of sick or distressed Brothers, funeral expenses, reception of Grand Lodge officers, or special votes of relief, and also provided that no motion to loan the funds to a private person shall at any time be entertained by the Lodge; also provided that no d"onation or appropriation shall be made for more than five dollars after 10 'clock P.M. ' ' The determination of the matter depends upon the question whether two-thirds of the members present concurred in the proposition. The By-law does not state how this concurrence shall be manifested. It does not require either a ballot or a roll call, and it is fair to assume that those who do not avail themselves of the privilege to vote concur with the majority on the principle that " silence gives consent." The defini- tion of the word " concur " (Punk & Wagnalls Standard Dictionary) is: To come together either in opinion or action; agree; coincide. It is synonymous with ' ' assent, ' ' which is defined : Mental concurrence or expression of concurrence in a proposition; agreement; acqui- escence. The question has been passed upon by the courts in the analo- gous case of an election and the ballot box, or if there be no ballot the record of the vote has been held to be the test. The question has arisen in the National House of Eepresentatives upon the subject of a quorum, and the rule is stated in the Digest of the Eules and Practice, p. 628 : ' ' Members present and not voting may be counted as part of the quorum required by the Constitution. ' ' The rule laid down by the Courts clearly establishes the same prin- ciple : State vs. Mayor of St. Joseph, 37 Mo. 270: " Where a proposition to issue bonds was submitted to a two-third vote of the qualified voters of the City, it is sufficient if two-thirds of -."' COMPILATIOX 01^ DECISIOXS OF the qualified vnturs who votctJ at the special election voted in faror of the proposition. ' ' Ii'oiier vs. Cniiimissioner of Beaufort, 70 North Carolina, page 319: ' ' The commissioners of a ton^n authorized to subscribe to the capital stock ot a corporation upon its being so voted by a ' majority of the rotcrs of said town qualified to vote,' are justified in subscribing the amount voted if a majority of the votcs ca^t at the election be in favor of such subscription, although a majority of all the voters of the town dill not fotc. ■ ' In Louisville d- XashviUe S. E. Co. vs. County of Davison, 1 Sneed, 6M7, the Supreme Court of Tennessee held: ' ' When a i^ucstion or an election is put to the people of a county and is made to depend «/o/i the rote of a majority of the voters of said county, the only proper test of the number entitled to vote in such elec- tiou ,s the result thereof as determined by the ballot box. If, in fact, there be some or many who do not atteml and exercise the pririlege of vntintr. it must be presumed that they concur with the majority who do attend. . ^Yhen they (the legislature) simply refer a question to a ' majority of the voters of a county ' it cannot be understood that they mean anything more than those who see fit to exercise the privilege." In (ounty of Cass vs. Johnson, 9.i V. S. 360, the Supreme Court of the United States held: " All qualified voteis who absent themselves from an election held on public notice duly given are presumed to assent to the expressed will of the majority of those voting, unless the law providing for the election otherwise declares." In the alisence of requirements that the assent to the proposition must be manifested by an affirmative vote, the reasonable and practicable rule is to treat thcise present who do not express dissent as concurring with the majority. It will be noted that in the case presented more than a majority of all present voted in the affirmative, and out of the .57 but 10 were opposed. Any other nde would make it necessary for a roll call of the members present at each communication to pass upon any question. The recognized custom which has so long prevailed, to decide by a show of hands, counting only those who thus vote, is a reasonable con- struction of the meaning of the By-law that those present and not voting are presumed to acquiesce in the action of the Lodge as expressed by the greater number actually voting. In the present case more than two- thirds of those actually voting expressed themselves in the affirmative. and those who did not vote certainly did not express any dissent. Appropkiatiox op Portiox of Ixitiation Fee to Extertaixmext Fuxd. Matter of Fortitude Lodge. In my opinion the By-law of Fortitude Lodge, which permits fifteen dollars I ;r].5.00) of each initiation fee to be applied to an entertainment fund, is not unconsiitutioncd. This subject was considered in the Sci.tia Lodge L-ase in Xovember, 1900. and the result reached was that it is legitimate to use a portion of tlie Lodge funds for the purpose of enter- THE GKAKD LODGE OF NEW YORK 223 tainment, and that the determination of the amount should be left to the Lodge Tchose members create the treasury and presumably know best how much should be used, and in the absence of anything which would justify a charge of unmasonic conduct neither the Grand Lodge nor the Grand Master should interfere with its action. The candidate caninjt complain. He pays the fixed initiation fee, and the disposition of it is with the Lodge. XI. Private Examination op a Brother as Preliminary to Admission AS A Visitor to Eastern Star Chapter. Matter of WatTcius, Master of Civic Lodge. The following query is submitted: Is it proper for a Master Mason to administer to a proposed visitor the Tyler 's Oath and satisfy himself that he is a Master Mason in order that he may secure the visitor's admission to the Chapter? The purpose of such examination ordinarily is to determine his right to visit a Lodge of F. and A. M. If he applied for such admission it would be that the examiner might vouch for him. Private examinations are not favored, and before the Master of a Lodge should admit the visitor, the examination should be by a com- mittee appointed by him, or he should be satisfied of the competency of the avouching Brother as a skillful, and experienced Mason, and that all the requirements of the Grand Lodge in relation to certificates and receipts for dues have been fully complied with. A casual examination is insufficient. This is the rule generally adopted in the Jurisdictions within this country. This applies to all subordinate Lodges of Free and Accepted Masons. Manifestly the presiding officer of the Chapter to which you refer does not possess the power of a Master of a Lodge P. and A. M., nor is such Chapter, in any wise, under the Jurisdiction or control of our Grand Lodge, and our rules cannot well be invoked by such Chapter. In my opinion the Chapter should pass upon the qualifications of its visitors under rules established by itself without reference to our organization. Hence, the examination which you suggest would seem unjustified, and the vouching Brother, if he desire to introduce a visitor as a Mason in good standing, should be satisfied independently of the Chapter in the way known to all Masons to justify a voucher in our Lodges. XII. Application for Successive Dimits. Matter of Moore. Bro. Charles Mooke, a member of Silver Lodge, Fortieth Masonic District, removed to Pennsylvania in the year 1900, and then obtained a dimit from that Lodge. He subsequently received a second dimit from the Lodge upon his statement that the first had been lost. Thereafter he applied for a third dimit and stated that the second had been lost. The 224 COMPILATIOX OF DECISIONS OF Lodge denied this application, and informed him that the only way he could obtain another dimit was to apply for a ffili ation in Silver Lodge, and if accepted another dimit might be granted. Thereupon he applied for affiliation in Silver Lodge, and in due course a ballot was spread and his application was rejected. It is stated that the Lodge desires to recon- sider its action, and the District Deputy of the Fortieth District inquires relative to the course to be pursued. The effect of a dimit is to terminate the connection of a member with his Lodge (see decision 41, page 32, Proceedings of the Grand Lodge of 1862, Mackey's Jurisprudence, page 202). The member thereupon be- comes a non-affiliated Mason. By Section 102 of the Book of Constitutions, a dimit may be granted directly to a member applying therefor, provided he has become a resi- dent of another Grand Lodge Jurisdiction, which is the case under con- sideration. There is no Constitutional provision for the grant of a sub- sequent dimit, and whether it shall issue or be withheld should be left to the discretion of the Lodge. In case of a dimit for the purpose of joining another Lodge icithin the same Jurisdiction, the dimit is not delivered to the Brother, but is transmitted to the Secretary of the sub- stituted Lodge of which he shall have become a member. Upon removal to another Jurisdiction a Brother of a New York Lodge may make appli- cation and recc?ive the dimit personally. In either case he may apply for readmisfion to hi5 mother Lodge, or to any other Lodge in New York. No penalty is attached to his rejection by either Lodge. ilaekey. at page 202, states the rule that ' ' Notwithstanding his rejection, he may at any time renew his peti- tion to the Lodge which rejected him. or make a new one to some other Lodge, and that petition may be repeated as often as he deems it proper to do so. ' ' In my opinion there is nothing to prevent Bko ilooEE from renewing his application to Silver Lodge, leaving it to that Lodge to determine whether it will accept or reject him. The provision of Section 160 of the Constitution to the effect that no Lodge shall initiate a person until the expiration of ticelve nwntlis after rejection of his petition, has no application to affiliation, but is limited to initiation. XIII. Dimit C.ix Oxlt be Graxted to a Master Masox. Matter of Spiegel. One Alfred Spiegel received his Fellowcraft Degree in Empire City Loi-lge, No. 206, about eleven years ago, but never received his Degree as a Master Mason. He now resides in Boston and desires to become a member of a Lodge in that city. The question is asked whether Empire City Lodge can grant him a dimit or aid him to receive the third degree in a Massachusetts Lodge? In my opinion a dimit can only be granted to a member of the Lodge. This is clearly the intent of Section 102 of the Book of Constitutions. Section 9S of the Book of Constitutions states the means of acquiring membership in a Lodge. Subdivision 2 of that section requires that he THE GKAXD LODGE OF NEAV YORK 225 sbould recei\e the third degree and also sign the By-laws of the Lodge. When he has received the second degree in his home Lodge, he may ob- tain the third degree from a foreign Lodge if one can be found willing to confer it. In such a case it is customary and proper that the home Lodge should by resolution authorize the degree to be thus conferred by such foreign Lodge. This resolution should be certified by the Master and Secretary of the home Lodge under its seal, stating among other things that the Brother is in good standing in the home Lodge as a Fclloweratt. To this should be appended the certificate of the Grand Secretary under the seal of the Grand Lodge to the effect that Empire City Lodge is a regular Lodge under the New York Jurisdiction, This much is lequired in all eases. In my opinion the papers asking that the Master 's Degree be conferred by the Boston Lodge should be approved by the Uraml Master. This course has been followed>in some instances, but not uniformly. It is in the nature of a dispensation which is effect- ive so far as the home Lodge is concerned, and, though it is not extra- territorial, Avould command the respect of the foreign Lodge. ^S''here a degree is to be conferred in a foreign Lodge it is proper to send to the foreign Jurisdiction a copy of the By-laws, which can be signed by the Brother, and an additional signature upon a slip of paper should be returned, to be pasted in the regular book of By-laws. When this shall have been done the Brother will become a member of the home Lddge, and his right to a dimit will be governed by Section 102 of the Book of Constitutions in the same manner as though he had taken his dej^ree originally in his home .Lodge. The resolution of the Lodge au- thorizing the third degree to be conferred upon the Brother of a Lodge of a foreign Jurisdiction is governed by Section 116 of the Constitution. If a ballot be demanded upon such resolution, it must be taken and spread, and in such case a clear ballot must be had before a Brother can be advanced either in a home Lodge or elsewhere. If no ballot be demanded, the resolution may be by show of hands and can be adopted by a majority vote. XIV. Dimit to Fellowcraft. Matter of AUair Lodge. The question submitted is whether Altair Lodge can legally grant a dimit to a Fellowcraft who has received his first and second degrees in that Lodge, and whose advancement to the third degree has been pre- vented by a ballot or rejection? I am of the opinion that no dimit can be granted under the provisions of our Book of Constitutions. A dimit can only be issued to a member of a Lodge (Section 102). Membership in a Lodge can only be acquired in the manner provided by Section 98. Subdivision 2 of that section requires that a Brother must have received the third degree before he can become a member. This is confirmed by Subdivision 3 of the same section, which permits one hav- ing received the lower degrees in a Lodge toliich has ceased to exist to apply to another Lodge within the Jurisdiction in which he resides for the remaining degree or degrees, but he must receive the third degree before he can become a member of the substituted Lodge. Until he has 256 COMPILATIOX OF DECISIOXS OF bocome a member of a Lodge in the maimer prescribed by the Constitu- tion, it is immaterial -whether he remains "within or removes without the Jurisdiction of the Lodge which accepted him. In neither ease is he entitled to a dimit. The Brother s application for advancement having been rejected by a ballot, he cannot be advanced in the rejecting Lodge until a clear ballot has been had therein upon his advancement (^Section 117). The provision for issue of a dimit directly to a member who becomes resident of another Giand Lodge Jurisdiction is likewise based upon the fact of memhership which is not consummated until the Brother has received his third degree and signed the By-laws. Sections 9S. 101 and 102 alike contain provisions that the By-laws must be signed as a condition of memherslnp. Section 62 specifically makes the consumma- tion of membership to depend upon the signing of the By-laws. Entered Apprentices and Pellowerafts are not members of the Lodge, nor are they entitled to the privileges of blaster Masons. Mackey, page 160, speaks of an Entered Apprentice as being a ' ' Masonic disciple permitted only to enter the portals of the Temple, but with no right to enter within its sanctuary. ' ' If advancement of a Brother be rejected, Mackey says (164), " no other injury is done to him than the disappointment of his expectations.'' He possesses all the rights and prerogatives that he did before, and continues, notwithstanding the rejection of his appUcation for advancement, to be in good standing and entitled as before to all the rights and privileges of a possessor of the degrees which he has re- ceived. He is subject to discipline by his Lodge for misconduct. Section 133, Constitution, givts a Lodge original jurisdiction over Entered Ap- prentices made and Fellowerafts passed therein. Again, Mackey says, page 177, " Pellowcralts possess no more rights and prerogatives than do Entered Apjjrentices. " At page ITS, " They possess no other rights than those of sitting in a Lodge of either degree, of applying for ad- vancement and of being tried by their peers for Masonic offenses, with the necessary privileges of appeal to the Grand Lodge. ' ' Our Constitu- tion, however, limits and defines " good standing " (Section 60) to re- quire that a Brother shall have been initiated, passed and raised in a just and duly constituted Lodge of Eree and Accepted Masons. Until membership is consummated the Fellowerafts ' relations are those of a non-affiliated Mason. He is not called upon to pay dues, and is not entitled to join processions or to receive any of the benefits belonging to a Master Mason, and while he is affiliated with the order generally he is non-affiliated with any particular Lodge until he has received the Master Mason degree and has signed the roll. If Altair Lodge is disposed to give a clear ballot to the Brother, he can be advanced either in that Lodge or in any other Lodge which may consent to confer the ^Master Mason degree upon request of Altair Lotlge. In either ca=e it would be necessary for him to sign the By-laws of Altair Lodge, of which he will become a member in good standing, pending which his membership would be in abeyance. Thereupon a dimit can be granted and transmitted to another Lodge within this Jurisdiction on receipt of a certificate of his election for affiliation therein, or it can be delivered to him direct if he has become a resident of another Grand Lodge Jurisdiction. If, however, Altair Lodge is unwilling that this course should be pursued, and considers the case one for discipline under THE GRAND LODGE OF NEW YORK ' - 237 Section 133, Constitution, complaint can be made in Altair Lodge, to be disposed of in the manner prescribed by the Masonic Code of Procedure. Whether he will be accepted and permitted to affiliate or become a member of a Lodge of another Jurisdiction must be determined by such other Jurisdiction. I advise that under existing circumstances no dimit can be granted by Altair Lodge to the Brother Pellowcraft. Note. — The Grand Master subsequently issued the following supple- mental opinion: Our law does not contemplate the issuing of a dimit to Bro. Sidney I. Prescott, a Fellowcraft of said Lodge, nor would such a dimit be received by a Lodge in New Jersey. The Lodge at the present place of residence of Bro. Prescott in that State would, on being requested by Altair Lodge, confer the third degree upon him; but inasmuch as he has been estopped, it is necessary that he pass the ordeal of a unanimous secret ballot. The only course, therefore, for him to pursue, unless he can obtain such ballot in Altair Lodge, is to applj' to a Lodge in this city or State for affiliation, the remaining degree and membership, and if the secret ballot in that Lodge is unanimous in his favor, he may be raised therein and admitted to membership, provided Altair Lodge releases jurisdiction over him. XV. Di'TY OF Grand Treasurer to Make Daily Payments of Punds in His Hands. Matter of Morris. An opinion is asked whether the Grand Treasurer is required to pay to the Trustees of the Hall and Asylum Fund immediately, and day by day, the funds received from the Grand Secretary, which may create a surplus in the Treasurer 's hands in excess of $50,000, In view of the fact that the Treasurer is not a salaried officer, and that such construction would demand much labor and personal attention to details, it should not be adopted unless absolutely necessary. The Constitution is somewhat vague and inconsistent in its provisions relative to the details of the Grand Treasurer and those of the Trustees of the Hall and Asylum Fund. Both before and since the amendment of 1006 the Grand Treasurer, by Subdivision 1 of Section 29, is to take charge of all the funds, securities and vouchers of the Grand Lodge, deposited in the fund and secured in the name of the Grand Lodge, pay- able on his order as Grand Treasurer, in some depository to be approved by the Grand Master. Under the former Constitution, the Trustees of the Permanent Fund were authorized to make investments of all moneys which should come into the hands of the Grand Treasurer after paying salaiies, representatives and rent, and after leaving in his hands for charitable and contingent purposes such sum as the Grand Lodge should from time to time direct. Then followed a provision that such Trustees should deposit in the hands of the Grand Treasurer the securities and vouchers of the said invested funds, and that they should not have power to appropriate any part of the fund without u vote of the Grand Lodge at an Annual Communication, 228 co:\iPiLATiox of decisions of The amendment of 1906 modified the provisions of the Grand Treas- urer in the following respects: The amount of his official bond was fixed at $50,000, while previously no amount was specified. Then a new provision was inserted in language susceptible of inter- pretation as applicable to a condition in his bond or equally open to coEstruetion, that it was an additional duty imposed upon him, namely, to pay to the Trustees of the Hall and Asylum Fund " aU moneys of the Grand Lodge in excess of the amount of Ms official 'bond which shall come into his hands during his term of office." In my opinion the latter construction is the one intended. I question if any Surety Company would furnish a bond obligating itself to insure daily payment of exact amounts received from the Grand Secretary. Section 45 as amended, relating to the Permanent Fund, substitutes the Board of Trustees of the Masonic Hall and Asylum Fund in place of the five Grand Officers formerly specified. It substantially retains the provisions of the former Constitution, except that the power of in- vestment is made to apply to '' all surplus moneys which shall remain in the hands of the Grand Treasurer after paying salaries, representa- tives and rents, leaving in his hands for charitable and contingent pur- poses such sums as the Grand Lodijc may from time to time direct." The word " surplus " is added and would confirm the construction above suggested, and in my opinion refers to the surplus above $50,000 in the hands of the Treasurer. The provision requiring that these securities and vouchers of invested fund shall be turned over to the Grand Treasurer was eliminated in the amendment, and yet the provision is retained in Section 29, relative to the Treasurer, which makes it his duty to take charge of all securities of the Grand Lodge. Notwithstanding this apparent confusion, there does not appear any pi'ovision stating within what time after receipt of this surplus the Treas- urer shall pay the sum over to the Trustees of the Hall and Asylum Fund. Adopting the strictest construction by interpolating the word " im- mediately." this, under well-recognized authorities in analogous cases, particularly those referring to insurance policies, should be construed as meaning that the payment is to be made " tcithin a reasonable time," and this, in my opinion, is a fair and reasonable construction to be adopted. If this be approved, the Grand Treasurer should arrange with the Trustees of the Hall and Asylum Fund a plan fixing a reasonable time to pay over the fund received in installments from the Grand Secretary. Subdivision '5 of Section 29 of the Constitution would seem to au- thorize the Grand Treasurer to retain in his hands at all times the sum of $50,000. On the other hand, Section 43 would seem to authorize the Trustees of the ^lasonic Hall and Asylum Fund to invest all moneys in the hands of the Grand Treasurer after paying salaries, representa- tives and rent, in excess of that required for such sum as the Grand Lodge may from time to time direct for charitable and contingent pur- poses. THE GBAXD LODGE 01? NEW TOnK 239 XVI. Master's Eight to Vote upon Amendment to By-Laws aptee Eeport TO Secbetaey by Junior Deacon who Counted the Vote and Result Eepeated by the Master, whose Vote Had Not Been Counted. Matter of Olean Lodge. It appears that the Master of Oleau Lodge ordered a vote upon an amendment of the By-laws to be counted by the Junior Deacon, who announced 27 affirmative and 14 negative votes. The By-laws required a two-thirds vote; hence, as the matter was then announced, one more vote was needed to adopt the amendment. The Master reported the count of the Junior Deacon then left his seat and went to the Secretary 's desk and computed the votes as announced. He then asked the Junior Deacon if the Master's vote had been counted, and upon his reply in the negative, the Master declared his vote for the amendment, thus making the necessary number of votes necessary for its adoption. The Lodge had first a rising vote and then an upholding of hands. The Master did not rise on the first vote, nor uphold his hand on the second. The questions now asked are : 1. "Was the Master entitled to a vote after he had reported to the Secretary ? 2. Was he right in his decision when he declared it carried? In my opinion both questions should be answered in the affirmative. The Master must be recognized as the governing power of the Lodge, authorized to direct its action within the limits of the Constitution and the ' ' Landmarks. ' ' He was entitled to a vote, and in no wise bouud by the report of the Junior Deacon. It does not appear that any votes were changed, and it was simply a matter to determine the will of the members present. Having ascertained by personal computation that' one vote was necessary, and being assured that his vote had not been counted, I see no reason why his vote should be questioned. The fact that some were present and did not vote does not change the result. The fact that they did not vote against the amendment is tantamount to an approval of the result so long as a sufficient number did vote in favor of the amendment under the By-laws. XVII. Effect of Election and Initiation of Candidate Within Twelve Months of Rejection. Matter of Carpenter. On December 6, 190.5, Charles H. Carpenter made application for membership in Gratitude Lodge, No. 674, in the Seventeenth District, and was rejected. He then resided in Nassau, in the Seventeenth Dis- trict. He subsequently changed his residence to the Fourteenth District, and made application to Unity Lodge, No. 9, of the latter District. This was on the solicitation of the Master of Unity Lodge. He was accepted and received the first and second degrees. All this occurred within twelve months of his rejection by Gratitude Lodge. He now 930 COilPILATIOX OF DECISIONS OF awaits the third degree, and the question propounded is ivhether Unity I-odfie can lawfully confer this degree now that the twelve months speci- fied in Section 116, Book of Constitutions, has expired. This section provides, in case of rejection of a person, " no Lodge shall initiate him until the expiration of ticelve months after such rejection." There is no other provision for punishment of the candidate. The Lodge, however, has violated the Constitution, and this is a Masonic oflfcnse (Section 34, Constitution). There is no prohibition against a candi'late making an application within the period nor against the Lodge accepting it and electing the candidate. Xor is there any requirement of a consent from the rejecting Lodge. A pro^asion formerly existed (Section 56, Constitution in force ISSS) prohibiting initiation " without the permission of the Lodge that rejected him," and this original juris- diction was perpetual and was sustained by the Grand Lodge (p. 33, Proceedings 1S75). At that time the period which must elapse was six months, even if permission was given. This was subsequently amended, anil prior to the time above mentioned this period of suspense of initia- tion had been lengthened to twelve months and the requirement ot per- mission was eliminated. Presumptively the candidate did not know that there was any reason why he should not make the subsequent application, and if- accepted receive his degrees. There is no suggestion that he was ' ' unfit material. ' ' No deception by him in his application is charged. He may have beon rejected for good cause, or it may have been the result of personal objection. It is not material to the present inquiry and the ballot is not open to investigation. It is diflSeult to conceive what he has done to prevent his advance- ment now that the twelve months have elapsed. Yet LTnity Lodge can do this if any member shall demand a ballot under Section 117, Consti- tution. He is not yet a member of that Lodge, nor can he claim that character until he shall have received his third degree and signed the By-laws. The wrong was not his, but that of the Lodge which initiated him within the prohibited period. The ;Mnster of Unity Lodge at the time of the violation, W.", A. Eoss EiDEK, in the correspondence submitted acknowledges the wrongful act, but pleads as an extenuation that he relied upon the old Constitution limiting the period of prohibition to six months, and states that he then had no copy of the amended Constitution. Assuming this, it still remains unexplained why. with the former Book before him, he did not seek permission from Gratitude Lodge, in view of the fact that the same section contained not only the shorter period of limitation, but the pro- vision for such permission. At his installation he should have been fvirnished with the Book of Constitutions and charged to " search it at all times." If this was in fact done, the violation is inexcusable. There can be no doubt he has rendered himself liable to charges and discipline. Whether this course is advisable must be left to the sound judgment of his accusers. It may be that the experience which he has sustained in view of his frank acknowledgment of guilt will be deemed suflicient atonement, and suffice as an example to prevent future A-iolations of this character. The solicitation of the candidate to ' ' enter the Masonic Order, ' ' THE GRAND LODGE OF NEW YORK 231 which is confessed by the Master, is reprehensible and contrary to the recognized sense of the Craft. While it may not be strietly prohibited by the Book of Constitutions, it is in conflict with the qualification that the candidate must come of " his oaii free n-iU and accord." The prac- tice has been frequently condemned in various Jurisdictions, and as Mackey, page 86, says, " We must not seek. We are to be sought." XVIII. Second Ballot after Rejection Void. Matter of Arcade Lodge It appears that on February 1, 1907, a candidate was voted upon in Arcade Lodge and the Master declared him rejected. By nnanimcius vote of the Lodge another vote was taken, and he was declared elected. The validity of the second ballot is presented for consideration. Uniler the former Constitution Geand Master Thornb, in 1875, Proceedings, page 31, decided that a candidate declared rejected could not be initiated in any Lodge until the expiration of the period within which he could again petition and then only on a new petition, and the action of a Lodge taking a second ballot within such prescribed period was declared illegal and void. This has been since declared by Section 111 of the present Book of Constitutions in the following language: " An adverse ballot cannot be reconsidered under any circumstances in less than twelve months thereafter, and then only on a new petition of the candidate. ' ' I advise that Arcade Lodge be instructed that the reconsidered ballot is void, and that the candidate stands rejected so far as Arcade Lodge is concerned until February 1, 1908, and that his application can only be then considered iipon a new petition. XIX. Ballot, Secrecy, axd Demand for Second Ballot upon Application FOR Affiliation. Matter of Lafayette Lodge. It is stated by Bros. Wheelock and Eoler that on ilarch 26, 1907, at a Communication of Lafayette Lodge, No. 64, at which the Senior Warden was presiding as Master and a Past blaster was acting as Senior Warden and the .Junior AVarden was in his station, a ballot was had upon an application for affiliation. The officers named declared the ballot clear. Bros. Wheelock and Eoler claimed that it was cloudy, and demanded a further ballot, which was denied by the Acting Master. Among the questions is presented: 1. Was the Acting Master required to grant a further ballot? In my opinion this question should be answered in the negative. The right to demand a new ballot is granted by Section 117, Book of Consti- tutions, but it clearly applies to petitions for inttialion and has no refer- ence to an application for affiUation. Its language, so far as material to the question, is as follows : 232 COMPILATION or DECISrOXS OF ' ' Section 117. A ballot for each degree is an undeniable I'iglit, if demanded, and if a candidate has been accepted and before he has been initiated a new ballot be dema-nded, it must be taken, and if such ballot result in a, rejection, it shall have the same effect as if it had occurred when such candidate was accepted. ' ' The remainder of the section permits a demand for a ballot upon advanvcment after initiation. Section 111 prohibits a reconsideration of a ballot upon a rejected petition for initiation. The ballot upon the petition for initiation is compulsory, provided it has been referred to a Committee for Investiga- tion and report has been made. This section discriminates in favor of a petition for affiliation by providing that it may be withdrawn before it has been balloted upon. Both in Section 111 and in Section 118, to which reference is here- after made, the provisions of the Constitution appear to apply to rejec- tions and not to acceptances. The serious question remains whether T\ithin the Landmarks and the Constitution proof can be offered to establish a charge of falsifying the ballot by the Master and Wardens. The Landmark Appendix to the Constitution, page 92, declares " that the iailot for candidates is also strictly secret and inviolable." The Constitution, Section 118, provides: ' ' Any Brother who shall in any way make known the kind of ballot cast by himself or another on an application for the degrees of Jlasonry, or any of them, or for affiliation, or if, after such balloting as afore- said, at which such application has been rejected, any Brother shall in any way declare that he or any other Brother cast a certain kind of a ballot at such balloting, or shall declare that any specified or indicated number of white balls or ballots, or black balls or ballots, was east at any balloting as aforesaid, it shall be deemed a Masonic offense, and such Brother so offending may, on conviction thereof, be suspended for n period not exceeding one year. On the trial of a Brother for any offense specified in this section, it shall not be permitted to prove the kind of ballot cast by any Brother, nor the number of white balls or ballots, or black balls or ballots, cast at any such balloting." It AYOuld seem that the action of the Lodge cannot be reconsidered, and that the affiliate has by a decision of the Master finally, so far as Lafayette Lodge is concerned, been accepted. The question of proof presented involves the construction of both the Landmark and the Constitution. Mackey, in his Treatise on Masonic Jurisprudence, says (page 143, ei seq.) : "The secrecy of the ballot is as essential to its perfection as its unanimity or its independence. ' ' To secure this secrecy and protect the purity of choice, it has been wisely established as a usage, not only that the vote shall in these cases be taken by a ballot, but that there shall be no subsequent discussion of the subject. Not only has no member a right to inquire how his fellows have voted, but it is wholly out of order for him to explain his own vote. And the reason of this is evident. If one member has a right to rise in his place and announce that he deposited a white ball, then every other member has the same right; and in a Lodge of twenty members where an application has been rejected by one black THE GRAND LODGE OF NEW YOIIK 233 ball, if nineteen members state that they did not deposit it, the inference is clear that the twentieth Brother has done so, and thns the secrecy of the ballot is at once destroyed. The rejection having been announced from the chair, the Lodge should at once proceed to other business, and it is the sacred duty of the presiding officer peremptorily and at once to check any rising discussion on the subject. Nothing must be done to impair tlie inviolable eeereey of the ballot. ' ' • The same author writes that a motion to reconsider a iaUot is out of order, ijning as a reason that a inotion for reconsideration must ahcays he made hy one who has voted in the majority, and adds: " But the vote on the petition of a candidate being by secret ballot, in which no member is permitted to make his vote known, it is, of course, impossible to know, when the motion for reconsideration is made, whether the mover was one of the majority or the minority, and whether therefore he is or is not entitled, under the Parliamentary rule, to make sneh motion. The motion would have to be ruled out for want of cer- tainty. " But in the particular ease of a reconsideration of the ballot, there is another and more strictly Masonic rule, which would make such a motion out of order. To understand the operation of this second rule, it is necessary to make a preliminary explanation. The proceedings of a Lodge are of two kinds — that relating to business, and that relating to ilasonic labor. Now, in all matters purely of a business character, in which the Lodge assumes the nature of a mere voluntary association of men, such, for instance, as the appropriation of the funds, every member is entitled to a voice in the deliberations, and may make any motion relative to the business in hand, which would not be a violation of the Parliamentary rules of order which prevail in all deliberative societies, and of those other rules of order which particularly distinguish the JIasonic from any other association or society. But all matters relating to INIasonic Labor are under the exclusive control of the Master. He alone is responsible to the Grand Lodge for the justice and excel- lence of his work, and he alone should therefore be permitted to direct it. If the time when and the manner how labor is to be conducted be left to the decision of a majority of the Lodge, then the Master can no longer be held responsible for resvilts, in producing which he had, in common with the other members, only one voice. It is wisely therefore provided that the labor of the Lodge shall be wholly and solely con- trolled and directed by the Master. " Now, the ballot is, on a petition for initiation, a part of the laoor of a Lodge. The candidate may be said symbolically to be the material brought up for the building of the temple. The laws and usages of Masonry have declared that the whole Lodge shall unanimously decjde whether this material is ' good and true, ' and tit for the tools of the workmen. But as soon as the Lodge has begun to exercise its judgment on the material thus brought before it — that is, as soon as it has pro- ceeded to a ballot on the petition — it has gone into Jfasonic labor, and the authority of the Master as the chief Builder becomes paramount. He may stay the election — he may refuse to sanction it — he may set it aside — and against his decision there can be no appeal, except to the Grand Lodge, to which body, of course, he is responsible, and before which he must show good reasons for the act that he has done. ' ' 234 COMPILATIOX OF DECISIONS OF In 1851 the Committee on foreign Correspondence reported as follows, relative to the ballot: " This is strictly secret; it is inviolable; it is without question, except on the ground of an unintentional or suspected mistake." In the Proceedings of the Grand Lodge of Xew York in 1S53, the Committee on Foreign Correspondence stated the rule as follows: ' ' We hold the secrecy ■of the ballot unquestionable, and admit of no call for reasons. It is scandalous to give a man such a right as that of the secret ballot, and then, because he does not use it in accordance with the views of others than himself, to put his judgment on trial, and subject its independence and freedom to your own different views, by demanding his reasons. ' ' Many similar rulings have been made in other Jurisdictions. It follows from the above that the decision of the Master is final, so lar as •^ie applicant and the Lodge are concerned. The question still remains whether it is possible that the Master and Wardens of a Lodge can unite in a false declaration of the ballot without redress. It is the logical result if proof cannot be offered to establish the offense. Such a construction if adopted must be one of necessity and not of choice. It may be suggested that such instances are rare, but they should be rendered impossible if any reasonable construction will permit. Other- wise the iaUot is not iniiolable, and whether it shall be violated or uut, would be dependent upon the wUl of the presiding ofScers of a Lodge. The landmark declares the ballot secret, but it also declares it inviolable. The definition of the word " iniiolable '' is — '' Not to be violated; not to be profaned, broken, injured or treated with dishonor or irreverence; that cannot be violated or incapable of being injured or disturbed." This definition is the antithesis of falsehood. The absolute verity of the ballot is to be maintained or it is violated. It may well be argued that the secrecy of the ballot is a privilege of the individual member, but which he is not permitted to waive when that ballot is for rejection. Such is the case before us if the claim that the ballot was cloudy be cor- rect. The result of the general ballot is not secret, but is made public when the result is announced by the Master, and each member is entitled to know such result. Again, when the ballot is declared to be char, it is made public that each one present cast a lavorable ballot. There is nothing in the Land- marks or Constitution limiting the inspection of the box to the Master and Wardens, notwithstanding such is the custom. In some Jurisdictions the Master alone examines the box (Standard By-laws of Maine, adopted in ]S.j7). It may be worthy of consideration whether the ballot should not be displayed on the Altar before it is declared, in which case visible evidence of its contents would be given and thus the possibility of a misstate- ment, innocently or otherwise, prevented. The Constitution, Section ll'*, makes the violation of secrecy of ballot a Masonic offense and prohibits proof of the ballot cast by any Brother, or the number of white balls or ballots or black balls or ballots at any such balloting. The section makes this applicable to an offense specified in the sec- tion. Such offense is committed by any Brother who shall in any way THE GEAND LODGE OF NEW YOEK 235 make known the Icind of Fallot cast iy Mmself or another on an applica- tion for the degrees of Masonry . . or for affiliation. A like offense is committed if, after any such balloting resulting in rejection a Brother shall in any way declare Ihal he or any other Brother oast a certain Icind of ballot at such balloting, or shall declare that any specified or indicated number of white balls or ballots or black balls or ballots was cast at such balloting. It will be observed that the offense is the making known by an indi- vidual Brother how he or some other voted in case of rejection. The declaration of such ballot in case of an affirmance is not made an offense, doubtless for the reason above stated, that when the ballot is declared clear e^ery one knows how each Brother must have voted. It will thus appear that the secrecy applies to the individual ballot and not to the general result of the ballot. By adopting a strict construction of Section 118, it might be plausi- bly claimed that the prohibition does not apply to a case of a falsifica- tion or violation of the ballot by the officers of the Lodge. This is a distinct and serious offense which must not be permitted if it be possible to prevent it. The danger of subjecting themselves to charges and punishment for a Masonic offense would probably deter those who east black balls from testifying to such a fact if such proof could be allowed. A question of jurisdiction may be suggested. Under Section 126 of the Constitution the Grand Lodge had original jurisdiction to hear and determine charges between a Lodge and its Master. This section does not seem to cover charges against the Wardens. While there is consid- erable force in the claim that a Warden when presiding and acting as Master is for all purposes Master of the Lodge, yet it is not free from doubt whether this section was intended to cover such cases. Section 127, which limits the time to prefer charges to one year, refers to the Master. If charges are to be made I recommend that they should come from a District Deputy, not a member of the Lodge. It would be idle to pre- sent such charges in the Lodge if its officers were guilty. It would be difficult to obtain unbiased Commissioners if the trial were by the Lodge. I advise that charges against the officers of the Lodge be not accepted unless clear proof based upon visible inspection of the ballot box be furnished sufficient to make out a case against the officers without resort to individual testimony of members relative to the kind of ballots east by them. XX. Collective Balloting foe Candidates. Matter of Yorlc Lodge. It appears that at the Communication of June 14, 1907, two candi- dates were balloted for collectively. The b,allot was cloudy, and the Master thereupon declared the application of the petitioners rejected. The question is asked, whether a new ballot can be had? If the ballot was regular. Section 111 of the Constitution prohibits its reconsideration in less than twelve months from June 14, 1907. '236 COMPILATION OF DECISIONS OF Beo. Roger asks: Which one was blackballed^ If these gentlemen should apply to a sister Lodge after the twelve months required had elapsed, could either of them say in his application that he had been rejected? Jn my opinion the practice of collective balloting is not within the purview of the Constitution or correct Masonic usage, notwithstanding the fact that at times collective balloting has been adopted and, as a rule, the candidates thus presented have been accepted. The Constitution contemplates that each applicant has a right to expect that his individual application will be considered and passed upon Tiithout in anywise being associated with that of another applicant. The provisions of Sictions 108 io 116 inclusive use the singular number and not the plural. Section 109 requiies a petition to be signed by ihe petitioner. Section 110 refers to the reception of a petition for initiation or affiliation, and directed that it be referred to an investigating committee •nlio is to report upon that particular petition. Section 111 prohibits the withdrawal of a petition for initiation, and provides that it must ie acted upon iy report of the committee and a ballot, and the reconsideration is as to an adverse ballot upon a new petition of the candidate. Siction lis requires a unanimous ballot on a petition for initiation, and unless it be unanimous in favor of the petitioner, he should be 'leclared rejected. Section lis prohibits the postponement or adjournment of the ballot on a petition. While there have been many rulings to the effect that a reconsidera- tion cannot be had after the close of the Communication at which the ballot was had, it has also been held that such reconsideration cannot be had after any member present at the balloting has left the room. The reason is obvious, that the one or more who left the room may have deposited an adverse ballot, and the purpose of the ballot would be frus- trated if under such circumstances it Avere to be reconsidered without notice to those who might have cast an adverse ballot. In my opinion the ballot referred to can fairly be considered an irreg- ular and void ballot. It is certainly unfair to select either one of the two applicable and say he was the one against whom the black ball was directed. At the same time it is also unfair that the ballot should be reconsi'lered or the applicant balloted upon without affording to each member of the Lodge an opportunity to express his wish in this respect. This result can be attained by a summons to a Stated Communication for the purpose of balloting upon these two applicants. I would recommend that the ballot already had be held a nullity, and that the Master be advised to summon the entire membership to a Stated Communication of York Lodge to ballot upon these applications sepa- rately. THE GRAND LODGE OF NEW YORK 237 XXI. Impeopriety of Unsealed Lodge Notices Giving Names of Candidates FOB Degeees. Matter of Bossbottom. In 1895 the Committee on Jurisprudence recommended that " All -iTritten or printed notices or communications from the Master or Secretary to the members of a Lodge or any members of the Frater- nity giving names of candidates for degrees or names of those on whom Masonic degrees have been or will be worked, be forbidden unless such notices are sent in sealed envelopes properly addressed and marked ' Strictly Personal, ' and that the use of unsealed envelopes or postal cards in transmitting such communications or summons be positively forbidden. ' ' It was adopted by the Grand Lodge. The question is now raised whether this resolution of the Grand Lodge was rescinded or repealed by the ' conclusion of Section 141 of the Constitution adopted in 1896, which is in the following language: ' ' AH former Constitutions, Statutes and Decisions are hereby re- pealed. ' ' Adopting the settled rule of construction with reference to Constitu- tions and Statutes that the intention of the law-making power must be ascertained, it is to be noted that the repeal is of former Constitutions, Statutes and Decisions. The purpose was wherever any former action of the Grand Lodge should be inconsistent there\Yith, it should be re- pealed. We find that in 1873 the Constitution and Statutes of the Grand Lodge were in terms " ordained and established." Section 62 of that Constitution authorizing amendments contained the following: ' ' No general regulations shall be adopted inconsistent with this Constitution, and all former written constitutions are hereby repealed, and all general regulations and decisions heretofore made and adopted are also hereby repealed. ' ' Section 63 of that Constitution provided for amendment of the Statutes. In 1874, Pro., page 261, the Committee on Constitution reported adversely the proposition that the " landmarTcs " should be enacted in the Constitution, giving as a reason that they are not subject to amend- ment, alteration or repeal, but are beyond the reach of any action and are unchangeable. The Constitution and the Statutes appear to have been separately enacted up to the Constitution of 1896, and then to have been merged into one instrument. Jt may be readily understood that the Grand Lodge should have intended to dispose of all prior Constitutions and Statutes to the extent that the subjects therein referred to were con- sidered in the latter Constitution. The word " decision " requires a liberal interpretation. It is diffi- cult to conceive that the Grand Lodge intended to repeal and render nugatory the many decisions and resolutions based upon reports of its 233 COMPILATION OF DECISIONS OF important committees since its organization, such as " Foreign Corre- spondence, ' ' " Hall and Asylum Fund, " " Grievances, " " "Warrant?, ' ' ' ' Commissioners of Appeals ' ' and ' ' Jurisprudence, ' ' and in the absence of any clear, specific intention to thus set aside determinations, it would seem that the word should be limited to the subject-matter contained in the new Constitution, and to apjilv only to such decisions as shall be inconsistent with or shall have been expressly declared in the new Con- stitution. The repealing clause does not mention ' ' usages, " " cus- toms, '' "rules," "edicts," "resolutions" and "lawful judicial action, ' ' which are specified in Section 20 of the present Constitution, and which are defined in Section 23 as " those Masonic ndes of action adopted by competent aiithoritii for JocaJ or temporary purposes admit- ting of change at convenience and not embraced in the ancieyit landmarlcs or this Constitution." It may be noted that the proposed Constitution of 1S96 was sub- mitted as a part of the report of the Commission on Constitution- and Statutory Revision in lS9o, page 140, Proceedings. In the report of the Commissioners we find the following language: ' ' It has been the aim of the Commissioners not to disturb the spirit and letter of the Constitution and Statutes adopted in 1873. The vari- ous decisions approved by the Grand Lodge placing a proper construc- tion upon the law now in force have been made a part of the proposed constitution. " This would seem to recognize the intention not to disturb previous decisions, but to harmonize the new Constitution with such decisions. If the action of ISfi.j disapproving of the use of unsealed envelopes containing Lodge notices of a certain character be treated as a Statute, we may apply the well-established rule that Statutes enacted at the same session of the Legislature should receive construction, if possible, which will give effect to each. Opinion, Allen, J., in Smith vs. People. 47 X. Y. 339 : ■ ' Each is supposed to speak the mind of the same Legislature, and the words used in each should be qualified and restricted if necessary, in their construction and effect so as to give validity and effect to every other act passed at the same session. ' ' At page 339 the learned Court applied the same rule to a clause in a Statute purporting to repeal other Statutes, and holds that the in- tent must prevail over literal interpretation. This rule has been repeatedly followed. Among the later and lead- ing cases may be cited the matter of Taylor, 150 N. T. 242. where the question was whether the established form of balloting in villages had been changed by the general Election Laws, the Court held both laws in force. At page 246 Judge O'Brien uses the following language: " If all the provisions of that Statute (the special act) can stand and have full operation and scope notwithstanding the changes in the election laws, public policy and convenience require that it should be preserved intact. ' ' In determining this matter, regard should be had to the evil sought to be remedied by the resolution of 1S9.5. Its purpose was to prevent unnecessary and perhaps objectionable information to persons either not members of the Fraternity or not interested in its action. Complaints had been made in cases where names of proposed candi- TI-IE GRAND LODGE OF NEW YOEK 239 dates and also those who had been unaiiSliated for non-payment of dues had been made public. Let us not forget that the amended Constitution of ISEIO received iti first approval the same year, 1S95, when the resolution was adopted to which attention is directed. In my opinion, Jlasonic policy is best subserved by maintaining pri- vacy in such matters. There is no provision in the Constitution of 1896 upon the subject, and in the absence of specific re]ieal or rescision of the action of the Grand Lodge of ISlhj, I submit that its action should be treated as a resolution condemnatory of a practice and prohibiting its continuance. Indej)endent of this, ho\vever, it is clearly within the power of the Grand Master to disapprove of such practice, and as to this it seems to me the Grand Master is the best judge. XXII. Status op Candidates Eecbivixg Degrees Notwithstandikg Objection. Matter of Small. It appears an objection was raised to York Lodge, Ko. 197, conJcr- ring the first degree upon four candidates and notwithstanding this the Master conferred the degree, and subsequently conferred also the second and third degrees upon the candidates without reconferring the first de- gree. The candidates signed the By-laws. The question presented is as to the standing of these candidates as Master Mas(ms. The question is asked whether the first degree should be reconferred. The Brother also criticises the action of the District Deputy who was present at the time the first degree was conferied and declined to interfere. A question of this nature ought not to be determined upon ex /.arte statements. It is not stated that any new ballot was demanded. Either a written or verbal objection is insufficient to reject the petition of a candidate or the advancement of a Brother. If properly made, hovuver, it should be respected, and by section 117 of the Constitution should de- fer the initiation of a candidate until a subsequent Commuuicati.in of the Lodge. There is no provision in the Constitution for reconferring a degree, and my attention has not been called to any precedent in which a de- gree has been reconferred because of objection to initiation or advance- ment. The candidates are not at fault and cannot be deprived of their Masonic standing, which depends upon their having received the three degrees and their subscription to the By-laws. I repeat that the Master should not be criticised without a healing provided by due process of law upon %Yhich " non eonslat " it might ap- pear either that the objection was not heard by the Master or perhaps some other reason might appear why the Brothers received their degree. 240 COMPILATIOX OF DECISIOXS OF XXIII. Definition of Residence. Matter of Hobsoii. In December, 1906, he presented his petition to Seipio Lodge, No. Ill), for the degrees in the Thirtieth Masonic District. In his petition he stated his residence to be Aurora, the village in which Seipio Lodge is located. The Lodge Investigating Committee learning that he came to Aurora from Van Etten, wrote the Master of the Lodge in that place, asking information as to his character, habits, etc., but received no an- swer. Upon further investigation a favorable report was presented, and he was accepted and received his first degree. It is conceded that Aurora Lodge acted in good faith. Shortly after- wards the Master of Mount Lebanon Lodge, located at Van Etten, claimed jurisdiction, alleging that Hobson was a resident of that place. Thereupon Seipio Lodge requested a waiver of jurisdiction, which was refused. The District Deputy of the Thirtieth District now seeks a de- cision to aid him in disposing of the matter. In his letter E.". W.'. Laverxe a. Piekce. District Deputy, states his personal opinion, that as a legal proposition ilr. Hobson had a residence in Aurora irrespective of the question of Ms legal domicile. In this view I concur. Terri- torial jurisdiction is declared by sections 107 and 108 of the Book of Constitutions of the Grand Lodge. The prohibition of section 108 is also based upon the question of resilience, the exception being persons of the United States Xavy or Military service. In practice this has been extended to cover seafaring men generally who have no fijieel resi- dence. In the probate of wills ami administration of estates where residence is necessary to confer jurisdiction, the question has frequently arisen. Travelers who spend a portion of the year in different places have been held to be sojourners and not residents irrespective of the time spent in the several places, and the question has been decided to be one of intention. The ease Cincinnati H. cf- D. U.S. Co. vs. Ives, 21 X. Y. State Ee- porter, page 67, held ' ' a person a resident of the City of Xew York wherein he had leased a private dwelling apartment for himself, not- withstanding he spent many nights at the house of a friend in Brook- lyn, and notwithstanding he had voted at the last election in Brook- lyn and had arranged to occupy rooms at a club in Brooklyn which had been his former donueile. The Couit held that under the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure relative to venue, the actual residence and not necessarily the domicile of the party should govern. ' ' Bouvier defines a ' ' resident " to be " a person coming into a place with intention of establishing his domicile or permanent residence, and who in consequence actually remains there. Time is not so essential as the intent executed by making or beginning an actual establishment though it be abandoned in a longer or shorter period. ' ' In Feopie vs. Piatt, 177 X. Y, 159, the Court held that " Avhere a Statute presc-ribed residence as a qualification for the enjoyment of a privilege or the exercise of a franchise, the word is equivalent to the place of domicile of the person who claims its benefit. The defendant THE GRAND LODGE 01 NEW YOBK 341 had been appointed a Commissioner of Quarantine under a law wliieh required liini to be resident in the Metropolitan Police District of the City of New York. He had been a resident of Owego, where he ordi- narily voted, and upon the trial testified that he " never had intended to change or abandon his domicile in Owego." In Plant vs. Harrison, 36 Miscellaneous Eep. 649, the question was exhaustively discussed by Mr. Justice Leventritt, who held that the domicile of a person is where he has his permanent home and principal establishment to which whenever he is absent he intends to return. Mere declarations of an intention to abandon a former domicile and to acquire another, or as to present domicile, whether written or oral, are evidences inferior to his acts in that regard. Both the " animus " and " factum " must be expressive of a present intention to reside presently and permanently in the new domicile. Motive is to be considered in determining the ' ' bona fides ' ' of the intent to change one 's domicile. Every case is to be determined upon its own facts. In the present case it appears that Hobson 's parents resided at Van Etten, but he had not resided there for any great length of time, in some years, and does not expect to reside there in the future. In his pftition he states his residence to be Aurora. It does not appear that he is a married man. He is engaged in business as a teacher in Aurora. At the November election, 1906, he returned to Van Etten and voted there for the first time in two years. He received his first degree on December 3d. The fact that he voted in Van Etten would indicate that at the November election of 1906 he cpnsiilfred that his home, and yet his other acts indicate his intention to change. AA'here the line is so narrow it would seem that his declaration of resilience in his petition subsequent to the public election should pre- vail, and the District Deputy is justified in his opinion that Hobson can be fairly considered to have been a resident of Aurora at the time of his initiation. The Constitution does not prohibit a non-resident from presenting a petition, while it does prohibit the initiation without a waiver or re- lease liom the residential- jurisdiction. In my opinion Seipio Lodge has jurisdiction to confer the remaining degrees upon Bro. Charles J. Hobson. XXIV. EcsiDEKCE Qualification Disputed. Grand Master Should Not BE .\SKED TO DETERMINE MATTER IN Ex PARTE STATEMENTS BE- FORE Trial. Matter of ZacluiHe. Charges are proposed against Charles E. Zacharie. Charles E. Za'.'harie made application for initiation in Pelham Lodge on or about December 18, 1905. In his application he stated his residence to be 54 East Twenty-first Street, New York City. He did not reply to the question " What is your business address? " although his office had been and still is in Wliite Plains. In his applica- tion le stated that he had petitioned Washington Lodge and '\Vhite 242 COMPILATION" OF DECISIONS OS Plidps Lodge, and had been rejected by both Lodges. His application to Washington Lodge was on or about " Sovemher 17, 1903." In that petition he gave his residence as 204 St. Nicholas Avenue, New York City; and his occupation, physician and surgeon, but he did not fill up the blank reply as to his business address. In that ap- plication he stated that he had been rejected by "White Plains Lodge in September or October, 1901. He also stated " I have been rejected or had waiver of jurisdiction refused or was blackballed in "White Plains Lodge twice, don't remember dates; also once in Seneca Falls, X. Y., and once at a Lodge in New Y'ork City called Manitou Lodge, I think, but am not certain. I think in Seneca Falls and Xew York City that I was rejected because "White Plains Lodge would not waive jurisdiction over my application. ' ' It is claimed that he registered and voted in Xew Y''ork City in 1904, giving his residence as 54 East Twenty-first Street, a boarding house, where his lather and sister boarded. He was married in October, 1905, at Poughkeepsie, and he and his wife afterwards and up to October 18, I'JOo, lived in a house in AVhite Plains owned liy him. He did not vote in "R'hite Plains that year, nor is it stated where he voted. During the years 1904 and 19n.j he took conveyances of land and executed agreements in which he was described as living in White Plains. One doeil was executed by himself and wife as late as X'ovem- ber, 1905, in which he is described as of AMiite Plains. The question preseiiti^fquent " Communication of the Lodge. The question appears to turn upon the use of the word ' ' stated ' ' in the former ease and its omission in the latter. Both these provisions are in the same section, treating of the gen- eric subjects of the initiation of a candidate or the advancement of ci Brother; and unless some reason for discrimination or positive direc- tion to the contrary can be shown, the rule should be the same whether advancement has been arrested by a ballot or by an objection. A Lodge not only confers degrees, but transacts all its other business at regular Communications. Eeeeipt of petitions is forbidden except at a stated Communication. Committees are appointed. Reports received and bal- loting had only at Stated Communications. The only references to a special Communication in the Constitution are section 74, which authorizes the Master to congregate the members of his Lodge " ujjon any emergency," and section 80, which provides for ]\Iinutes of a special Communication and for the correction of the Min- utes at a " subsequent " Communication. It cannot be doubted that the ' ' subsequent ' ' Communication in section SO refers to a regular Communication. The purpose of deferring the reconsideration of an objection or the conferring of a degree to a subsequent Communication, is to afford opportunity for investigation. It may be that a Brother de- sires to investigate either the character or qualitications of a candidate or advancing Brother without subjeeting-him to rejection, if upon such investigation he be found desirable and qualified. Without notice he may assume that nothing further will be done in the matter until the next regular Communication of which he possesses notice, when he can be present and either renew his objection or withdraw it or demand a ballot. He would be deprived of this opportunity if the ilaster were meanwhile to call a special Communication, perhaps without notice to him, and in absence of the objector, confer the degree without affording him an opportunity to renew or withdraw it. The purpose of the ob- jection might thus be thwarted. The rule laid down by Mackay, p. 171, seems to be generally ac- ceptable : " The candidate for adi'ibnce-m-ent has a right to apply at every regular mcetiiiy." He cannot be compelled to apply for or to receive any degree. His application is deemed to be made for each degree whether advancement has or has not been stayed by ballot or objection, and like every other application, should be open to consideration by the Lodge at a regular Communication, notwithstanding his previous acceptance by the Lodge upon his original application. If any moral or any other just objec- tions to his fitness exist, the disciplinary power of the Lodge should be invoked, which can only be at a regular Communication. In my opinion it is not within the province of the blaster at o spe- 244 COMPILATIOX OF DECISIONS OF cial Commimication of his Lodge to advance a Brother against whom an objection has been made by a member of the Lodge at a regular Communication. XXVI. Notice Containing Names op Members "Unaffiliated for Non- payment OF Dues. Matier of Ancient Lodge. It appears that the Master of Ancient Lodge, No. 724, caused to be printed in his summons for election the fact that two Brothers had been unaffiliated for non-payment of dues, giving their names. The propriety of this is questioned. Section 105 of the Constitution authorizes a Lodge to enact By-laws providing the penalty of unaffiliation for non- payment of dues. Section 104 deprives a Brother of the right to visit a Lodge or join in a Masonic procession or receive Masonic relief or burial who shall remain an unafiSliated Mason within his Jurisdiction for one year or more. There does not appear any provision of the Constitution for notice to the associate members of the Lodge. While the action of the Lodge should not be published to the general public, no good reason exists why each member of the Lodge who is in good standing should not be informed of the fact. The action of the Lodge is entered upon the Minutes, read and approved and is presumptively known to all who were present at the meeting at which action was taken. Whether the ilaster should advise the others by embodying it in his summons directed exclusively to members, would seem a matter for his sound discretion, always provided the notice be sent in a sealed en- velope directed to the member and marked " Strictly Personal." A somewhat analogous question was presented to the Grand Lodge in 1895 and referred to the Committee on Jurisprudence, who recommended that: ' ' All written or printed notices or communications from the Master or Secretary to the members of a Lodge or any members of the Frater- nity giving the names of candidates for degrees or names of those on whom JIasonio degrees have been or wUl be worked, be forbidden un- less such notices are sent in sealed envelopes properly addressed and marked ' Strictly Personal,' and that the use of unsealed envelopes or postal cards in transmitting such communications or summons be posi- tively forbidden. ' ' The recommendation was adopted. XXYII. Dual Contemporaneous Applications for Membership. Maiter of Semmert. Eemmert applied for membership in Eepublic Lodge, No. 690. Be- fore ballot therein he made application to Crescent Lodge, No. 402, and was accepted. In his application to Crescent Lodge he stated that he had presented a petition to Kepublic Lodge, but had not, to his knowl- edge or belief, been rejected. This statement was true. Subsequently he was rejected by Eepublic Lodge. THE GRAND LODGE OF NEW YOKE 24.J The matter is covered by sections 111 and 116 of the Book of Con- stitutions. Section 111 provides; " A petition for initiation after having been received and referred cannot be withdrawn, but must be acted upon by repoi't of the commit- tee and a ballot; and an adverse ballot cannot be reconsidered under any circumstances in less than twelve months thereafter, and then only on a new petition. ' ' This determines the matter so far as the rejecting Lodge is con- cerned. It could not reconsider its action in less than twelve months, and then only upon a new petition. The word ' ' reconsideration ' ' should be given its popular meaning — ' ' to consider again with a view to a re- versal of previous action." The cause of his rejection is not material to the inquiry. A rejection may be for substantial reasons, or have been based upon purely personal objection. It does not necessarily militate against the eligibility of the candidate to seek elsewhere for his Masonic home. There is no provision for punishment of a rejected candidate except that contained in section 116, and this simply defers his initiation until twelve months after his rejection. Such section reads as follows: ' ' Section 116. A Lodge shall not initiate any person without due inquiry into his character, nor without being satisfied, in a Masonic manner, that he has not been previously rejected. If it shall .be ascer- tained that a person, being a petitioner for initiation, has been rejected, then no Lodge shall initiate him until the expiration of twelve months after such rejection." In my opinion Crescent Lodge had the right to receive the applica- tion, and if its members approved to elect the candidate, but cannot proceed further until the expiration of twelve months from the date of rejection. XXVIII. Is THE Master of a Lodge a Privileged Witness? Matter of Freifeld. The following question is presented: " Would a Master of a Lodge be within his rights in declining to tes- tify before a Trial Commission appointed by him until directed to do so by higher authority ? ' ' I reply: I know of no privilege or exemption which would not apply to any Mason. Section 133 of the Constitution grants to a. subordinate Lodge juris- diction over its members, except its Master. This means that the sub- ordinate Lodge cannot try or receive charges against the Master over whom jurisdiction may be exercised by the Grand Lodge. Under Section 1S6 of the Constitution: Should the Master refuse to recognize a summons, he might render himself liable to discipline under section 24, Code of Procedure. In such case discipline would be through charges triable by a Grand Lodge Commission. Perhaps this may be in the mind of the Worshipful Brother when he suggests the invocation of higher authority. A summons for his attendance may be issued by the Master of any Lodge (section 128, Constitution). 246 COMPILATION OF DECISION'S OF The Code seems to fully cover the question. Section 19: The competency of witnesses is to be determined by the rules of evidence " established and recognized in Courts of Law in the ordinary administration of justice." Section S.0, Subdivision 9: Xo witnesses to be excluded on the ground of interest. Section S2, Subdivision 2: Witnesses who are Masons testify, by vir- tue of their obligations as such. Section B3 : The attendance of witnesses on either side when they are Masons may be enforced by summons issued by the Master of any Lodge. The clear purport of these provisions would seem to be that any Mason is competent and may be summoned as a witness. He must ap- pear. Disobedience is punishable (section 24). If the evidence sought from him be privDeged such as may grow out of the relation of counsel and client and the like, or possibly if he be called to prove matters com- municated to him under circumstances prohibiting him to divulge the same, a different question would be presented. In my opinion a Master of a Lodge would not be justified in declin- ing to attend as a witness before a Trial Commission appointed by him, or in iloolining to testify before such Commission except under such cir- cumstances as would justify any other member of the Fraternity. XXIX. Power op Master to Fill Vacancy in Office of Treasurer. Matter of Neal. An opinion is asked whether or not the Master of a Lodge may ap- point a Brother to fill a vacancy in the ofiice of Treasurer for an un- expired term. In my opinion such power does not exist. Section .53, Constitution, proviiles: The Treasurer must be chosen annually by ballot and by a majority of votes at the last stated Communication of the Lodge in the month of December summoned as required by the Charter. The same section authorizes a Lodge to provide in its By-laws for additional officers to be either elected or appointed. Accordingly, the By-laws usually pro- vide for appointive officers. The Master 's duty is covered by section 74, which authorizes him to remove appointed officers. Section 84 provides that an appointive office may be filled at any time, but that a vacancy i« an elective office, excepting the Master and Wardens, is to be filled by ballot at any stated Communication upon due notice to the members. I would advise that the Master of the Lodge issue a summons to the members, giving notice that the vacant office of Treasurer is to be filled for the unexpired term at the next Stated Communication by election. THE GRAND LODGE OF NEW YORK 'i-t? XXX. Master's Decision Eelative to Proficiency of Candidate for Advancement. Matter of City Lodge. The proposed complaint is, in substance : 1. That the ^Master conferred the third degree upon a Pellowcraft in the absence of his proposer, whose absence is stated to have been be- cause the Fellowcraft was not sufBfiently instructed for advancement. It appears the Master appointed a Past Jlaster to examine the can- didate and accompanied him to the ante-room for such purpose and sub- sequently cent erred the degree. 2. The second charge is in substance: That the Master ordered an Acting Senior Peacou not to allow the complainant to receive a candi- date, and denied the candidate the privilege of active floor work. :!. The third charge is: That when called upon by the complainant for information relative to action to correct an error in the Minutes the ^Master referred him to the Secretary for information and upon the complainant's protest he was gavelled down. iluch latitude should be given to the Master of a Lodge, and his de- cisions and actions should be sustained unless some grievous wrong is occasioned. It would seem that the complainant 's charge was based rather upon a sense of offended dignity than upon any serious breach of Masonic law by the Master. XXXI. Objection to Proficiency of Candidate for Advaxcemext. Erroneous Entry of Objector's Name in Minutes. Matter of Munn Lodge. It appears that at a communication in .January, 1908, Bro. Collins ob,iected to the advancement of several Brothers. His name was entered upon the Minutes as an objector to such advancement. The Master of the Lodge states that before the Lodge was opened Bro. Collins de- clared that there would be no second degree work that night; that the candidates were examined in open Lodge and showed good proficiency; that thereupon Bro. Collins objected to their advancement stating in open Lodge as his reason their ' ' lack of proficiency. ' ' The members of the Locige were incensed and thereupon a motion was made and carried that the name of the objector. and his stated reason for the objection be entered in the Minutes. All the forty members present, excejiting Bro. CcLLiNS, voted in the affirmative and the entry was thereupon made. Charges against Bro. Collins were subsequently made by authority of a regularly summoned Lodge and Commissioners were appointed, two of whom were challenged by Bro. Collins and others were thereupon sub- stituted in place of those challenged. A copy of the charges was served on him February 1.3, 1908, but no answer has been made by him thereto and the ten days' time therefor fixed by section 14, Code, had expired at the date of his letter. No copy of such letter has been served upon the 248 COMPILATION OF DECISIONS OF JIaster of the Lodge. Bro. Collins objects to the above entry of his name in the Minutes, and in this he is right. Such entry is prohibited by section 117, Constitution. The Master should have declared out of order the motion to make such entrv. It may be that the feeling of resentment aroused by the statement of the ground of such objection misled him. Bro. Collins also objects to the prosecution of the charges, but the de- lay of which he complains is due to his default of answer and not to any action of the Trial Commissioners. Xo opinion as to the merits of the controversy should be expressed at the present time, but the Lodge should be permitted to dispose of the matter in an orderly manner sub- ject to the right of appeal. The Master of the Lodge should have been furnished with a copy of the letter of Bro. Collins and an opportunity to reply, stating his views. Such is the custom and justly so that the Grand Master's opinion be not " ex parte." I advise that the Minutes of Munn Lodge be corrected by a minute explaining the erroneous entry of the name of Bro. Collins. As to the disciplinary proceeding, I advise that no recommendation be made, but that the matter be left with the Lodge subject to appeal if wrong be done. XXXII. AuToiiATic Advance of Officers by Amendment to By-laws of THE Lodge. Matter of Kidron Lodge. The question asked is whether Kedron Lodge can amend its By-laws so that in the event of death or removal of a Master or Ms inability to fuUfil the duties of his office, the Senior Warden shall act as Master, the Junior Warden shall act as Senior Warden, the Senior Deacon as Junior Warden, and the other appointed officers other than the Chap- lain, ilarshal. Tiler and ( Irganist shall be advanced in rotation to fill the respi'L'tive offices thus made vacant. To this is added a provision preserving the power of the Master to remove any appointed officer for cause. Our Constitution, section 5.'5, required that the Master, Senior Warden and Junior Warden must be chosen by baUot. Section 75 pro- vides in case of death, absence, inability of a Master or a vacancy in his office, the Senior and Junior Wardens shall in succession succeed to his prerogatives and duties for all purposes, except such as pertain to the installation of officers. The Wardens still remain AVardens during the term for which they were elected notwithstanding their right to act as blaster during such period, which power does not create a vacancy in the office of Wardens. This power is necessary and is recognized by section S4, which permits a vacancy in an. elective office to be filled at a stated (jonununieation upon due notice to the members except that of Master and Wardens. As to the advancement of the other appointed oflicers, it will be noted that under section 52 the executive power of the Lodge is primarily conferred upon the Master. The Senior Deacon and Junior Deacon are officers to be appointed by the Master who can remove them for just cause under subdivision 5 of section 74. A va- cancy in an appointed office may be filled at any time under section ,5-1. by the blaster or under section 75 by the Warden acting as blaster in the event above suggesteil, and at each Communication the station of THE G11AXD LODGE OF NEW YOEK 249 the Warden may be temporarily filled by a member designated by the presiding ofScer for that purpose, and if the Senior Deacon or any other appointed officer be so selected ' ' pro tern ' ' his place can be similarly filled. In my opinion the proposed amendment to the By-laws is not only unauthorized but unnecessary. XXXIII. Lodge Power to Enact By-laws Providing Additional Qualifi- cations FOR Office of Master. Matter of Feconic Lodge. An inquiry is made whether Peconic Lodge may incorporate in its By-laws a provision that for a member of Peconic Lodge to be eligible for Master he must previously have served a term as Senior Deacon and Warden. Our Constitution (section 59) provides: ' ' No member can be the Master of a chartered Lodge unless he has previously served as an installed Master or Warden except at the Con- stitution of a new Lodge. ' ' This is the only provision upon the subject, and is a declaration or re-enactment of the Ancient Charges upon the subject. Section 61 authorizes a Lodge to enact By-laws for its own govern- ment in conformity to the Constitution of the Grand Lodge and the principles of Masonry and declares any By-law inconsistent therewith to be void. There is no prohibition against additional qualifications of a ilaster. It is the custom of some Lodges in this jurisdiction to require that its Master must have served as Senior Deacon, even though such service must intervene between his election as Warden and that of Master. I ha%'e been unable to find any decision upon the subject, and I am of the opinion that a Lodge may provide in its By-laws that its officers must have special experience to justify their selection to administer its affairs. I recommend that Peconic Lodge be advised that it may make in its By-laws the proposed qualification to eligibility of its members to the office of Master. XXXIV. Limit of Amendment to Bt-laws of a Lodge. Matter of St. George's Lodge. The question propounded is relative to the liability of life members to pay the per capita tax of 50 cents imposed by subdivision 9 of section 43 of the Book of Constitutions, as recently amended : I find the following facts: Prior to the adoption of such amendment by the Grand Lodge the By-laws of St. George's Lodge provided as follows: Article V, Section SS : " The yearly, dues of each member except those entitled to exemption from dues, shall be $3." 250 COilPILATION OF DECISIONS OF Article VI, Section Z4: " Any member not in arrears for dues and who shall pay into the treasury $30 in any one year, shall be exempt thereafter in this Lodge from the payment of annual dues. ' ' Then follows a provision for the creation of a Permanent Fund, to which such commuted payment shall be applied. The plan further provides that no part of the principal or accumula- tion of interest of such fund shall be used for any purpose for the pe- riod of ten years from July 1, 1896, and thereafter the interest or income alone of such fund can be used for the legitimate expenses of the Lodge only. The principal of the fund is to remain as a regular source of income and cannot be diverted to any other purpose unless the written consent of at least 90 per cent, of the contributors thereto, and entitled to its benefits, shall be obtained. The Lodge now proposes to amend ite By-laws to increase the annual dues from $3 to $3.50, this increase being intended to cover such per capita tax for the benefit of the XJtiea Home. About 200 of the 761 members of the Lodge have availed themselves of the privilege of the By-laws and have paid the fixed sum of $30. The question now presented is: Whether this extra 50 cents can be thus levied or assessed as dues upon these life members, or privileged members, and if it would be lawful to suspend such of them as would refuse to pay the increase. Coercive dues are of modern origin not prescribed or regulated by any of the ancient Constitutions. (Mackay, 195.) Formerly these contributions were treated as voluntary and intended to defray expenses of the Lodge. Section 105 of our Book of Constitutions empowers subordinate Lodges to " enact By-laws requiring and regulating the payment of Lodge dues and proriding a penalty for non-payment thereof, which penalty shall he an unaffiliation." In 18S3 Grand Master Flagler in his address, page 16, says: ' ' In 1873 new regulations were adopted by the Grand Lodge, pro- viding a penalty for the non-payment of dues. I am forced to the con- clusion that these regulations do not properly protect the interests of the subordinate Lodges. So long as the Grand Lodge requires payment of a stated sum from the subordinate bodies, it must of necessity permit those Lodges to collect dues from members, and as their existence de- pends entirely upon their ability to pay to the Grand Lodge each year the moneys demanded, they should have the authority to compel pay- ment of the dues provided for by their By-laws. Every ilasdu when he becomes a member of a Lodge, signs his name to the By-laws, and by his own act enters into a contract to pay into that Lodge each year the amount therein stated as dues. Any failure on his part to do this in- dicates a want of integrity, and is a clear violation of a solemn "com- pact. And as the Lodge enters into obligations based upon the agree- ment of each member to pay a certain sum each year, the neglect or failure to pay often proves a source of embarrassment to the Lodge and brings scandal upon the Fraternity. ' ' In 1874 Grand Master Fox, page 26, Proceedings, says: ' ' The provisions relating to the penalty for the non-payment of dues, and those in regard to iinaiEliation, restoration to membership, and THE GRAND LODGE OF NEW YORK 251 dimission, require such modifications as will result in a consistent course of action in accordance with Masonic usage, and at the same time pro- tect the interests of the subordinate bodies, the rights of their members, and those of unaifiliated Masons as well. ' ' The imposition of Lodge dues, admittedly a resource of modern times, is nevertheless a necessity that none will question; as, \vithout the revenues derived from that source. Lodges could not be properly sustained and their works of charity continued, unless resort was had to the requirement of excessive fees for initiation, which in effect would restrict the privileges of the Fraternity to the wealthy alone, or lead to the indiscriminate admission of members on the payment of an in- considerable sum for the sake of the money thus produced — a result that would materially weaken the institution, and tend to destroy its influence, power, and dignity. The Cirand Lodges on this continent, with scarcely an exception, permit their subordinates to exact from their members quarterly or annual dues, and to provide a penalty for their non-payment; but this provision is not uniform as to its terms, and while the punishment is light in some Jurisdictions, in others the of- fense involves the most severe punishment known to Masonry. ' ' The refusal or neglect to pay dues, when there is ability to dis- charge the obligation, indicates a want of integrity, and is a clear vio- lation of a solemn compact; and in either case deserves the condemna- tion of all just men, and ought, in common fairness to the faithful and (liligent Craftsman, to subject the delinquent to a deprivation (jf cer- tain jjrivileges. My opinion is, that the just penalty for the non-pay- ment of Loilge dues should be suspension from all the rights and privi- ]o;^i s of Masonry, save that of charity (for that right is derived from a higher than the written law), and in its application the Masonic teach- ing recognizes no distinction among Masons. This penalty should only be inflicted in accordance with safeguards established by the Grand Lndge, and should continue until removed by the payment of the amount due at the time of suspension. ' ' In 1875 Grand Master Thorn, decision 12, page 31, Proceedings, held ; ' ' That in order to unafSliatc a member for non-payment of dues a Lodge must act under a By-law passed in accordance with the sections of the Constitution and Statutes of Grand Lodge for that purjiose made and provided. ' ' In his decision No. 1.3, same year, he states: ' ' The obligation of the Brother to pay dues was in the nature of a ci;ntraet with the Lodge." In 1889 the Grand Lodge approved the finding of the Commissioners of Apprals sustaining the action of a Lodge in refusing to grant a dimit to a Brother who desired to terminate his membership without piiyinont o; Ihe commuted tax of si.\ dollars necessary to release the Lodge from the per capita tax under an amendment to section 40, . subdivision S of the Constitution adopted by the Grand Lodge. He was a member of a Lodye on December .31, ]s,S."i, and the Lodge in 1S.S7 had adopted n reso- lution to commute the tax. This was an amendment to the By-laws. (I'riiceedings, 1SS9, page 149.) In 1894 the Committee on Jurisprudence, with the approval of the Grand Lodge, reported a decision in a case somewhat analogous to the '.O'i COMPILATIOX OF DECISIONS OF present. The By-laws of Continental Lodge contained the usual privi- lege for amendment by the Lodge and also the following section; ' ' The yearly dues of each member except life members and those who may become such, shall be $7." It was proposed to amend the By-laws by striking out the words " except life members and those who may become such." The Master refused to submit the amendment because in his opinion '• it was contrary to the Grand Lodge Statutes and therefore unconsti- tutional. " On appeal Grand Master Burxham reversed the decision of the Master of the Lodge, using the follon-ing language (page 163) : ' ' If the By-laws of a Lodge are to be regarded as a contract between the Lodge and its members, the contract must be taken in its entirety. A member relying on these By-laws as a contract must take them all. He cannot claim the benefit of one and reject another. He cannot single out one By-law and say that this is absolute, and that it cannot be amended or repealed, because the power to amend or repeal is contained in another By-law. The power to amend was as much a part of the contract into which the Lodge entered as was the By-law conferring life membership. Heuce, when these By-laws provide for the way in which they can be amended, any right or privileged membership which may have been given thereby is tu continue only so long as the By-laws in this respect remain unchanged by amendment duly accepted in the pre- scribed form. The right to amend is as much a part of this contract as that jirovision which conferred privileged membership, and either or any of those provisions may be changed at any time. Even if the Mas- ter 's pnsition had been curirct, that it was beyond the power of the Lodge to deprive these Brethren who had attained life membership of their acquired right, still he was in error in ret using to submit the pro- posfd amendment to the Lodge, because, even in his view, the Lodge certainly had the right as to future members to refuse to permit them to acquire privileged membership. ' ' The Committee, concurring in the Grand Master 's decision, proceeds as lollows: '' The policy of this Grand Body should be against granting privi- leges inimical to the welfare of the Fraternity ; they are antagonistic to the great principles of the Institution, for the ancient charges well say: ' We are Freemasons and freemen, ' and we ought, therefore, to be un- fettered by privileges and uncloggnl by bonds.'' ' ' Again, such privileges are destructive of the interests of the Lodges. Look at Continental Loilge on this question of privileges. Thirty-nine of its present memlieis are the claimants of this privilege of exemption from dues. Many others will soon be entitled to a like privilege, and in due course, and that only of a short time, a large portion of the mem- bership w^ill be exempt from contributing to the support of the Lodge. ' ' ' ' The Lodge will soon be like a ship at sea in the breakers, and it is the stern iluty of your Grand Body to save the Institution from such derelicts. " ' ' There are enough Masonic gravestones in this Jurisdiction, indi- cating where a Masonic light has been extinguished, without increasing the number, especially when the Grand Lodge can, by wise action, pie vent more Lodge deaths and burials. THE 6EAND LODGE OF NEW YOEK 253 " Continental Lodge has, with v.ise foresight, seen the coming of the destroyer, and has sought by sagacious action, forecasting the future, to avert the certain calamity. Shall this Grand Body stay their good work ? " " As to the right to amend or repeal the By-law granting this privi- lege, your Committee consider the question as similar to rights granted by the State to corporations, all of which are, by the Constitution and by the act creating such corporations, subject to amendment or repeal, and the courts have uniformly sustained and enforced subsequent acts of the Legislature repealing and amending laws granting such privi- leges, the courts acting on the principle that the power which granted the privilege, with the right to amend or repeal, could, at pleasure, re- voke or repeal the privilege thus granted. The right was granted, with that condition attached, and was accepted by the party privileged with the right of revocation and such right may be exercised at pleasure. The party took the privilege with the burden attached, and he is in no condition to complain if the right or privilege is withdrawn. " Beyoud any question the Lodge had an absolute right to repeal this By-law and abolish the dangerous privilege it granted, and thus cut off any increase of privileged membership. The erroneous action of the appellant has preventeil the Lodge from exercising this power, and clearly the decision of the Grand Master in reversing his action should be affirmed and your Committee report a resolution accordingly: ' ' Hesolved, That the decision of the Grand Master in reversing the action of W.'. Wm. H. Johnson, Master of Continental Lodge, No. 287, in refusing to submit the amendment to the By-laws pending in said Lodge as to dues, be and the same is hereby in all things affirmed; and that said Master submit said amendment to said Lodge in the man- ner prescribed by the laws and regulations of the Grand Lodge and the By-laws of said Loduc; and that the Grand Master elect, after his in- stallation, cause this decision to be duly enforced and executed. ' ' The decision upon the question presented may be of great importance as a precedent, and it should be confined to the particular case. We maj" assume that the subject is one of contract between the member and the Lodge, and binding upon both, especially where it has been per- formed by the member. It has been held that a By-law providing that a member should be exempt from dues after payment for a certain number of years, could be rescinded by an amendment of the By-laws before expiration of the period. The decision was based upon the proposition that during the interval the member was paying no more than was required of every other mem- ber, hence the only consideration, if any, was persistent membership. In the present case, something is added, namely: " That a member shall pay the gross sum of $30 in any one year, which sum is equal to ten years of dues and is clearly a commutation of annual dues. ' ' Should the entire membership avail itself of this provision, and a binding contract of exemption exist, the Lodge would be compelled under the amendment to pay to the Grand Lodge, a sum equal to 50 cents per capita out of the income of the permanent fund. And yet Sec- tion 26 of the By-laws prohibits the use of any portion of the interest 2.')4 COMPILATION OF DECISIONS OF during such ten years. If strictly construed, the anomalous condition might be presented of a Lodge with a treasury no portion of which is available for payment of expenses of the Lodge or of this per capita tax. Our- courts have held in somewhat analogous cases, that an amended By-law wliich would materially change the contract, was unreasonable and could not be enforced. In Parii-h vs. Xew Tori: Produce Exchange, 169 X. Y., page 34, an attempt was made to divert the gratuity fund which had become ac- cumulated for the benefit of beneficiaries designated in the charter and to ilistribute it among living subscribing members. The Court held that was an attempt to devote it to a different use, and that the amendment was unreasonable and void, not only because it destroys the rights of the members secured to them by the By-laws upon which they relied when they entered into the contract, but becrxuse it is a diversion of the fund to a purpose unauthorized by the charter. In the opinion of the Court, written by Parker, C. J., we find the following (page 4S) : " An alteration is a pro tanto repeal; but no private corporation can repeal a By-law so as to impair rights which have been given and be- come vested by virtue of the By-law afterwards repealed. ' ' Again : ' ' The alteration of a By-law is but the malting of another upon the same matter. If the first must be reasonable and in accord with the principles of law, so must that which alters it. If, then, the power is reserved to alter, amend or repeal, and that reservation enters into a contract, the power resen-ed is to pass reasonable By-laws, agreeable to law. But a By-law that will disturb a vested right is not such. ' ' In Weber vs. f^npremc Tent of Knights of the Maccabees of the TTorhl. 172 X. Y., page 490, and in Langan vs. Supreme Council Ameri- can Legion of Hdnor, 174 X'. Y., page 266, and Shipman vs. Protected Home Circle, 174 X. Y., page S9S. the same rule is laid down. In the latter case, it was held under an express agreement by a member of a mutual benefit association, to comply with " all the laws, rules, regula- tions and requirements now in force or that may hereafter be enacted." By-laws thereafter regularly adopted become retrospective as well as prospective in their operation, except as to the rights which have be- come fixed or vested by the terms of the original contract. This would seem to be peculiarly applicable to the present ease. The By-laws of St. George 's Lodge reserving the right to amend further provide that ' ' Any act or edict of the Grand Lodge which has the effect to alter any part of these By-laws, shall be deemed to be an amendment without any action on the part of this Lodge. ' ' I have been unable to find anything which makes the Grand Lodge amendment retrospective. If we refer to the amendment of the Book of Constitutions, section 43, which provides for the revenue of the Grand Lodge, we find that subdivision 9 does not make a specific tax or charge upon the members as individuals, but upon the Lodge. The language is ' ' Every Lodge shall pay for each of its members annually, which shall be appropriated to the Hall and Asylum Fund, 50 cents. ' ' With these decisions before us, I am of the opinion that while St. THE GRAND LODGE OF NEW TORK 255 George 's Lodge is chargeable in its organic capacity with the payment of this per capita charge as an amount due from the Lodge, it cannot by an amendment of the By-laws, or otherwise, change any portion of this amount against the members who have commuted their dues by a payment of the gross sum under section 24, article VI, of its By-laws. It can amend or repeal or modify the provisions of life membership, which will be effective against those who have not thus commuted. The proposed amendment is to increase annual dues, and this is precisely what the Lodge agreed should not be done, so far as its life members who should pay the commuted amount, are concerned. This, however, does not prevent the amendment of its By-laws by increasing its annual dues, but does exempt from payment of any dues those who are in the life membership class, at the present time. It follows that the penalty of unaffiliation prescribed by section 105 has no application to such class. A different question might be pre- sented if a direct tax or assessment was made by the Grand Lodge upon the individual members of the Fraternity, which it is not necessary now to determine. In my opinion, St. George 's Lodge must stand by its bargain. It has received the commuted sum of $30 from the members constituting an exempt class. It cannot retain the purchase price without conceding exemption. It may prevent future additions to the exempt class by amending its By- laws. Some Lodges have provided for an exempt class — with the exception expressed that it shall not apply to ' ' Grand Lodge dues, ' ' and such an amendment might be submitted without materially changing the Lodge policy. But this will apply only to future members of the class. XXXV. Territorial Jurisdiction Trespass, Eemedt For. Matter of Darcy Lodge. Darcy Lodge, in violation of section 107 of the Constitution, initi- ated a resident of Yonkers over whom Eising Star Lodge had sole jurisdiction. The communication of Dr. Boskowitz states that the Lodge has acknowledged its error and apologized and offered to give Eising Star Lodge the amount of the fee ordinarily received by the former Lodge, but that the latter Lodge declines to accept such amount and requires the payment of the amount received by the offending Lodge as an initiation fee. No explanation, excuse or justification for viola- tion of the Constitution is tendered. In its absence it is diflScult to understand how the offending Lodge could innocently have erred if the candidate in his petition stated cor- rectly his residence and the Lodge Committee conscientiously investi- gated the case. No claim is made that the Lodge was deceived, nor does it appear that any application was made to Eising Star Lodge for a waiver of its territorial rights. Trespass upon territorial jurisdiction is a serious offense, and even the Grand Master cannot by dispensation authorize a violation of the Constitution in this respect. It may be upon trial 256 COMPILATION OF DECISIONS OF Darey Lodge can explain its action. But meanwhile the Grand Master should not be called upon to anticipate his judgment upon a matter which may come before him as an Appellate Tribunal, nor should he be expected to be a party to any pecuniary negotiations for a waiver by Bising Star Lodge. While there are precedents for pecuniary compensation for trespass upon territorial jurisdiction, they have been in cases which the offend- ing Lodge inadvertently erred. The practice is not to be commended, and should not be extended lest it become a premium for violations of territorial jurisdiction by Lodges which can afford to pay the injured Lodge a portion of the amount it receives and thus itself profit by its own wrong. XXXVI. C0Mi[UXICAT10X OF ilORE THAN ONE DEGREE IX ONE DAT. Matter of Pacific Lodge. Two questions are asked: First. Can Pacific Lodge confer one degree at its regular stated Communication on the first and third Thursdays of each month, and in addition thereto at special Communications on other nights of the week confer other or the same degreesf In my opinion the rejection of the amendment recently proposed to the Book of Constitutions and the adoption of a substitute permits a Lodge to confer one degree at its regular stated Communication, and the same or another degree at a special Communication on another night. The amendment as adopted reads as follows: ' ' Section 121 : A Lodge shall not confer more than one degree in one day, nor shall said degree be conferred on more than five candidates." Second. Can Pacific Lodge confer the second and third degrees on five candidates at its Communication and request a sister Lodge of the same Masonic District to confer the same degree on the same day upon its candidates for that degree in excess of fivef In my opinion this would be an evasion of the section above quoted, the intention of which is that a Lodge shall not directly, or indirectly through another Lodge, confer the degree on more than five candidates in any one day. While it is permissible in cases of emergency that a Brother may be advanced in another Lodge, section 12-t of the Constitu- tion indicates that this is au exceptional matter requiring direction by the Lodge in writing over its seal. I recommend that the first question be answered in the affirmative and that the second be answered in the negative. XXX^TI. Eestokation of Oxe fxAFpruATED Pkior to Mat 28, 1907. In re Fillers. An opinion is asked whether ' ■ A Brother unaffiliated in 1901 now applying for restoration would be obliged to undergo the ordeal of a unanimous secret ballot, or THE GRAND LODGE OF NEW YOEK 257 whether that methocl of restoration applies only to those who remain unaffiliated for non-payment of clues five years from the adoption of the recent amendment of the Constitution. ' ' The amendment immediately upon its adoption became a part of the the organic law. It is well settled that a law is prospective and not retro-active in the absence of language changing the rule. The question is one ot construction and the intention of the Legislature (in this ease the lirand Lodge) when ascertained, is controlling. Eestoration to membership is a concession, not a right. Prior to the amendment a Brother unaffiliated for non-payment of dues could be restored to membership in a Lodge by a majority vote taken by show of hands of the members provided the amount due at the time of his unaffiliatiun be first paid. This referred to the procedure by the Lodge to express its consent to the restoration. The amendment adds an additional condition applicable only to those who may have been un- affiliated for a period of five years. L'naffiliation with its attendant failure to contribute to the support of the Lodge is to be discouraged. When this shall have continued for so long a period the Brother is placed, so far as the Lodge of which he was formerly a member is concerned, in the same position as one who had never been a member therein, and the ballot for his restoration in that Lodge must be unanimous. The language clearly states this proposition and is made applicable to all who prior to the time of its adoption failed to make application for restoration. The case is analogous to that of a Statute of Limitations, which may be allowed at the will of the Legislature because it applies to a remedy and does not affect a vested right. The rule is well stated by Folger, Ch. J., in Acler vs. Acl-er, SI N. v.. page 14S: ' ' A Statute of Limitations, inasmuch as it takes away the remedy only and does not impair the obligation, affects the remedy on contracts made before as well as those made after the passage of it unless it contains some provision saving prior contracts from the operation of it. ' ' The same rule was applied in Conyngliam vs. Duffy, 125 X. Y. 200, to the limitation of time applicable to an order for the examination of a judgment debtor in supplementaiy proceedings under section 2435 of the Code of Civil Procedure even though the right accrued before the enactment of the Code. Also in a special proceeding to enforce a judgment. Matter of JVarner, 39 App. Div. Eep., 91. In O'Reilly vs. Vtah, #c.. Stage Co., 87 Hun., 412, Follet, J., says: ' ' Statutes affecting remedies or rules of procedure for enforcing rights are declared to be retroactive on grounds which would be deemed quite insufficient to give a retro-active effect to statutes enlarging or restricting substantive rights." The amendment is in no sense " ex post facto " which is defined in Shepard vs. People, 25 X. Y., 406, to be a " law which increases the punishment denounced against the act when committed or which pun- ishes an offense in a manner in which it was not punishable when com- mitted irrespective of its comparative severity, unless the new punish- ment is one of the same kind as the old but less in degree. ' ' 258 COMPILATION OF DECISIOXS OF The punishment for non-payment of dues is unafflUation. This pun- ishment is not increased nor changed by the amendment. The rem- edy applicable to restoration is modified. I recommend a ruling that the amendment does not apply solely to those who remain unaflfiliated for non-payment of dues for five years from the adoption of the amendment, which was on the 9th day of May, 1907, but covers the cases of all who shall have been unaflfiliated for five years immediately prior to the date of application for restora- tion. XXXVIII. Restoration of Oxe Unaffiliated Peiok to Mat 28, 1907. Matter of Washington Lodge. The questions presented are: " First. As to the time when the amendment to the Constitution adopted May 9, 1907, took effect?" " Second. Whether a member of Washington Lodge unaflfiliated for non-payment of dues can be restored to membership by show of hands, or must submit to a ballot which was taken and resulted in his re- jection!" " Third. Whether he is entitled to a return of the amount paid by him and which was his indebtedness at the time of his unaffiliation '? " Ax to the First Question: In my opinion the amendment became effective on the day of its adoption by the Grand Lodge, which was May 9, 1907. As to the Second Question: The amendment makes no exception in favor of those who were unaflfiliated at time of its passage. Restora- tion is a privilege and not a right. Section 105 permitted a Lodge to act by show of hands and to restore by a majority vote thus taken. The policy of the Grand Lodge has changed this and now requires that he submit to a secret ballot and requires unanimous vote. The amend- ment refers to the remedy. It is in no sense an ex post facto law, which term applies only to the creation of a new punishment for crime perpetrated before the passage of a law creating such new punishment. The punishment was unaffiliation, which was authorized by section 105 of the Constitution. As to the Third Question: The amount paid is in no sense a condi- tion or consideration of a contract. There is no contract. The member simply, as a condition to application for restoration, pays that which he owes and which he should have paid when it became due, because the Lodge was compelled, during the period of his default, to carry him upon its books and pay the Grand Lodge charges based upon his mem- bership. I therefore recommend that the question be answered: That the amendment took eflfect May 9, 1907, and applies to all who shall have been unaffiliated for a period of five years immediately preceding the application for restoration to membership, and that the amount of accrued indebtedness paid belongs to the Lodge, and should not be returned to the unaflfiliated. He may apply at the expiration of twelve months for reconsideration THE GEAXD LODGE OF NEW YOKE 259 of the adverse ballot under section 111 of the Constitution, or at any time for affiliation in another Lodge under section 101 of the Constitu- tion. XXXIX. Unaffiliated tor Xox-payment of Dues. Eight to Apply to An- other Lodge after Payment of Arrears and Refusal oF' Former Lodge to Restore Him to ilEMBERSHip. Matter of Hoffman Lodge. It appears that a member of Goshen Lodge was " unaffiliated " for non-payment of dues " many years ago." In 1906 he paid all arrears of dues and applied for restoration to membership in Goshen Lodge, but his application was rejected. Subsequently he applied to Hoffman Lodge of Middletown for affiliation and was accepted. The question of the right of Hoffman Lodge to accept him is presented. Attached to such letter and statement of the ease are copies of two letters of the Grand Secretary severally dated November 8th and November 11th, 1907, written to the affiliated Brother and expressing an opinion that the action of Hoffman Lodge is justifiable and referring to Decision 13, page 30, Journal of Proceedings of the Grand Lodge for 1875. That decision was by Grand Master Thorn, affirmed by the Committee on Condition of Masonry and approved by the Grand Lodge. Section 46 of the Statutes then in force provided for " unaffihation " for non-pay- ment of dues and also for restoration of membership. Section 105 of the Constitution in force 1906, is a substitute for the above section of the Statutes which was repealed by section 141 of such Constitution. Hence the decision is not conclusive, but may be forceful as an argument so far as it is applicable. The substituted section adds a penalty not provided in the Statutes. It prohibits the Brother unaffiliated for non-payment of dues to visit any Lodge ' ' until restored ' ' to membership. This is significant by comparison with Sec- tions 103 and 104 which apply to voluntary withdrawals upon the member's application. In such case the non- affiliate is allowe. D. The dispensation has expired and no Charter has beesi issued. This Entered Apprentice has been elected to become a member of a Chartered Lodge, which desires to be instructed as to the proper course of procedure, and as to what fee may be required of the applicant. A Lodge under dispensation is defined by Mackey, 305, as being ' ' a temporary organization of Masons for a specific purpose — to make Masons. ' ' He adds, ' ' If the dispensation ... is revoked and the Lodge dissolved " the members are " Masons in good standing, but unaffiliated, and are not only permitted, but it becomes their duty to apply to some regular Lodge for affiliation." Simons, page 69, speaks of Lodges under dispensation as " inchoate " and as ' ' legalized conventions for the purpose of conferring the three degrees of Masonry, and adding, to the extent of their opportunity, to the army of non-affiliated Masons.-" Coneededly an Entered Apprentice is a Mason. Section 9S, Subdivision 3, of the Constitution provides that " an Entered Apprentice or FeUowcraft made by a Lodge which shall have ceased to exist may apply to any Lodge within the Jurisdiction of which he resides for the remaining degrees or degree ; and if the Lodge accepts his application shall become a member of such Lodge," etc. Grand blaster King, in 1862, held it entirely competent for any Lodge to receive and act upon the petition of a non-affiliated Mason whose Lodge has ceased to exist on proper evidence of this fact being offered and that the most authentic evidence would be the certificate of the Grand Secretary. By way of conclusion: 1. An Entered Apprentice receiving his degree in a Lodge under dispensation becomes a ' ' non-affiliate ' ' upon the expiration of the dis- pensation unless a Charter be granted. 2. His status is the same as though he had been initiated in a Char- tered Lodge which had ceased to exist. 3. The Constitution authorizes an Entered Apprentice to apply for the remaining degrees, which constitutes an affiliation. Section 98, Sub- division 4, uses the words ' ' regular affiliation, ' ' evidently to distinguish such affiliation from that referred to in the preceding subdivision, and THE GRAND LODGE OF NEW \Or>K 271 Section 43, Subdivision 6, providing revenue fees for the Grand Lodge, requires an affiliation fee for an Entered Apprentice. 4. Section 120 of the Constitution, which requires that the second and third degrees shall be conferred without fee, applies to Lodges which have received the initiation fee. It does not prohibit a Lodge from charging an aflfiliation fee, the amount of which is within the control of the Lodge, as indicated by its By-laws. 5. The procedure should be the same as in the case of any other non- afSliated Mason, and the fee payable should be the regular affiliation fee. ArriLiATioN Fee. Owneeship upon Application tok the Return of a DiMiT and Such Fee. To Whom Should Dimit be Eetuened? Matter of Island City Lodge. It appears that a Brother residing pt Eichmond Hill, Long Island, a member of a Lodge in Scotland, petitioned Island City Lodge for affilia- tion, and was accepted May 27, 1907. His dimit from the Scotland Lodge is dated November 23, 1907, nearly six months subsequent to his acceptance by Island City Lodge. He has not signed the By-laws of such Lodge, and now applies for a return of his dimit and affiliation fee. Section 111, Constitution, permits the withdrawal of a petition for affiliation before it has been balloted on. Section 101 regulates the petition for affiliation. The petition must be referred, and upon the report of the Committee the ballot is taken. This constitutes accept- ance. Upon such acceptance the right to withdraw the petition ceases. Notwithstanding this the Brother does not become a member of the accepting Lodge until : 1. The Lodge has received a certificate that the Brother has been regularly discharged from membership in his Mother Lodge, and 2. He shall have signed the By-laws of the accepting Lodge. 3. Failure to sign the By-laws within three months from the date of the dimit renders it null and void. 4. The Secretary of the accepting Lodge must notify the Lodge granting the dimit when the Brother has eonsununated his member- ship, or 5. Eeturn the dimit if the Brother has not consummated his member- ship within the prescribed time. The Constitution does not discriminate between members of Lodges within this Jurisdiction and those within the Jurisdiction of other Grand Lodges, so far as the petition for affiliation or the dimit is concerned; the only distinction is in Section 102, which provides that when any member of a Lodge w-ithin this Jurisdiction shall become a resident of another Grand Lodge Jurisdiction a dimit may be granted to him direct. The present Constitution has changed the rule which formerly existed as to the status of a Brother who has dimitted from his original Lodge and has been accepted in another Lodge. In 1862 Grand Master King held that the dimit terminated member- ship in the Mother Lodge, which could only be renewed by a new app'i- cation, and that a non-affiliated Mason upon election in a Lodge became a member thereof. 272 COMPILATIOX OF DECISIONS OF In 1863 Grand Master Ceaxe held that a dimitted Brother could not return to his Lodge in any manner other than as an unaflEUiated Mason, and this decision was approred by the Committee on Condition of Masonry, whose report was adopted by the Grand Lodge, which held that the act of dimission was a joint act and was a complete severance of membership, even without a certificate, and that the entry upon the Lodge record and the certificate were at most the perpetuating evidence of the fact. In 1S65 Grand Master Paige decided that the petition for afBliation could be withdrawn from the Lodge to which it was presented before ballot with the consent of such Lodge. In 1866 Grand Master Thorne held that the application could be withdrawn after report, and that neither the election or rejection gave the Lodge control over the applicant. In IS 77 the Committee on Jurisprudence and Condition of Masonry reported as a conclusion adopted by the Grand Lodge that membership was consummated by the acceptance of the Brother and receipt of a dimit, and that the signing of the By-laws was not indispensable. In ISSl Grand Master Axthont held that the dimitting Brother must sign the By-laws to consummate his membership, and that until the Mather Lodge receives notice from the accpting Lodge that he has thus consummated membership, the former must retain his name on the roll of membership, and that meanwhile the dimit is provisional, and it is intended that if the affiliation is not promptly perfected in the accept- ing Lodge, then the dimit is to be returned to the original Lodge. The Grand Master recommended that the time within which the affiliated Brother might consummate bis membership should be limited or other- wise be returned to the original Lodge. The amendments to the Constitution subsequently adopted were based on this suggestion, and contemplate the return of the dimit, not to the Brother hut to the Lodge which issued it. In view of these rulings and the present Constitution the status and right of the Brother would seem to be as follows: 1. He has applied under the By-laws of the accepting Lodge which received his petition with the necessary affiliation fee. 2. The dimit from the Scotch Lodge has become nifll and void by his failure to sign the By-laws of the accepting Lodge within three months from the date of the dimit, which period expired February 23, 1908. 3. He is not personally entitled to a return of the dimit, which, how- ever, should be returned to the Scotch Lodge which issued it. The rule is not changed by the fact that it was issued by a Lodge of foreign Jurisdiction. The law of that Jurisdiction must determine the action of the Lodge which issued the dimit. Whether it will again issue it to the Brother, or whether it will claim jurisdiction over him, is for the foreign Jurisdiction to decide, and its judgment is entitled to due respect until some facts are disclosed to justify a contrary adjudication in this Jurisdiction. 4. The affiliation fee belongs to the accepting Lodge with which a contract was made upon his acceptance by the Lodge. Section 43 of the Constitution entitles the Grand Lodge to a portion of everv affiliation fee. It is not the fault of the accepting Lodge that the affiliation con- tract has not been performed by the petitioning Brother. The Lod^e THE GRAND LODGE OF NEW YOEK "iT3 has appointed its Investigation Committee, who have reported, and every- thing which it was required to do has been performed by the Lodge, and while it may waive its right to the fee or any portion thereof, it is volun- tary on its part. The Brother is not estopped from renewing his appli- cation to the same Lodge or from petitioning another Lodge for affilia- tion, but in either case it would be necessary that he should obtain another dirait from the Mother Lodge, and this furnishes a logical reason why the present dimit should be returned to the Scotch Lodge which granted it. LI. Nominations for Elective Officers of Lodges. Matter of Green. An opinion is asked whether it is within the rights of the members of a Lodge at the annual election to make nominations for elective offi- cers, and in reply to your request for an opinion: I have carefully examined the ancient records; the Proceedings of our Grand Lodge and our Constitution and Eules of Order; the Con- stitution and decisions of about forty other Jurisdictions, as well as works of recognized test writers. Anderson, in his second edition, at page 109, cites an instance, and which is quoted in 2d Gould, 31: ' ' After the rebellion was over, a.d. 1716, the few Lodges at London finding themselves neglected . met . . constituted them- selves a Grand Lodge pro tern . . . revived the Quarterly Communi- cation, and resolved to hold the Annual Communication and Feast and then to choose a Grand Master from among themselves. Accordingly on St. John Baptist's Day . . 1717 .. . the Assembly and Teast of the Free and Accepted Masons was held. Before dinner a list of proper candidates was proposed, and the Brethren elected a Grand Master, who was forthwith invested and installed. ' ' The Atholl Charter granted by the Grand Lodge of England in 1781, to form a Grand Lodge in the Province of New York, specifically author- izes the Grand Lodge to " nominate, choose and install " its officers. Chase, in his digest, reports as a precedent the instance related by Anderson. Mackey, page 403, writes: " Nominations of candidates for office are in order and according to ancient usage." And adds: ' ' But if a member is elected who has not been nominated the elec- tion will still be valid; for a nomination, though permitted, is not abso- lutely essential. Past Master Simons, in his Treatise, page 144, while deprecating the custom, concedes there is no law against such practice, and says it is held that as nominations for office are permitted in the Grand Lodge, by analogy it is proper to nominate in the subordinate." Our Eule of Order, No. Ill, recognizes and regulates nominating speeches : " In nominating or seconding the nomination of an officer of the Grand Lodge a Brother shall not be permitted to speak more than three minutes. ' ' 27i tOJiriLATIOX OF DECISIONS OF Eepeated rulings have been made in our Grand Lodge that such speeches must be confined to recommendations of candidates, without personal criticisms calculated to disturb harmony of proceedings. In the following Jurisdictions the existence of the ancient rule recog- nizing the right of nominations is not questioned: California, Con- necticut, District of Columbia, Florida, Kansas, Maine, ilassaehuSetts, Michigan, Minnesota, jSTebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Caro- lina, North Dakota, Vermont, Washington and West Virginia. Iowa requires a roll call of members to deposit their ballots. New Jersey leaves the question to the discretion of the Grand Master. Wisconsin permits the selection from Master Masons other than Past Masters and Wardens as officers of subordinate Lodges, provided they be approved by the Grand Master before installation, and this inferentially involves a nomination. Other Jurisdictions which do not criticise this right of nomination condemn electioneering. Among these may be mentioned Idaho, Illinois, Louisiana, New Mexico, Oregon and Utah. Pennsylvania in its Constitution provides that this election in subordinate Lodges may be conducted in the same manner as in Grand Lodge, but in a decision has held that caucusing, nominating and electioneering are unmasonic. Arkansas prohibits nominations in subordinate Lodges, but allows them in its Grand Lodge. Alabama, Ohio, Rhode Island and Wyoming spe- cifically prohibit nominations, and Colorado prohibits both nominations and electioneering. Maryland, Virginia, South Carolina, Tennessee and Texas specifically autlwrt:e nominations, while Canada requires nomina- tions to be made before the opening of the Grand Lodge and to be printed and distributed by the Grand Secretary. The result of above comparison is that nominations are condemned in seven of the forty Jurisdictions which have been examined. In the absence of prohibition, consistency requires that Jurisdictions which recognize the right of nomination in the Grand Lodge should concede it to the subordinate bodies which by unison form such Grand Lodge. There is good reason for the discrimination between nominating, caucusing and electioneering. The nomination may present in open Lodge the name of a worthy member who otherwise might not be men- tioned for an office for which by service and otherwise he may be espe- cially qualified. Nominating speeches, however, should be reasonably limited in this and be confined to recommendation of the proposed can- didate and not be used as a channel of invective or language calculated to offend and destroy the harmony which should prevail in all Lodges. As the Master sets the Craft to work and instructs it as to its labors, the whole question of the regulation and control of the nominating speeches must rest largely within his discretion. I advise that the ques- tion whether the right exists to make nominating speeches at the Annual Communication of a Lodge within this Jurisdiction be answered in the affirmative, but subject to the control of the presiding officer and to pro- hibition by the Lodge through constitutionally enacted By laws. In the absence of such prohibition the Lodge on motion may allow or refuse to permit nominating speeches to be made, which action would bind the presiding officer, still leaving, however, the regulation of such speeches within his discretion. THE GRAND LODGE OF NEW YORK 275 LII. Lodge Summons to Kbceive Charges, Failure to ' Serve on Members Eeceiving Master's Degree the Night It is Ordered. Matter of Vtica Lodge. It appears that at a rBgular Communication of September 16, 1907, a summons was ordered sent to the members of XJtica Lodge containing a notice that a complaint had been presented against a Brother, and that action would be taken at the next regular Communication of September 30, 1907. At the former Communication, after the order to issue the summons, four Brothers were raised, to whom the summons was not sent. They were present in the Lodge on September 16th when tlie minutes were read, which simply indicated that a complaint had been presented against a Brother. It does not clearly appear that these four Brothers were present at the Communication of September 30th, when the vote to receive the charges was taken and Trial Commissioners were appointed. The vote was practically unanimous, and if such four votes were recorded in the negative it would not change the result of the action of the Lodge. Some other minor objections to the proceedings are taken by the defendant, who claims that the omission to serve the summons is a juris- dictional defect, and that the proceedings are void on that account. Section 8 of the Code of Procedure provides: " A complaint must be presented in open Lodge at a Stated Com- mnnication, and no action, shall he talcen thereon until the next Stated Communication of said Lodge to which all the memiers of said Lodge shall be regularly summoned." The purpose is manifestly that the receipt or rejection of the com- plaint shall be the subject of action by the Lodge, and that every mem- ber shall be afforded an opportunity to be heard and to record his vote. This summons should have been sent to all who were members of the Lodge at the time of its issue, and this would include the four who con- summated their membership at the Communication at which the com- plaint was presented. It was not necessary or proper that any action should be taken at that Communication — indeed, it is prohibited — but the Lodge must be summoned to hear the complaint read and determine whether it is to be received. The tendency is to hold provisions of procedure to be directory and not mandatory when this can be done without violation of express pro- hibition. This rule was affirmed by the Commissioner of Appeals, and approved by the Grand Lodge of 1907, in tlie matter of Gallauner. The rule stated by Sedgwick on Statutory and Constitutional Law, at page 68, was cited: ' ' When Statutes direct certain proceedings to be done in a certain way, or at a certain time, and a strict compliance with these proceedings as to time and form does not appear essential to the judicial mind, the proceedings are held valid, though the command of the Statute is disre- garded or disobeyed." But in the present case there exists a prohibition that no action 27(3 C03IPILATI0X OF DECISIONS OF shall be taken until the next Stated Communication ... to which all the members of said Lodge shall be regularly summoned. The proceeding is criminal in its nature, and the defendant is entitled to every legal shield. If these four Brothers were, in fact, present at the Communication of September 30th, it might be fairly claimed that the judicial mind should be satisfied, and that no harm could result from the omission to summon them, which is notice, the purpose of which is accomplished by their presence. The rule applicable in eases of elections to the effect that the vote of absentees which would not have affected the result may be disre- garded, cannot be applied because the invocation of this rule disregards the fact that each member had a right to be heard and " non constat " their arguments if adverse might have changed the result by convincing others that the complaint ought not to be received. Again, if four mem- bers need not be summoned, why not a majority of the membership, or why not disregard the summons altogether? If this view be correct, it follows that the vote to receive the com- plaint and the appointment of the Commissioners were unauthorized. The presentation of the complaint was regular, the subsequent proceed- ings being nullities, the power remains to summon the Lodge regularly. The language of Section S commits action to the Lodge at ' ' the next Stated Communication ' ' following the presentation of the complaint. Circumstances might exist making this impracticable, but the Lodge would not thereby lose its jurisdiction. It must be at the next Stated Communication, to which all the members shall be regularly summoned. The pro\'ision as to the next Stated Communication is directory and not mandatory within the rule laid down in the Gallauner case, to which reference has been made. I recommend that E.'. W.'. Beo. Sckiptuee be advised that the proceedings subsequent to the presentation of the complaint at the Stated Communication of September 16th are nullities, and before further action all members of the Lodge be regularly sum- moned to a Stated Communication of such Lodge, and that the complaint be presented and read at such Communication, and if a motion be made and adopted that the complaint be received, Commissioners be appointed, and the further proceeding be conducted as required by the Code of Procedure. LIII. WAl^rEK OF Faildbe to Serve Lodge Suiiiioxs Insufficiext to Confek JUBISMCTIOX. Hatter of Vtica Lodge. Summons to the members of the Lodge had not been served on four who received the Master's degree the night the summons was ordered to be issued. Commissioners were appointed and proceedings commenced. A stipulation signed with the name of the defendant by his counsel was filed with the Commissioners, agreeing to waive the summons to mem- bers of the Lodge to the Communication at which the complaint was received and Commissioners appointed. In my opinion the omission to summon the Lodge, as required by THE GRAND LODGE OF NEW YORK 277 Section 8, Code of Procedure, cannot be thus waived, because the defect is jurisdictional. The jurisdiction of the Master to appoint Trial Com- missioners rests upon strict compliance with the provisions of such sec- tion, which prohibits action of any kind until the next meeting of said Lodge to which all the members of said Lodge shall he regularly sum- moned. Jurisdiction in criminal law cannot be conferred by consent. The doctrine of waiver involves: First. Knowledge of the facts, and Second. That the matter waived is exclusively one of private right, not involving public morals or public policy. The result of- a Masonic trial may be expulsion, which is Masonic death, so long as the decree remains in force, without restoration. Chief Justice Parker, in the McLaughlin ease, 174 N. Y., Section 456, a proceeding to reinstate one in the police force, concisely states the general rule: "It is well settled by authority that a man may waive any right that he has, whether secured to him by contract, conferred upon him by statute or guaranteed to him by the Constitution." Citing Embury vs. Conner, 3 N. Y. 511; Matter of Cooper, 93 N. Y. 507; Matter of N. T. L. # W. B. R. Co., 98 N. Y. 447; Mayor, etc., vs. Man- hattan Railway Co., 143 N. Y. 1. These were not criminal proceedings, but involved property rights. In the Manhattan Eailway Company case, Peckham, J., at page 25, cites with approval the decision of the Court of Appeals in Sentimes vs. Ladew, 140 N. Y. 463-466 : ' ' A party may waive a rule of law or a statute or even a constitu- tional provision enacted for his benefit or protection, where it is exclu- sively a matter of private right, and no considerations of public morals are involved, and having once done so he cannot subsequently invoke its protection. ' ' Ever since the Caneemi case, 18 N. Y. 128, in which a conviction for murder was reversed because the trial had proceeded by consent of the prisoner before eleven instead of twelve jurors, the rule of waiver in criminal proceedings has been distinguished from that which prevails in civil actions. It is true that challenges to jurors, objections to evi- dence and exceptions to rulings and matters of the same character occur- ring upon a criminal trial of which the Court has jurisdiction may be waived either expressly or by implication by failure to object where no material injustice can result from such waiver. The record in the case under consideration if it state the facts must disclose that the summons was not sent to four of the Lodge members in violation of the require- ment that all the members shall be regularly summoned, without which by the Code of Procedure no action shall be taken on the complaint. In other words, there is no jurisdiction to proceed and to organize a Masonic Tribunal to try the charges and a fundamental defect exists. In People vs. Bradner, 107 N. Y., at page 4, Andrews, J., says : " If the record discloses upon its face that the Court had no juris- diction, or that the Constitutional method of trial by jury was disre- garded, or some other defect in the proceedings which' could not be waived or cured and is fundamental, it would, as we conceive, be the duty of an appellate tribunal to reverse the proceedings and conviction, although the question had not been formally raised in the Court below and was not presented by any ruling or exception on the trial." 278 COMPILATION of" decisions oe In the Guidici ease, 100 N. Y., at 503, Danforth, J., page 508, says: " Consent would not give the Court jurisdiction or authorize a sub- ■ stantial change in its lundamental mode of proceedings; that eould neither be enlarged nor restricted. ' ' In the Bork case, 96 N. Y. 188, Andrews, J., page 199, says: ' ' Unauthorized tribunal to render judgment involving life, liberty or property is a mere nuUity. No man can be deprived of either without due process of law; nor can one exercise the judicial function vrithout investiture by the sovereign power. ' ' Dubec vs. Lazell, 182 N. Y., page 482, distinguislies between a ver- dict of jury received in the absence of the Justice presiding at a civil trial and a similar presentation in a criminal proceeding. In that case a stipulation had been made that the verdict of a jury might be received by the clerk with the same force and effect as if the presiding Justice were present. Werner, J., page 486, says: ' ' Parties by their stipulation may in many ways make the law for any legal proceedings to which they are parties, which" not only binds them, but which the courts are bound to enforce. They may stipulate any statutory, and even constitutional rights. They may stipulate for shorter limitations of time for bringing actions for the breach of con- tract than are prescribed by the statutes, such limitations being fre- quently found in insurance policies. They may stipulate that the deci- sion of a Court shall be final, and thus waive the right of appeal; and. all such stipulations not unreasonable, not against good morals, or sound public policy, have been and will be enforced and generally, all stipula- tions made by parties for the government of their conduct, or the con- trol of their duties, in the trial of a cause, or the conduct of litigation, are enforced by the courts. ' ' This was the language of Judge Earl in writing for this Court in Matter of N. Y. L. 4' W. B. B. Co., 98 N. Y. 447, 453, where many authorities are cited. ' ' In ckM cases a party may stipulate away his rights, questions of jurisdiction, as well as others, and he may do this by express agree- ment, by acts inconsistent with the objection, or by his silence and omis- sion to present the proper objections when he ought to object. {Cowen- hoven vs. Ball, 118 X. Y. 231, 236; Vose vs. Cockcroft, 44 id. 415.) After stating the practice of recent years to permit the rendition of sealed verdicts in the absence of the Judge or Justice presiding at the trial, and that it had never been claimed that such absence destroyed the autonomy of the Court or rendered its judgment void, adds: " In criminal triaJs the rule is undoubtedly different." Under these authorities the rational and safest deduction is that the provision of the Code of Procedure, which prohibits any action to be taken without a summons to all the members of the Lodge, is fundamental and jurisdic- tional, and intended as the policy of our Masonic law quite as much as is the necessity of an indictment or an information to precede trial for a crime, and its omission is not a mere irregularity, but a jurisdictional defect in a criminal proceeding not permitting of waiver. I therefore advise that the proposed waiver will not validate the proceeding, which must be commenced " de novo " by a summons to all the members of Utica Lodge if it is to be prosecuted. While not necea- THE GRAND LODGE OF NEW YOKK "279 sary to determination of this question, it may be well to suggest that the general right of representation possessed by an attorney of a Court of Record to stipulate away a client's rights does not appear to have been .conferred by our Constitution or Code of Procedure. LIV. Alternate Meeting Places in Difperent Villages of the Same Place. Mattel- of Mt. Vernon Lodge of Java. The Lodge petitions that the Grand Master grant a dispensation to allow it to meet one-half the time at Java Village, New York, and I lie other half of the time at North Java, the distance between the two being about five miles. A schedule shows the attendance for the past three years, by which it appears about the same number of attending members reside in each place and together furnish the great preponderance of membership. The question is asked, ' ' Whether the Grand Master has the po wer to permit a Lodge to meet in a village other than that in which it has heretofore held its meetings, always without changing the jurisdiction of the Lodge in the matter of material. In other words, can the Grand Master permit a Lodge to have two Lodge rooms, but for the purpose of fixing jurisdiction its original place of location alone to be con- sidered? " It is difficult to limit the power of the Grand Master. Neither tlie landmarks or the Ancient Regulations prescribe restriction in this respect. Our own Constitution, Section 24, after declaring specific powers, added as Subdivision 10 the following: ' ' The Grand Master shall have the power to do such other things as are inherent in and pertaining to his office, and are not in conflict with this Constitution. ' ' Subdivision 7 of the same section specifies among other powers: " To grant a dispensation. for a, new Lodge under the restriction of this Constitution. ' ' And Subdivision 8: ' ' To grant such other dispensation as may be applied for in accord- ance with this Constitution." A dispensation to form a new Lodge cannot be issued except upon the conditions specified in Section 91, which to this extent limits the power which otherwise the Grand Master would possess as inherent to his office. Among these conditions is the recommendation of all the Lodges whose jurisdiction would be affected by a new Lodge, except in cities where a majority of the Lodges must recommend it. Such jurisdiction is pre- scribed by Section 107, and it extends over candidates for initiation residing nearer to it by " air line " than any other Lodge within the Jurisdiction, with the exceptions therein specified. When located the Lodge cannot remove its place of meeting without, first, an affirmative vote of two-thirds of its members present at a Stated Communication for which a summons has been issued; and, second, the sanction of the Grand Master. 280 COMPILATIOX OF DECISIOKS OF This indicates the intention that each Lodge should have a perma- nent home, which cannot be changed without both the consent of its members and the sanction of the Grand Master, and that within such home it shall possess exclusive territorial jurisdiction. History furnishes us with examples of ambulatory Lodges, and the power of the Grand Master to organize an occasional Lodge is recog- ni2ed by this and many other Jurisdictions. A somewhat similar ques- tion was raised before the Grand Lodge in 1889. A resolution was ofEered and referred to the Committee on Juris- prudence. " That the Grand Master be and is hereby authorized, by his dis- pensation, to permit any Lodge in this Jurisdiction to hold its Com- munications during the months of July and August of any year at any place on Pisher's Island, easterly end of Long Island Sound, near New London, Connecticut, upon the Grand Master being satisfied that such Lodge has the consent of the nearest Lodge within this State, and has also complied with the requirements of the Statutes of this Grand Lodge; this resolution and the action of the Grand Lodge under the same to be regarded as the sanction of the Grand Lodge. ' ' The Comnuttee reported adversely, and its recommendation was ap- proved by the Grand Lodge. The ease is not precisely analogous, because the request to hold Lodge Communications on Fisher 's Island was general and applied to all Lodges throughout the State regardless of the question of territorial jurisdiction, while the present application does not affect the territorial jurisdiction of any other Lodge. Instances might be cited, such as damage to a' Lodge room, or special functions which have made it necessary that a Lodge should hold its meetings temporarily in another room of the same building, or possibly in anotjier building within the same Jurisdiction. I find no adjudication denying the Grand Master the power to grant a dispensation for a temporary or even a permanent use of another room or building if the Lodge shall by a proper vote express its wish accordingly. A dispensation has been defined and is cited by Mackey, page 45 S. with approval to be " The granting of a license or the license itself to tlo what is for- bidden by laws or regidation, or to omit something which is commanded; that is, the dispensing with a law or regulation or the exemption of a particular person from the obligation to comply with its injunctions. ' ' To which Mackey adds: ' ' This power to dispense with the provisions of law in particular cases appears to be inherent in the Grand Master, because, although fre- quently referred to in the old regulations, it always is as if it were a power already in existence and never by way of a new grant. ' ' "With the abolition of ambulatory Lodges, and the clear inference to be derived from the Constitution that a Lodge should have a fixed per- manent home and jurisdiction, and with the Fisher's Island precedent in view, it seems to me the real question is whether the Grand Master deems it advisable and to the best interests of Java Lodge and to the Fraternity that its petition should be granted. The alternation of use of the two rooms constitutes alternate period- THE 6BAND LODGE OF NEW YORK 281 ical changes of location within a single Jurisdiction, and in my opinion could be effected within Section 66 of the Constitution with the sanction of the Grand Master, who, in my opinion, has the power to grant the petition upon compliance of the Lodge with that section, if ho deem it to the best interests of the Lodge and the Fraternity. LV. Election of Officers without Physical Presence or Charter of Lodge Having Alternate Places of Meeting in Same Town. Matter of Mt. Vernon Lodge of Java. Heretofore a dispensation was issued permitting this Lodge to meet alternately in neighboring villages in the town of Java. The rooms are separated by several miles. The Charter or Warrant of the Lodge is framed and kept in the Lodge room at North Java, where the Lodge had met previous to the dispensation. The annual election of oflScers was held in the alternate room. The Charter or Warrant was not in the room in which the election was held, but was in the other Lodge room. The Master assumed that the dispensation was a substitute and an equivalent of the Charter and that it was not necessary that the Charter should be actually present in the room in which the election was held. A diversity of opinion as to the necessity of the presence of the Charter to open a Lodge and transact business has been expressed. Our Constitution is silent upon the subject, and I have been unable to find any reported precedent in this Jurisdiction. In some Jurisdictions the matter has been set at rest by legislation declaring that the Warrant must be present at the opening of the Lodge. This has been assumed as a rule by Mackey at page 315 of his Jurisprudence. At page 350 he states : ' ' During the recess of the Lodge, it is constructively supposed to be in the Master's personal possession, although, for the sake of con- venience and safety, it is most generally deposited in the Lodge room. The Master is, however, always responsible for it, and if demanded, it is of him that the demand must be made, and he alone is responsible for its protection, and he must deliver it to his successor in office. ' ' Simons, at page 106 of his Jurisprudence, assumes that its presence is necessary to the legality of all meetings, and that the powers of a Master can only be exercised under its sanction, and that it is therefore but just he should be at all times in possession of the evidence of authority. He denies the propriety of hanging it in a Lodge room or committing it to the keeping of the Tiler, or putting it away with the Secretary's books, and says that it should remain in the personal custody of the Master. Chase, in his Digest, page 412, conceding that there is a strong array of authority for the opinion that if the Charter be lost or destroyed, or for any cause be not present, the Lodge cannot be opened, argues that this rule in its strictness is inconsistent and unnecessary; that while the Charter should always be present in the Lodge, for obvious reasons, he refers to the practice of furnishing a duplicate copy in the event of destruction or loss of the original, and argues that the Charter is not the only or the best evidence of the legality or standing of a Lodge. 283 COilPILATIOX OF DECISIONS OF HiLLYEK, G. il. (iliss., 1855), conceding the propriety of its presence, and that most authority exists in favor of its actual presence, held that it could hardly matter much, provided that it be actually in the possession of the Master and ready to be produced in ease of necessity. Gkat (ilississippi) " Acacia," 855, argues that the Charter is not the authority, but merely the evidence of vested authority, and, hence, that its presence is not indispensable. ilooKE likens the Warrant to a Charter of a corporation, and argues that the absence of the original from the ofBce where the business is transacted does not suspend the powers of the corporation; that the loss of a title deed would not deprive the grantee of his right of pos- session and occupancy, the evidence of that right being, susceptible of proof from the record, and quotes with approval the Arkansas decision sustaining labor in the Lodge pending the issue of a duplicate Charter as if it were actually in the possession of the presiding officers. Mellax, " Acacia," 855, also holds that while the Charter should be present as evidence to protect visiting members, the acts of a Lodge would not be invalid by its absence, and whether in the bureau of one officer at his house, or in the desk of another in the Lodge room, it is in the constructive possession of the Lodge. In 1846 Ohio held that the fact that the Charter was in an iron safe out of the Lodge did not vitiate the legal existence of the Lodge, provided it was at all times within reach and control of the Lodge. Florida (Digest 59, Dec. 110) has held that the Charter is always constructively in the possession and control of the Master, and should be kept securely in the Lodge; but its temporary absence therefrom will not vitiate the proceedings. A Warrant is defined by the Century Dictionary: " An instrument . . by which one . . . authorizes another to do something which he has not otherwise a right to do. . . . Instrument . . . invest- ing one with a right or with authority and thus securing him from com- plaint. . . Anything which authorizes or justifies an act; a license. ' ' It must be conceded that propriety demands its presence, and that it is the duty of the Master to see that it is present, and that a violation of such duty by the Master is a ilasonic offense. (Cons., 34.) If he be not present, and a Warden undertakes to open the Lodge, the Warrant should be present and the Master should transfer the War- rant to the Warden if he cannot be present. This is a matter of personal duty rather than of Lodge authority. The Lodge derives its authority and is constituted by the Grand Lodge, which directs the issue of the Charter by the Grand Officers under the seal of the Grand Lodge. Its absence from the room, whether by neglect of the Master or by loss or destruction, does not render the Lodge defunct. It still exists. In the particular ease the Lodge performed a duty enjoined upon it by the Constitution, which provides. Section 53, that the officers of a Lodge " must he chosen annnaUy fti/ ballot and hy u, majority of votes at the last Stated Communication of snch Lodge I'n the month of De- cember." In holding this election Mt. Vernon Lodge was obeying this mandate of the Constitution. It does not appear that its action was questioned at the time, or that the absence of the Charter from the room was TI-IB GEAND LODGE OF NEW YOEK 283 noted. It presents features analogous to those in the People vs. Cowles, 30 N. Y. 350. In that case a vacancy occurred in the oflSce of a Justice of the Sujjreme Court, so near the next enSuing election that there was not suf- ficient time for the Secretary of State to give the Constitutional notice o-f vacancy and election. The election was held valid. Fairly considering the above, and in view of the fact that the Charter was in existence and its presence in the room in which the election was held could have been obtained, although it might have been inconvenient to send to the other Lodge room for it, and hence was constructively in the possession of the Master, and in view of the further fact that the Grand Master's dispensation to hold meetings in the room where the election was held was present, I advise that the nnintentional neglect of the Master was not sufficient to invalidate the election which was held under the mandate of the Constitution. I further advise that the Master remove the Charter from the frame in which it is hanging, and see that it be present in the Lodge room at the opening of each future Communication, subject to inspection by all entitled thereto. It is not necessary that it should continuously remain in the Master's physical possession, but it may be lawfully deposited during the recess of the Lodge, in some safe depository within his control. LVI. The Following Opinion was Addressed to Grand Master S. Nelson Sawyer on May 22, 1908, as a Communication. His Opinion Follows. Matter of Commonwealth Lodge. A Brother^ formerly a member of a Canadian Lodge, petitioned for afBliation with Commonwealth Lodge. Accompanying the petition was a ' ' Canadian dimit. ' ' lu Sections 211 and 212 of the Constitution of the Grand Lodge of Canada in the Province of Ontario is a provision headed " dimit," but in the text it is described as a " certificate of standing." This certifi- cate is given to one who seeks to " resign." The right to resign from a Lodge is recognized everywhere. Our Constitution, Section 103, describes it as a " witjidraunl " from membership. Whenever this right is exercised the applicant becomes a non-affiliated Master Mason. Our Constitution discriminates between a petition for affiliation pre- sented by a non-affilinte and that presented by a member of a Lodge. Section 98 requires that the petition of the noii-affiliate must be accom- panied by the ' ' dimit or other satisfactory evidence of honorary dis- charge from the Lodge of which he was last a memier." Spction 101 provides for the petition for affiliation of one who is a member of a Lodge. If he be accepted he can only become a member of the accepting Lodge upon its receipt of a certificate that he has been regularly discharged from the membership in the former Lodge and upon signature of the By-laws of the accepting Lodge. Failure to sign the By-laws of the accepting Lodge within three months of the date of the dimit renders the " dimit null and void." The Secretary of the accept- 284 COMPILATIOX OF DECISIOXS OF ing Lodge is required to notify the former Lodge that the Brother has consummated his membership in the accepting Lodge or return the dimit if he has not eonsununated membership therein within the prescribed three months. Section 102 of our Constitution provides that the Lodge of which the Brother is a member cannot issue the dimit until it has received a certificate from the accepting Lodge that he has been elected therein. In such case the dimit is not delivered to the Brother, but is sent directly to the accepting Lodge, and the dimit does not become operative or the membership terminated in the Lodge which issued the dimit until it has received notice that his membership has been consummated in the affiliating Lodge. This prohibition does not apply to a member of a Lodge in this Jurisdiction who becomes a resident of another Grand Lodge Jurisdiction, but the dimit may be granted to him direct and without eompUauce with the foregoing provision. Hence, it appears that there are two distinct procedures: First. That which applies to a non-affiliate who has " withdrawn " under our Constitution or ' ' resigned ' ' under the Canadian Constitution. The terms " withdrawal " and "resignation " are synonymous. Second. A member of a Lodge petitions for affiliation, and upon his acceptance by a Lodge of this Jurisdiction a dimit is issued by his former Lodge. The latter dimit becomes void if the membership be not consummated within three months of the date of the dimit. The appar- ent purpose of this provision is to avoid non-affiliation unless the member by voluntary withdrawal shall become non-affiliated, a condition of which Masonry does not approve. After he had been accepted by a ballot the Brother from Canada desired to reconsider his application for affiliation and asked a return of his dimit or ' ' certificate of standing. ' ' Section 111 provides that a petition for affiliation may be withdrawn before it has been balloted upon, and inferentiallv the right does not • exist after ballot. Our Constitution makes no provision for return of a certificate of standing or dimit to a non-affiliate in such case. In March last Grand Master ScuDDiat held that the dimit should not be returned to the mem- ber of a Lodge in Scotland, but to the Lodge of which the applicant for affiliation was a member at the time of his acceptance hy a Lodge in this Jurisdiction, thus adopting the provision of Section 101, which would apply to one who was a member of a Lodge of this Jurisdiction at the time of his acceptance by a Lodge of this Jurisdiction. The present ease differs in that the applicant had " resigned " from the Canadian Lodge and was " non-affiliated " at the time he filed his petition for affiliation. The question now presented is: First. In the absence of any provision of our Constitution other than that of Section 98, should the certificate of standing or dimit be returned to the applicant? In my opinion, the distinction betwen the dimit given to a member in good standing by his Lodge and the certificate of withdrawal or of standing of a non-afSliate should be recognized and determined. The former cannot accompany the petition for affiliation, while the latter- must accompany such petition. The former is directly sent by the appli- THE GEAXD LODGE OF NEW YORK 285 cant 's Lodge to the accepting Lodge ; the latter is delivered by the appli- cant personally to the accepting Lodge. While the petition for aflfilia- tion may not be withdrawn after ballot (Section 111, Constitution), inasmuch as' his certificate of standing came directly from the applicant and may be of service to him after his failure to consummate his membership in the accepting Lodge, it should be returned to him if he desires it. This, however, does not include the return of the affiliation fee unless the Lodge shall waive it. This last proposition was so deter- mined by Grand Master Scudder, and seems reasonable and should be enforced to prevent trifling or experiment with our Lodges, which have performed their part of the contract of membership, and which fails of final consummation solely by default of the petitioner. Whether our laws conflict with those of another Jurisdiction is imma- terial, because the question is one of procedure which is governed by the laivs of the forum. LVII. Opinion or Grand Master Sawyer. I concur heartily with your conclusion. The matter is entirely one of procedure, and is governed by the laws of the forum. Under circum- stances such as are here developed I think that the dimit should be returned directly to the Brother, if he so desires. The affiliation fee, however, should not be returned unless the Lodge sees fit to waive it. LVIII. In the Matter of the Petition for a Dispensation to establish a new Lodge at Silver Springs, New York, to be Tcnown as Silver Springs Lodge. DlSPEXSATIOX TO FORM NEW LODGE : The scheme of the Constitution is to limit to the term of the Grand Master for the time being the life of a dispensation to form a new Lodge. Issuance of Dispensation not Mandatory: It is not mandatory upon the Grand Master to grant the prayer of a petition for dispensation to form a new Lodge, all other requirements having been met. Time op Issuance: Dispensation to form a new Lodge may be ordered by the Grand Master to be issued at any time within the first eight months after his election; but ceases in effect within his terra of office, namely, the 15th of the ensuing April. Effect of Lodge's Consent or Refusal: Consent, if given by a Load's on the 17th of March, is ineffectual to enable the Grand Master, whose term of office expires at the ensuing Grand Lodge Communication, to accede to the prayer of the petition for a dispensation to form a new Lodge. Refusal to recommend the petition can have no greater efficacy beyond the term of the Grand Master than a favorable recommendation. 286 compilatiox of decisions of Grand Masteb Ee-elected: Petitions for dispensation to form a new Lodge may be presented de novo to a re-elected and installed Grand Master, though he may have declined to grant a dispensation during a prior administration or con- senting Lodges may have refused their favorable recommendation during the prior term, and upon such presentation the Grand Master is not bound by his former refusal. Second Petition: It is permissible to submit a second petition for a dispensation to form a new Lodge to a Lodge that has theretofore refused its consent, and such Lodge may take favorable action upon said second petition, notTsathstanding its prior refusal to recommend the petition. Summoning Lodge: Under the Constitution in this Jurisdiction, it is not necessary to summon a Lodge to consider a petition presented by Brethren asking for consent to the issuance of a dispensation to form a new Lodge. M.'. W.'. Samuel Nelson Sawyer, Grand Master of Masons in the State of Neie YorJc, Palmyra, Xew York: Legality of the recommendation of Triluminar Lodge, No. 543, F. and A. il., made June 16, 1909, that the prayer of the petition of several Brethren for a dispensation to establish a new Lodge at Silver Springs, Xew York, to be known as Silver Springs Lodge, be granted, is questioned upon the following facts : I. March 17, 1909: Refusal of Triluminar Lodge, Xo. 543, F. and A. il., to recommend granting the prayer of the petition presented for dispensation above referred to, made by C. G. Thoman, Charles T. Walker, Charles F. Ttlee, D. G. Willett, George T. Monroe, C. E. Mason, Joseph W. Pratt, J. E. Nash, J. W. Kellogg, W. H. Flukee, Charles Crist, Petee C. Lucas, C. L. Keke, N. H. Lewis, B. E. Granger, F. E. Morgan, E. K. Lucas, J. T. Symbs, J. T. Peck, George S. Skiff, E. E. Law, William R. ilADisoN, George M. Blackjier, James L. Blackmee, Horace B. Blackmer, .Iesse O. Randall, H. D. Hathaway, George JUadison, W. R. Cont:, T. H. LeClercq and F. W. Terry, Brethren residing at Silver Springs, New York, which petition had been received and read at an earlier Stated Communication of Triluminar Lodge, No. 543, F. and A. M. (v. letter, W.'. W. J. French, June 26, 1909; July 2, 1909.) II. !JIay 4. 1909 : Grand Lodge convenes in Annual Communication. III. May 5, 1909 : M.'. W.'. S. Nelson Sawyer, Grand Master for the year 19CiS-1909, elected and installed as Grand Master for the ensuing year. lY. 'june 16, 1909: (a) Petition of C. G. Thoman, Charles T. Walker, Charles F. Tyler. D. G. Willett, George T. Monroe, C. R. Mason, Joseph W. Pratt, J. E. Nash, J. "W. Kellogg, W. H. Fluker, Charles Crist, Peter C. Lucas, C. L. Kerr, N. H. Lewis, B. E. .Granger. F. E. MoRG-iN, E. K. Lucas, J. T. Symes, J. T. Peck, George S. Skiff, E. E. Law, William R. Madison, George il. Blackmer, James L. Black- mee, HcRACE B. Blackmer, Jesse O. Randall and H. D. Hathaway, THE GRAND LODGE OP NEW YORK 287 Brethren residing at Silver Springs, praying for a dispensation, as above set forth, presented to Triluminar Lodge, No. 543, F. and A. M., at his Stated Communication held that day at Pike, New York (Hid.). (b) Resolution passed by Triluminar Lodge, No. 543, F. and A. M., at the same Communication recommending that the prayer of the petition of these Brethren be granted (v. letter, W.'. W. J. French, June 26, 1909). (c) Notice that the second petition would be presented and acted upon at the Communication of Triluminar Lodge, No. 543, F. and A. M., of June 16, 1909, was not given to the Brethren, nor was the Lodge summoned (ibid.). (d) The By-laws of Triluminar Lodge, No. 543, F. and A. M., con- tain no provisions affecting the inquiry (v. letter, W.'. W. J. French, July 2, 1909). (e) George Madison, W. E. Cone, T. H. LeClercq and F. W". Terry, Brethren who joined in the petition considered March 17, 1909, did not sign the petition presented June 16, 1909 (ibid.). Opinion is desired whether: I. Eecommendation that the prayer of the petition for a dispensa- tion to establish a new Lodge at Silver Springs, New York, be granted, having been refused by Triluminar Lodge, No. 543, F. and A. M., on March 17, 1909, could the Lodge legally, on June 16, 1909, by resolution favor official compliance with the prayer of a similar petition? II. Consideration of the second petition and action thereon, having been had at the Communication of June 16, 1909, on which day the petition was first read in the Lodge, was such procedure legal, in the absence of special notice or summons to the Brethren of the Lodge to attend a Communication for that purpose? I. WAS THE SECOND PETITION EOE A DISPENSATION TO FORM A NEW LODGE AT SILVER SPRINGS, NEW YORK, PROPERLY PRESENTABLE TO AND SUB- JECT OF APPROVING CONSIDERATION BY TRILUMINAR LODGE, NO. 543, P. AND A. M., IN JUNE, 1909, THE PRAYER OP A SIMILAR PETITION HAVING FAILED TO RECEIVE THE SANCTION OF THE LODGE IN MARCH, 1909? Granting of a Dispensation for a new Lodge is regulated by the Con- stitution. Intermediate March 17, 1909, and June 16, 1909, that now in force was adopted by the Grand Lodge. It did not change the proce- dure incident to the forming of a new Lodge which obtained under the Constitution in force March 17, 1909. Power to grant a Dispensation for a new Lodge was in March, 1909 (Constitution as amended to January, 1909, section 24, subdivision 7), and is now (Constitution adopted May 6, 1909, section 22, subdivision 10) vested in the Grand Master, subject to Constitutional restrictions, of which these are important: The Dispensation was not and is not issuable to: (a) Less number than seven Master Masons. (b) Nor without the recommendation of all the Lodges whose juris- diction would be affected by the new Lodge, save if a single Lodge 288 COMPILATION OF DECISIONS OF refuse consent to the establishment of a new Lodge, the Grand Master may, in his judgment, issvie Dispensation without such consent. (e) Within four months next preceding an Annual Communication (Constitution January, 1909, section 91; Constitution May 6, 1909, section 72). (d) Dispensations to form new Lodges expire on the 15th day of April in each year (Constitution January, 1909, section 94; Constitu- tion May 6, 1909, section 75). Clearly, the scheme of the Constitution is to limit to the term of the Grand Master, for the time being, the life of a Dispensation to form a new Lodge. It is not mandatory upon the Grand Master to grant the prayer of a petition for a Dispensation to form a new Lodge, but when he does, the Dispensation takes effect and terminates during the year for which he is Grand Master. It is for this reason that he is without power to issue a Dispensation to form a new Lodge within four months prior to the Annual Communication of the Grand Lodge, and that such Dispensation expires on the loth of April in each year. Dispensation to form a new Lodge may be ordered by the Grand Master at any time within the first eight months after his election, but ceases in effect within his term of ofBce; namely, the loth of April next ensuing. Consent, therefore, given by Triluminar Lodge, No. 543, F. and A. M., on the 17th of March, 1909, would have been ineffectual to warrant the Grand Master whose term of oflfiee expired at the ensuing Grand Lodge Communication, to accede to the prayer of the petition for-a Dis- pensation to form a new Lodge. Surely, refusal to recommend should have no greater efl&cacy beyond the term of the Grand Master than favorable recommendation. That the Grand Master for 1908-1909 was elected Grand Master at the Annual Communication in May, 1909, for the ensuing year, does not change the situation; under the Constitution and pursuant to the cus- tom and usages of the Craft, he is a newly elected Grand Master, who must be installed. Petition for a Dispensation to form a new Lodge may therefore be presented to him de novo, though he may have de- clined to grant the Dispensation during a prior administration, or Lodges may have refused their favorable recommendation during that term. The Constitution does not prohibit the Grand Master within the term from granting a petition for Dispensation to form a new Lodge, which he may have theretofore denied. He is not precluded by prior deter- minations. It is certainly within his province, during a second term of the office of Grand Master, to assent to the prayer of a petition. which he may have disallowed during a prior term of office, or to entertain again a petition which, though presented to him within the prescribed time, was then not in form to permit him to act under the Constitution. It follows from these considerations that if the same Brethren who applied for the favorable recommendation of Triluminar Lodge, No. 543, ¥. and A. M., in the fore part of 1909, had presented a second petition in June, 1909, they would have been regular in their procedure, and the subject could again be considered by Lodges thereby affected. An examination of the petition shows, however, that fo\ir of the Brethren who joined in the petition which was considered in March, 1909, to Triluminar Lodge, No. 543, F. and A. M., did not join in that which was submitted in June, 1909. Without any facts before me to THE GRAND LODGE OF NEW YOKK 289 warrant such assumption, the supposititious case is nevertheless not be- yond the probabilities, that the Brethren of Triluminar Lodge, No. 543, F. and A. M., or any other Lodge similarly situated, may have been unwilling to permit any one of these four Brethren to be participants in the formation of a new Lodge, but would cheerfully give their con- sent to the others. I prefer to rest my conclusion, however, upon a ground not so narrow. I advise that : It was permissible to present a second petition for a Dispensation to form a neiv Lodge at Silver Springs, New York, and for Triluminar lodge, No. 543, F. and A. M., to take action upon the petition. II. WAS ACTION TAKEN AT THE SAME COMMUNICATION AT WHICH THE SECOND PETITION WAS RECEIVED, LEGAL, IN THE ABSENCE OP SPECIAL NOTICE TO THE BEETHBEN, THE LODGE NOT HAVING BEEN DULY SUMMONED? That a Lodge be summoned to consider a petition for Dispensation to form a new Lodge, or special notice of the presentation and considera- tion of such petition be given to the Brethren, is not required by the Oonstitution ; nor does it forbid a Lodge immediately to act upon the petition when first presented at a Stated Communication. The By-laws of Triluminar Lodge, No. 543, F. and A. M., did not require either of these steps to be taken. It is not necessary to decide now whether if the By-laws of a Lodge require such summons, notice or other procedure, the certificate under the seal of the Lodge and subscribed by the Sec- retary, that the Lodge has duly adopted a resolution recommending that the prayer of the petition for Dispensation to form a new Lodge be granted, can be collaterally attacked, even though the adoption of the resolution may be the result of action in contravention to the By-laws. It suffices that the By-laws of Triluminar Lodge, No. 543, F. and A. M., do not in any way affect the matter. I advise, therefore, that: The resolution of Triluminar Lodge, No. 543, F. and A. M., passed June 16, 1909, recommending that the prayer of the petition of Breth- ren residing at Silver Springs, New York, for a Dispensation to form a new Lodge at Silver Springs, New York, be granted, was and is. under the circumstances, legal. LIX. In the Matter of the Vacancy in the Office of Master of Bed Jacket Lodge, No. 646, F. and A. M. EuLE TO BE Adopted in Construing Constitution: The rule laid down in section 102 of the Constitution must be ampli- fied as follows: In construing the Constitution, care should be taken to interpret it upon the theory that its provisions were intended to be in accord with the Landmarks, customs and usages of the Craft; and in the light of this it must be read and construed. It will, therefore, frequently occur that the language or import of a section is limited or broadened in intent ami meaning by the requirement that the Constitution must eon- form to the Landmarks and that the action of Freemasons be governed by both, together with the usages and customs. Thus conditions prece- dent and subsequent made mandatory by the Landmarks, usages or cus- toms, are frequently found not printed in the Constitution, evidently upon 290 COMPILATION OF DECISIONS OF the assumption that some matters should not, and others did not require to, be printed as part of the Constitution. Sections 57 axd 65 of the Goxstitdtiox : There is no conflict between sections 57 and 65 of the Constitution. Relation of Senior 'Wakden to Vacancy in Office of Master: Under section 57 of the Constitution, during a vacancy in the oflSce of Master, or his absence from the Lodge, the Senior Warden as Sen- ior Warden serves as Acting, not actual. Master, and this only until the election of a Master to fill the vacancy, reipaining Senior Warden until the end of his term. But during the time that he serves as Acting Master he has the right and is empowered to open and close the Lodge, confer the degrees, and do each and every other thing that the Master could do if present, except install officers. In this contingency the Junior Warden does not take the Senior Warden's station, but remains and continues Junior Warden. Relation of Junior Warden to Vacancy in Office of Master and Senior Warden: During a vacancy in the ofSce or in the absence from the Lodge of both Master and Senior Warden, the Junior Warden becomes Acting Master of the Lodge until either the return of the Senior Warden or Master, or the election of a new Master or Senior Warden; while he serves as such Acting Master, he continues to be and finishes his term as Junior Warden, but has the right and is empowered to open and close the Lodge, confer the degrees, and do each and every other thing that the Master could do if present, except install officers. Vacancy in Office of Warden: When either the Senior Warden or Junior Warden is acting as tem- porary Master, he must fill a vacancy in the Warden's station for each Communication by designating a Brother for that purpose for the time being. * Dispensation to Fill by Election Ad Interim Vacancy in Office OF Master: By the express language of the Constitution in this Grand Jurisdic- tion, the Grand Master is empowered in the proper case, to issue a Dis- pensation to a Lodge to fill by election an ad interim vacancy in the office of Master, notwithstanding the presence in the Lodge of either of or both its duly elected and installed Wardens. * Dispensation to Pill by Election Ad Interim Vacancy in Office of Warden: By the express language of the Constitution in this Grand Juris- diction, the Grand blaster is authorized in the proper ease, to issue a Dispensation to a Lodge to fill by election an ad interim vacancy in the office of Warden, notwithstanding the presence in the Lodge of the duly elected and installed Master or a Warden of the Lodge. * Wardens Not Eligible to Pill Vacancy : In the event of a vacancy in the office of Master occurring ad in- * Please consult proposed amendments to Constitution in this respect. THE GBAND LODGE OF NEW YOEK 291 terim, neither of tlie present duly elected and installed Wardens ig, under the Constitution in this Grand Jurisdiction, eligible for election to fill such vacancy. M.'. W.'. Samuel Nelson Sawyer, Grand Master of Masons in the State of New York, Palmyra, New Yorl;: The duly elected and installed Master of Eed Jacket Lodge, No. 646, P. and A. il., died in April, 1909. The conclusion reached made immaterial discussion ivhether sections 75 and 84 of the Constitution then in force apply, or whether the solution of the problems submitted depends upon sections 57 and 65 of the Constitution. These sections are as follows: " Sec. 57. In case of the death, absence or inability of the Master, or a vacancy in his office, the Senior and Junior Warden shall, in suc- cession, succeed to his prerogatives and duties for all purposes, except such as pertain to the installation of officers. In the absence of the Master and Wardens a Lodge cannot be opened except as hereinafter provided. ' ' ' ' Sec. 65. A vacancy in an elective office except that of Master or Wardens, may be filled by the ballot at any stated Communication, upon due notice to the members. A vacancy in an appointive office may be filled at any time. In case the offices of Master or Wardens become vacant, the Secretary shall immediately notify the Grand Master of that fact, who shall issue a dispensation to the District Deputy Grand Master of the District in which the Lodge is located, directing the assembling of the Lodge, the holding of an election to fill the va- cancies and the installation of the officers. ' ' Questions as to succession in office are submitted for determinatioi, as follows: A vacancy having occurred in the office of Master, does (a) Under section 57 the Senior Warden become Master of the Lodge, and (b) The Junior Warden become Senior Warden? (c) If question (a) be answered in the affirmative, is not section 65 in confiict with section 57? (d) Is not this apparent inconsistency due to an error in reprinting section 651 Should not the beginning of third sentence in that section read " In case the offices of Master and Wardens become vacant," etc., instead of "In ease the offices of Master or Wardens become vacant," etc.? (e) Would not such amendment harmonize these two apparently conflicting provisions and regulate the succession thus: When there is a %-acancy in the office of Master the Senior Warden becomes Master, and the -Junior Warden becomes Senior Warden ex-offlcio ; but the Grand Master issues his dispensation to elect officers to fill these va- cancies oiilij when the offices of Jlaster and Wardens become vacant at the same time, so that there is no officer of the Lodge who can open or close the Lodge or confer degrees? (f) If the Senior Warden upon a vacancy existing in the office of Master does not become the blaster, what is the interpretation of sec- tion 57? 292 COMPILATIOX OF DECISIONS OF We are admonished by section 102 that " The rule that a penal statute or one in derogation of the Common Law is strictly construed does not apply to this Constitution or to the Code of Procedure, or to any Kegulation of this Grand Lodge, or to any provisions of either thereof, 6wt all such provisions must he construed according to the fair import of their terms to promote justice and effect the objects." Section 21 declares actions of Freemasons in the Grand Lodge and subordinate Lodges to be regulated and controlled by 1. Ancient Landmarks; 2. 'Written Constitution; 3. Usages, customs, regulations, rules, edicts, resolutions, Code of Procedure and lawful judicial action. The rule laid down in section 102 must be amplified as follows: In construing the Constitution of the Grand Lodge care should be taken to interpret it upon the theory that its legislation was intended to be in accord with the Landmarks, customs and usages of the Craft ; and in the light of these it must be read and construed. It will there- fore frequently occur that the language or import of the section is limited or broadened in intent and meaning by the requirement that the Constitution must conform to the Landmarks, and that the action of the Freemasons be governed by both, together with the usages and cus- toms. . Thus conditions precedent and subsequent made mandatory by the Landmarks, usages or customs are frequently found not printed in the Constitution, evidently upon the assumption that some matters should not and others did not require to be printed as part of the Constitu- tion. Thus in the Constitution of 1854, section 8, title II., enumerated Ancient Landmarks of the Fraternity to the number of 31 with a concluding omnibus clause embracing all not specified. The Constitution of 1S73 did not in terms repeat this section. Under familiar rules of construction of secular statutes, the failure to reenact would be tantamount to a repeal of these provisions. But in Masonic jurisprudence the failure to continue as part of the Statute Laiv this Schedule of Landmarks does not mean that they are repealed. It is simply a declaration that the Landmarks are the ' ' Unwritten Law of ilasonry, ' ' and if not superior to, at least equal in dignity to the Constitution; therefore it was unnecessary to print them in detail in the Constitution of 1873, of which section 19 was to all intents and purposes the same as section 21 of the Constitution. Consideration of the question propounded must be had in subser- vience to the rule just enunciated, for, at the very threshold of the in- quiry we are met with the necessity of a clear understanding of the powers and duties of the Wardens of the Lodge as established by the usages and customs and older Constitutions. In 1851 the Committee on Corespondence of the Grand Lodge (Grand Lodge Proceedings, 1851, pp. 144 to 146) included in its report, which was accepted and ordered to be printed by the Grand Lodge (Hid., 92) a synopsis of the powers and duties of the Wardens of the Lodge from which are taken these extracts : ' ' We think the Senior, and after him the Junior, Warden succeeds to all the duties of the Master in his absence. This is the ancient usage and Constitution of the Order, as we understand it. Although the Wardens are not installed as Master, they are installed as Wardens, THE GRAND LODGE OF NEW YOEK 393 and know the rules applicable to conferring degrees, and are told in their installation that in the absence of the Master they are to succeed him in his office. So that in our opinion they can confer the degrees without calling in a Past Master. . . Originally the Master appointed his Wardens and installed them; in the installation service in Preston's Illustrations, printed in 1780, are these words addressed to the Senior Warden : ' In my absence you are to govern the Lodge, and in my pres- ence you are to assist me in the government of it.' In the ' Ancient Charges ' ' to be rehearsed at the opening of the Lodge ' in former times, printed in the same volume, is this passage: ' A Craftsman who is ap- pointed Warden of the Work under the Master is true to Master and . Fellows, carefully oversees the work, and the Brethren obey him.' "When this charge originated in ancient times, probably in the fifteenth or six- teenth century, if not earlier, the Master had but one Warden. The ap- pointment of Junior Warden has grown up since. ' ' " . . . . At the General Assembly held at the time of Prince Ed- win, 926, a regulation was made ' that in future at the making or ad- mission of a Brother, the Constitution (then made) and the Charges annexed should be read by the Master or Warden. ' Anderson 's Constitu- tion, 1723, p. 33. Showing that the Warden was to discharge the Mas- ter's duties in that respect in some cases, and it is reasonable to conclude that it means ' in his absence. ' It also shows that there was but one Warden. These same charges are printed in Anderson's Constitution, as revised in 1723, pp. .51, 53, and speak only of ' the Warden.' But the New Eegulations then adopted speak, and are the oldest written record of Masonry that does speak of ' Senior and Junior Wardens. ' " . ' ' In the Constitution of the Grand Lodge of New York, adopted June 24, 1789, it is said : ' The Senior Warden succeeds to all the duties of the Master and fills the chair when he is absent. Or, if the Master goes abroad on business, resigns, demits or is deposed, the Senior Warden shall forthwith fill his place to the next stated time of election . . XIII. We think it no objection to a Warden 's acting as ^Master pro icin in conferring degrees in the absence of the Master that he has not re- ceived the Master's installation nor the Past Master's degree in a Chap- ter; for he acts upon his knowledge of his Master's degree and under his own installation.' " An error in date crept into this report as published. No Constitution of the Grand Lodge of New York is found to have been adopted on the 24th of June, 1789. Reference to the Grand Lodge Proceedings of that year shows that the 24th of June was the anniversary of the Festival of St. John the Baptist, and that the Grand Lodge proceeded in procession to St. Paul's Chapel; that after divine service the Brethren returned in like order to the Coffee House and were dismissed. It is vn-itten that " The day was spent with the highest festivity and harmony, and the usual congratulations on the return of it were received by the Granil Lodge from the several Lodges, who dined separately from the Grand Lodge, and was in return paid by the Grand Lodge to them. ' ' There is no record of the adoption of a Constitution on that date or in that rear. But while this date is wrong, the excerpt is correctly taken from some old Constitution. In the Constitution of 1738 (see Reprint, 2 ilcClena- chan's History of Freemasonry in New York, 136, 158), subdivision 2, section 6, it was provided: 294 COMPILATION OF DECISIONS OF ' ' The Senior Warden succeeds to all the duties of the Master and fills the chair while he is absent, or if the Master goes abroad on business, resigns, demits or is deposed, the Senior Warden shall forthwith fill his place to the next stated time of election. And although it was formerly held that in such case the ilaster 's authority ought to revert to the last Past Master who is present, yet it is now the settled rule that the au- thority devolves upon the Senior Warden, and upon his absence upon the Junior Warden even though a former Master be present." The Constitution of 1785 (see reprints of 1827, 1832, section V, paragraph 8) and later Constitutions up to and including that adopted . June, 1824 (article V., paragraph 8), contained this provision: ' ' The Senior Warden shall succeed to all the duties of the Master in his absence; and in the absence of both, the Junior Warden shall succeed to said duties." This was also the language of section 59 of the Constitution, in forje when the report above mentioned was made, 1851. These statutory provisions, the Committee on Foreign Correspondence in its report referred to, must be held to have construed as meaning that the Senior Warden in ease of a vacancy in the Mastership, becomes the 2iro tempore Master of the Lodge until the next election and not its actual ilaster; that in the event of a vacancy in the oflSee of both Master and Senior Warden the Junior Warden, by virtue of his ofSce, becomes the acting ilaster until the next ensuing election. That this was and is the law of Masonry is fixed by decisions in all Jurisdictions whenever and wherever the question was raised, found collated in the reports of successive Committees on Foreign Correspond- ence thus: {Ohio, see X. Y. G. L. Pro., 1861; pp. 114, 115), (Iowa, ibid., 1865, p. 167), {Shade Island, ibid., 1875; pp. 109, 110), {Kentucky, ibid., 1S77, appendix, p. 30), {Oregon, ibid.. 1884, appendix, p. 60), {Georgia, ibid. 1893 appendix, p. 25, that " On the death of the Worshipful Master, the Senior Warden succeeds and becomes act- ing Worshipful ilaster "), (Maine, ibid., 1893, appendix, p. 49: " The fact that under the law from the first, the Warden, upon the death of the Master, does not become Master, but merely performs the duties as acting Master . . ."), (Vermont, ibid., 1893, appepdix, p. 96), (Soutli Balota, ibid., 1894, appendix, p. 103, ibid., 1903, appendix, p. 90), and (Wyoming, ibid., 1903, appendix, p. 109). In 1866, in the matter of the appeal of Bro. Gkat, the Committee of Appeals of the Grand Lodge decided that when the Master and Senior Warden were absent the Junior Warden necessarily acted as Master (see G. L. Pro. 1866, p. 73). The law on the subject is probably most succinctly summarized in the report of the Committee on Foreign Correspondence presented in the year 1886 by Most Worshipful Jesse B. Axthoxt (G. L. Pro. 1886, appendix, 45. 46). It seems that the Grand Master of Masons in Virginia had decided that when the Master of the Lodge resigned, the Senior Warden actually became Master, leaving his former oflSce vacant. Our Committee on Foreign Correspondence held: " This decision is undoubtedly in accord with Virginia regulations, or othermse the Grand Master would not have made it. But with every possible sentiment of respect, we submit it is not Masonic laiv. THE GEAND LODGE OF XEW TOKK 295 The Master may die or lie may remove into a jurisdiction so far oflE as to effectually prevent his attendance at the Communications of his Lodge, in which ease his duties fall upon the shoulders of the Senior Warden, who for the time being exercises all the lights, powers and prerogatives of the Master, but nevertheless lie is not actual Master, nor does Jie vacate his office as Senior Warden. Presiding in the East as the proxy of the Master, he arrives at the end of the official year Senior Warden still and can never he Master or Past Master until regularly elected and installed in that office." ' So that it is clear that the law of Masonry at all times was and is that in the event of a vacancy in the office of the Master, the duly elected and installed Senior Warden becomes temporary or acting Master until the election of a Master, and that while he acts as Master he continues to be Senior Warden. Does the Junior Warden succeed to the office of Senior Warden lohen the latter hecomes acting Master of the Lodge? It was decided, in 1864, by M.'. W.'. Clinton F. Paige (G. L. Pro. 1S64, p. 25) : " That in the absence of the Senior Warden, or when he is acting as Master, the Junior Warden does not succeed to his duties; but the station must be filled by temporary appointment by the Master. ' ' This is in accord with the settled law on the subject as established by the following approved references in the reports of the Committees on Foreign Correspondence: (Alabama, see X. Y. G. L. Pro. 1869, p. SO), (rermont, ibid., 1893, appendix, p. 96); {South Dakota, ibid., 1894, appendix, p. 103); {Minnesota, ibid., 1897, appendix, p. 71); {Wyo- ming, ibid., 190.3, appendix, p. 109). It follows from these decisions " Ancient and Modern," that under the compelling influence of the usage and custom of the Graft the true construction of section .59 of the Constitution in force in 1851 as that of the Constitutions which had preceded, is that in the event of a va- cancy in the office of Master of the Lodge the Senior Warden as Senior Warden becomes temporary or acting Master, until the end of the term, or the election of a successor to the Jlaster; that during such vacancy the Junior Warden does not become Senior Warden, but continues to fill the station to which he was elected and in which he was installed. In the Constitution of 1854, section 59 of the old Constitution was re-enacted as section 43, title A'll., as follows: ' ' In case of the death, absence or inability of the Master, or a va- cancy in his office, the Senior AVarden and Junior Warden, will in suc- cession, succeed to his prerogatives and duties for all purposes." The " prerogatives " were added in order to put an end in the Juris- diction to the question theretofore frequently raised^ -whether a Warden acting as Master could confer the degrees, not having been put in pos- session of the secrets of the Chair. These additions, therefore, in no way changed the original intent or import of the section so far as it pre- scribed the method and manner of succession in event of the vacancy in the office of Master, but continued in force the old law; as such it re- mained in the Constitution as collated and in effect in 1R60 (3 McClena- chan's History, pp. 580, 592), in the Constitution of 1873, as section 29, article XIV of the Statutes, with the proviso that a "Warden when acting as Master of the Lodge, could not install its officers. In the Constitution of 1896, the same legislation is found continued 296 COMPILATION OF DECISIONS OF as section 75, article XI, and in the present Constitution incorporated as section 57. So that it follows that the true construction of section 57 of the present Constitution, in the light of its genesis and evolution, is that when a vacancy occurs in the office of Master of a chartered Lodge, the Senior Warden becomes acting or temporary Master and the Junior Warden continues in his station as Junior Warden, the acting Master appointing some Brother to fill the station of Senior Warden for the time being. When the vacancy is filled by election the Senior Wanlen resumes his station in the West. When the vacancy is in the office or in the absence of both Master and Senior Warden, the Junior Warden becomes acting or temporary Master, continuing as such until a suc- cessor to either the Senior Warden or Master is chosen, then he resumes his station as Junior Warden. What, then, is the correct interpretation of Section 65? This is easily determined from the history of the section. The ancient Constitutions contain 'no statutory provision for the election ad interim of a Master or Warden in the event of a vacancy in either ofSce. Indeed, a proposed Constitution submitted by the Grand Lodge in ISOO containing a provision that " in case of the death, re- moval or demission of any of the oflicers of a Lodge, the Grand Master or his Deputy, upon the application of said Lodge, may by Dispensation authorize a new election to fill such vacancy, ' ' was not adopted. The question naturally arises uhy icas so manifestly and apparently a necessary provision omitted from the Constitutions? Answer comes again from ancient law and usage, under which it was held that so long as there was a duly elected and installed Warden of the Lodge in attendance, an officer therefore who could open and close the Lodge and confer degrees, there was no power in the Grand Master to order the election of a Master to fill a vacancy ia that office inter- mediate the stated elections. That this was the ancient law and as such accepted in this Jurisdiction, and controlling in the absence of statutory enactment to the contrary, see the decision by the Grand Master of JIasons in Vermont, reported favorably by the Committee on Foreign Correspondence (X. Y. G. L. Pro., 1868, p. 115) that in case of the death of a Master an election cannot be had until the regular time of choosing. In 189S it was decided by the Grand Master of Masons in Georgia (X. Y. G. L. Pro.. 1S93, Appendix, p. 2.5) that on the death of the Worshipful Master the Grand Master has no authority to order an elec- tion to fill the vacancy. Again in 1895 (X. Y. G. L. Pro., 1S9.5, Appendix, p. 105) the decision of the Grand Master of Masons in Washington was favorably reported and commented upon by the Committee on Foreign Correspondence as follows : " ' It is clear that election can be held by dispensation or other- wise to fill a vacancy in the office of Master or either Warden. There must be a vacancy in all those offices before the Grand Master can legally grant a dispensation to elect or install or before a Lodge is ia a position to seek such dispensation. ' . This we consider good Masonic Law, based upon the theory that so long as a Lodge is pos- sessed of either Master, Senior Warden or Junior Warden, it has an THE GRAND LODGE OF NEW YOIilC 297 officer capable of opening a Lodge, filling the various stations and places by appointment or doing work and transacting other business that may properly come before the Lodge." And so in 1896 (see N. Y. G. L. Pro., 1S96, Appendix, p. 2) the decision of the Grand Master of Masons in Alabama, that the Grand Master has no right to grant a Dispensation to fill a vacancy in the office of Worshipful Master while either the Senior or Junior Warden's station is filled by a duly elected and installed officer was noted by the Committee on Foreign Correspondence. It was because of this ancient Masonic Law that for over a century there was no legislation in this jurisdiction which vested the Grand Master with the power to issue a dispensation in the event of a vacancy in the office of blaster to fill the same election. The Constitution of 1854, however, contained these sections: Section 39, Title A'lL, ' ' Vacancies in office can only occur either in the Grand Lodge or its subordinates (1) by death, (2) by resignation, (3) by removing from the jurisdiction, and (4) by suspension or ex- pulsion . ' ' Section 38, _ which provides that in case " of vacancy in the office of Master', an election can only be held by virtue of a dispensation from the Grand Master which is without fee and is to be applied for by a vote of two-thirds of all the members, to be so certified by the Sec- retary. ' ' This seems to be the first statute which, in derogation of Masonic usage, invested the Grand Master with the power, in the event of an ad interim vacancy in the office of Master, to issue upon proper request a dispensation to fill that vacancy by election. The question submitted for determination here naturally prompts this query: Was there any_ reason why the Grand Lodge and subordinate Lodges, ivhen they adopted this Constitution, did not at the same time malie provision for filling a vacancy in the office of Warden occurring ad interim by election under dispensation, issuable by the Grand Master? Eesearch teaches that for many years it was held that when a va- cancy occurred in the office of Master it was but a temporary vacancy, as the office of Master survived in the Wardens; therefore there was no necessity and' hence no power to issue a dispensation under those circumstances for the election of a Master. But in the event of the death of a Warden there was no survivorship, as the other Warden re- mained in the office to which he had been elected and in which he had been installed. In explanation: If the Senior Warden died the Junior Warden did not thereupon heeume acting Senior Warden, he remained Junior Warden; therefore there was created a permanent vacancy in the office of Senior Warden, and the Lodge had the right to fill it by election without dispensation permitting it. An instance of the application of this theory is furnished by a de- cision made in 1569 by the Grand Master of Masons in Alabama (see N. Y. G. L. Pro., 1869, p. 80) : " That in case of vacancy in the office of Master created by death, removal from the Jurisdiction or expulsion, the office survives in the Wardens; but when for like causes the office of Senior Warden becomes vacant there is no surrirorship, hence no dispensation can issue to fill the Mastership; but otherwise, in the case of Senior Warden, though the Junior Warden is not eligible to the va- 298 COMPILATIO:!^ OF DECISIONS OF cancy for the reason that lie cannot vacate his own office until his term expires. ' ' So that section 38, title YII, Constitution of 1S54, would appear, under this reasoning, to hare intended, not a denial of the right of the Grand Master to issue a dispensation to fill a vacancy by election in the office of Warden, but grant of power uot theretofore by him possessed, viz., to issue a dispensation to fill by election a vacancy in the office of Master. But the soundness of this rule, though based upon remarkable re- finement of ratiocination in Masonic jurisprudence, and probably be- cause of it, was questioned in 1867 by the Grand Master of Masons in Maine, who decided (see X. Y. G. L. Pro., 1867, Appentjix, p. 36) that the Grand Master has no power to grant a dispensation to fill a va- cancy in the office of Senior Warden when the office of Junior Warden is not vacant. So in 1895 it was decided by the Grand Master of Ma- sons in Washington (see X. Y. G. L. Pro., 1895, Appendix, p. 105) that no election can be held by dispensation or otherwise to fill a vacancy in the office of either Warden, but there must be a vacancy in all of the offices of ilaster and Wardens. M.'. W.'. JcHX H. AxTHOX, Grand Master in the year 1871 (see G. L. Pro., 1871, pp. 31, 32), in his annual address stated to the Grand Lodge as follows: " The Constitution needs amendment. ... In the section (3S) which authorizes the Grand Master to permit on certain terms an elec- tion to fill a vacancy in the ^Mastership without similar provisions for the vacancies in the office of Senior Warden arport; and this includes what- ever the necessities o± the case may require, whether it be money, phy- sician, hospital attenc'ance or nurse in sickness. But such assessment must be reasonable, according to the circumstances of and demands upon the Brethren and the Lodge, and the same for all members of the Lodtre. It is a Masonic offense for a Brother able to pay the assessment to re- fuse to meet it. 2. An assessment for general relief is not for a strictly ilasonie purpose. Thus assessments for the benefit of the widow of each member only because she is his widow, without regard to her financial circum- stances, or furnishing a room in a hospital or a nurse for any member of the Lodge who may be sick, no matter what his pecuniary ability is to siippV his own n-ants, are not for charity, therefore not strictly for Masonic purposes and contravene the Constitution and Masonic us,ige. .S. Levying an inordinate assessment is reviewable by the Grand Master or (liand Lodge as an abuse of a discretion. IL— BENEVOLEXT PURLOSES " t)rTSIDE OF MASOXRV." It was decided in this State by M.'. W.'. JoHX L. Lewis. Jr., Grand Master ( G. L. Pro., lS-9. j.. iJiM that a Lodge maj- appropriate its funds for benevolent purjioses disconnected from Masoniy if its ability to meet all its obligations is not thereby impaired. -Again, it was held by the Grand Master of X'orth Carolina (X. Y. G. L. Pro., 1S76, App., p. 54) that the levy of a tax by way of contribu- tions for a benevolent object is not unconstitutional. But it was determined in the Grand Lodge of Michigan (X. Y. G. L. Pro.. ]SS4, -App., p. 39) that a Lodge cannot appropriate money from its treasury to aid a local benevolent society, however charitable the ob- jects of such a society may be. The rule deducible from fhese decisions is that a Lodge may not assess the Brethren for benevolent purposes disconnected from Masonry, but this does not prevent the Lodge if in a flourishing financial condition, from making such donation, if reasonable under all circumstances, trom the funds of the Lodge. Thus, X Lodge annually appropriates •'rlOO out of its Lodge fund for B Hospital. If this amount does not cripple or wipe out the fumls of the Lodge, it is not an inhibited use of the Lodge funds. If payment of this donation create a deficit or bring the funds so low that its other obligations must be met by assessment, it will be prohibited as uncon- stitutional. A member of a Lodge is not compellable indirectly or ili- rectly to contribute to benevolent purposes disassociated with Masonry. THE GEAND LODGE OF NEW YOEK 319 III.— PUBLIC, PATEIOTIC OR " HOLY " PURPOSES. In 1874 (N. Y. G. L. Pro., 1875, p. 83) a subordinate Lodge in the Jurisdiction of Louisiana offered a money reward for tlie apprehension of a criminal. This was held invalid by the Grand Lodge of Louisiana, be- cause however ^^orthy the object or intention of the members might lje, and however appropriate in individuals, it was certainly not an act of Masonic character, and was never contemplated in the attributes of a Masonic Lodge and not directly or impliedly imported by the Charter. The Grand Master of California (N. Y. G. L. Pro., 1883, App., p. 8) decided that a. subordinate Lodge had not the right to vote money from its funds in aid of the Garfield Monument Association. The Grand Master of Maine (N. Y. G. L. Pro., 1895, App., p. 46) decided that a Lodge cannot legally make an assessment upon its mem- bers to defray the expenses of observing General Washington 's Birthday. In 1904 the Grand Master of Arizona decided that a Masonic Lodge cannot give a contribution from the funds for the erection of a church (N. Y. G. L. Pro., 1906, App., p. 2). In the Jurisdiction of Indiana a Lodge donated a sum of money for the purpose of putting a window in a church, the window to carry the name, number of the Lodge, and a few Masonic emblems (N. Y. G. L. Pro., 1906, App., p. 3) ; the Grand Master decided that as the funds of a Masonic Lodge are at the command of a Lodge, they have the right to use certain amounts for legitimate, charitable or holy purposes. The Committee on Jurisprudence took a different view of the matter, and was sustained by the Grand Lodge of Indiana, which reversed the decision of the Grand Master upon the opinion of the Committee, hold- ing it was highly improper to display the name and number of a Lodge, with Masonic emblems, on the window of a church or any other edifice erected and used for other than Masonic purposes, and that any dona- tion from the funds of the Lodge for such display would not have any legitimate, charitable or holy purpose. It was decided by the Grand Lodge of Pennsylvania (N. Y. G. L. Pro., 1908, App., p. 42) that moneys belonging to Lodges cannot be spent for souvenirs. lA'.— LODGE DEBTS AND EXPENSES, (a) General and Necessaet Expenses. It was decided by Grand Master Lewis (G. L. Pro., 1859, p. 29) that a Lodge has the right to tax its members above their ordinary dues for necessary and strictly Masonic purposes. This was adopted by M.'. W.'. Finlet M. King (G. L. Pro., 1S62, p. 33), who held that a Lodge has the right to levy a tax or assessment on its members for the purpose of paying its just deits or expenses, and if a member refuse to pay such tax, he may be dealt with under our Disciplinary Code. It was held by M.'. W.'. James Gibson, Grand Master (N. Y. G. L. Pro., 1870, p. 46) that a Lodge may lawfully assess its members equally by resolution to pay a sum suflScient to satisfy the amount of its existing lawful indebtedness. 320 COHPILATIOX OF DECISIONS OF The Grand ilaster of Connecticut (X. Y. G. L. Pro., 1875, p. 61) stated the law in this terse language: " A Lodge has the right to lay a tax, assessment or dues upon its members. The necessity of funds for its support — self-preservation — is the ground upon which this right and power rest. ' ' It was decided bv the Grand JIaster of Maine (X. Y. G. L. Pro., 1876, App., p. i6) that no valid assessment can be made on members of a Lodge for any purpose outside of their obligation as a Lodge except for the Grand Lodge. The Grand Lodge of Nebraska (X. Y. G. L. Pro., 1SS6, App., p. 34) had the following facts before it: A motion had been made in the Lodge to levy an assessment to pay the indebtedness of the Lodge, and there was not a dissenting voice. A Brother present, and making no objec- tion, afterwards refused to pay the assessment and asked for a dimit saying he would not belong to such a blackmailing institution. The question was, what was to be done? The Grand Lodge answered, " First, the action of the Lodge is legal; second, the Brother, being able, ought to be proud to bear his share of the expense and is liable to Masonic discipline for refusing to dc so. ' ' (b) Building axd Furxishixg Masonic Hauls axd Lodge Eooms. The lirand Lodge of Michigan iX. Y. G. L. Pro., 1869, p. 105) de- cided that a Lodge may not levy any tax or assessment upon its members for the purpose of buying or building any Masonic Temple or to pay any indebtedness incurred in such purpose. Grand Master Gibson (G. L. Pro., 1S70, p. 47) held that " The buUd- ing of a new hall for the Lodge is not such an object as will justify a compulsory assessment on the members. ' ' The Grand Master of Michigan ^X. Y. G. L. Pro., Ii76, App., p. 36) decided that assessments for furnishing new Lodge rooms cannot be en- forced. The Grand Master of Wisconsin (_X. Y. G. L. Pro., 1S?1, App., p. 70) expressed his opinion that the right to levy assessments upon the members extended to one for the purpose of building a Masonic Hall. (C) EXDORSIXG XOTES. It was decided by the Grand Lodge of Kansas i^X. Y. G. L. Pro., 1S76, App., p. 22) that a Lodge should not assume the obligations of an endorser, for if by resolution it had undertaken such risk, it is morally, though not legally, bound, and an assessment on the members of the Lodge to meet such an engagement cannot be enforced. From these decisions it appears: 1. An assessment to pay the just debts or necessary expenses of a Lodge or the Grand Lodge is constitutional as for a Masonic object- 2. An assessment to build a new Masonic Hall or to refurnish an old Masonic Lodge room or to funiith a new Lodge room is unconstitu- tional as not for a Masonic purpose. The reasoning evidently underlying the decisions upon this latter proposition is that a Lodge should not build or refurnish unless it has the funds on hand to do so, either as the result of gifts, bequests or THE Gli.VND LODGE OE NEW YOEK 321 accumulations from Lodge revenues, but that the Lodge cannot compel its members to contribute in advance to a fund for these purposes. But is the rule evidently existing in some jurisdictions, that a member may not be assessed to pay for a hall or furniture already purchased by the Lodge, or to help meet the Lodge's endorsement if there be not on hand Lodge funds sufSeient to meet these liabilities, sound or applicable in this Jurisdiction? Many of the Lodges in this Jurisdiction operate under the Benevo- lent Orders Law, and are therefore empowered by law to acquire and hold real estate, and sue and be sued upon their ordinary business ob- ligations. Others, are incorporated by special statute or otherwise, and some continue as voluntary associations. These are liable in law for their debts as voluntary associations, and as such are chargeable, and have been brought to court like other organizations under the title of their officers. Thus, an unincorporated Masonic Lodge has been sued under the title of the ' ' Master, Wardens and Brethren of Lodge. ' ' ily opinion is that if an incorporated Lodge, complying with all the legal prerequisites, purchase land and enter into a contract for the erection of a Temple, or, whether incorporated or not, buy furniture for its Lodge room or endorse a note given for its own benefit or to help a Brother or his widow or orphan in distress, the courts of this State will hold these neither ultra vires as to the incorporated nor beyond the purpose or busi- ness of the voluntary association, the unincorporated Lodge. What little is left of the doctrine of ultra vires as a defense in this State cer- tainly would not be considered coming from a Masonic Lodge, in answer to a suit for payment of a Temple built lor its own use. isor would a voluntary association, whether iMasonic or otherwise, be held excused from paying for its furniture used in its meeting room for association purposes. Jloneys due under these circumstances wovild then be " just " and ' ' lawful ' ' debts of the Lodge, payment of which has been held in this Jurisdiction to be the Masonic duty of a Lodge; an assessment to meet such indebtedness is therefore one for a Masonic purpose without reference to the original object for which the debt was incurred. A member of a Lodge cannot sit by and permit his Lodge to enter into laAvful contracts and then refuse, if pecuniarily able to do so, to meet his share of the Lodge's obligation if the Lodge be without funds, upon the ground that the debt was incurred for a purpose not Masonic. His duty is to protest, and if necessary appeal for the intervention of the Grand Master of the Grand Lodge before the debt or liability is in- curred in a manner binding upon the Lodge. It may, therefore, be unlawful to assess a member to procure funds to buy land tor a Temple, or to build a Temple, or to furnish or re- furnish Lodge rooms; but when contracts for thfese purposes have been lawfully made and entered into and the obligation lawfully incurred, we have a different situation; then the debt is an obligation enforceable in law, and the higher duty to pay the Lodge's just debt must supervene; if there then be not funds sufficient to meet the just and lawful debts of the Lodge, an assessment for the purpose does not violate the Constitu- tion. But it also seems clear that the Lodge and its officers making such contracts or incurring such indebtedness without funds in hand to meet the same, save such as may be obtainable by special tax or assessment, 3.^2 COMPILATIOX OF DECISIOXS OF would be amenable to Masonic discipline for gross violation of their re- spective duties. It appears from these decisions that an assessment for a JIasonie purpose is lawful only when there are not Lodge funds in hand sufficient to meet an obligation, be it one of law or other Masonic requirement. It is not necessary now to determine whether a member of a Lodge in good faith, not pecuniarily able to meet an assessment, is, because of his poverty, guilty of Masonic offense notwithstanding the express language of Section 50 of the Constitution. What, therefore, is meant by the expression ' ' Masonic purpose ' ' in Section 50 J Manifestly it is easier to fix upon what are not JXasonic purposes. (Opinion of Judge Advocate In re Bill Grove Lodge, Xo. o-lu, dated February 1, 1910.) An attempt to define ' ' Masonic purposes ' ' was made by the Grand Master of Kentucky (X. Y. G. L. Pro., 1903. App., p. 39) to deter- mine when a dispensation is issuable to subordinate Lodges. He limited the ' ' Masonic purposes ' ' for which a dispensation could be granted to these: (1) To buiy the dead; (2) to lay corner-stones; (3) to dedicate halls; (4) to publicly install officers; (5) to celebrate the days of yt. John the Baptist and St. John the Evangelist by proper ceremonies. But these certainly, with the exception of the first, are clearly not compulsory duties, but optional Masonic ceremonies. While doubtless the funds of a Lodge might be lawfully used to defray the expense of any of these functions, assessment of the members of a Lodge to enable it to lay a corner-stone, pay for a public installation, a parade or a feast on St. John 's Lay would be highly improper. I advise that: " ^Masonic purposes " for which a tax or assessment may be lawfully levied upon the members of a Lodge in this Jurisdiction, under Section 50 of the Constitution, when there are not Lodge funds in hand to pro- vide for the same, are: 1. Payment of the just and lawful debts of the Lodge; 2. Payment of the expenses necessary to conduct the Lodge; 3. For the Grand Lodge; 4. A reasonable assessment for the relief, support or care of a worthy and indigent ^lason in distress, his wife, widow, child or orphan when similarly situated, including not only present pecuniary aid, but other relief such as medical, hospital and nurse attendance in a proper case (G. L. Pro., 1S97 [In re Horning Star Lodge, Xo. o^'j], pp. 161, 173, 174). 5. Where a Brother is entitled to be buried as a Mason, the expenses of a Masonic funeral and decent interment when he dies in poverty, and there be no kin to pay for his interment or his funds are not immediately available for such purpose. I do not wish to be understood as advising that these are the only Masonic purposes included in Section 50 of the Constitution. Circum- stances or conditions may arise not at present part of the economy, busi- ness or life of a Lodge, which might make a tax or assessment upon the members proper; but certain it is that the foregoing are acceptable as ' ' strictly Masonic purposes ' ' for which assessments may be duly levied on the members of a Lodge. THE GEAXD LODGE OF NEW TOEK 333 I advise that, as the term is used in Section 50 of the Constitution, the following are not " strictly Masonic purposes ": 1. Convivial entertainments, including banquets or receptions gen- erally, or to Lodge or Grand Lodge officers or representatives or candi- dates, anniversary celebrations, carriage hire, souvenirs, theater parties, etc. 2. General charitable or benevolent purposes. A Mason is not re- quired to give aid to him able to help himself, or to one not in want. 3. Celebration of public holidays. 4. Public rewards. 5. Patriotic celebrations or purposes. 6. Erection of monuments, churches, church windows, etc. 7. To raise funds to buy land for, or to build a Masonic Hall. 8. To raise funds to furnish Lodge rooms. LXIII. New Yoek, February 5, 1910. In the Matter of Membership of Bro. W. W. Finney in Au Sable Hiver Lodge Xo. 1-10, F. and A. M., or Plattsbnrgli Lodge, No. 828, F. and A. M. DiMiTs. Section 88 Not Mandatory, but Directory: Section 88 of the Constitution, requiring the Secretary of an accept- ing Lodge to certify the dimitting Lodge when the affiliate consummates his membership, is directory and not mandatory. Therefore, failure to comply with this provision in no way affects the rights of the Lodges or the member. * DmiTS. Eegulation 16 Directory, Not Mandatory: Section 16 of the Eegulations providing that a dimit shall not become operative or the Brother's membership in the Lodge issuing the dimit termiHated until notice has been received that the Brother has consum- mated membership in the other Lodge by signing the By-laws thereof, is directory and not mandatory. Therefore, the life of the dimit is termi- nated by the consummation of membership in the accepting Lodge and not extended by the failure of the dimitting Lodge to receive such notice. Eights of Affiliating Brother: The rights of the Brother who has consummated his membership in the accepting Lodge cannot be affected by the failure of the Secretary of that Lodge to so notify the dimitting Lodge. Object of Section 88 of the Constitution and Eegulation 16: The objects sought by these two provisions are, among others, to in- sure notice to the dimitting Lodge that the dimitting Brother consum- matpil his membership in the accepting Lodge. Until such notice is re- ceived, the dimitting Lodge must carry the Brother's name upon the roll of membership. Failure to send or receive the notice does not affect the Brother 's standing in the Lodge with which he has affiliated and in which he has consummated his membership. * Please consult proposed amendments to Constitution in this respect. 324 COilPILATIOX OF DECISIOXS OF * Sectiox SS and Begulatiox 16 Coxsteued: * Please consult proposed amendments to Constitution in this respect. Section SS of the Constitution prescribes how a Brother may. affiliate with and consummate his membership in an aeeeptijig Lodge. Regula- tion 16 specifies the conditions precedent for the issuing of a dimit and how the dimit shall be issued. What is intended by the ambiguous lan- guage of that Eegulation is this: Until notice be received from the ac- cepting Lodge that the Brother has consummated his membership, the diraitting Lodge for purposes of business accounting and to keep its rec- ords and those of the Grand Lodge in accord, must continue the name of the dimitting member upon its roll until the dimitting Lodge receive notice from the accepting Lodge that the Brother has consummated his membership ; it would seem that if as a result of omission to send the notice the dimitting Lodge pay dues to the Grand Lodge for one who has already consummated his membership in another Lodge, the accepting Lodge should be compelled to refund such moneys to the dimitting Lodge and the Sc rotary disciplined for his omission to comply with the plain requirements of the Constitution. Eights or a Dimittixg Brother: When, therefore, in November. 1909, Beo. W. W. Finxet, a member in good standing of Au Sable Eiver Lodge. Xo 149, F. and A. ^I., had duly presented his petition for a dimit, accompanied by a certificate duly issued attesting that he had been duly elected a member of Plattsburgh Lodge. Xo ^2^, F. and A. il., and prior to the 27th of December, 1909, Bro. Fixxey consummated his membership in Plattsburgh Lodge. Xo. Sl'^. F. and A. il.. by signing the By-laws, he was duly a member of Plattsburgh Lodge, eligible to the office of Senior Deacon in that Lodge and entitled to be installed as surh, notwithstanding the protest of Au Sable Eiver Lodge that Bro. Finxey continued to be a member of that Lodge because of the failure of the Secretary of Plattsburgh Lodge to give the notice required by .Section ^S of the Constitution. il.'. W.'. Samcel Xelsox Sawyer. (iriDiJ Masttr of iln.^ons in the Stote of Xew Tori;, Palmyra, Xcw Yorl': In Xovember, 19o9, Beo. W. W. Fixxey, a member in good standing of Au Sable Kiver Lodge. Xo. 149, F. and A. il., duly presented his peti- tion for a dimit, accompanied by a certificate duly issued, attesting that he had been duly elected a member of Plattsburgh Lodge. No. ^23, F. and A. il. Au Sable Eiver Lodge granted the application for a diiuit and forwarded it to Plattsburgh Lodge. All offices in Plattsburgh Lodge are filled by election. At the annual meeting of that Lodge in 1909, Beo. Fixxey was elected Senior Deacon. Installation of the officers of Plattsburgh Lodge were set for Decem- ber 27, 19119. Up to that time Au Sable Eiver Lodge had not received notice that Beo. Fixxey had signed the By-laws of Plattsburgh Lodge, and, claiming him as its member, held him ineligible to off-ce in another Lodge. The installing officer, upon this state of facts, declined to install Beo. Fixxey as Senior Deacon of Plattsburgh Lodge. December 2S. 1909. the " retiring Secretary '" of Plattsburgh Lodge sent notice by mail to Au Sable Eiver Lodge that Bro. Fixxey had at THE GRAND LODGE OF NEW YOTtK . 325 some date prior thereto, and without saying what day, signed the By- laws of Plattsburgh Lodge. It does not appear that the By-laws were signed in open Lodge. No point is made that if the officers were installed on December 27, 1909, the notice of December 28, 1909, should have been signed by the actual and installed, and not retiring, Secretary. To determine of what Lodge Bra. Finney was, on Deceinber S7, 1909, a member in good standing, is the problem submitted for opinion. (Con- stitution, Section 45, Definition, Section 5.) By-Laws Not Signed. If on or prior to the evening of December 27, 1909, Bko. Fin^'EY had not signed the By-laws of Plattsburgh Lodge, he was not on that day a member of the Lodge (Const., Section 88) and not eligible to office (Const., Section 45). By-Laws Signed. It appears, however, that some time prior to December 28, 1909, Bro. Finney had signed the By-Laws. It is conceded that notice of this had not been sent by the Secretary of Plattsburgh Lodge to Au Sable River Lodge prior to December 28, 1909. Is the effect of this omission under our Constitution to continue Bro. Finney a member of Au Sable Biver Lodge, notwithstanding that he had been accepted in and signed the By-laws of Plattsburgh Lodge? I do not find any legislation by the Grand Lodge regulating with any degree of precision the procedure on affiliation or dimission prior to the Constitution of 1873, Statutes, Article XXIII., Sections 44 and 45. These were repealed by Sections 101 and 102 of the Constitution of 1896, and these again by Section 88 and Eegulation 16 of the Constitution of 1909. A comparison of Section 44, Article XXIII, Constitution of 1873; Section 101, Constitution of 1896, and Section 88, Constitution of 1909, shows this: Under the Constitution of 1873, to affiliate, the petitioner, member of one Lodge, presented his petition to another Lodge, which, if received by the Lodge, was referred to a Committee of investigation, upon whose report a ballot was taken, and if this resulted favorably the Brother became ' ' a member of the Lodge so accepting him when it shall receive a certificate that such Brother had been regularly discharged from membership in the first-mentioned Lodge." Under the Constitution of 1896 ' ' Change of Membership ' ' was the title of Section 101. This continued the provisions of the Constitution of 1873, but added for the first time the expressed provision that the afBliate shall ' ' sign the By-laws of the Lodge accepting him, ' ' and these: " Failing to sign the By-laws of the Lodge accepting him within three months from the date of the dimit, the dimit shall become null and void. The Secretary of the accepting Lodge shall at once notify the Lodge granting the dimit when the Brother has consummated his mem- bership, or return the dimit if the Brother has not consummated his ' membership within the prescribed time. ' ' Section 88 of the Constitution is substantially a re-enactment of this section, with the addition: 326 COMPILATION OF DECISIOXS OF ' ' If, after a Brother has been accepted for aflfUiation and before he has signed the By-laws a new ballot be demanded, it must be taken, and if such ballot result in a rejection it shall have the same effect as if it ha J occurred before such Brother was accepted." Comparison of Section 45, Article X5III. of the Statutes of the Con- stitution of 1S73 with Section 102 of the Constitution of lS9i3, and Regu- lation 16 of the Constitution of 1909, establishes no change affecting the determination of the submitted question. Section 4-3, above mentioned, prescribed that no member could be permitted to dimit from the Lodge of which he was a member until he presented ' ' a certificate from some warranted Lodge that he had peti- tioned for a membership therein " ; on presentation of this certificate and his written request for a dimit at a Stated Communication, the Lodge, if he be not an elected otficer or indebted to the Lodge, nor under charges, was required to issue a certificate of dimit, not to be delivered to the Brother, but transmitted by the Secretary of the dimitting Lodge to the Lodge from which the certificate of petition came, and then fol- lowed the clause which is principally responsible for the question here presented, ' ' w hich dimit shall not become operative or the Brother 's membership in the Lodge issuing the dimit terminated until notice has been received that the Brother has consummated membership in the other Lodge. ' ' Section 102 of the Constitution of 1S96 is entitled " Dimits — How Issued," and made these changes in Section 45, above referred to: While under the former provision, dimits were issuable upon certificate that the Brother had petitioned another Lodge for membership, under the Constitution of l'-9ij. Section 102, the Brother was required to " pre- sent a certificate from some Lodge that he had petitioned for member- ship and ieen elected therein," In an attempt to bring this section in harmony with the added eo^prcssed rrqvirement, already noted in Section 101 of the Constitution of lsfl6. that the affiliate must sign the By-laws of the accepting Loilge, Section 102 further changed Section 45 of the Constitution of 1S73 by adding the words ' ' Ijy signing the By-laws thereof, ' ' so that the sen- tence read : " Which dimit shall not become operative or the Brother's member- ship in the Lodge issuing the dimit terminated until notice has been received that the Brother has consummated membership in the other L'^dge iy signing the By-laics thereof." Regulation 16 of the Constitution is verbatim et literatim Section 102 of the Constitution of 1S96. The words ' ' added expressed requirement, ' ' used above, were em- ployed advisedly, for it seems that, notwithstanding the omission in Section 44, Article XXIII,, Statutes of the Constitution of IS 73, to specify signing the By-laws as a prerequisite to consummating affilia- tion, it was held necessary that this be done as in accord with the ancient usages and customs. While no Constitutional provision prior to 1S73 is found regulating in detail the issuance of dimits or the procedure of aflSliation, yet in 1862 Grand Master Kixg decided (G. L. Pro., 1S62, p. 36) that: " If a Brother petitions for affiliation and is duly elected and signs the By-laws, he is a member of the Lodge, and this membership can THE GEAND LODGE OF NEW YOEK 327 only be terminated (1) by voluntary climission; (2) by the Lodge ceas- ing to have a legal existence; (3) by suspension (sic) or expulsion; or (4) by being stricken from the rolls lor non-payment of dues. ' ' When this decision Avas rendered, the Constitution then in force (3 McClenaehan 's History of Masonry in New York, 5S1) contained provisions similar to that found in Section 21 of the Constitution, as in the Constitutions of 1873 and 1896, that the action of Freemasons in the Grand Lodge and subordinate Lodges is ' ' regulated and controlled . . . ; (2) by written constitutions; (4) by usages, customs, etc." In 1881 Grand Master Anthony (G. L. Pro., 1881, p. 35) reported to the Grand Lodge as follows : ' ' The question was asked : In case of a member dimitting from one Lodge to join another in this Jurisdiction, when does the memljership begin in the accepting Lodge and when terminate in the Lodge granting the ilimit? in other w'ords, is the Brother petitioning for affiliation to be considered as a member on his being accepted or when he signs the By-laws? "2.1 decided : ' That a Brother does not lose Ms membership in his former Lodge until he consummates his membership in the accepting Lodge, which is by signing the By-laws.' " Let it be remembered that at this time the Constitution in force, that of 1873, contained no such expressed prerequisite. This did not escape the Committee on Masonic Jurisprudence, of which M.'. W.'. Clifton F. Paige was Chairman, to whom these decisions of the Grand Master had been referred for consideration and who reported (ibid. p. 100): ' ' We venture to explain that, while we approve the decision of the Grand Master and recommend that it be made the law, it is none the less a fact that there is no provision in the Constitution making it oblig- atory on an afifiliate to sign the By-laws; hence it would follow that taking the law as it reads, election would accomplish the transfer, pro- vided, of course, that the preliminaries had been complied with. It is ■well that this uncertainty should cease, and we therefore very cordially recommend that the decision be approved." And it was adopted (ibid., p. 99). As these decisions are consistent with the Constitution, they are not repealed. (Section 105.) In the same report the Grand Master (ibid., 36) recommended the adoption of a law ' ' guarding against neglect of duty in promptly sign- ing the By-laws of the accepting Lodge by the member desiring to affili- ate, ' ' limiting the time in which to sign the By-laws to thirty days alter notification of election. It is, therefore, clear that the provisions in the Constitution of 1896 and 1909, requiring atiBliating members to sign the By-laws, provide no new Law or practice, but simply express in terms that which was the existing, not written, law, but ancient usage and custom of the Frater- nity; and that these sections must be construed precisely as other Stat- utes, which merely express the common law. What, then, is the meaning of the provision of the part of Eegula- tion 16 of the Constitution, which reads: ' ' Which dimit shall not become operative, or the Brother 's member- ship in the Lodge issuing the dimit terminated, until notice has been 328 COilPILATIOX OF DECISIOXS OF received that the Brother has consummated membership in the Lodge by signing the By-laws thereof. ' ' This is, as we have seen, the identical language of Section 102 of the Constitution of 1896, entitled, " Dimits; How Issued," and, with the exception of the words " by signing the By-laws thereof," the same as Section io of the Statutes of the Constitution of 1S73. We have seen that signing the By-laws of the accepting Lodge has always been a prerequisite to the consummation of afSliation therein; therefore, the section as it stands to-day must be construed as it v. as under the Constitution of 1S73. Eeverting to the opinon of Grand Master AxTHONT (G. L. Pro., ISSl. p. 3-5), we find a construction of this provision. Section 44 of the Statutes of the Constitution of 1S73 did not, as does Section ss of the Constitution, provide that the Secretary of the accepting Lodge shall at once notify the dimitting Lodge that the Brother has consummated his membership in the former. Notwithstand- ing this, the Grand Master decided (ibid.) in answer to the question heretofore quoted, as follows : ' ' Without giving in full the reasons advanced for my decision in the case alluded to, it will be sutiicient to say that the mere fact that the Loili,']? has granted a dimit to a Brother to enable him to join another Lodge in this Jurisdiction does not terminate his membership therein until two things have been accomplished, (1) the member must consum- mate his membership in the other Lodge, i.e., sign the By-laws; (2) hav- ing done so, on a receipt of a notice from the accepting Lodge of that fact, then his dimit becomes operative and his membership is terminated in his former Lodge. ' ' ' ' Thus it will be evident that a Lodge granting a dimit to enable a member to join another Lodge in this Jurisdiction, must retain his name on the roll of membership until notice is received from the accepting Lodge that he has consummated membership therein." " This ilimit is provisional in its nature, and it is intended that if the atEliation is not promptly perfected in the accepting Lodge, then the dimit is returned. " There appears isic) to have been cases (sic) when the Brother's membership has been returned to the Grand Seeretaiy, as terminated at the time when the dimit was granted, which is an error. If Brethren will bear this in mind there would be no confusion in the returns to the Grand Secretary, and no loss to the income of the Grand Lodge. ' ' Xo disjicnt was had Irom this decision by the Grand Lodge which, as we have seen, adopted the affirming report of the Committee on Juris- prudence (ibid., pp. 99, 100). It will be noted that the decision is not that after signing the By- laws of the second Lodge in default of the notice the affiliating Brother remains a member in good standing of the dimitting Lodge, with a con- tingent or actual membership in the accepting Lodge, for in the same decision the Grand Master had decided that the Brother loses his mem- bership in the former Lodge by consummating his membership in the accepting Lodge, which is by signing the By-laws. His decision as to the eff-cacy of the notice does not affect the Brother 's standing or right. What Grand ^Master Axthoxt decided was that the first Lodge must carry the dimitting Brother on the roll until it receive notice that he has THE GRAND LODGE OF NEW YOUK 329 consummated his membership in the former Lodge, then there would "be no confusion in the returns to the Grand Secretary, and no loss to the income of the Grand Lodge. ' ' Boiled doTv-n to its fewest words, the construction of the two sections by Grand Master Anthony is this: (1) An affiliate consummates his membership in the accepting Lodge after acceptance and dimission by signing the By-laws; (2) until the dimitting Lodge receive notice that the Brother has consummated his membership in the accepting Lodge, the former must carry his name upon the roll, so that it and the Grand Secretary's records may be correct and the Grand Lodge not put to financial loss. Unless this construction is in conflict with the language of the Statutes as at present enacted, it continues to be the law in this Juris- diction (Section 105). It remains, therefore, to be determined whether, in construing the Statutes governing affiliation and dimission, language interpolated into the Constitutions since the decision of Grand Master Anthony has in any way destroyed the applicability oE his interpretation of the law. At the outset we are met by the fact that if the language of the pro- vision of Eegulation 16 under consideration is strictly construed, then the language of this provision is contradictory, imperfect and leads to absurdity. Eegulation 16, which has its basis in Section 45 of the Statutes of the Constitution of 187.3, provides " which dimit shall not become opera- tive or the Brother 's membership in the Lodge issuing the dimit termi- nated, until notice has been received that the Brother has consummated membership in the other Lodge. ' ' Yet nowhere in the Constitution of 1873 was there a provision charg- ing any person with responsibility of sending such notice. Nor was there in Section 45 of the Statute of that Constitution any more than there is in Eegulation 16 any specification as to who was to receive the notice. The section reads, ' ' until notice has been received, ' ' without saying by whom that notice was to be received, whether the Lodge or the Grand Lodge. It is true that this has been remedied to a certain extent by the provision of Section 88 of the Constitution, that the Secretary of the accepting Lodge shall notify the Lodge granting the dimit when the Brother has consummated his membership. But that does not alter the fact that as the question came before Grand Master Anthony the sec- tion in itself was incomplete, and that he was called upon to interpolate >vords to carry out the intent of the Grand Lodge; but even now it con- tinues an unintelligible expression of legislative intent. This is apparent when the phrase ' ' which dimit shall not become operative ' ' is consid- ered. The moment that the dimit was sent it became operative for some purpose. The word ' ' operative ' ' has a fixed meaning. It is defined in the Standard Dictionary as ' ' exerting power or force " ; " active, ' ' ' ' working or acting efficiently " ; " producing the proposed or desired result. ' ' When the dimit was granted and sent to the accepting Lodge, then, under Section 44 of the Statutes of LS7:!, the Brother having been accepted he became a member of the Lodge so accepting him, and under Ancient Usage consummated this membership by signing the By-laws. Its re-enactment in the later Constitutions but continued the absurd use 330 COMPILATIOX OF DECISIOXS OF of the word " opeiative " in that eoiinection. For the Constitution of 1896, as the present Constitution, distinctly provided that upon the receipt of the dimit and signing the By-laws of the Lodge accepting him, the atiiJiate became a member of the latter Lodge. There was no poNver in the dimitting Lodge to recall its dimit, being regularly and lawfully issued. Its operativeness did not depend upon anything that the dimit- ting Lodge could thereafter do. It became operative when it left the Secretary 's hands and worked the result of permitting the elected Brother to consummate his membership by signing the By-laws. Then, again, a strict construction of this section would be tanta- mount to sayiny that something else is necessary to complete that which has already been consummated. Section SS of the Constitution provides that the affiliate shall become a member of the Lodge so accepting him upon the receipt of the dimit and when ' ' he shall have signed the By- laws of the Lodge accepting him. ' ' That makes him a member of the accepting Lodge ; that consummates his membership, and yet under Sec- tion 16 of the Regulations, after he has consummated his membership he has not yet finished, but must wait, not until the notice is sent by the accepting Lodge, but until, if you please, it is received by the dimitting Lodge. It is not what the member does, not what the accepting Lodge does, but the receipt of the notice makes him a member in the other Lodge. That is the strict construction of this section. There is no word in ordinary or technical language which so entirely imports completion as the word " consummate." It is defined in 1 Bouvier 's Law Dictionary. Rawles Ed., 419, as " complete, finished, entire ' ' ; and in the Standard Dictionary as " to bring to completion or perfection or the fullest development. ' ' Xow, how can there be anything requisite to complete, to perfect or bring to its fullest development membership in a Lodge when the Con- stitution prescribes that that result is brought about in case of affilia- tion after election by the receipt of the dimit of the petitioner and sign- ing the By-laws of the Lodge accepting him? Manifestly, the words in Section 16 of the Regulations are used as they were used in Section 4.5 of the Statutes of 1^73, incorrectly, in a wrong sense and entirely inaptly; at least, the decision of Grand Master AxTHcxY serves, therefore, as a guide of what he understood the intent of this legislation to be, and its acceptance hy the Grand Lodsje must serve as decisive of what the Grand Lodge of the State of Xew York accepted as the intent of these sections. TVe have seen that there is no change in the Statutes except that they actually express what was then the unwritten law on the subject; upon the application of well-known rules of construction of Statutes, it will be found that the apparent con- tradirtion between the provisions of Section SS of the Constitution and 16 of the Regulations does not in truth exist ; otherwise we would he face to la?e w4th the fact that the Constitution provides that something shall be ilone to make complete that which has already been consummated, or that the membeiship in a Lodge of a Master ^lasou in this State does not depend upon the action of the Lodges nor upon his signing the By-laws, but forsooth upon the behest of the Secretary of the Lo'dge. If the construction of these sections contended for be correct, then the membership of every affiliating Brother is in the hands of a Secretary of a Lodge and depends upon the degree of diligence with THE GEAND LODGE OF NE^V YORK 331 which the Secretary discharges his duty. No such impossible result should be permitted to continue. A practical interpretation of this Statute, accepted as correct for more than a quarter of a century, is entitled to respectful consideration. Brown vs. Foster, 31 L. B. A. 116. Great deference and respect should be paid to the long prevailing construction of the Statute made by the Executive Department of the State Government. Bloxham vs. Consumers Elect. Lt. etc., S. B. Co., 29 L. E. A. 507. The construction placed upon a Statute penal in character, by offi- cers charged with the duty of executing its provision, may properly be considered in determining the legislative intention. People vs. AdelpM Cliib, 149 N. Y. 5. Certainly under these rules of construction of these Statutes, the opinion of Grand Master Axthont and its acceptance by the Grand Lodge, are entitled to the greatest effect, if not controlling weight. Statutes must be so construed as to give effect to the intention of the Legislature, and when this is discovered it ought to govern, although it may seem to he contrary to the letter of the Statute. Eooper vs. Creager, 35 L. E. A. 202. A statute should be so construed as to make all its parts harmonious with each other and render them consistent with its scope and object; a word occurring in a Statute which is evidently an interpolation and has no relation to the body of the statute and is without sensible meaning, will be disregarded in giving effect to its provisions, for an entire stat- ute must be construed together and effect given to every part of it if possible without manifestly violating the intention of the Legislature. First A'at. Bank vs. Bartley, 23 L. E. A. 67. Johnson vs. Schlosser, 36 L. E. A. 59. Paxton vs. Farmers #• M. Co., 29 L. E. A. 853. " Legislative enactments are not any more than any other writings, to be defeated on account of mistakes, errors or omissions, provided the intention of the Legislature can be collected from the whole Statute, and the title and preamble may be referred to for this purpose. ' ' 2 Lewis Sutherland's Statutonj Construction, Sec. 410, p. 795, 2d ed. Li applying this rule it will be remembered that Section 101 of the Constitution of 1896, upon which is based Section 88 of the Constitu- tion, was entitled " Change of Membership," and that Section 102 of the Constitution of 1896, which is verbatim Section 16 of the Eegula- tions, was entitled, " Limits; How Issued." Therefore, the subject of the Eegulation which we are discussing was not ' ' Change of Member- ship ' ' ; that is provided by Section 88 of the Constitution, but the Eegulation under discussion was part of the Statute originally affecting the ' ' Issuance of Limits, ' ' and had to do only with the dimitting Lodge and not the other Lodge. " Where one word has been erroneously used for another, or a word omitted, and the context affords the means of correction, the proper word will be deemed substituted or supplied. That is but making the strict letter of the statute yield to the obvious intent. So words which are meaningless or inconsistent with the intention otherwise plainly expressed in an act, have sometimes been rejected as redundant or surplusage. ' ' (Ibid., p. 796.) '■-•'■■•2 COMPILATIOX OF DECISIONS OF " Wlere the provisions of a law are inconsistent or contradictory to each other, or the literal construction of a single statute will conflict with every other following it or preceding it, and with the entire scope and manifest intent of the act, it is certainly the duty of the courts, if it be possible, to harmonize the various provisions with each other, aud to effect this it may be necessary and is admissible to depart from the literal construction of one or more sections." (Ibid., p. 79S.) Applying these rules of construction, it results that the manifest intent of the present Constitution, as it was found to be the intent of the Corstitution of 1S73. was this: Section SS of the Constitution prescribes hoM' a member may affiliate and consummate his membership. Section 16 of the Eegulations pro's'ides the conditions precedent for the issuing of a (limit and how the dimit shall be issued; furthermore, that until notice he received from the accepting Lodge that the Brother has consummated his membership, the dimitting Lodge must, for purposes of business acc ranting and keeping its records and the Grand Lodge records correct, continue the name of the member dimitting upon the roll of membership until the Se'-retary of the accepting Lodge notifies the dimitting Lodge that the Brother has consummated his membership. Xow, it is true that Section SS of the Constitution contains the pro- vision that the Secretary of the accepting Lodge shall at once notify the dimitting Lodge when the Brother has consummated his membership, and manifestly that is for the purpose of providing a means by which the dimitting Lodge will know when it shall cease to continue the dimit- ting Brother as a member on the roll. It remains, therefore, to be determined whether these provisions are directory or mandatory. The law is well settled that statutes y public officers are directory and are not regarded as essentia] to the validity of the proceedings themselves unless it is so declared in the Stiiti'te; even though the Statutes under cnnstruetion use the peremptory word " shall " and the provision is mandatory in form and substance, it will be held to be merely directors". • See Matter of Henncsici/. 16-4 X. Y. :'.fiM. 397, and cases cited there.) Suppose that the section had read that unless the notice be sent within one month, the dimit shall be null and void. The Courts have decided that the time for the performance of intermediate steps, after jurisdiction had been once aecjuired, should be regarded as directory merely, and that an omission to perform one or more of them in time would not render the law abortive. (Matter of Empire City Ban!:, IS X. Y. 199, 220.) There the Eeteree failed to comply with the provision of the Statute that he must report to the first Special Term which should sit after the expiration of six weeks from his appointment. So in TTood vs. Chapin, 13 X. Y. 509, it was held that the Statute requiring an officer before whom proceedings were had against an absconding debtor, to make and file his report within twenty days after the appointment of Trustees, was directory merely, and that a failure to comply with its requirements within the prescribed time did not vitiate the proceedings. Here the Secretary was required to make his report at once. He delayed a month. Clearly the same rule applies. Similar construction has been upheld in all manner of cases where THE GKAND LODGE OF NEW YOEK 333 something was required to be done after the proper and final steps had been taken. Instances where this construction was applied when officers were directed to file election returns within certain times, judges required to make decision in a certain number of days, supervisors to file tax lists, officials to make reports, or to send notices, will be found in the following cases and text-book: Ft'ople vs. Allen, 6 Wend. 486. Sowland vs. Luce, 16 Johns. 135. People vs. Holley, 12 Wend. 481. Pryor vs. City of Rochester, 57 App. Div. 486. Looney vs. Hughes, 30 Barb. 605. Gale vs. Mead, 2 Denio, 160. Ex Parte Heath, 3 Hill, 42. People vs. Feci, 11 Wend. 604. People vs. Coolc, 14 Barb. 259. Marchant vs. Longworthy, 6 Hill, 646; 3 Denio, 526. Lewis, Sutherland on Statutory Construction, 2 Ed., Chap. XVI., Sec. 610, etc. There can be nothing more final than consummation. In Masonry there can be no more final manner of consummating membership than by signing the By-laws. That it was intended in this Jurisdiction that it shall be final is shown by the provision that until the By-laws are signed, even after an affiliate has been accepted, a, ballot can be demanded and he be rejected (Section 88). It seems clear, therefore, that Section 88 requiring the Secretary of the accepting Lodge to certify to the dimitting Lodge when the affiliate consummates his membership ds directory and not mandatory, and (1) that failure to comply with this provision in no way affects the rights of the Lodges or the member; (2) That what was intended by Section 16 of the Eegulationa was that which Grand Master Anthony held was intended: namely, that the dimitting Lodge should carry the name of the Brother upon the "roll until notice be received of the result of his attempted affiliation in another Lodge; (3) Omission on the part of the Secretary to perform his duty may make him liable to charges ; and payment by the dimitting Lodge for one who had consummated his membership in the accepting Lodge might make the latter liable to the former for the money thus paid, but cannot in any way interfere with the rights of the Brother affiliated. I therefore advise: (1) Section 88 of the Constitution requiring the Secretary of the accepting Lodge to at once notify the Lodge granting the dimit when the Brother has consummated his membership, is directory and not man- datory. (2) Section 16 of the Regulations providing that the dimit shall not become operative or the Brother's membership in the Lodge issuing the dimit terminated until notice has been received that the Brother has consummated membership in the other Lodge by signing the By-laws thereof, is directory and not mandatory. (3) The rights of the Brother who has consummated his membership cannot be affected by the failure of the Secretary of the accepting Lodge to notify the dimitting Lodge of that fact. (4) The object sought by these two pro- 334 COMPILATIOX OF DECISIOXS OF visions in each of these sections was to provide a means by Tvhich the dimittiug Lwlge should receive notice of the time when the dimitting Brother consummates his aifiliation; until such notice is received, the dimitting Lodge must carry the Brother 's name upon the roll of mem- bership: but tailure to send or receive the notice does not affect the Brother s standing in the Lodge with which he has affiliated, and in which he has consummated his membership. (5) Bro. W. W. Fixxet, having been duly accepted as a member of Plattsburgh Lodge, Xo. S'2S, Au Sable Eiver Lodge having duly issued its dimit, and Bko. Fixnet havins duly signed the By-laws of Plattsburgh Lodge, Xo. S2^. he became on the signing of the By-laws a member in good standing of Platts- burgh Lodge, Xo. SiS, and eligible for election to office (other than that of ilaster) in that Lodge. LXIV. 7/1 the Matter of Batacia Lodge, Xo. i~5, F. and A. If. Business Liabilities Xot ilAsoxic Offense: Charges against a Brother cannot be maintained because of his busi- ness transactions with members of the Lodge or other persons, consisting in borrowing and failing to repay money. Mr. Charles W. Hartley, Sicretaj'n, Batavia Lodge, Xo. 475, F. and A. if., Batacia, Xew Tork. Dear Sir and Brother: Your letter of the 10th inst., addressed to M.'. W.'. Edward il. L. Ehlers, Grand .Sti ictary. has been referred to me by the !M.'. W.'. Grand Master for opinion and reply. You state the, facts thus: ' ' We have a member in oux Lodge who owes a great many of our members, having obtained the credit under one pretext or another, and has owed them during . Benevolent Orders Law). Failure of the Lodge to make the designation required by its Bvdaw (supra) does not absolve the Trustees from liability for the safetv of the funds to them intrusted. A direction by the Lodge that the Trustees shall deposit as they see fit is tantamount to no direction. The Trusti^es should insist that the Lodge designate the depository, and that for these reasons: If the Trustees, in good faith, but negligently, deposit the THE GRAND LODGE OP NEW YORK 339 funds in an institution financially unsound or not one designated by law as the depository for trust funds, they might be held individually liable for the moneys, notwithstanding that there be no direction, or one so general as to be of no effect. If the Lodge designate the depository and the Trustees obey, they are not liable should the designated institution thereafter fall. If the Trustees disobey the direction of the Lodge as to the deposi- tory, then the Lodge can hold the Trustees not only for any actual damage sustained by reason of the failure to obey, but generally for a failure to comply with the statutory requisite. It is, however, the duty of the Trustees, notwithstanding the absence of the specific direction, contemplated by Sec. 1, Art. IV., of the By-laws of Olympia Lodge, to carefully safeguard the funds to them intrusted, and to that end they may deposit the funds in their name as Trustees in a savings bank of their selection. " 3. Jm disbursing funds, should bills be paid direct by the Trustees or should each item pass though the Lodge books? " The By-laws of Olympia Lodge provide that its money may be spent in two ways: 1. Section 4, Art. III., makes it the duty of the Treasurer ' ' to receive all moneys from the hands of the Secretary; pay out the same by order of the Master and consent of the Lodge. ' ' This By-law is not in accordance with the Constitution. When adopted, it was in conformity with Section 31, Article 15, Statutes of the Constitution of 1873 of the Grand Lodge. As changed by the Constitution of 1896 (Sec. 77), it was required that before the Treasurer pay out the moneys of the Lodge he have ' ' the order of the Lodge when so certified by the Master and Sec- retary, ' ' and as such it was re-enacted and is Section 59 of the Constitu- tion of 1909. The Treasurer may not pay out moneys of the Lodge save upon the order of the Lodge when so certified by the Master and Secretary. In this respect the By-laAvs of Olympia Lodge should be amended to conform to the Constitution. But it remains the fact that the Treasurer may pay out moneys in his possession, upon the order of the Lodge. 2. Moneys held by the Trustees are disbursed as follows: " And no part thereof shall be drawn or used except upon an order passed by a vote of the Lodge and endorsed by the Worshipful Master, attested by the Secretary, the draft to be signed by a majority of the Trustees " (supra). Moneys disbursed by the Trustees must, therefore, be paid in accordance with the ' ' order passed by a vote of the Lodge and endorsed by the Worshipful Master, attested by the Secretary, the draft to be signed by a majority of said Trustees "; the payee must be designated in the order of the Lodge, and compliance with this order, when properly certified, is all that is required of the Trustees. If the order of the Lodge, duly attested, directs the money to be paid to the Treasurer for Lodge or other Masonic purposes, the draft or cheek must be so drawn. If the order of the Lodge, properly attested, directs that the payment be made to another designated person, creditor or beneficiary of charity, it must be so made. Section 4, Article III., of the By-laws should be amended so as to read, as the Constitution of the Grand Lodge requires, namely: That it shall be the duty of the Treasurer of the Lodge 340 COilPILATIOX OF DECISIONS OF " to pay out moneys by order of the Lodge when so certified by the Master and Secretary. ' ' If, then, the officers and Trustees of Olympia Lodge will comply strictly with the By-laws of the Lodge, not one doUar can be expended without " each item " passing " through the Lodge books," then the By-laws will contain a clear and harmonious scheme of expenditure, and simple, too, because no one can then disburse its moneys save upon the order of the Lodge passed at a stated Communication, certified to the disbursing oflSeer by the Master and Secretary. The Secretary's books will, therefore, always show what moneys were to be paid; the Treas- urer 's books will show what moneys he paid in accordance with the order of the Lodge and what moneys he paid over to the Trustees in accordance with the By-laws; the books of the Trustees wiU show what moneys they received, and what they paid out upon the order of the Lodge. Indeed, orders of the Lodge, attested by the Master and Secre- tary, will be original vouchers for any payments made by the Treasurer or the Trustees. "4. Is the resolution of June 7, 1009, iuffcient warrant for the Trustees to pay any and all bills approved by the Building Committee, and does it nuike it obligatory on the part of the Trustees to sign con- tracts ciiul maJce disbursements as authorized by the Building Committee, and if so, does this resolution absolve the Trustees from liabilities in the matter? " ■ If the resolution of June 7, 1909, had been carefully read, this ques- tion should have been unnecessary, assuming that the copy furnished to the Grand Master is correct and all of the resolution. This resolution expressly refers to only one contract and is silent as to any payments. The Master was to appoint a Building Committee with full power to determine the character of the building to be erected, to employ an architect to draw the plans, procure estimates and award the contract for the work ; and when awarded and approved, the Trustees of Olympia Lodge were ' ' directed to sign such contract. ' ' There is nothing in this resolution which authorizes the Trustees to pay one dollar upon the order of the Building Committee. It is unnecessary to decide whether this resolution was a sufficient authorization for the Trustees of Olympia Lodge to sign the contract even when approved by the Building Committee. It suffers from the vice of indefiniteness and uncertainty. There was no direction as to how the approval of the Building Committee was to be obtained or attesteil, whether in writing or vira voce; did it require a majority or two-thirds, or the unanimous vote of all the Brethren of the Committee, or a vote of all the Brethren present at a meeting of the Committee ? Within what length of time was the consent required to be given? Xone of these necessary precautions was taken. If this resolution were not extinct, it might warrant further amendment. But a contract has evidently been signed by the Trustees upon the direction of the Building Committee. Whether the Lodge could delegate its powers under the Statutes of the State or Constitution of the Grand Lodge to a Building Committee, need not be determined here, because the Lodge would doubtless in law be held estopped from denying the validity of the contract made by the Trustees ; but I believe that in justice to the Trustees, if they acted under this direction, a resolution should be at once passed by the Lodge THE GEAND LODGE OF NEW YORK 341 confirming and approving in terms the selection made by the Committee on Buildings, ratifying in all respects the action of the Trustees under the resolution of June 7, 1909, and adopting the contract into which they entered; but simultaneously with the signing of the contract the resolu- tion became automatically ineffective for any other purpose as a direction to the Trustees. This resolution is not an authority for nor direction to the Trustees or to anybody to pay money for the Lodge; if it were, it would be void (1) as a direction to the Trustees, because it violates Section 1, Article IV., of the By-laws of Olympia Lodge, which distinctly provides that no money shall be paid by the Trustees except upon an order passed by a vote of the Lodge and endorsed by the W.'. M.'. attested by the Secretary, the draft to be signed by a majority of said Trustees; or (2) as a direction to the Treasurer, because in direct conflict with Sec. 4, Art. III., of the By-laws of Olympia Lodge and Sec. 59 of the Constitution of the Grand Lodge. ' ' 5. Would this resolution ie considered as changing the duties of the Trustees as prescribed iy the By-laws and thereby becoming an amendment to the By-laws making it necessary that such a resolution, before it could be legally passed, lay over two weelcs, as specified by the By-laws! " The difiieulty with this question is that it assumes that which does not exist. ' As has been pointed out in the answer to question 4, the resolution of June 7, 1909, authorized the Trustees to sign one contract when approved by the Building Committee, and stops there. It does not direct any payments to be made under the contract. If the resolution did that which the question implies, then it would be, as has been stated, a violation of the By-laws of the Lodge and the Constitution of the Grand Lodge. " 6. Do the Secretary and Treasurer as ex-officio members, become actual members of the Board of Trustees, or only in a clerical ca- pacity? " The Secretary and Treasurer of the Lodge are neither ex-officio nor actual Trustees of the Lodge. The Benevolent Orders Law had its incep- tion in Chapter 317, Laws of 1866, which was " A71 act to enable Lodges and Chapters of Free and Accepted Masons to take, hold and convey real and personal estate." Subsequently similar Statutes were passed by the Knights Templar, the Mystic Shrine, Odd Fellows, Knights of Pythias, the Grand Army of the Republic, and similar organizations, until finally, in 1896, the Benevolent Orders Law was passed, taking effect on October 1, 1896, and which sought to consolidate all the differ- ent Statutes applying to the fraternities, organizations and orders therein mentioned, and extend its provision to the Order of Elks, and to any subordinate lodge, tribe, or other body of any benevolent or fraternal order or society incorporated under and pursuant to the laws of this State. Chapter 317, Laws of 1866, Section 1, provided for the election of " three Trustees for such Lodge." It also provided, in Section 4 thereof, that " the Secretary and Treasurer of such. Lodge . . . duly elected and installed according to the Constitution and general regulations aforesaid, shall, for the time being, be ex-officio the Secretary and Treasurer of said Trustees." That clearly meant that the Trustees were to be three in number, but that the Secretary and Treasurer of the 345 COilPILATIOX OF DECISIOXS OF Lodge were to do the clerical work for the Trustees. The intention of the Legislature was not to create a body of three elected Trustees and two e-c-officio Trustees, or, in other words, five Trustees, but clearly to constitute but three Trustees. The Lodge shall elect " three Trusttes for such Lodge." This was the view taken in Eisman vs. llyirs, 26 Hun, 651, where the Court said: ' ' The three persons named in this provision of the will were elected Trustees for said Lodge under Chapter 317 of the Laws of IsOti. The Statute authorizes them a^ Trustets to hold and convey real and personal estate tor charitable purposes of said Lodge." While provisions of Section i. Chapter 317, Laws of 1S66, were incor- porated in Section 3 of the Benevolent Orders Law of 1S96 (Chapter 377), the words " of said Trustees " were stricken out and the st'ction enacted to read as follows: ' ' Every such Lodge . may make rule (sic) and regulations not inconsistent with the laws of this State or with the Constitution or general rules or laws of the Grand Lodge . . for managing the temporal affairs thereof, ami for the disposition of its property and other temporal concerns and revenue belonging to it and the Secretary and Treasurer thereof duly elected and installed, according to this Con- stitution and general regulations laws, shall, for the time being, be ex-otficio its .Sec rotary and Treasurer. ' ' There is in this section previous to this cited portion no mention of Trustees as an entity, and the word " its ' ' can refer only to that which preceded it, the word " Lodge." The same provision, apparently mean- ingless, is re-enacted as Section 3, Article 2, Chap. 3, of the Consolidated Laws (Chap. 11, Laws l;iii9). In other words, as this law reads now, it is an absurdity, for it provides that the duly elected and installed Secretary and Treasurer of the Lodge shall, for the time being, be ex-o1firio Secretary and Treasurer of the Lodge. By the Act of 1896, Soition 12, the whole of Chapter 317, Laws 1S06, was repealed, which repeal wus continued in the Consolidated Laws as ' ' Schedule of Laws Eepealed, ' ' annexed to the Benevolent Orders Law of 1909. Whatever the Legislature meant by this ambiguous, if not meaningless provision, it is clear that the Secretary and Treasurer of a Lodge are not either ex-olficio nor actual Trustees of the Lodge, and therefore have no stand- ing as Trustees. They may, prior to ISOii, have been clerks for the Trustees, but their title even to that distinction seems to have been beclouded almost to the point ef obliteration if not entirely foreclosed by the legislation of the State in 1S96; Trustees of a Lodge continue to be only three in number under the laws of this State. I therefore advise that 1. The funds of Olympia Lodge, Xo. '~iiS. F. and -\. M., properly in the Trustees' custody, must be deposited in the names of the Trustees only, and therefore not in the name of the Treasurer of the Lodge. 2. When not specifically directed by the Lodge, the Trustees may designate the depository for the funds of the Lodge to them intrusted. n. If the Loilge has not made, in accordance with Article IV. of its By-laws, a designation or direction in what savings banks or institutions the Trustees shall deposit moneys received from the Treasurer, this should be forthwith done. i. Payment by the Trustees should be made only in accordance with. THE GRAND LODGE OF NEW YORK 3-13 and to the person designated in, tlie order as passed by a vote of the Lodge, when endorsed by the Worshipful Master and attested by the Secretary, the draft to be signed by a majority of the Trustees. There is no power in the Trustees to disburse its moneys in any other manner so long as Section 1, Article IV., of the By-laws continues in force. 5. The resolution of June 7, 1909, was not at any time, and is not now, authorization for the payment of any moneys by the Trustees. 6. The resolution of June 7, 1909, is not a direction to the Trustees of Olympia Lodge to sign any other contract than the one therein men- tioned. It does not affect future contracts. 7. If it was intended by the resolution of June 7, 1909, to give authority to direct the Trustees to sign contracts in the iuture upon the approval of the Building Committee, then that resolution in its present form is not an authorization for the Trustees to act. •S. It is exceedingly doubtful whether the Lodge can delegate its powers to the e.xtent contemplated in the resolution of June 7, 1909, to any special Committee or to any officer other than the Trustees. 9. The Secretary and Treasurer of a Lodge are neither ex-officio nor actual Trustees of the Lodge. 10. Section 4, Article III., of the By-laws of Olympia Lodge, in that portion thereof which specifies the duties of the Treasurer, should be amended to conform with Section 59 of the Constitution, by striking out from said Section the words " pay out the same by order of the Master and consent of the Lodge, ' ' and substituting in place thereof ' ' pay out the same by order of the Lodge when so certified by the Master and Secretary. ' ' LXVI. In the Matter of Savannah Lodge, No. 764, F. and A. M. Meaning or Vote of Two-thirds Present: Where a By-law of a Lodge provides that ' ' a vote of two-thirds of the members present at a Stated Communication shall be necessary to the adoption of "a proposition^ it must be construed to mean that to adopt a proposition it is but necessary to have an affirmative vote of two-thirds of all the members present at a Stated Communication, even thoii^li some may not vote who are present. To illustrate: If 180 members are present and only 140 vote, if 120 of these 140 vote for the proposition it is adopted, as 120 are two-thirds of 180. If only 115 of these 140 vote for the proposition, it fails of adoption, as 115 are not two-thirds of 180. ^Lr. W. R. Wiles, Secretary, Savannah Lodge, No. 764, F. and A. J/., Savannah, New Yorlc: Dear Sir and Brother: 1 acknowledge the receipt of your communication of the 16th inst., together with the enclosure therein referred to, a copy of the By-laws of Savannah Lodge, No. 764, F. and A. M., herewith returned. Your letter informs me that the Lodge has pending a proposition to amend a section of these By-laws, and that at a Communication of the Lodge at which the matter was submitted some of the members present did not vote. 344 COMPILATION OF DECISIONS OF Section 1, Article 15., of the By-laws of Savannah Lodge, Xo. 764, F. and A. M., is as follows: ' ' These By4a-n-s may be amended, or others substituted in their stead, provided the general principles of Treemasonry, and the Constitutional rules and edicts of the Grand Lodge are carefully maintained. But all amendments and substitution must be proposed in writing, read before the Lodge, and laid over for two weeks before a vote of the Lodge is taken, and a vote of two-thirds of the members present at a Stated Com- munication shall be necessary to the adoption of such proposition. Any action or edict of the Grand Lodge altering these By-laws shall have the force and effect of an amendment without any action on the part of the Lodge. ' ' You ask for an opinion whether this section is to be construed as requiring a two-thirds vote of the members of the Lodge present at a Communication, whether aU vote or not, or only of two-thirds of those present and voting. The By-law is plain and must be construed to mean precisely what it prescribes. Therefore, I advise that under Section 1, Article IX., of the By-laws of Savannah Lodge, Xo. 76i, F. and A. M., it requires the vote of two-thirds of all the members present at a Stated Communication, even though some may not vote, to adopt the proposition in said section referred to. To illustrate: If ISO members are present and only 140 vote, if 120 of these 140 vote for the proposition, it is adopted, as 120 are two-thirds of ISO. If only 115 of these 140 vote for the proposition, it fails of adoption, as 11-5 are not two-thirds of 180. The foregoing conclusion has the approval of il.'. TV.'. Samuel Xelsox Sawyer, Grand Master of Masons in the State of Xew York, to whom the matter was submitted. LXVII. In the Matter of Franllin Lodge, Xo. 216, F. and A. M. Pboeessiossial Acvice. Duty of Graxd JIastek. District Deputy Grand Master or Judge Advocate : It is not the duty, nor can it be required of the Grand Master, the District Deputy Grand Master, or the Judge Advocate, to give to or pro- cure professional advice for Lodges or Brethren as to the effect of secular laws upon their actions or business dealings. Peofessioxal Advice. District Deputy's Duty. Private Counsel: It is not the duty of a District Deputy Grand Master of Masons in this Jurisdiction to give or to procure professional advice for Lodges in his District, or members thereof as to the effect of secular laws upon their actions or business dealings; therefore, a District Deputy Grand Master should decline to interfere officially. Professional advice must be obtained through private counsel. Fair Dealing: When a Lodge enters into a business agreement with one of its members, it would be contrary to Masonic justice and violative of our THE GRAND LODGfE OF NEW YOHK 345 boasted sincerity and plain dealing for the Lodge to take advantage of a legal technicality in its transactions with the member to his disadvantage or pecuniary loss, particularly when he has acted fairly and trusted the Lodge and in no way seeks to be relieved of his part of the contract. E.'. W.'. Geoege J. Kbaus, District Deputy Grand Master for the Fifth Masonic- District, New Tori-: My dear and B.'. TV.'. Bra. Kraus: I acknowledge the receipt of your communication of the 29th ult., w-ith enclosures therein referred to, and also of that dated the 29th of March, 1910, addressed' to you and to the Judge Advocate by Bro. Wright Gillies. It seems clear from these documents that what must be primarily decided is the effect in law of the contract attempted to be made on_ the 22d of November, 1909 ; if that be a binding and valid contract, then the proceedings of the 28th of February, 1910, constituted a breach of con- tract which the Master was justified in avoiding. If it was not a con- tract enforcible in law, the proceedings of the 28th of February, 1910, were regular, and the action of Beo. Gillies on the 28th of March, 1910, unavailing to save the situation. It is not the duty nor can it be required of the Grand Master, the District Deputy Grand Master or the Judge Advocate to give to or pro- cure professional advice for Lodges or Brethren as to the effect of secu- lar laws upon their actions or business dealings. UnoflSdially, however, I am permitted to say to you that as the lease contemplated in the proposition of Bbo. Gillies, and its acceptance by the Lodge on the 22d of November, 1909, was for a term of three years, to commence on the 1st of May, 1910, was not reduced to writing nor signed by the parties prior to the 28th of February, 1910, and no equi- ties, so far as appear from the facts submitted, supervened, such con- tract seems to be voidable and unenf orcible, under the Statute of Frauds. The fact that the Lodge made a memorandum of the offer and acceptance in its own minute book, does not seem to take it out of the condemnation of the Statute of Frauds. May I unofficially direct your attention to this consideration? Is it proper that this Lodge should be permitted now to take ad's-an- tage of this technicality? Bro. Gillies, if a member of the Lodge, may be bound by its action, even though it be to his financial loss. Ought such a condition of affairs to be countenanced in a Masonic Lodge? Beo. Gillies can* to his Brethren and made them a' proposition which they must have believed to be fair, otherwise it would not have been accepted. He was not required to deal at arm's length with his Brethren. He had the right to believe that they would honor what is certainly a moral obligation on their part, and he was willing to trust them. He has trusted evidently to his own detriment, for he finds now ■within one month's expiration of the term, if this Lodge be permitted to rent other rooms, that he will have a vacant lodge room on his hands, and be deprived of the rent which otherwise would have accrued to him if either he had not trusted his Brethren and insisted upon their lease being put in writing, or if the Brethren had acted fairly with him and given him timely notice and opportunity to rent his rooms to others 34:6 COMPILATION OF DECISIONS OF desirous of securing the same. While this Lodge may have the legal right to proceed upon the theory that no enforcible contract exists between it and Bro. Gillies, it seems to me that this would be one of the cases where the Statute of Frauds would be invoked more in the line of its name than its spirit. I therefore advise that: 1. It is not the duty of the District Deputy Grand Master of Masons in this State to give to or procure professional advice for Lodges in his District, or members thereof, as to the effect of secular laws upon their actions or business dealings, and therefore you should decline to interfere officially; legal advice must be obtained from private counsel; 2. If the Lodge be advised that the agreemenl? of November 22, 1909, is not enforcible under the Statute of Frauds, it is submitted to you for your fraternal consideration and for your guidance, that it would seem contrary to Masonic justice and right dealing, and violative of our boasted sincerity and plain dealing, for Franklin Lodge, No. 216, F. and A. M., at this date, to take advantage of a technicality in its dealings with Bro. Gillies. It affords me pleasure to inform you that these views have the approval and sanction of il.'. ^y.'. Samuel Nelsox Sawyer, Grand Master of Masons in the State of New York, and in this connection I take the liberty of drawing your attention to Section 10 of the Regula- tions of the Grand Lodge. LXYIII. Ill the Matter of the Membership of Bro. TTilliam B. Dryer, in Milnor Lodge, Xo. 1J9, F. and A. M. Advice — Judge Advocate 's Duty — Advisee Not Legislator : It is the duty of the Judge Advocate to advise the Grand Master or those to whom the Grand Master directs that opinions shall be given, what the law is and not what the Judge Advocate and others believe it should be. The Judge Ailvocate is an adviser, not a legislator. C'oxstrding Member's Eelatiox to Lodge: The relations between a Lodge and its members and like questions had better be construed by the moral law of Masonry and not by stricter rules adopted by other tribunals. Privileged or Life Membership; Privileged or life membership in Lodges has been fraught with evil rather than benefit to the Fraternity and should be avoided. Privileged Membership — When Vested Right — By-law Repeal- Effect op: When a Lodge adopts a resolution or by-law that Brethren, members thereof in good standing for a given number of years, shall at the ter- mination of that period if in good standing be privileged or life members of the Lodge, repeal of that By-law does not affect the right of a privi- leged or life member who has completed the given number of years in good standing, to be continued as a privileged or life member- such privileged or life member is not compellable to pay annual dues there- THE GRAND LODGE OF NEW YORK 347 after accruing, nor can he be legally dropped from the roll for failure to pay annual dues thereafter accruing. Privileged or Life Member — Not Exempt from Assessment: Though a privileged or life member be released from the payment of Lodge dues, he is like every other member of the Lodge, liable to asspss- ment, regularly levied, for a strictly Masonic purpose, payment of which is a Masonic duty. E.". W.'. Frank E. Haff, President, " Trustees of the Masonic Hall and Asylum Fund" - Dear Sir and Sight Worshipful Brother: By direction of M.'. W.'. Samuel Nelson Sawyer, Grand Master of Masons in the State of New York, I transmit the following opinon in the above entitled matter: From the statement of facts submitted it appears: 1. Bro. Wm. E. Dryer was made a Mason in Milnor Lodge, No. 109, in February, 1862, and was raised to the Sublime Degree of Master Mason in March of the same year. 2. In 1873 a resolution was duly passed by Milnor Lodge, No. 139, placing upon the roll as life members all members of the Lodge who had been or would thereafter be in good standing for a period of twenty-five years, exempting them from any and all other dues. 3. Some time in 1893 the Lodge rescinded or repealed this resolution and attempted to place its life members on the roll as liable to pay dues fixed at $3 per year. 4. When apprised of this action, Bro. Deter took the ground that this procedure of the Lodge was not effective to deprive him of the benefits which had accrued to him when he became a life member in 1887, in which year he finished the prescribed period of twenty-five years' ' membership in the Lodge ; that this could not be destroyed by subse- quent resolution or by-law of the Lodge, and therefore he could not thereafter be required to pay annual dues. 5. About the year 1898 Bro. Dryer's name was stricken from the roll of Milnor Lodge, No. 139, F. and A. M., for non-payment of these dues. 6. Bro. Drter did not appeal at any time from this action of the Lodge. The questions to be determined are : (a) Did the action of the Lodge taken in 1893 deprive Bro. Dryer of his rights as life member of Milnor Lodge, No. 139, F. and A. M., and make him liable for dvies? (b) Was the action of Milnor Lodge, No. 139, F. and A. M., in dropping Bro. Dryer from its roll for non-payment of dues, legal or effective? (c) Is Bro. Dryer now a member in good standing of Milnor Lodge, No. 139, F. and A. M. f If these were open questions, cogent and persuasive arguments could be adduced to justify the action of the Lodge; but this subject has ))fcn settled in this Jurisiliction as well as any can have been in Masonic Jurisprudence. It is the duty of the Judge Advocate to advise the Grand Master or those to whom (he Grand Master directs that opinions shall be given, what the law is, and not what the Judge Advocate or 348 COMPILATIOX OF DECISIONS OF others believe it should be. The Judge Advocate is an adviser, not a legislator. In 1S7.5 :\I.'. W.'. Ellwood E. Thorne, Grand Master, decided (G. L. Pro., 1S7.5, p. .34, Xo. 50) that: ' ' Where a Lodge passed a By-law which prescribed that ' A Brother who shall have been a faithful member of his Lodge in good standing for ten years eon'seeutively, shall be a privileged member, entitled to all the benefits of the Lodge by paying Grand Lodge dues only, ' and a member of the Lodge had complied with all the provisions of the said law, after which the Lodge rescinded the By-law, ' ' the Brother could not be compelled to pay dues to his Lodge other than Grand Lodge dues. This portion of the Grand Master 's address was referred to the Com- mittee on the Condition of Masonry, of which M.". TC.'. JoHX L. Le'W'is was Chairman (ibid., 233), who reported that the Grand Master's deci- sion should be understood ' ' with the qualification that it only applies to regular annual dues and not to other extraordinary assessments for Masonic purposes." This report was adopted by the Grand Lodge (ibid., 231). The law was. in my opinion, fixed by this decision and ruling as follows: Where a By-law of a Lodge prescribes that upon certain conditions precedent, a Brother who had rem-ained a faithful member of u Lodge for a number of years shall become a privileged member by paying Grand Lodge dues only, and the Brother had complied with all the pro- visions of the law and conditions precedent, the Lodge could not as to him so far rescind the law as to render him compellable to pay the annual dues of the Lodge ; but that he was liable for Grand Lodge dues, which were expressly exempted in the Bylaw when passed and for assess- ments for strictly Masonic purposes, that being the ■ liability of every member of the Lodge. In 1S79 the question was more pointedly presented by M.'. W.'. Edmoxd L. -Judsox, Grand Master (G. L. Pro., 1S79, pp. 22, 23). A case in point had arisen in a Lodge in the City of Xew York, which adopted a By-law to the effect that ' ' Any member who shall have paid dues for ten consecutive years shall be a privileged member subject only to the Grand Lodge dues." Some three years later the By-law was repealed; on the one hand it was claimed that all members who at the adoption of the By-law had paid ten consecutive years ' dues at once became privileged members, and that all others were entitled to the benefit of the law who continued to pay the regular dues until ten years elapsed, and finally that the repeal of the law would only affect those who might become members after such repeal. The Lodge, however, claimed that all who had not paid ten years consecutively before the repeal of the law lost all claims to its benefits. It will be seen there was no contention by the Lodge in quesrion that the repeal of the law affected the privileged membership of those who had consummated ten years ' membership. The Grand Master submitted the proposition as follows (ibid., p. 23) : ' ' The question to be decided is whether a By-law, as above quoted, is a special contract; if so, then clearly all who are members at the time of its enactment are entitled to the benefit by continuing to pay as directed. If, on the other hand, engagements of this character are sub- THE GRAND LODGE OF NEW YORK 349 jeot to repeal at any time, then it were well that the fact should be understood. ' ' This subject was referred to the Committee on Jurisprudence, whose members discussed the question at some length, but finally recommended that the subject of privileged membership be referred to the ensuing Annual Communication for a spcial report by the Committee on Masonic Jurisprudence (ibid., 98, 99, 101), which was adopted. In 1880 this Committee (G. L. Pro., 1880, pp. 62 to 64) reported to the Grand Lodge its conclusions based upon reasoning from which the following is an excerpt: ' ' Let it be remembered that the precise question before us arises upon the construction of a By-law of Pacific Lodge, No. 233, adopted in 1S65 and repealed in 1868 under the amendatory clause of their By-laws which gave that power and which is in these words: ' A Brother who shall have been a faithful member of this Lodge for ten years consecu- tively shall be a privileged member and entitled to all of the benefits of the Lodge by paying Grand Lodge dues only. ' This has been discussed as though it constituted a contract between the Lodge and its members, which may well be doubted; but as the entire By-laws of that Lodge must have been embraced in the engagement, including the right to repeal as one of its conditions before the expiration of the ten years, and as no new or additional consideration was given beyond that which each mem- ber was already required to give, we are of opinion that no one has acquired any vested right under it at the time of the repeal, and that even if viewed in the light of a contract it was not completed until the Brother should ' have been a faithful meviber of the Lodge for ten years consecntively.' . . This Committee takes leave of this question by unanimously expressing the opinion that this and other like questions had better be construed by the moral law of Masonry than be confounded with the ' tithes of mint, anise and cummin ' of other tribunals, how- ever respectable and honored, and that the privileged membership of which it has been speaking has been fraught with evil rather than benefit to the Fraternity and should be avoided in the future. ' ' The resolution reported by the Committee (ibid., p. 63), and which was adopted by the Grand Lodge (ibid., p. 66), was as follows: " Resolved, That a privileged member under a By-law relative to payment of dues for a period of years and to be thereafter exempted, acquired thereby no vested right, the contract, if such it be, between him and his Lodge being executory only and subject to the amendatory clause of the By-laws to be amended, changed or repealed; the ivhole period not having elapsed so as to male it an executed contract and the members having been only required to pay the amount of dues pre- scribed by the By-laws and no more, and hence only having performed their duty." What, therefore, was determined by this Committee and adopted as law by the Grand Lodge was this : Given a By-law under which a Brother after faithful membership in a Lodge for a certain number of years becomes a privileged or life member; the Lodge may repeal such a By-law at any time. If a Brother has been a member in good standing for the required number of years, his privileged or life membership is a vested right, and the repeal of the By-law does not affect his standing in the Lodge or rights as a 3.50 COilPILATIOy OF DECISKIXS OF Mason. It is not necessary to determine in .this opinion liow other Bretliren, members of tlie Lodge, even those who may have served within one month of the prescribed time, may be affected by such repeal. In l>s.5 M.'. W.'. William A. Brodie, Grand ilaster, evidently had the question resubmitted to him, for he again presented it to the i^rand Lodge (G. L. Pro., 1SS.5. p. 24), and the case as it came to him was very much like that at bar : Bro. C'hakles Greexough was made a member in Pacific Lodge, Xo. 233, in 18-32. In 1865. while he was a member of the Lodge, and after he had been a member for thirteen years, the By-law heretofore referred to in this opinion was passed. In l>sl or 1S>2 his name was dropped from the rolls for non-payment of annual dues. M.'. W.'. Bro. Brodie submitted this case to the Grand Lodge with this explanation (ibid.J : " In view of the action of the Grand Lodge on the question of privi- Icgi'd membership in the past, and of the fact that several years have eltq.s.'d since Bro. Greexough was unaffiliated, without an appeal being taken by him, the Grand Master concluded not to pass upon the question, but to submit it to the Grand Lodge, with a rt't-ume of its previous utter- ance^ thereon, and ask for such action as will finally settle this one question. The Committee on Jurisprudence to whom this matter was referred (ibid., p. ]2>) reaffirmed the decisions and convictions of 1879 and IS^Li, to which reference has heretofore been made, and reported this resolu- tion, which was adopted by the Grand Lodge (ibid., p. 12^) : ' ' Eefolve(1. That a privileged member under a By-law relative to payment of dues for a period of years, and to be thereafter exempt, acquireil thereby necessarily no vested interest; the contract, if such it be. between him and his Lodge being executory only and sub.ject to an amerdatory clause of the By-laws of the Lodge by which it may be at any time amended, changed or repealed. ' ' It will be seen that this was not an express deviation from the resolu- tion formerly adopted as far as it affected an executed contract. On motion of the then E.'. W.'. Frank R. Lawrence, the Committee on Jurisprudence was continued (ibid., p. 129) ' ' To investigate the question of privileged membership in all rts branches and report at the next session of the Grand Lodge. ' ' In 18'^i5 (G. L. Pro., 1886. p. 182~) the Committee submitted the result of its examination in a report which was adopted bv the Grand Loilge, in which it recommended, among other things (ibid., p. 183) " that the subsequent repeal of such By-law should not affect the rifiht of one to whom the priiUege had been previously granted on full payment of the amount required." In somewhat altered form the question came before the Grand Lodge again in T^94, upon an appeal by the Master of Continental Lodge. No. 2^7, from a decision of Grand Master Bukxham reversing the action of the appellant in refusing to submit to the Lodge for its action an amend- ment to the By-laws repealing life membership. In sustaining the Giand Master, the Committee on Jurisprudence, to whom this question was referred, reporting by ^1.'. TV.". Clixtox F. Paige, was careful (G. L. Pro., 1^94. p. 163) to point out the fact that the Master's error in refusing to receive the appeal was apparent when it was remembered that cvi'ii if it icas beyond the power of the Lodge to deprive those Brethren THE GRAND LODGE OF NEW YORK 351 ■who had atlaiiied life membcrxUlp of their acquired right, still the Lodge had the right as to liiture members to refuse to permit them to ^acquire privileged membership. I therefore advise: 1. When a Lodge adopts a resolution or By-law that Brethren, mem- bers thereof in good standing for a given number of years, shall at the termination of .that period if in good standing become privileged or life members of that Lodge, repeal of that By-law does not affect the right of a iiicmier wlw has completed llif r/ireii }iumber of yearn and thus become a [irivileged or life mciither, to be continued as a privileged or life member; such a member is not compellable to pay annual dues. 2. If Beo. Dryee completed twenty-five years of membership in good standing in Milnor Lodge, No. 139, F. and A. M., in 1887, and under a By-law then in force, he became, ipso facto, a life member of the Loilge, the repeal of that By-law in 1893 did not deprive him of his life member- ship; he was not liable after 1887 for the annual dues of the Lodge thereafter fixed; Milnor Lodge was without power to drop him from its rolls for non-payment of annual dues fixed after 1887 ; and if he has not been expelled or suspended for other cause, Beo. Deyer is to-day a member in good standing in Jlilnor Lodge, No. 139, F. and A. M,, in this Jurisdiction, entitled to all the rights, benefits and privileges of a Master Mason in good standing. These conclusions have the approval, I am happy to say, of M.'. W.'. Samuel Nelson Sawyer, Grand Master. OPINIONS OF R.-. W.-. ABEL CROOK, JUDGE ADVOCATE 1910-1911. Approved by Grand Master M.'. W.'. Robert Judson Kenwohthy. LXIX. Discipline. Judgment of Reprimand and Fine. Matter of Cryer. This case is reported by the Commission of Appeals, pp. 372-373, Pro. 1910, whose conclusion was overruled by the Grand Lodge. The penalty upon conviction was reprimand, to which was added a require- ment that defendant pay certain expenses of the trial. The trial was under the former Constitution and Code of Procedure in force before May 6, 1909. The penalty was prescribed by Grand Lodge Trial Commissioners under Section 29 former Code of Procedure and was that provided by Sub-division 1, Section 3, of such Code, which specifies as a penalty ' ' reprimand or censure. ' ' No specific method of administering such reprimand or censure appears in such former Con- stitution or Code of Procedure, and doubtless the Trial Commissioners had this in mind when they specifically administered the reprimand in their judgment, so far as could be done by them. This judgment has been afiSrmed by the Grand Lodge and is " res adjudicata " estopping all 352 COMPILATION OF DECJSIOXS OF question. There is no provision for a further reprimand or censure by the Grand Master or his Deputy. The Grand Master, under Section 22 present Constitution, has power to convene Charity Lodge, of which defendant is a member, or to depute this power to his District Deputy, and communicate the action of the Commissioners and of the Grand Lodge, but it is questionable whether in such case any additional ac- tion could be taken. The substantial object in view is to communicate to Charity Lodge the action of the Trial Commissioners confirmed by the Grand Lodge. It matters not whether the sentence be expulsion or suspension or reprimand, the Lodge should be informed and an entry should be made upon its ilinutes. A copy of the Eeport of the Com- missioners certified by the Grand Secretary should be served upon the Lodge with notice that it is done by direction of the Grand Mas- ter, and requesting that it be read before the Lodge and spread in full upon its Jlinutes. This course will preserve the dignity of the proceeding and enforce the respect which must be paid to Grand Lodge adjudications. A similar certified copy should be served upon Bko. Cryeh with a demand by the Grand Secretary in his ofBeial capacity, requiring the payment to him as such Grand Secretary by Bro. Cetek of the sum of $427.87 specified in Paragraph Third of the judgment of the Commissioners. This should be served upon him by the Grand Secretary personally or by some one designated by the Grand Secre- tary for such purpose, and the service should be upon Bro. Cryer per- sonally and not by leaving at his ofliee or residence. The party serving it should make affidavit of such service to be filed with the Grand Secretarj', Failure to pay the amount within a reasonable time will constitute ' ' prima facie ' ' contumacy of the Grand Lodge justifying charges and trial for a Masonic ofl'ense, in which proceeding a de- faulting defendant would be afforded an opportunity to be heard in defense of his contumacy. His guilt or innocence of the original charge is no longer open to review, because the Grand Lodge by its action has finally determined that matter. Action of the character outlined seems demanded to uphold the dignity of the Grand Lodge and its Commissioners and enforce respect for its disciplinary power, which otherwise will lose respect because of the futility of invocation of such power. LXX. CojiixissioxERs' Judgment AFEiRiiED by Grand Lodge Final. Pro- cedure FOR ExFOECEMEXT OF FiXE. Matter of Crycr. Subsequent to the above opinion a letter was received from Bro. Cryer claiming exemption from payment of the fine upon the grounds: First. That the amount had been paid by the Grand Lodge, and Second. His illness and absence. Thereupon the following supplemental opinion was given: I assume that this is in reply to a letter from the Grand Secretary in accordance with the suggestion made by me, dated September 9th, 1910. Bro. Cryer was disciplined under the Constitution and Code of THE GRAND LODGE OF NEW YORK 353 Procedure in force prior to the revision adopted in 1909. Such former "Constitution, Section 134 provided as follows: ' ' The expenses which may be incurred by ,the Commis- sioners in conducting a ;\Iasonic trial shall be borne by one or both of the parties to the controversy, as may be determined by the Commissioners and set forth in their report, and pay- ment of such expenses may be enforced by proper Masonic discipline, subject to a like right of appeal, to be taken by an aggrieved party withiu the time, and proceeded with in uanner prescribed in Sec. 130. ' ' The appeal referred to was from the decision of the Trial Com- missioners under Section 130 of that Constitution, which appeal has been taken and the decision of the Commissioners finally affirmed by the Grand Lodge. Hence the payment of the expenses becomes part of the penalty inflicted upon the defendant. A provision to sub- stantially the same effect exists under Section 28 of the revised Code of Procedure. It is true that the latter Code specifically provides for the employment of a stenographer, which language did not appear in the former Constitution or Code, but the word "expenses" in the former Constitution has been by long-established custom construed to include the fee of stenographers when employed. Bro. Ckyer stated that he protested against such employment. The record is liot before me, but. assuming his statement to be correct, the fact is not chauged that the Commissioners in the exercise of their judgment did employ a stenographer and such expense was incurred, and the charge against him of one-half thereof is part of the judgment made conclusive by the Grand Lodge. The purpose of the Section of the new Constitution was to enable the Commissioners to direct such expense to be paid as the trial should proceed, and doubtless resulteil from the protracted trial in this case by reason of the dilatory motions and many objections, and great amount of testimony of the defense. If Bro. Cryer juoposes to raise a jurisdictional question with a view to application to the State Courts for an injunction to prevent a further trial because of his refusal to comply w-ith the judgment, this can be determined upon charges against him for contumacy. In such case it would be neces- sary for him to establish to the satisfaction of the Court that the Grand Lodge was without jurisdiction to inflict that penalty upon him. What the decision of the Court would be cannot be positively anticipated, but nothing short of a judgment of want of jurisdiction would relieve him. It is a question of policy whether the effort to collect should, or should not be made. It cannot arise again in any proceeding since the en- actment of the revised Constitution and Code of Procedure. The sug- gestion that the Grand Master has ordered such expense paiil by the Grand Treasurer to the stenographer does not affect the question. A provision to that efi'ect is contained in Section 41 of the former Code of Procedure, and is retained in Section 4N of the new Code of Pro- cedure. The purpose of this was that the Commissioners should be indemnified, but this does not relieve the defendant from his duty in this respect. His absence from the City and the reason therefor are irrelevant, except in so far as it may be offered as an excuse for failure y,3-t COJIPILATIOX OF DECISIONS OF to promptly make payment. His protestation of innocence is un- availing after the final judgment of the Grand Lodge, which con- clusively binds him and establishes his guilt. LXXI. yuSPEXDED Se.VTENCE UPON COXVICTIOX Xo BaR TO IIa.sOXIC CHARGES AND Trial. Court Record Presumptive Evidence of Guilt. Matter of P'Ott Lodge. A member of that Loilge accused by a Gas (_'ompany of stealing gas by means of a pipe from the Gas Company's main pleaded guilty and was fined with a suspended sentence. The question is asked whether suspended sentence would Ije considered the same as conviction. WoR. Bko. Paxarello deseribi'? it as a felony. The crime of making a connection with gas mains with intent to injure or defraud is covered by Soction 1431, of the Penal Law, being Chapter SS of , the Laws of liiny, which took effect March ll!th, 1909, and it is made a misdemeanor, not a felony. This, however, is immaterial. It is a crime and as such a masonic offense. A plea of guilty followed by a judgment is a conviction upon a trial, and the record of the judgment of the Court properly exemplified or certified or proven by an examined copy thereof with proof of identity of the accused is made by Section 2" of the Code of Procedure presumptive evidence of the commission of the offense, and sufficient to justify a conviction by a Masonic tribunal, unless it be proven that such judgment has been reversed or set aside, or that an appeal has been taken therefrom and remains undetermined. An appeal from the judgment of conviction would stay without preju- dice proceedings upon a ilasonie trial until the determination ot the appeal. Under the Lewis ca'ie, decided by the Commissioners of Appeals and aflBrmed by the Grand Lodge (G. L. Pro. 1902. P. 234), the Court record is presumptive evidence, but this presumption may be rebutted by contrary proof, the burden of proof being thrown upon the con- victed person. The Court record has not been produced, but if a fine was imposed a judgment must have been entered. Suspension of sen- tence bears upon infliction of the punishment and does not vacate the judgment which remains in force. In my opinion charges may be pre- sented and trial had in the same manner as though the conviction had been for a felony. LXXII. Mixutes Whex Approved, Prima Facie, Coxtrollixg as to Eesult OF Ballot. If Subsequently Upon Motion, They Be De- clared Incorrect, Ballot to Be Treated as a Nul- lity and Lodge Summoned for Ballot. Hatter of ParTc Lodge. The facts stated are in substance that in the absence of the Master the Senior "Warden presided as acting Master at the communication THE GRAXD LODGE OF NEW YOEK 355 of September 6th, 1910. A ballot was had upon an application for initiation and advancement. The acting Junior Warden reported the ballot clear. The acting Senior Warden reported it cloudy. The submitted correspondence is mere hearsay relative' to the action of the presiding Master, one letter stating that the candidate was declared rejected, the second letter declaring that the former statement was in- correct. The Minutes cle.arly and definitely state that the candidate was rejected, whereupon a motion was made "that the acting Master communicate with the Grand Master as to a decision on the ballot. ' ' In my opinion, the Minutes must control. Our Constitution, Section 62, provides that the Minutes are to be approved by the Lodge before it is closed and when so approved they cannot be altered or expunged. If there was an error in the record, it might be corrected by vote of the Lodge at a subsequent Communication, but until this is done the Minutes cannot be assailed. The ease, then, is governed by Section DO of the Constitution which prohibits a reconsideration of an adverse ballot and the candidate stands rejected for .twelve months from September 6th, 1910. If the record be erroneous and be corrected to show that the acting Master made no declaration, either of acceptance or rejection, the status of the candidate is to be considered. Section 94 of the Constitution provides that the ballot commenced must be completed and the result declared; that it cannot be postponed or ad- journed. This provision is for the government of the Lodge, and if not complied with, the Lodge or its officers' are in error, but this should not work to the injury of a petitioner who should not be penal- ized because of the errors of the Lodge or its officers. In such case it is just that the ballot procedure in the ease of this Brother shoul I be declared a nullity, in which ease the matter should be presented to the Lodge at a future summoned communication. A similar cours ■- was followed in the matter of York Lodge, Op. XX, Judge Advocate, G. L. Pro. 1910, 522. In that case the Lodge erred in permitting a collective ballot. .\ single black-ball appeared and the Master declared all the candidates rejected. The Grand Master, concurring with the Judge Advocate, held the procedure void and ordered a new ballot, at the same time ordering that the Lodge should be summoned to the end that each member should be afforded an opportunity to express his Avish relative to the acceptance or rejection of each petitioner. I recommend that Park Lodge be advised that the petitioner stands rejected until one year from September 6th, 1910, unless the Lodge, upon motion to cor- rect the Minutes shall determine that they are incorrect and that, in fact, the acting Master did not declare the candidate rejected, in which case the procedure should be determined null and void, and the Lodge advised to summon its members at a Eegular Communication for the purpose of balloting upon the application of the candidate. 356 COMPILATIOX OF DECISIOX& OF LXXIII. Territorial Jurisdiction Larchmoxt Village. Effect of Change of Eesiuence of Petitioner Elected ix Lodge of Jurisdiction OF Former Eesidence. Hatter of Hugenot and Apawamis Lodges. It appears that the village of Larehmont is midway between Xew Eoehelle on the South and ilamaroneck on the North. Por Masonic jurisdictional purpose it is territorially divided by an imaginary line in the centre of the town. Over the South side Hugenot Lodge has jurisdiction and over the North side Apawamis Lodge has jurisdiction. Two years ago a petitioner residing within the North territory applied for membership in Apawamis Lodge. He was elected, but never quali- fied. His residence has been removed to the territory of Hugenot Lodge and he desires to apply for membership in that Lodge. The question asked is can Hugenot Lodge accept him. A similar question was passed upon in 1S6(3. A year had elapsed after a favorable ballot upon the petition for initiation. A demand for re-ballot had been made and laid over and the candidate had been requested to come forward for initiation. Grand Master Holmes (Pro. 1866, p. 19) decided that the Lodge had lost all jurisdiction over him and that he could be proposed in a second Lodge and initiated without recourse to the for- mer Lodge. This decision was approved by the Committee on Juris- Drudence and Condition of Masonry (Pro. 1S66, p. 81) and the report was adopted by the Grand Lodge. The Constitution of 185-1 with amendments not material to the present question was in force. Claim of perpetual jurisdiction by a lodge over material submitted to it for consideration has been materially modified. Territorial jurisdiction is protected within the limits of Section 85 of our present Constitution and yet withdrawal of membership is recognized as a right by Eegula- tion 17. Section 89, Constitution, prohibits the receipt of a petition if it discloses that a petition of the same person is "pending" in another Lodge, and Section 95 prohibits affirmative action upon a petition if it lie ascertained that the petitioner has been rejected within twelve months prior to the petition. These recent amendments were in- tended to present dual contemporaneous applications for membership such as appeared in Matter of Bemmert, who had contemporaneously applied to two lodges, one of which accepted and the other rejected him. Grand Master S( udder adopted the opinion of the Judge Ad- vocate (,No. XXVII, Pro. 1910, p. 531) and held that the application could be received, but initiation must be deferred until twelve months after the rejection. The petitioner in the present ease by his change of residence is within the jurisdiction of Hugenot Lodge and its right to receive his application turns upon the construction of the word "pending," used in Constitution, Section 89. The Century Dictionary defines it as " remaining undecided, " " not terminated, ' ' ' ' period 1 e- fore final judgment." The petition is pending only during the peiiod before the judgment of the Lodge is announced, either by acceptance or rejection. In the absence of any express Constitutional provision to THE GU \ND LODGE OF NEW YOEK 357 the contrary, the decision of the Grand Lodge in 1866 should control. I am of the opinion that petitioner may properly apply to Hugenot Lodge for initiation and advancement. LXXIV. Trespass on Territorial Jurisdiction. Residence Brroneodslt Stated in Petition. Remedy. Matter of D'Arville. An exhaustive investigation was made because the subject was in the nature of a complaint by the Grand Master of the State of New Jersey, accompanied with a request for such investigation which comity demanded should be thorough. The Grand Master of New Jersey, hav- ing been informed that D'Arville was a resident of the State of New Jersey and had applied for membership in Mosaic Lodge in that State and been rejected, protested against his initiation and advancement in Sylvan Grove Lodge in this State. The investigation disclosed that the Grand Master of New Jersey had been misinformed in respect to the alleged rejection. On September 3rd, 1910, the date of the petition of D'Arville, and on October 12, 1910, the date of his acceptance by Sylvan Grove Lodge and subsequently he had not resided in the State of New York for the twelve months immediately preceding such dates and period. His petition to Sylvan Grove Lodge, while not in all respects conforming to the requirements of Section 87 of our Constitution contains sufficient to relieve the Lodge from any charge of intentional trespass upon the territorial jurisdiction of New Jersey, because in his own handwriting D'Arville stated that on September 3rd, 1910, he resided at No. 413 West 30th Street, New York City, and has resided in the State of New York the twelve months last past. This statement is false and is especially deceiving because when asked to state the places in which he had resided the ten years last past he gives the order of residence as Copenhagen, New Jersey, and New York City. His lengthy resi- dence in New York, however, was prior to his residence in New Jersey. The statements presented by Mosaic Lodge and confirmed by the af- fidavit of D 'Arville establish that his family consists of himself and wife and that their present residence is at Park Place in Eidgefield Park, State of New Jersey. He is an alien, a citizen of Denmark. He states that at some time, not designated, he took out first papers for naturalization in the Southern District of the State of New York. This is the only indication that he ever intended to permanently re- side in New York or to acquire a domicile therein. His purpose in taking out these papers was that he might eventually become a citizen of the United States and would apply equally well to any State which he might subsequently choose as his residence. He resided in New York from 1904 to about April, 1908, when he leased one-half of a double house on Teaneck Eoad, Eidgefield Park, New Jersey, which he oc- cupied with his wife continuously until about March, 1910, when she removed to Highland Place, Eidgefield Park, and then he took a room ooS COilPILATIOX OF DECISIONS OF at Xo. 413 West 30th Street, New York City, which he occupied "off and on" when he was obliged io work overtime in his occupation as electrical foreman on a railroad. At the time of his peticion, Stp- tLiuber 3rd, 1910, he was in the employ of the Pennsylvania Eailrual. When not working "overtime" he went to New Jersey, and also spent his Sundays there. His occupation of the room in New York was not that of a permanent resident, but of a mere sojourner for his tem- porary convenience, and he says it terminated about November 1st, 1910. It thus appears by his own declaration that at the time of his petition on September 3rd, 1910, he had not even temporarily sojourned in the Srate of New York more than six months; certainly not for the one year required by our Constitution. Treating this statemeut as a con- lession, which, under Penal Law rulings, might require corroboration, the latter is fully made by the statements of the New Jersey brethrea, who positively state their knowledge that he has been a resident of the Village of Eidgefield Park, New Jersey, with his wife since ilay, lyOS. To one of these brethren (Goesling) he stated that he was to be initiated in a New York lodge, but did not know the name of the Lodge, and on October 12th, his wile called upon Bro. GoesliXo anl stated that ihe initiation «as to occur that evening, but slie did no: know the name of the lodge. A lew days afterwards D'Arvilie gave to Bko. Goesling the name of Sylvan Grove Lodge. To another Brother (Hunter), D 'Arville stated that he was about to get his Seeund Degree in the New York Lodge, and when asked if he had a waiver fiom the Grand Lodge of the State of New Jersey stated that he was "s;p- j>osed to be liviiiy in New York. ' ' A member of Mosaic LodsJV states tluit he lived in the same hciiise in a portion i'->'' COilPILATIOX OF DECISIONS Or stitutional prohibition relative to disclosing the ballot by an individual member. At the outset it should not be forgotten that the Grand Lodge and its presiding officer, the Grand iXaster, are of relative modern origin, and that Lodges possess all their inherent powers which have been rec- ognized from time immemorial, except in so far as these powers have been by their consent delegated or granted to the Grand Lodge, and this proposition should be ever borne in mind in dealing with funda- mental questions. ilackey, in his Jurisprudence, seventh edition, page 310, states the rule as follows: " Whatever powers and prerogatives a Lodge may now possess, are those which have always been inherent in it by the Ancient Landmarks of the order. Xo new powers have been created in it by the Grand Lodge. The Eegulations of ITil were a concession as well as a reserva- tion on the part of the subordinate Lodges. The Grand Lodge w as es- tablished by the Fraternity for the purposes of convenience in govern- ment. Whatever powers it possesses were yielded to it freely and by way of concession by the Fraternity, not as the representatives of the Lodges, but as the Lodges themselves, in general assembly convened. The rights, therefore, which were conceded by the Lodues, they have not, but what- ever they did not concede, they \m\e reserved to themselves, and tliey claim and exercise such rights, not by grant from the Grand Lodge, but as derived from the Ancient Landmarks and the old Constitutions of the Oriler. This axiom must be cmistantly borne in mind, as it will be necessary for the elucidation of iiiaiiy points of Masonic law, concerning the rights and pouers of subordinate Lodges.'' Among the powers cited by Mackey are " to elect its officers " and " to install its officers after being elected.'' The same author, at page 323, referring to the Master and Wardens, writes : ,' ' These officers it is the inherent right of every Lodge to select for itself, and that right has never been surrendered to the Grand Lodge, and therefore is still vested in the Lodges, under such regulations as may from time to time be adopted. The other officers have been the creation of Grand Lodge regulations, and they vary in name and functions in different countries. But whatever may be the nature of the offices, the power of selecting the office-bearers is always vested in the Lodyes. There is no law now in existence, nor ever was, which gives the Grand Lodge the power of selecting the officers of one of its subordinates. ' ' Speaking of installation, the same author, at pages 3l:4 and 32.5, states the proposition : "A Lodge has the right to install its officers after being elected ' ' and adds : ' ' This power of installation, like all the other powers of subordinate Lodges, is controlled and directed by certain Grand Lodge regulations, which it is not in the power of the Lodge to set aside, " The installation, for instance, must take place at the Comnninica- tion immediately before or on the festival of St. .John the Evangelist. This is considered as the commencement of the Masonic year, and on that day the old officers vacate their seats, which are assumed by the new ones. But if by any circumstance the installation has been omitted until after this festival, the law having been violated, and there being no other THE GRAXD LODGIi OF NEW YOBK 363 law which provides for an installation after that day, the installation can then only take place by the authority and under the dispensation of the Grand Master." As to the oflScer who may conduct the installation, a distinction is drawn between the ceremony of constitution, which, by the Old Regula- tions, can only be performed by the Grand Master, and all subsequent installations which may be conducted by any Past Master of the Lodge or other Past Master representing him, because the warrant from the Grand Lodge gives this power. It therefore follows that the installation referred to in the present ease would be in accordance with our Consti- tution, Section 41, by an actual Master or Past Master of a Lodge, who does not represent the Grand Master, but performs the act because it is authorized by the charter of the Lodge. At page 329 Mackey calls attention to the fact that a Masonic Lodge is not self -created or independent, but derives power and its existence from the Grand Lodge, which constitutes a supreme tribunal to adjudi- cate for it, and from this deduces the basis of control by the Grand Lodge. The same doctrine is substantially stated by Past Grand Master Simons, in his Treatise on Masonic Jurisprudence. At page 75, he writes : ' ' While in the beginning Lodges were unrestricted by any superior authority, and were therefore supreme in themselves, yet, at the forma- tion of Grand Lodges, certain of their powers were necessarily surren- dered for the general good, just as individuals and communities divest themselves of a portion of their political rights, that all may enjoy a uniform protection at the hands of a supreme government. The idea of the surrender of a portion of their rights by Lodges, carries with it the reservation of certain others, inherent in the Lodge, and not subject to dispensation or other act of the Grand Master or Grand Lodge. This is a most important distinction, and one that it is necessary to keep in remembrance in the decision of many of the questions that may be pre- sented. The general tendency of all governments and legislative bodies is to cumulate power — to exercise not only the authority delegated to them by the people, but gradually to increase that authority by en- croachments upon the original sovereignty. We believe in the simple doctrine that subordinate Lodges are, as to many matters which have received the iegislative action of Grand Lodges, sovereign bodies, and that any action which interferes with that sovereignty is of necessity illegal and void; and that, unless the reserved and inherent rights of Lodges are well defined and understood, the time will come when those rights will be extinguished, partly through direct legislation, and partly from neglect, on the part of the subordinates, to assert and maintain them. The Lodge organization is the normal condition of the Fra- ternity; Grand Lodges, the result of necessity growing out of the wide- spread popularity and extension of the institution, and intended to pre- serve uniformity of doctrine and practice by mutual consultation on the part of the representatives of the subordinate Lodges. While each re- mains in its own sphere of action, the result must continue to be in the future, as it has been in the past, for the greatest good of the Graft. Let it, however, be remembered that the Grand Lodge acts by delegated powers, and that, so far as those powers are concerned, it must be su- -364 COMPILATION OF DECISIONS OF preme, but that the reserved powers of the Lodge are inherent, and can- not be interfered with by any act of the Grand Lodge ; nay, more : we insist that these powers cannot be delegated, if the Lodge were so minded; for their possession by the subordinate body is a Landmark — a fundamental principle — that no man or body of men can remove. Past Grand Master Simons states that among the inherent powers of the Lodge controlled only by the Ancient Landmarks is, ' ' to elect and install its oiEeers. ' ' At page 7S he adds: "It is usual and proper for Grand Lodges to fix, by constitutional provision, the time and manner of electing officers; but, in the election, the Lodge is entirely uncontrolled, save by its own By-Laws and the i;sa^es of Masonry. The Grand Lodge may say, that at a given time a Lodge must elect a ilaster, two Wardens, a Treasurer, and a Secretary, but it cannot interfere with the choice by the Brethren of persons to fill those offices." At page 146 he asserts that installation is essential before the officer cau legally enter upon his duties, and adds: " The act of installation • ♦ ♦ consists of the presentation of the oHicers-elect to the installing oflicer, on whose demand the Brethren ac- knowledge that they are the persons elected, and that they (the Breth- ren) remain satisfied with their choice. (This is the proper time to make objections, if any are to be made, against any irregularity that may have occurred on the balloting; for it is held that if the installation be allowed to proceed without objection, it will then be too late to make ■complaint.) " Our ilonitor states that the installation of the officers of new Lodges is done by the Grand Master or his proxy, but in existing Lodges, it is the prerogative of the retiring Worshipful Master, but may be done by his proxy. There is no provision requiring the installing officer to invite objections to the installation. The Marshal introduces the Master-elect and to him the question is put : ' ' Have you carefully examined the Brother, and do you find him qualified to discharge the duties of the ■office to which he has been elected ? ' ' And, upon an affirmative answer, the installation proceeds. Our Constitution does not prescribe a form of installation, but regu- lates the time "at or before the next stated Communication alter elec- tion, which is to be held at the last stated Communication of such Lodge ia the month of December. ' ' The Landmarks defined by M.'. W.'. Joseph D. Evaxs. and forming -an Appendix to our Constitution, page 99, are silent upon the subject. Section 41, Constitution, uses mandatory language: " The officers must be chosen annually by ballot and by a majority of votes at the last -stated Communication of such Lodge in the month of December * + * and be installed at or before the next stated Commimication thereafter by an actual Master or Past Master of a Lodge." It provides that in •case of failure to elect or to install a Master or Wardens, the Grand Master ' ' may grant a dispensation to such Lodge to elect or install such •officer or officers. ' ' It does not grant power to the Grand Master, or to any other officer, to prohibit the election or to nullify it. and, as before rstated, no such power inherently exists in any officer. Section 21, Subdivision 6, of the Constitution, authorizes the Grand THE GRAND LODGE OE NEW YORK 365 Master to suspend an elected officer of a Lodge from the functions of his office, but there must be cause, and by implication proof thereof, which can be lawfully furnished to him sufficient to justify temporary suspen- sion preliminary to lawful discipline by charges and trial, with the right of appeal. This power is not tantamount to removal of the elected officer, or a nullification of an election, but is a mere suspension of the officer from the functions of his office pending investigation and lawful trial, which may sustain or disprove the charge. While subordihate Lodges exist by virtue of Grand Lodge warrants, which may be for- feited, the Landmark right of the subordinate body to judge for itself, while its charter is in force, who shall be admitted to its membership or fill its offices continues, and this right belongs to the majority of the Lodge members present and voting, and is not to be thwarted by the minority. Knowledge, not mere rumor or suspicion, of anything render- ing the candidate unfit for office should be communicated to fellow- members, unless it has been obtained under circumstances making it legally privileged or Masonically secret, or unless its disclosure be ex- pressly prohibited by our Constitution, Regulations, or Code of Proced- ure. Justice requires that such knowledge or rumor should be communi- cated to the candidate, to afford him an opportunity to decline election or to challenge its truth. In the latter case the facts upon which the knowledge is based, unless privileged or prohibited, should be made known to the Lodge members, that their action may be governed ac- cordingly. The cases of privileged knowledge or privileged communica- tion are few. The interrogatory suggests that the candidate, while hold- ing a Lodge office, misreported the result of a ballot upon a petition lor membership. Section 97 of our Constitution, which prohibits an individual member from making known the kind of ballot east by himself or another on application for a degree in Masonry or for affiliation, and prohibits the