The Question Of Jurisdiction.

straightforward , but let us note how admirable is the tone of tho remarks that follow . "In view of all this , " says Grand Master Barlow , whom we venture to congratulate on the kindly and Masonic recommendations he offers . " In view of all this , let us not indulge in harsh

words or severe criticisms , but rather let us cherish the kindliest fraternal regard for our brethren of New York , and faithfully perform our Masonic obligations towards them . Let us manifest to the world that the cords of affection and duty , which bind Masons of Connecticut to

the ancient Fraternity are too strong to be broken by the angry unprovoked blow even of a brother , and let us labour to hasten the time when the true spirit of ouv Fraternity shall so fill all hearts , that interdictory edicts shall no more be resorted to as a remedy for unimportant

cases of gnevances between sister jurisdictions . Let us continue to hope ancl believe that a returning sense of justice and the hallowed remembrance of our former friendship may lead our sister Grand Lodge to quickly and cheerfully rescind the said edict and accept our extended hand in friendship and brotherly love . "

And the Grand Lodge Committee are as delicately firm ancl kind as the Grand Master . In the resolutions they suggested for adoption by Grand Lodge , the first expresses sincere regret at " the interdiction by the M . W . Grand Lodge of New York of Masonic intercourse between the

brethren of the two jurisdictions , " and goes on to add the belief that such act is " unwise , unnecessary , and unjust . " They then proceed to say , " that this Grand Lodge , in the act which gave rise to the unfortunate controversy , so abruptly terminated by the Grand Lodge of New York ,

and during the progress of that controversy , has simply asserted and maintained the principles of exclusive sovereignty mthin its own territorial limits , embracing the right to constitute into Lodges , under its own laws and regulations , and the landmarks of Masonry , any and all

Masons residing tvitliin its jurisdiction , and has not assumed or sought to give to these Jaws any extra territorial force or effect . The right which it has thus asserted , it has at all times conceded to other Grand Lodges , and particularly to the Grand Lodge of New York , of which many

instances may be shown . The third and last resolution is to the effect— "That the Grand Lodge of Connecticut will await in patient expectation the restoration of friendl y relations , by the withdrawal of the edict of non-intercourse by the Grand Lodge of New York ; ancl meanwhile fche

Masons in this jurisdiction are strictly enjoined to promote that happy event by the faithful performance of their Masonic obligations towards their New York brethren , in the spirit of the suggestions of the Grand Master on that subject , whose recommendations this Grand Lodge most cordially endorses and approves . "

There is something manly and dignified , as well as Masonic , in the manner in which the Grand Master ancl Grand Lodge of Connecticut have approached this subject . They politely indicate it as their opinion that the Grand Lodge of New York has adopted a wrong idea of Masonic

law , and thafc having done this , ifc has certainly not mended matters by issuing this tremendous edict . Yet , in the face of all this provocation to anger , they have expressed their intention of doing all in their power to promote the welfare of Masonry by courting reconciliation with their

sister jurisdiction . Big New York has exploded its anger over an imaginary grievance , and little Connecticut , with respectful concern visible on every lineament of its generous face , stands by ready to shake hands when her peppery neighbour has got over her temper . Well done , Connecticut !

Bro. S. B. Wilson And The House Committee Of The R.M.I.B.

BRO . S . B . WILSON AND THE HOUSE COMMITTEE OF THE R . M . I . B .

WE publish elsewhere an important letter , addressed by Bro . S . B . Wilson to tbe General Committee of the Royal Masonic Institution for Boys . In drawing tlie attention of our readers to this communication we cannot do better than give a brief sketch of its purport . BID .

Wilson writes that , with a view to prevent unnecessary expense by proceeding with his action against the House Committee of the Boys' School , he proposed to submit his dispute with that body to the arbitration of any one of

Bro. S. B. Wilson And The House Committee Of The R.M.I.B.

seven distinguished members of the profession to which he belongs , namely—Sir H . R . Hunt , C . B ., 'George Pownall Esq ., John Wliichcord , Esq ., Arthur Gates , Esq ., W . Q Gardiner , Esq ., Joseph Lavender , Esq ., and W . Hudson Esq . Mr . Stanley , Solicitor to the House Committee , with

a promptness which does him great credit , agreed to the proposal , but suggested Mr . J . E . Saunders , an architect of eqnal character and standing with those already natned . Bro . Wilson accepted Bro . Saunders as arbitrator , and was prepared to abide by the result of his award . The House

Committee , however , have , with a perverse obstinacy which cannot be too strongly condemned , declined to stand b y tho arrangement of their own Solicitor . The result is that Bro . Wilson has had no option but to give instructions for

the action to proceed , and whether he wins or loses , tho Boys' School will have some heavy costs to discharge . This is the case as presented to us in the letter we have specified .

Let us take the circumstances into consideration , not the whole of them—Heaven forfend !—but those which affect the case just now . Bro . Wilson has once before expressed his readiness to submit the point in dispute to arbitration , but the offer was rejected . When he found that no solution

of the difficulty between him and the House Committee was possible without referring it to a court of law , he at the last moment , with true forbearance and kindliness of spirit , a second time proposes arbitration , and the proposal has been unceremoniously rejected for the second time .

Thus then stands the case . Bro . Wilson , the correctness of whose charges for professional work is impugned by the House Committee of the School , has twice agreed to submit to abide by arbitration , while the said Committee , which questions these charges , has twice deliberately refused arbitration . What is the natural inference ? That Bro .

Wilson has faith in the justice of his case , and the House Committee has not . And after all is said , what more entirely natural ? Bro . Wilson , as a respected professional man of long standing , knows fully well what he is justified in doing , and not doing . But the House Committee—is it

composed of experienced architects , who are competent to challenge a professional bill of costs ? They are probably men of business in their own estimation , and aro doubtless familiar enough with tbe particular callings they have severally followed . But , albeit they are

speculative Masons , that circumstance alone gives them no special knowledge about the erection of buildings . For ourselves , we believe the House Committee is animated by an intense and most unmasonic

spirit of hostility against Bro . Wilson . On no other ground can we account for that estimable brother having , for a period extending over 'three years , more or less , been bandied about from Committee to Committee and then to

the General Court . Bro . Wilson has tried by every means m his power to avoid litigation . It seems as though the House Committee had left no stone unturned in order to court it . Bro . Wilson , under the most extreme provocation , has even at the very last moment proposed an

alternative course , by which , at all events , the cost of litigation would be avoided . The House Committee , even after their own legal representative has accepted this proposal , sternly set themselves to the task of fighting out the battle to the bitter end . We know that business is business , and

Masonry is Masonry , and , further , that no one has the right to mix up two things so opposite one with the other ; but that is no reason why brethren , who , in the course of circumstances , may have business to transact together , should conduct it on principles which are the reverse of decent , to

say nothing of their being the reverse of un-Masonic . One other point to which Bro . Wison is fully alive , and we have done . The members of the House Committee , singularly bigoted as they may be to their own opinions , and making every allowance for their utter incompetence to offer

any opinion on this , or it may be , any other business , cannot be blind to the fact that whatever may be the result of the action now pending between them and Bro . Wilson , the funds of the Boys' School must suffer . And yet they

insist on the case proceeding ! We should be worse than worthless if we allowed ourselves to utter a single word of sympathy with them , and the next time an election to this Committee takes place we trust the electors will bear these matters in mind .

It must be clearly and emphatically understood that onr remarks have no reference whatever to the circumstances in dispute . On these we do not consider ourselves competent to offer any opinion .