-
Articles/Ads
Article HIRAM LODGE. ← Page 2 of 3 Article HIRAM LODGE. Page 2 of 3 →
Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software.
Hiram Lodge.
us , with its exceptional and peculiar facts , that is now on trial and waiting for settlement . And that is to give , if need be , either a new law , or a new and modifying phrase to fche law as we have hitherto been led to enunciate and believe it .
Now , as has been said , the facts of Hiram Lodge are not the facts of any other Lodge in Connecticut , so far as we know . There are similar cases in the Canadian provinces , aud they are to-day under open discussion and controversy .
The facts of Hiram Lodge have been clearly stated . They are undenied and undeniable . One fact alono is sufficient for the question now under consideration , and is perhaps the pivotal fact . She is in possession of a Masonic charter authorizing her existence , a charter which is not
cancelled , or impaired or invalidated by any legal authority at present known : —it has never been surrendered , or arrested , or exchanged . No other Lodge in Connecticut is for this discussion in that position . They are all Lodges
warranted now from the Grand Lodge , aud their ancient and provincial charters , if they had any , are surrendered . To these Lodges the rule of Grand Lodge supremacy , and fche liability fco Grand Lodge discipline and penalty , applies . This is Bro . Hughan ' s case exactly , and we agree wifch him fully .
But how about this Lodge that has got a charter , and has always had it , and has always refused to give it up , or permit ifc to be cancelled : —has even been an acknowledged constituent member of this same Grand Lodge for seven
years , furnishing its first Grand Master , and its Grand Secretary for many years . Sending to it representatives that participated in its legislation , and paying dues and fees into its Treasury , and yet all this time positivelv had no
other charter than this same charter which ifc now has . Over such a Lodge , organized and existing now under this charter , has the Grand Lodge of Connecticut the power of supremacy and discipline of which fche general rule speaks ?
Whero is fche reason on which such a conclusion can stand ? Where is the law , where is the historic example by which the right to such discipline and annihilation can apply to this Lodge in its present status ?
So far as it had a charter from the Grand Lodge , the law was exactly applicable , —and has been applied , —and all parties and all advocates of either side submit to ifc , and say wifch one voice , all right .
Bufc when all this has been done and conceded and the lav / admitted , we have not touched Hiram Lodge , nor the question of the relations she sustains or ought to sustain to
Masonry at large and the institutions of Masonry;—for these , so long as right and justice obtain , are to be governed by law , and not by blind sympathy , or brute force , or arbitrary dicta .
Hiram Lodge presents a new case ; it may be , probably is , Casus omissus , bufc ifc is the case , and the only one now on trial .
What has the Grand Lodge of Connecticut to do with Hiram Lodge now ? Must she not treat her as an independent lawful Masonic body , to whom she herself has given vitality ancl legal standing ?
She has admitted the lawfulness of her present claim , by allowing her , for seven years , in her present form of organisation , standing and voice in her own convocations and councils .
She has admitted her lawfulness by accepting from her , while acting under this old charter and no other , fees and constitutional tribute-moneys . She has admitted her lawfulness b y sending back to the
Lodge at her requirement , her old charter , this ( Oxnard ) charter , without a word of objection or protest to be found anywhere , or a word anywhere or in any way divesting , or attempting to divest it of power , or prerogative or privilege .
She has admitted her lawfulness by this action , taken with her eyes open ; some of it done repeatedly , and as we have before suggested , done with a purpose , as a policy , and as the expedient and best thing for the occasion and the circumstance .
And ifc does not lie in her mouth now to quibble about these facts of her conduct , or to deny or escape from their legal and logical results . Certainly she acted , as the lawyers would say , upon fair and ample notice .
These things determine and demarcate and validate the fact that Hiram Lodge is now , as then , living under the Oxnard Constitution , —with this difference , perhaps immaterial , that now more exclusively than then . Here then is the question before us . The Grand Lodge
Hiram Lodge.
of England mediately , by the prerogatives of the Provincial Grand Master , ia a territory unoccupied by any Grand Lodge , chartered one , two , or more Masouic Lodges . They took root , lived , flourished , retained their original charters and ,
by special and thoughtful precautions , preserved them unimpaired . At a given time , somo of the Lodges of that territory organized a Grand Lodgo for that territory , and clothed it with the recognized Grand Lodge supremacy .
Now , has this Grand Lodge the right to compel tho English chartered Lodges to submit and attorn to it on tho penalty of being denounced as rebellions and excommunicated Masons ? Has ifc any rights whatever over or
respecting them ? Can it compel them to execute its laws , work its ( perhaps remodelled ) ritual , inaugurate aud perform its ceremonials ? Ifc seems to us the question is so plain that ifc is its own answer .
Yet the effort has been made , if wo have not misconstrued it , by Grand Lodges , Chapters and Commanderies in some of the Provinces of Canada , to do this precise thing . The subordinates have had fulminated afc
their heads and reputation , the charge of being schismatics , rebellious and illegal Masons . It would seem as if the Grand Lodgo had only to be constituted and , ipso facto , it becomes at once omnipotent .
But we have yefc to learn that the Grand Bodies of England , Scotland and Wales have admitted this power , or that their Provincial subordinates have yielded any more than Hiram Lodge has yielded . And both alike are in the possession of similar warrants of constitution .
More than this is true , for the independent and rightful authority of these Subordinate Bodies , as against their contesting Grand Bodies , has been sustained by many of the Grand Bodies of America , aud by the head of Masonic
learning and law . Visitation , intercourse , communion and correspondence between these subordinate English and Scotch bodies of Canada , and Subordinate Bodies of the States have been permitted , taken place , and been justified by American Grand Masonry .
Now if this is true of Canadian bodies , it must D 3 or should be true of American . If such chartered bodies are
legitimate and honourable in Nova Scotia , why rofcl kewise in Connecticut ? But it is said that Hiram Lodge submitted and surrendered fco the Grand Lodge , and thafc makes the difference . This is not true . She never submitted or surrendered so
as to permit the devitalization of her charter for a single moment . This was sedulously preserved , and as long as this exists , and continues to be held by her , it is of no
consequence how much of Grand Lodge conformity she enjoys , any moro than it is what kind of a building , aud decorated with what order of architecture she holds her
meetings m . In the presence of this controlling fact , the other becomes immaterial . It is this facfc that distinguishes Hiram Lodge , radically , through and through from all the
examples cited by Bro . Hughan in illustration and support of his doctrine , taken as he cites them . Ifc is this facfc about which this controversy turns . Hiram Lodge is a lawful , independent , Masonic body , entitled to respect and
the comities of Masonic fellowship , and no matter what Connecticut may do , the Grand Bodies of the States and the world Avho mean to do justice and work righteousness , must extend to her those comities or be disgraced by their own pretensions , if she holds a vital charter .
The question therefore arises and is imminent , what is the power of Grand Lodge over previously existing , legally chartered Lodges , within its territory , who do not choose to enter the union ? or to so enter ifc as to destroy their ancient prerogatives ? And conversely , what are the rights , and privileges , and prerogatives of such Lodges , at and after the Constitution
of such Grand Lodges ? Moreover , we submit thafc the question to-day under discussion is not the moral , or social , or Masonic duties of tho members of these two contesting bodies towards each other ; considered iu relations of fraternity and obligated
by Masonic long-suffering , patience and peace , but what are their respective legal rights ? What is the law for these bodies and for all others that may hereafter find themsalves
in like position ? And ifc may be well if Grand Lodges shall be brought to f-. ee more clearly than they sometimes seem to , that the peace and prosperity of Freemasonry is kept only by a real wisdom and a forgiving love . We read always with great delight and instructiou the writings of the Masonic scholar to whom reference has in
Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software.
Hiram Lodge.
us , with its exceptional and peculiar facts , that is now on trial and waiting for settlement . And that is to give , if need be , either a new law , or a new and modifying phrase to fche law as we have hitherto been led to enunciate and believe it .
Now , as has been said , the facts of Hiram Lodge are not the facts of any other Lodge in Connecticut , so far as we know . There are similar cases in the Canadian provinces , aud they are to-day under open discussion and controversy .
The facts of Hiram Lodge have been clearly stated . They are undenied and undeniable . One fact alono is sufficient for the question now under consideration , and is perhaps the pivotal fact . She is in possession of a Masonic charter authorizing her existence , a charter which is not
cancelled , or impaired or invalidated by any legal authority at present known : —it has never been surrendered , or arrested , or exchanged . No other Lodge in Connecticut is for this discussion in that position . They are all Lodges
warranted now from the Grand Lodge , aud their ancient and provincial charters , if they had any , are surrendered . To these Lodges the rule of Grand Lodge supremacy , and fche liability fco Grand Lodge discipline and penalty , applies . This is Bro . Hughan ' s case exactly , and we agree wifch him fully .
But how about this Lodge that has got a charter , and has always had it , and has always refused to give it up , or permit ifc to be cancelled : —has even been an acknowledged constituent member of this same Grand Lodge for seven
years , furnishing its first Grand Master , and its Grand Secretary for many years . Sending to it representatives that participated in its legislation , and paying dues and fees into its Treasury , and yet all this time positivelv had no
other charter than this same charter which ifc now has . Over such a Lodge , organized and existing now under this charter , has the Grand Lodge of Connecticut the power of supremacy and discipline of which fche general rule speaks ?
Whero is fche reason on which such a conclusion can stand ? Where is the law , where is the historic example by which the right to such discipline and annihilation can apply to this Lodge in its present status ?
So far as it had a charter from the Grand Lodge , the law was exactly applicable , —and has been applied , —and all parties and all advocates of either side submit to ifc , and say wifch one voice , all right .
Bufc when all this has been done and conceded and the lav / admitted , we have not touched Hiram Lodge , nor the question of the relations she sustains or ought to sustain to
Masonry at large and the institutions of Masonry;—for these , so long as right and justice obtain , are to be governed by law , and not by blind sympathy , or brute force , or arbitrary dicta .
Hiram Lodge presents a new case ; it may be , probably is , Casus omissus , bufc ifc is the case , and the only one now on trial .
What has the Grand Lodge of Connecticut to do with Hiram Lodge now ? Must she not treat her as an independent lawful Masonic body , to whom she herself has given vitality ancl legal standing ?
She has admitted the lawfulness of her present claim , by allowing her , for seven years , in her present form of organisation , standing and voice in her own convocations and councils .
She has admitted her lawfulness by accepting from her , while acting under this old charter and no other , fees and constitutional tribute-moneys . She has admitted her lawfulness b y sending back to the
Lodge at her requirement , her old charter , this ( Oxnard ) charter , without a word of objection or protest to be found anywhere , or a word anywhere or in any way divesting , or attempting to divest it of power , or prerogative or privilege .
She has admitted her lawfulness by this action , taken with her eyes open ; some of it done repeatedly , and as we have before suggested , done with a purpose , as a policy , and as the expedient and best thing for the occasion and the circumstance .
And ifc does not lie in her mouth now to quibble about these facts of her conduct , or to deny or escape from their legal and logical results . Certainly she acted , as the lawyers would say , upon fair and ample notice .
These things determine and demarcate and validate the fact that Hiram Lodge is now , as then , living under the Oxnard Constitution , —with this difference , perhaps immaterial , that now more exclusively than then . Here then is the question before us . The Grand Lodge
Hiram Lodge.
of England mediately , by the prerogatives of the Provincial Grand Master , ia a territory unoccupied by any Grand Lodge , chartered one , two , or more Masouic Lodges . They took root , lived , flourished , retained their original charters and ,
by special and thoughtful precautions , preserved them unimpaired . At a given time , somo of the Lodges of that territory organized a Grand Lodgo for that territory , and clothed it with the recognized Grand Lodge supremacy .
Now , has this Grand Lodge the right to compel tho English chartered Lodges to submit and attorn to it on tho penalty of being denounced as rebellions and excommunicated Masons ? Has ifc any rights whatever over or
respecting them ? Can it compel them to execute its laws , work its ( perhaps remodelled ) ritual , inaugurate aud perform its ceremonials ? Ifc seems to us the question is so plain that ifc is its own answer .
Yet the effort has been made , if wo have not misconstrued it , by Grand Lodges , Chapters and Commanderies in some of the Provinces of Canada , to do this precise thing . The subordinates have had fulminated afc
their heads and reputation , the charge of being schismatics , rebellious and illegal Masons . It would seem as if the Grand Lodgo had only to be constituted and , ipso facto , it becomes at once omnipotent .
But we have yefc to learn that the Grand Bodies of England , Scotland and Wales have admitted this power , or that their Provincial subordinates have yielded any more than Hiram Lodge has yielded . And both alike are in the possession of similar warrants of constitution .
More than this is true , for the independent and rightful authority of these Subordinate Bodies , as against their contesting Grand Bodies , has been sustained by many of the Grand Bodies of America , aud by the head of Masonic
learning and law . Visitation , intercourse , communion and correspondence between these subordinate English and Scotch bodies of Canada , and Subordinate Bodies of the States have been permitted , taken place , and been justified by American Grand Masonry .
Now if this is true of Canadian bodies , it must D 3 or should be true of American . If such chartered bodies are
legitimate and honourable in Nova Scotia , why rofcl kewise in Connecticut ? But it is said that Hiram Lodge submitted and surrendered fco the Grand Lodge , and thafc makes the difference . This is not true . She never submitted or surrendered so
as to permit the devitalization of her charter for a single moment . This was sedulously preserved , and as long as this exists , and continues to be held by her , it is of no
consequence how much of Grand Lodge conformity she enjoys , any moro than it is what kind of a building , aud decorated with what order of architecture she holds her
meetings m . In the presence of this controlling fact , the other becomes immaterial . It is this facfc that distinguishes Hiram Lodge , radically , through and through from all the
examples cited by Bro . Hughan in illustration and support of his doctrine , taken as he cites them . Ifc is this facfc about which this controversy turns . Hiram Lodge is a lawful , independent , Masonic body , entitled to respect and
the comities of Masonic fellowship , and no matter what Connecticut may do , the Grand Bodies of the States and the world Avho mean to do justice and work righteousness , must extend to her those comities or be disgraced by their own pretensions , if she holds a vital charter .
The question therefore arises and is imminent , what is the power of Grand Lodge over previously existing , legally chartered Lodges , within its territory , who do not choose to enter the union ? or to so enter ifc as to destroy their ancient prerogatives ? And conversely , what are the rights , and privileges , and prerogatives of such Lodges , at and after the Constitution
of such Grand Lodges ? Moreover , we submit thafc the question to-day under discussion is not the moral , or social , or Masonic duties of tho members of these two contesting bodies towards each other ; considered iu relations of fraternity and obligated
by Masonic long-suffering , patience and peace , but what are their respective legal rights ? What is the law for these bodies and for all others that may hereafter find themsalves
in like position ? And ifc may be well if Grand Lodges shall be brought to f-. ee more clearly than they sometimes seem to , that the peace and prosperity of Freemasonry is kept only by a real wisdom and a forgiving love . We read always with great delight and instructiou the writings of the Masonic scholar to whom reference has in