Masonic Misconception.

In tho several subordinate Lodges in these Grand Lodges , the Worshipful Master administers these rules and regulations as he understands them , or has heen instructed to •interpret them , That any uniform meaning exists under theso conditions

is not likely . There are questions that come up for decision , not on the law , but on what is claimed not to be in hnrmony with the principles which tho law ought to maintain . The misconception arises from a want of comprehension of a principle , and its misapplication in the practice of sound

Lodge administration of the Masonic principle involved It is not always possible , in the active work of a Lodge , to stop and inquire if some acfc of the Lodge is violative of the Masonio law , if it adopts the interpretation ofthe rules and regulations of the Grand Lodge to which the Lodge owes allegiance .

Some Gi * and Lodges have large territorial jurisdictions . The subordinate Lodges located in different parts of this territory are not easily visited . Much instruction in the laws and usages of the Craft is not early afforded to the members . They , ifc may be , have been initiated in other

jurisdictions and bave a general notion of the regulations of the Grand Lodge under which they were admitted into the Fraternity . Most naturally the Lodge acts in the best

light it has . There is no time to ascertain in advance of the need of correct knowledge what the Lodge onght to do in some unusual case . The error , if committed , is not discovered until the act is done which invites attention .

It is this class of cases that cause friction between Grand Lodges . When it is made apparent , the Grand Lodge desires if possible to support its subordinate . To

do this leads unconsciously to the adoption as is suggested of a misconception of the principle which the Lodge ought to have considered before ifc acted in the case involving the criticism .

An example will better explain what is meant by a misconception now being considered . A ., a resident ; within the jurisdiction of a Grand Lodgo , of his own free will makes application for the rights and privileges of Masonry to a Lodge selected by him near his

residence . The regulations of that Grand Lodge require the application so to be made . That Lodgo rejects him . When he selected the Lodge to which he applied , presented his petition to it , and ifc was acted upon by the Lodge and

under the regulation sent to a committee to make inquiry as to his fitness for membership , then he and the Lodge were bound together by a Masonic law . That law obtains until , by law , the bond is annulled . A . is therefore a rejected applicant , for cause .

A . then goes into another Grand Lodge jurisdiction , applies to one of its Lodges , and , it so may be , without careful inquiry , that Lodge gives this stranger in its

territory the rights and privileges of Masonry . A . then returns to his residence , claims to be a Mason and attempts to " visit" the Lodge that rejected him . This he never can do in Pennsylvania .

When criticism is made as to the action of the Lodge that initiated A . the general answer is , the Grand Lodge of which the Lodge that initiated A . is a subordinate , does not admit the right of " perpetual jurisdiction . " This is the explanation given for the acfc of the Lodge . This is a misconception of the only issue involved in the

case . Ifc is nofc a question of perpetual jurisdiction ; it is a principle of perpetual objection , till tho objection is removed . A rejected candidate in a lawfully warranted and duly

constituted Lodge of Free and Accepted Masons cannot on tbe principle of Masonic law be initiatad in any Lodge , anywhere , of Free and accepted Masons while he is uuder tbe prohibition of a rejection .

He is not fit material , he is not of good report , he is prohibited from obtaining the rights and privileges of the Fraternity of Freemasons while the objection exists of record in a Lodge of the Craft . This is the principle ol perpetual objection , not perpetual jurisdiction .

Herein is the misconception of the issue thus raised . The " objection " can only be removed by the Lodge that created it . The law of Freemasonry in all Grand Lodges of Freo and Accepted Masons recognizes an objection in Masonic Ian

gnage as universal . It surely cannot be maintained as a true construction of Masonic principle , that one Lodge can make a Mason of a man who has been rejected by another Lodge , and stands rejected .

Masonic Misconception.

The " objection " is fatal as long as it exists . It may bo removed , but until it is removed , no Lodgo governed by the Masonic jurisprudence recognized as universal by the consensus of opinions of all Masonic jurists , can absolve the rejected applicant from the disqualification of a rejection ,

The principle of perpetual disability by an objection , while it exists , is so plain a Masonic teaching that it would be impossible to believe that one Lodge , bound by tho Masonic law of the Craft , could destroy tho force or validity of the disqualification by any lawful Masonic act . — Keystone .

State Of Freemasonry In Spain.

STATE OF FREEMASONRY IN SPAIN .

BY BRO , JOHN YARKER P . M . P . Z ., & c .

I AM indebted for the following particulars of the state of Freemasonry in Spain to Brother Isidro Villarino , of Madrid , whose accuracy may no doubt bo relied upon . I am imformeel from other sources that , in some of theso bodies , ladies havo been admitted even up to the 33 rd degree of the Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite . The

discussion existing amongst the Freemasons of thiscountry , causing aa it does a break in the fraternal chain , is much to be regretted , and more especially as it has been brought about in olden times by the political exigencies to which Freemasons were subjected . A perusal cf the information

which follows will show thafc there are various bodies of the Ancient and Accepted Scottish . Rite , and only one Grand Lodge of Craft Masonry and the Royal Arch which is in consonance wifch the Craft Masonry of the English speaking race ? . I am of opinion that muoh good might be

done in Spain if the better informed bodies of the Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite would use their influence with the former series of bodies in order to promote union •and if the Craffc Grand Lodges of tho world would aid and

encourage the development of the latter body , which in a very few years has assumed a position of somo importance , and which if fostered mighfc lead to a United Grand Lodge for Spain on the English system .

Don Isidro Villarino observes that ifc is very difficult to give an intelligent account of the state of Spanish Masonry , owing to the equivocal interpretations which have been given by the propogators of the active and dormant Masonries which have afc various times been established .

Bodies arise to-day and die to-morrow ; and of those who are in existence , many are conducted without order , concert , obedience , even without formalities , and which are conformed with others that have a serious object . Symbolic Lodges exist in a confused manner with the

higher degree ;* , since there are symbolic Lodges which are independanfc of any determinite organisation calling themselves Chapters , Consistories , and Areopagi , and eveu Genates . These are generally established without the authority of any Patent or Charter , and confer degrees

without order or method , even without a . proper understnnding of that which constitutes them . Omitting such improper bodies , there are afc present in existence the following systems , with organisations of more or less value .

In the first place there existed two Masonic powers named Grand Oriente de Espana , of which ifc is nofc possible to define where functionally existing , nor of which does there remain any Lodges in activity . One of these vvas presided over by tbe Brother Ricardo ( Juan Antonio

Perez ) , who gave himself the designation of Regular , and placed its origin in the year 1804 , bufc which in realit y was no other than a detached branch of the other Grande Oriente de Espana , over which presided Zorilla , Sagasta , Romero

Oritz , Baccara , Carmona , and RogoArias , which was said to have had its origin in 1811 . Both theso bodies termed themselves Escoces , and Supreme Councils , hut neither exist at this day .

After this we have two other Grand Orients , both terming themselves Grand Oriente Nacional de Espana , and claiming their origin from the constitution of a Lodge by the Duko of Wharton , and the Patent of the mother

Lodge , No . 50 of the Grand Lodgo of England , but this affirmation is not demonstrable by any authentic document . These organisations , termed Patriarcado de la Masoneria Espanola , assert that a Grand Chamber vvas constituted in 1728 , which became a Grand Orient in 1780 , and a