-
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.
circumstances in which they may be placed , and the precarious and untenable position of subordinate Lodges , if the enunciated rules are to have universal sway , out
discussion must for a little widen beyond the question of any particular Lodge , and enter npon more general considerations . And , first , let us see how subordinate Lodges may be
situated nnder the laws given out for the formation of Grand Lodges .
A Grand Lodge may be formed in any independent State , or in any territory of a country that has been organised into a separate territory , and " it is not essential that it should be an independent and Sovereign State or
territory , but simply necessary that it be a separate and distinct State or territory . " And such legal Grand Lodges have been formed in the United States in Oregon ,
Washington , Minnesota , Kansas , Nebraska and other territories ) and , under the Government of Great Britain , in the Province of Canada and elsewhere .
Now in each of these territories , at any time before the institution of a Graud Lodge therein , the Grand Lodge of any foreign jurisdiction may warrant and establish subordinate Lodges that are legitimate , and equipped with all
the rights and privileges of subordinate Lodges anywhere Let the Grand Lodge of England have established , say in Washington Territory , U . S . A ., thirty Lodges , and
other Grand Lodges as many more . Now , any three of these Lodges " in active existence within the territorial limits , " may meet , and consent to form , and may form , a Grand Lodge for that territory .
This they can do without giving notice of their intention to the other subordinate Lodges , according to the Digest of American Masonic Law , although notice is recognised as the " just and seasonable thing" in such
cases to be done . And the only check which can be put upon ihem rests in their possible lack of recognition by other Grand Lodges , a matter that is , in these times , easily
managed , and of but little real consequence , whether given or not , except as its refusal may project upon the Fraternity a long and disgraceful Masonic contention .
More than that , if all were notified , it does not appear that the consent of a majority of the Lodges in the territory , or a majority of those represented , ia necessary to the formation of a Grand Lodge , but only the concurrent action of some three Lodges of them . These rules are laid down in these terms on the
sixteenth page of the Digest above referred to , the fullest and most complete in use . Three Lodges then have formed a Grand Lodge , surrendered their old charters , and received new ones from
the new Grand Lodge . Now , let us see what tbey can do ? Among the general powers of a Grand Lodge on page 22 ia this : " It has the power of erasing Lodges and expelling Brethren from the Craft , " and this ancl other general powers
are subject to one limitation only , and this is " Provided always that the old landmarks be carefully preserved ;" and then , as if to end and shut off all questions by negation as well as affirmation , it adds , " By this standard and
this only are we to measure the powers of a Grand Lodge . " The 57 Lodges in Washington Territory who did not enter into the Grand Lodge organization are therefore at once liable to expulsion , and the members of them to be
declared illegitimate Masons , not entitled to the courtesies of the Craft , whether of visitation , office , charity , or anything else . What is the condition of each of these 57 Lodges ? Illegal and excommunicate ? We answer ,
no , notwithstanding the enacted rules and laws of Grand Lodge Masonry . They do not apply or meet the circumstances . Ignorant Grand Masters , self-sufficient and pigheaded Grand Masters pronounce Grand Lodge rules , and
the unthinking , perhaps unnoticing mass of members , in the haste and superior interest of other matters , confirm them . Still . they do nob address themselves to the
intelligence or obedience of the Craft of these 57 Lodges , or of Masons generally . They have rights deeper , bx-oader , more fundamental than these . Their cases have not been
met by positive enactments of law , bufc by evasions , and makeshifts , and side-manccuvring . Yet the rules exist to be applied to some poor unfortunate Lodge or Lodges ,
"whenever their chance may come , and they fall into thc hands of passionate , designing men on the one hand , ancl easy , thoughtless men on the other .
Bnt how is the case better , if thirty-one , a majority of the Lodges , agree to form a Grand Lodge , and twenty-nine ^ ofuso ? Doubtless reco'mifciou would Follow at once noon
Hiram Lodge.
snch an organization , and without notice to the dissidents , though they be lawful Lodges , lawful Masons , and possessing every authority aud right which the consenting Lodges possessed . Bat they go to bed at night with
a membership scattered all over the world , lawful , honourable , upright Masons , and wake up in the morning to find themselves illegitimate , expelled , denounced , dishonoured .
Can this be so ? Is this law ? and law founded upon the equality of Masonic Brotherhood ? It is the possibility of action nnder existing enactments , and has formed some exemplifications in Masonic experience .
Assuredly there needs now , at this day , when the possibilities of these conditions are so large , so complex , some new announcements or agreements of law , which shall wisely regulate and preserve the rights of such
minorities , these 29 , or perhaps these 57 Lodges , and this extensive membership . And it is a disgrace to the intelligence of the Masonic Fraternity that it has not wisely
formulated the way and manner of such preservation . And it is too much to suppose that the intelligence of the Craft shall submit to the arbitrary enforcements of such laws . It might well beget discord , and rivalry and disgrace .
Now let us look at another thing and take a strong case . One Lodge in a territory does not consent to unite , or refuses to surrender its charter for the purposes of the union . Leaving other questions , which have elsewhere
been considered , it is held by almost , perhaps quite , universal law , that though the majority of a Lodge vote to surrender , yet so long as seven members refuse the charter
cannot be surrendered to any Grand Lodge , old or new . " If , " says the authority , " seven or more members refuse to give their consent , the charter cannot be surrendered , "
. . . and so says Massachusetts . But a new Grand Lodge is formed , . and this Lodge remains out , working and existing under a lawful charter , which it refuses to surrender , and granted , let us suppose , by Massachusetts . Now * we will take the Massachusetts law as announced
in its Digest , and we shall see one of the most illegitimate , barbarous and absurd provisions ever made for legal administration by intelligent men . Its only excuse or
justification is , that it was made very early m the century , before Masonry had become an extensive institution , and before the intricate and involved conditions in "which it
now exists , and must appear , for regulation and government , had been developed . Massachusetts says " a Lodge in another State , to which a Charter was granted by the Grand Lodge of
Massachusetts , at a time when there was no Grand Lodge organised in the former State , was rightfully and legally under the jurisdiction of this Grand Lodge , until the
formation and establishment of a Grand Lodge in the State where the Lodge is located . After that time the jurisdiction of this Grand Lodge ceased . "
And again , " where a Lodge was formerly rightfully under the jurisdiction of this Grand Lodge , in a State wherein no Grand Lodge had been established , and afterwards such a Graud Lodge was lawfully established therein ,
under the jurisdiction of which a majority of the members of the Lodge vote to place themselves , but a minority adhered to the jurisdiction of this Grand Lodge , both
retaining the original name under which the Lodge was chartered , it was held that the jurisdiction of this Grand Lodge over said Lodge was at an end . "
Massachusetts ( and other Grand Lodges are in the same category ) knows no way to legally manage this case , and preserve the Masonic status of the Masons whose affection for her is supreme and before all others , but like an
ungrateful ancl criminal mother casts them off from ber care . The more they love and respect , and prefer to have their Masonic life affiliated with hers , the more arbitrary and cruel ' . ' ' abandonment of them . She does not , will nofc
care for u ' o , ;; ' . ough they are her lawful children in every way : she wiii no ; recognise them , or give them any humane protection or guidance . She will not arrest and take away their charter , cancel their organisation as
opposed fco the new Grand Lodge , and receive them more immediately into her own bosom , and thus preserve to them Masonic character , right of visitation , and of being received in Masonic bodies as Masons in good ancl regular
standing , which she might do if she would , but makes them waifs , Masonic pariahs , illegitimates , nofc entitled to Masonic charity when living , nor to Masonic burial
when dead . Ancl why ? What have they done ? Loved her and preferred her , more than those who only cared for fchoui ^ elve-d , and nothing for hor . She leaves thorn in
Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software.
Hiram Lodge.
circumstances in which they may be placed , and the precarious and untenable position of subordinate Lodges , if the enunciated rules are to have universal sway , out
discussion must for a little widen beyond the question of any particular Lodge , and enter npon more general considerations . And , first , let us see how subordinate Lodges may be
situated nnder the laws given out for the formation of Grand Lodges .
A Grand Lodge may be formed in any independent State , or in any territory of a country that has been organised into a separate territory , and " it is not essential that it should be an independent and Sovereign State or
territory , but simply necessary that it be a separate and distinct State or territory . " And such legal Grand Lodges have been formed in the United States in Oregon ,
Washington , Minnesota , Kansas , Nebraska and other territories ) and , under the Government of Great Britain , in the Province of Canada and elsewhere .
Now in each of these territories , at any time before the institution of a Graud Lodge therein , the Grand Lodge of any foreign jurisdiction may warrant and establish subordinate Lodges that are legitimate , and equipped with all
the rights and privileges of subordinate Lodges anywhere Let the Grand Lodge of England have established , say in Washington Territory , U . S . A ., thirty Lodges , and
other Grand Lodges as many more . Now , any three of these Lodges " in active existence within the territorial limits , " may meet , and consent to form , and may form , a Grand Lodge for that territory .
This they can do without giving notice of their intention to the other subordinate Lodges , according to the Digest of American Masonic Law , although notice is recognised as the " just and seasonable thing" in such
cases to be done . And the only check which can be put upon ihem rests in their possible lack of recognition by other Grand Lodges , a matter that is , in these times , easily
managed , and of but little real consequence , whether given or not , except as its refusal may project upon the Fraternity a long and disgraceful Masonic contention .
More than that , if all were notified , it does not appear that the consent of a majority of the Lodges in the territory , or a majority of those represented , ia necessary to the formation of a Grand Lodge , but only the concurrent action of some three Lodges of them . These rules are laid down in these terms on the
sixteenth page of the Digest above referred to , the fullest and most complete in use . Three Lodges then have formed a Grand Lodge , surrendered their old charters , and received new ones from
the new Grand Lodge . Now , let us see what tbey can do ? Among the general powers of a Grand Lodge on page 22 ia this : " It has the power of erasing Lodges and expelling Brethren from the Craft , " and this ancl other general powers
are subject to one limitation only , and this is " Provided always that the old landmarks be carefully preserved ;" and then , as if to end and shut off all questions by negation as well as affirmation , it adds , " By this standard and
this only are we to measure the powers of a Grand Lodge . " The 57 Lodges in Washington Territory who did not enter into the Grand Lodge organization are therefore at once liable to expulsion , and the members of them to be
declared illegitimate Masons , not entitled to the courtesies of the Craft , whether of visitation , office , charity , or anything else . What is the condition of each of these 57 Lodges ? Illegal and excommunicate ? We answer ,
no , notwithstanding the enacted rules and laws of Grand Lodge Masonry . They do not apply or meet the circumstances . Ignorant Grand Masters , self-sufficient and pigheaded Grand Masters pronounce Grand Lodge rules , and
the unthinking , perhaps unnoticing mass of members , in the haste and superior interest of other matters , confirm them . Still . they do nob address themselves to the
intelligence or obedience of the Craft of these 57 Lodges , or of Masons generally . They have rights deeper , bx-oader , more fundamental than these . Their cases have not been
met by positive enactments of law , bufc by evasions , and makeshifts , and side-manccuvring . Yet the rules exist to be applied to some poor unfortunate Lodge or Lodges ,
"whenever their chance may come , and they fall into thc hands of passionate , designing men on the one hand , ancl easy , thoughtless men on the other .
Bnt how is the case better , if thirty-one , a majority of the Lodges , agree to form a Grand Lodge , and twenty-nine ^ ofuso ? Doubtless reco'mifciou would Follow at once noon
Hiram Lodge.
snch an organization , and without notice to the dissidents , though they be lawful Lodges , lawful Masons , and possessing every authority aud right which the consenting Lodges possessed . Bat they go to bed at night with
a membership scattered all over the world , lawful , honourable , upright Masons , and wake up in the morning to find themselves illegitimate , expelled , denounced , dishonoured .
Can this be so ? Is this law ? and law founded upon the equality of Masonic Brotherhood ? It is the possibility of action nnder existing enactments , and has formed some exemplifications in Masonic experience .
Assuredly there needs now , at this day , when the possibilities of these conditions are so large , so complex , some new announcements or agreements of law , which shall wisely regulate and preserve the rights of such
minorities , these 29 , or perhaps these 57 Lodges , and this extensive membership . And it is a disgrace to the intelligence of the Masonic Fraternity that it has not wisely
formulated the way and manner of such preservation . And it is too much to suppose that the intelligence of the Craft shall submit to the arbitrary enforcements of such laws . It might well beget discord , and rivalry and disgrace .
Now let us look at another thing and take a strong case . One Lodge in a territory does not consent to unite , or refuses to surrender its charter for the purposes of the union . Leaving other questions , which have elsewhere
been considered , it is held by almost , perhaps quite , universal law , that though the majority of a Lodge vote to surrender , yet so long as seven members refuse the charter
cannot be surrendered to any Grand Lodge , old or new . " If , " says the authority , " seven or more members refuse to give their consent , the charter cannot be surrendered , "
. . . and so says Massachusetts . But a new Grand Lodge is formed , . and this Lodge remains out , working and existing under a lawful charter , which it refuses to surrender , and granted , let us suppose , by Massachusetts . Now * we will take the Massachusetts law as announced
in its Digest , and we shall see one of the most illegitimate , barbarous and absurd provisions ever made for legal administration by intelligent men . Its only excuse or
justification is , that it was made very early m the century , before Masonry had become an extensive institution , and before the intricate and involved conditions in "which it
now exists , and must appear , for regulation and government , had been developed . Massachusetts says " a Lodge in another State , to which a Charter was granted by the Grand Lodge of
Massachusetts , at a time when there was no Grand Lodge organised in the former State , was rightfully and legally under the jurisdiction of this Grand Lodge , until the
formation and establishment of a Grand Lodge in the State where the Lodge is located . After that time the jurisdiction of this Grand Lodge ceased . "
And again , " where a Lodge was formerly rightfully under the jurisdiction of this Grand Lodge , in a State wherein no Grand Lodge had been established , and afterwards such a Graud Lodge was lawfully established therein ,
under the jurisdiction of which a majority of the members of the Lodge vote to place themselves , but a minority adhered to the jurisdiction of this Grand Lodge , both
retaining the original name under which the Lodge was chartered , it was held that the jurisdiction of this Grand Lodge over said Lodge was at an end . "
Massachusetts ( and other Grand Lodges are in the same category ) knows no way to legally manage this case , and preserve the Masonic status of the Masons whose affection for her is supreme and before all others , but like an
ungrateful ancl criminal mother casts them off from ber care . The more they love and respect , and prefer to have their Masonic life affiliated with hers , the more arbitrary and cruel ' . ' ' abandonment of them . She does not , will nofc
care for u ' o , ;; ' . ough they are her lawful children in every way : she wiii no ; recognise them , or give them any humane protection or guidance . She will not arrest and take away their charter , cancel their organisation as
opposed fco the new Grand Lodge , and receive them more immediately into her own bosom , and thus preserve to them Masonic character , right of visitation , and of being received in Masonic bodies as Masons in good ancl regular
standing , which she might do if she would , but makes them waifs , Masonic pariahs , illegitimates , nofc entitled to Masonic charity when living , nor to Masonic burial
when dead . Ancl why ? What have they done ? Loved her and preferred her , more than those who only cared for fchoui ^ elve-d , and nothing for hor . She leaves thorn in