Correspondence.

CORRESPONDENCE .

We do not hold ourselves responsible for the opinions of our Correspondents . We cannot undertake to return rejected communications . All Letters must bear the name anl address of the Writer , not necessarily for publication , but as a guarantee of good faith .

ELECTIONEERING MORALITY .

To the Editor of the FREEMASON ' S CHRONICLE . DEAR SIR AND BROTHER , —There is no question bub you have clone quite right in drawing attention , in your article of last week on the above subject , to what , on the face of ifc , is a glaring departure from the most elementary principles of ordinary morality , to say nothing of fchafc higher and more complete code by whioh Masons aro

presumed to be governed . How any member of the London Masouic Charity Organisation could , in his sober senses , have suggested that , to use a mercantile phrase , its acceptance need nofc be honoured , and the votes lent to ifc by the Province of Norths and Hunts need not bo repaid , passes all belief . The late Bro . Edward Cox , it must be remembered , was merely the official representative of fcho Province .

In that capacity , ha lent its votes to tho London Association , whioh bound itself to repay them afc the election which took place last Monday week . There was nothing of a personal character about the transaction , and though , in consequence of his death , such votes as Bro . Cox himself may have possessed became null ancl void , or be it said rather , died with him , such a misfortune would only have affected

any association to which he had promised such personal votes . Yet it could nofc possibly affect the liability of any one else to repay votes lend by him six months previously . I think I shall be able to make thia more apparent by the following illustration . When a man who has a banking account dies , his bankers must decline to honour any of his cheques which may be presented after tho

day of his decease . If they did nofc do so , they would become liable to his executors or administrators for the amount of such cheques , and why ? Because they are no longer , as in his lifetime , the firm with which he had a banking account , but the custodians or trustees of his money , for which they are accountable to his representatives . Bufc thongh they must nofc pay away even tho

smallest fraction of the moneys he had lodged with them , that would not justify a third-. party in withholding payment of any sum he might have borrowed from the deceased . The only difference would he thafc the debt would become payable to the legal representatives of the latter . Perhaps , some will say the parallelism will not hold in this case , because the transaction was of a personal character .

Allowing this , merely for the sake of argument , I will put the case thus . A trustee who , in the exercise of the powers vested iu him , had lent ( say ) a Mr . Jones £ 100 , on certain conditions as to repayment , dies . Can it , for one moment , be suggested that Mr . Jones ' s obligation to refund such £ 100 in accordance with such conditions ceases on that account ? Again , when a man estimates tho value of his

property , he includes in such valuation all sums thafc may be due to him , but these do nofc cease to be a portion Of such property afc his death . In either case—thafc of the trustee who lent money to Mr . Jones , or the man who justly reckoned all sums owing to him as a parfc of his property—the obligation to repay , both legally and morally , remains , thongh the moneys must bo returned to the trust

fund or the estate . This , whether we regard the late Bro . Cox as having acted as trustee in the matter of the Boys' votes belonging to Norths and Hunts , or as having lent such votes on his own responsibility , or even the votes he was entitled to use in his individual capacity , is an accurate presentation of the circumstances as they stood at the time of his death . Whether , as was actually the case ,

the votes lent to the London Charity Organisation belonged to the Province before mentioned or to himself , the obligation to return them afc the election just terminated remained , and Bro . Terry , as Bro . Cox's duly accredited representative in the vote-trusteeship of Norths and Hunts , was justly entitled to receive and use them . ' I should think " -he Association , after vour exposure of its singular

notions of morality , must be heartily ashamed of itself , and I trust the London brethren who are not responsible for its administration , or who have not yefc joined it , will be chary of having anything further , or whatever , to do with it—at all events until they are completely satisfied that all such engagements as it contracted with the late Bro . Cox will be honourably and unhesitatingly fulfilled .

I remain , Dear Sir and Brother , Faithfully and fraternally yours , HONORIS CAUSA .

To the Editor of the FREEMASON ' S CHRONICLE . DEAR SIR AND BROTHER , —Permit me to supplement the account in your leader of 16 th October last , under the above heading , with the further information that the late Bro . Cox was a Past Senior Warden of the Province of Northamptonshire and Huntingdonshire , and also an active member of the Charity Committee organised in

this Province for the express object of superintending all matters connected with the various Masonic Charities . Bro . Cox was not , therefore , a "foreign agent , " but one of ourselves , deputed to manipulate the votes of the Province afc the time of the different elections , to the best of his judgment . It was with my own

knowledge and consent , on behalf of my brethren , that votes were loaned and borrowed from time to time , and lam sure , in the instance yon now refer to , had the obligations been the other way , the death of our lajte lamented Bro . Cox would not have prevented the other members of our Charity Committee fulfilling their moral or legal liability in such a matter .

Ar00301

Bro . Cox ' s death occurring a short timo before the Election , Bro . James Terry kindly undertook the charge of our votes , -o tern—but had any other member of tho Committee done so , 1 consider ho would have been equally justified in retaining the repaid voles , as they wero tho property , not of the individual , but of this Province , and

loaned through a member of its elected Charity Committee . No doubt diversity of opinion will arise upon tho questiun ; but should tho London Masonic Charity Organisation bo able to sustain thoir nonliability , Masonic morals will be rudely shaken , and the superfluous votes will be valid only by the aid of tho Civil Law . Yours fraternally , BrnxKu WILKINS , Dep . P . G . M . Norths aud Hunts .

The London Masonic Association.

THE LONDON MASONIC ASSOCIATION .

To the Editor of the FREEMASON ' S CHRONICLE . DEAR SIR AND BROTHER , —If your article on the Association is the manner in which yon , as a brother , pour oil npon troubled waters , God help the waters . Nobody can condemn moro heartily than I do the act of tho Association . Tho whole question lies in a nutshell . In tho first place , it should have been seen whether the

votes had been lout by tho late Bro . E . Cox on his own account , or as the representative of tho Northamptonshire and Ilnnfcs Association , and Bro . Tisley , as the SOCK . tary of tho London Masonic Association , should have asked Bro . Terry to show his authority for demanding the payment of tho IOC- but , once having parted with tho votes , ho , Bro . Tisley , should , if he consoicnciously thought ho had boon

wrong in giving thom up on insufficient grounds , either havo quietly suffered the consequences , or have requested the retnr'j on grounds totally different from that miserabl y lame and discreditable excuse , " that he was unaware of Bro . E . Cox ' s decease , and that , consequently , the liability was at an end . " Whilo not excusing Bro .

Tisley from his share of tho transaction , it would not be fair to allow Bro . Woodford P . G . C , the chairman of the Loudon Masonic Charity Association , at whose urgent solicitations tho unjust demand was made , to escape without having an equal , if not greater , part of tho blame to bear . I am , yours fraternally , V . P .

[ We agree with our correspondent that blame should bo attached to the right parties in this matter , ancl we fully understood that his statement as to the origin of tho demand was correct , but , being unable to show conclusively to our readers that snch was the case , we refrained from

mentioning it . At the same timo we would point out that , if Bro . Tisley accepts the role of " a mere puppet in the hands of a skilful manipulator , " ho must be answerable for the consequences . We insert our brother ' s letter , but we would offer one word of advice in doing so . We would

suggest he should prepare a sermon on " personality in Masonic correspondence . " His signature , " V . P ., " renders him well known to many , by whom he is justly respected but having shielded himself behind a nam cle ]) lume . , he must not be surprised if in future his influence is less appreciated . —En . E . G . ]

The Masonic Charities Of The United States.

THE MASONIC CHARITIES OF THE UNITED STATES .

To the Editor of the FREEMASON ' S CHRONICLE . DEAR SIR AND BROTHER , —I cannot but feel highly honoured afc finding myself associated with you in the article yon lately quoted from the Keystone . It seems thafc "the ignorance abroad , how . ever , " respecting the American Masonic Charitable Institutions , " appears to be profound . " Leaving you , who are quite competent

to defend the views you have expressed , respectfully out of the question for fcho present , allow mo to say that I am not particularly surprised at this . We frequently hear of Masonic parades , processions , and pilgrimages—I must apologise if , unintentionally , I have been alliterative—of thoir magnificent Masonic Temples , and the splendour generally of their Freemasonry of every degree , bufc

except from such occasional advocacy of American Masonry from a charitable point of view as that of Bro . W . J . Hughan , whose several letters do him infinite credit , and the Keystone ' s , it is only at intervals —which are as widely scattered as the plums in a workhouse puddingthat we ever are vouchsafed information as to the Asylums , & c , which have boon established by the Masons of the United States .

Bnt oven the chivalrous Hughan ancl fciio amiable Keystone are unablo to tell ns much moro than a few casual inquiries of onr own havo sufficed to ascertain , namely , that while the Masons of tho United States are a numerous and influential body—more numerous , I believe , than in any other country—and while there is much in their pursuit of thn Koyal Art of which they have every reason to be proud , their Masonic Institutions havo not kept pace with their undoubted

strength , both numerically and socially . I have not at hand the letter to you from which the Keystone has quoted , but allowing , for the sake of argument , that I have been guilty of the mistakes charged against me , the force of my argument , which full y harmonises with the opinions yon have expressed , remains untouched . I still hold that the broad fact of there being only four or five Institutions , the oldest of which dates back no further than 1852 , as against not