Under The Black Flag.

moreover , thafc tho Masonic tie exists in one caso but not in another , let ; us suppose Bancroft ' . '* History of the United States to have been reprinted in England , and iho author to have found on the title-pnge an announcement that he had been " assisted " by Messrs . Brown , Jones , aud Robinson , of Londou , and to learn thafc tho edition would

be embellished with a variety of essays containing views that were wholly repugnant to him . Now I am altogether unaware of what Mr . T . 11 . Parvin will have to say about Templarism , or Mr . C ;* r . v * on about tho so-called " Scottish Rite , " bufc in my judgment ; neither of

the subjects is strictly Masonic , and from a pamphlet which has fallen in my way ( " The Two Systems , Autocracy or Representative" ) I do nofc hesitate to statu fchafc tho

latter writer is about tho last person iu the world that I should choose as the representative of my own views with regard fco tlie topic he has undertaken to treat under my implied authority .

Lastly , I submit thafc Messrs . Carson and Drummond should produce the evidence on which they assert thoy are justified in impugning tho conduct of fcho lato Mr . Jack ; and until they do so , I venture to think there will be no one to believe in its existence . Abuse is not argument , and

while I do not question in the least that tho two assistant p irates will resort freely to the former , I shall ask them nevertheless not to forget thafc thero is such a thing as the latter . Indeed , to aid them if possible in regaining their lost path , I will put a final question , which may be

of assistance to them . It is this : Did their patron , Mr . Yorston , relate to them , as being a fact , the " great big thumping lie" in which he asserts thafc ho offered to accept any terms which Jack might impose ; or was it subsequently invented in order to delude the public through the medium of the Masonic press ? : ¦

Hiram Lodge.

HIRAM LODGE .

Hiram Lodge F . AM . v . G . L . of Connecticut F . / i . M G . L . of Connecticut F . A . M . v . Hiram Lodge F . AM [ C OMMUNICATED . ]

THE relations between theso two bodies , aud fcho questions dependent , upon these relations , aro to be settled only by the facts which exist in the case , as they have bsen made and inherited b y the parties themselves , and by the

application to these facts of the princi ples of Masonic law . We are to remember that this discussion is limited to a period of actual history , aud that the parties themselves ,

npon the one side and the other , have formulated the facts of thafc history , with due care , and each side with a supreme regard fco fche besfc and most exact presentation of its will and purpose .

The well-established rule of all interpretation therefore is strictly and properly applicable to thorn , namely this , that the words , official votes , and acts of fcho different

parties , are to be taken and construed most strongly against the party whose words , votes , and acts they are ; and " presumptions" are allowable only as they aro in consonance with the results of such interpretation .

For example we do not know the social , the moral , the political or the Masonic considerations , which moved the Grand Lodge of Connecticut on the one hand , and Hiram Lodge on tbe other , to take a hundred years ao * o

the particular action which we find was taken . They , the men of the time and the occasion , did know ; they were in the presence of them , and felt their pressure , and their

action , such as ifc was , was taken—it could not have been otherwise—as the best adjustment they were capable of making of these considerations .

Ifc does not matter if subsequent events have proved the action unwise , and that something else would have been more desirable . This cannot change tho original fact , nor

justify any attempt now to pervert fche fact on the plea of motives which were not ori ginally operative . The record was made , and it must stand as their own besfc statement

of what they did , and proposed to do , and could do . Precisely tbe same thing is true of modem resolves , whether they be of new ancl original propositions , or are in

fact measures of compromise . The fact , with all its multifold motives , is in the record limited by it , and not to be changed from it . A strict adherence to these rules of interpretation is now

Hiram Lodge.

of tho greatest importance for the parties themselves , and for the general good of Freemasonry . For the parties themselves . We are to assume that they avo both honest in their respective positions , and mutually regret the unfortunate rupture .

The real facts between them are in their own hands ; are plain , narrow in compass , and easily understood . The trouble is a misapprehension of theso facts on the one side

or the other , and a wrong or injudicious action because of this misapprehension . The way of harmony is by the way of the discord along fche facts that are .

In this view we can only doprocato such comments as have been recently published relative to the continued existence oi this old Oxnard Charter , now held by Hiram Lodge . They " presume " it was permitted to be kept in

" possession as an heirloom . " But why presume ? Are nofc the facts here ? To presume is to guess . To presume is to make an advocate of the presinner , to defend what he has presumed ; and he is no longer an impartial investigator

or judge . Presumptions have led Masons and Masonry into many foolish and untenable positions . Volumes could hardly contain the baseless " presumings" that flood Masonic history . Their only legitimate uso is when

standing before an unrevealed stato of things , to act as hypotheses or working schemes , perhap as indicative testimony for the purpose of suggesting possible paths of investigation and study .

Bufc where the investigation is of facts , or into actual cognizable history , they have no legitimate office , and they were only to mutliply the possible issues , obscuring those that ought to be clear , and giving partizan obstinacy the weapons of an uglier and more enduring fight .

Besides , here are real issues to bo settled , in whose rig ht ; adjustment all Masons are interested , because they may establish the law for other cases that exist , but are not

yet , come to open rupture , and for still other cases thafc are liable to arise , and may be easily conceived , in the spread of Masonry to new states and empires .

Let us now , as dispassionate students ' , look at the evidence which the parties have made for themselves , and let the party that shall be found to be in the wrong abide fche judgment ; thafc must follow .

1 st . The Oxnard Charter , dated 12 th November 1750 , is an unquestioned document , having the authority to do and effect what ifc purported . Under its authorit y Hiram Lodge was legally constituted and had a full and authorised Masonic existence until the

formation of the Grand Lodge of Connecticut . And it has continued that existence down to the time of the present difficulty , at least .

On the other hand , the Grand Lodge of Connecticut was duly organised 8 th July 1789 , and has had a legal existence as such from that time to the present .

These are admitted facts in the controversy , and have no impeachment from any sources . 2 nd . The pivoted point of the discussion now is , the action had by the Grand Lodge and by Hiram Lodge , at ancl succeding the constitution of the Grand Lodge .

In the Grand Constitution of the Grand Lodge , adopted 8 th Jul y 1879 , was this provision : — " AU the Lodges in this State shall , before fche Annual

meeting in May next , deposit with the Grand Lodge their present charter , and shall receeive from the Grand Lodge new charters , which shall be numbered according to the seniority of their former charters . " Proc . 1789 , p 62 .

Notwithstanding this provision of the Grand Constitution , it was really only an Agreement of Regulations for the government and direction of all Lodges that should compose the Grand Lodge . Notwithstanding , I repeat ,

this provision of tbe Grand Constitution , Hiram Lodge did not consent ( and was nofc obliged to consent ) , but refused to give up their ( Oxnard ) Charter , and take the

proposed new Charter from the Graud Lodge ; and this alfchough fche Grand Master ancl Grand Secretary had been chosen from its membership .

Other pre-existing Lodges did surrender their old Charters , and accept in their stead Charters from the Grand Lodge . Hiram Lodge continued under its old Charter ancl regime , ancl at the same time , with this

exception , discharged all its duties under the Grand Lodge organisation . It were easy to " presume " why fchis was done , but we forbear , as it is not a fact proved . That

they did all their duties under the Grand Lodge affluently , is abundantly testified by the Grand Secretary in his historic presume of the Lodge , published j , with the Pro-