-
Articles/Ads
Article THE APPEAL OF BRO. JOHN LEE STEVENS ← Page 2 of 6 →
Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software.
The Appeal Of Bro. John Lee Stevens
lity of the Very Worshipful Grand Registrar ; but , as a much older Masonas one , he believed , much better read in the Book of Constitutions—he called on the learned Brother to point out any portion of the Masonic law which deprived the Grand Lodge of the power of inquiring into the facts of a case , when called upon to pronounce judgment upon those very facts . Brother HARRISON replied , that his two predecessors in office agreed with him entirely in the opinion he had expressed . It was quite clear the Board of General Purposes had alone the power of examining witnesses , and
deciding upon the evidence , as was seen from the whole tenor of article 5 , page 110— " The Board has authority to hear and determine all subjects of Masonic complaint or irregularity , respecting Lodges or individual Masons , when regularly brought before it , and generally to take cognizance of all matters relating to the Craft . It may proceed to suspension , admonition , or fine , according to the laws of the society ; and its decision shall he final , unless an appeal be made to the Grand Lodge , " & c . Brother STEVENS rejoined bobserving that the inion of the Grand
y op Registrars , present and past , was of no value unless it were based upon the Book of Constitutions . AVithout that it was mere assertion ; of no value in this case , whatever it might be in courts of law . He wished the Grand Registrar , in that Grand Lodge of Freemasons , to discuss the question according to Masonic principles , and Masonic law ; and he was sorry the Very AVorshipful Brother had not been fair enough to quote the Book of
Constitutions on the subject in question , that of appeal , as declared under the head " Of Appeals , " page 101— "As the Grand Lodge , when congregated , is a representation of every individual member of the Fraternity , it necessarily possesses a supreme superintending authority , and the power of finally deciding on every case which concerns the interest ofthe Craft . Any Lodge or Brother , therefore , who may feel aggrieved by the decision of any other Masonic authority or jurisdiction , may appeal to the Grand Lodye against such decsion , " & c . He ( Brother Stevens ) Was at issue with the Board of General
Purposes upon the facts , and he claimed the exercise of the " supreme superintending power" of the Grand Lodge to do him justice by examining the facts . If this were refused upon the special pleading of the Grand Registrars , of what use ivas an apipeal ? He contended , emphatically , that he had a positive right to have the disputed facts examined under any circumstances ; and that right had been tacitly conceded by the Board of General Purposes , in accepting the appeal upon that point , in these words— " That their decision is not supported by the evidence for the complainants , and is disproved
hythe evidence for the defence . " It had also been acquiesced in by the Grand Lodge then assembled , for the proceedings had been opened by reading the appeal containing that passage . And if his right to go into the facts had been questioned , it would have only common fairness , to say nothing of Masonic feelings , that tbe Board of General Purposes , or the Grand Secretary , should have intimated the doubt . As it was , they had , with the Grand Lodge , formally recognised the appeal , and it would be a positive denial of justice to reject any part , even if the Book of Constitutions were not in his favour .
Brother HARRISON again rose , but was interrupted with cries of " spoke , spoke . " The M . W . THE GRAND MASTER said , " That rule does not apply to my Grand Registrar . He has a right to reply to all arguments as they arise . " Brother PIARRISON then reiterated his opinions ; and whilst he admitted that there was no precedent in Freemasonry , contended that the case should be considered , by analogy with the law ofthe land . Brother SANGSTER was of opinion that Grand Lodge ought to be guided by common sense . That as the law in question gave an appeal against the decision of the Board of General Purposes , and that decision having been come to upon hearing evidence , of course Grand Lodge had the power of
Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software.
The Appeal Of Bro. John Lee Stevens
lity of the Very Worshipful Grand Registrar ; but , as a much older Masonas one , he believed , much better read in the Book of Constitutions—he called on the learned Brother to point out any portion of the Masonic law which deprived the Grand Lodge of the power of inquiring into the facts of a case , when called upon to pronounce judgment upon those very facts . Brother HARRISON replied , that his two predecessors in office agreed with him entirely in the opinion he had expressed . It was quite clear the Board of General Purposes had alone the power of examining witnesses , and
deciding upon the evidence , as was seen from the whole tenor of article 5 , page 110— " The Board has authority to hear and determine all subjects of Masonic complaint or irregularity , respecting Lodges or individual Masons , when regularly brought before it , and generally to take cognizance of all matters relating to the Craft . It may proceed to suspension , admonition , or fine , according to the laws of the society ; and its decision shall he final , unless an appeal be made to the Grand Lodge , " & c . Brother STEVENS rejoined bobserving that the inion of the Grand
y op Registrars , present and past , was of no value unless it were based upon the Book of Constitutions . AVithout that it was mere assertion ; of no value in this case , whatever it might be in courts of law . He wished the Grand Registrar , in that Grand Lodge of Freemasons , to discuss the question according to Masonic principles , and Masonic law ; and he was sorry the Very AVorshipful Brother had not been fair enough to quote the Book of
Constitutions on the subject in question , that of appeal , as declared under the head " Of Appeals , " page 101— "As the Grand Lodge , when congregated , is a representation of every individual member of the Fraternity , it necessarily possesses a supreme superintending authority , and the power of finally deciding on every case which concerns the interest ofthe Craft . Any Lodge or Brother , therefore , who may feel aggrieved by the decision of any other Masonic authority or jurisdiction , may appeal to the Grand Lodye against such decsion , " & c . He ( Brother Stevens ) Was at issue with the Board of General
Purposes upon the facts , and he claimed the exercise of the " supreme superintending power" of the Grand Lodge to do him justice by examining the facts . If this were refused upon the special pleading of the Grand Registrars , of what use ivas an apipeal ? He contended , emphatically , that he had a positive right to have the disputed facts examined under any circumstances ; and that right had been tacitly conceded by the Board of General Purposes , in accepting the appeal upon that point , in these words— " That their decision is not supported by the evidence for the complainants , and is disproved
hythe evidence for the defence . " It had also been acquiesced in by the Grand Lodge then assembled , for the proceedings had been opened by reading the appeal containing that passage . And if his right to go into the facts had been questioned , it would have only common fairness , to say nothing of Masonic feelings , that tbe Board of General Purposes , or the Grand Secretary , should have intimated the doubt . As it was , they had , with the Grand Lodge , formally recognised the appeal , and it would be a positive denial of justice to reject any part , even if the Book of Constitutions were not in his favour .
Brother HARRISON again rose , but was interrupted with cries of " spoke , spoke . " The M . W . THE GRAND MASTER said , " That rule does not apply to my Grand Registrar . He has a right to reply to all arguments as they arise . " Brother PIARRISON then reiterated his opinions ; and whilst he admitted that there was no precedent in Freemasonry , contended that the case should be considered , by analogy with the law ofthe land . Brother SANGSTER was of opinion that Grand Lodge ought to be guided by common sense . That as the law in question gave an appeal against the decision of the Board of General Purposes , and that decision having been come to upon hearing evidence , of course Grand Lodge had the power of