Political Influences Of Masonry.

Avas an impossibility , yet , by common consent , the same object could be revoked . What could not be achieved by direct action could be done by indirection . We are unable to understand hoAV this difficult feat could be accomplished . What

might be done by common consent in one lodge , would be approved Avith all its forms by another . If we could conceive , which no Mason can do , that a lodge , by common consent , Avonld give its influence to tho republican party , we could also

conceive that in the same way , the next lodge might give in its adhesion to the democracy , and thus a struggle for the supremacy of party be established that would infallibly destroy the Order , and nine hundred and ninety-nine Masons , in

every thousand , would say it ought to have that effect . Thus it will be seen , that neither by direction nor by indirection can Masonry be

prostituted to the uses and benefits of a political party . It is very true that , should an invasion of our soil take place , that the Avrong Avould probably be so flagrant that all Masons would unite by voice ,

influence and act , in repelling it , because a Mason ' s first duty is to the government of his country ; but even in that case , it would be as citizens , and not as members of the Fraternity , that they would interfere . There would be no

meetings to discuss the propriety of any movement concerning it . Each member would judge for himself , and by that judgment he would be governed . According to his individual right , he would individually act , and whether that action be

right or Avrong , the institution of which he might chance to be a member , would be responsible . These are facts that cannot be successfully controverted .

But Ave are willing to admit that Masons do sometimes vote for each other in preference to those not Masons . We may go a step further , and say that they frequently vote for candidates for whom they Avould not vote , were they not

brethren of the same Fraternity . But iu this , they are no more a political body than a church is a political body . All other things being equal , a church member votes for his brother member Avhen he comes up for office , and it does not

derogate from the non-political character which Masonry has established , to say that Masons might very likely do the same , under the same circumstances .

The most staunch partisan forgives his political friend for voting for a political opponent , if that opponent be a father or a brother . He even allows his charity to extend still further , and looks with complacency upon a friend who votes for his

intimate friend of the opposite party . Masonry is a fraternal Institution , and its members are , or ought to be , friends . It would be singular , then , if they did not sometimes forget the claims of party in those of fraternity or friendship . In the lodge ,

and through the facilities which Masonry furnishes , they become acquainted ; they are friendS j they are brothers . These feelings of friendship and desire for each others' Avelfare , would naturally prompt friendly action . Hence Masons may

support each other for political offices . This is the theory . The practice is usually very different . Not oue Mason in ten—we do not believe one in

fifty , foregoes his party predihctions and votes for a brother who is his political opponent . We know that this is the fact . So the theoretical system aud the actual'practice are widely different . Thus , it will be seen that there is no immediate

or imminent danger that the members of the Masonic Institution will coalesce and form a political party , which shall be dangerous to the government , or to anybody else . Composed of men of all shades of politics , from the advocate

of kingcraft to the most tax-denouncing , it is impossible to assimilate the elements in a common mass that shall be identical Avith one of the principal ingredients . Each has his opinions on political subjects , and exercises the largest possible amount of liberty in supporting them .

but the lodge takes no cognizance of the matter . There is but one method that strikes us as promising any show of success to compel Masons to vote as a unit , in favour or against anything or any measure . Should a storm of persecution be

raised against the Order , and its members be ostracised because of their connection Avith it , should the time come when a person should be proscribed by the popular voice , or by a powerful party , and by them be denied the privilege of

holding office in consequence of being a Mason , in self-defence—in defence of an invariable privilege ' and of an undoubted right—every Mason should vote to sustain the right and privilege thus sought to be wrenched from him , even if by so doing he forgot for a time the party with which he had heretofore acted . Masons do not chal-