USA > Indiana > A history of freemasonry in Indiana from 1806 to 1898 > Part 12
Note: The text from this book was generated using artificial intelligence so there may be some errors. The full pages can be found on Archive.org (link on the Part 1 page).
Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5 | Part 6 | Part 7 | Part 8 | Part 9 | Part 10 | Part 11 | Part 12 | Part 13 | Part 14 | Part 15 | Part 16 | Part 17 | Part 18 | Part 19 | Part 20 | Part 21 | Part 22 | Part 23 | Part 24 | Part 25 | Part 26 | Part 27 | Part 28 | Part 29 | Part 30 | Part 31 | Part 32 | Part 33 | Part 34 | Part 35 | Part 36 | Part 37
In 1822 a brother was suspended for a period of six months. When the time expired he applied for admission to the lodge, and the Master refused to admit him. The brother appealed to the Grand Lodge, and the committee to whom the question was referred decided that the Master acted erroneously, and added this sensible conclusion, which was adopted:
"To shut the door of the lodge against a brother who has paid the forfeit of his offense by patiently submitting to the punishment is to punish him twice for the same offense, with aggravated marks of mortification and disgrace."
As stated, many lodges had been in the habit of suspend- ing members for non-payment of dues, merely by operation of their by-laws. To remedy this evil-for it was an evil- it was resolved by the Grand Lodge to be highly improper for any lodge to suspend or expel any member for the non- payment of dues without notice to the member charged, as in other cases of unmasonic conduct; and all lodges were instructed to expunge from their by-laws any article which might be found inconsistent with this provision.
140
HISTORY OF FREEMASONRY.
Shortly afterwards it was resolved that, when any mem- ber should thereafter be suspended, for any cause, from the privileges of the subordinate lodge, he should be deprived of all the privileges pertaining to a Mason in all the lodges in the State until reinstated.
About this time the Grand Lodge had gone so far in the criminal code as to adopt the following:
"Resolved, That an expulsion of a Royal Arch Mason from a Chapter be considered an expulsion from all the privileges of Masonry."
This regulation worked the expulsion of a Grand Master. The final decision in his case, however, resulted in the re- peal of the unjust rule and his restoration to membership in the Grand Lodge, from which the evidence showed he never ought to have been excluded.
Shortly after this unpleasant episode it was
"Resolved, That the Grand Lodge retain the exclusive power to restore expelled Masons upon such representations from subordinate lodges as may be satisfactory."
This was a slight concession to the subordinate lodges, giving them the right to recommend restoration.
In 1846 Grand Master Bartlett concurred in the opinion of another, that the Grand Lodge was the only proper tribunal to impose the penalty of expulsion. "A subor- dinate lodge tries the delinquent," he said, "and, if found guilty, expels him. But the sentence is of no force until the Grand Lodge, under whose jurisdiction it is working, has confirmed it. And it is optional with the Grand Lodge to do so; or, as is frequently done, to reverse the decision and reinstate the brother. Some of the lodges of this coun- try claim the right to expel independently of the action of the Grand Lodge, but the claim is not valid. The very fact that an expulsion is a penalty affecting the general re- lations of the punished party with the whole Fraternity proves that its exercise never could, with propriety, be in- trusted to a body so circumscribed in its authority as a subordinate lodge. It is too much the custom of lodges in this country to apply this remedy to cases neither deserving nor requiring its application. I allude particularly to ex-
141
HISTORY OF FREEMASONRY.
pulsion for non-payment of dues. The non-payment of dues is only a violation of a special and voluntary obliga- tion to a particular lodge, and not of any general duty to the Fraternity at large. The punishment, therefore, in- flicted should be one affecting the relations of the delin- quent with the particular lodge whose by-laws he has in- fringed, and not a general one affecting his relations to the whole Craft. Expulsion has this latter effect, and is there- fore inconsistent and unjust; and it is a punishment too often inflicted on poverty, and is unkind and uncharitable. A lodge might, as to non-payment of dues, forfeit or sus- pend the membership of the defaulter in his own lodge, but such suspension should not affect his right of visiting other lodges, nor of any of the other privileges inherent in him as a Mason."
The committee to whom the question of expulsion was referred stated "that it was their unanimous opinion that the right of expelling members is in the subordinate lodges," and a resolution to that effect was adopted.
At this session the Grand Lodge adopted, as a part of the Constitution, this provision :
"Reversing or abrogating the decision of a subordinate lodge suspending or expelling a brother shall not (notwith- standing it restores him to all the privileges of Masonry) restore him to membership in the lodge from which he was suspended or expelled, without its unanimous consent."
Another section read as follows:
"It requires the same unanimous vote to remove the or- der expelling or suspending a member of a lodge from the privileges of Masonry that is requisite for the admission of a candidate or new member."
Grand Master Rice in 1872 said: "I find a difference of opinion exists in regard to the penalty that should be in- flicted for the non-payment of dues, and in the absence of any established regulations upon the subject in this juris- diction, the practice in our lodges has not been the same in all cases. The nature of the offense is the same in one lodge as in another, and the penalty to be inflicted should be the same."
142
HISTORY OF FREEMASONRY.
The Committee on Jurisprudence, through Past Grand Master Hacker, reported that, "While it is the right and duty of the Grand Lodge to clearly define what penalty may be inflicted for Masonic offenses, we think it should be left with each subordinate lodge hearing the evidence to in- flict such penalty as in its judgment the nature of the case may demand. This is most certainly the chartered right of every lodge in this jurisdiction, and your committee very much doubt the propriety of interfering with these rights by legislation."
But in the revision which followed a few years later, Brother Rice's views were embodied in this section:
"Any member of a lodge who fails or refuses to pay his dues is subject to charges of unmasonic conduct, and, upon conviction thereof, may be indefinitely suspended from all the rights and privileges of the Fraternity."
This made the only penalty that could be inflicted for the non-payment of dues indefinite suspension, and the fol- lowing amendment in connection therewith was also adopted:
"The payment of all dues for which a member has been suspended will restore him to all the rights and privileges of membership, provided the failure to pay dues was the only charge found against such member."
This regulation was found very convenient for some members that were in no hurry about being restored. From the date of suspension no dnes could be charged, and when- ever the delinquent wished, for any cause, to be restored, if in a month, or ten years, all he had to do was to pay the amount for which he had been suspended to the secretary, take his receipt for the same, and, without asking any fa- vors of the members who had been paying dues and sup- porting the lodge during his suspension, he found himself, under this rule, a member in good standing, entitled to all the rights and privileges of that particular lodge and the Fraternity generally. And so it came to pass in 1893 that the rule was amended, providing if the dues for which a member was suspended were not paid within one year he could only be restored by payment of dues, a majority vote of the lodge, after reference to a committee at a previous meeting and report thereon.
143
HISTORY OF FREEMASONRY.
This is but a slight improvement on the original section. It only requires a majority vote of those present to restore him to membership, and that, ordinarily, is not very hard to secure; while a member indefinitely suspended for any other cause than the non-payment of dues, to be restored to membership, must first be restored to the condition of a non- affiliate by a majority vote. IIe is then furnished with a' certificate by the secretary stating the fact, which answers the purpose of a dimit, on which he can petition any lodge he choses, and, if elected by a unanimous vote, he becomes a member of that lodge.
The writer has never approved of this, as he believes, un- just manner of restoration. IIe always believed these cer- tificates were badges of dishonor, which, in reality, were adding an additional penalty to the one the guilty brother had already suffered.
If a suspended or expelled Mason is worthy of being re- stored to the condition of a non-affiliate, he is worthy to be restored to membership in the lodge by a majority vote, the same as the member is restored to membership for non-pay- ment of dues. There is no Masonic justice in making a dis- tinction between the member indefinitely suspended for the non-payment of dues and the member indefinitely sus- pended for any other cause. In each case the penalty is the same, and restoration should also be the same, and in both cases restoration should be to all the rights and privi- leges of Masonry, including membership in the lodge by a majority vote, the same vote that suspended him.
MASONIC JURISPRUDENCE.
F OR a period of forty years after the organization of the Grand Lodge all questions of law were decided by the Grand Master, subject to the approval of the Grand Lodge at each annual session. The Grand Lodge had no com- mittee on law or jurisprudence to whom disputed questions could be referred as now. On questions affecting the rules and regulations, and, in fact, on all questions which were considered of more than ordinary importance, the Grand Lodge resolved itself into a "Committee of the Whole," after the custom of Congress and the State Legislatures. Some brother would arise in his place and say: "Most Worshipful Grand Master, I move that the Grand Lodge now resolve itself into Committee of the Whole for the transaction of such business as may be presented," or nam- ing the business. The motion would be seconded, put and carried, the Grand Master would call the Grand Lodge to refreshment, the Deputy Grand Master, generally, would take his seat as chairman of the Committee of the Whole, and the business would be proceeded with. When the com- mittee arrived at a conclusion, a motion would be made that the committee rise and report. The Grand Master would then call the Grand Lodge from refreshment to labor. This done, the chairman of the Committee of the Whole would address the Grand Master and report the result of the com- mittee's action. A motion would be made to adopt the re- port, and, as the Grand Lodge was composed of the same members as the committee, it would, as a matter of course, be adopted.
This course of procedure took up a great deal of valuable time, and as the Grand Lodge became larger and larger from year to year, it gradually dawned upon the member- ship that some other and more expeditious manner of doing
(144)
145
HISTORY OF FREEMASONRY.
business ought to be adopted. So, at the session of the Grand Lodge in 1858, Grand Master Sol. D. Bayless rec- ommended the appointment of a Committee on Masonic Jurisprudence. The committee to whom this part of the address was referred most earnestly recommended the ap- pointment of such a committee as one of the standing com- mittees of the Grand Lodge, and added:
"We are forcibly impressed with the importance of such a committee. The experience of everyone will bear us out in the assertion that large deliberative bodies is not the place to revise the laws or determine questions of Masonic jurisprudence, and that all such matters would be more profitably referred to a committee for examination in de- tail, and be then submitted to the Grand Body for its con- sideration. Such a committee would, to a vast extent, pre- vent imperfect and hasty legislation, and save much time and labor to the Grand Lodge."
They then recommended the following resolution, which was adopted by a unanimous vote of the Grand Lodge:
"Resolved, That a committee of three be appointed, as a standing committee, to whom shall be referred all questions of Masonic jurisprudence submitted to the Grand Lodge."
The Grand Master thereupon appointed the following as such committee: E. W. H. Ellis, of Goshen; Alexander C. Downey, of Rising Sun, and J. C. Applegate, of Delphi.
For a number of years afterwards the committee was composed of three, but gradually Grand Masters began to exercise their "prerogative," and on several occasions all the Past Grand Masters present that were not on some other prominent committee were added to the Committee on Ma- sonic Jurisprudence.
The committee from that date (1858) to the present time has been composed of the following eminent brethren:
1858-E. W. H. Ellis, Alexander C. Downey and J. C. Applegate. 1859-E. W. H. Ellis. C. Case and L. Sexton.
1860-H. G. Hazelrigg, William N. Dougherty and John B. Fravel. 1861-T. R. Austin, L. B. Stockton and Chauncy Carter.
1862-William Hacker, Thomas Jay and Thomas J. Snodgrass.
1863-William Hacker, Ebenezer Malone and Leonidas Sexton.
1864-H. G. Hazelrigg. A. C. Downey and John B. Fravel.
1865-H. G. Hazelrigg, Thomas R. Austin and Linden A. Smith.
1
146
HISTORY OF FREEMASONRY.
1866-Sol. D. Bayless, Alex. C. Downey and William Hacker. 1867-Alexander C. Downey, Thomas Pattison and Eden H. Davis. 1868-William Hacker, Phillip Mason and Mahlon D. Manson.
1869-Isaac M. Stackhouse, O. H. Main and Albert Hayward.
1870-Harvey G. Hazelrigg, Isaac M. Stackhouse and E. G. Mc- Collum.
1871-Harvey G. Hazelrigg. William Hacker and Geo. W. Porter. 1872-William Hacker, II. G. Hazelrigg and E. W. H. Ellis.
1873-II. G. Hazelrigg. John Caven, M. D. Manson, L. A. Foote and Frank S. Devol.
1874-Martin H. Rice, H. G. Hazelrigg, William Hacker, Daniel McDonald and William G. Piper.
1875-Daniel McDonald, William Hacker, William G. Piper, F. S. Devol and William M. Davis.
1876-William Hacker, Albert P. Charles, Charles H. Smith, Henry G. Thayer and S. T. Williams.
1877-HI. G. Hazelrigg. William Hacker, Chris. Fetta, L. A. Foote and Daniel McDonald.
1STS-Daniel McDonald. M. H. Rice, Christian Fetta, William Hacker and Frank S. Devol.
1879-Daniel McDonald. Martin H. Rice, William Hacker, Chris- tian Fetta and A. J. Hay.
1SSO-William Hacker, Martin H. Rice, Lucien A. Foote, Daniel McDonald and Andrew J. Hay.
1SS1-2-William Hacker, Martin H. Rice. Christian Fetta. Lucien A. Foote, Daniel McDonald, Frank S. Devol, Andrew J. Hay. Robert Van Valzah and B. S. Sutton.
1SS3-4-William Hacker, Martin H. Rice, Calvin W. Prather, Dan- iel McDonald. Lucien A. Foote and Andrew J. Hay.
1SS5-6-William Hacker. Martin H. Rice, Calvin W. Prather and Lucien A. Foote.
1887-S-William Hacker, Martin H. Rice, Albert P. Charles, Calvin W. Prather and Lucien A. Foote.
1SS9-William Hacker, Daniel McDonald. Mortimer Nye, Calvin W. Prather and Bruce Carr.
1890-William Hacker, Martin H. Rice, Mortimer Nye, Andrew J. Hay, Daniel McDonald, Bellamy S. Sutton and Bruce. C'arr.
1591-William Hacker, Bruce Carr. Thomas B. Long, Mortimer Nye, Daniel McDonald, Andrew J. Hay, Bellamy S. Sut- ton and Calvin W. Prather.
1502-Mortimer Nye. Jacob J. Todd and Bruce Carr.
1593-Mortimer Nye, Nicholas R. Ruckle, Calvin W. Prather, B. S. Sutton and Chris. Fetta.
1404-Thomas B. Long, Jacob J. Todd, Nicholas R. Ruckle, Daniel McDonald, Christian Fetta and Calvin W. Prather.
1595-Nicholas R. Ruckle, Daniel Noyes, Justin N. Study, Daniel McDonald, Christian Fetta and Calvin W. Prather.
147
HISTORY OF FREEMASONRY.
1896-Frank E. Gavin, Nicholas R. Ruckle, Christian Fetta, Calvin W. Prather and Thomas B. Long.
1897-Thomas B. Long, Sidney W. Douglas, Edward O'Rourke, Bellamy S. Sutton and Calvin W. Prather.
1898-Nicholas R. Ruckle, Chairman.
As will be seen from the following table, there have been but thirteen chairmen of the committee during the forty years since its appointment was authorized. Their names are as follows, with the years they served as chairmen ap- pended :
E. W. H. Ellis, 1858-9.
H. G. Hazelrigg, 1860-4-5, 1870-1-3-7.
Thomas R. Austin, 1861.
William Hacker, 1862-3-S, 1872-6, 1880-1-2-3-4-5-6-7-8-9, 1890-1.
Sol. D. Bayless, 1866.
Alexander C. Downey, 1867.
Isaac M. Stackhouse, 1869.
Martin H. Rice, 1874. Daniel McDonald, 1875-8-9.
Mortimer Nye, 1892-3. Thomas B. Long, 1894-7.
Nicholas R. Ruckle. 1895-S.
Frank E. Gavin, 1896.
The record shows that William Hacker served as chair- man seventeen years, but between 1881 and 1888 there was but one meeting of the Grand Lodge every two years, so that his actual service as chairman was thirteen years.
The wisdom of creating the Committee on Masonic Juris- prudence was fully demonstrated at once. As a rule, the members of the committee have been composed of those who were experienced in the general workings of the Insti- tution, and who had only the welfare of the Craft in view. The committee has not always been unanimous in the de- cision of the questions referred to it, and a few times in its history minority reports have been made, and it has oc- curred more than once that the minority reports have been adopted, whether correctly or not is a question unnecessary to be discussed here.
The question of changing the ballot for the admission of candidates to the three degrees from a separate unanimous ballot for each degree to one unanimous ballot for all three degrees was a question upon which there was a majority and
148
HISTORY OF FREEMASONRY.
minority report. The majority report favored the change to one ballot for all three degrees; the minority report fa- vored postponement for one year for more mature delibera- tion, but a majority favored immediate action, and the change was made. Up to that time (1880) the question had not been agitated, and would not have been presented then had it not been for a difficulty which grew up in one of the lodges of the State caused by blackballing candidates for advancement.
Whether it is always safe to change a long-standing law or regulation, just because of a disturbance in a single lodge, is a question concerning which much might be said pro and con. In this particular case the change has worked well, and the question is settled, probably, for all time to come, that in Indiana there will never be but one ballot for the three degrees, and it will continue to be unanimous.
In this country the unanimity of the ballot has never been seriously questioned, but in some foreign Grand Lodges, as England, Ireland and Scotland, this rule is not always adhered to. In some of these, if there are not more than three black balls, in others two, and in still others one black ball, appears against the candidate, he is not thereby rejected. In America, however, the rule has always been if one black ball appears against the applicant he is declared rejected. And there can be no doubt as to the wisdom of this regulation. The perpetuity of the Institution depends on the unanimity of its action in the admission of candi- dates, and the entire secrecy of the ballot. It is for this reason that a box is used containing black and white balls, so that the member voting can deposit a black ball, which means rejection, without the candidates or any of his friends or anyone else being able to ascertain who cast the unfavor- able ballot, and thus create ill feeling in the lodge. It was for the purpose of preserving this secrecy and protecting every member of a lodge in his rights that the viva voce vote, or a vote by written ballot, or by ayes and nays, was not adopted in the admission of members.
Another case in which the committee divided, making a majority and minority report, was on a decision of Grand
149
HISTORY OF FREEMASONRY.
Master Noyes, 1894. An English clergyman, a mission- ary, who had resided in the State for six months, petitioned for the degrees. The Grand Master ruled that before the lodge could receive his petition the petitioner must become a citizen of the United States, or at least have declared his intention to become such. A majority of the committee reported in favor of approving the decision of the Grand Master, while the minority made an adverse report, which was adopted. The adoption of the minority report estab- lishes the ruling that, in Indiana, a candidate, to be eligible to receive the degrees, has only to reside or sojourn six months in the jurisdiction. The reasoning of the minority report was that at the end of six months the "sojourner" became "a resident." (See Proceedings 1894, page 99.)
At the annual session of the Grand Lodge in 1895 the committee divided on a ruling of the Grand Master as to the proper mode of finding guilty and affixing the penalty in a case of non-payment of dues. A majority of the com- mittee reported adversely to the ruling of the Grand Mas- ter. The minority report sustained the ruling, and was adopted. (See pages 118, 119.)
. As a general rule, the committee has shown a disposition to sustain the Grand Masters where the action would not materially affect the law, it being considered somewhat dis- courteous to report adversely against his rulings when it could be avoided. Two or three instances are known where adverse reports and failure to sustain the decisions were considered as a reflection on the Masonic knowledge of the Grand Master. But it is fair to presume that no such thought entered the minds of the committee or the members of the Grand Lodge. Undoubtedly, all in any way con- nected with making the laws act from the highest motives, without being influenced by fear, favor or affection, and surely without intending to wound the feelings of anyone.
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN CORRESPONDENCE.
O NE of the most important committees of the Grand Lodge is the Committee on Foreign Correspondence -at least it was such during the first half century of its ex- istence. At that time the jurisdiction of Grand Lodges was not clearly defined, and complications, sometimes seri- ous, were constantly occurring, requiring intelligent and delicate treatment. The first few years questions of this nature were referred to special committees as the occasion required. In 1825 the importance of the committee had become so apparent that the Constitution was so amended as to provide for "a committee of three members on Foreign Communications." The first chairman of the committee appointed under this regulation was James Whitcomb, of Bloomington, afterwards Governor of Indiana and United States Senator. Indiana has produced few men who have stood higher in all the walks of life than James Whitcomb. He was born near Windsor, Vermont, December 1, 1795. After graduating in Transylvania University, he located about 1822 at Bloomington and began the practice of law, and was shortly afterwards appointed prosecuting attorney. In 1830 he was elected to the State Senate, and re-elected in 1833. In 1836 President Jackson appointed him Com- missioner of the General Land Office. In 1843 he was elected Governor on the Democratic ticket over Governor Bigger, and was re-elected in 1846 over Joseph G. Mar- shall, the Whig candidate. In 1849 he was elected to the Senate of the United States, and died of gravel while hold- ing that office, in 1852.
In 1543 he wrote a remarkable pamphlet, entitled "Facts for the People," the most effective treatise against the pro- tective system ever written. In many political campaigns since that time it has been reproduced and given wide cir-
(150)
151
HISTORY OF FREEMASONRY.
culation, and during the discussion of the Mills tariff bill in Congress, in 1888, Congressman Bynum, of Indiana, inter- jected it as a part of his speech, and secured its publication in the Congressional Record. In speaking of this docu- ment the Indianapolis Sentinel said it had "no hesitancy in recommending the widest possible circulation of this re- markable production by one of the most remarkable men that was ever connected with public affairs in Indiana. Governor Whitcomb was an intellectual giant. He was a man of lofty integrity. He was sans peur et sans reproche. He was a man of the people. His colossal mind grasped every problem of statecraft and mastered it. No question was too occult for his analytical powers. In the crucible of his reasoning faculties the pure gold of fact was brought forth from the dross of fiction. Sophisms were exposed, duplicity was throttled, subterfuges were swept away, and plain people were permitted to comprehend the most intri- cate questions relating to their welfare."
Governor Whitcomb was a devout member of the Meth- odist denomination, and at the time of his death was presi- dent of the American Bible Society. He left his library to Asbury University.
Oliver II. Smith, who knew him well for years, in his "Early Indiana Trials," speaks of him as follows: "Gov- ernor Whitcomb was about medium size, dark complexion, black hair and eyes, good features, wide mouth, eyes prom- inent, his hair nicely combed slick on his head and well per- fumed. He was a fine scholar, had a mind of a high order, well matured and disciplined."
Need help finding more records? Try our genealogical records directory which has more than 1 million sources to help you more easily locate the available records.