PETITIONS FOR NEW LODGEARS,

PRIVILEGES OF HONORARY MEMBERS,

Page

257

259

THE INEFFABLE DEGREES.-DR. DALCHO'S OPINION OF THEM,

260

MERCHANTS' EXCHANGE HOTEL,

Post Office Building, Boston,

KEPT BY

BROTHER FERDINANDO GORI,

BOARD ONE DOLLAR PER DAY.

MASTER MASONS' APRONS,

Having on them Masonic Flooring, can be had of F. A. HORSMAN, 77 Kilby street, printed on White Silk and Trimmed, at the low price of two dollars. Also a few Royal Arch Aprons, cheap. All orders, inclosing the cash, promptly attended to. July 1.

LETTERS

Received between the 24th May and 27th June.

REMITTANCE.-David Powell, St. John, N. B.-William A. McMillion, Houston, Miss.-John Oneto, Greensboro, Ala.-J. A. Noonan, Milwaukie, Wis. Ter.-H. P. Leonard, Sheffield, Ala.-C. W. James, Cincinnati, Ohio.-J. Bell, Steubenville, Ohio.-Benj. Carter, Monroe, Ind.-I. L. Moore, Clinton, Miss.-Wm. H. Stevens, Grenada, Miss.H. A. Miller, Mount Pleasant, Tenn.

BUSINESS.-Robt. G. Ranken, Wilmington, N. C.-Robert Gowan, Fredericton, N. B.-Lewis Bond, Tarborough, N. C.-E. L. Glassburn, Natchez, Miss.-W. W. Evans Auburn, Ala.-W. S Adamson, Charlotte, Tenn.-R. D. Jouro'mon, Knoxville, Tenn.J. W. Bachelder, La Fayette, Ala.-C. W. James, Mount Vernon, Ill.-Charles W. Dickson, Sydney, C. B.-Robert Punshon, Cincinnati, Ohio.-A. Case, Worcester, Mass.-F. Knowles, Corinna Centre, Maine.-A. W. Morris, Indianapolis, Ind.-J. J. Dotey, Richland, Miss.-William J. Armstrong, New Orleans, Lou.-A. J. Mackey, Charleston, S. C.-George Murrell, Hustonville, Ky.-J. W. W. Drake, Thomaston, Geo.-J. R. Golding, Bellefontaine, Miss.-Robert Thomas Crucefix, Gravesend, England.-M. Desfammes, Paris, France.-P. M. St. Louis, Mo.

Travelling Agents for the Magazine.-Israel E. James, Charles W. James, Henry R. Lewis, William H. Weld, James K. Whipple, O. H. P. Stem, Jno. B. Weld, J. S. James, Jas. Hammitt, B. B. Hussey, R. A. Henry, Thomas S. Waterman, Moses Meeker, James M. Smith, T. G. Smith, J. T. Dent, G. H. Comstock, and E. G. Jennings.

Dear Sir:-ABOUT twelve months since, several Brethren, members of St. John's Lodge, No. 1, of this place, petitioned the M. W. Grand Master, as their residence made it inconvenient to attend this Lodge, to grant them letters of dispensation to open a Lodge at Smithville. The dispensation was granted, and at the next communication of the Grand Lodge they were regularly chartered.

The Brethren did not come forward, settle up their dues and withdraw, as provided by our By-Laws, and as it seems to be a settled principle in Masonry, that a Brother should not be a member of two Lodges, the question now arisesAre the petitioning Brethren in fact members of this Lodge and subject to the usual quarterages levied upon members?

I have contended, that as the Brethren were signers of the petition and most of them created officers under the dispensation, and subsequently elected to office under the charter, and inasmuch as this Lodge formally recommend their creation into a new Lodge, that by the act of dispensation and the consent of this Lodge, thus obtained, the ties uniting them were severed.

Other Brethren, distinguished for their zeal in the cause, contend that they are not discharged until they withdraw in the usual way provided by our By-Lawsthus, as I think, bringing our local regulations in conflict with the solemn enactments of our Graud Lodge.

As I desire to be correct in every thing regarding Masonry, and kowing you to be in possession of "Lights" not within our reach, I have determined to appeal to you to ascertain your views on this subject.

Fraternally yours,

R. G. R.

The regulation applicable to the above case, provides, that "when a Lodge comes to be thus numerous," (to consist of more than forty or fifty members,) some of the ablest master workmen, and others under their direction, will obtain leave to separate, and apply to the Grand Lodge for a warrant to work by themselves." It would seem, therefore, that before a warrant, (or charter,) is asked of the Grand Lodge, the petitioners are required to obtain leave of the Lodge of which they are members, to separate from it. The manner of obtaining this leave is not defined by the Constitutions, but is left to the Lodge and the petitioners. It may be done

by personal application, by written communication, or, as in the above case, by the Brethren submitting their petition for the approbation of the Lodge; which, if obtained, carries with it, in our opinion, the required permission. It does not discharge them. It merely grants them leave to withdraw for a specific object, whenever they may find it necessary; or, in other words, when they have obtained their charter from the Grand Lodge.

In the case before us, the petitioners first received a dispensation from the Grand Master, authorising them to assemble and make Masons, but not investing them with the powers and privileges appertaining to a Lodge. Their association was a Lodge in a chrysalis state; the being a member of which was not incompatible with their position, nor did it exempt them from any of their liabilities, or deprive them of any of their privileges, as members of a constituted Lodge. They had not yet petitioned the Grand Lodge for a warrant of constitution. They had merely "obtained leave" of their Lodge "to separate" and do so, at the proper time. At the ensuing communication of the Grand Lodge, a charter or warrant was granted to them, and they were regularly constituted, as a Lodge in full and equal standing with the other Lodges under the jurisdiction. At this period, and not before, by virtue of the leave previously granted, their connection with their parent Lodge terminated, and they were no lon ger subject to any of its requirements, or entitled to any of its privileges. They had withdrawn from it, and become members of the new Lodge— having previously given notice of their intention, and received the requir ed permission. Up to this date, they were holden for their assessments and subject to the regulations of the Lodge from which they had then withdrawn. Their accounts should then have been made up and their names erased. It would have been proper and more agreeable to correct usage, for the withdrawing Brethren to have called on the Secretary, settled their accounts, and through him requested the Lodge to erase their names from the roll of members. But as they had previously obtained leave of the Lodge to withdraw, whenever they should procure a warrant for a new Lodge, (not a dispensation, for that does not confer the powers of a Lodge,) no further action, to their full discharge, by the Lodge, was necessary, nor by them, except the payment of any arrearages which might remain due at that time.

The conclusion of the whole matter is, then, if our views be correct, that the petitioners for the Lodge at Smithville, ceased to be members of St. John's Lodge, on the day they were constituted into a new Lodge. They are holden for arrearages to that time, but not for any subsequent period.

PRIVILEGES OF HONORARY MEMBERS.

A CORRESPONDENT at Clarksville, Tenn., writes as follows:

A question has been raised in one of the Lodges here in reference to the privileges conferred by honorary membership. I am disposed to believe that it confers no actual privileges, but is a mere expression of regard and esteem. If it does confer actual privileges and entitles a Brother to all the privileges of real members, then a Brother may be a member of many Lodges. I would be obliged to you for your opinion in the

case.

Our correspondent's views of the matter are not very different from our own, so far as they go. But they do not meet the whole inquiry. There are two classes of honorary memberships. The first includes those cases when distinguished Brethren, residing in foreign places, are made honorary members; and the second, those when Brethren are made honorary members of the Lodges with which they were by election previously affiliated.

The first is entirely complimentary. It confers no other privileges than those of visiting the Lodge at pleasure, of occupying a seat in the East, and of participating with the members in their social enjoyments, and in their private Lodge meetings, on more equal terms, than ordinary visitors. The Brother so complimented, is not required to sign the ByLaws of the Lodge, or to assume any of the liabilities or duties which they impose; neither is he entitled to any of the privileges conferred by them. He is not required to serve on committees, or to discharge any of the special duties to which actual members are liable; nor is he eligible for election to office.

This we understand to be the position in which, as a general rule, Brethren are placed by election to honorary membership in foreign. Lodges, or Lodges of which they were not previously actual members. Our Brethren in Paris have seen fit to elect us an honorary member of the principal Lodge in that city. But we do not, therefore, consider ourselves subject to any of its local regulations, or responsible for any of its proceedings; nor should we, if present, claim the right to participate in any of the special privileges guarantied to its actual members. There are, however, exceptions to this general rule. We are an honorary member of another Lodge, in which, by a special regulation in its By-Laws, we are entitled to all the privileges of actual membership, except those of holding office and voting on financial questions. But in this case, as in the former, we are not subject to any of the liabilities or responsibilities of the actual members.

The second class is also equally with the first, complimentary, and differs from it only in conferring certain exemptions without deducting from the

privileges of actual membership. It is usually conferred only on aged and faithful Brethren, who have sustained all the various offices of the Lodge, and discharged for a long series of years the arduous duties of member. ship. The election of such Brethren as honorary members of their own Lodge, exempts them from all obligation to unite in its labors, or to sustain any of its subsequent liabilities. They are not required to fill any of its offices, serve on committees, or to attend its meetings, often than may be convenient to themselves; neither are they subject to the payment of the annual assessments, except so far as to meet any capitation tax that may be imposed by the Grand Lodge. But these exemptions do not deprive them of any of the privileges with which they were previously invested as actual members. They are still eligible for office, may serve on committees, vote on all questions, enjoy all the privileges, and exercise all the rights of full membership. But all this is at their own option. Their Brethren, out of respect for their long services, elect them honorary members, and thereby exempt them from the labors, without depriving them of any of the privileges, of the Lodge. Were this otherwise, and honorary membership deprived a Brother of his privileges as an actual member, the recipient would hardly esteem the change either desirable or complimentary. The Lodge of which we are a member, has the following regulation in its By-Laws :

"Honorary Members. Any member, whose long and faithful services shall, in the opinion of a majority of the members present, entitle him to the consideration and gratitude of this Lodge, may be admitted an honorary member, but by so doing he shall not be deprived of any privilege he before enjoyed."

THE INEFFABLE DEGREES.-DR. DALCHO'S OPINION OF THEM.

A LEARNED antiquary and distinguished writer on Freemasonry, speaking of a certain tradition which is taught in one of the Ineffable Degrees, says, that "it has no foundation in the known history of the period," and he gives in corroboration of his assertion, an extract from one of Dr. Dalcho's Orations in the following words: "I candidly confess that I feel a very great deal of embarrassment while I am relating to the ministers of God's holy word, or to any other gentleman, a story founded on the gross est errors of accumulated ages, errors which they can prove to be such from the sacred pages of holy writ and from profane history," &c. I have examined the oration of Dr. Dalcho from which the above quotation is made, and find that the story he refers to is not told in the Ineffable or