we are not aware that they differ essentially from the regulations of other European Grand Lodges,-most of which have, to a very considerable extent, granted Charters for such Lodges. How far they are applicable to this country, our correspondent is well qualified to determine. There are not, to our knowledge, any Lodges attached to the American army; or there were none, until our correspondent issued his Dispensation for one to be held in the volunteer corps from Kentucky. Nor are there any special regulations in the general Constitutions, or the local Constitutions of the States, providing for their existence or government. The regulations, therefore, as they exist in the Constitutions of the Grand Lodge of England, being in conformity with the practices of the other Grand Lodges in Europe, are to be received as the general usage of the Fraternity, until different regulations shall have been adopted, or a different usage obtain in the Grand Lodges of America. General usage is the common law of the Fraternity, and by it all cases, not regulated by statute law, must be decided. If this proposition be admitted, then it is only necessary for us to inquire, whether the course pursued by our correspondent, in granting a Dispensation for a Lodge to be held in the volunteer corps from Kentucky, was in conformity with the usage, as indicated by the regulations of the Grand Lodge of England? This is to be decided by the terms of the Dispensation. In the absence of which, our correspondent informs us that he has restricted the operations of the Lodge to the volunteers from his own State. This being true, we cannot perceive but that he stands fully justified by the usage, and by the regulations of the Fraternity, so far as any regulations on the subject exist.

We have said that there are no Lodges attached to the American army. This is true; but it has not always been so. As early as 1738, a Dispensation was granted by the Grand Lodge of Massachusetts, to R. W. Abraham Savage, "to congregate all Free and Accepted Masons in the expedition intended against Canada, at Lake George, or elsewhere, into one or more Lodges, as he shall think fit." In the same year, a Dispensation was granted by the same Grand Lodge, for a Lodge in "His Majesty's 28th (English) regiment, stationed at Louisburg." In 1756, the M. W. JEREMY GRIDLEY, Esq. Grand Master of the Grand Lodge of Massachusetts, commissioned his Brother, the R. W. Richard Gridley, "to congregate all Free and Accepted Masons in the present expedition against Crown Point, and form them into one or more Lodges, as he shall think fit, and to appoint Wardens and other officers to a Lodge appertaining." In 1:79, the Grand Lodge of Pennsylvania, granted a Warrant to Col. Proctor, of the artillery, then stationed at Tioga Point, to hold in the camp a "movable Lodge." In the same year, the Grand Lodge of Massachusetts, granted a Charter to Gen. Patterson, and others, to hold

a

"travelling Lodge" in the American army, called "WASHINGTON LODGE." Other cases might be cited; but these are sufficient to show that the establishment of Military Lodges is not inconsistent with the practices of Freemasonry in this country. Their utility in softening the rough features of the soldier's character, and in meliorating the evil passions and morose feelings, which are almost necessarily excited by the duties of the field and the operations of war, are beautifully and touchingly illustrated by well authenticated anecdotes. And we doubt if the Grand Lodges can do a better service, or more surely and acceptably promote the cause of humanity, in the time of war especially, than by the establishment of a well regulated Lodge, in every regiment raised by volunteers or enlistment. The question of Grand Lodge jurisdiction, in such cases, is out of place. The army belongs to the country-its home is where duty calls. There let the beneficent genius of Freemasonry preside over it, soothing the sufferings of the afflicted, inculcating kindness and humanity in the superior, and obedience and respect in the subordinate-and in both, sympathy and compassion for the unfortunate, whether friends or foes. Let us not stop to inquire whether the regiment to which the Brethren petitioning for a Lodge are attached, may be stationed for a few days or a few months in this or that State. Such an inquiry would forever exclude Lodges from the army. It would be hazardous for any Grand Lodge to authorize them, lest the regiment, in the discharge of its duty, and in obedience to orders, should leave the State, and take up its quarters within the jurisdiction of a sister Grand Lodge. The thing is absurd. Military Lodges are "travelling Lodges." They have never been regarded in any other light, at any time or in any part of the world. This is their nature, it cannot be changed without destroying them. Let their operations be restricted to the regiment to which they are attached, and it is impossible that they can "invade the rights and privile ges" of any Grand Lodge whatever. Jurisdiction over sojourners, is a claim which the Grand Lodges in this country are not generally disposed to assume for themselves or concede to each other. In the particular case under consideration, the regiment is wholly composed of citizens of Kentucky. While they remain such, a Lodge under a foreign jurisdiction, would not be at liberty to entertain their applications for initiation, if presented. Their admission, therefore, in the Lodge attached to the regi ment, cannot properly interfere with or invade the rights of any Grand Lodge whatever; for, under the practice which, in this country, has become the settled usage, none other than the Grand Lodge of Kentucky or its subordinates, can rightfully exercise jurisdiction over the persons composing the regiment..

EXPULSION OF MEMBERS FOR THE NONPAYMENT OF LODGE DUES.

BR. MOORE:-I promised to say a word upon a subject upon which I differ from you and the Grand Lodge of Mississippi, "the expulsion of Masons for the non-payment of Lodge dues." It is held by you and that body, that a Lodge has not the right to expel a member from the benefits of Masonry for non-payment of dues. Some of our Brethren have even gone so far as to say, and indeed, one of our Lodges has acted under that supposition, that a Lodge can only suspend from membership, and not from the benefits of Masonry, for such a cause. If the Brother is unable to pay without inconvenience to himself and family, I agree with you, and will even go farther and say, that when such is the case, the Lodge ought not to suspend even from membership; but should remit the amount cheerfully to the debtor; for it is not intended that Masonry should injure any one. Such indeed is the course of the Lodge of which I am a inember. If we even suspect that it would incommode a Brother to pay his dues, they are remitted to him without any petition from him and without his knowledge at the time. Of course, we cannot prevent his being acquainted with the fact subsequently. But if a Brother, whom the Lodge supposes to be able to pay, does not apply for a remission of dues or for time, and neglects to pay for six months, we suspend him from the benefits of Masonry; and if he will not pay, being able, we hold that we have the right, and that it would be our duty, to expel him from all the benefits of Masonry. It is true that a Lodge by their By-laws may at discretion, make the penalty less for violating those By-laws, but when the penalty is left open, we hold that continued contumacy, would be a violation of a well known duty, which he has voluntarily assumed, viz: that of abiding by the By-laws of the Lodge. We hold that it is as much of a crime to cheat, wrong or defraud, a Lodge, as it would be, a neighbor; and if we would expel for the latter, we think we have a right to expel for the former crime. And we think, if a Brother has promised to pay the Lodge annual dues, (and surely the consideration for that promise is ample,) and can pay, without inconvenience to himself or family, but obstinately and wilfully refuses, that he does cheat, wrong and defraud the Lodge, and therefore deserves to be and ought to be expelled; for if he will defraud one Lodge, he will other Lodges; and if other Lodges, then Brethren of the household, as well as those not of the Fraternity. Q. E. D.

Our correspondent has presented his case well and forcibly; but we apprehend that he has overlooked the main point in the argument. candidate for the degrees is not, by the mere ceremony of his initiation into the Fraternity, admitted to membership in any particular Lodge. That is a subsequent transaction-a new and independent compact with a certain number of his Brethren, who have voluntarily associated themselves together, under new and particular regulations, for certain specified purposes. The two transactions have no other necessary connection, than that admission into the former is an essential qualification for admission into the latter. The former is governed by the general laws of the Craft -the latter, by conventional regulations. We maintain that the rights acquired through the first, cannot be impaired by the mere non-fulfillment of the conditions of the second. A foreigner is made a citizen of the United States, by the laws of naturalization; but he is not thereby invested with the privileges of municipal citizenship. They are acquired in another way, and are subject to other conditions. He may also forfeit his privi

leges as a citizen of a municipality, and yet exercise his rights, and claim protection, as a citizen of the United States. But the converse of this proposition does not hold. If he forfeit his rights as a citizen of the United States, his municipal privileges are also forfeited; because, the condition on which he acquired and held them, no longer exists. And this is the distinction we would make between the members of the Masonic community, as a whole, and the members of a private Lodge.

A Lodge, in introducing an individual into Masonry, acts by authority of the Grand Lodge, to which it is subordinate, and for the Fraternity at large. The regulations which govern its proceedings in this respect, are the general regulations of the Craft, usually denominated the "Ancient Constitutions." They are the original and fundamental laws of the Fraternity, and may not properly be changed by either Grand or subordinate Lodges. If our correspondent can point to a single sentence in these regulations, which authorizes or justifies the expulsion of a Brother for the non-fulfillment of a private contract, and in the absence of evidence of intentional fraud, such as would be admissible in judicial proceedings, we will cheerfully yield to him all that he claims.

To wrong or cheat a Brother, or a Lodge, maliciously and wickedly, would, undoubtedly, if proved on trial, constitute cause for expulsion. But the failure to fulfill the conditions of a contract, or the mere refusal to do so, would not at law, and ought not Masonically, to imply fraud; for it may proceed from causes which, if explained, would exonerate the delinquent from injurious imputation. The failure to perform any of the conditions, would legally be a violation of a civil contract, so far as to release the opposite party from his obligations, and generally entitle him to bring an action for damages, if any were sustained; but it would not enable him to maintain criminal proceedings against the delinquent. If a member fail to pay his assessments, he breaks his contract, and the Lodge brings an action for damages; which may result in the discharge of the delinquent from his membership, and a release of the Lodge from its special obligations to him. But before a criminal action can be brought, there must be evidence of manifest and intentional fraud. This evidence is not furnished by, nor is it to be inferred from, the mere neglect or refusal to fulfill the contract. Were an opposite rule to obtain, every man in the community, who should fail to fulfill his pecuniary obligations, would be liable to indictment as a criminal. We cannot, therefore, admit that the charge of non-payment of dues, imports, of itself, anything more than the non-fulfillment of a pecuniary contract; which offence, the delinquent may, with the best and purest intentions, be compelled, by pecuniary embarrassment, to commit. There may be cases where occurrences grow. ing out of the non-payment of dues, might render expulsion right and

justifiable. Contumacy in the discharge of any Masonic duty, if attended with bad passions and base and unmasonic actions, would probably be a proper subject for Masonic discipline.

We cannot subscribe to the views of our correspondent, as respects the intention of the particular clause to which he refers. We are inclined to give to it a broader and more general construction than he is disposed to do. It is not a universal provision, if it exist anywhere out of this country. It was, probably, originally intended as an embodiment of one of the old charges, regulating the ordinary business transactions between Brethren of the Fraternity. We believe we are authorized in this construction by the fact, that it did not originally contain any reference whatever to the Lodge. It was broad and general as the charges themselves. The evidence of this is in our possession. It is important only as showing that it did not originally contemplate the relation of Lodge membership, but the more general relation of confraternity. This being true, it follows that any action which may then have been had under it, must have been instituted upon a broad or specific charge-affecting general character-or, a particular transaction. In either case, specifications must have been required-the hearing had-judgment rendered, and sentence announced and confirmed, before punishment. We apprehend that no such proceedings take place at the present time, in the expulsion of members for the non-payment of Lodge dues. But it is perfectly manifest to our mind, that expulsion, for any cause, without such proceedings, is unwarrantable.

One word as to the By-laws of a Lodge. They are both general and particular. The engagement to abide by them, is, in the first instance, a general one. So far as the By-laws conform to the regulations of the Grand Lodge and the general regulations of Masonry, it is obligatory; but when they militate against either, it is not; because a prior and superior obligation to the contrary exists. If a Lodge incorporate into its Bylaws, a provision inconsistent with the general regulations of the Craft, or the particular regulations of the Grand Lodge, it transcends its powers; and any action had under such provision, would be nugatory. So, if a Lodge expel from Masonry, for a cause not recognized as an offence by the general regulations, the expulsion cannot stand; because, the of fence does not involve any violation of the original conditions on which admission into the Fraternity was obtained. We will illustrate. A Lodge may require, by its By-laws, that its members shall not only abstain from the use of intoxicating drinks, but that they shall not traffic in them, nor fellowship with those who do traffic in them. A violation of this regulation, would exclude a member from the Lodge; because, it was one of the conditions on which he was admitted to membership; and "every Lodge