Dear Sir-Having a very high regard for your knowledge and information in Masonic Jurisprudence, I have concluded to ask your opinion touching the following matter:-I had a petition from a competent number of worthy Brother Master Masons of this State, volunteers in the service of their country for the seat of war in Texas or Mexico, as the case may be, praying for a Dispensation for a Lodge to be attached to the army. After due deliberation, I concluded it would in no wise invade the rights and privileges of our sister Grand Lodges, and that there could be no impropriety in granting their petition, which I accordingly did, restricting their operations to the volunteers of Kentucky, alone. Since this, I learn that some of our worthy Brothers, for whose opinions I have great respect, differ with me, and think that in granting this Dispensation, I have transcended my power as Grand Master. Will you oblige me by giving me your views touching this matter? WILLIAM HOLLOWAY. The existence of Military, or Army Lodges, may be traced to a very remote period in Masonic history. Prior to the last century, they were created by the same authority, possessed the same powers, and were subject to the same regulations, as civil or local Lodges. Specific Charters from Grand Lodges, were not then required. Lodges, whether civil or military, were formed and held by inherent right, and were subject only to the ancient constitutions, charges, and regulations, and such special ordinances as were promulgated at the occasional" General Assemblies" of the Fraternity. Any sufficient number of Brethren, convened together, whether as military men or citizens, possessed the inherent power of opening and transacting the business of a Lodge, subject only to the general restrictions before alluded to. But at the reorganization of the Fraternity, in the beginning of the last century, this power was revoked, or surrendered, and it was formally decreed, "that the privilege of assembling as Masons, which has been hitherto unlimited, shall be vested in certain Lodges or assemblies of Masons, convened in certain places; and that every Lodge to be hereafter convened, except the four old Lodges at this time existing, shall be legally authorized to act by a warrant from the Grand Master for the time being, granted to certain individuals by petition, with the consent and approbation of the Grand Lodge in communication; and without such warrant no Lodge shall be hereafter deemed regular or constitutional." Both civil and military Brethren were, by this regulation, restricted in their original powers and subjected to the same limitations; neither were permitted thereafter to open and hold Lodges for Masonic purposes, without the permission of the Grand Master, subject to the approval of the Grand Lodge. In this and all other respects, the two classes were placed on an equality. And, as the local Lodges were permitted to receive all who applied for initiation, without reference to their place of residence, so were the Military Lodges permitted to initiate whom they pleased, without reference to the district or country in which the regiments to which they were attached were stationed. The rights of jurisdiction were not then much respected.* But at a subsequent period, the powers of the Military Lodges were restricted and defined by the Constitutions of the Grand Lodge. The existing regulations for their government, are as follows: OF MILITARY LODGES. It being essential to the interest of the Craft, that all Military Lodges should be strictly confined to the purposes for which their warrants were originally obtained; and, very great abuses having arisen from the improper initiation of Masons by such Lodges, every warrant, therefore, which is held by a Military Lodge, shall be forfeited, unless the following laws be complied with, in addition to those specified under the head of Private Lodges. * * * * * * 2. No Military Lodge shall, on any pretence, initiate into Masonry any inhabitant or sojourner in any town or place at which its members may be stationed, or through which they may be marching, nor any person who does not, at the time, belong to the military profession. 3. When any Military Lodge, under the constitution of England, shall be in foreign parts, it shall conduct itself so as not to give offence to the Masonic authorities of the country or place in which it may sojourn, never losing sight of the duties it owes to the Grand Lodge of England, to which communication is ever to be made, and all fees and dues regularly transmitted. 4. If the regiment, battalion, or military body, to which a Military Lodge is attached, be disbanded or reduced, the Brethren shall take care that the warrant be carefully transmitted to the Grand Lodge, that it may not fall into improper hands; but, if a competent number of the Brethren remain together, they may apply for another warrant, of the same number, to be holden as a civil Lodge, at such place as may be convenient, and which may be approved by the Grand Master. Such warrant to be granted without any additional expense. Such are the regulations which govern the proceedings of Military Lodges, holding under the authority of the Grand Lodge of England; and *Very little progress in this respect, has since been made by any of the Grand Lodges in Europe. 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 dif ferent 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 1779, 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 prac tices 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 privileges" 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 regiment, 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 member. 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. A 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 |