-
Articles/Ads
Article MASONIC INTELLIGENCE. ← Page 6 of 27 →
Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software.
Masonic Intelligence.
a franchise , is derogatory to the liberties of the Order . Our institution recognises no privileges as in their nature beyond the reach of Masonic Legislation , save those which , in kind , have subsisted inimemorially . The admission of Past Masters to vote in G . L . being neither ancient nor universalis neither a landmark nor an established
, usage of the Order . The amendments in question , therefore , are within the scope of Masonic Legislation . Another objection which has been raised to these amendments is , that they are contrary to what is called the "Compact of 1827 , " being certain articles or laws adopted by the G . L . of New York in that yearthe only part of which that in any way affects Past
, Masters declares that the number of Lodges which one Master or Past Master may represent shall not exceed three , and that Past Masters shall not be represented by proxy . These words are evidently restrictive only , modifying the then privileges , or supposed privileges , of Past Masters , but not purporting to restrain future
legislation on those privileges . Indeed no such restraint could be constitutionally imposed , since no Act of any G . L . can restrain any succeeding G . L . from exercising its inherent legislative authority . An additional objection is founded on the proceedings . of the Quarterly Meeting of the G . L . of New York , held on the 6 th of March 1849 . At that meeting resolutions were passed denouncing
, the amendments , and calling upon the Lodges which had already affirmed them to withdraw , and on other Lodges to withold , their assent . This appeal was unsuccessful , the amendments , as already stated , being ultimately affirmed in the mode which the constitution recognises as sufficient . That constitution does not confer on Quarterly Meetings any power to disturb the progress or impair the
effect of such legislation , and these proceedings of this Quarterly Meeting , as re 2 iorted , appear to contravene the spirit , if not the letter of the constitution , and were ordered by the G . L . of New York , at its Annual Meeting in June 1849 , to be expunged from the minutes .
The remaining objections impugn the justice and policy of the amendments ; but the G . L . and a majority of the Lodges under its jurisdiction , have otherwise decided , and the decision which they have come to , in constitutional form , is law within that jurisdiction . We see no reason to doubt that , in adopting these amendments , they have exercised a just and sound discretion with reference to the local circumstances ; but whether they have done so or not is a question
which it is needless for us to discuss , even if we were competent to do so . A law duly passed is plainly obligatory while it subsists ; its validity does not depend on individual opinions as to its equity or wisdom . The lawful act of constitutional authorit y is entitled to respect ; and , however opposed to the views of particular Brethren
Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software.
Masonic Intelligence.
a franchise , is derogatory to the liberties of the Order . Our institution recognises no privileges as in their nature beyond the reach of Masonic Legislation , save those which , in kind , have subsisted inimemorially . The admission of Past Masters to vote in G . L . being neither ancient nor universalis neither a landmark nor an established
, usage of the Order . The amendments in question , therefore , are within the scope of Masonic Legislation . Another objection which has been raised to these amendments is , that they are contrary to what is called the "Compact of 1827 , " being certain articles or laws adopted by the G . L . of New York in that yearthe only part of which that in any way affects Past
, Masters declares that the number of Lodges which one Master or Past Master may represent shall not exceed three , and that Past Masters shall not be represented by proxy . These words are evidently restrictive only , modifying the then privileges , or supposed privileges , of Past Masters , but not purporting to restrain future
legislation on those privileges . Indeed no such restraint could be constitutionally imposed , since no Act of any G . L . can restrain any succeeding G . L . from exercising its inherent legislative authority . An additional objection is founded on the proceedings . of the Quarterly Meeting of the G . L . of New York , held on the 6 th of March 1849 . At that meeting resolutions were passed denouncing
, the amendments , and calling upon the Lodges which had already affirmed them to withdraw , and on other Lodges to withold , their assent . This appeal was unsuccessful , the amendments , as already stated , being ultimately affirmed in the mode which the constitution recognises as sufficient . That constitution does not confer on Quarterly Meetings any power to disturb the progress or impair the
effect of such legislation , and these proceedings of this Quarterly Meeting , as re 2 iorted , appear to contravene the spirit , if not the letter of the constitution , and were ordered by the G . L . of New York , at its Annual Meeting in June 1849 , to be expunged from the minutes .
The remaining objections impugn the justice and policy of the amendments ; but the G . L . and a majority of the Lodges under its jurisdiction , have otherwise decided , and the decision which they have come to , in constitutional form , is law within that jurisdiction . We see no reason to doubt that , in adopting these amendments , they have exercised a just and sound discretion with reference to the local circumstances ; but whether they have done so or not is a question
which it is needless for us to discuss , even if we were competent to do so . A law duly passed is plainly obligatory while it subsists ; its validity does not depend on individual opinions as to its equity or wisdom . The lawful act of constitutional authorit y is entitled to respect ; and , however opposed to the views of particular Brethren