and clime, every sect and opinion, every grade and complexion the wide world around, and leads to the cultivation of that faithful and genuine friendship which rises like a majestic pillar from the basis of that brotherly love.

"Relief is the natural outcome of that brotherly love. It may be an independent principle, but by Masons it is esteemed an essential element of the Brotherhood. Benevolence and Charity are those truly Masonic ornaments which they are carefully charged to main-’ tain in their fullest splendor. To relieve distress, to soothe affliction, to compassionate misery, to sympathise with misfortune, to restore peace to the troubled, to tend the fatherless, and make the widow's heart to sing for joy are a Mason's chief concern. Hence the rich and varied and generous channels through which the streams of benevo lence and charity flow. Her schools, her annuities, her charities, have been like rays of heaven to many a desolate and desponding soul, and clothed Masonry to them in the festive garments of glad some light and liberty. Truth springs from love. When there is the one there is the other To love is to be true, and to be true is to love. All faithful friendship is rooted and grounded in love. Truth is that divine attribute which lies at the basis of every Masonic virtue. To be good and true are among the first noble lessons' and teachings of Masonry. No Mason, like Pontius Pilate, needs to ask what is truth?' He knows it means absolute fidelity and confidence. He knows it means the opposite of hypocrisy and deceit. He knows it means inviolable adherence to solemn vows and obligations. He knows it means the five points of fellowship carried out to the letter. He knows it means that hand, that foot, that knee, that breast, that back fulfilled in their symbolic significance both in mind and in deed. He knows it means sincere and honest dealing, the union of heart and tongue in promoting each other's' welfare, and seeking the advancement and prosperity of the Craft.' Such is Masonic truth in its exposition and its parts, pure as the dewdrop, and sterling as the finest gold, the priceless garniture of every Lodge, the loveliest clothing of every member, an ornament around the neck of youth, and a crown of glory upon the hoary

head.

"Great, generous, virtuous, good, and brave,
Are titles Masons justly claim;

Their deeds shall live beyond the grave,
Which some unborn shall loud proclaim.''

-London Freemason.

- 44

LEARN to labor and to wait."

QUR TRACING BOARD.

WE extract the following correspondence from "The Freemason's Chronicle," London, England, concerning HIRAM LODGE, so that our readers may be informed of the various views expressed upon this matter by expert English Freemasons. The question is one of profound interest, and is not to be "puffed" out of sight by the "say-so" of power, at the expense of the questions of equity and honor and brotherly consideration:

[Freemason's Chronicle, November 26, 1887.]

THE HIRAM LODGE, U. S. A.

To the Editor of the Freemason's Chronicle:

DEAR SIR AND BROTHER-Out of respect for my Brother " Lex," I acknowledge his communication respecting my opinion on the "Hiram Lodge" controversy-which was asked for by you, Sir, and which was given by me with due regard to all the facts of the case, so far as we in England are concerned. Personally, we all regret the difficulties that have arisen, and many of us sympathize with the expelled brethren and the erased Lodge (evidently); but, unfortunately, all are powerless save to uphold the Grand Lodge; the right or wrong of the question or questions in dispute not in any way concerning us. Subordinate Lodges are bound by the decisions of their Grand Lodges all the world over, and must either be content to obey the laws and regulations or be erased, on which all other regular Grand Lodges will side with the Grand Lodge, not with the erased Lodge. It is as well to face this fact at the outset, and thus save needless writing.

Bro. "Lex" declares that we now are only at the beginning of it," so it is perhaps better for me to say most positively that I shall have nothing to offer on the subject, from this time, in reply to any brother who writes under a nom de plume. If we are to have a discussion, then it must be a contest without gloves or masks, so far as I am concerned.

"Lex" cannot " accept any one of the positions " I have taken up. That is a pity, surely-for "Lex "-as it strikes me he will find the Grand Registrar of England will support them all, provided he is told all the facts. "Lex" refers to four main points to prove why, he objects to my opinion.

4: I. In 1813 the "Union" was between two Grand Lodges, each keeping their old Warrants, the United Grand Lodge not being a parallel case with "Hiram Lodge" and Connecticut. But the point is this, and all hinges thereon-each Lodge under the United Grand Lodge became a subordinate of that body, and was, and is, bound to cbey its laws and decisions; even the two Lodges that are still

working by "Immemorial Constitution." So with "Hiram Lodge." No matter what Warrant it had, or had not, it became a subordinate of Connecticut when it left Massachusetts; and its new Warrant of 1790, on being enrolled under Connecticut, made it subject to the then new organization.

2. The continuance on the Roll of England until 1813 meant nothing beyond the fact; nothing more, in short, than the name of Price, as Prov. G. M., being on the same calendars years after he had died.

3. The Earl of Zetland never interfered with the (German) Grand Lodge relative to the initiation of Israelites. All our lamented Grand Master did was to require the admission of our members, as Visitors, without respect to their religious faith. Surely "Lex" has misunderstood the action of our G.M. At all events, the case cited is wholly irrelevant. So also as to the Grand Orient. That refers to the decision of a Grand Lodge, not a Subordinate Lodge, and is as irrelevant as the former case. If a Grand Lodge goes against the wishes of other Grand Lodges, it can be ostracised, but Subordinate Lodges must obey their Grand Lodge, or be erased; and as long as their disobedience is not due to any vital matter no regular Grand Lodge will support them in their subordination.

6.

4. Hiram Lodge" is in a similar position to Lodges which existed prior to the formation of their present Grand Lodge, e. g., our Lodge of "Antiquity" became a subordinate of the G. L. of England. It rebelled in 1779, but returned to the fold in 1790, evidently realizing the fact that its rights were lost, so to speak, in the vote of the majority, for the good of all.

Sentiment is useless as to "Hiram Lodge It has for years been a subordinate of the G. L. of Connecticut, and is now cut off for disobediance. Yours Fraternally, W. J. HUGHAN.

To the Editor of the Freemason's Chronicle:

DEAR SIR AND BROTHER-Since I wrote to you, I have received two or three communications on this subject, and wish also to allude to one or two contributions towards clearing up what is both a difficult and most important question. I always read Bro. MacCalla's communications with pleasure and profit, and have a great respect for his abilities and honesty, and admiration for the great services. he has rendered Masonic archæology and intellectuality.

He

I quite enter into the normal American view of the great necessity of upholding the decision of a Grand Lodge, but I do not quite "follow" Bro. MacCalla in his treatment of the objection. seems to ignore the Hiram Lodge altogether, which, in my humble opinion, is a great and fatal mistake.

He says the cause of the quarrel is infantine."

But is it really so?

And as on this point it is not quite clear, I await a letter from America before entering upon that branch of the discussion.

I agree with the general scope of "Justitia's" very able remarks, which demand careful consideration and respectful study.

Whoever he may be, he has placed the matter most forcibly and compactly before your readers, and has pointed out conclusively how far-reaching and wide-extending, constitutionally, is the subject matter before us, and one that cannot be disposed of by off-hand denunciations and anathemata of any kind or degree whatever.

In Bro. Norton's facetious and fair comments I also heartily concur, as I have not a doubt he represents the common-sense view of the question, and points undoubtedly to grave results certain to arise, unless by wise counsel and mutual concessions this untoward matter is at once amicably and Masonically adjusted.

Bros. Norton and "Justitia" seems to me to embody well in their remarks that great and ever true Masonic adage that "next to the obedience to lawful authority, a firm and manly resistance to lawless aggression is the first step to social freedom," and I may add Masonic unity and content.

A very wise and acute friend of mine has sent me the following "memoranda" on some of the points raised, and which I specially commend to the notice of your readers, and all interested in this serious question:

I. The subject, he remarks, is a very "big one," and requires. both careful thought and anxious consideration. Mother Kilwinning, Antiquity, St. Andrew's, Boston (see Gould's History, IV., 450), all three joined in forming a Grand Lodge, withdrew and rejoined; and though it is, especially in America and the Colonies usual for Lodges to take out fresh Charters, and surrender the old ones, the rule is not universal, or without many exceptions.

2.

Such a position is not safe, if too broadly put, and the history of Freemasonry does not bear out such an absolute and abstract proposition.

Can any one safely contend that any possible act on the part of a Grand Lodge is to be held as "reasonable" (without discussion) by another or all other Grand Lodges?

Surely such a view is untenable and unsafe. If we are to lay it down that there is no getting behind the decision of a Grand Lodge with regard to declaring a Lodge irregular, not only will such a proposition, historically, archæologically, or in the concrete, not hold water," but such a view raises, necessarily, other questions equally difficult and startling.

66

3. There are always "Grand Lodges and Grand Lodges," and Freemasonry has its universal as well as its local side.

Let us ask ourselves the question-Would a member of the Lodge Hiram be admitted into "Old Melrose," or any of the German Independent Lodges, and if so, within what limits is the reasonableness restricted?

4. We want a clear understanding of the actual point at issue. Hiram has its undoubted rights and prerogatives as well as the Grand Lodge of Connecticut, and nothing more detrimental to the best interests of Freemasonry, and eventually subversive, to all Lodge life, will be that common and popular view which ignores the fact that the Grand Lodge itself, whatever its corporate position or actual powers may be, simply rests on the unit of the Lodge, as the source of all power, and the limit really and truly of its very authority. Yours, fraternally, LEX.

[From the Ohio State Journal, Jan. 6, 1888.]

CERNEAU MASONS APPEAL TO THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS FOR THEIR RIGHTS,

SAYING THEY CAN NO LONGER SUBMIT TO THE USURPATION OF THE GRAND MASTER IN USING HIS POWER TO ATTEMPT TO CRUSH THEIR PARTICULAR ORDER.

NEWARK, O., Jan. 5.-The following petition was to-day filed in the Court of Common Pleas of this county:

State of Ohio, Licking county. Court of Common Pleas. John W. Hughes and Edwin R. Braddock, plaintiffs, v. S. Stacker Williams, Grand Master of the Grand Lodge of Ohio, defendant.-Petition. The said plaintiffs here show that Newark Lodge No. 97, Free and Accepted Masons, is a corporation duly incorporated under the laws of the State of Ohio, and is possessed of and owns per sonal property of the value of at least $- ; that it is located and transacts its business in the city of Newark in the State of Ohio, in premises leased by it for that purpose for a term of years, which business consists in stated meetings of its members held from time to time for the purpose of conferring the degrees of entered appren. tice, fellowcraft and Master Mason, and receiving therefor the fees, dues and emoluments for the same, and for receiving contributions from its members in the way of fees and dues; that at said stated meetings it transacts such other business as may properly come before it; that said personal property and leasehold estate was purchased and acquired with funds contributed to said Newark Lodge No. 97 by the members thereof, including these plaintiffs; that its officers consist of a Worshipful Master, Senior Warden, Junior Warden, Secretary, Treasurer, Senior Deacon, Junior Deacon, Tyler and three Trustees, and said officers, including said Senior Warden and Junior Warden, have the custody, management and control of the property of said Lodge, the functions of each of said