The evening telegraph. [volume] (Philadelphia [Pa.]) 1864-1918, 1870-11-08


pliance with sections ands OF article OF the by
laws Of the Grand Temple. These articles require
that charge against a member shall be referred TO
a committee for trial and that whenever the COM
mittee shall be OF the opinion that punishment ought
to be imposed they shall report resolution to that
effect, which shall be set do Wn for consideration at
some future meeting.
Tue appellant assigned for specific error in the
action OF the Grand Temple, "that the proceeding
irregular in that the committee did report,
that Search ought to be punished by being repri-
manded, suspended, or expelled, as provided for in
the first section OF article eighth and that the con-
sideraIon Of the resolution to punish was acted on
at the meeting at which it was reported to the
Grand Temple instead of being set down for cou-
sideration at a future meeting"
The supreme Council sustained the appeal, re-
versed the action Of the Grand Temple, and in-
structed IT to dispose OF the case in the manner pro-
decided that the appeal having been sustained aud
the case sent back to the Grand Temple. with In
to be regarded stl under charges, in accordance
with decision OF the Supreme Council at the sixth
annual session tprntes proceedings, page 2s) 'that
officer be permitted to occupy his chair while
under charges IN any temple Of our order.n
The defendant Search, who was reelected @, W.
r. at the meeting Of the Grand Temple at which he
was convicted and punished by admonition, denies
the authority of the Supreme Council to take cogn
Zance Of his case and to order the Grand Temple to
proceed with his trial, to decide that he is still
under charges, and therefore incapable Of holding
Council in the premises he refuses obedience to is
command, and claims to held his office aud perform
its duties by virtue also Of his reelection G. W. r.
Is this position teRable one? and II it is not can
this Court grant the relief prayed for?
1Nat search Commtted an Ofiense Tor which ne
could be placed on trial is bevond question. His
violation of duty was an usurpation Of the power OF
the Supreme Council. The section cited above
Supreme CouRcil Of the right OF publishing
the ritual and ode cards Of the order Without an
authorization from the Supreme Council, no one
publish fer the OF the order these forms and
odes without subecting himself to the penalties
prescribed for ofense Of this kind 1t is, In the
language OF section OF bylaw s. violation of the
laws, rules, and ussges OF the order. No can do
this except with wilfulness deliberaton, and pre-
OnenSe the
law OF the ORDER set forth In terms so plain that ne
and this was confessed by the defendant by his plea
OF guilty. Nor can he now escape from the cense-
q @ pie. 6s denying 4s was to tae a
fs at all was %scS agas sans
take action in the frst instance. We do not agree
provides for trial and punishment by the Grand
and nsages s Of the ORDER fhs bylaw I IS in a
force by the consent of Mr.. Search In volunta-
Der OF it, he made himself subject to every law OF
the temple which was then in force, or which may
have been properly byand Of rghtfu authority since
enacted. 1t has not been pretended that is not a
valid bylaw, that It falls outside of the power OF
had had been taken Of Il It Would % be clearly wrong
Holding that Searchs transgresston against the su-
and standing within not the spirit only, but the
clear letter OF fhe law, we pass from the objection
based on a want Of jurisdiction in the Grand Tenn;
| against him. This, may remark, is independent OF
the violation or the obligation assumed by him to
OF the order of the Temple Of Honor vested
in the Supreme Council, and yield obedience to the
| ceremonies, constitutions, rules, and decisions
adopted by that body.
Nor s the point well taken that no onense has
| been committed for which Search could be tried,
because not done in the Grand Temple. The nrst
clause of section Of bylaw s says "Any member in
| this Grand Temple, who shall be guilty Of using
profane expressions dscourteous language to the
officers and members thereof" etc. It was argued
that to make member liable to charge the offense
|
Perhaps this literal Interpretation may be the cor
son is IN the Temple Who is Connected with it, We
| speak OF one being In q church or order who s q
member OF such church or order But this criticism
| which follows. 1t reads, "or who shall otherwise
violate the constitution, laws rules, and usages Of
Search was for transgressing as provided against in
this clause OF the bylaw, and had no reference to
| or connection with the euse of improper language 70
the officers or members either in outof the order.
1t matters not where, or under what circumstances,
or a. what time the constitution, laws usages are
| violated the party so offending may properly be
charged with the onense, and, If duly convicted,
| punished as prescribed by the bylaw.
But it is argued, Concedng that the Grand Tenn
! PIE acted within the scope OF its authority, Mr..
punished for the onense, and that there can be no
| retrial and reimpositsn OF punishment; that
lar, the case is OF necessity at an end Thts would
| be an unansweraee proposition II the trial q
regular and legal trial and the punishment such an
supreme authority Of the body has decided that the
trial was irregular; that 1t was what call in law
the bylaw was in two essential portions Of
it disregarded; and sitting as court OF review on
decided against the action Of the GRAND ' Temple Die
and directed 1t to proceed with the case in con
trial OF one under charges. In this cannot dis
cover anything OF which the defendant Search car
complain 1t is too late to question the right OF the
supreme Council to review the proceedings OF the
inferior tribunals after an uniform exercise OF the
power from the starting OF she organization to the
present day, and in the face OF the emphatic decla
Council, shall exercise the supreme power OF the
order, there being nothing In the Constitution
exercise nSDSed On ansrrsS hs conrs1 sSat M
there does not appear to be any provision by which
1t can, In the first instance, take Jurisdiction of
tribunals, it may be properly inferred that in nC
other way than by general review and control can
vested. Nor do we agree with the suggestion thai
| the case was not regularly before the Supreme
| Council on the appeal OF member OF the Crane
| Temple. Every member has an interest in the due
and regular enforcement OF the regulations anC
laws OF the order; whether the complaint be agans
the subordinate body with which he is connected
or against an individual member duty TO the ordel
as well as his personal interest require that eaot
should be Kept in subOrdinstion to law; il
from working ruin TO all concerned. This was alsC
the view OF the Supreme Council, who heard tn,
Tpsnd emn,s and dATsS up alter hotice 70 I'M
This brings us back to the question, Was the tria
regular and orderly trial, and was the punishment
command OF the bylaw was disregarded is no
denied there was not in the resolution reported by
the commlitee any designation OF the punishment Z
poned TO q future meeting No other judgmen
could have been rghtfully entered by the Supreme
Grand Temple erred in this manifest disregard o
the positive law OF their own body.
the pa Of the Grand femne IN tss mnosSn T Ia %
the punishment For a violation Of me constitution