The evening telegraph. [volume] (Philadelphia [Pa.]) 1864-1918, 1870-07-16
LEGAL xNTHLLIaNNCH.
THE KNIGHTS OF PYTHIAS.
Decision of the Injunction Case-The Removal
of Lowry Declared Illegal, and Stotzer En-
Joined from Acting Grand Chancellor.

f'teUS-OUuHe
The Knights of Pythias imbroglio which has
been so long pending was brought to a termi-
nation by decision rendered by Judge Allison
this morning. The case came up on Monday
last on the application to dissolve the injunc-
tion previously granted to prevent John Stotzer
from acting as Grand Chancellor of the Knights
of Pythias of the State of Pennsylvania. On
behalf of Philip Lowry, Jr., it was contended
that his removal from his Office by the Grand
Chancellor of the Supreme Council of the
World was unconstitutional, inasmuch as
he was entitled to have O charge pre-
ferred against him, and a trial and suspen-
sion by, two-thrds of the. members of the
Grand lodge; that in view of this the
substitution of Mr.. StotZer as Grand Chancel-
Ter was null and void, and therefore the injunc-
tion restraining him from acting should be con-
tinued. In answer to this, 1t was contended
Mr. Lowry had refused to obey an edict issued
by the Supreme Council and had issued pro-
clamation to the order in disObedience of this
command; that he voluntarily resigned his Office
as Grand Chancellor, and thus enabled Mr..
Stotzer, as ice-Chancellol, to occupy the place,
and that he had no right in the court to ask to
be rsinstated AS the Grand Lodge of Pennsyl-
yadia meets on the 26th instant, a decision of
the case was looked forward to with great in
terest by the members of the ORDER since on the
result of the litigation depended the control of
the Grand Lodge by determining who should
designate the representatives of the subordinate
lodges in it.
Judge Allison, in his decision, went at great
length into a critical examination of the consti-
tuition of the order, announcing as the result of
this examination failure to discover any pro-
vision for the trial or suspension of a grand or
subordinate lodge officer. He then recurred to
the question previously propounded, "How shall
the Supreme Chancellor see that the constitu-
tional enactments rules and edicts of his lodge
are duly and properly observed?" In answer to
this, the court proceeds to say
This question is answered in the sixth bylaw
Of the Grand Lodge Of Pennsylvania, which provides
that any grand officer may be removed from his
Office for conduct unbecoming his standing In the
order or for nattenton to the duties of his station.
1t, however, contains provision which the Supreme
Chancellor has wholly disregarded, namely, that an
officer who is under charges shall ofciate until they
are settled, unless otherwise ordered by the Grand
Lodge This bylaw also contains the material pro-
vision-"He shall have fair trial Of the charges
This bylaw is part of the constitution of the
Grand Lodge Of Pennsylvania 1t was examined
and approved by the Supreme Lodge, and it may
fairly be argued that with this regulation before
them the necessity for taxing to themselves other
than appellate jurisdiction was not recognized by
stituton. This trial, and indeed every trial, may be
reviewed on appeal, and in this way the constitu-
tional edicts and orders of the supreme authority
can be enforced by their Chancellor.
In this case he could have preferred charges of
nsnborGHstion natl against Lowry y before @ the Grand
accused would be required to appear and answer;
but he could not be put out Of ONCE and another
person installed therein until his case had been de-
cided by the Grand Lodge, unless they had ordered
otherwise.
This view OF the law which governs the order,
does wrong to one 1t agrees with the recognized
principle that TO the accused shall be accorded not
only fair trial. but that he shall be presumed to be
innocent until he has been proved to be guilty
unless the speciates of his require In the judg
ment OF the Grand Lodge that II should be made an
exception to the general rule. This s in every way
to be preferred TO prejudgment before trial and
degradation in ofice before proof 1t is the rule
which prevails in constitutional governments as
contasted with the law OF the Autocrat or the Turk
and by enforcing 1t in the case before us bring
into play the fundamental law OF the order, protect
the guaranteed rights OF its membership, and at the
same time do no violence to the principle that the
government OF the order must be maintained only
through the constitutional modes OF enforcing obe
dience 10 proper and lawful commands. BY this /
do not mean TO affirm that the order OF the Supreme
Lodge, which has given rise to this trouble, is a
lawful enactment or edict that question is not pre-
sented by the bill OF the complainants.
Upon the question OF jurisdiction It Is sufclent to
remark that by the 18th section OF the act Of June
16, 1885, the supervision and control Of unincorpo-
rated societies and associations Is given to the
Courts OF Common Pleas
That which remains touches the denial by defen-
dant OF plaintiffs claim to equitable relief.
II the matters connected with this controversy in
Voved other right than that OF the personal right
refuse the prayer OF the bill The afhdavits pre-
sented by the defendants fully establish their aega
ton, that he not only consented TO, but advised,
the Supreme Chancellor to issue his order OF sus-
pension, and to invest the defendant John 4totzer
with the authority and power OF Grand Chancellor
That he advised submission to this order admitted
the right OF the Supreme Chancellor to make it, aud
was party consentng TO and aiding in the consum-
nation of that Of which ne now complains, is abun-
dainty proved Upon his own account he is not en-
JJled 10 claim the ald or court OF equity TO rein
state him in an otfce from which he agreed he
should be suspended, but from which he did not
formally resign advising the former action for rea
son sta led in the affidavits
But this bill is filed by other plaintiffs, who are
joined with him and who are members OF the order,
as well as efiieers, and who will be injurOusy af-
fected in their rights OF ONCE by the decree OF
pension OF the Supreme Chancellor; and back OF
these again are thousands OF MEMBERS whose peeu-
MARY and personal interests are dependent, TO a
great degree, upon the question OF the awfulness of
the order OF the Supreme Chancellor and the action
OF the Vice-Grand Chancellor Stotzer, all OF which