The morning call., 1890-06-12
A. o. U. w. RELIEF LAW.
The Supreme Lodge worsted in I'll
Hamilton County (Ohio) Case.

The Supreme Lodge worsted in the
Hamilton County (Ohio) Case.
The Hon. S. N. Maxwell, Judge OF the Court Of
Common Pleas Of Hamilton County, Ohio, has
reversed decision In the case Of Henry Steuve
VS.. the Grand Lodge of Ohio, A. o. U. w., sus-
tanning the plaintiffs action and making the
temporary Injunction granted against the Grand
Lodge perpetual. The facts OF the case are as
follows: Tie Supreme Lodge Relief Board sub
divided the grand Jurisdiction Of Ohio into TWO
districts, No. 1 TO consist Of the lodges and
members of Hamilton County, Ohio, and No.
OF the remainder Of the jurisdiction of the State
OF Ohio. The maximum OF the rate OF assess
ments for District No. was fixed at fifty-fye
for year and No. at twenty-eight. Thus, II q
belonged to lodge in District No. /, If
there were enough losses TO warrant 1t, fifty.fve
assessments could be called for payment In one
year before the Supreme Lodge would come TO
their rescue by paying all addition al assessments
required over hfty-hye, and In District No. 2
tweniy-eieht assessments would be called be-
fore the same relief would be extended by the
Supreme Lodge. The plaintiff, Henry Steuye Is
member OF the order, having taken out his GER
tlfcate IN 1879. and objected to being assessed
to such great extent, especially when his neigh
Dor In an adjoining county aud belonging to the
same jurisdiction would only have 10 pay about
one.half that he would If necessity cal-d for IL.
The Judge, In his opinion, says: Ii is commonly
stated In cases of this character and in cases
affecting benevolent associations thai courts OF
equity will moi interfere with benevolent aSs0cia-
lions social organizations where no
rights OF property are involved. In other
words. as TO all matters relating 10 admission of
members, discipline or expulsion the courts Will
leave these organizations 10 govern themselves,
provided that their regulations be fairly reason.
able, and will decline to interfere with them or
with the control of their governing officers
their members. The rule with reference TO what
court Will take Jurisdiction OF Is different
where property rights are involved, and IL Is
held generally thai whenever property rights are
Involved courts will interfere IUpro iect members
OF voluntary associations and prevent any in
trlngement OF their rights. that is to say their
properly rights. AS 10 all questions of policy.
discipline and internal government, they must
be submitted 10 the decision of the regular con-
sIitutional jurisdiction OF the fraternity. But
the rule is different when property right Is iu-
volved In such cases courts are strict IN as
Ses III III ae Sl Inc pTnepa.
for the payment of a fund TO the designated beue-
hciarieS OF deceased members, which is neither
more nor less than species OF life Insurance,
aud as such Involves construction OF contract
relations and the determination OF the rights Of
property. 1t cannot be disputed that there may
be and Is In tile order u clear distinction In its
objects as between what might be called benev-
olent or fraternal objects and what might be
called business objects, that Is TO say the pro-
Vision OF lie insurance fund. and II the consd-
GRAFTON Is simply confined TO what the court Will
do with reference TO that life insurance fund, it
is equally clear that the same principles to be
applied to them as would be applied TO any case
OF life Insurance. for the rules governing mutual
insurance companies do not differ from those
governing LIE Insurance companies which are
organized for the proht OF stockholders. do
not undertake 10 say that the A. o. U. W. had
no frateTnal objects or that II it had IL has
abandoned them. 1 believe it was organized for
benevolent and fraleTnal purposes aud that 1t Is
still carrying out these purposes; but l am
equally we'll satisfied that the so.caed benef-
clary or insurance features Is an important
feature of the association and that 1t eau be
dealt with separately and apart from the other
purposes OF the association, and | am equally
satisfied that the courts should and Will apply 10
the beneficiary feature OF this organization the
same rules as it would apply to the business Of
ordinary life Insurance. for lie Interest which
member has In It's Beneficiary feature Is as much
property as his interest in an ordinary life In
suranee policy. l have no doubt those in the
Supreme Lodge who were active IN devising
aud carrying out the legislation In reference 10
the division OF mis- State into two jurisdictions
considered it expedlent; i'll other words, it was,
TO use a common phrase. the greatest good for
the greatest number. The rate OF mortality Is
changing all the time in different districts 1t is
greater one year in one district ard less in an
other, and SO, even as a question OF expediency,
the effort 10 determine the maximum number Of
assessments for any one place for any one year
is always going 10 create trouble.
When IL Is sought by an order of this character
or by legislation OF this Kind 10 require one man.
because he lives in Hamilton County. TO pay
twice or three times as much as the man who
lives within stones throw Of him man who
lives in another State, take IT that 1t cannot be
disputed that It is taking away his property
tights 10 a certain extent. Ii Is compelling him
to bear burden which never was In contempla-
tlon when lie entered Into The organization"