The daily morning Astorian. [volume] (Astoria, Oregon) 1883-1899, 1895-07-12

such Interpretations, Dut as petWeeh
members and Their lodges, or between
subordinate lodges and higher governing
bodies, the courts will construe such con-
and bylaws for themselves, re-
sorting to approved decisions and digests
of the order in doubtful cases.
Seventh--No right of appeal exists from
the decision of a subordinate lodge 10
the G. M. W., or to the grand lodge, un-
less 1t IS expressly given in some con-
stitution or law Of the order.
Eighth-No right Of appeal exists from
the decision of the grand lodge unless
1t is expressly given by the constitution
OF the supreme lodge.
Ninth-The method Of appeal from the
decision of the grand lodge must be sub
stantially pursued.
Tenth-An appeal to the S. M. w. Is
not an appeal to the supreme lodge.
Eleventh-When an appeal erroneously
taken, comes before the supreme lodge,
1t has no jurisdiction to do anything,
except to dismiss such appeal and to
affirm the judgement of the grand lodge.
Twelfth-The supreme lodge obtains
jurisdiction to hear and determine case
upon a question of fact o. law, by virtue
Of a proper notice of appeal, served as
required by it's constitution, and tran
script sent up within the time and in
the manner required by its constitution,
and not otherwise.
Thirteenth-A judgment pronounced by
the supreme lodge upon an appeal not
taken to 1t in accordance with the con-
stitution of the order, or taken to the S.
M. W., and not to the supreme lodge Is
wholly void.
Fourteenth-A subordinate lodge can
not waive the lack of jurisdiction IN
any way so as to make such void order
of the supreme lodge legal
The pleadings in this case, which for
the purpose of this motion, are to be
taken as true, show that at the time
when Osgood attempted to appeal to the
s. M. W., there was no existing right Of
appeal to that official
In Attemting therefore to decide the
merits of the controversy between Os-
good and Seaside lodge, he was an Off
clal trespasser without any authority to
do anything in the premises.
See supreme lodge constitution, sec
tions % and 20.
When Seaside lodge appealed from the
decision of the S. M. w. to the supreme
lodge, such lodge had jurisdiction under
Its constitution to do just two things,
namely, to reverse the decision of the su'
preme master workman and affirm the
judgment of the grand lodge of Oregon.
When without an appeal taken to 1t by
Osgood 1t is attempted to. restore him
to the order, 1t violated its own consu-
tuition, and its action was wholly VOID.
Nor did the action of Seaside lodge in
retrying Osgood render valid this void
action of the supreme lodge.
IoO, Ila.l ell Il
lodge, and it's judgment had been ap-
proved by the G. M. w. and the grand
lodge; he had failed to appeal to the
appeal had expired.
He therefore stood In the position of a
person expelled from the order, without
any existing right of appeal. Could he
be reinstated by an order of the supreme
lodge or by waiver?
Section Sc, supreme lodge constitution,
1S93 prescrLbes the manner in which an
expelled member whose right of appeal
is gone, may be reinStated.
He must be under 80 years of age, or as
the law is now amended, he must be
under As years of age; he must apply in
writing to the subordinate lodge under
whose jurisdiction he resided at the time
the pc lalty was imposed he must, If he
apples to lodge other than that which
imposed the penalty present the con-
sent Of such lodge with his application;
he must undergo medical examination,
ard comply with the laws of the order in
relation to the initiation of new appli-
cants, and be elcted by the same vote.
According to this complaint, the su-
preme lodge ignored the fact that he
was there without an appeal, and that
he was simply an expelled member with
out any standing in its tribunals, and
skipping over all these requirements,
directed Seaside lodge to reinstate him.
The supreme lodge had no authority to
make such an order, and Seaside lodge
had 10 authority to execute it. And it
is alleged that 1t never did so.
Under these circumstances, a trial of
Orgood the second time was a mere void
act. He was not a member of the or
der, but an outsider and If Seaside lodge
could make him member by trying him
for am offense against its laws, 1t could
make any other person a member In
the same manner.
He was an outsider and not a member
of the order when the trial began; he re-
mained such during the trial, and is
such yet, upon the case stated in the
August %, 1893.
This being the case, the G.. NJ W
had no authority to attempt his reinstate-
ment or to direct that Seaside lodge
issue him a clearance card, or to threat
en- to discipline Seaside lodge for fail
ure of refusal to reinstate him in the
lodge, or to cite said lodge to appear
and show cause why its charter should
not be suspended.
All these acts were no doubt dictated
by a spirit of loyalty to the supreme
lodge. The G, NJ. w. no doubt found
himself placed In such a position that
a refusal on his part to enforce the
edicts of the supreme lodge would in
volve him in a contest with body that
had already shown disposition to over
ride It's own constitution and which
might by some further arbitrary act,
jeopardize the great social and financial
interests of its members in this juris-
diction, and yielding to what he deemed
superior force he made the orders COM
planned of here.
Whatever the motive, his action cannot
be sustained by this court. When Sea-
side lodge had followed the Osgood case
to the supreme lodge 1t had exhausted
its remedies inside the order, and is not
required LC 20 Iue OF
and supreme lodges before the courts will
interfere. If the facts stated in this
complaint are true, plaintiffs are en-
titled to relief contest with the SUI
preme lodge .lmight be disastrous in
its consequences to the grand lodge, but
this court has the power to end the con-
troversy In a manner that will terminate
it finally and conelusively.
Upon the proposition that two causes
of suit are properly united I do not now
express an opinion. was rather in
clined to think that this was so, and
sustain a motion to strike out all that
relates to the issuance of clearance
card by the grand lodge But Leave to
emend has been obtained and an amend
ed complaint filed, and 1 reserve my
opinion on that subject until further
hearing.
In the meantime the injunction will be
continued in force, modified, however,
to the extent that either party may take
any action looking to a final dismissal
Of the Osgood case in the grand lodge,
that is not inconsistent with this opinion,
and does not involve the reinstatement
Of said Osgood in the order, and with
out any further attempt at disciplining
said lodge for its action in the matter.
And 1t Is to be hoped that all bodies
concerned in this controversy VIII take