The daily morning Astorian. [volume] (Astoria, Oregon) 1883-1899, 1895-07-12
Controversy in the A. 0. U. w.
Order Practically Settled.
TEXT OF Mr.. MsRlDE's OPINION
The Action of Seaside Lodge in the
OsgoOd Case Is Sustained and
Harmony Recommended.


Lodge, No. II, A. o. U. W., and Will
lam Pohl, master workman of said
Seaside Lodge No. u, plaintiffs, VS..
the grand lodge of Oregon. A. o. U.
W., ct al, defendants.
This matter comes up on motion to
strike out the amended complaint filed
herein. The complaint is very volumin-
Gus, and 1t Is not possible to state all
the facts presented by 1t except In the
most general way. The complaint sets
forth in substance that Seaside lodge
Is member of the grand jurisdiction of
Oregon, and that W. w. Brannan is the
grand master workman, and Newton
Clark grand recorder of the grand lodge.
That on the 10th day of May, 1898, one
I. l.. Osgood, after due trial. was con-
victed upon certain charges, particularly
set forth in the complaint, and expelled
from the order, and that said sentence
of expulsion was duly confirmed by the
G. M. W. of the grand lodge Of Oregon,
A. o. U. W., and by the grand lodge of
Oregon, upon appeal by said Osgood.
That at the date Of the approval of the
SAID sentence of expulsion, by the grand
lodge, the constitution of the supreme
lodge of said order, which constitution is
the supreme law both of the supreme
lodge and the subordinate lodges of the
order, provided that any person aggrieved
by the action of the grand lodge could
appeal to the supreme lodge, from such
action, which notice of appeal must be
in writing and served with in thirty days
from the date of the decision appealed
from.
That at said date and for long period
subsequent thereto, there was no rule
of law of said order permitting appeals
to be made to the supreme master work.
man, and that Osgood's only method of
appeal was to the supreme lodge.
That said Osgood appealed or attempted
to appeal from the decision of said grand
lodge to the said G. M. W., and that
said s. M. w. although he had no ap-
pellate power, entertained said appeal
and wrongfully and unlawfully usurped
appellate power and attempted to re-
view and set aside the decision Of the
grand lodge of Oregon and commanded
Seaside lodge to reinstAte sard Osgood
in the order, which said order, Seaside
lodge, refused to obey, and appealed
therefrom to- the supreme lodge.
That at the next regular session of the
supreme lodge, said body In defiance of
its constitution mad of the laws of the
order wrongfully and unlawfully under
took to affirm said unjust and unlawful
decision, and ordered and directed Sea-
side lodge to reinstate the said Osgood in
said Seaside lodge upon the payment of
certain dues and sums of money and
giving said Seaside lodge the privilege
of retrying said Osgood upon the same
charges that had been heretofore pre-
sented, and upon which he had hereto
fore been tried and expelled.
That by said order, Osgood was given
sixty days within which to pay his said
dues and assessments while the supreme
lodge constitution only gives him twenty
days within which to pay the same.
That said Seaside lodge never rein
stated said Osgood, but fearing that its
charter might be suspended by the G..
M. W., either upon his own motion, or
because of the order of the S. NJ. W.,
and because OF said unlawful orders
aforesaid, again called up said cause and
retired said Osgood, and again expelled
him from the order. Upon the said trial
he refused to plead, but the lodge, not
withstanding his refusal, which by the
rules of the order amounts to a plea of
guilty" proceeded to take evidence, and
again expelled him from the order.
That said sentence is still in force, and
not reversed by any official communica-
ton to Seaside lodge.
That on the Hst day of February, 1895,
the G. NJ. w. of the grand jurisdiction of
Oregon, notified Seaside lodge that sad
Osgood was entitled to clearance card
from said order and from Seaside lodge,
and ordering and directing that the grand
recorder OF said lodge be authorized to
issue to said Osgood a clearance card,
and also threatening to suspend the char
ter of said Seaside lodge becaluse Of the
fpha .af nrfb
plant further sets forth the damage
that would be done to Seaside lodge by
suspension of its charter, showing that
1t has several hundred members holding
beneficiary certificates to the amount of
several hundred thousand dollars, which
would be jeopard.zed by such action, and
showing that the injury and inconven-
ience that would result to members there
by. 1t also sets forth in full what pur-
ports to be the law, rules, constitutions
and usages of the order, which by COM
parison with the printed copies of the
same presented at the hearing, l find
generally correct.
1t is claimed on the argument by the
defendants, that part of the complaint re-
lating to te first trial and expulsion of
Osgood and his subsequent attempted ap-
peal. and the action thereon by the S.
NJ. W., and the supreme lodge, Is irrele-
want, and should be stricken out, be-
cause the complaint shows that Seaside
lodge acquiesced in the order by re-
trying Osgood and expelling him, and
that therefore any defect in the proceed
ings of the supreme lodge in reinstating
was waived, and that by assuming to
again try him. Seaside lodge impliedly
reinstated him. While this view has been
learnedly and plausibly argued, cannot
assent to ets correctness 1 think the
following principles are the undisputed
landmarks in the law governing benevo-
lent societies of this character:
First-That they have full right to pro-
vide constitutions and bylaws for their
government and the government of their
members, so long as such rules are not In
contravention of the laws of the land
or sound rules of public policy,
Second-That when such constitutions
and bylaws are made, they are binding
upon the order, and upon all ITS oflleers
from the lowest to the highest, and OBJ
seryence of them will be enforced by
the courts in favor OF any member or
body beneficially interested.
Third-Such constitutions and bylaws
in beneficial organizations become part
OF the contract between the member and
the order and cannot be changed ex-
cept in the proper and orderly manner
provided by the laws of the order, and
a violation of such constitutional right
is the violation OF the contract between
the member and the order. OF which the
courts will in certain cases take cogniz-
ance.
Fourth-Before a party can appeal to
the courts for assistance. such party
must usually exhaust all available RENE
dies within the order, and II be fails
50 TO do. the court viii not assist him.
FlfthAThe order has usually the right
10 decide upon the facts Of a particular
case, and the courts VIII not, except
Z IN esareme eases. involving fraud OF gross
oppfession, disturb finding OF fact sn
a particular case.
Sixth-;while the courts will generally
follow the Interpretation Of the law OF
the order given by the governing bodies,