The record-union., 1896-02-22

from a body styling itself the Supreme
Council of the Accepted Scottish Rite
of the United States of America, its
Territories and Dependencies, which
said body is not one declared to be genu-
inc and legitimate by the aforesaid
General Regulation No. III
The charge contains another specifi-
cation to the effect that plaintiff is and
fos some time past has been an active
member of a spurious and clandestine
body of Masons (the name and title of
which is unknown to the complainant.
and since the adoption of said General
Regulation No. 21, has knowingly and
willfully assisted in comforting so-called
Masonic degrees in such spurious body,
all of which is in violation of said Gen
eral Regulation No. IL
In pursuance of Regulation No 26,
defendant Hewell, the Grand High
Priest of the Grand Chapter made an
order transferring the trial of the plain
tiff to Stockton Chapter, No %, and
thereupon said Stockton Chapter sum-
moned plaintiff to appear for trial at its
hall in Stockton on the 9th day of
August, 1895.
The complaint AYERS that plaintiff is
informed and believes, and therefore al
leges the fact to be, that the action of
defendants A. II. Hewell, A. ]. Ver-
milya and John w. Boyd was prompted
by a desire to oppress this plaintiff,
prevent him from securing witnesses,
and presenting his defense to said
charges of unmasonic conduct, and also
ID prevent him from having a fair and
impartial trial; for as defendant is in
formed and believes Stockton Chapter,
No. %, is friendly to the schemes of
said conspirators, is controlled by them,
and is unfriendly and prejudiced
against this plaintiff by reason of the
matters set forth in said charges"
In this connection plaintiff avers that
the Scottish Rite order OF which he is
charged with being a member, and with
soliciting others to become such, 'is a
lawfully organized society; that its pur-
poses and practices and its fundamental
principles are not inconsistent with
those of Royal Arch Masonry and are
not Scandalous or immoral, but the
principles and practices of said order
are entirely consistent with the prin-
ciples and purposes and prac-
tees of Royal Arch Masonry"
Also, that said attempted action
of the defendants herein is subver-
sive and violative of the ancient usages
and landmarks of said order of Royal
Arch Masonry to which there never
has been an exception in the State of
California; that membership in any
lawful order or institution, religious
political, social or otherwise, should be
no test for membership as a Royal Arch
Mason, and that no member of the or
der of Royal Arch Masonry shall
(should} be in any manner dealt with
called in question or affected in his
said membership by reason of his mem
bership with any other lawful order or
institution; also, that said attempted
action is in violation of plaintiffs rights
as a Royal Arch Mason, for the reason
that when he first became such no such
condition or restriction as that now
imposed by regulation No. 21 existed;
that plaintiff never assented to any
such rule or regulation, and he ayers
that the attempt of the Grand Chapter
of California to insert a new condition
into his original contract of member
ship with such order of Royal Arch Ma
scnry without his consent is illegal
unconstitutional and in excess of its
Jurisdiction
From the foregoing statement, as
made by the complaint, which is met
by general demurrer, the proposition
is plainly presented as a necessary one
to be decided in order to reach the re-
lief prayed for, that the court must
adjudge that the Cerneau branch OF
the Scottish Rite is a genuine and legit-
-
that the Albert Pike branch of the same
Scottish Rite is spurious and illegiti-
mate; and further, as a consequence,
that no chapter of Royal Arch Masonry
in California has the right under it's
constitution, rules and usages to ex-
clude from it's membership any member
of the Cerneau Scottish Rite for the
reason of being such, or to prefer fell
lowship with rival order alleged to be
'..monarchical and despotic. In other
words. that regulation No. 81, which
stands in the way of these contentious,
must be removed by a decree of the
court pronouncing it to be unconstitu-
tional and null and void, and restrain
ing Sacramento Chapter No. 8, and
Stockton Chapter, No. %, and from
the other defendants herein from TAX
ing any action under said regulation.
1t is claimed by plaintiff that this
regulation is unconstitutional Judged
by the canons of Masonry as well as the
laws of the land. AS to the first of
these propositions, the court will not
undertake to decide; as to the other. it
can find no ground for condemning the
regulation as being immoral, contrary
to public policy or in contravention of
the law of the land 1t must stand or
fall by the doctrine of Masonry as de-
fined, not by the courts, but by the au-
thorities of Masonry.
In Otto VS.. Tailors' Union rs Cal
314. the fundamental objects of the as
sociation were clearly understood and
made known to the court They were
quite simple and plain. Can the court
see in this case and declare what the
fundamental principles and objects of
the Masonic Order are, SO as to be able
to determine whether plaintiff has been
guilty of conduct violative of such
principles? Again, is it not sufficiently
manifest that something more and Of
more Importance than the participation
in benefits" so called. is involved in |
the fundamental principles of the order?
Matters of vital Importance TO the ex-
istence and purposes of the order NAV
be apparent and yet a court may not be
able to define and declare what such
principles and purposes are with the
certainty necessary as the basis for a |
n .iea1 e