The record-union., 1896-02-22
sACRAMENTO DAILY
AN INTERESTING DECISION.
Continued from Third Page J


ethical and social objects. and subject
thus to a common disciplinary, they
have voluntarily submitted themselves
to the disciplining power of the body of
which they are members, and it is for
| that body to know its own To deny
it the power of discerning who eonsti-
tute its members is to deny the existence
of the society"
The ethics of Masonry must neces-
| sarily be founded in its usages. rules.
laws, and in the decisions of its own pc
culiar tribunals and authorities, both
ancient and modern, and, then by those
only who have the entire We shall
| search for them in vain from Lord Coke
to John Marshall. Evolution may work
changes in discipline and even in doc
trine, and when such changes do not
meet the approval of a portion of its
| members, and resistance within the
order is Intellectual, there remains the
privilege of retirement with those to
whom conformity is intolerable. or the
alternative of expulsion to those who
| Will not submit. In neither case can
they take any of the property of the
society with them. In the course of
time and nature, and by abnormal cir
cumstances, membership continually
changes, but the property of the society
remains unaffected by the coming in
and going out of members The judicial
authority may not be called on to inter-
fere, and adjudge what shall or shall
not be principle or a valid law of
Masonry. Such interference is not
within the pale of it's lawful jurisdic-
ton. While it may, and should, protect
property rights, it cannot perform even
that function when it cannot be per-
formed without usurping an unwar-
ranted power over the consciences and
personal liberties of the citizen.
recent case in Ohio decided by
Judge Evans of the Franklin County
| Common Pleas is in fun accord with
these views, and is interesting from the
fact that William A Hersheiser. the
presiding head of the same order to
which plaintiff belongs, the condemna-
ton of which is complained of in this
case, and others, were plaintiffs seeking
10 have S. Stacker Williams, the Grand
/ Master of Ohio, and the officers of
Goodale Lodge enjoined from proceed
ing to expel them from the lodge.
The averments of the complaint that
the plaintiffs were charged with un-
masonic conduct, alleged to consist in
| said plaintiffs being members of the
Ancient Accepted Scottish Rite of the
United States, its Territories and De-
Ipendencies, otherwise known as the
Cerneau bodies of the Ancient Accepted
Scottish Rite, and soliciting members of
said Goodale Lodge and members Of
other Masonic lodges to become mem
bers Of said Scottish Rite bodies and
that plaintiffs are about to be and will
be expelled from said lodge on said
charges unless this court shall inter
fere."p
In all necessary ana1ogies the case
was exactly like this All questions
pertinent to the controversy Were fully
considered, particularly the question of
alleged property rights as a basis for
interference by court of equity, and
numerous authorities cited and quoted
from. The court held that the Goodale
Lodge is society. not for profit but
fo1 Masonic purposes, and tlat it has
the power to expel one or more of its
members for unmasonic conduct, and to
determine wherein unmasonic conduct
consists. and that this court has no
jurisdiction to restrain the lodge from
proceeding to eXpel a member or mem
bers for any alleged irregularity by the
lodge, or it's proper officers, in the exer-
cIse of its power of expulsion" The
court sustained a general demurrer to
the complaint. I am Informed that. on
appeal to the,Supreme Court Of Ohio.
this case has been affirmed though not
yet reported.
There is another ground of objection
which, according to all authority is
fatal to the maintenance of this action
Courts of equity decline to interfere
with voluntary benevolent associations
so long as the means of relief provided
by the society itself have not been
availed of and exhausted" Oevy VS.
Magnolia Lodge, 10 Cal. Dec. 246 and
cases there cited) Here, there is no
want of notice; and full opportunity to
be heard in defense is given; and after
that, there remains the right of appeal
from the subordinate chapter to the SUI
preme authority. The mere expression
or a bare fear that a fair trial cannot
be had is insufficient to move a court of
equity to prevent a transfer of the trial
from Sacramento to Stockton, espec-
tally when no facts are stated in sup
port of the belief that the question Of
unmasonic conduct in dispute cannot be
tried as fairly in one place as the other;
non constat but it was ordered to
Stockton by the High Priest for the pur-
pose of a fair trial, which possibly
might not be had in the chapter where
the charges originated
The conclusion of the court, there
fore, is the demurrer must be sustained