Rock Island Argus. (Rock Island, Ill.) 1893-1920, 1897-05-12

ing most important matters the man
ner Of making the changes must have
the assent of the members expressed
in some lawful way. What condi-
tions they might see fit to impose for
the exercise of such power could only
be known by the rule they might
prescribe. The Modern Woodmen
had never adopted any rule prescrib-
ing the manner Of doing such an
act. either by its head camp or other
wise. 1t had adopted fundamental
laws which fixed the location of the
principal Office at the same place as
the articles Of association, and had
provided the method of amending
such fundamental laws. but had
made no provision for amending the
articles. The bilt proceeds upon
the theory that the change could
only be made by the head camp By a
two-thirds vote of the delegates fc, m
the local camps in the method
pointed out for amending the funda-
mental laws. while on the other hand
1t 10 claimed that it could be done In
any manner and by majority vote,
and that the provision in the
fundamental laws has no ap-
piication. The court declares
that to accomplish the change,
binding upon the members, it was
necessary to change both the articles
and the fundamental laws. The law
OF the state governing the corpora
ton required the office to remain at
Fulton until a change should be
made in the articles in compliance
with the law and the auditor of pub
lie accounts should approve the
change. The corporate body by its
fundamental laws also ordained that
no change of the location from Ful-
ton should be made except by a vote
OF two-thirds of the delegates at 8
head camp.
The Omaha Head Camp.
The Omaha head camp did not
attempt to amend the articles OF
association or the flnda mental laws.
There was not only no rule existing
out none adopted governing the
action and no attempt to change the
laws. 1t was resolved that q ballot
should be taken and the city receiv-
ing the ma prity of the votes be de-
clared the choice of the head camp,
that the commit,ee on revision OF
laws report the necessary change and
carry it out, etc, and the board of
directors be instructed to take the
necessary steps, etc. The bal o!
gave Rocs Island Sc out of a total OF
l03 votes, not the two-thirds neces-
sary; and further the conn ittee on
revision Of laws reported no change
and there was no adoption of fund
amental law or other change in the
law or the articles, but the board o.
directors we're afterward by resolu.
ton merely ordered to take The
necessary legal steps to bring about
the change in location. In q word
the court holds that the action a.
Omaha was not valid in any sense
and that the Madison head CAM
practically so recognized.
The court then reviews the pro
| ceedings OF the Madison meeting ir
June. 1895. 1t speaks of the adop
ton OF the rule changing the article.
OF association. the ordering Of the
! board uf directors to amend the
damental laws in such particu.
lars as night be directed by a two
thirds vo'e Of any head camp. tn
cha ,ging of the office to RocA Islart
~ the necessary two-thirds voie
| and Of the board of directors hein.
required to amend the articles an,
fundamental Law accordingly and hi
action being properly certified by The
directors to the proper otiic ais q,
Springfield. Then the court contend
that the same territorial obie ton is
made to this action, and tn farth II
| objection that the head camp or
dered the board of directors to d.
the amending. aud the board of d..
rectors acting on the suppo ition
that the head camp had done it. and
between the two, no amendment
was made. ut is true tina. the pro
ceedlngs were irregular and defec
tive in form in the particular:
pointed out, but we think they
would be sufficient for the purpose
intended if such action cou!C
be taken outside of this state,
but the section governing the neces
sity OF the particular act as to thu
removal being adopted within the
borders OF the state. the court goes
on to show to have been still il
force. The changes in the laws o.
the state made to legalizs the pro
ceedinga OF the Omaha meeting anC
to pave the way for the Madison
meeting are cited. and particular
stress laid up,n the express point
that in the PROVISIONS so giving tn
sanction OF the state to these tran-
actions that an eScepsion IS express
ly made as to the law so far as the
same may relate TO the removal Of
the principal place of business.
Hence the court declares that tn
Woodmen coming under the govern
ment and coutrnl of the last dis
cussed acts of 1928, holds the con
tention to be one between mem Der
OF the association and its officers t
prevent the contamination of an &C