The Topeka state journal., 1902-11-15
Supreme Court Hands Down
Important Decision.
Moore Against Knights and La
dies Of Security.
CAN SUSPEND MEMBERS
That Is What Decision Amounts
To.
Other Items of Interest About
the Lodges.

One of the interesting legal decisions,
involving a member of a beneficiary
order and the executive officers of that
order. is the one recently handed down
by the state supreme court of Kansas
in the case entitled ED G. Moore VS..
The National Council of the Knights
and Ladies of Security. a corporation.
ct a."
The case came uo for trial about two
years ago in the district court of Shaw
nee county. and after a decision ad-
verse to Mr.. Moore it was appealed to
the supreme court, where the decision
of the lower court was affirmed. Ac-
cording to the charge. Moore issued a
scurrilous circular charging mismanage-
ment, incompetency, in the affairs of the
knights and Ladies of security, anu
further issued a call for a delegate
meeting He was then summoned by
w. B. Kirkpatrick, the national pres1-
dent. and j. M. Wallace, national secre'
tary, to appear at the general mead
quarters OF the lodge here. and did SO.
His attack was found to be of such
nature that indefinite suspension was
sion of this order and his reinstatement
to the full rights of membership he
brought quo Warranto proceedings In the
Shawnee county district court. Whlcu
refused MN rel1et, ana the case was llSH
taken to the highest court of the state.
Mr.. Justice Cunningham has written
the opinion, and concurring in it are all
the justices of the court. In Orel1m1-
nary way he quotes from previous
case, applying it to the jurisdiction
which the national council has over the
plaintiff in error Courts says the
syllabus of this case, will not undertake
to direct OF control the internal policy
of such societies, nor to decide ques-
tions relating to the discipline of It's
members but will leave the society free
to carry out any lawful purpose in its
own way. and in accordance with its
own rules and regulations.
The application of this rule the de-
ciSiOn continues, "to this case leaves US
but to inquire whether there was a
legal bylaw applicable to the case o.
the plaintiff in error, whether the pro-
cedure by the executive committee in
the trial of the plaintiff in error was in
good faith. in accord with such bylaw.
and not violative of the law of the land.
We conclude that the bylaw, quoted on
the statement of facts, authorized the
trial of the plaintiff in error for the
offense charged before the executive
committee. While other bylaws pro-
vide for the trial of other offenses COM
mitted by members of the order before
a subordinate council. yet the terms
of the quoted bylaws seem clearly to
commit to the executive committee. or
the national council, the trial of the
offense charged against the plaintiff in
error.
1T is urged that the notice served upon
him was Intellectual to confer jurisdic-
ton, for the reason that it required him
to appear forthwith, and because no
copy of the charges accompanied the
citation, IS provided in one of the by
laws regulating the trial and procedure.
1t appears, however, that plaintiff did
appear in obedience to the citation.
made no objection to proceeding with
the trial except to urge the want of
fIo fo0
to so proceed, because of the want of a
bylaw comforting upon it such jurisdic-
ton; he did not suggest that he was not
fully informed as to the nature and
character of the accusation charged
against him, or that he desired further
time, but on the other hand intimated
that he fully informed of the
charges preferred, and did not wish for
further time. We think, by so doing,
he waived both of these objections.
1T is further urged that no proof was
introduced against him upon this inves-
tigatiOn. The evidence upon the trial
in the district court shows, that plain
tiff in error freely admitted that he
signed and published the circular. That
being the OffenSe with which he was
charged. his admission waived further
proof. 1t was proof.
1T IS further urged, as the circular
was an attack upon the management
of the affairs of the order by the ma
tiOnal council, and as the executive
committee was largely responsible IOf
that management, that such charges
were essentially an accusation against
the executive committee, hence to per-
nit the executive committe to try the
question of the guilt or innocence of the
plaintiff in error. was allowing a per-
son to adjudge his own case, which is
against public policy. 1t might be
sufficient answer to this to say, the
trial took place under the provisions of
a bylaw of the order to which plain
tiff in error. by becoming a member
thereof. fully assented. and as such falls
within the principle announced in Reno
1 Lodge VS.. Grand Lodge. supra. But,
/ further than this, the offense charged
against the plaintiff, was one against
| the order fundamentally and the asper-
sions contained in the circular were di-
rected to the subversion and destruc-
ton, or at least the serious injury of the
order.
1T was the clear duty under the rules
of the order for the executive commit
| tee, which in the interim of the sessions
Of the national council was charged
with tie protection of the interests of
the order. to take such steps as would
preserve the integrity of the order, al
though. incidentally in such proceed
ingS the correctness. or even honesty.
of the actions of the committee might