The advocate. [volume] (Charleston, W. Va.) 1901-1913, 1908-08-06
MIR. MrTCHEI.L ONCE AGAIN.

chel's candidacy for the Supreme
CHARACTERISTIC of the Knights OF Ply"
thias, not to read what follows, for
therein we shall attempt to reply 90
his communication, found elsewhere
in this issue.
Mr.. Mitchell is at much pains to-
show that, though he Is the pooban
of Pythianism in Virginia, there have
been others, But, unfortunately Mr.
Mitchell appears to have forgotten
that the case cited by him is not par
allcl with his. He is apparently ig-
norant,- or would have the INITIATED
with the office of Supreme, Chancel-]
lor go the Offices of Supreme Patri-
arch, Commander-in-Ch and Chair
man of the Temple and Sanitarium1
Commissions: True, the late SupremeI
Chancellor held these Offices. Sol
does his successor, and SO would Mr. q
Mitchell, If the Supreme, Lodge
should see fit to elect him to the Su-
preme CHARACTERISTIC. There is,
however, this difference between Mr.. j
MitcheIl's case and the one to which
he refers at length: The Supreme
Chancellor holds the other positions
by virtue of his election to the Su-
preme CHARACTERISTIC, while Mr..
Mitchell is elected head of the lodges
and courts and has himself appoint
ed head of the uniform department.
But the question at issue is not as
to the number or dignity Of the of
fees Mr.. Mitchell gobbles up in Vir-
ginia. That is Virginia's business.
The subject under debate is: Should
John Mitchell, Jr. be elected SUI
preme Chancellor of the Knights of
Pythias? We cheerfully grant that
MIR. Mitchell has not attacked the
present or preceding administration
in the editorial columns of the Plar
ct We acknowledge unreservedIy
that he is not making his candidacy
thR0 Rtsh ~taes ao4tlElaa zos the Planet
but has adopted the gum-shoe plan.
We further grant that there remain
ed always a sembIance of friendship
between him and the late Mr.. Starks
But we hold now, as before, that
Judged by his record, Mr.. MITCHELL
is not the proper person for the of
flee for which Virginia has made him
a candidate.
Mr.. Mitchell asserts that he has
been unfairly attacked and grossly
misrepresented in these columns
Viewed from his standpoint, there
ment, but we deny it. Our CHARGE
is that Mr. Mitchell for four years
fatty refused to obey an order of the
Supreme Lodge.
He qualified his denial by saying
that neither he nor any Supreme
Representative from his state has re-
fused to obey any lawful mandate.
1t is matter Of public history-tc
lie found in the third biennial re-
port Of the late Supreme Chancellor,
also the minutes of the Supreme
Lodge-that the Supreme Chancellor
was authorized by the Supreme lodge
to appoint commission, with full.
powers to act and execute its plans,
to devise ways and means to carry
out the Temple and Sanitarium reso-
lutions proposed by representatives
from illinois and Arkansas.
The commission, Of which Mr.
Mitchell was a member, met at ST.
Louis, Mr.. Mitchell being absent.
The commission acting within it's au-
thority instructed the Supreme Chan
ccllor to levy a tax Of twenty cents
upon the knights and ten cents, an
nually, upon the women Of the court.
This the Supreme Chancellor did by
proclamation. No subordinate nor
Grand Lodge disregarded the order,
but Virginia. Was it because the
order was unlawful? Evidently, for
Mr.. Mitchell, who posed as gu
Drcme Court. nullfied it.
Mr.. Mitchell asks now how the Ad.
| vocate defends its outspoken oppo-
sitton to nina member of the Or
der, an official Of the Grand Lodge,
a Supreme Representative and a
member Of the Supreme Lodge. As
an ofticial organ the Advocate CON
cclVeS it its duty to discuss the public
affairs Of the Order whenever, wher-
| ever II plcdSCS; TO comment upon
| EciiciCS Of the administrations as
they affect the welfare of the Order
TO throw light upon the record of
those who aspire to Offices Of trust
and responsibility either in the Grand
or Supreme Lodge.
We have road the passages to
which we were referred, but fail to
ma wherein We have broken any OBJ