The Washington bee., 1912-02-03
in America.

III your rule to show cause, resDOn-
dent denies the authority of the sub
Committee of Management OF the
Grand United Order of Odd Fellows
OF America, under the rules, laws, and
| regulations of said Order to compel
Sald respondent to comply with anv
oTder to surrender until all vouchers
OF respondents are returned to him
ether approved or disapproved. An
SWerlng further said paragraph. your
/ respondent stands ready to comply
| win the order OF the Committee
| OF management, issued August II.
, l9Il' When SAID committee paws re
: Spondent tor preparing Grand Staff
CounclI Laws, and Drill Manual.
! ! our respondent was informed bv the
| Grand Secretary, Needham. that ex-
| Grand Master Houston preDared said
| laws tor which he was paid one hun-
| dred dollars, thus respondent une-
! quVocally denies and brands as
| fraud and deception upon the Order.
| that your respondent further AYERS
| that the only connection that ex-
| Grand Master, w. L. Houston had
was the submission, of the law pre-
pared by respondent to him for what
L
he may deem wise to make. that the
original manuscript Is III the posses
sion of your respondent. Further
answering paragraph Zone" of the
preamble of said rule to show cause.
your respondent was authorized To-
prepare the Drill Manual as Is evi-
denced by the letter of Lieut. Gen.
w. /. Houston. dated December I.
1910; now if no authority had been
vested IN respondent to prepare said
Drill Manual what authority would
the Lieutenant General have 10 re-
quest respondent 10 submit the re-
Used and completed manuscript OF
said Drill Manual to him before it
went to the printer? Respondent
hles herewith copy Of a letter dated
Chicago, ILL.,, December I. 1910. and
signed w. L. Houston. Lieutenant
General, and asks that it be made part
OF respondents answer, marked Ex-
hibit "a" Again your respondent
did go over the Manual with said
Lieutenant General and made certain
changes suggested by him. The re-
spOndent did the work of preparing
the laws and some one else was paid
the money, which no court of law will
sustain. That your respondent has
not been paid for his services, and
the refusal of your respondent to
comply with the order of the Sub
Committee of Management, to turn
over moneys, books, etc, alleged to
be the property of the Order, must be
| transferred 70 a court Of law and
equity. To a court of law for the
Just payment of moneys due respou-
dent for services, and to a court of
equity to decide the equity of your
demand when you refused to pay a
Just Indebtedness. Further answering
paragraph One" of the preamble, to
show cause, your respondent hereby
AYERS as a paying officers of the Or
der, he has no right to turn over the
books, alleged to be the property OF
the Order until his vouchers are
properly approved or disapproved, ac-
cording to instructions received from
Lieutenant General Houston. Exhibit
double IA shows letters of Grand
Master Morris requesting respondent
to state who authorized him to pre-
pare Staff and Drill Laws, and re-
spondent asks to make it a part OF
his answer.
cordlng TO law as IS evidenced as fol-
lows:
Grand Staff Council Laws. $1,000
salary ;'..',.''......'........ $500
Drill Manual ................ $4,000
$525.oo
There has been no charge of mai
feasance IN office; no charge of irreg-
ularity, or dishonesty, but a cold, un-
warranted exercise of arbitrary pow
er, exercised by force, without war
rant OF law or reason, rules, Justice, or
equity; not even an opportunity given
to appear before the Subcommittee
of Management and present respond
ent'S side of the case Respondents
work has been satisfactory, which let
ter marked Exhibit b" from Grand
Master will show, and which the re-
spoudent begs leave to make part of
his answer. Respondent begs leave
10 file herewith a note. marked Ex-
hiDit &C" >" which in itself demonstrates
the equity of respondents position
Three: Answering preamble two
OF the Order Of the S C. Of NJ Of the
Grand United Order OF Odd Fellows
IN America TO wit:
Whereas the said George T. Beason
has failed and refused to comply with
said order. respondent has fully set
out IN his answer TO preamble One
why he refuses to acCede to the re-
quest Of the Subcommittee of Man
agement, and AYERS further that he
has committed no offeuse. violated no
law of the Order by refusing TO com
ply with the demand Of the Sub-Com-
mittee OF Management and for such
refusal respondent IS cited to appear
and show cause Monday, January 8.
1912. why he should not be adJudged
guilty of contempt Your respondent
denies absolutely and unequivocally
that by refusing to turn over 10 James
T. Ncedham, Esq, Military SeCre-
tary, his successor, certain moneys,
books, and papers, are not sufficient
grounds to be cited for contempt.
That the law of COntempt Is strictly
classified into four essential classes,
and respondents construction OF It