-
Articles/Ads
Article UN-MASONIC MASONRY. Page 1 of 2 Article UN-MASONIC MASONRY. Page 1 of 2 →
Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software.
Un-Masonic Masonry.
UN-MASONIC MASONRY .
SELDOM has the Masonic Order appeared to greater disadvantage in public than was the case a few days back when , in one of the Edinburgh Courts , the Master of a Lodge was sued for " dinners and liquors supplied to his order " on the occasion of the regular meetings of his Lodge . We in England ,
who are accustomed to see the Lodge itself made answerable for the refreshment which follows labour —unless , as is sometimes the case on ordinary nights , that each member present orders for himself —can hardly appreciate the difficulty which the Scotch hotel keeper laboured under in regard to this particular account , but the evidence adduced in support of the plaintiff's case will probably explain
matters , it being urged that it was the custom for the Master to treat the members of the Lodge , after the meetings , at his own expense , and in this way a bill was run up , for the payment of which the assistance of the law had to be invoked . This , it will be understood , was to all intents and purposes
an ordinary debt , and beyond regretting that Freemasonry should have been brought into disrepute in such a manner the case would seem to present no very particular . points of interest for the ordinary Mason , but for a remark made on behalf of the defendant—part of whose excuse for payment seems to have been that he was overcharged , in being
refused a special tariff at the hotel , which he considered he was entitled to from the fact that his Lodge paid a regular price year by year for the use of the hall in which their meetings take place . The defendant ' s solicitor urged that it was a question of importance whether his client should pay 3 s 6 d or
os 4 d for a bottle oi whisky , ancl added that the case might rule a great many others of the same kind among Freemasons . We must not question the good taste' or the grounds on which the defendant's representative made this statement , but we do protest against his utterance that many Masonic Lodges would be governed by such un-Masonic actions as have been associated with this case .
bince writing the above we learn that the defendant in the case has sent out to members of the Graft a printed explanation of the circumstances under which it was called into court , and it would seem that he is free from special blame for allowing the details and the accompanying Masonic scandal to be brought thus prominently before the public . He states he specially instructed his agents to settle
tne case out of court , that he did not authorise them to make the defence they did , and generally he seems to have acted in a thoroughly straightforward and M . asonic manner , thinking he had good reason for questioning the account , on the "round that he considered himself overcharged . We cannot therefore blame our brother , as we had intended to do , for the very un-Masonic display in which he took so
Un-Masonic Masonry.
prominent a part , and which has been so freely commented upon by the press , especially in the north . What we do object to is , that others , whether associated with the Craft or not , should have acted
as they did , and thereby bring discredit on the Order , by attempting to make good their own caso by saying it was one likely to influence other Masonic bodies in their dealings with the proprietors of the hotels or halls in which the meetings are held . The fact that writers in the outside papers seem so ready to take hold of anything like a Masonic scandal , and parade it at length and with considerable
embellishment before the general public , is not very gratifying to members of the Order , but at the same time it may be regarded as something in tlie form of a compliment to ns . Men who are wholly bad are never criticised over minor divergencies from the path of duty , while on the other hand men who have won respect for themselves by uprightness and straightforward conduct are often severely attacked for any
trivial departure from their usual direct line of conduct . So it is with public bodies . If Freemasonry , or members of the Order in thoir official capacity were accustomed to practise such conduct as was introduced as a defence in this Edinburgh case , no one would have thought it worthy of special comment ; as it was , the case was so unusual that oven the daily papers considered it worthy of a bold and
attractive heading , thereby giving it the prominence of something beyond tho ordinary run of every-day life . The same line of argument may be used in support of our contention , that these objectionable references to such unusual actions of Freemasons are more of a compliment than otherwise , in connection with a case heard at one of the London police courts a few days back , when a defendant happened to refer
to the friend at whose house he was a guest as a " Masonic " friend . This we can well imagine was a slip on the part of the speaker , who , for the time being , must have been in a state of great excitement , finding himself in the position he occupied , as the result of a misunderstanding , and perhaps a little outburst of temper on the part of himself or associates .
The fact of the friend being a Masonic associate had really nothing to do with the charge , or the circumstances which led up to it , yet some of the papers of the day , in their desire to put a sensational aspect on the happenings of the hour gave it a Masonic heading , and may have led some of their readers to suppose that the quarrel and its ultimate discussion before a magistrate was a part and parcel of English
Freemasonry , while as a matter of fact the connection of the parties to the disturbance with the Masonic Order had no influence whatever on the case in point , and should never have been mentioned in association with it . We cannot close this article without again urging on members of the Craft the desirability of keeping Freemasonry distinct from their disagreements . The
Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software.
Un-Masonic Masonry.
UN-MASONIC MASONRY .
SELDOM has the Masonic Order appeared to greater disadvantage in public than was the case a few days back when , in one of the Edinburgh Courts , the Master of a Lodge was sued for " dinners and liquors supplied to his order " on the occasion of the regular meetings of his Lodge . We in England ,
who are accustomed to see the Lodge itself made answerable for the refreshment which follows labour —unless , as is sometimes the case on ordinary nights , that each member present orders for himself —can hardly appreciate the difficulty which the Scotch hotel keeper laboured under in regard to this particular account , but the evidence adduced in support of the plaintiff's case will probably explain
matters , it being urged that it was the custom for the Master to treat the members of the Lodge , after the meetings , at his own expense , and in this way a bill was run up , for the payment of which the assistance of the law had to be invoked . This , it will be understood , was to all intents and purposes
an ordinary debt , and beyond regretting that Freemasonry should have been brought into disrepute in such a manner the case would seem to present no very particular . points of interest for the ordinary Mason , but for a remark made on behalf of the defendant—part of whose excuse for payment seems to have been that he was overcharged , in being
refused a special tariff at the hotel , which he considered he was entitled to from the fact that his Lodge paid a regular price year by year for the use of the hall in which their meetings take place . The defendant ' s solicitor urged that it was a question of importance whether his client should pay 3 s 6 d or
os 4 d for a bottle oi whisky , ancl added that the case might rule a great many others of the same kind among Freemasons . We must not question the good taste' or the grounds on which the defendant's representative made this statement , but we do protest against his utterance that many Masonic Lodges would be governed by such un-Masonic actions as have been associated with this case .
bince writing the above we learn that the defendant in the case has sent out to members of the Graft a printed explanation of the circumstances under which it was called into court , and it would seem that he is free from special blame for allowing the details and the accompanying Masonic scandal to be brought thus prominently before the public . He states he specially instructed his agents to settle
tne case out of court , that he did not authorise them to make the defence they did , and generally he seems to have acted in a thoroughly straightforward and M . asonic manner , thinking he had good reason for questioning the account , on the "round that he considered himself overcharged . We cannot therefore blame our brother , as we had intended to do , for the very un-Masonic display in which he took so
Un-Masonic Masonry.
prominent a part , and which has been so freely commented upon by the press , especially in the north . What we do object to is , that others , whether associated with the Craft or not , should have acted
as they did , and thereby bring discredit on the Order , by attempting to make good their own caso by saying it was one likely to influence other Masonic bodies in their dealings with the proprietors of the hotels or halls in which the meetings are held . The fact that writers in the outside papers seem so ready to take hold of anything like a Masonic scandal , and parade it at length and with considerable
embellishment before the general public , is not very gratifying to members of the Order , but at the same time it may be regarded as something in tlie form of a compliment to ns . Men who are wholly bad are never criticised over minor divergencies from the path of duty , while on the other hand men who have won respect for themselves by uprightness and straightforward conduct are often severely attacked for any
trivial departure from their usual direct line of conduct . So it is with public bodies . If Freemasonry , or members of the Order in thoir official capacity were accustomed to practise such conduct as was introduced as a defence in this Edinburgh case , no one would have thought it worthy of special comment ; as it was , the case was so unusual that oven the daily papers considered it worthy of a bold and
attractive heading , thereby giving it the prominence of something beyond tho ordinary run of every-day life . The same line of argument may be used in support of our contention , that these objectionable references to such unusual actions of Freemasons are more of a compliment than otherwise , in connection with a case heard at one of the London police courts a few days back , when a defendant happened to refer
to the friend at whose house he was a guest as a " Masonic " friend . This we can well imagine was a slip on the part of the speaker , who , for the time being , must have been in a state of great excitement , finding himself in the position he occupied , as the result of a misunderstanding , and perhaps a little outburst of temper on the part of himself or associates .
The fact of the friend being a Masonic associate had really nothing to do with the charge , or the circumstances which led up to it , yet some of the papers of the day , in their desire to put a sensational aspect on the happenings of the hour gave it a Masonic heading , and may have led some of their readers to suppose that the quarrel and its ultimate discussion before a magistrate was a part and parcel of English
Freemasonry , while as a matter of fact the connection of the parties to the disturbance with the Masonic Order had no influence whatever on the case in point , and should never have been mentioned in association with it . We cannot close this article without again urging on members of the Craft the desirability of keeping Freemasonry distinct from their disagreements . The