Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software.
India
for election here [ lay between the J . W , and a P . M . who had joined the previous year as an honorary member . The votes were equalwithouttheyoteof the W . M ., who thought that the Lodge should proceed to another ballot , hut gave in to the opinion of the P . M ., that the W . M . should give the casting vote , with due regard to the qualifications of the candidates ; and accordingly , after some ( doubtless anxious ) reflection , he gave his voice in favour of the P . M . Some curious questions arise out of these proceedings . One of these is , whether a honorary member
is eligible for election as W . M . unless he has previously become a subscribing member . We know that in most Lodges the names of honorary members are annually brought forward as eligible for election ; but we know also , that in general the by-laws include a rule to meet the point above mooted . The by-laws of most Lodges expressly deny the right of honorary members to vote on pecuniary matters , a reservation which one Lodge lately thought proper to discontinue . In one instance , we knew of an honorary member who , in consequence , hesitated to give even an opinion ( until specially called upon ) as to the character
of an applicant for relief . Some definite rules are . we think , required on the subject of the rights and privileges of honorary members generally . Another question that arises is founded on what the Constitutions state , viz ., that after the W . M . has given one vote and thereby ( so to speak ) caused an equality , he has then the right of giving a second or casting vote . In this instance , the W . M . originally intended not to vote , and was compelled to vote by the equality existing without his vote ; so that his vote was not a casting vote , but a vote given openly—when , had he intended to vote , he should have given his vote
secretly like the rest of the Brethren . This is not , as may at first sight appear , a distinction without a difference . The voting being intended to be secret , whether by ballot or the inscription of names on papers , the Constitutions provide that if the result , after all , including the W . M ., have voted , be an equality , the W . M . shall , as a part of the duties as well as the responsibilities of his office , give his casting vote publicly . This , sometimes a duty and sometimes a privilege ( the exercise of which must be odious in some cases ; as where persons prefer that their predilections should not be divulged ) , is thrown upon the W . M . as a necessity ; but
the observance of it should , it is obvious , be confined within the bounds prescribed . Would it not have been the proper course if the W . M . had , in this case , stated that although . he had wished to leave the election entirely in the hands of the Lodge , yet from the turn which things had taken he felt himself compelled to vote like the rest ; and had then required a second secret voting on paper , giving his vote in the same manner ? It may be argued against this opinion , that supposing the result of the votes of the members to be the same , the inequality would be concluded to have been caused by the vote of the W . M ., and it would therefore be immaterial if he openly or secretly gave his vote . The replies to this
objection are many : —1 st . The result of the subsequent voting by the members might have been different , as we can readily imagine . 2 nd . The difficulty felt by W . M . would not perhaps have been experienced . 3 rd . The subsequent voting would have been strictly according to the Constitutions , and the privilege of secret voting would not have been taken away , except as a last resource under recognised circumstances . 4 th . The address of the P . M . might have been deemed by the W . M . an appeal to him , which he could not resist , though it was tolerably evident that , had he been left to himself ; the turn of the scale might have been different . All these are so many reasons why the Constitutions should , in every possible case , be strictly observed .
The two Lodges in which the election was contested were Courage with Humanity and Kikvinning , In both of them the candidate , whoever he might have been , would have walked over the course , but for an opinion authoritatively expressed , that any Brother who had been appointed but had not acted as Warden for a twelve month ,, might be elected , provided no eligible Brethren were willing to stand for election , and the Lodge applied for a dispensation for his installation . This opinion , instead of proving " serviceable to the Brethren whom it affected , induced Past Masters who before had no intention of the kind , to become candidates . We are thus reminded of the remark of a worthy P . M ., that there seems to be a lack of zeal ( val & v dejlendmn ) in those who have ruled in the S . and W .,
Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software.
India
for election here [ lay between the J . W , and a P . M . who had joined the previous year as an honorary member . The votes were equalwithouttheyoteof the W . M ., who thought that the Lodge should proceed to another ballot , hut gave in to the opinion of the P . M ., that the W . M . should give the casting vote , with due regard to the qualifications of the candidates ; and accordingly , after some ( doubtless anxious ) reflection , he gave his voice in favour of the P . M . Some curious questions arise out of these proceedings . One of these is , whether a honorary member
is eligible for election as W . M . unless he has previously become a subscribing member . We know that in most Lodges the names of honorary members are annually brought forward as eligible for election ; but we know also , that in general the by-laws include a rule to meet the point above mooted . The by-laws of most Lodges expressly deny the right of honorary members to vote on pecuniary matters , a reservation which one Lodge lately thought proper to discontinue . In one instance , we knew of an honorary member who , in consequence , hesitated to give even an opinion ( until specially called upon ) as to the character
of an applicant for relief . Some definite rules are . we think , required on the subject of the rights and privileges of honorary members generally . Another question that arises is founded on what the Constitutions state , viz ., that after the W . M . has given one vote and thereby ( so to speak ) caused an equality , he has then the right of giving a second or casting vote . In this instance , the W . M . originally intended not to vote , and was compelled to vote by the equality existing without his vote ; so that his vote was not a casting vote , but a vote given openly—when , had he intended to vote , he should have given his vote
secretly like the rest of the Brethren . This is not , as may at first sight appear , a distinction without a difference . The voting being intended to be secret , whether by ballot or the inscription of names on papers , the Constitutions provide that if the result , after all , including the W . M ., have voted , be an equality , the W . M . shall , as a part of the duties as well as the responsibilities of his office , give his casting vote publicly . This , sometimes a duty and sometimes a privilege ( the exercise of which must be odious in some cases ; as where persons prefer that their predilections should not be divulged ) , is thrown upon the W . M . as a necessity ; but
the observance of it should , it is obvious , be confined within the bounds prescribed . Would it not have been the proper course if the W . M . had , in this case , stated that although . he had wished to leave the election entirely in the hands of the Lodge , yet from the turn which things had taken he felt himself compelled to vote like the rest ; and had then required a second secret voting on paper , giving his vote in the same manner ? It may be argued against this opinion , that supposing the result of the votes of the members to be the same , the inequality would be concluded to have been caused by the vote of the W . M ., and it would therefore be immaterial if he openly or secretly gave his vote . The replies to this
objection are many : —1 st . The result of the subsequent voting by the members might have been different , as we can readily imagine . 2 nd . The difficulty felt by W . M . would not perhaps have been experienced . 3 rd . The subsequent voting would have been strictly according to the Constitutions , and the privilege of secret voting would not have been taken away , except as a last resource under recognised circumstances . 4 th . The address of the P . M . might have been deemed by the W . M . an appeal to him , which he could not resist , though it was tolerably evident that , had he been left to himself ; the turn of the scale might have been different . All these are so many reasons why the Constitutions should , in every possible case , be strictly observed .
The two Lodges in which the election was contested were Courage with Humanity and Kikvinning , In both of them the candidate , whoever he might have been , would have walked over the course , but for an opinion authoritatively expressed , that any Brother who had been appointed but had not acted as Warden for a twelve month ,, might be elected , provided no eligible Brethren were willing to stand for election , and the Lodge applied for a dispensation for his installation . This opinion , instead of proving " serviceable to the Brethren whom it affected , induced Past Masters who before had no intention of the kind , to become candidates . We are thus reminded of the remark of a worthy P . M ., that there seems to be a lack of zeal ( val & v dejlendmn ) in those who have ruled in the S . and W .,