THE BUILDER September 1916

PREROGATIVES
BY BRO. LEWIS A. McCONNELL, INDIANA

THE making of Masons "at sight" is held up by a number of writers
to be the prerogative of Grand Masters, a special right which they
enjoy which is not enjoyed by the other members of the fraternity;
a right which was granted to them, either ancient legislation, or
exists by reason of the toleration of a custom, or by means of a
combination of both; if such right exists, then it is not only the
right, but also the duty of a Mason to inquire as to its source,
since all rights enjoyed by certain specially selected individuals
which are not granted to others, must have been granted to the
possessor by a power superior to himself.

It is most logically and undisputedly set forth by Thomas Paine in
that inimitable treatise upon human liberties, entitled "The Rights
of Man," that there are certain rights which belong to each
individual of which there exists no power to deprive him, and that
such rights are possessed by every other individual without
distinction; that such rights are not inherited or handed down from
one generation to another by legislation of a past generation which
the present generation has not the right to repeal; but that the
descendents of each generation possess the right to legislate for
themselves regardless of the acts of past generations, even though
such past enactments may be framed so as to bind themselves "and
their heirs forever," language which has often been used for the
purpose of binding upon an unwilling future generation, the force
of its provisions.

It cannot be a question which admits of any doubt that a Grand
Master gets his rights as such, whatever they may be, not from the
same source from which each individual secures those rights which
are admitted to belong to all men, but from a special authority,
and one which is superior to himself; for it is impossible to
imagine a right granted from an inferior power to a superior one,
or for an individual without such authority, to invest himself with
rights which other individuals may not also assume.

He then secures such rights from the general body of Masonry which
had the power and right to promulgate and adopt the constitutions
and regulations under which his power exists, the power of such
body necessarily including the power to alter or amend any
enactment which it originally had the power to promulgate.

It therefore had the right to require an adherence to ancient
customs and usages, and to point out and declare what were the
ancient landmarks to which such requirements refer; and any future
Grand Lodge, being no less a power than any preceding one, has the
power to enact that its members shall adhere to such regulations,
or to any other regulations which it may see fit to set forth; but
unless this later Grand Lodge sanctions the enactments of a
preceding one they cannot be binding upon the present body of
Masonry, unless it be true that one generation has the right to
legislate for a future one, which is plainly demonstrated not to be
true; and inasmuch as "truth is a divine attribute and the
foundation of every virtue" which Masonry professes to believe and
sustain, we cannot admit the principle of inherited rights or
inherited powers.

Masonry very properly aims to keep in sight the ancient landmarks
of the fraternity, and yet, by some means or other a number of
customs have been introduced into the order which are by no means
ancient although some of them date back to a considerable length of
time, and which have been attempted to be set up as ancient
landmarks; yet whether or not they are such, it is the right of the
present generation to adopt them if it chooses, or to discard them,
such customs possessing no "hereditary" right to exist.

Great care being deemed necessary in the selection of material from
which to make Masons, enactments have been universally made as to
the requirements of the candidate, the methods of his application
for membership, the length of time necessary for committees to
examine as to his fitness, the necessity for the unanimous consent
of the particular lodge to which the application is made, the
length of time necessary to be allowed between his taking one
degree and his eligibility for the next, in order that he may
become proficient before being allowed to advance further.

Can a candidate who has been given the three degrees "at sight" be
said to have made suitable proficiency in the preceding degrees?
Has he complied with the requirements as to the time given for an
examination as to his qualification so that his being worthy and
well qualified may not be a matter of doubt ? Has he been given the
time necessary in which to post himself in one degree before being
admitted to another, as required ? Has he passed a clear ballot in
the lodge in which he is to be introduced after thirty days notice?
If all these cannot be answered in the affirmative, in what degree
of consistency can any one uphold the practice on the ground of
ancient landmark, since the custom violates some of the most
important landmarks which are known to the order?

If there are any landmarks seriously necessary for the good
government of the order, these, which are universal and
unquestioned, should be considered as such, while the making of a
Mason "at sight" denies their importance and violates that divine
attribute, truth, which is one of the tenets of our profession
which regards all men as being equal, entitled to equal rights
only, and for the support of which we so particularly specialize as
to the requirements of a candidate, and which we recklessly violate
when we make a Mason "at sight." And if for our authority we claim
an inherited right to do so regardless of the consent of the
present governing power, we then also violate the principles of
truth, for we have demonstrated that it is not true that such
rights as inherited ones exist.

We therefore, with the excuse of the permission of a shadowy
landmark, by no means well defined nor universally admitted,
violate several prominent landmarks of the order of which there is
no question whatever !

Let us take a brief review of the list of eleven persons made
Masons "at sight" at various times, shown in the article in the
February number. Two are princes, three are Dukes, one of whom was
afterward Emperor of Germany, one a President of the United States,
two are Governors of States, one a British Captain at sea and the
position of the other three not given.

Now the principal excuse for making Masons "at sight" is that it is
an "emergency" measure, although in but two of the cases above is
an "emergency" shown, and those not vital to the carrying out of
the usual custom of Freemasonry in the regular manner.

In no less than three of the cases it is plainly admitted that no
emergency existed, as the Grand Master of Pennsylvania claimed as
a reason for the act, that he did not wish the custom to become
obsolete; while the Grand Master of Maryland explains that he has
done it "as much for the purpose of not having the custom become
dormant as for any other reason."

This sounds very much like a reason which might be advanced by a
tyrannical monarch who claimed an inherited right of some kind not
given him by divine law, as a "prerogative" of which he was in fear
that his subjects would see the folly of and deprive him, unless he
exercised it occasionally so as to accustom them to submission to
his claim!

When future generations of Masons look over such lists, it might be
that they would occasionally see a case where plain John Jones or
William Smith, a poor but worthy man, supporting a large family and
unable to spare the time from his daily toil without loss to them,
was for this reason made a Mason "at sight"; not by virtue of an
imaginary inherited right, but by the exercise of a virtue
warranted by the exercise of Masonic charity which might explain
the irregularity. But when they find only that such violations of
Masonic principles have never yet been done as an act of Masonic
grace, and that the Duke of Flubdub, the Marquis Folde-rol or the
Maharajah of Singapore, have been singled out as recipients of such
special favor, they may well be led to doubt the sincerity of the
craft in its professions of making no distinctions between the
exalted and the lowly.

But if it should so be that the prerogative of making Masons "at
sight" should be generally regarded as an ancient landmark, which
it is doubtful that the majority of Masonic scholars will admit,
then such landmark, if such it be, should be placed side by side
with another noted landmark which was boldly set aside by the Grand
Lodge of England in 1723, because it restricted religious liberty
and was, in the opinions of writers of today, "a violation of the
fundamental farshining principles of Freemasonry." (I quote from
Joseph Fort Newton). And the same is certainly true of the custom,
claimed by a few as a "prerogative right," sustained by virtue of
a dim, shadowy and questionable authority, exercised at times, not
for expediency, but for the purpose of permanently foisting its
practice upon the fraternity, and then chiefly upon those who have
been raised to affluence in the world's affairs.

Does a "prerogative" allow me to change the meaning of words, so as
to conform with somebody's imaginary special right? What is the
meaning of the term "regular" ? Am I allowed to recognize as a
Mason one who has not, after all, been regularly initiated, or is
making a Mason "at sight" the "regular" method of initiating
Masons?

It may be claimed that in certain cases, unless this prerogative
had been exercised, Masonry would have been deprived of the
influence and services of a number of worthy, well qualified and
gracious persons who would have been a benefit and ornament to
Masonry, thus incurring a loss to the fraternity. My answer is that
nothing can be lost that has not been previously possessed. How
much did Masonry lose by the fact that Abraham Lincoln never joined
it? His life was such as to exalt the very principles advocated and
sustained by the teachings of the craft, and thus was positive
benefit to it, perhaps, to just as great an extent as if he had
been a Mason; because he furthered the exercise, by his example, of
those virtues which we encourage and revere. If a man believes in
the principles of a certain political party, enters into its work
and furthers its objects, the party has sustained no loss by reason
of his never joining its political clubs and organizations and
placing his name on their records; but has been an actual gainer by
his encouragement and vote. Thus Masonry, by the exercise of its
principles by the immortal Lincoln, has been a gainer, and
therefore all we lack from his not being a member, is the pride we
might have had, but have not now, of being able to boast of our
connections, of being able to say "See that great man! He is one of
us. Are we not proud?"

On the other hand, if the Masons who joined the order "at sight"
became Masons of their own free will and accord, each one, in all
probability, would have done so in the regular manner; and if his
zeal and respect for the order were not sufficient for this, it is
easy to see how little would have been the loss if he had never
joined the order at all.

Considering the whole question in any light in which I have been
able to view it, the so-called right of a Grand Master to confer
degrees in any other than the regular manner, is not only useless,
unauthorized and contradictory, but it is an actual injury to the
good name and well being of the fraternity, and if any regulation
exists which permits this practice, it should be abolished.

