THE BUILDER APRIL 1915

PROBLEMS IN MASONIC CHARITY

BY BRO. GEO. E. FRAZER. GRAND PRESIDENT ACACIA FRATERNITY 

YOU will agree with me that Freemasonry is not, in itself, a
charitable organization. That is to say, the primary purpose of the
order is not charitable relief to its members. The fundamental
creed of Masonry is, and must ever be, the study of Masonic
philosophy. As Masons come together in the lodge room and outside
of it for the discussion of Masonic truth, a strong feeling of
companionship and brotherhood naturally results. The friendships
formed in Masonic work and study carry in themselves a desire to
relieve the necessities of unfortunate brothers. Masonic charity is
a great fact; it is an inherent part of the Masonic system; but it
is not, of course, in itself, the purpose nor function of Masonry.

The real Masonic assistance that is afforded by one Brother to
another is assistance in the learning and understanding of Masonic
truth. American Freemasonry is very careful strictly to limit its
field to this ideal of brotherly assistance. Our order does not
teach us, it does not expect of us, that we shall afford one
another political assistance. I am under no obligation whatsoever
to vote or to exercise my influence in favor of a candidate because
he is a member of the Masonic order. Likewise, I am under no
obligation to favor Masonic brethren in any of my business
relations. Nothing in the philosophy, or ritual, or practices of
Masonry obligates me to assist a Masonic brother in his endeavors
towards social distinction. The lodges of Freemasonry are not
political organizations; they are not business syndicates; they are
not social cliques. There is something in the essential equality of
Masons among their fellows that is, in itself, an effective barrier
towards the use of Masonry by politicians, by captains of finance,
and by social leaders. It is perhaps safe to say that the average
Mason looks askance at the brother who seems to seek assistance of
this sort, and is inclined to afford such a self-seeking brother
much less than the usual amount of sympathy and co-operation that
he would give if Masonic influence had been attempted. It is, of
course, not to be denied that the strong and enduring friendships
formed in the Masonic lodge are a real assistance to a man in all
of his legitimate endeavors. But we must not forget that if we
assist a brother Mason in his endeavors, we assist him as a friend
and not because there is anything in Masonry that teaches us to
discriminate in favor of Masons in the ordinary relationships of
life. True Masonic charity comes naturally from a study of Masonic
fundamentals. For the great lesson of Masonry is human welfare,
than which there is no truer form of charity. Masonry fights for
freedom, for free speech, for free schools, for freedom in
religious belief, for law and order, such as will protect the
laborer in his hire.

Assistance to the individual member is but an incident in the great
work of Freemasonry. That great work is to stand for the
fundamental rights of free men. These rights are only partly won;
they are always in jeopardy. Unceasing must be the vigil of the
master workman who seeks that real democracy that was forever lost,
and that is forever to be won. Speech, we say, is free in America,
and yet our brothers are constantly losing place and position
because of their courage in speaking freely against religious 
domination. Schools are free, we say, yet a powerful enemy
insidiously and unceasingly attacks the public schools of America.
The right to work is established, we say, and yet tyrannical labor
organizations and grasping capitalists vie with each other in
restricting the laborer in his hire. I need not go on. It is enough
if you understand that the larger ideals of Masonry mean freedom,
and therefore, average prosperity of soul, and mind, and body to
its members, We must not forget that the fundamentals of Masonry,
the simple and accepted things, are the makers of welfare--the
truest and surest expression of Masonic charity. These simple
things were fought for by our fathers in Masonry through all the
centuries; these things we must fight for if we would have perfect
charity among men; these things our children's children must fight
for.

The first great problem in Masonic charity is, then, this: Shall we
throw all of our resources into the ceaseless struggle which makes
for general welfare? As an organization, can we afford to set aside
the smallest fraction of our funds for the aid of individuals, when
so great is the need for resources in the fight for great
principles that mean general welfare? We have answered that
problem, it seems to me, to some extent in the affirmative. Every
lodge building, every lodge meeting and ceremony, every lodge club
room even, is an expression of Masonic principles. As an order, we
have given the greater part of our strength everywhere to the
expression of great principles, rather than to the temporary
assistance of individuals. A fraction of our resources, we have
given to charity in the restricted sense of that term. This
fraction annually amounts in volume to many hundreds of thousands
of dollars. Our practical charity is administered in many different
ways, under many different methods, to many different ends. Here,
in America, we have administered Masonic charity for many decades.
What does our experience show?

What methods have proven unfortunate in their results? What methods
have succeeded in distributing charitable funds to the greatest
possible advantage? It seems to me that the practical men in our
fraternity, who have with such splendid self-sacrifice ably
administered Masonic charity, should give us from the wisdom of
their experience. Of late, I have been thinking about Masonic
charity, and many questions have presented themselves to me. As a
young man, and especially as a young man who now represents a
considerable number of other young Masons, I want to present these
questions to the men of experience in Masonry. Let us suppose, in
the first place, that a lodge finds itself able to spend one
thousand dollars each year in charitable relief in the town in
which it is located. Shall the lodge contribute this sum to the
Associated Charities, or to the Salvation Army, or to some other
organized body for the administration of charities? Shall the lodge
administer its own funds, and make its own distribution of relief?

If a lodge decides to give its charity funds over to, let us say,
the Associated Charities of the town in which it is located, shall
the lodge rely entirely upon the efficiency of the organization to
which the funds are contributed; or shall the lodge demand and
secure representation among the officers of the charitable
organization, or on its executive committee? If the lodge decides
to administer its own relief fund, shall it entrust the money to
the master of the lodge; or shall it set up a standing relief
committee? Shall the master, or the relief committee, give direct
aid to unfortunate Masons and their families in the name of the
lodge and on the behalf of the lodge? Or, shall the officers of the
lodge aid their unfortunate brethren through indirect channels, so
that relief may be given, but so, also, that the left hand shall
not know what the right hand is doing?

How shall the lodge care for the aged Mason who is without material
resources? How shall the lodge care for widows and orphans of
members? Shall the Grand Lodge of the State or Province erect a
Masonic home for the care of these dependents; or, shall such
dependents be aided with money and other resources, so that they
may continue to live in their own homes and among their own friends
and associates? If the "home" plan is followed, shall the home be
supported in the name of some particular order of Masonry, such as
the Grand Chapter, or the Scottish Rite, or the Shrine; or, shall
the home be supported by all of the Masonic orders located within
the territory served by the home? How shall the home be governed?
Shall the home be supported by voluntary contributions, or by an
enforced per capita tax? Shall each lodge contributing to the
support of the home have the right to send such dependents to the
home as the lodge sees fit to send; or, shall the officers of the
home receive or reject applicants for admission?

If it is best to have homes for the care of dependents, shall we
have a Masonic home in each state and Province; or, shall we have
a number of national homes set up for the special care of
particular classes of dependents, such as, for example, a national
home for the care of tuberculosis patients ? If it is best to care
for dependents in their own homes, or at least in private homes in
their own localities, shall the care afforded by the lodge take the
form of a monthly payment, or pension system ? Or, shall the relief
extended by the lodge be such as necessity may occasion from week
to week and from month to month? If it is desirable to have a
pension system for the care of dependents, shall each Grand Lodge
create a pension fund, to which contributions shall be made for
subordinate lodges on a per capita basis; or, shall we expect each
lodge to meet its own pensions from its own current revenue ?

If dependents are to be cared for in their own homes, or at least
in their own localities, shall the lodge become legally responsible
for them, and thereby secure legal control over them, as, for
example, in the case of an infant orphan, or aged insane brother?
Or, shall we leave legal control in the hands of relatives, who
may, or may not be, in sympathy with Masonry and Masonic
influences? What shall be the limits of practical Masonic charity?
Shall it be permissable for the lodge at Jonesville to give
pensions to its dependent aged brethren, while the lodge at
Smithtown, twelve miles away, refuses to aid its members under any
circumstances? What attitude are we to take as Masons towards
insurance companies bearing Masonic names, and limiting their
clientele to members of Masonic orders? What attitude, as Masons,
are we to take to mutual accident and sickness societies organized
under Masonic titles and restricted to membership on the Masonic
basis? What attitude are we to take towards Masonic clubs organized
for the mutual relief and support of their members? Shall we have
laws as to these things; or, shall we regard them as accessories to
the great fight that we are waging for fundamental principles and
leave them, as accessories, to stand or fall on their own merits ?

I have named but a few of the problems of Masonic charity. Problems
I have touched upon are problems of today that have come to us from
yesterday. The solution of these problems that we are working out
today will more or less determine the status of the Masonry of the
future. Our order, with its great membership and great age, has
great experience in the handling of these matters. The
administration of Masonic charity is a great field of Masonic
research, a field of tremendous importance about which little has
been written. What is your experience in these matters, my brother
in Oregon? You have served for many years on the relief committee
of your lodge. What principles has your experience formulated for
you? What is your experience in these matters, my brother in New
York? You were on the building committee of your Masonic home. To
what decisions have you arrived as to any or all of the questions
about Masonic charity that the young men in Masonry are asking?
Your opinions, my brothers in Honolulu and in London, will be most
valuable if you will support them in these pages with facts and
figures, and evidence of specific character. Perhaps this is all
old ground to you, but to many thousands of young Masons the
administration of Masonic charity is a fruitful field for research.
