THE BUILDER JUNE 1919

THE FRATERNAL FORUM
EDITED BY BRO. GEO. E. FRAZER, PRESIDENT, BOARD OF STEWARDS

CONTRIBUTING EDITORS

Wildey E. Atchison, Iowa.
Joseph C. Greenfield, Georgia.
Dr. John Lewin McLeish, Ohio.
Geo. W. Baird, District of Columbia.
Frederick W. Hamilton, Massachusetts.
Joseph W. Norwood, Kentucky
Joseph Barnett, California.
H. L. Haywood, Iowa.
Frank E. Noyes, Wisconsin
H. P. Burke, Colorado.
T. W. Hugo, Minnesota.
John Pickard, Missouri.
Joe L. Carson, Virginia.
M. M. Johnson, Massachusetts.
C. M. Sehenek, Colorado
R. M. C. Condon, Michigan.
P. E. Kellett, Manitoba.
Francis W. Shepardson, Illinois.
John A. Davilla, Louisiana.
John G. Keplinger, Illinois.
Silas H. Shepherd, Wisconsin.
Jos. W. Eggleston, Virginia.
Harold A. Kingsbury, Connecticut.
Oliver D. Street, Alabama
Henry R. Evans, District of Columbia.
Dr. Wm. F. Kuhn, Missouri.
Denman S. Wagstaff, California.
H. D. Funk, Minnesota.
Dr. G. Alfred Lawrence, New York.
S. W. Williams, Tennessee.
Asahel W. Gage, Florida.
Julius H. McCollum. Connecticut.


Contributions to this Monthly Department of Personal Opinion are
invited from each writer who has contributed one or more articles
to THE BUILDER. Subjects for discussion are selected as being alive
in the administration of Masonry today. Discussions of polities,
religious creeds or personal prejudices are avoided the purpose of
the Department being to afford a vehicle for comparing the personal
opinions of leading Masonic students- The contributing editors
assume responsibility only for what each writes over his own
signature- Comment from our Members on the Subjects discussed here
will be welcomed in the Question Box Department.

A resolution was last year introduced at the Annual Communication
of one of our American Grand Lodges to limit the constituent lodges
of that Jurisdiction to a maximum of 400 members. The resolution is
to be disposed of at the Annual Communication of the Grand Lodge in
question this month.

The committee to whom the matter was referred inquired of the
Society to ascertain whether or not the subject had been acted upon
in any of the other American Grand Jurisdictions and we, in turn,
submitted the question to the several Grand Secretaries from whom
it is learned that no such legislation has ever been enacted in any
American Grand Lodge.

Believing that the opinions of our Contributing Editors would be of
value to the above committee in framing their recommendation to
their Grand Lodge and that our members would also be interested in
reading a discussion of the subject, we submitted to the Editors
the following question:

QUESTION NO. 12 

"Should the several Grand Lodges enact legislation limiting the
size of subordinate lodges? If so, what should be the maximum
number of members?

"If you are against such restrictions, and favor large lodges, what
are your reasons therefor?"

Doubts Advisability of Grand Lodge Legislation Better Results
to be Derived from Small Lodges.

The weight of opinion in the Grand Lodge of Massachusetts favors
smaller lodges. I question the advisability, however, of
legislation limiting the membership of lodges. We have no such
legislation in this jurisdiction and I am reasonably sure that it
would not pass if proposed.

In the Grand Lodge Proceedings of Massachusetts for 1916 Grand
Master Melvin M. Johnson gives a most excellent discussion of the
matter, which follows:

I have long been of the opinion that many of our lodges are
altogether too large, and that better Masonic and equally good
financial results would be obtained if there were more lodges, with
smaller membership. You may be interested to learn that the average
membership of lodges in Massachusetts is higher than in any other
jurisdiction in America with the single exception of the District
of Columbia, which being compact and having no country lodges is
really not comparable. The only lodges in that District having less
than two hundred members are the seven last chartered lodges.
Consequently the average membership in the District is high, viz.
339. This is more comparable with metropolitan Boston. The average
membership of our Districts No. 1 to No. 7 inclusive is 355.
Because of peculiar conditions we must lay these figures aside and
compare ourselves with other jurisdictions having both city and
country lodges. Of them all, our average membership is the highest,
or 260. There are only five other jurisdictions having an average
membership of over two hundred, namely, Rhode Island, 247;
Pennsylvania, 244; Connecticut, 236; New York, 229; and New Jersey,
209. Twenty other jurisdictions in the United States average
between one and two hundred, and twenty-two others less than one
hundred. The average lodge membership for the whole United States
is 124. Our average, therefore, is more than twice the average
membership of all lodges in this country. This is unhealthy growth.
That does not mean that a lodge of two hundred and sixty members is
by any means necessarily too large. One hundred and forty-three of
our lodges, or more than half, have less than that number. Only
fifty-seven of our lodges have as small a membership as the average
of the whole United States.

It is hard to say that there is any fixed number of members which
should not be exceeded. Conditions vary in different places. It is,
however, always true that where the membership is so large that
each member present can not know all the others, and where only a
very small percentage of the members can ever have the opportunity
of serving the lodge in official capacities, the interest of the
members lessens and each individual member feels less
responsibility for the welfare of the lodge and for the exercise of
the duties and responsibilities of Masonry as well. It is a
practically universal rule that the smaller the membership the
larger percentage of members attend the meetings.

Elephantiasis is a disease equally injurious to an animal, a human,
or a lodge. Many lodges, however, are afflicted with it. Let us see
the result. One lodge initiated 66 last year, and another 64.
Another, with a membership of nearly 500, raised 46. Another, with
a membership of over 500, admitted 40. Another, with a membership
of over 700, admitted 56. Another, with a membership of over 450,
admitted 40. In one of our cities with a population of nearly
38,000 where there is a single lodge having a membership of over
600 (which admitted 40 last year) the sentiment against the
establishment of a second lodge is so strong as to be preventive.
In another city with a population of nearly 17,000 where there is
a single wealthy lodge with a membership of about 550 (38 being
admitted last year) there is a similar sentiment preventing the
establishment of another lodge.

There is another city in the Commonwealth having a population of
over 25,000 where there is no lodge at all, and the establishment
of a new lodge there has been prevented by the adverse action of
two lodges in an adjoining city, each one of which has a membership
of over 400. If but one of these neighboring lodges had declined
its objection could be overruled by the Grand Master, but the Grand
Constitutions prevent his issuing a dispensation for the formation
of a new lodge in this city of over 25,000 inhabitants, without a
lodge, because of two objections in an adjoining community. In this
particular case ten lodges have joint jurisdiction over this virgin
territory, yet the objection of two of them absolutely vetoes the
petition for a dispensation, and neither the Grand Master nor even
this Grand Lodge, as the Constitutions now stand, can consider the
wisdom of the objection. I have not examined into the present
instance nor do I attempt to pass upon its merits. But the power
granted to two lodges out of ten to retard the proper development
of our institution, as an abstract proposition, is wrong. I believe
it is time that the rule should be relaxed for the good of the
whole Fraternity. What is even much more necessary is the creation
of a sentiment in favor of more and smaller lodges where the
brethren may be more united, may be thrown into closer fraternal
intercourse, may have more opportunity to serve, and where the
tenets of our institution can better be inculcated.

If it be argued that for financial consideration large lodges must
be built up, the complete answer is that no other jurisdiction in
the whole Masonic world (save only the District of Columbia)
averages such large lodges as does Massachusetts, and certainly
other jurisdictions are prosperous and successful. We have no
conditions in this regard which are peculiar to this Commonwealth.
Even Michigan, which shows us the anomaly of one single lodge of
2,184 members and five others of over 1,000 members, averages
throughout the state only 182.

The tendency of great lodges is to lessen rather than to enhance
the Masonic development of each individual member. The
accomplishments of Masonry have never been gauged by financial
considerations. When these become the criteria, then it is time to
halt and to recast our activities, for then the grand aims and
purposes of our Fraternity are sure to be obscured. 
Frederick W. Hamilton, Grand Secretary,

Massachusetts.


Grand Lodge Legislation Inadvisable.

Answering your question as to whether or not the several Grand
Lodges should enact legislation limiting the size of subordinate
lodges, I must say that I do not feel very competent to give an
authoritative opinion upon this subject or go into any detailed
discussion of it. My impression, however, is that they should not.

Our law provides (as I understand is the fact in most of the
jurisdictions) that where a new lodge is proposed its organization
must be assented to by certain of the lodges next nearest. In case
of a division of a lodge this rule would oblige the new
organization to have the consent of the old. This seems to me all
that is necessary. There is a very general sentiment among the
craft in opposition to large and unwieldy lodges, a sentiment which
to me seems to be growing. There is sufficient difficulty in some
localities in holding the brethren of a lodge together and keeping
up that spirit of harmony and fraternity without which a lodge
organization is valueless. Any such dissension ought not to be
encouraged by educating the brethren to look forward continually to
a time when the lodge may be split. In some instances it will
result in undue solicitude on their part to increase their
membership to a point where, under an iron-clad law, they will be
compelled to divide. In addition to this, I think the question of
when a lodge is large enough and when another ought to be organized
can well be left to the good judgment of the constituent lodges. No
hard and fast rule ought to be made. There are times and places
when a lodge can hold a very large membership to advantage and
without inconvenience, and others where half the membership ought
to be divided. It is a subject over which Grand Jurisdictions ought
not to assume the authority.

H. P. Burke, Colorado.

* * *

Average Attendance Better in Small Lodges.

My voice is in favor of small lodges and by this I mean not
exceeding 200 in membership. My reasons are:

1. A better comraderie will thereby be obtained and preserved. In
such a lodge it is possible for every brother to know not only the
face but the character and disposition of every other and even
something of the personal difficulties and troubles with which he
may have to contend. He can also rejoice with him in the good
fortunes that may befall him. A situation like this begets real
brotherhood.

2. Now that organized relief of the distressed is done chiefly
through the instrumentality of Grand Lodges, it is no longer
necessary for this purpose that lodges should be large.

3. Where initiations are so numerous as they must be in large
lodges, little or no time is left for the development of the social
or study side of Masonry.

4. In every large lodge the proper caution in admitting members can
not be observed. This must necessarily be left almost wholly to the
investigating committees.

5. Finally, I believe the average of attendance in small lodges is
better than in large ones.

Oliver D. Street, Alabama.

* * *
A Matter to be Determined by the District Deputies and Concerned
Members.

I am only qualified to express an opinion with regard to conditions
in England and Canada, which are somewhat different to those in the
United States. As far as I am able to ascertain, however, the
average strength of lodges in England, Canada and the United States
is about the same; in each of these three countries the average
membership is about 120, so that, as far as numerical conditions
are concerned, these countries are on practically the same footing.

I believe that excessively large lodges are undesirable for the
reason that many of the members have little or no opportunity for
ever having a hand in either the work or the administration.
Further, in large lodges, all the available time at the regular
meetings is taken up by the routine work and the conferring of
degrees, and none is available for lectures, addresses and
discussions, and so great a part of what I consider as the most
valuable teachings of the Order will be neglected.

With regard to legislation on the subject, I do not consider that
the size of subordinate lodges should be limited by the Grand
Lodges, for the reason that such a law would be in the nature of an
innovation, and I believe that the fewer changes of this sort made
in the Constitutions, the better. Laws such as this tend to hold
apart the various jurisdictions rather than to unite them by the
bonds of fraternal affection.

I believe that each case should be considered on its own merits by
the District Deputy and the brethren concerned. If necessary steps
could then be taken for the organization of a new lodge from the
membership of that already in existence.

C. C. Adams, Ontario.

* * *

Give to Each Member an Equal Chance to Become Master of His Lodge.

I have had this subject under consideration for some time and have
discussed it with a number of brethren and it is my firm conviction
that subordinate lodges should be limited to a membership not to
exceed 400.

Let us extend to every well-informed and zealous Mason a reasonable
chance to become Worshipful Master of his lodge.

The results of my conversations on this subject lead me to believe
that a vote of the Craft would be almost unanimous in favor of
restriction.

R. M. C. Condon, Michigan.

* * *

Too Much Grand Lodge Legislation.

I am firmly convinced that the size of lodges, save as to a
minimum, is a matter with which Grand Lodges should not interfere.
We legislate far too much and leave too little to our lodges along
several lines. I do not especially favor large lodges but see no
harm in size.

Virginia has several lodges of more than five hundred members and
they are all good lodges. One of the three to which I belong, and
in which my membership is most active, has nearly four hundred
members and is noted for its harmony and good feeling. In it there
are no quarrels and there is never a contest, even of the most
friendly sort, for office. We talk privately among ourselves until
we ascertain which member is approved by the largest number of the
active members, exclude all to whom there develops any antagonism,
and elect unanimously. Our law requires an opposing candidate for
each office and our Tyler fills that position. 
Jos. W. Eggleston, P. G. M., Virginia.

* * *

A Virginia Brother Who Favors Small Lodges.

Personally I am not in favor of large lodges, nor are the majority
of the brethren of the Grand Jurisdictions under which I have been
affiliated, those of England, Ireland and Scotland.

Can there be any Masonic comfort in a lodge of say four hundred to
five hundred members? Can there be any real sociability? Can there
be a close brotherly love amongst such a number? Can a member of
such a lodge know all the others as he should ? I think not. Lodges
of from 50 to 100 members fulfill the best traditions of the Craft
in promoting good fellowship and if lodges were of this size, and
sat down together after the labors of the evening, even if the
repast consisted only of a bottle of "pop," some bread and cheese,
and a smoke to follow, it would give the opportunity, lacking
during lodge hours, of becoming acquainted one with another, the
result would be that each lodge would become a family of itself and
we would be less troubled with the unaffiliated Mason.

A brother joins a lodge of over 100 members; he probably knows less
than a dozen, and even them he can only look at in lodge because,
of course, silence must be observed. He is conscious that he stands
little or no chance of ever being elected to any office, and after
listening to the same ceremonies for a couple of years, feeling
himself a stranger in the lodge, and of little importance save when
the dues are being collected, he begins to stop away, and send his
dues, followed in the course of time by his resignation. What is
there to induce him to remain?

However, let him feel, as he assuredly will in a small lodge, that
he is an integral part of the lodge, give him the opportunity of
spending a social hour with his friends and making new
acquaintances, and I am a poor prophet if we do not keep him with
us.

This is certainly a more reasonable course to pursue than the habit
of reviling him, legislating against him, and trying to coerce his
attendance in a lodge which he does not find interesting or its
members congenial. The popularity of the Shrine is a tacit
acknowledgment that we feel the want of a social side to our
ceremonies, and this social element can only permeate every member
when the lodge is kept within numerical bounds.

New members in small lodges soon become assimilated and a part of
the whole, look forward to promotion to office, and take a lively
interest in the work of the lodge.

I have been a member of large and small lodges and have found more
of the real spirit of Freemasonry in a little country lodge in
Ireland, where seldom more than twenty or thirty were gathered
together, than in any lodge of which I have ever had the pleasure
(often the pain) of visiting. 
Joe L. Carson, Virginia.

* * *

Candidates' Individual Acquaintances a Factor.

This Grand Jurisdiction has only five lodges whose membership rolls
number over four hundred. The matter of restricting the lodges to
the number of members they might admit has never been considered.

Personally, I would be opposed to such action because I feel that
the Grand Lodge should not interfere in the internal government of
a lodge to that extent, as I find that many applicants, by the
question of individual acquaintance, are largely biased in their
selection and are prone to seek connection with lodges in which
their close friends hold membership.

John A. Davilla, Grand Secretary, Louisiana.

* * *

Enforce Existing Laws Rather Than Enact New Ones.

In my opinion Grand Lodges should not interfere in the matter of
lodge membership. Lodges have inherited an inalienable right to
make their own membership. It follows that they may, rightfully,
"unmake" their membership, or place their own limit on the number
of members.

The Grand Lodge may arrest a charter, or oblige a lodge to bring to
trial an offending member which, I think, is going far enough.

Masonry, like creeds, Nations and segregations of all kinds, is
more in need of executing existing laws than of making additional
ones. It is the failure to execute a law that leads too often to
the enactment of another. We have an example in the recent
Constitutional Amendment providing prohibition, substituting it for
temperance. There have ever been laws in every State to punish
drunkenness, but they have not been executed.

While trouble may arise in some instances from a large membership,
a limitation by the Grand Lodge might result in mischief in other
cases it is easy to see that it might work injustice in many cases.

A lodge may now limit its own membership by a provision in its by-
laws, but it is at liberty to change that by-law, which it could
not do if prohibited by the Grand Lodge.

Generally there are ambitious members in every lodge who would like
to get into the lime-light, and these are the members who are apt
to find reasons for the organization of another lodge, and they
usually have a following this is the ever-present cause for loss of
membership in a large lodge.

Finally, limiting the membership by Grand Lodge action would, in my
opinion, be an innovation in the body of Masonry, which we all, at
our installation as Master, have promised to oppose.

George W. Baird, P. G. M., District of Columbia.

* * *

Make the Limits of Lodge Membership Bear Some Ratio to the Total
Membership of the Grand Jurisdiction.

The fixing of an upper limit of membership in lodges is a question
that mainly concerns large communities. In small communities there
is sometimes the opposite tendency a tendency to form two small
lodges instead of one strong lodge. Grand Lodges have been more
concerned with this latter phase than with the former. And any
consideration of the former should be associated with a similar
attention to the latter.

The personal acquaintances of members with one another is the very
basis of a lodge. In small communities, where some membership is
drawn from considerable distances, it is difficult for all to know
one another, when the membership approximates 100; when it
approaches 200 the upper limit is usually reached. When, in large
communities, the membership reaches several hundred, the individual
is apt to be lost in the crowd and manifestly it is impossible for
most of such members ever to hold office, a reasonable duty as well
as a desirable ambition.

On the other hand small lodges are at a disadvantage in such
matters as Masonic relief.

In any such proposed legislation it would be more appropriate,
instead of choosing some arbitrary number, to make the limits of
lodge membership bear some ratio to the Grand Lodge membership,
that is, to the whole body of Masonry in a Jurisdiction. And the
average lodge membership in that Grand Jurisdiction might form a
mean between the two extremes. For instance, a Grand Jurisdiction
of 400 lodges and 60,000 members represents an average membership
of 150 to the lodge, and such an average might form a working basis
as between unwieldiness and weakness.

Joseph Barnett, California.

* * *

Large Lodges, Properly Managed, Can Do More Than Small Lodges.

I believe that the question of limiting the size of subordinate
lodges is something that it would be advisable to go slow with.

First of all, it has to be noted that this is a Grand Lodge
legislation that is contemplated. Would it not seem more reasonable
and proper for legislation of this kind to come from the
subordinate lodge itself rather than from the Grand Lodge? A great
many are of the opinion that we have too much of this restricting
legislation, from above, on questions which should be decided
altogether by the subordinate lodge.

There is naturally a great deal to be said in favor of a small
lodge, and just as much to be said in favor of a large lodge. There
is considerable danger in a large organization if care is not
taken the danger of the membership losing that close, warm,
fraternal feeling, which is appreciated in all lodges and which it
is hard for them to lose in a small lodge where each individual
member knows each other member.

When an organization gets beyond a certain size, it is better to
have the membership limited rather than have that cold, stranger-
like attitude to develop through the members not knowing one
another well enough and not coming in closer touch with one
another. From my own observation, however, I believe that it is
possible to avoid this state of affairs. In fact, I believe that a
large lodge can be organized for carrying out Masonic work in a
broader field and a bigger way than is possible in a small lodge.
A large organization of that kind can start out to do things that
a small organization could not think of attempting. By means of
proper organization the members can be kept together and a spirit
of "esprit de corps" and good fellowship can be developed in the
large organization to probably as great (if not greater) extent
than in the small organization.

Unless a lodge figures on planning to carry out something more than
just a mere working of degrees and meeting together in the lodge
room in a perfunctory and formal sort of way, it had better not be
ambitious for a large membership. But with the other conditions it
seems to me from my observations that the larger the membership the
more effective can the organization become. Let me repeat again
though, that I do not think it is a matter that Grand Lodge should
legislate on at all.

P. E. Kellett, P. G. M., Manitoba.

* * *

A Lesson from the Bee Hive.


I gladly comply with your request for my opinion as to the
advisability of the Grand Lodges limiting the size of constituent
lodges. But I would suggest that the lessons taught by the Masonic
symbols or emblems are more worth while.

Take for instance the Bee Hive. Many truths may be learned from it.
It is an appropriate symbol of a Masonic lodge. The hive of bees
has to solve the same question as to the proper size of a working
unit. There is no fixed law, arbitrary and regardless of
circumstance, limiting the number of bees in a hive. When there
becomes too many, under all the existing conditions, there is a
swarm formed which starts a new unit. If outside hands interfere
with this local method of reducing the number, or if they too
greatly divide the hive and arbitrarily reduce the working unit,
the work is interfered with and impeded.

In the same way, it seems to me, the members of the lodges are the
best judges of their own welfare. If they want smaller lodges they
can dimit into them; if they want larger lodges they can
consolidate.

You ask if I am "against such restrictions and favor larger lodges,
what are my reasons therefore I am against such restrictions, but
I do not favor larger lodges. I believe that such restriction is an
outside interference. I believe in local self-government. This is
a question that pertains to the members of the constituent lodges
and with which others should not meddle.

We read in the Book of the Law about a land of milk and honey;
these foods are good to the taste, but does not the beauty of that
country come rather from the fact that they are both produced
without interfering with, preying upon or living off of anything
else? The bee in taking his honey from the grove does not interfere
with the fruit, but actually increases the yield. Would it not be
well for our Grand Lodges to ever work with our lodges, encourage
them and help them, and scrupulously avoid interfering with or
raising an outside ruling hand in purely local matters.

Is not the experience of freedom worth more than a life well-
governed by another? Is not the school of local self-government and
freedom one of the constituent lodges' most valuable functions In
asking your question you use the term "subordinate lodge." Would it
not be better to not only call them but keep them "constituent
lodges" ?
Asahel W. Gage, Florida.

* * *

Not Favorable to Grand Lodge Legislation but Prefers the Small
Lodge.

In answering this question I find my personal preferences for a
small lodge brought into conflict with my objection to Grand Lodges
enacting any legislation that divests the membership of the right
to decide upon their own numbers. Or perhaps this is not a
"conflict."

No Grand Lodge that values the respect of its members, I should
think, would undertake to legislate upon the size of subordinate
bodies, upon which it must depend for its existence, any more than
it should undertake to legislate what the members should eat for
breakfast or what kind of shoes they should wear. The locality and
conditions with which the lodge is surrounded, as well as ability
to bear its financial burdens, can be taken into consideration and
acted upon more intelligently by the members themselves than by the
Grand Lodge. Large lodges unquestionably lose men of the spirit of
fraternity in the bigness. But the biggest lodge of all is that
universal lodge we call the world and we believe in that so we say!

The chief questions to be considered in this inquiry are (1) the
material side and (2) the spiritual side.

1. In large cities, financial conditions alone, under our system of
building great temples and making outward display that attracts
membership, sometimes make it imperative in the interests of
economy to have the number of lodges confined to a few large ones.
Of course there need not be any loss of interest in the individual
in all this, if devoted officers are chosen who are still at heart
working Masons. I have seen very large lodges in which clubs and
committees performed all the social good-fellowship of the small
ones; in which a visitor was welcomed and made acquainted, or a
candidate as thoroughly instructed as in the small ones.

2. Out I prefer the small lodge because it is nearer to that
individual ideal which makes the true freemason and upon which our
whole structure rests. one history of my own lodge, of which I had
the honor to be the 112th Master, convinced me of the supreme
spiritual value of a small membership. In its pioneer days members
sometimes came from hunting trips hundreds of miles to attend what
was then a brotherhood of such virile stripe that they wrote into
our first constitution and laws the Masonic principles upon which
the nation is founded; selected a seal that no Mason in the world
could fail to recognize; founded works of brotherhood that in these
days would be called sociological affairs.

As time progressed and our membership became larger we took to
building and owning property in keeping with our dignity, diverting
much of our energy to business details connected therewith. We
followed the old church lottery idea to raise money. The "Masonic
Lottery" became a stench to the Craft. Members who were devoted to
the same ideal of national solidarity we have in the Masonic
Service Association of the United States, were denounced as mere
politicians and withdrew broken-hearted.

Today about two-thirds of our membership never come to lodge, while
the other third is earnestly striving to hold onto Masonic ideals
and at the same time wrestle with the incubus of Lodge Temple Debt.
The smaller the membership, the easier it is to meet and do active
Masonic work.

I do favor Grand Lodges making it easier for new lodges to obtain
charters. It would then be possible for half a dozen Masons, with
a determination to do something more to serve their communities
than grind out candidates, to get together in tyled lodge and lay
their plans for individual work and service.

Joseph W. Norwood, Kentucky.

* * *

Advocates Large Lodges.

In union there is strength and the larger the unit the stronger and
more stable it is. From the four London lodges forming the Grand
Lodge of England in hilt, what a united power for good are its
innumerable ramifications, extending to the uttermost parts of the
world, and yet constituent elements of our harmonious whole the
Masonic Order!

The larger the lodge membership made up of suitable material (and
none other should be selected) the greater its potentiality for a
wider field of Masonic activity of a higher quality. A lodge with
a large membership has also a wider field for the selection of
officers of greater ability who can thus accomplish more and better
work; its sphere of social and benevolent activities is widened; it
has greater financial stability; can be maintained more
economically and is enabled to exert a greater influence within the
community or civic and patriotic righteousness.

Dr. G. Alfred Lawrence, New York.

* * *

Large Lodges a Matter of Unavoidable Evolution.

I am decidedly opposed to the Grand Lodge of any jurisdiction
legislating to limit the number of members that any subordinate
lodge may have. While I do not question the legal right of the
Grand Lodge to pass such legislation I do not think it has the
moral right. Such legislation would seem meddling with the rights
of the subordinate lodge.

Contrary to the Implication carried in the second section of the
question I hold no brief for the large lodge but consider it a
matter of evolution which cannot be helped not by legislation at
any rate. Even were I in favor or such a law L can see that local
conditions would have much bearing on the matter and it would be
impossible to state a maximum which would be suitable to all lodges
in the Jurisdiction and on the other hand were a deferent maximum
established tor different conditions there would be trouble brewing
right away. No doubt conditions which would apply in Nebraska would
not apply in Connecticut. Let me illustrate what I mean by
different conditions. My own lodge, Adelphi No. 63, was the second
one formed in New Haven, being instituted in 1823. The reason for
asking for a charter is set forth as "there being one lodge of one
hundred and fifty members on which your petitioners frequently find
it impossible to attend in consequence of their numbers" and "that
your petitioners believe that many of our valued citizens are
deterred by the numerous situation of said lodge from requesting
membership," etc. This shows on the face of it that in 1823 Hiram
No. 1's one hundred and fifty Masons were all, or a very large
percentage, attending lodge regularly while today there are in New
Haven seven lodges with a membership of more than 4,200 or an
average of six hundred apiece and except when the K. and F. degree
is worked we are not troubled with overcrowding. This is easily
explained as in 1823 lodge meeting and church were about all the
attraction to be had, while now movies, theatres, all sorts of
activities keep one occupied so that lodge is not the main
attraction. We can thus draw a parallel to the comparison of 1823
and modern times by a comparison of the remote country lodges and
those in the populous cities.

The main objection to the large lodges as I take it is the fact
that the members in general do not know each other as well as those
of the smaller lodges and the true Masonic spirit does not permeate
the lodge so thoroughly. This is probably so in the main but as
nearly if not all the large lodges are city lodges would they know
each other any better even though split into smaller lodges always
remembering that they would be city lodges? It is one of the
penalties of living in a city that we don't become acquainted with
those with whom we meet day in and day out in business, church or
lodges in as intimate a way as do our country brethren.

Then again when the lodges reach the maximum, what then? Is it to
be that when some fine character desires to become a member of a
particular lodge because all his friends and associates are there
the lodge says "nothing doing, you'll have to apply elsewhere" or
will it have a waiting list? When our past masters' sons become of
age are they to be sent to some other lodge ?

We are told that in life's journey we must either progress or slide
back; there is no such thing as standing still. A certain amount of
work if good for a lodge, it impresses the candidate and also
refreshes the memory of those on the side lines and I believe
legislation declaring that when a lodge reaches a certain limit it
must quit work until some one dies is bad.

Julius H. McCollum, Connecticut.

* * *

Suggestions Invited from Lodge Officers and Members of the Society.

The question raised is important to the development of American
Masonry. The Blue Lodge is the foundation of all Masonic
enterprises. It would seem to be of the greatest importance that
the Blue Lodge should operate as a social unit; not as a Chamber of
Commerce for a community, nor as a charitable machine, still less
as a degree mill for the preparation of candidates for the so
called "higher degrees." It is by no means clear that a large lodge
may not develop the social qualities of its members just because
the size of the lodge enables the brethren to maintain satisfactory
quarters, and to operate through a variety of committees and
projects that give each individual member a chance to select work
to his own liking.

I should like very much to have the officers of several of the
larger lodges of each jurisdiction send in to the offices of the
National Masonic Research Society such a description of their
individual lodges as will enable us to prepare an article on lodge
organization. Particularly I should like to have each member of the
Society who has had experience with forms of lodge organization add
his own contribution to the discussion of this question by sending
in a short letter which can be published in the Correspondence
department.

George E. Frazer, President. Board of Stewards.
