THE BUILDER, JUNE 1917

THE FAITH THAT IS IN THEM---A FRATERNAL FORUM

Edited by BRO. GEO. E. FRAZER, President, The Board of Stewards

CONTRIBUTING EDITORS

Henry R. Evans, District of Columbia. 
Harold A. Kingsbury, Connecticut. 
Dr. Wm. F. Kuhn, Missouri.
Geo. W. Baird, District of Columbia
H.D. Funk, Minnesota
Dr. John Lewin McLeish, Ohio.
Joseph W. Norwood, Kentucky.
Francis W. Shepardson, Illinois.
M.M. Johnson, Massachusetts
Silas H. Shepherd, Wisconsin. 
Oliver D. Street, Alabama. 
S. W. Williams, Tennessee.
Joe L. Carson, Virginia

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 politics,
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 Correspondence column.

QUESTION NO. 2

Shall Masonic Officers be elected from the floor, irrespective of
service as subordinate officer? If so, shall nominations be made by
committee appointed for that purpose? If not, at what office shall
the "line" begin in each body?

Eliminate Politics.

I can best reply to the question by saying that at our Annual in
February I introduced some resolutions, to be published in the
Proceedings (if they ever come out) considered by the Lodges, and
voted on at 1918 Communication. They provide that in all elections
of Grand Officers, there shall be no nominations and no speaking in
advocacy of candidates. If, on the first ballot no one shall be
found to have a majority, it shall be deemed a nominating ballot,
and on the next no votes for any one except the three having the
greatest number on the first, shall be counted. I further provide
that canvassing for votes for anyone shall be a Masonic offense.

Now for my reasons. Politics rages at present and most delegates
are more interested in the annual election than in the important
legislation. 2nd. As it is, we elect our G.J.D. and promote so
regularly that his reaching the Grand East is a certainty barring
his death. 3rd. We thus give honors to him annually for at least
six years to the exclusion of many worthy brethren equally
deserving. 4th. On my plan we could honor many a one who has no
ambition to be Grand Master but would be proud to become a Grand
Officer. 5th. Our Grand Masters would be those the delegates
consider most suitable and not those who make the best political
fight for office. 6th. The plan is fair to all, and free from
objection so far as I can see. Very truly and fraternally, 
Jos. W. Eggleston, P.G.M., Virginia.

The Rotation Plan Has Failed.

The "rotation" plan has failed. I believe it is largely if not
mainly the cause of many inefficient officers being elected not
only in the subordinate lodges but in the grand lodges. When such
a one gets "in line" it is practically impossible and exceedingly
unpleasant to get rid of him and this humiliates an otherwise
perfectly lovable brother. If the rule of election from the floor
in all instances were observed it is my opinion the best men for
the place would usually be chosen. As it now is we elect a "good
fellow," say Junior Warden, hoping and expecting that he will fit
himself for Master by the time he reaches that station. After he
has been "started through" we find that he either will not or can
not do so. We are then presented with the alternative of "grinning
and enduring it" or of "choking him off" to the injury of the lodge
in either case. I do not favor nominations and do not want a "line"
to begin anywhere. O. D. Street, Alabama.

* * *

Rotation is a Landmark, a Beautiful Feature.

Answering your question for this month I would say emphatically NO.
One of the landmarks of our institution--to me a beautiful feature
of Masonry--is the unwritten law that he who would lead must first
serve. It is the knowledge that a Past Master, or Past High Priest
has labored for a lodge or chapter a stipulated term of years that
makes their jewel mean something in the aftertime. Quite too many
societies are led to thrust a man into the high places without
having tried him out, carried away maybe by a deep bass voice, an
aptitude for platitude, and hirsute appendage hiding a chinless
face to later regret the caprice of a moment. Masonry tests a man
at every step. As to nomination by a committee that too takes away
somewhat from the peculiar prerogative of our institution where
each and every man is on the level, and each should have his voice
in so momentous a choice as that of Master. While many lodges
commence their line with the Junior Steward, at least in this
jurisdiction, I favor making Junior Deacon the inchoating officer.
Trusting I have satisfactorily answered your queries, I remain,
Fraternally yours, 
John Lewin McLeish, M. D., Ohio.

* * *

Marshall, Franklin, Clay and Jackson.

It is not disputed that the American custom of promotion rigorously
by seniority does not bring the strongest men to the east nor
strengthen the lodge. It cannot be claimed that the average
"prominent Mason" of today will compare favorably with the
prominent Mason of a century ago.

The grandest and greatest Grand Master Virginia (the mother of
Presidents) ever had was John Marshall, Chief Justice of the United
States; he was elected from the floor to be Deputy Grand Master,
and, the next year was Grand Master.

The grandest and greatest man the Nation ever produced, George
Washington, was Master of his lodge, and was urged for general
Grand Master. The first Minister to Great Britain was Benjamin
Franklin, who was Grand Master in Pennsylvania. The greatest
Senator, the greatest orator, Henry Clay, was Grand Master in
Kentucky, and the greatest soldier of the war of 1812, also
President, Andrew Jackson, was Grand Master in Tennessee. It would
be easy to multiply these examples. Not one of the above ever
served in a subordinate capacity in a lodge. I might add that there
is a doubt that a prominent and nationally representative man
could, today, be elected from the floor to be Master, or even
Warden of a blue lodge, nor into the council of a Royal Arch
Chapter.

In some States, as in Maryland, the brethren have discovered their
best man, and have the courage to keep him as their Grand Master.
The rest of us set up a new idol each and every year, hurrah and
applaud him, and promote along the line vigorously by seniority,
because it is their turn.

In our Reviews we have ever combatted that, but, as a distinguished
Mason in Massachusetts says, "who reads them ?"

If these conditions should appear in The Builder, which IS read,
they might receive consideration. The public schools were created
to educate pupils enough to enable them to read and reason. The
Great Light of Masonry was placed in each, that the students might
benefit thereby; but with all the care given by our forbears, we
have drifted into the vagaries of the change of time.

There are many good and great men in the order, but, do they attend
their lodges ? Well, "hardly ever." There must be a reason. Maybe
the lodges are not interesting to them ? Maybe they expect to have
notice taken of them, or, "maybe" many reasons, but certain it is
that many great men of today, who are Masons, proud enough of it to
display a K. T. watch charm, or a 32 degree jewel studded with
diamonds are not sufficiently interested to attend, save when
summoned.

Does the lodge need them ? If so, why not induce their attendance?
The writer has been importuned time after time, yes more than a
thousand times, to secure employment, or promotion or to plead for
the retention of a brother whose offices were in jeopardy. We have
so often asked the petitioner if he has already invoked the good
offices of the Master of his lodge, and so often the reply is "Oh,
he has no influence."

In England, Germany, Norway, France, etc., the Masters are almost
invariably men of social and municipal influence. In Sweden it is
carried to excess, and the Order is composed mostly of the
Nobility. Now, my good brothers, there is a happy mean between the
extremes, which we should try to reconcile. Let us ask ourselves
what is the purpose of the Order ! To the writer it appears that
the best interests of a lodge may be served by electing to the East
the men who will be of most service to the members of the lodge,
keeping in mind the efficiency of ritual and strict obedience to
the Landmarks and the Constitution. It is a matter in which each
and every one has an interest, and, what is more, a grave
responsibility.

It might be well for at least one Grand Jurisdiction to adopt the
plan of suffering elections from the floor, and compare results
with the present custom of electing rigorously by seniority.

This same question has been alive in my mind for years, and, in my
reviews of the Proceedings of "Sister" Grand Lodges, printed year
after year in the D. C. Grand Lodge Reports, will be found my views
on the subject of Lodge Officers. Geo. W. Baird, Washington, D. C.

* * *

Have We Changed the "Old Charges"?

There should be no "line." Let each office stand by itself. "Line
promotion" is one of the curses of Masonic elections; "line
promotion" is the hope and comfort of the incompetent and
unqualified. Open nominations for every office is, in part, a
panacea for official incompetency in Grand and Subordinate Masonic
bodies. Line promotion and no open nomination is the father of
incompetency and mediocrity, especially in Grand and subordinate
presiding office.

These statements may seem radical to the conservative Mason, and I
may lay myself open to Masonic heterodoxy, and an iconoclast of
that graven image known as Ancient Landmarks, but nothing should be
considered too sacred in Freemasonry that interferes with its
executive, intellectual and moral development.

The following from "The Old Charges" adopted by the Grand Lodge of
England, March 23, 1722, contains the great central truth of
official distinction: "All preferment among Masons is grounded upon
real worth and personal merit only; that, so the Lord may be well
served, the Brethren not put to shame, nor the Royal Craft
despised. Therefore no Master or Warden is chosen by seniority but
for his merit.

These trenchant words contain the basis of official preferment. It
is worth and personal merit, not "Line promotion," and if these
qualities were not found in the "official line," then I opine the
worth and personal merit were taken from the floor.

These same "Charges" also state as follows: "No Brother can be a
Warden until he has passed the degree of Master Mason; nor Master
until he has acted as Warden, nor Grand Warden until he has been
Master of a Lodge and served the office of Steward at a great
feast; nor Grand Master unless he has been a Master of a regular
lodge before his election, who is also to be noble born, or a
gentleman of the best fashion, or some eminent scholar, or some
curious architect, or other artist, descended of honest parents,
and who is of singular great merit in the opinion of the Lodge."

This quotation from "The Ancient Charges" is the source of the law
of today in reference to the qualification of a Master by previous
services, but it will be noted that very few of the restrictions,
especially that in reference to Grand Master as given in the
ancient law, is in force today. Freemasonry has advanced, not in a
set groove, but its laws have been changed to suit the time and
age. Requirement and traditions, when out of harmony, have become
obsolete, and justly so.

To such charges as I have outlined in my answer, the Masonic
pull-back will quote the charge given to the Master at his
installation into office: "That it is not in the power of any man
or body of men to make any alterations or innovations in the Body
of Masonry," and then he will cry aloud, "Unmasonic."

Unfortunately, perhaps purposely, the transcribers of the "Ancient
Charges" left out the proviso attached to the above citation, which
is as follows: "without the consent first obtained of the Grand
Lodge."

The Grand Lodge of England on St. John's Day in June, 1723, gave
full authority to a Grand Lodge to make "alterations" and
"Innovations" in the body of Masonry, and I sincerely hope that all
Grand Lodges will not only adopt for themselves but will permit
Lodges to use open nominations in the election of officers. The
Grand Encampment, Knights Templar, enacted such a law last year.

If the "promotion in line" method is destroyed, and open
nominations permitted, it will mean the end, ultimately, of the
graphophone, the parrot and incompetency in office. Fraternally,
Wm. F. Kuhn, Missouri.

Promote in the Blue Lodge, Select in the Grand Lodge.

A distinction should be drawn in answering this question between
officers of the Grand Lodge and officers of particular lodges.

In particular Lodges, promotion is of considerable value. Original
selection of the minor officers in the line of promotion should be
made by the Master. Charged with this duty, if he be careful and
conscientious in choosing subordinate officers who, in his opinion,
will develop into successful Masters, he is better equipped than
even a Nominating Committee to make selections. The responsibility
should lead him to be careful. As changes in the office of Master
occur, new Masters with new acquaintances introduce new blood. The
Masters themselves, having served a number of years in the line,
have become rather intimately acquainted with the Brethren who show
a disposition to share in the labors and responsibilities of the
Lodge. They know more about them than any committee of apparently
inactive Past Masters can know. Taken at large, a selection of
minor appointees by Masters has shown the best results.

The line of promotion should begin at least with the Junior Deacon,
probably with the Junior Steward, possibly with the Inside
Sentinel. The position should remain appointive up to and including
Senior Deacon. By that time the officer has shown his ability and
character. If the Lodge then believes he is competent to be Master,
he should be elected Junior Warden; if not, he should be stopped
there. The holding of the position of Senior Deacon should be
almost the equivalent of a nomination for advancement, but it
should not be regarded that the Senior Deacon is entitled to the
promotion. If he has once been elected Junior Warden, however, he
ought to be continued through the Chairs unless he develops
unfitness.

The automatic location in office of Grand Lodge officers, however,
is in my opinion one of the greatest evils existing in the form of
Masonic government in America. No man who is fit to be Grand Master
can accomplish the results which ought to be expected of him in a
service of one year. There have been instances, unfortunately too
frequent, of the election of a man as Grand Master who was totally
unfit for that great and responsible position. A Grand Master once
said to the writer that if a Past Master in his State could get
appointed Junior Deacon of the Grand Lodge and lived long enough
and kept out of jail, he would be Grand Master some day.

This practice belittles the office of Grand Master. It belittles
the reputation of the Craft. It puts men in the highest Masonic
office in the world merely out of compliment and deprives the
Fraternity of the services of the ablest men for time enough to
develop policies and give the office the respect which it ought to
have.

The writer may perhaps be accused of prejudice with regard to the
Massachusetts idea but he, nevertheless, believes it is the best
one. Any Past Master in Massachusetts may be elected Grand Master
for one year. By custom he is usually re-elected so as to serve
three years. By constitutional provision, he is prevented from
serving more than three years.

The Deputy Grand Master in Massachusetts is appointed. He is,
accordingly, really a Deputy Grand Master; that is to say, the
personal representative of the Grand Master chosen by him to carry
out his policies. In most American jurisdictions the officer called
by that name is not really a Deputy at all. He is really a Vice
Grand Master, or pro Grand Master and if elected by the Craft
should have that title.

The Grand Wardens in Massachusetts are elected for one year.
Installation gives them life membership in the Grand Lodge. Thus
two permanent members of the Grand Lodge (other than the Grand
Master and Deputy Grand Master) are created each year by election.
The result is that the Craft in many parts of the State is
represented in the permanent membership and this great honor is
widely distributed. Moreover, very many Brethren who have become
members of the Grand Lodge of Massachusetts in this way would
themselves testify of the permanent membership as a whole that it
includes many Brethren who worthily have attained the honor, whose
services in the Grand Lodge are so valuable as to be really
necessary and yet who either could not or should not be made Grand
Master.

For Grand Master, choose the very best Brother available whether or
not he has held so-called "line" offices. Not only is this to the
advantage of the Craft as a whole, but it opens the opportunity for
many more brethren to hold Grand Lodge office. In my term of three
years as Grand Master, for instance, under the promotion system I
could have appointed one new line officer. Instead of that, six
Brethren were made permanent members by election and three by
appointment; and thirty-eight different Brethren had the
opportunity of holding Grand Lodge "line" offices, very few of whom
would themselves ever be willing or able to serve as Grand Master
and almost none of whom would aspire to that office. 
Fraternally yours, 
Melvin M. Johnson, P. G. M., Massachusetts.

* * *

More Brains, Fewer Titles.

My own personal opinion is that by all means Masonic Officers
should be elected from the floor irrespective of service as
subordinate officers when floor members are found to be capable,
qualified, efficient and sincere workers. In my own state our law
requires that a man must have served as warden before he can be
elected master. We have only to look around us in almost any
jurisdiction and see the disastrous effect of such limitation. Some
of the best students, most efficient ritualists, wisest leaders
never become masters of lodges. If we were able to take them from
the floor upon merit alone, it would raise the standard of Masonic
education everywhere. We need more men of brains and fewer titles.
Fraternally, 
J. W. Norwood, Kentucky.

Experience in Ireland.

In a Lodge of which I was a member over twenty years--891 I. C.--we
had the unwritten law of ROTATION OF OFFICE, always provided the
Brethren qualified by good Masonic conduct, skilled Masonic labor,
and faithful Masonic attendance.

We felt when we selected a candidate for INNER GUARD we were
selecting a future W. M. and we "governed ourselves accordingly."
If our Junior Officers made good they were promoted. If not, the
officers lower down benefited in promotion by their dropping out.
We demanded such progress in the ritual, etc., that when a brother
reached the chair he was capable of "Ruling and Governing" his
Lodge. The years of J. W. and S. W. are the best preparation for
the chair.

In my mother jurisdiction it was a Grand Lodge Ruling that a W. M.
must have served at least one year as S. W. or J. W. in a Lodge
under its jurisdiction.

I advocated this method of promotion all my years as Prov. G.
Inspector and have rarely seen it fail in producing good officers,
good work and goodwill. 
Fraternally yours, 
Joe L. Carson, (P. P. S. G. W., Ireland), Virginia.

* * *
He Favors a Nominating Committee.

In my judgment it is expedient for every lodge to have a carefully
selected nominating committee. Wherever it seems prudent, officers
of the lodge who have served faithfully and efficiently should be
promoted. In case some Brother has been appointed to the office of
Junior or Senior Steward but has not demonstrated conspicuous
talent for the higher offices, it appears to me to be a more
graceful and considerate thing to drop him then or after he has
been tried as one of the Deacons. It seems to me it is not so
humiliating to be left off the list of nominees as to be defeated
in an election. 
Fraternally, 
H. D. Funk, Minnesota.
