THE BUILDER OCTOBER 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
Frederick W. Hamilton, Massachusetts
Dr. John Lewin McLeish, Ohio.
Joseph W. Norwood, Kentucky.
Silas H. Sheperd, Wisconsin.
Jos. W. Eggleston, Virginia
M.M. Johnson, Massachusetts
John Pickard, Missouri
Oliver D. Street, Alabama. 
S. W. Williams, Tennessee.
Joe L. Carson, Virginia
T.W. Hugo, Minnesota
F.B. Gault, Washington
C.M. Schenck, Colorado
H.L. Haywood, Iowa
Frank E. Noyes, Wisconsin
Francis W. Shepardson, Illinois
H.W. Ticknor, Maryland

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. 6--

"To what extent should the Grand Master in each jurisdiction,
either himself or by authorized deputy, inspect annually the work
of the officers of each lodge? (a) Should such inspection be
limited to the ritual work of the lodge? (b) Should such inspection
include investigation of the instruction in Masonic history and
philosophy offered by the lodge officers to new members? (c) May
such inspection properly include an audit of the business
transactions of the lodge?

For the Good of the Order.


The Grand Master personally, so far as he is able, the Deputy Grand
Master, and the Grand Wardens, should visit and inspect as many
Lodges as possible during the year; and every Lodge should be
visited by a district deputy at least once a year, or more
frequently.

The inspection should be for the Good of the Order, wherever that
may lie. This, of course, would not limit it to the ritual and
ceremonial of the work, and could include an investigation of the
teaching of the history and philosophy of the Order to its members-
-but would hardly be practicable until the principles of the
N.M.R.S. are thoroughly inculcated throughout the jurisdiction.

So far as an audit of the finances of the particular Lodge is
concerned, I regard Freemasonry as being too uncentralized an
institution to warrant such a course by Grand Lodge Authorities.
The Grand Lodge should ordain, however, that the books of each
Lodge be audited annually, and that the report of the committee
which should include both temporalities and "spiritualities"--
spread upon the minutes after adequate publication to the members
of the Lodge.

In passing, I might say that these questions put me very much in
mind of the "Articles of Visitation" issued by Bishops in the best
practice of the Church. 
H. W. Ticknor, Maryland.

* * *

Efficiently Informed Grand Officers.

In my opinion the Grand Master or his Deputy should annually
inspect the work of each lodge as thoroughly as inspections are
made in military and business circles--that is, not the least thing
left undone or uninspected that might make for the utmost
efficiency. This would involve, (a) that the inspection not be
limited to mere ritual work; (b) that it should include
investigation of instruction in Masonic history and philosophy by
lodge officers to new members, and not only this but such study of
history and philosophy should be encouraged among the officers and
old members who need it as badly as the new ones, for particular
emphasis should be placed upon the necessity for practice of what
is studied; (c) certainly an audit of the business transactions
should be included.

If we are to make our Masonic organization thoroughly efficient we
should first have our Grand Officers thoroughly informed as to all
the activities of Masons under the jurisdictions so that they may
advise them. Next there should be more co-operation between the
various jurisdictions, not only of our own country, but of the rest
of the world. THE BUILDER has been doing a great service in
correlating the Masonic usages of different Grand Lodges. May I
suggest that it follow up by reporting on what I may call the
percentage of Masonic illiteracy and also present statistics on
international recognition in order that our leaders may have a
comprehensive view of the present status of world Masonry. 
J. W. Norwood, Kentucky.

Keep Lodges Up to High Standards.

An inspection such as you outline in your Department of Opinion
this month would be exceedingly beneficial, and must of necessity
be exhaustive if at all. For obvious reasons therefore this
inspection must be performed by the Grand Master's authorized
Deputy. Suppose we call him a Grand Inspector.

The Grand Jurisdiction should be divided amongst a number of such
capable Grand Lodge Inspectors, invested with ample powers.

It would be advisable that these Inspectors visit officially every
Lodge under their care at least once each year.

They should have the regular officers of the Lodge exemplify the
ritual in full, and report to the Grand Master on same.

They should examine the Lodge premises, see they are suitable for
all Masonic purposes, or demand such alterations as will make them
so, if they are not up to the necessary requirements.

They most assuredly should audit the business transactions of the
Lodge and report even the most trifling irregularity, a matter
entirely too long neglected by the Grand Lodges, and of the most
vital importance to the welfare of the Craft.

As few if any Lodges give instruction in Masonic History, Symbolism
or Philosophy to either their old or new members, it would be of
immense benefit to our order if these Grand Inspectors would make
it a part of their duties to offer such instruction. So that this
essential portion of Masonic Instruction may not be entirely
neglected, as it is in the great majority of our Lodges today.

For eight years I filled the office of Provincial Grand Inspector.
I know the importance of the necessity of such inspection; and am
of opinion that this is the most important suggestion yet brought
before the readers of THE BUILDER in the Department of Opinion. 
Joe L. Carson, Virginia.

Let the Grand Master Expound Masonry.

It is impossible for a Grand Master to visit all Lodges in his
Jurisdiction, but all the Lodges should have a visitation from some
authorized person. While some Grand Masters are such, merely in
name, yet he should not be required to pay any attention to the
ritualistic or business part of a Lodge; he should have more than
"ritualistic" or "accountant" brains, but he should prepare (or
steal) an address on the history and philosophy of Freemasonry,
then visit as many Lodges as possible, and give the Craft the
benefit of his study, research and advice.

The duties enumerated (A) (B) (C) are admirably covered by the
system used in Missouri, viz.: the state is divided into districts
comprising ten to twenty lodges in each district, over which is
placed a District Deputy Grand Master and a District Deputy Grand
Lecturer; in a few districts these two offices are combined in one.
The District Deputy Grand Lecturer, under the Grand Lecturer, has
charge of the ritualistic work in his district, and not only visits
the Lodges, but he must hold a district school of instruction under
the direction of the District Deputy Grand Master.

The Law governing the District Deputy Grand Master who is appointed
by the Grand Master is as follows:

(b) He may preside in each Lodge upon the occasion of his official
visit, after it is opened; shall examine its books and records; and
see if they are properly kept; inform himself of the number of
members and the punctuality and regularity of their attendance;
ascertain the state and condition of the Lodges in all respects;
point out any errors he may ascertain in their conduct and mode of
working; instruct them in every particular wherein he shall find
they may require or desire any information; particularly recommend
attention to the normal and benevolent principles of Masonry, and
the exercise of caution in the admission of candidates; and if he
discover in his District any Masonic error or evil, endeavor to
immediately arrest the same by Masonic means, and, if he judge it
expedient, report the same to the Grand Master.

(e) He shall call a Lodge of Instruction at least once a year, if
deemed expedient, at such time and place as may be most convenient
for the Craft, and notify the officers of the various Lodges in his
District to appear at such Lodge of Instruction to receive the work
and Lectures from the District Lecturer.

It will be noted that his duties cover in detail all the points in
(A) (B) (C). This system has been very effective and its results
excellent. 
Wm. F. Kuhn, Missouri.


A Century of Inspection.

I suppose that everyone is attached to the procedure of his own
Grand Lodge. Perhaps for that reason I should like to answer your
question of August 6th by a statement of the Massachusetts
procedure which has worked well for over a century and not yet been
found defective at any point.

M. W. Samuel Dunn (1800-1802) introduced the system of District
Deputies. The entire jurisdiction is divided into districts. Our
largest district contains eleven Lodges, but this we consider too
many. The District Deputy makes a formal visitation of every Lodge
in his district every year. At this visitation he examines the
Minutes, Visitor's Book, and other records of the Lodge, collects
the moneys due the Grand Lodge, and witnesses a portion of the
degree work. The work to be presented is usually determined by the
Worshipful Master, but the District Deputy may demand any portion
of the work or the whole work of one or more degrees. At some time
during his visitation he addresses the Lodge conveying to it such
messages as the Grand Master may desire and adding any personal
advice, commendation or criticism which occurs to him.

Visits of inspection are not made by the Grand Master in person.

In addition to the official visitation the District Deputy keeps in
touch with all the Lodges in his district, consults with and
advises the Masters, and acts as a medium of communication between
the Grand Master and the Lodges.

It seems to me that he should not formally investigate or instruct
concerning the Masonic history and philosophy offered by the Lodge
officers to any new members. Neither do I think that this
visitation should include an audit of the business transactions of
the Lodge.

Should the Grand Lodge legislate requiring instruction in Masonic
history and philosophy it would properly become the duty of the
District Deputy to see that this legislation like other Grand Lodge
legislation is properly enforced. The business affairs of the Lodge
are its own concern. They do not become the concern of the Grand
Master or the Grand Lodge unless irregularities occur so serious as
to involve scandal to the Fraternity. In that case there would
always be abundant redress.

While I do not believe that the functions of the District Deputy
should extend officially to these matters, a very great regulating
and upholding influence may be, and in this jurisdiction is
exercised, by the District Deputy with regard to both instruction
and the conduct of business. The District Deputy may and does
encourage, and in some cases procure the proper instruction of
young Masons, and he may and does jointly and unofficially exercise
a directing influence where the business transactions of the Lodge
appear to be carelessly or improperly conducted. 
Frederick W. Hamilton, Massachusetts.


Emphasizes Inspection of Study Side.

In my judgment this question touches upon some of the most
important problems before the lodges of our country. My observation
has been that too many of the Masonic organizations (of this
jurisdiction at least), and particularly those in small towns, do
their work in a perfunctory way. If each lodge within the Grand
Master's jurisdiction knew that at least once a year either the
Grand Master himself or some authorized deputy would visit the
lodge I am sure the officers would attend to their duties with
greater punctuality and precision. But lamentable as is the slip
shod way in which the ritualistic part of the work is done, the
ignorance of many Masons relative to the historic and philosophical
fundamental principles of their Fraternity is much worse. I believe
the crying need among our lodges is an intelligent understanding of
the origin and purpose of Masonry, and therefore it seems to me a
Grand Master who has not provided further light in Masonry to the
lodges within his jurisdiction has failed to realize his
opportunity, not to say that he has been derelict in the
performance of his duty. In my judgment the matter of inspecting
the business transactions of the lodges is of secondary importance.
I am not sure to what extent the law of the state would recognize
the right of the Grand Lodge to look into the affairs of a local
body. The law of the state would have to be considered in answering
that question.
-- Henry D. Funk, Minnesota.

Real Deputy Grand Masters.

Each lodge should be visited officially at least once a year by the
Grand Master or his personal representative who should be a
District Deputy Grand Master, appointed by and responsible to his
Grand Master. This Deputy should carry to the lodges of his
District official messages and should address the Brethren along
the lines of the Masonic policies of his chief. He should inspect
the original charter and see that it be carefully preserved. He
should see that the By-laws bear the proper approval. He should
examine the minutes to some extent. He should audit the books so
far and (except in case of some special exigency) only so far as is
necessary to ascertain the amount due the Grand Lodge which he
should then and there collect and promptly turn over to the Grand
Lodge.

He should also call for an exhibition of some ritualistic work but
he should not be expected to be letter perfect in the ritual. That
is to say, the District Deputy should be an executive officer and
not a pedagogue. The expert and exact teaching of the ritual should
be in the hands of Grand Lecturers or similar officers who can make
a business of it and should be paid for their services like any
teacher whether they give the whole of their time to the work or do
it aside from their regular vocations.

One entire issue of "THE BUILDER" could be filled with a recitation
of the advantages of this system and it has no disadvantages. If
those jurisdictions where the District Deputy is merely an honorary
official with perfunctory duties, could only know how valuable he
could be made, they would instantly make this officer a real
Deputy--a representative of the Grand Master de facto as well as de
jure--and they would not overload him with many lodges. No business
or professional man can properly attend to the official and social
duties devolving upon the Deputyship in a district of more than a
dozen lodges without unreasonably neglecting his family, or his
business affairs, or both. From long personal experience and
observation, I believe that the ideal district is composed of eight
lodges which, in the country, should be arranged for convenience of
inter-communication and not by distance as the crow flies or even
by boundaries established by civil government.

It will interest some jurisdictions to know that because of the
successful working out of this system where it originated, for more
than a generation that Grand Lodge has been able to close its books
each year with every return in, every cent of dues in hand, and not
a single lodge in default for a penny of its constitutional
payments to Grand Lodge.

When Grand Master Dunn of Massachusetts found in 1800 that his
particular lodges were too numerous for him to visit each year in
person, he specially commissioned competent Brethren to do the
visiting for him. His scheme was so successful that it has ever
since been followed and in 1811 the District Deputy was made a
constitutional officer, but not an elective one. That is to say,
the Deputy in that state is not the representative of his lodge or
of his District to the Grand Lodge. He is a real deputy--the
representative of his Grand Master to those lodges specially
assigned to his care and supervision. To those who fear that this
introduces "politics," let it be said that as a matter of fact and
experience for over a hundred years there has been vastly less of
politics than in the jurisdictions where the Deputy is chosen by
election. A Grand Master who is big enough for the job will select
the best available past Master in the district. It may not be the
man who can muster the most votes.

The question as to an audit suggests one further observation.
Except so far as is necessary for the support of the Grand Lodge in
the maintenance of general principles, and to the prevention of
unmasonic acts, the Grand Lodge and its officers should leave the
lodges alone to conduct their business affairs to suit themselves.
Compulsory adoption of standard by-laws, for instance, is as absurd
as it is unnecessary. And it is none of the Grand Lodge's business
whether a particular lodge serves to its members and guests a state
banquet, or cheese and crackers, or nothing.
--Melvin M. Johnson, Massachusetts.

Build Up Morale Rather Than Ritual.

If in your questions you refer to Degree work, or other routine
work, I have such a slight estimate of the sanctity and value of
parrot proficiency in such cases, such a dislike to Grand Lodge
interference in the local affairs or business of the Lodge, placing
greater value on the morale of a lodge than its ability to work a
degree with all the T's crossed and all the steps made at the right
angle that after this clearing away of my defences I will say:

I prefer that the Grand Master considers himself the
Commander-in-Chief and stays at Headquarters to direct the
subordinate Grand Officers where to visit and what to do; if they
cannot find time nor have the ability nor desire to make good
officers under instruction they will not make good officers to give
instructions themselves. The Grand Master should attend to the
greater functions and semi-public engagements, or take a hand in
the critical episodes of his Grand Mastership; he should be the
Grand Master, not a visiting flunkey. There is another feature of
these incessant minor calls on the time and endurance of a Grand
Master; such work costs the Jurisdiction money; as soon as he has
made his Annual report to the Grand Lodge and received his jewel,
or whatnot, that costly information is of no account any further to
the Grand Lodge, and the next man goes over the same route;
whereas, when the other officers in line each make some visitations
they have years, more or less, in which to use their information
and when they come to be Grand Masters they can be such and direct
the future generations intelligently. This plan also tests out the
coming Grand officers, costs less money and is an approach to a
business administration which will be efficient; I have tried out
both plans and for every desirable result the Commander-in-Chief
idea possesses all the aces in the pack. I therefore answer your
first question, by an officer in line properly deputized.

(a) The inspection should not be limited to the ritual work, but
more to the morale and general get up of the brethren; of course
they ought to know enough to confer a degree reasonably correctly,
but if some parts have to be neglected the "perfect points and
parts of entrance, etc.," can stand the neglect better than any
other.

(b) Such inspection should include the knowledge of the officers in
Masonic accepted history, not myth history, in order that not only
new members but old members may be given an opportunity to know
something about their antecedents as Masons, and their landing
place in Masonic philosophy, not the nondescript Religious or
Occult "stuff," as the printers term it, which seek to masquerade
as Masonic, not regular addresses, or off hand talks by those who
know something, ought to be the rule in every Lodge.

(c) Audits should not be made unless requested by the Lodge and, in
that case, not by the Grand Master, or his authorized Deputy, who
should not lower himself to the position of a traveling auditor,
which while an honorable job is not one to be attached to the
dignity of a Grand Master. If I were Master of a Lodge I would
contest any undue interference with my business, unless I asked for
it.--T. W. Hugo, Minnesota.

