THE BUILDER MARCH 1918

THE FAITH THAT IS IN THEM -- A FRATERNAL FORUM

Wildey E. Atchison, Iowa.

EDITED BY BRO. GEORGE E. FRAZER
PRESIDENT, THE BOARD OF STEWARDS

CONTRIBUTING EDITORS
Frederick W. Hamilton, Massachusetts.
Geo. W. Baird, District of Columbia.
H. L. Haywood, Iowa.
Joseph Barnett, California.
John W. Barry, Iowa.
Joe L. Carson, Virginia.
Jos. W. Eggleston, Virginia.
Henry R. Evans, District of Columbia.
H. D. Funk, Minnesota.
F. B. Gault, Washington.
Joseph C. Greenfield, Georgia.
T. W. Hugo, Minnesota. 
M. M. Johnson, Massachusetts. 
John G. Keplinger, Illinois. 
Harold A. Kingsbury, Connecticut. 
Dr. Wm. F. Kuhn, Missouri. 
Julius H. McCollum, Connecticut. 
Dr. John Lewin McLeish, Ohio. 
Joseph W. Norwood, Kentucky.
Frank E. Noyes, Wisconsin. 
John Pickard, Missouri. 
C. M. Schenck, Colorado. 
Francis W. Shepardson, Illinois. 
Silas H. Shepherd, Wisconsin. 
Oliver D. Street, Alabama. 
H. W. Ticknor, Maryland. 
Denman S. Wagstaff, California. 
S. W. Williams, Tennessee.

(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 Question Box and Correspondence Column.)

QUESTION NO. 9--
Is it advisable for the Master of each Lodge to refer applications
for initiation and membership to one standing committee on
membership appointed annually? If so, shall this Committee be
composed of past officers? If not, what other methods may a Lodge
adopt in maintaining uniform standards of membership
qualifications?

Standing Committee Works Well.

As to the advisability of a Master referring applications to a
standing committee appointed annually (based upon long usage in my
own Lodge, Excelsior No. 369)--emphatically yes. Too much care can
not be exercised in looking into the antecedents of those knocking
at the Portals of Masonry if we are to maintain the same high
standard of membership which has made our Institution unique among
all others for Quality of Membership. A Committee honored with this
considerable responsibility extending over a twelve month period
must naturally feel the same sort of responsibility as the line
officers of a Lodge and acquire added and valuable experience "each
time out" upon a "character-quest." We have had such satisfactory
results with our own Standing Committee in Excelsior that for some
years now they have been annually reappointed and have yet to give
us any cause for complaint. It is frequently their custom to ask
"more time" for investigation and when one finally does pass the
doors of Excelsior Lodge No. 369, it is evidence that such a one
comes with a clean slate. Blackballing is an infrequent occurrence
in our Lodge as the Committee generally recommends the prompt
withdrawal of a petition which it can not report "full and
favorable." Not one of our present Committee is a Past Officer but
each of the three is a long time and faithful attendant upon Lodge,
endeavoring to live up to the traditions born of fifty-two years of
existence. With considerable pride I can point to the membership of
Excelsior as justifying in every minute particular the extreme
advisability of having a Committee of this kind. We have never
found it necessary to advertise our meetings in the daily press
inasmuch as the interest and enthusiasm of our own members is
sufficient to assure us a representative attendance at our meetings
and such visitors as enter our portals from time to time of their
own free will and accord generally indicate their approval of our
old-fashioned ways and adherence to the ancient landmarks by coming
again. Much of the credit for which is due to an experienced and
careful Investigating Committee.
John Lewin McLeish, Ohio.

* * *
Method of a San Francisco Master.
I may only answer from a "California" standpoint, and as follows:

"It is not only inadvisable, but without the law, both written and
unwritten, to appoint a committee of three, who shall jointly hold
office for a year; and as such pass upon all applications that may
be made to the Lodge for membership within that time."

Personally I believe this to be GOOD LAW and have this to say in
its defense. In all notes on Masonic procedure of the past in
America, where Masonry is or was Masonry, we have evidence that,
unless the Lodge were so small as to preclude the possibility of
appointing a new Committee each month and a separate one on each
Candidate, the practice has been to do so. This is California law.
May I not ask why it should not be so ? I may be here permitted to
answer as follows:

One of the principal Landmarks--indeed one of the corner stones
used in upbuilding our structure is and always has been--secrecy.
We aim to avoid letting it be known "who shall judge of our
qualifications, as men fit to be Masons." We aim to protect our
membership from the "venom" of a man found unworthy! Hence we keep
the identity of our committee-men on petitions secret! We aim to
appoint Committees that are unknown, even to the members of the
Lodge, so that unbiased, free and impartial judgment, pro or con,
may be rendered by such Committee. If a Lodge member has
detrimental evidence, he can consult the Master, who is and should
be the only "standing committeeman." Thirty days should be ample to
disclose most "hidden" characteristics, where a committee has but
the one object to work on; and if not long enough another thirty or
even sixty days for further investigation may be allowed.

More than one investigation in a month rather dulls the interest
any man may have in such duty, and in consequence, such a
disposition naturally reflects on the results the Lodge relies on
so implicitly. Any "standing committee" would soon become "public
property"--as from mouth to ear, the most inconsequential matters
are rehearsed, even "on the square."

To gain a uniform standard for membership and to ascertain the
qualifications of a candidate, the committee should not be afraid
or too politic to ask questions. As the Master of Fairmount Lodge
No. 435 of San Francisco, I made use of a printed list of
questions. In addition we have always been in the habit of
notifying sister lodges. These forms are of course supplementary to
a standard committee-man's notice. Now if you are not too "awfully
polite" about getting the "ORIGINAL INFORMATION" your standard of
qualification may be easily fixed and forever maintained.
Denman S. Wagstaff, California.

* * *

Appoint Strangers.
As to the advisability of the Master of each Lodge referring
applications for initiation and membership to one standing
committee on membership, annually, I would advise that it would not
be fair to impose so much work on any one committee: nor could we
expect a single committee to give so much time and labor,
gratuitously.

The purpose of a committee on petitions is to verify whether or not
the postulant is worthy. It has become a custom to name, on such
committees, the friends or neighbors of the petitioners, in the
interest of convenience, time and labor. While this has its
advantages, it has, also, its disadvantages. A man's friends are
right sure to report favorable.

A friend is one who sees your good qualities in preference to your
bad ones. The petitioner is apt to resent rejection by "getting
even" with the man he suspects of blackballing him. The neighbor or
friend who served on the committee and visited that petitioner,
thus may become an innocent mark.

A glance at the Grievance and Appeals Reports which are to be found
in so many Grand Lodge publications, is quite enough to convince
even the shortest haired brother that we are taking in too many.
The purpose of the Lodge and of the Order is to select quality in
preference to quantity; and, with this in view, we would give it as
our advice to put all strangers on such committees, i. e. strangers
to the petitioner, and we also think the committee should be
required to search the character of the petitioner from his cradle
to the date of his petition. This may take time and may require
labor, but it is worth the while.

We have heard very good brethren, when defending their favorable
report, say that they were unable to find anything against the
petitioner. With this the writer has always disagreed, and has
urged that we should find the petitioner to be good, upright,
respected, worthy, held in high esteem, in fact an acquisition. One
who would bring something to the Lodge in lieu of deriving
character from it.

We should not forget that a Masonic obligation is mutual; it
pledges the entire fraternity to the initiate, as well as pledging
him to the Fraternity. The Lodge, per se, is secondary, in this
matter; the Lodge is responsible to the Grand Lodge for its
mistakes.
Geo. W. Baird, Washington, D. C.

* * *

Emphatic "No."
Regarding the Committees of Investigation on the application of
candidates for membership--First, should it be an annually
appointed standing committee ? Emphatically NO; any such move tends
to remove from the body and personnel of a Lodge the very important
attitude of personal responsibility, to me one of the most
dangerous states of mind into which any association can fall; it is
hard enough now with so many Lodges having become mere work shops
to find any incentive for the innocent bystander to attend. The
whole matter of candidates is so closely a family matter that I
would make it a first consideration, and then if there was any time
left I would confer a degree. Every member should be made to feel
his interest in the Lodge by every means possible, and it is not so
important that you have had a scientific combing out of the
character of a candidate as it is to have your members think they
are doing something for the Lodge; if your Master can't handle the
situation hurry it up so he will get into the glorious army of Past
Masters and get somebody in his place with brains and executive
ability in his head and Masonry in his heart.

Second--If a standing committee should it be composed of Past
Masters? Also by the same token, an emphatic NO; beyond all things
NO. If there is anything else in the machinery of a Lodge which
causes trouble more often than anything else it is the Past Master,
or past officers; by their assumed wisdom and standing they tend to
attract to themselves that power of ipse dixit, and instead of the
Mason being a member of a Lodge he soon gets to be an echo and then
a very faint one. The main thing is to magnify the member, the past
officers have had their chance.

Third--What should be done to maintain a standard of membership? It
is a question if we want any uniform standard other than the
Constitutions demand. By that I mean any hard and fast drawn
detailed specifications, unnatural and unapplicable. Masonry is a
progressive institution and candidates as well as members must keep
up with the general development.

I am a Masonic Progressive in every sense of the word where my good
sense points out, but in this case of committees on applications I
do not believe there is or can be any better method than the old
way. Any variation tends to lack of interest in the second most
important feature of our work, the getting of proper candidates.
The first most important feature is to keep him when you get him
and make something out of the raw material God has entrusted to
your skill and human interest. The third important feature is to
confer the degrees by which you teach him his Duty to that God and
the neighbor and anything which interferes with these orders of
importance in my opinion is wrong and tends to disintegration and
decay.
T. W. Hugo, Minnesota.
* * * 
Lodges in Small Towns.

My experience in Lodges of 250 or less, situated in towns of less
than 20,000 population, is to the effect that it is better to
handle these matters by the appointment of a special committee of
three members on each application. Whether in larger Lodges and in
more populous centers it would be better to adopt the plan proposed
is a matter which from my experience I would not be able to judge.
Frank E. Noyes, Wisconsin.

* * *

Give Duties to All Members.

I would not advocate reference of applications for initiation for
membership by the Master to a standing committee on membership for
the reason that it places too much power in the hands of a few men.
This does not impugn the motives of the few men, but I have noticed
that where the same committees are constantly appointed by the
Master the rest of the members seem inclined to let them do all the
work. The best results for a live Lodge in my own experience as
Master have been obtained by setting every member to some kind of
work. If the committee is composed of officers entirely, this
creates the impression that the rank and file do not amount to much
in the consideration of the Master, so I would say that wherever
possible different committees for every petition should be
appointed so as to put the entire membership to work. They will be
better acquainted with the persons who apply and there seems to be
some spirit of brotherhood in this.
J. W. Norwood, Kentucky.

* * *

No Universal Method Feasible.
It is customary in this section to appoint a special committee of
investigation on every petition presented. So much so is this the
case that when the question was presented for my consideration I
looked up the law expecting to find it so laid down. Strict search
of the subordinate and Grand Lodge by-laws, however, revealed the
fact that they were to be referred to a committee of investigation,
no provision being made as to whether it be a standing committee or
special.

It would seem as though no general or universal rule could be made
governing this. Local conditions would influence this largely. In
the large city Lodges where a large number of applications are
received, no one committee of three men could investigate and do it
thoroughly on every petition presented. On the other hand, when a
limited number of petitions are presented a standing committee of
men well known to be thorough, conscientious and fair-minded might
be of advantage. Should such a committee be raised I do not think
it should arbitrarily be made up of Past Masters, but rather of men
who are known to possess the proper qualifications as partially
listed above and to which might be added spare time and
willingness.

Considering the subject from all points, however, I think the work
will be more thoroughly done by carefully selected special
committees than by a standing committee, there being danger of the
standing committee growing stale and doing the work in a
perfunctory manner.
Julius H. McCollum, Connecticut.

Use Brains--Not Blanks.

If a Lodge is a small one, it might be practicable and perhaps
would be desirable to have all applications for the degrees passed
upon by a single committee. In case of a large Lodge it seems to me
that such a course would not be practicable as the committee would
be so over-burdened with work that its investigations would lack
thoroughness.

If such a committee exists it should be appointed by the Worshipful
Master and great care should be taken in its selection. I see no
reason why it should be limited to past officers although the
presumption would be that past officers would afford the best
material for such committee.

The real safeguard of a Lodge consists in care with which the
Committees on applications are appointed. Only too often this
appointment is merely perfunctory and weak committees are
appointed.

This and many other matters upon which the wellbeing of the
fraternity depends can be safeguarded only by care and diligence of
officers and members. My personal conviction is that there is at
present a regrettable tendency to attempt to provide for these
matters by machinery. I do not believe that blanks can take tile
place of brains or that machinery can take the place of the
personal care and attention which must be given to our affairs if
they are to be carefully conducted.     
Frederick W. Hamilton, Massachusetts.


* * *
Experience of a Colorado Past Master.
Some out of the ordinary conditions exist in the Colorado Lodge
which I served as Master. The membership of this Lodge is divided
into practically three classes, approximately one-half being
composed of railroad men--officials, enginemen, trainmen, yardmen
and shopmen, three-eighths of business and professional men living
in the city, and one-eighth of farmers and stock-growers living in
the country.

It is the usual custom in this Lodge to appoint on the petition of
an engineman a committee of his fellowworkers--for instance a
fireman, or engineer, or both, and a conductor or brakeman, or a
similar combination; on the petition of a shopman, two
fellow-shopmen and usually a townsman not connected with the
railroad. The townsman, a business man, would investigate the
petitioner's standing among the business men of the city--making
inquiries as to whether or not he was prompt in meeting his bills,
etc., an important item in railroad towns having a large floating
population. On the petition of an official of the railroad would be
appointed railroad men of various occupations--possibly a
train-dispatcher, a shopman and a conductor, fireman, engineer or
brakeman.

The jurisdiction of this Lodge extends forty-one miles in a
southwesterly direction, and embraces a large farming and
cattle-raising country. Many farmers and cattle-men in this
territory have joined the Lodge. On a petition of one of these
would be appointed three of his neighbors.

Railroad men who are out on their runs nearly half of the time
could not efficiently investigate a petitioner living on a ranch
forty miles from town, nor would a committee composed of these
ranchmen be expected to successfully investigate a trainman or
engineman.

A fireman, conductor and brakeman composing a committee on an
engineer's petition would have the opportunity to investigate the
petitioner's actions and conduct at the distant railroad terminal
where nearly half his time is spent in lay-overs. Also his
fellowworkers on a shopman's petition could make a more thorough
and satisfactory investigation than could a committee of business
men or farmers.

In communities where the above conditions obtain it is obvious that
one standing investigating committee would not be as efficient as
the class committees mentioned, even if such a standing committee
could be found who would be willing and able to act as such. Out of
the entire membership of the Lodge, which numbers some 250, I doubt
if there could be selected three members who would have the time to
act on such a committee.
Wildey E. Atchison, Iowa.

* * *
No Committees in Virginia.
Virginia allows no Committee on petitions for initiation or
applications for membership. Our reason for this is our
unwillingness to trust their perfunctory reports and our
consciousness that the members would trust too much to those
reports. Is not this all too true, where the system prevails?
We require the avouchers to satisfy the Lodge, from personal
knowledge of the fitness of the candidate, and some of the officers
and members are sure to make some investigations "on their own."

The above answers your whole block of questions and my long Masonic
experience convinces me that no other plan would work so well.
Jos. W. Eggleston, Virginia.

Experience in Ireland.
On the question before the Fraternal Forum this month a Lodge to
which I belonged in Ireland had the following fixed regulation:

All names proposed for membership were passed on by a Committee of
four, the W. M., Secretary, and two members appointed by the
popular voice of the Lodge. The W. M. conveyed to the proposer and
seconder the finding of the Committee. If the "Tongue of Good
Report" had not been heard in favor of the candidate the name was
usually withdrawn.

If they insisted on going to ballot, the W. M. read the Report of
the Committee before "circulating the Ballot," and the Lodge
usually "governed itself accordingly."

I never knew the Lodge to make a mistake and the membership was of
the best Masonic material.
J. L. Carson, Virginia.

* * *

Avoid Clannishness.
Theoretically, the idea is a good one, a standing committee of high
grade men working together will, no doubt, maintain a high
physical, mental and moral standard in candidates reported on
favorably.

But the great objection to this plan is that it may lead to
clannishness. It also takes away the feeling of responsibility all
members should feel in the fitness of candidates seeking admission.

This responsibility is felt more by the membership if separate
committees are appointed by the Master to look up each aspirant for
Masonic initiation.

I would suggest, however, that each Lodge prepare a code for the
guidance of its investigating committees. I would also require that
each member of each investigating committee personally see each
candidate and assure himself of his fitness. Then the three
investigators and Master should confer on each aspirant--not simply
make and receive a brief report as is so commonly done now just
before the ballot is taken.
John G. Keplinger, Illinois.

DO IT NOW

Do not keep the alabaster boxes of your love and tenderness sealed
up until your friends are dead, but fill their lives with
sweetness. Speak approving and cheering words while their ears can
hear them and while their hearts can be thrilled by them. The kind
things you will say after they are gone, say before they go. The
flowers you mean to send for their coffins, bestow them now, and so
brighten and sweeten their homes before they leave them.

If my friends have alabaster boxes laid away full of fragrant
perfumes of sympathy and affection, which they intend to break over
my dead body, I would rather they would bring them now in many
weary and troubled hours and open them that I may be refreshed and
cheered while I need them and can enjoy them. I would rather have
a plain coffin without flowers and a funeral without an eulogy than
a life without the sweetness of love and sympathy. Let us learn to
anoint our friends beforehand for their burial.

Post-mortem kindness cannot cheer the burdened spirit. Flowers on
the casket spread no fragrance backward over the weary way over
which the loved ones have traveled.
--John Lloyd Thomas, 33d.
