THE BUILDER JULY 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.
Francis W. Shepardson, Illinois.
Jos. W. Eggleston, Virginia
M.M. Johnson, Massachusetts
John Pickard, Missouri
Silas H. Shepherd, Wisconsin. 
Oliver D. Street, Alabama. 
S. W. Williams, Tennessee.
Joe L. Carson, Virginia
T.W. Hugo, Minnesota


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. 3--

Shall the dues in Masonic bodies be increased to cover the
financial support of Masonic homes in the respective Grand
Jurisdictions? If so, shall such Masonic homes be established for
aged and infirm Masons only, or for Masonic widows and orphans? If
not, shall members of each lodge be encouraged to contribute as
individuals to a charity fund at the disposal of a charity
committee regularly appointed by the W. M.?

The Future Has Heavy Burdens for Us.

Unless, as in Ohio, ample provision is made by the Grand Lodge,
through its annual per capita assessment on lodges, to provide for
the support of a Masonic Home, it impresses me as a bounden duty
that each lodge in a jurisdiction constitute itself a unit to
contribute annually according to its means to the proper financing
of an institution, which should be one of the foremost of its
Charities. Charity is a foremost principle of our Order, and first
of all such, should come our own Masonic Charities. Masonry must
take care of its own, and the calls upon Masonry in the near
future, because of the parlous times in which we now live are bound
to be considerable. Any necessary increase of lodge dues such as
you suggest, should be met where necessary, cheerily, even though
at the cost of considerable lodge embarrassment. As between the
proper financing of a Masonic Home, and the luring of passive
Masons to lodge by the stomachic route, there should not be a
moment's hesitancy in making one's choice. Where necessary,
eliminate the superfluous banquet, the entertainment, the picnic or
other "side degree" and let each craftsman put his shoulder to the
wheel to help assure the financial well-being of the Masonic Home.

If you refer to our obligation, it will convince you that the
inchoators of the Masonic Institution held in equal esteem the
Masonic widows and orphans, these being ever coupled with the
Master Masons in the setting forth of the duties of the craftsmen.
So in practical Masonry today, in building for the future, we
should build equally for the Masonic wife, widow, mother, sister,
son and daughter, as for the needy and infirm brother. The greater
the hardship the better for the craft. Masons must face all
conditions, and it is their privilege to serve. We cannot afford as
Masons to show less regard for the well-being, spiritually and
materially of our widows, and our orphans, than does another great
religious world force evince for its own in this category. Ours the
task to sustain the grand reputation handed down to us by our
Masonic ancestors, and make Masonic Charity mean something wherever
the Square and Compasses have blazed a trail. It is admirable in
any lodge to encourage brothers to contribute as individuals to a
Charity Fund at the disposal of a Charity Committee appointed by
the W. M. Far better to my mind, however, the plan adopted by my
own lodge, Excelsior No. 369 (Ohio), some fifty-one years ago, of
providing for an enforced levy per capita each year from the
General Fund to be added to the Charity Fund, this latter to be
under control of the Trustees and dispensed at their discretion for
our own lodge charities only. Starting with nothing in 1866,
Excelsior soon amassed over fifteen thousand dollars for this
particular fund alone, and it is still growing. That our forbears
builded well, the brethren are beginning to realize, with present
and presumptive calls made upon this fund. 
John Lewin McLeish, Ohio.

* * *
A Home Must Have Assured Revenue.

It seems to me that the logical order of questions is this:
(1) Does the Jurisdiction need homes for the care of any kind of
Masonic dependents?

(2) If yes, which need is the most acute--for aged Masons (with or
without their wives), or for widows and orphans ?
(3) How shall such a home be financed?

Questions 1 and 2 are ones of fact purely and can be decided best,
in my judgment, by a careful study of the applications for charity
made to the Grand Lodge and the individual Lodges over a series of
years. An attempt to get the opinion of Lodges on these questions
would probably have misleading results.

No home should be undertaken without assured revenue. This would
ordinarily come from per capita tax under the established methods
of Grand Lodge finance. It would seem to be difficult to assure
revenue on any other basis.

This would probably only care for the support or possibly for
supporting a sinking fund. Necessary capital to start the
institution would probably have to be raised by subscription or
might come from bequests.

This is not the Massachusetts method, but the financial methods of
the Grand Lodge of Massachusetts throughout are different from
those commonly used in other Grand Lodges and therefore could not
well be as suggested as models. 
Frederick W. Hamilton, Massachusetts.

* * *
Keep the Dues Democratic.
The increasing of dues in Masonic bodies is a matter that should be
studiously avoided wherever and in every way possible. It is so
easy to add just a little, with the idea that the amount is so
small that it will not amount to anything; not with the idea of
making it hard for anyone--and yet, these small additions gradually
amount to a sum that may be almost prohibitive especially to the
poor Lodges, and it is among those very Lodges that we often find
the finest Masonic realization of true fellowship and brotherhood.
To gradually raise dues to the breaking point for any purpose is
neither Masonic nor advisable--and it is a question whether the
maintenance of large charitable institutions can be accomplished
without the expenditure of sums of money for establishment
(original cost) repairs, etc., that eventually become so large
that, if invested, would produce an income sufficient to enable
annuities to be granted, allowing the recipients to continue to
live with relatives and friends.

If, however, such Homes ARE established, they should by all means
include the Aged and Infirm brethren and their dependent Widows, as
well as the Orphans.

If the Annuity system be used, it should be made available through
a Committee working under authority of the Grand Lodge, and the
money raised in the usual way by a per capita tax on the membership
of the Lodges in the jurisdiction.

I do not wish to be understood as condemning the many magnificent
Homes that have been established throughout the country, neither do
I lose sight of the benefits derived from the earnest work of
Christian men and women within these institutions and the great
good derived from proper intensive training of youth along
religious and business lines--these are, unquestionably, excellent
and most desirable--but whether the aged and infirm of both sexes
could not be as well, if not better cared for at less actual cost
in institutions that are already established and in working order
by means of the granting of suitable annuities that could be graded
according to necessity, is a grave question.

From a sentimental standpoint, there is no choice. There is nothing
that will conduce to the happiness and well-being of a Mason in his
years of health and strength, as to know that when he is enfeebled
and unable to provide for himself and those he loves, that they
will be cared for within the family bosom of the Brotherhood that
he loves so well--next to his OWN HOME, there is no place on earth
where he will feel they are so safe from harm as in a
well-appointed Home that is run under the careful supervision of
the Grand Lodge--a place where the aged and infirm brother,
together with his Widow and Orphan can and WILL be made as
comfortable as possible by loving hands and hearts. 
S. W. Williams, Tennessee.

The President of a Home Speaks.

The expense of such Homes should come from the treasury of the
Grand Body of the Jurisdiction which has authorized their
establishment, and the per capita tax on each member be increased
sufficiently to permit of that appropriation.

Such Homes should be for all Masonic dependents, but if possible
the accommodations for the children should be separate from those
of the older persons.

Members individually should not be depended on to support the Home,
but there is no reason why individuals should not be urged to
contribute to some funds for special objects needed at the Home.

A very important feature of the finances of a Home is to charge
each Lodge sending a person to the Home a certain small weekly sum;
this tends to make them a little less unnecessarily generous; 25
cents for a child, 50 cents for a woman, 75 cents for a man; the
tendency is when it does not cost anything more to dump everything
onto the Home, but a little sum like the above is a great
economizer. I have been 13 years President of a Home and have
learned a few things in connection with Masonic charity when it
don't cost the dispenser anything, with Masonic sentiment in
connection with the operation of a Home, and the necessity of
strict business principles from the start. 
T. W. Hugo, Minnesota.

* * *
Let the Dues Be Ample.
Dues should be ample for Lodge purposes without depending on fees
for existence, for the obvious reason that Lodges should not have
the incentive of a need for new members. Grand Lodges should levy
tax sufficient to care for dependency of orphans and old Masons,
preferable, I think, in private families. Masonic Homes, if decided
on, should be separate institutions for the aged and children.

Each Lodge should care for its own, their means to be supplemented,
when necessary, from funds of Grand Lodge in hands of a good Grand
Charity Committee. Voluntary charity should be encouraged rather
than relief by taxation, because that is the only real Masonic
charity. Homes are, many of them, costly failures, and all
expensive and difficult to manage. Bricks and salaries are only
extravagant advertising at best. "Let not thy left hand know, etc."
Jos. W. Eggleston, Virginia.

* * *
Support the Homes.
The lodges should support the Masonic Homes in their jurisdictions
and when necessary the dues should be increased for such purpose.
Masonic homes should be established for aged and infirm Masons;
also for Masonic widows and orphans when occasion demands it H.R.
Evans, Washington. D. C.

* * *
Missouri Cares for Her Own.
The great landmarks of Freemasonry are faith in God, hope of
immortal life, and love of fellowmen. Belief in the first two can
best be exemplified by practicing the third. Each Grand
Jurisdiction should, it seems to me, make adequate provision, under
exclusively Masonic control, for the care of its aged and infirm,
its sick and suffering, its widows and orphans. Its hospitals
should be models. Its Home should be all that this name implies.
Its orphans should be reared and educated with the most scrupulous
care. Not until they are fully prepared should they be sent out
into the world, and the watchful eye of the Masonic guardian should
even then see to it that they have a fair chance in the battle of
life.

The Grand Jurisdiction of Missouri is demonstrating today that all
this can be done and well done without an excessive tax upon the
brethren. And in Missouri also the Great Order of the Eastern Star
has done a magnificent work in aiding to make the Masonic Home of
Missouri an institution of which every Mason and every Star in the
state is justly proud. John Pickard, Missouri.

* * *
Favors Use of Both Plans, Jointly.

It is my opinion that neither a Home nor a Charity Fund alone is
the ideal plan of caring for our dependent brethren, their widows
and orphans. To be complete there should be both. Some cases can
not be cared for in their own homes or among their friends and
relatives. Some have no homes, some have no relatives, some have no
friends, who can and will undertake the burden even for ample pay.
Others have homes, friends, or relatives, where to the increased
happiness of all, they could and would be lovingly cared for with
the aid of a monthly or quarterly stipend from a Grand Charity
Fund. In addition to an annual tax on all the Masons in the
jurisdiction to support these forms of relief, there should also be
Permanent Endowment Funds created and maintained by voluntary
contributions and by a small percentage of the annual per capita
tax set aside each year for this purpose.

Relief by the several lodges for their own dependents would be too
irregular and uncertain; it should in all cases be furnished at
least in the greater part by the Grand Bodies acting in unison
under uniform regulations which would bear equally upon all and
insure equal benefits to all according to their necessities.

Some may say I have set an impossible standard. It is not. That it
is high I do not deny, but no great accomplishment was ever
achieved without a high standard. Good standing of a worthy brother
in a Masonic lodge should be a guaranty that neither he nor his
wife and children should ever want for the necessities at least of
life. Oliver D. Street, Alabama.

 * * *

 Thinks Homes Very Desirable.

The increasing of the dues in the lodges to an extent that provides
an adequate per capita for the Grand Lodge "charity fund" is the
most satisfactory and equitable way of providing for the ones we
wish to assist and is particularly desirable in those Jurisdictions
which maintain Masonic Homes. In every Jurisdiction of which I have
any knowledge this per capita tax is supplemented by voluntary
contributions of those who are more able to give than the average
brother and these voluntary contributions are sometimes very large.
The act of giving, which is, in the per capita tax plan, an act of
the Fraternity as such, often creates a desire to do something as
an individual.

It has been demonstrated by the different Jurisdictions which
maintain Homes that they are the best method of doing our duty to
our brethren who need care in old age or infirmity, and the widows
and orphans. I believe that Homes should be provided for all of
those who are in need of our assistance and who can be better taken
care of in the home than elsewhere. However, I believe it is
advisable to maintain the orphans in a separate home where
practical, and at least in a separate building.

A duty correctly comprehended is a pleasure, and it is the opinion
of your scribe that the added interest in others' welfare produced
by being a contributor to a Masonic Home will have an uplifting
influence among many brethren who would not otherwise have had it
called to their attention. Silas H. Shepherd, Wisconsin.
* * *

Is Half Charity Real Charity?

Your chairman, brethren, has the advantage of reading what you have
said, before he speaks out for himself. What you have said so well
above should stir up some real thinking. Here is a subject that
reaches every lodge and every Mason alike. And we have now the ever
increasing demands of war charities.

Shall we establish a scientific system of Masonic charity? If we
support homes at all, does not each initiate come into our order
with the implied understanding that we have a definite plan for his
relief in the time of his need? Facts are stubborn things, at
times. In many jurisdictions we commit infirm Masons to Homes which
have no endowment and which depend upon periodic contributions for
their meagre support. I question whether this half charity is real
charity in any sense of the word. Oh, I do not mean to disparage
the splendid courage and sincere devotion of the faithful who
manage these institutions. But I do question the moral right of our
great, universal order to establish and maintain any haphazard,
sporadic and unendowed system of charity. Better by far that we
send our brethren elsewhere, say to the United Charities, than that
we should partly do that which many of our members think that
Masonry should not do at all.

What I have written reads cold blooded. Every charitable
institution challenges our sentiments. But must we not some time
take the viewpoint of how we would feel, if sent by our brethren
into the care of an institution that has no secure and assured
support? Perhaps the time has come when we should say to the world
that Masonry is not a charitable institution; that the order
assumes none of the financial obligations of its members. It is not
a difficult matter to state this question; it will take the best
thought of all our leaders to rightly answer it. 
George E. Frazer, IIlinois.


