Lodge Discipline

Lodge Discipline

On November 11, 1864 it was moved that Bro. Cole be notified to appear at the next regular meeting to show reason why he should not be suspended from the Lodge for non attendance.

At the following Meeting of December 9, 1864 a telegram from Bro. J. K. Cole was received, requesting his business be postponed.

On January 20, 1865, Bro. J. K. Cole appeared at the Lodge and explained his reason for non attendance. The only hint of what the reason was is found in the following record that a committee was appointed "to see Bro. Jas. Fitten and try and settle the difficulties existing between Bro. J. K. Cole and the Lodge". It should be noted that Bro. Fitten had applied for and been granted a demit at the previous meeting on December 9, 1864. While it is of course regrettable that serious differences arise between people, especially members of the Lodge, such events are not singular, even to this day. What is, however, unusual is that the Lodge at that time took it upon itself to attempt to resolve those difficulties, betraying not only the desirable feature of care and concern among the brethren, but also perhaps the license to which the members assumed they were entitled by virtue of their fraternity. It is difficult to imagine personal conflicts being discussed in open Lodge today. At the next meeting of the Lodge on February 10, 1865 the committee on Bro. J. K. Cole's case gave in their report. The report was referred to the Board of General Purposes.

It may be unconnected, but at the Meeting of March 10, 1865 it is reported that "the applications for withdrawal of Bros. W. Tennant and J. Bond, Jr. were read and referred to the Board of General Purposes". The Board's report was received and adopted at the meeting of April 7, 1865, without further explanation.

At the Meeting of May 5, 1865 the following appears:

The report of the Committee on Bro. J. K. Cole's case was read for Bro. Cole's benefit. After some little discussion Bro. Cole said that with masonic spirit he would accept the apology of Bro. J. Menzies as given at a previous meeting. The Brethren expressed their approbation.
A little known procedure in Masonry is that associated with a Masonic Trial. Glued to the front of the second Minute Book of the Lodge is an original letter in the following words:

     Almonte, Sept. 20th, 1884.

     To the Worshipful Master
     Mississippi Lodge No. 147 Almonte

     Dear Sir and Bro

I am sorry to have to complain of the unmasonic conduct of one of the members of your Lodge in the person of Chas. H. Knapp who did on or about the 13th inst. to general persons make use of most abominable language toward me, and I hereby charge him with committing a gross Masonic offence against myself and the order and request that you cause the matter to be instigated and brought before the Lodge in due form.

I claim your protection in this case being a member in good standing of Alma Lodge No. 72 Galt Ontario.

     I remain,

     Yours fraternally,

     John Ballantyne

Glued to the next page of the said Minute Book is an original text in the following words:

     To The Wor. Master, Wardens & Brethren
     Mississippi Lodge No. 147 A.F. & A.M.  G.R.

Your special Committee, to whom was referred a communications read in open Lodge at last regular meeting, from Bro. John Ballantyne, of Alma Lodge No. 72 charging Bro. Charles H. Knapp of this Lodge, with unmasonic conduct.

Your Committee find that in accordance with the "Code of Procedure for Masonic Trials", specifications should be added for each separate state of facts constituting a Masonic offence, with reasonable certainty as to time, place, and other particulars; that where the offence charged is the use of scandalous and insulting language towards a Brother, the words used are to be set out; and that the said communication does not set forth these particulars.

Your Committee, therefore, in view of the foregoing findings, cannot recommend the acceptance of it as a Charge for trial.

     All of which is respectfully submitted.

     Almonte                  Arch Shirreffs, Sr. )     Committee
     December 5th, 1884.      Illegible Name      )

On October 23, 1874 a motion was made that the Secretary be instructed "to summons Bro. Henderson to appear before the Lodge to give reasons why he does not pay over the Lodge monies in his hands and to be further dealt with provided he makes no satisfactory return to the Secretary within fourteen days from date". On December 18 next it was moved the "the case of Bro. Henderson lay over till next regular". On January 15, 1875 the following appears:

A charge having been preferred against Bro. Henderson by Bro. Willoughby was for retaining monies belonging to the Lodge. In connection with this the Secretary read a copy of a summons served on Bro. Henderson being for him to appear before the Lodge at this meeting.

     Bro. Henderson did not appear.

Moved by Bro. Mercer and seconded by Bro. N. Stewart that Bro. Henderson be and is hereby suspended for not obeying the Summons from this Lodge and for retaining Lodge monies, and that he remain suspended until said monies are paid together with all arrears of dues and of the dues accruing until his restoration. Carried.

The W. M. Declared Bro. Henderson suspended accordingly.

This highly distasteful allegation is perhaps not one which is new in charitable organizations, but one which is certainly unexpected in the Masonic order.

Responsiveness appears to have been, as it is now, the key to dealing with a financial problem. In the minutes of October 4, 1878, "A letter was read from Bro. Lewis asking an extension of time for the payment of his dues. Request was granted.". In the same meeting, "The Secretary reported that summonded (sic) Bro. Bagsley twice for non-payment of dues and that the same was not attended to. The W. M. ordered that Bro. Bagsley be suspended until such time as he pays his dues".

On May 2, 1879, "A communication was read from Bro. J. Elliott charging Bro. I. S. Patterson with unmasonic conduct in business matters. The Secretary was instructed to give the required notice to Bro. Paterson in order that the matter should be heard and disposed of". On June 27, 1879, "An emergent meeting was held this evening to decide on the charge laid by Bro. J. Elliott against Bro. I. S. Patterson for unmasonic conduct towards him in business. Bro. Elliott and Paterson (sic) being present, the charge was read.

Bro. Paterson (sic) said that anything he had done was nothing more than a matter of business, and if he had given insult to Bro. Elliott or had acted unmasonically in the matter it was unintentionally and he was sorry for it, and would therefore offer an appology (sic). Bro. Elliott accepted the appology (sic) and the charge was withdrawn. Lodge closed in harmony at 10 o'clock". While it may be tempting to smirk somewhat at this undertaking, it is illustrative of the Masonic practice of its recited code to deal with a matter of conflict between two Brethren, rather than simply ignoring the matter, or worse, withdrawing entirely from the Lodge. One does, of course, have to wonder whether this "charge" was preceded by an attempt to resolve the matter privately. But nonetheless, the Lodge was recognized as a forum of dispute resolution to the jurisdiction of which these two members at least submitted. At first blush, present day members might consider that such a forum was embarrassing at best, and perhaps invasive at the least. But perhaps this apparently out-of-date method of public accountability is in fact a method of confrontation to be preferred to the less desirable accusations which might ensue if the matter were not resolved. The personification of one's "mother" lodge takes on new meaning when its members "claim her protection".

At the meeting of July 2, 1880 a communication from the D.D.G.M. was read, notifying the Lodge of the suspension of various named brethren from the rights and privileges of the Craft "for a violation of their Obligation as Masons and gross unmasonic conduct". Almost all of the suspended Brethren were from St. John's Lodge No. 63, Carleton Place; and one was from Mississippi. It was not until the Meeting of December 3, 1880 (following the Grand Lodge Communication at Guelph in July of that year) that the Brethren were restored to the rights and privileges of Free Masonry. All other Brethren were also restored, except Wor. Bro Stockhouse of St. John's Lodge "who was suspended for 5 years and thereafter if he did not make a suitable apology to the G. M.". There is no explanation of the circumstances surrounding this matter. If nothing else, it illustrates the frequency of association of all ranks of the fraternity, though apparently not without its occasional difficulty.

On January 6, 1911, the W.M. appointed a committee "to enquire into the complaints re conduct of Bro. A. F. Shearn and to report to the Wor. Master". At the meeting of February 3, 1911, the committee reported that "they had interviewed Bro. Shearn, who denied all stories as to his conduct". Following some debate among the members, a motion was then made that Bro. Shearn be served with a Master Mason's Summons to appear to show cause why he should not be suspended for non-payment of dues. Things began to heat up in the next meeting of March 3, 1911, when formal charges were laid against Bro. Austin F. Shear for unmasonic conduct:

     To W. S. Boyd, Secy

     To the Wor. Master, Officers and Members of Mississippi
     Lodge, No. 147, A.F. & A. M.

Brothers: I as a member of Mississippi Lodge do hereby lay a charge against Bro. A. F. Shearn for unmasonic conduct.

The first charge is that of using profane language towards his wife and Mrs. Mercer. He called them God Damn Whores, Bastards & Lousy Bitches.

He also accused his wife and Mrs. Mercer of Killing Mr. Mercer for his insurance. I also lay a charge for drunkenness. I would go ahead and enumerate a considerable more he has said but I think this sufficient to warrant a Master Mason's Summons being sent him.

All of this accused is my own hearing on the night of February 27th, 1911 between the hours of 8:30 and 9:00 o'clock p.m. in Mr. Shearn's own house.

     I will take my oath on the above statement if the Lodge wishes so.

     Signed, N. Washburn, P.M.

Moved by Wor. Bros. A. Dunlop and S. L. Ramsay that the charges laid against Bro. Shearn as read be accepted and the accused Bro. be placed on trial. Carried unanimously.

Moved by Wor. Bro. A. Dunlop seconded by Bro. Donaldson that the testimony re charges against Bro. Shearn be taken in open Lodge. Carried.

The Wor. Master ordered that an Emergent meeting be called for March 17th inst. to take testimony and deal with the charges. Carried.

The Wor. Master stated that owing to the motion ordering a Master Mason's Summons be issued Bro. Shearn for N.P.D. having been passed in the First Degree was therefore illegal, and he had instructed the Secy to not issue the same.

There was a healthy turn-out of the Brethren at the Emergent meeting of March 17, 1911. The Secretary first reported having sent a Master Mason's Summons to the accused by registered mail, and produced a receipt for same signed by Bro. Shearn. Bro. Shearn was in fact present at this meeting, and he "admitted the regular service upon him of a copy of the charges against him". The charges were again read to the accused, who was informed that "he was entitled, if he so desired, to have the assistance of any brother to assist in his defence", which offer he declined. Following is the record of the statement made by the accused after having been asked whether he denied or admitted the charges preferred against him:

Mrs. Mercer named in the charges is the mother of my wife. She is, to my knowledge, the widow of a Master Mason, and my wife is the daughter of a Master Mason. I admit that I have used towards Mrs. Mercer and towards my wife the words "God Damned whores", "Lousy Bitches" and "Bastards", but I deny that I ever accused them or either of them of having killed Mr. Mercer for his insurance. When I used these words I did so in a frenzy, and without meaning them. I had been often greatly provoked. My wife has called me everything. If I chastised my son for being out late at night my wife would interfere and tell him not to mind me. There has been continual provocation. She would call after me from the door when I was on the street such names as "Indian", "Sagamore" &c. When I have given way under such provocation and miscalled her I have always asked forgiveness. I deny however that I used these expressions within 2 weeks prior to March 7th, nor since the meeting I had with Committee of past-masters of this Lodge a month or so ago, nor for some time prior thereto.

I deny that I have been guilty of frequent and gross intoxication. I admit, however that my relatives had me placed on the list of those prohibited from obtaining intoxicating liquors - the so-called "Indian List". But I claim this was done in consequence of a business dispute with my brother with whom I am in partnership. I had been in the country, and on my return we had a dispute, and he accused me of being then drunk. My mother and sister came along while we were in the dispute, and saw and heard us. Next morning my sister and brother took the proceedings for having my name put on the "Indian List", and it remained on that list for the whole year (expiring December 2nd, 1910) without any appeal or proceeding on my part to have it removed. They told me after that they were sorry for taking that action.

Referring to the abusive words which I have admitted using I would so use them without regard to the presence or absence of my children or mother-in-law.

All these statements now made by me are so made on my honour as a Mason.

The Lodge members as a whole were then asked "whether any desired to give evidence on the charges", but the response was that they were prepared to dispose of the matter based upon the statement of Bro. Shearn, "who had prior thereto declared that he had no witnesses to call in his defence". Thereupon, Bro. Shearn and W. Bro. Nelson Washburn (who had laid the charges) were directed to withdraw, and did withdraw. No doubt the air in the ante-room of the Lodge was somewhat cool.

The Lodge then opened in the Second and Third Degrees. A ballot was then taken separately on each of the charges, and such ballots were reviewed by appointed scrutineers. In all cases, the ballot was for a verdict of "Guilty". Then the Brethren were asked to ballot on the question: "Shall the Brother be indefinitely suspended by way of punishment", on which the scrutineers reported "twelve ballots had been cast voting " YES" and twelve voting "NO", whereupon the W.M. declared that question decided in the negative, and ordered a ballot to forthwith be taken on the question - "Shall the Brother be punished by suspension for a definite period?", and such ballot having been taken the said scrutineers reported that 23 ballots had been cast voting "YES", and 2 ballots voting "NO", and thereafter, by unanimous resolution of the Lodge, the period of suspension was fixed at one year from and after March 17th, A.L. 5911".

The apparent conclusion of this matter was a letter from the Secretary to Bro. Shearn as follows:
Dear Sir, I am directed to give you notice that at the meeting of Mississippi Lodge No. 147, A.F. & A.M. held on Friday evening last, March 17th, the charge of unmasonic conduct laid against you was decided to have been sustained; and it was ordered that you be suspended for a period of one year on account thereof.

Regrettably for Bro. Shearn, his day in court was not yet over. To the surprise of the writer, tucked among the accounts of daily lodge administration in the minutes of May 5, 1911 is yet another report affecting Bro. Shearn:

The following charges against Bro. A. F. Shearn was read.

We charge A. F. Shearn with unmasonic conduct within two weeks last past as follows:

     1st  Abuse of his wife.

     2nd  Contemptuous language respecting Masonary (sic).

     3rd  Violation of Obligation.
     4th  Drunkenness.

                    Signed Tom Dean & N. Washburn

Moved by Wor. Bro. Kelly and Bro. E. C. Robertson that the charges against Bro. Shearn just read be received and that Bro. Shearn be placed on trial (at the next regular meeting). Carried.
As an aside (and from a juridical point of view), note that the summary trial procedure does not include what is called in the regular courts a "Preliminary Hearing", pursuant to which the judiciary hear the evidence on which the charges are based before proceeding to commit the accused to a full-blown trial. Perhaps Bro. Shearn's historical record was such as to pre-empt this apparent superfluity. Under other circumstances, however, it would not have been surprising to have viewed a reaction from the East which may have necessitated a more complete account of the charges before a Brother would have to face such unilateral condemnation.

At the next regular meeting on June 2, 1911, the Master reported as follows:

Wor. Master stated that he had been approached by Bro. A. F. Shearn who stated that owing to his being temporary (sic) suspended he was unaware he could attend Lodge and defend himself against charges preferred against him and pledged himself that he would attend at any future meeting that he was summoned to attend and in order to give the Bro. fair treatment the trial was postponed until some future meeting.

On July 7, 1911, the following report is made:

The Secy being called to the East declared he had notified Bro. A. F. Shearn of the fact that his trial for unmasonic conduct would take place at this meeting and for him to be present and defend himself.
Bro. Shearn not having made his appearance his trial was proceeded with as follows.

All witnesses were duly obligated in accordance with the constitution.

     W. Bro. Nelson Washburn testified that in April 1911 he was at Shearn's house. Shearn was then drunk. Shearn's wife showed him (Washburn) mark of blow on her hand which she said had been inflicted by Shearn, striking her with a chair. This was confirmed (in Shearn's presence) by their children. While in the house on that occasion heard Shearn call his wife and her mother (Mrs. Mercer) vile names. He called them God-damned lousy bitches, sons of bitches, and whores, repeating his abuse with other expressions equally vile. I went for Bro. Dean, and together we saw Shearn. I told him if he would brace up, go home and behave himself for a while I would not lay a charge against him in the Lodge. Shearn's reply was - "To hell with the Masons. I don't give a god-damn what they do with me".

When Shearn received notice of these charges he took them out before his wife, threw them on the floor, saying - "Some more of your God-Damn Work", and he also showed his wife, as an excuse for further abuse of her, the notice sent to him from the Lodge after the meeting of June 2nd, containing statement of the proceedings in the Lodge against him and of the reasons for adjourning the trial thereof. I know as a fact that Shearn is and has been for some time past guilty of frequent and gross intoxication, and that his conduct in this respect as well as towards his family, has become a matter of public scandal and notoriety and a reproach to the Craft.

The above testimony having been given by W. Bro. Washburn, Bro. Tom Dean testified as follows:
I went with W. Bro. Washburn to call on Shearn as stated. I have heard W. Bro. Washburn's statement as to what took place on that occasion, and say that such statement is true and accurate. I know that Shearn's conduct for months past has been a public scandal. He is and has been guilty of habitual and gross intoxication, and this, coupled with the notoriety of his abuse of wife and family has become a matter of reproach to the Craft by people who are not members thereof.

W. Bro. Andrew Dunlop testified that, to his knowledge, Bro. Robert Mercer, the father of Mrs. A. F. Shearn, and in his lifetime the husband of the Mrs. Mercer referred to in W. Bro. Washburn's evidence was a Master Mason; and that such fact was well known to Bro. Shearn.

This testimony having been given the Master called upon any brother present who so desired to give evidence regarding the charges; and no other evidence being

73

offered, the accusers were directed to retire, and did retire from the Lodge.

Thereupon the Master appointed W. Bro. Kelly, W. Bro. Dunlop and W. Bro. McCarthy to act as scrutineers; and ordered ballots to be passed on the question of the guilt or innocence of Bro. A. F. Shearn in respect of the charges laid against him.

The scrutineers reported that with regard to each of the charges laid against the Brother, fifteen ballots had been cast, and that in each case the unanimous vote was that the accused brother, A. F. Shearn was "GUILTY".

Thereupon the Master ordered a ballot to be passed on the question - "Shall the Brother (A.F. Shearn) be indefinitely suspended?". Such ballot was thereupon passed, and having been taken and examined by the scrutineers, a report was presented by such scrutineers that fifteen ballots had been cast, and that all were in favor of punishment of the Brother (A. F. Shearn) by indefinite suspension.
The Master thereupon declared the accused brother, Austin Frederick Shearn, indefinitely suspended, and ordered the proceedings to be forwarded to Grand Lodge.

Apart from the obvious historical interest of such a trial, and the fact that the Lodge would presume to involve itself so intimately with such personal matters, it is noteworthy that one of the compelling features of the charges was the public scandal and notoriety which Bro. Shearn's conduct had precipitated for the Lodge as a whole. It is unquestionable that the fact of Bro. Shearn's membership in the Lodge was a matter of public record, and there was guilt by association, from which the Lodge officers clearly sought to distance and insulate themselves. What is also significant is no apparent attempt to seek help for the brother in difficulty. While ejectment of the brother from the Lodge may have purified the tarnished face of the Lodge, it did little to improve on the Shearn family dilemma which no doubt continued to be troublesome. Censure from one's peers may in fact be beneficial, but one would like to think that, if present day Masons were to engage in such undertakings, we might think to combine it with equally energetic effort at rehabilitation and professional counselling.
The Lodge was viewed by many of the Brethren as a forum in which to voice concerns about what is generally called "unmasonic conduct" or conduct which "violates the Master Mason's oath". In such circumstances, the precursor to any inquiry was the laying of a charge by one Mason against another. See the following excerpt from the minutes of June 5, 1942:

Correspondence also included a charge made by Wor. Bro. John Aspinall against Bro. John B. Illingsworth (having to do with certain legal matters surrounding a cemetery plot). The Worshipful Master read Book of Constitution, Para. 10, Pg. 92, stating that all the Lodge was concerned with this evening was whether we accept this charge by a majority vote - or dismiss the same. Both Brothers concerned were in Lodge. Wor. Bro. Aspinall arose and stated that he had received letters by members of the Lodge (all signed) suggesting he withdraw this charge, & started to elaborate further when our W. Master checked him & stated that all the Lodge was to do at this time was to vote on the charge as made. Wor. Bro. Aspinall disagreed with our W. M. who declared him out of order & asked Bro. Aspinall to retire, which he was allowed to do, leaving under protest. Some brethren said we should not entertain, or deal with this charge. W. M. replied it must be dealt with & asked Bro. J. B. Illingsworth to retire from Lodge while this was voted upon. Bro. S. Bradley asked if something could not be done to get these two brethren together again; another brother stating he was afraid, not at present. On the vote being taken it was unanimously dismissed, and Bro. J. B. Illingsworth was asked to return to Lodge and our W. M. informed him of the decision. V. Wor. Bro. N. Washburn reprimanded some members for loose talking out of Lodge.

Such an experience illustrates the way in which all members can become embroiled in the personal conflicts of two brethren; and, how the Lodge must be convinced of the utility and seriousness of proceeding with an enquiry before even entertaining the surrounding evidence.