I. Appeals from the Decision of the Master. It is

now a settled doctrine in Masonic law that there can be no appeal from the decision of a Master of a Lodge* to the Lodge itself. But an appeal al- ways lies from such decision to the Grand Lodge, which is bound to entertain the appeal and to in- quire into the correctness of the decisionf. Some writers have endeavored to restrain the despotic authority of the Master to decisions in matters strictly relating to the work of the Lodge, while they contend that on all questions of business an appeal may be taken from his decision to the Lodge. t
* By this I mean the presiding officer, whether he be the Master, or a Warden, or Past Master, holding the office and occupying the chair pro tempore.
f " It is not in accordance with ancient Masonic usage to allow an appeal to be taken from the decision of the Worshipful Master to the Lodge which he governs, upon any question whatever. It is his Lodge,iin& while he con- tinues to be Master, he has a right to rule, and they are bound to obey ; but for any undue assumptions of authority he is amenable to the Grand Lodge and his Lodge, or any member thereof, may present the facts in any particu- lar case, whenever they believe their Master has erred, to the Grand Lodge tfho alone has the right to hear • and determine such matter." — Com. For Cor. a. L. of Ohio, 1848, p. 93.
X Thus the Grand Lodge of Ohio, in 1846, adopted the report of a com mittee which announced that an appeal from the decision of the Master
240 RIGHT OF APPEAL.
But it would be unsafe, and often impracticable, to draw tins distinction, and accordingly the highest Masonic authorities have rejected the theory and denied, the power in a Lodge to entertain an appeal from any decision of the presiding officer.
It must be admitted that, with the present under- standing of the law on this subject, the power of the Master is to a great extent rendered despotic in his Lodge. But on the other hand, by the wise pro- visions of the same law, this despotism is restrained by the most salutary checks. The Master himself is bound by the most solemn obligations to the faith- ful discharge of his duties and the impartial admin- istration of justice and equity. And as a still fur- ther safeguard, the Grand Lodge, as the appellate court of the jurisdiction, is ever ready to listen to appeals, to redress grievances, to correct the errors of an ignorant Master, and to punish the unjust de- cisions of an iniquitous one.
As it is admitted to be the settled law of Masonry that no appeal can be taken from the decision of the chair to the Lodge, and as it is the duty of the Master to see that the laws of Masonry are strictly enforced in the body over which he presides, it fol- lows, that any permission of an appeal " by cour- tesy," as it is called, would be highly wrong. The Master may, it is true, at all times, consult the mem-
on a question of business, " was lawful and proper." But in the following year the Committee of Foreign Correspondence repudiated the doctrine as an unconstitutional innovation, in the emphatic language which I have al ready quoted in the note on the preceding page.
RIGHT OF APPEAL. 241
Ders of his Lodge on any subject relating to their common interest, and may also, if he thinks proper, be guided by their advice. But when he has once made a decision on any subject and officially pro- claimed it, he should, under no promptings of deli- cacy or forbearance, permit it to be submitted to the Lodge for consideration, under an appeal. That decision must be the law to the Lodge, until over- ruled by the paramount decision of the Grand Lodge. The Committee of Foreign Correspond- ence of the Grand Lodge of Tennessee took, there- fore, the proper view of this subject, when they said that the admission of appeals by courtesy, that is with the concurrence of the Master, might ulti- mately become a precedent from which would be claimed the absolute right to take appeals.
The wisdom of this law must be apparent to any one who examines the nature of the organization of the Masonic institution. The Master is responsible to the Grand Lodge for the good conduct of his Lodge. To him and to him alone the supreme Ma- sonic authority looks for the preservation of order and the observance of the modern laws, the ancient Constitutions, and the Landmarks of the Order in that branch of the institution over which he has been appointed to preside. It is manifest, then, that it would be highly unjust to throw around a presiding officer so heavy a responsibility, if it were in the power of the Lodge to overrule his decisions or to control his authority. As the law will make no distinction between the acts of a Lodge and its
11
242 EIGHT OF APPEAL.
Master," and will not permit the latter to east the odium of any error upon the body over which he presides and which he is supposed to control, it is but right that he should be invested with an unlim- ited power corresponding with his unlimited re- sponsibilities.