IX. A Lodge has the right to make by-laivs for its

local government. This right must be considered as a concession or regrant by the Grand Lodge to the subordinates of that which had been previously con- veyed to it. Undoubtedly every congregation of Masons must originally have possessed an inherent right to make rules for their government • but on the organization of Grand Lodges, the supreme legislative jurisdiction of the Order was vested in these bodies. Hence the law-making power is now admitted to reside primarily in Grand Lodges ; but a portion of this power — just so much as is neces- sary for making local regulations — has been re- conveyed by the Grand Lodges to their subordinate Lodges, with the qualifying restrictions that all by-laws made by a Lodge must be in accordance with the Landmarks of the Order and the Regula- tions of the Grand Lodge, and must also be submit- ted for approval to the Grand Lodge. This right then, of making by-laws is not an inherent and in
328 POWERS OF LODGES WORKING
"dependent right, but one which is derived from the concession of the Grand Lodge, and may at any time be still further abridged or altogether revoked.
It has been suggested in some jurisdictions that the Grand Lodge should prepare a uniform code of by- laws for the government of its subordinates, thus depriving them of the power of enacting their own local regulations. I cannot, in view of the theory just advanced, deny the right of a Grand Lodge to assume such a power, which seems to be clearly within its prerogative. And indeed, while some liberty should be allowed a Lodge to make laws for its government in certain particulars, which can in no way affect the general condition of the Order, such, for instance, as relate to the contributions of members, the time of meeting, &c, I am clearly convinced that it would be most expedient for every Grand Lodge, like that of New York * to leave as little as possible in the way of law-making to its subordinates, but to incorporate in its own consti- tution the most important articles for the govern- ment of Lodges.
From the fact that the by-laws of a Lodge must be submitted to the Grand Lodge for its approval and confirmation, arises the doctrine that a subordi- nate Lodge cannot, even by unanimous consent, sus-
* " Standard form of by-laws, intended to serve as a guide in the formation of by-laws for Subordinate Lodges, and subject to such alterations, not incon- sistent with the Constitution, is the convenience of the Lodges may dictate.'' —Proceed. G. L. of N. Y, 1858, p. 172.
UNDER WARRANTS OF CONSTITUTION. 329
pencl a by-law. As there is no error more commonly committed than this by unthinking Masons, who suppose that in a Lodge, as in any other society, a by-law may be suspended by unanimous consent, it will not be amiss to consider the question with some degree of care and attention.
An ordinary society makes its own rules and regulations, independent of any other body, subject to no revision, and requiring no approbation out- side of itself. Its own members are the sole and supreme judges of what it may or may not enact for its own government. Consequently, as the mem- bers themselves have enacted the rule, the members themselves may unanimously agree to suspend, to amend, or to abolish it.
But a Masonic Lodge presents a different organi- zation. It is not self-created or independent. It derives its power, and indeed its very existence, from a higher body, called a Grand Lodge which constitutes the supreme tribunal to adjudicate for it. A Masonic Lodge has no power to make by- laws without the consent of the Grand Lodge, in whose jurisdiction it is situated. The by-laws of a subordinate Lodge may be said only to be proposed by the Lodge, as they are not operative until they have been submitted to the Grand Lodge, and ap- proved by that body. Nor can any subsequent alteration of any of them take place unless it passes through the same ordeal of revision and approbation by the Grand Lodge.
Hence it is evident that the control of the by-
330 POWEES OF LODGES WORKING
laws, rules and regulations of the Lodge, is taken entirely out of its hands. A certain law has been agreed on, we will say, by the members. It is sub- mitted to the Grand Lodge and approved. From that moment it becomes a law for the government of that Lodge, and cannot be repealed without the consent of the Grand Lodge. So far, these state- ments will be admitted to be correct. But if a Lodge cannot alter, annul or repeal such law, with- out the consent of the Grand Lodge, it must neces- sarily follow that it cannot suspend it, which is, for all practical purposes, a repeal for a temporary period.
I will suppose, by way of example, that it is pro- posed to suspend the by-law which requires that at the annual election all the officers shall be elected by ballot, so as to enable the Lodge, on a particular occasion, to vote viva voce. Now, this law must, of course, have been originally submitted to the Grand Lodge, and approved by that body. Such approbation made it the enactment of the Grand Lodge. It had thus declared that in that particular Lodge all elections for officers should be determined by ballot. The regulation became imperative on the Lodge. If it determined, even by unanimous consent, to suspend the rule, and on a certain oc- casion to proceed to the election of a particular officer by acclamation or viva voce, then the Lodge was abrogating for the time a law that the Grand Lodge had declared was binding on it, and estab- lishing in its place a new one, which had not re
UNDER WARRANTS OF CONSTITUTION. 331
ccived the approbation of the supreme tribunal. Such a rule would therefore, for want of this con- firmation, be inoperative. It would, in fact, be no rule at all, or worse, it would be a rule enacted in opposition to the will of the Grand Lodge. This principle applies, of course, to every other by-law, whether trivial or important, local or general in its character. The Lodge cau touch no regulation after the decree of the Grand Lodge for its con- firmation has been passed. The regulation has gone out of the control of the Lodge, and its only duty then is implicit obedience. Hence it follows that it is not competent for a subordinate Lodge, even by unanimous consent, to suspend any of its by-laws.