MASONIC CHIT CHAT.

We cut the following from an exchange paper. We have not examined the work named, but presume the paragraph may be found there, as stated. The statement is not new. It was made at the time of the occurrence referred to, but did not receive much credit. The captain of the vessel, however, who took the individual in question, as a passenger, out to Smyrna, in 1826, still resides in this neighborhood, and entertains no doubt that he was the veritable Morgan:

"A GOOD ENOUGH MORGAN.-In Standish's Shores of the Mediterranean,' published in London, 1838, there is the following curious paragraph:

'I met at Smyrna with a renegade, who had renounced his Christian creed and lives as a Turk. He is a native of the United States of America, by name Morgan, and is charged with having revealed, what has resisted the importunities of the wife and the cunning inquisitive all over the world, namely, the secrets of Freemasonry. His life at home was threatened. His credulous countrymen believed that he had disappeared in the falls of Niagara, but he found safety in flight, and is regarded by the Asiatics as a regenerated babe'"

AN IMPOSTOR.-We are desired to caution our Brethren in the city, and elsewhere, against the impositions of a man by the name of Lorenzo Goff, who is travelling in different parts of this and the neighboring States, soliciting charity of the Fraternity, under various pretences, most or all of which are believed to be false. He is an Irishman by birth, and claims to be a Mason. The country is full of such men, and if our Brethren would not be imposed upon by them, they must discountenance itinerant begging. The only safe course is to refer all such applicants to the committees on charity, where such committees exist, and to the Masters of the Lodges, where they do not. Charity improperly or unworthily bestowed, is produc. tive only of evil.

A dispensation has been issued for the establishment of a new Lodge at North Ad

ams, in this State. The Lodge at Medway

has also been revived.

Br. Wm. T. Legrand is our authorized agent for the Magazine, at Lexington, Miss.

President POLK, on his late visit to this city, was invited to attend a meeting of the Grand Lodge and interchange congratu lations with his Brethren of this Commonwealth. He expressed himself pleased with the compliment, but felt compelled to decline the invitation on account of the limited time his engagements allowed of his remaining in the city. It is not unworthy of remark, as an interesting incident, that the three gentlemen who rode in the carriage with the President on his visit to Charlestown and Bunker Hill, were all Masons, viz.: His Honor G. Washington Warren, Mayor of the City; C. W. Moore, President of the Common Council, and Alderman Willard. The President is a R. A. Mason.

Some of our contemporaries have a way of their own in doing several thingsnot the most reputable of which is the way they appropriate our facts and authorities and opinions to their own pages, and pass them off to their readers as original. We dislike to see our articles mutilated, and, as the persons referred to are determined to have them in some form or other, if they will in future take them entire, we shall be greatly obliged to them. We do not ask them to give us credit for them, for that would be an act of honesty of which they probably would not care to be guilty.

We know nothing of the merits of the case stated by our correspondent at Hayneville, Ala., (who writes under date of June and that is not sufficient to enable us to give 28th,) except what he himself communicates, an opinion in relation to the subject. If he have any grievances to complain of, he can will doubtless he afforded him. memorialise the Grand Lodge, and a hearing

Our correspondent who writes from Cranston, R. I., will find, we think, a sufficient answer to his inquiry, in vol. v. p. 36, of this Magazine. The 33d is not of the nature of a working degree; but it is a governing degree, somewhat analogous to the Past instituted by Frederick II. of Prussia, at the Master's and High Priest's degrees, and was time of the occurrence of the events spoken of in the article to which our correspondent

is referred.

It will be seen by reference to the adGrand Masonic Bodies of the United States, vertisements on the covers, that the General will meet at Columbus, Ohio, on the 14th of September next. It is expected that the attendance will be more than usually large.

R. W. SIR AND BROTHER-It is manifest, at the present time, that the subject of taxing demitted Brethren is becoming a matter of serious interest and inquiry throughout the country. Several Grand Lodges have given it due consideration, and some of them have gone so far as to levy the tax. This was done by the Grand Lodge of Mississippi upwards of two years ago, but on account of the difficulty of complying with the resolution, the scheme, I think, has been virtually abandoned. Nor may we look for a more favorable result in other States, where the project is likely to be tried, for the reason that Masons, eschewing membership, are unwilling to be taxed for any purpose, and, in a majority of cases, have demitted for the single purpose of avoiding the expense of active membership. It becomes a question of serious import, whether we have the right to exact dues or contributions of any kind from these Brethren. If we have not, then a question of equal interest arises: Have they any right to hold us, as Lodges, or as a Fraternity, under charitable or pecuniary obligations to them? Shall we be required or expected to pay them funeral honors, admit them into our processions, or assume the paternity of their orphans? These are grave and important inquiries, involving, as I think, the whole ground of difficulty, and should claim our special consideration. If the Masonic is a joint-stock institution, organized and fostered for purposes of relief only, then the demitted Brother has a claim upon the fund, wherever he may be, on the ground that his initiatory fees have been received and appropriated by the Fraternity. But, admitting this joint-stock feature, qualified by the fact that the Institution occupies a much wider and more liberal foundation, may not the Fraternity, in all situations, be allowed to be their own judges of the validity of such claims? When a Brother, however worthy as a man or citizen, living within the jurisdiction of a Lodge, sufficiently near for all the purposes and enjoyments of meinbership, fails to apply for affiliation, and refuses to contribute anything towards the purposes of Masonry, should the members of said Lodge, in case of his misfortune or death, consider themselves under Masonic obligation to him or his family? These questions are frequently asked, and should be so answered as to be heard and understood by the whole Masonic Fraternity. The times, and the present condition of our Order, require that the philosophy of Masonry should be carefully investigated and set forth, so that our beautiful system, though speculative, may work and be governed by the same just and unerring rules which beautify and adorn the operative art.

By general consent, your Magazine is admitted to be the highest authority, on all subjects of constitutional bearing; and I hope you will deem the subject of these remarks worthy of your notice.

With sentiments of high regard, fraternally yours,

R. H. DALTON.

Our own opinion is, that the taxing of non-affiliated, or demitted mem

bers, and the attempt to enforce the payment of the tax by expulsion or other stringent measures, are proceedings not warranted by ancient Masonic law or usage. It is a policy peculiar to our own country and our own times. It is new in principle, and, we believe, will prove to be inoperative, if not mischievous, in practice, if persisted in. It is at present limited to a few Grand Lodges; and we are sanguine in the belief that it can never become a popular or general measure, because of its impracticability, not to say injustice. It would, in our opinion, be wise to abandon it, while it may yet be done without compromise of principle or authority. It is not well to multiply compulsory regulations, beyond necessity. They are incompatible with the spirit of voluntary association, and with the republican predilections of our people. If a Brother desire to leave us, bid him farewell, and let him depart in peace. An unwilling servant is generally an unfaithful one. "A brother offended is harder to be won than a strong city."

Our correspondent proposes the following inquiries:

1. Have demitted members " any right to hold us, as Lodges, or as a Fraternity, under charitable or pecuniary obligations to them ?"

2. "Shall we be required or expected to pay them funeral honors, admit then into our processions, or assume the paternity of their orphans ?" To these inquiries we answer, briefly, as follows :—

1. Brethren who have never been, or who have ceased to be, affiliated, most certainly have not the same claims upon the Lodges that are conceded to contributing members. It is not equitable that they should have. They contribute nothing to the charity fund, neither do they bear any portion of the labors or responsibilities of the Lodge. They are members of the Masonic family, and, as such, are invested with certain general privileges, which, until forfeited, they have an irrevocable right to exercise and enjoy, irrespective of their connection, or otherwise, with any private Lodge. These privileges, however, do not extend to an unquali· fied participation in the local pecuniary or social advantages of the Lodge Such Brethren have not a good claim upon the charity fund of the Lodges, neither have they upon the general charity fund of the Grand Lodge. As early as 1725, at the adoption of the regulations for the government of the General Charity Fund of the Fraternity in England, it was decreed, “ that no Brother be recommended by any Lodge, as an object of charity, but who was a member of some regular Lodge, which shall contribute to the same charity, on or before the 21st day of November, 1724, when the General Charity was first proposed in Grand Lodge ;" and "that no Brother, who has been admitted a member of any such Lodge since that time, or shall hereafter be so admitted, be recommended till three years after such admission." Thus clearly defining and establishing the just

and equitable principle, that he who has contributed nothing to the general charity fund, shall not draw anything from it; or, in other words, that the drone shall not consume the honey accumulated through the industry of the working bees for their own nourishment and support when their season of flowers has passed away. And this principle is still retained and enforced by our English Brethren, except in "cases of shipwreck or capture at sea, loss by fire, or breaking or dislocating a limb;" and excepting also, Brethren under the constitution' of foreign Grand Lodges, who shall produce" sufficient certificates and other testimonials" of their identity and distress.

But suppose a demitting Brother has been a contributing member of a Lodge for three or more years? He will then unquestionably have some claim upon the charity funds of the Lodge, should he fall into distress; but it is competent for the Lodge to determine the extent of his claim when presented. He has also a general claim upon his Brethren, individually, which they will ever be ready to answer, so far as they can do it without injury to themselves or families.

2. To the three points embraced in the second inquiry of our correspondent, we answer :-1. Non-affiliated Brethren are not entitled to Masonic "funeral honors."* 2. They may claim the right to join in public processions, on the festival days of the Fraternity; but not on local occasions, when the procession is limited to the members of a private Lodge and their invited Brethren. 3. The orphan has the same relative claim upon the Lodge and Fraternity, that was invested in the parent.

We have heretofore incidentally discussed the question as to the right of non-affiliated Brethren to visit Lodges.†

POWERS OF PROVINCIAL GRAND MASTERS. A correspondent at Halifax, Nova Scotia, proposes the following inqui

ries :

1. Can a Brother be a Provincial Grand Master of a Lodge in one country, and reside in another, under different government and national laws?

2. Can his Deputy's authority be valid, under the above circumstances? 3. Can a private Brother be a member of two Lodges holding under different Grand Lodges?

1. Under the English Jurisdiction, his commission as Provincial Grand. Master is not vacated by his removal from the Province; and in order to obviate any inconveniences which might arise from such removal,

*See this Magazine, vol. v. p. 353. Ib. vol. iii. p. 223.

he is authorized by the Constitutions to appoint a Deputy, (who must “be a resident within the Province,") to execute, in his absence, "all the functions of the office in his name, and may, for this purpose, invest him by patent, under his hand and seal, with all the requisite powers, during pleasure." The restriction in the Constitutions as to residence within the Province, applies to the Deputy, not to the Grand Master. His commission remains in full force, notwithstanding his removal, until he resigns it, or it is revoked by the appointing power. There may be, however, a manifest impropriety in a Brother's continuing to hold and exercise the authority of Provincial Grand Master after he has removed from the Province and permanently located himself elsewhere; but this is a matter to be reconciled and adjusted between him and the power from whom he receives his appointment. The Constitutions do not present any bar to his continuance in office. Joseph Bonaparte was Grand Master of the Grand Orient of France to the time of his death, though he had resided in this country for the preceding quarter of a century. The office was filled by his Deputy, or substitute Grand Master. He was Grand Master ad vitam, and could not be removed. From some cause, (perhaps at the request of his Brethren,) he did not resign.

2. If the authority of the principal be acknowledged, that of his Deputy must, of course, also be recognized as valid. The latter can only be removed by the former, whose representative he is; unless he leave the Province and become a resident elsewhere. In this case, he would be removed by the Constitutions.

3. The English Constitutions are loose and indefinite on the subject of membership. The oldest and best established usage is, that before a Brother can be admitted to membership a second time, and in a different Lodge, he must produce the certificate of the Secretary of the Lodge of which he was a former member, that he has paid up his dues and been honorably discharged. Under this regulation, he cannot, of course, be an actual member of "two Lodges holding under different Grand Lodges." This does not, however, prohibit him from holding honorary membership in a plurality of Lodges.

Our correspondent is referred to vol. v. page 33, of this Magazine, for a more full consideration of this question. From the authorities and considerations adduced in the article referred to, we think it is manifestly improper and against the Constitutions and usages of the Order, for a Brother to be an actual member of more than one Lodge at the same time ; and in our judgment, this principle can not be affected by the question of jurisdiction.