THE ARCANE SCHOOLS - Fort Myers Beach Masonic Lodge No. 362

sometimes used; sometimes the expression "in all cases whatsoever," or "in all
cases without exception." Some other verbal alterations were noticed, which need
not be detailed here. It appeared, also, from the statements of the witnesses, that
the proportion of funds disposed of for charitable purposes is extremely small,
while the lodges are scenes of extravagant mirth and bacchanalian revelry, and the
admission, passing, and raising of candidates occasions of much indecent sport
and ridiculous merriment, accompanied with mock murders, feigned discoveries,
and profane and blasphemous ceremonies and representations.
From the evidence before them the committee came to the conclusions expressed
in the following
REPORT.
To the Honorable General Assembly of the State of Connecticut now in Session:
The committee to whom was referred the petition of Gaius Lyman and others beg
leave respectfully to report that we have had the same under consideration, and
inquired, by legal evidence, into the truth of the matters therein set forth, and are
of the opinion that the same have been substantially proved, and are true. The
committee, at the commencement of the investigation, adopted the rule, and made
known the same to the petitioners, that we should attend to no evidence except
such as, in our opinion, would be admissible in a court of law. The petitioners
accordingly summoned before us sundry witnesses who, for aught we knew or
could discover to the contrary, were men of respectability and intelligence, and
upon their testimony, and upon that alone, have we come to our present result. It
was proved by these witnesses that oaths similar in character (and some of them
identical in phraseology) to those set forth in the petition had been, in their
presence and within their hearing, repeatedly administered in this State. The
committee believe the administration of such oaths to be highly improper, and
that the same should be prohibited by legal enactment. Our reasons for this
opinion are:
1. Because they are unauthorized by law.
2. Because they bind the person to whom they are administered to disregard and
violate the law.
3. Because they are, in their natural tendency, subversive of public morals and
blasphemous.
4. Because the penalties attached to the breach of them are such as are entirely
unknown to our law, and are forbidden both by the Constitution of the United
States and by the Constitution of this State.
First, then, these oaths are not authorized by law. In our code of statute law we
have an act which points out the cases in which oaths shall or may be
administered, and prescribes their several forms. In this act we find no such oaths.
Indeed, we find, upon examination of this code, that although extrajudicial oaths
are nowhere expressly prohibited, their unlawfulness is throughout clearly
implied. And the implication is no less clear, that no persons, except those
expressly authorized by law, may rightfully administer oaths. The committee