24.01.2013 Views

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

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

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

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

efuse to expel him, on the ground that his conviction before the court<br />

was based on the testimony of non-masonic witnesses, and should grant<br />

him<br />

a lodge trial for the same offense, then, on the principle against<br />

which<br />

we are contending, the evidence of these witnesses as "profanes" would<br />

be<br />

rejected, and the party be acquitted for want of proof; and thus the<br />

anomalous and disgraceful spectacle would present itself--of a felon<br />

condemned and punished by the laws of his country for an infamous<br />

crime,<br />

acquitted and sustained by a lodge of Freemasons.<br />

But we will be impressed with the inexpediency and injustice of this<br />

principle, when we look at its operation from another point of view. It<br />

is<br />

said to be a bad rule that will not work both ways; and, therefore, if<br />

the<br />

testimony of non-masonic witnesses against the accused is rejected on<br />

the<br />

ground of inadmissibility, it must also be rejected when given in his<br />

favor. <strong>No</strong>w, if we suppose a case, in which a Mason was accused before<br />

his<br />

lodge of having committed an offense, at a certain time and place, and,<br />

by<br />

the testimony of one or two disinterested persons, he could establish<br />

what<br />

the law calls an _alibi_, that is, that at that very time he was at a<br />

far-distant place, and could not, therefore, have committed the offense<br />

charged against him, we ask with what show of justice or reason could<br />

such<br />

testimony be rejected, simply because the parties giving it were not<br />

Masons? But if the evidence of a "profane" is admitted in favor of the<br />

accused, rebutting testimony of the same kind cannot with consistency<br />

be<br />

rejected; and hence the rule is determined that in the trial of Masons,<br />

it<br />

is competent to receive the evidence of persons who are not Masons, but<br />

whose competency, in other respects, is not denied.<br />

It must, however, be noted, that the testimony of persons who are not<br />

Masons is not to be given as that of Masons is, within the precincts of<br />

the lodge. They are not to be present at the trial; and whatever<br />

testimony<br />

they have to adduce, must be taken by a committee, to be afterwards<br />

accurately reported to the lodge. But in all cases, the accused has a<br />

right to be present, and to interrogate the witnesses.<br />

The only remaining topic to be discussed is the method of taking the<br />

testimony, and this can be easily disposed of.<br />

The testimony of Masons is to be taken either in lodge or in committee,<br />

and under the sanction of their obligations.<br />

The testimony of profanes is always to be taken by a committee, and on<br />

oath administered by a competent legal officer--the most convenient way<br />

of

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!