Proceedings of the Grand Lodge of Illinois - University Library

Tuesday i GRAND Nov. 15, Ipy3. i
LODGE OF ILLINOIS. 127
acquittal on both charge and specification. An appeal was taken by
four members of the Lodge, assigning as grounds therefor "that the
decision of the Lodge * * * declared the brother innocent when
all the evidence shows that he was guilty."
It appears from the record in this case that Bro. James had been
employed as a bar-tender since May, 1894, and that he was so employed
until about the 11th day of September, 1896. Early in September,
189(5, the brother fitted up a saloon, obtained a license on tlie 7th
day of September, and claims to have opened the saloon on the 12th day
of September, 1896.
The only question in this case is as to whether the brother
violated Section 5 of Article XVL Sovereign Grand Lodge Constitu-
tion. Difference of opinion on the question having arisen in this
committee, it was agreed that there should be formulated and submitted
to the Grand Sire a question covering the principle involved.
Thereupon the following question was submitted to the Grand
Sire through our Grand Secretary, viz:
"Is it a violation of Section 5 of Article XVI, Sovereign Grand
Lodge Constitution, for a brother to open and conduct a saloon, he
being at the time a bar-tender, rightfully and legally employedV"
To this question the Grand Sire made the following answer:
"The provision of the Constitution referred to reads as follows:
'Section 8. No saloon-keeper, bar-tender, or professional gambler, shall
be eligible to membership in this Order.' This provision applies to
those who may undertake to make application for membership in this
Order after the adoption of the provision quoted, which was at the
session of the Sovereign Grand Lodge held in Atlantic City in 1895,
but does nof affect the rights of saloon-keepers, bar-tenders, or professional
gamblers, who had prior to such adoption acquired membership
in the Order. I hold that where a member of the Order was
engaged in the business of a bar-tender at the time of the adoption
of this provision of the Constitution, he could not be deprived of his
membership on account of his occupation; and that a mere change of
his condition from that of an employe in a saloon to that of an
owner of a saloon does not change his occupation or trade. I further
hold, as a necessary consequence, that the fact that one who was a
saloon-keeper when such law was adopted, but who, through some
conditions, has ceased to be an owner and keeper of a saloon, and become
a hired employe of a saloon-keeper,— in other words a bar-tender,
—has not changed his occupation, and has not violated the provisions
of the section of the Constitution referred to. A blacksmith is still
a blacksmith, whether he is a journeyman blacksmith, or one who
works in his own shop; and so I hold that a man is a bar-tender,
whether he tends the bar for himself, or works for another man for
.wages."