textfiles/magazines/STB/stb-1931-03.txt

SHORT TALK BULLETIN - Vol.IX   March, 1931   No.3

THE SUMMONS

by: Unknown

Every Master Mason understands that a summons is a command to attend 
the Communication of the lodge for which the summons is issued, or 
the occasion - funeral, trial, cornerstone laying; or other function 
- to which he is bidden.  Every Master Mason knows why he must <20>due 
answer make,<2C> either by attendance, or submitting an acceptable 
excuse, such as illness, absence beyond the length of his cable tow, 
or other inability to be present.
The summons appears to be very old; older perhaps in civil law than 
in Masonry, and it has there no considerable antiquity.  Indeed, 
while the word does not appear in the Old Testament, both Numbers and 
Deuteronomy set forth instructions as to testimony of witnesses at 
trials, and by implication, if not by detailed statement, indicate 
that the presence of such witnesses was compulsory.  Funk and 
Wagnall<EFBFBD>s Standard Bible Dictionary states that the Israelites 
<EFBFBD>summoned<EFBFBD> witnesses.
Civil summons was known in Rome, first by word of mouth, later by 
written citation to appear.  In Chaucer<65>s <20>Canterbury Tales<65> (written 
about 1386) is a <20>sompour<75> or summoner to the ecclesiastical court.
The use of summons in English procedure goes back into the dim 
distance where fact and mysticism meet.  It was a part of the feudal 
system of England and the clan organization of Scotland.  When the 
Baron in England or the Laird in Scotland summoned his fiefs and 
retainers, they answered in person.  Failure to do so meant death.  
The safety of the Baron depended upon absolute fealty; the safety of 
the realm depended upon prompt obedience of the Laird to the call of 
the King.  But importance of obedience to summons goes further back 
than that.
When King Arthur founded his mystic, if not mythical, Knights of the 
Round Table, one of the inflexible rules was that every knight must 
appear on a fixed day in every year to report to the table his acts 
and adventures of the past year.  Only one excuse, other than death, 
was acceptable; that the Knight was on a quest that so required his 
attention as to render it impossible for him to appear.  He was then 
expected to send an excuse for his disobedience of the requirement.
In the Anderson Charges of 1772, we read:
<EFBFBD>In Ancient times no Master could be absent from the lodge, 
especially when warned to appear at it, without incurring a severe 
censure.<2E>
In the Constitutions of the Cooke MS., about 1490. we are told that 
the Masters and Fellows were to be forewarned to come to the 
congregations.  All the old records, and the testimony of writers 
since the revival, show that it was always the usage to summon the 
members to attend the meetings of the General Assembly or the 
particular lodges.
In the United States the use of the summons grows rarer with every 
passing year, as applied to a whole membership.  In certain 
Jurisdictions the Master summons his lodge once a year, as much, 
perhaps, to keep the idea of the summons alive, as to assemble the 
whole lodge for any purpose.  Occasionally lodges are summonsed 
regularly twice a year, a custom which doubtless grew out of the 
original once-a-year summons to come and pay dues, when such 
particular lodges decided to receive dues every six months.  In some 
Jurisdictions the summons is used for the whole membership only upon 
extraordinary occasions, as when its proposed to finance a temple, or 
consider some extremely important question of policy such as giving 
up the Charter.  In many Jurisdictions a lodge can not legally give, 
or surrender its Charter without the action being considered by the 
whole membership at a summonsed meeting.
Most jurisdictions would commonly use the summons to command 
witnesses at a Masonic trial.  In some the master uses the summons to 
get a sufficient number of brethren present for Masonic Funerals.
Unhappily, the press of modern life, the casual manner in which too 
many regard their Masonry, the laxness of some Masters and the 
<EFBFBD>laissez faire<72> policy of some Grand Lodge leaders, has allowed the 
sanctity of the summons to be somewhat tarnished.
A Mason is Masonicaly bound to :due answer make<6B> to a summons.
Failure to answer a summons, then, is a Masonic offense, for which 
the offender may be tried.
But few who are interested in their lodges desire to see Masonic 
trials held, if they can by any possibility be avoided.  Lodge trials 
often produce lack of harmony and disunion among the membership.  To 
prefer charges and stage a trial for the apparent trivial offense of 
failure to answer a summons is sometimes held to be unwise.  Yet, not 
always so.  From a hundred instances one is chosen at random; the 
Grand Master of Louisiana wrote a letter to the Master and Wardens of 
a certain lodge, which read in part as follows:
<EFBFBD>Brother R, Norman Bauer, D.D.G.M., has reported to me that the 
proceedings of your lodge in the matter of the trial of 
Brother__________.  My attention is especially called to the fact 
that out of a membership of more than 200, only 75 brothers answered 
the summons to be present at the trial.  You are hereby directed to 
require of the brethren who were absent, to give a proper explanation 
of their failure to be present, and in the event satisfactory 
explanation is not given, you are directed to have charges filed 
against each of them who fails to provide you with a satisfactory 
explanation.  The charges are to be, <20>Un-Masonic Con-duct in failing 
to obey the summons of the lodge, in accordance with their obligation 
and in accordance with the requirements of Masonic Law.<2E>
Into the question as to when it is wise and right to prefer charges 
for failure to answer a summons, and when the best interests of all 
are served by a mere reprimand to the guilty absentees, this paper 
cannot attempt to go.  But it may be said that while failure to 
answer a summons may be deemed trivial, violation of an obligation 
cannot be so considered.  Those who look at the matter from this 
standpoint, say that some disciplinary action is the only wise course 
to pursue.
It is not possible to blame modern conditions with all of our 
troubles!  It is only fair to say that sometimes disrespect for law 
is caused either by the law or the law-giver.  Grand Lodges 
themselves have not always looked very far ahead in legislating upon 
the summons.
The General Regulations of the Craft (1721) specifically state:
<EFBFBD>The Master of a particular Lodge has the right and authority of 
congregating the members of his lodge in a Chapter at pleasure, upon 
any emergency or occurrence, as well as to appoint the time and place 
of their usual forming.<2E>
The Regulations also specifically say : <20>Every annual Grand Lodge has 
the inherent power and authority to make new Regulations or to alter 
these, for the real benefit of this ancient Fraternity, provided 
always that the old landmarks be carefully preserved.<2E>
It is, then, perfectly within the power of a Grand Lodge to set up a 
new regulation regarding summons, or <20>right to congregate the lodge.<2E>  
In some Jurisdictions this has been done, and the right of summons 
shared between the Master and the lodge; that is, the Master may 
summons when he thinks it wise; and the lodge can issue summons when 
it thinks wise.
But as has been proved often in the past and probably will again in 
the future, the power to set up a regulation is one thing; to make it 
right - or even legal - is another!
It is practically universal that a Master has complete charge of the 
work of his lodge; he is responsible for what it does; he opens and 
closes it at his pleasure; he says when degrees are to be conferred; 
he controls absolutely the debate on any question and can close it, 
curtail it, initiate it as he thinks wise, and can put, <20>or refuse to 
put<EFBFBD> any motion which in his judgment is subversive of the peace and 
harmony of the Craft.
A lodge can only act, as a lodge, as a result of a Master<65>s order, or 
of its own order - that it, its vote.  If a lodge would spend money, 
a motion must put and voted upon.  If it would receive a petition, 
the motion to receive must be put and balloted upon.  If it would 
call off during a summer month, a motion to call off stated 
communications is put and balloted upon.  (This, of course, if the 
Grand Lodge permits calling off.)
Hence, in a Jurisdiction in which the Grand Lodge has vested power to 
issue summons in the lodge, as well in the Master, the lodge must 
vote upon the question, which must be put.  If a Master refused to 
put the question up <20>Shall the lodge issue a summons<6E> the lodge could 
not vote upon it.  If then, some brother feeling aggrieved, should 
appeal from this failure to put the question, to the Grand Master or 
the Grand Lodge, that higher authority would have to rule upon the 
right of a Master to control his work, if such an authority desired 
to discipline the Master for failure to permit the Grand Lodge<67>s 
other behest - the power of a lodge to summons - to be exercised!
Let nothing in these words be construed as a criticism of the Grand 
Lodges which in their wisdom have altered the original General 
Regulations and given to lodges as well as to their Masters the right 
to summons.  A Grand Lodge is supreme within its Jurisdiction.  No 
matter how inconsistent with laws, usages, customs, landmarks, 
constitutions or immemorial practices of the Fraternity its 
enactments may be, within its Jurisdiction what a Grand Lodge says is 
law, and therefore right - or right, and therefore law!
In Jurisdictions where the Grand Lodge has ruled upon any matter, 
that matter has been rightly decided for that Jurisdiction - aye, 
even if the Grand Lodge has ruled that black is white!
In this connection it is interesting to read that actions of a Grand 
Lodge which has decided this matter one way, and then the other!
In 1834 the Grand Lodge of the District of Columbia decided that the 
Master had not the exclusive right to summons the members.
In 1909 a proposed by-law of a constituent lodge was referred to the 
Grand Lodge committee on By-Laws.  The proposed by-law read:
<EFBFBD>Whenever the lodge is called upon to attend the funeral of a 
deceased brother, the Worshipful Master shall summons a sufficient 
number of the resident members of the lodge, naming them in regular 
alphabetical order, and a brother so summoned shall be present or 
furnish an acceptable substitute.  No brother attending a funeral in 
obedience to a summons shall again be called upon until his name is 
reached in regular order.<2E>
The Committee on By-Laws reported that the lodge had no right to pass 
this by-law, in spite of the ancient decision of 1834, on the ground 
that while lodges have the right, subject to Grand Lodge approval, to 
fix the time and place of their stated communications, they have 
neither right nor power to legislate as to the time or place of 
special meetings, which are wholly under the control of the Master.
In concluding its report, which was unanimously adopted by the Grand 
Lodge and thus became the law in the District of Columbia, 
superseding the decision of 1834, the committee said:
<EFBFBD>The Master has the sole authority to convene his lodge in special 
communications; he may compel the attendance of the members by 
summons; he alone can exercise this power and in its exercise he is 
not subject to the will of the lodge because he is the judge of the 
exigency or emergency that may require a special meeting.  These 
powers are inherent in the office of Master, and no by-law is needed 
to validate their exercise and none is legal which attempts to 
curtail, control or direct them.  That their exercise has been 
entrusted to the Master alone is doubtless due to the fact that the 
Grand Lodge looks to him, and not to the lodge, to see that the 
business of the lodge is properly conducted.<2E>
There is good Masonic authority for this decision, which, of course, 
is law only in Jurisdictions which have so ruled.  Mackey<65>s <20>Masonic 
Jurisprudence<EFBFBD> states:
No motion to adjourn, or to close, or to call from labor to 
refreshment can ever be admitted in a Masonic Lodge.  Such a motion 
would be an interference with the prerogative of the Master and could 
not, therefore, be entertained.  The Master has the right to convene 
the lodge at any time and is the judge of any emergency that may 
require a special meeting.  Without his consent, except on the night 
of the Stated or regular communications, the lodge cannot be 
congregated and, therefore, any business transacted at a called or 
special communication without his sanction or consent would be 
illegal and void.<2E>
Simons (Principals of Masonic Jurisprudence) says:
<EFBFBD>It is an immemorial usage - and therefore a landmark - that none but 
the Master (when he is present) can congregate the brethren.  Under 
this prerogative  the Master may call or summon a meeting of his 
lodge at any time he thinks proper.  The summon can be issued by 
authority of the Master only, while he remains in discharge of his 
functions, and is a preemptory order which must be obeyed, under 
penalty, unless the excuse of the defaulter be of the most undeniable 
validity.<2E>
In one Jurisdiction where it is held that the lodge as well as the 
Master may issue a summons, failure to answer a summons is treated 
with first, a merciful, then an iron hand.  The brother who is 
summoned but does not answer is re-summoned to the next communication 
of the lodge.  If he does not then answer with a valid excuse he 
shall be put to trial and if found guilty, may be reprimanded, 
suspended, or expelled, in the judgment of the lodge.
Any intelligent student of Freemasonry must have noted that its 
Jurisprudence is largely concerned with what may be done, rather than 
what may not; with duties and responsibilities, rather than 
prohibitions and penalties.  The gentle way of Masonry is to set up 
the right, and believe that every brother will adhere to it, rather 
than the wrong, forbidden under penalty of some punishment.
The best way to recreate the old respect which Masons had for a 
summons is not by trial and punishment, but by education and 
persuasion.
The vast majority of men are honest.  Most brethren want to do what 
is right.  Most Masons want to live up to their obligations, perform 
their duties, give as much as they get.  The exceptions stand out 
more because they are exceptions than because of their number.
In a certain Jurisdiction in which it is customary to summons the 
membership once a year, Masters have long been distressed because so 
many members ignored the summons.
One Master believed that members ignored the summons from     the 
lack of understanding of its importance, and their own obligation to 
answer it.  His lodge has 191 members.  He wrote 191 letters to go 
with the yearly summons.  The letters were short, but they were 
cordial, personal, brotherly.  They explained what the summons was, 
why it was issued, the duty of the brother to <20>due answer make<6B> and 
closed with the assurance of the Master<65>s certainty that there was no 
question of its being answered, once it was understood. 
One hundred and sixty-five members answered in person; twenty-one 
replied by letter giving good reasons why they could not come!.  In 
large lodges a summons may be all but an impossibility.  A lodge with 
a thousand members could not crowd them into the usual lodge room if 
all responded to a summons.  Summons by such lodges presupposes a 
special and sufficiently large place in which to meet.  Lodges with 
widely scattered members - as in small towns in large and sparsely 
populated states - may make the summons a real hardship on members 
who may have to travel long distances to answer.  It is for such 
reasons as these that the summons is used less and less merely 
because it is not possible to use, and more and more, when it is 
used, for only vital and essential matters.
Whether used once a year or oftener by Grand Lodge rule; or seldom, 
and only by the discretion of the Worshipful Master, respect for the 
summons may be inculcated by education, by talks in lodge, by letters 
accompanying the summons, and by word of mouth communication from 
member to member.
Enforcement, by Masonic trial and punishment, is essential when Grand 
Lodge so orders; unless it is mandatory, the gentler way will usually 
be found the wiser - and the more effective because it is more 
Masonic!