have been paid. The appeal is therefore sustained and the action of the
Lodge reversed.
Duncan McDougall,
Henry A. Stone,
Henry Phillips,
M. P. Berry,
W. E. P. Anderson,
Committee.
Case No. 369.
New Boston Lodge No. 188, ) Before Committee on
vs. V Judiciary and Appeals,
Bro. F. E. Chamberlain. j February Session, 1907.
Opinion by Bro. Duncan McDougall, of No. 41.
This case comes before this Committee on the appeal of Brother F.
E. Chamberlain from the action of the Lodge in convicting and ex-
pelling him upon a charge that "on or about August 31, 1906, before the
Post Office in New Boston, openly and publicly used slanderous lan-
guage against the New Boston Lodge." There are no specifications.
j^Tuesday^^ | GRAND LODGE OF ILLINOIS^ I.O.O.F. 221
When slancler or calumny is charged the words spoken should be set
out in the specifications.
In the opinion of the Committee this charge is not suflficiently de-
finite to sustain a conviction and it is doubtful whether, had the charges
and specifications been sufficient, the evidence was sufficient to sustain
a conviction.
The appeal is sustained, the action of the Lodge reversed and
Brother Chamberlain reinstated to full membership in his Lodge.
Duncan McDougall,
M. P. Berry,
Henry Phillips,
W. E. P. Anderson,
Henry A. Stone.
Before Committee on
Subordinate and Rebekah Lodge, J judiciary and Appeals.
By-Laws,
February Session, 1907.
Opinion by Bro. Henry A. Stone, of No. 122.
Full Code By-Laws from following Subordinate Lodges are ap-
proved.
Numbers: 260, 305, 392, 395, 435, 496, 526, 583, 781, 843, 931.
Full Code By-Laws from following Subordinate Lodges are cor-
rected to conform with Law and Constitution and approved as cor-
rected. Numbers: 33, 46. 48, 362, 519, 602, 722.
Amendments to By-Laws from following Subordinate Lodges are
approved. Numbers: 5, 31, 38, 59, 64, 74, 86, 124, 157, 158, 203, 449,
471, 486, 490, 518, 575, 576, 664, 747, 778, 910.
Amendments to By-Laws from following Subordinate Lodges cor-
rected to conform with Law and Constitution, and approved as cor-
rected. Numbers: 80, 98, 140, 182.
Amendments to By-Laws from following Subordinate Lodges. Not
approved. Unconstitutional. Numbers: 89, 878.
Full Code By-Laws from following Rebekah Lodges are approved.
Numbers: 62, 160, 357, 654.
Amendments to By-Laws from following Rebekah Lodges are ap-
proved. Numbers: 352, 552, 623.
Henry A. Stone,
W. E. P. Anderson,
Duncan McDougall,
M. P. Berry,
Henry Phillips.
222 JOURNAL OF PROCEEDINGS. ] nJv.'^W 18«)7
PROCEEDINGS OF THE SECOND SESSION.
May 21, 1907.
Case No. S60.
J. H. Fry \ Before Committee on
vs. v Judiciary and Appeals,
Divernon Lodge No. 200. | May Session, 1907.
Opinion by Bro. Henry Phillips, of Lodge No. 16.
From the record it appears that Brother Fry claimed sick benefits
from the Lodge and the same were refused.
It appears that at the time Brother Pry was taken sick he was not
a beneficial member, having been in arrears, and a period of thirteen
weeks not having elapsed since the payment of his dues, he did not
become beneficial — the by-laws of his Lodge directing that a period of
thirteen weeks should elapse after the payment of his dues before he
again became beneficial.
This is the best we can make out of the record, which is not In the
best shape.
Therefore, it is ordered that the appeal in this case be dismissed
and the action of the Lodge sustained.
Appeal dismissed and the action of the Lodge sustained.
Henby Phillips,
W. E. P. Anderson,
Duncan McDougall,
Henby A. Stone.
Case No. SGI.
Ingraham Lodge No. 846, L O. O. F. \ Before Committee on
vs. V Judiciary and Appeals,
Winfield Randall | May Session, 1907.
Opinion by Bro. W. E. P. Anderson, of No. 107.
This is an appeal by Brother Winfield Randall from the action of
the above Lodge in expelling him.
The abstract from the records of the Lodge does not contain any
charge or specification upon which, he was cited to stand trial.
The record in other respects is so devoid of the essential elements
required under the code in the procedure of the trial against a brother
that this Committee has nothing before it whereupon it can determine
the guilt or innocence of Brother Randall.
It is therefore ordered that the appeal of Brother Randall be sus-
tained and the action of the Lodge reversed.
W. E. P. Anderson,
Henby Phillips,
Heney a. Stone,
Duncan McDougall.
^^^^^^l\- r GRANT) LODGE OF ILLINOIS^ I.O.O.F. 223
ov. 19. 190(. (
Case No. 370.
Decatur Lodge No. 65, I. O. 0. F. \ Before Committee on
vs. V Judiciary and Appeals,
Herman H. Miller ) May Session, 1907.
Opinion by Bro. Duncan McDougall, of No. 41.
STATEMENT.
December 4, 1906, pursuant to complaint made at a regular meeting,
a Committee was duly appointed to consider and report regarding
charges against the accused. Brother Herman H. Miller.
December 18, 1906, the Committee reported charging Bro. Miller
with "Conduct tending to corrupt public morals," also "With a violation
of his oath and obligations toward a member of this Lodge." The most
material specification charges Bro. Miller "With having committed
adultery with one , wife of a member
of this Lodge."
A commissioner was regularly appointed and duly obligated. All
evidence offered by either side was duly taken and reported. After
continuances pursuant to motions made by the Lodge and by the ac-
cused, the charges and specifications came on for trial, February 19,
1907, at a regular session of the Lodge. On account of illness, the coun-
sel for the Lodge was not present, yet a motion to proceed with the
trial was sustained. The prosecuting Committee acted on behalf of the
Lodge and the accused was present in person and by counsel. No ob-
jection was made by the accused or his counsel to proceeding with the
trial. No exception anywhere appears in the record to the regularity of
the proceeding or the sufficiency of the charges and specifications. The
evidence was read, arguments made, and the trial regularly conducted.
Certain members were excused from voting, but no objection was made
and no exception taken. The charges and specifications were regularly
voted upon and the defendant, for want of the necessary two-thirds vote,
found "not guilty" as to each.
The evidence established beyond all doubt that on the third day
of December, 1906, the accused committed the offense charged. He was
arrested upon a state's warrant, placed on trial before a Justice of tho
Peace, and he and the person with whom he was charged to have com-
mitted the offense, when the warrant was read to them, pleaded guilty.
Indeed, on the trial guilt was not denied. Some effort was made by
way of cross-examination to show that the offense was not committed
in the particular room in which it was charged to have been committed.
OPINION.
The offense charged in this case is one of the most heinous known
to the law of our Order. The invasion of the sanctity of the home is
without excuse. In view of the fact that the guilt of the accused Is
established beyond all question, it is diflBcult to undersand how self-
224 JOURNAL OF PROCEEDINGS. -} No^.^^g 'i^^,.
respecting members of the Order could adjudge the accused "not guilty."
The action of the Lodge can only be accounted for upon the theory
that it was the result of passion, prejudice, or gross mistake, as to the
rules, usages and laws of the Order.
To allow the finding of "not guilty" to stand in this case would
be to invite general disregard of all of the sacred obligations taken by
members when received into the Order. In the opinion of the Com-
mittee the finding of "not guilty" was wholly unjustified. No finding
except the finding of guilt could properly have been made under the
evidence in this case and no punishment is commensurate with the
gravity of the offense charged, except expulsion from the Order.
The appeal is therefore sustained, the action of the Lodge reversed,
and the Lodge is directed to reinstate the case and proceed with the
re-trial thereof, in accordance with the provisions of the Code and
usages of the Order. Duncan McDougall,
Henry A. Stone,
Henry Phillips,
W. E. P. Anderson.
, Before Committee on
Subordinate and Rebekah Lodge f t j- • j a i„
uuv^uxuxuci,^
By-Laws. j ^^^ Session, 1907.
Opinion by Brother Henry A. Stone, of No. 122.
Full Code, By-Laws from following Subordinate Lodges, Approved:
Numbers 25, 186, 200, 237, 479, 512, 644, 699, 719, 726, 825, 933.
Full Code, By-Laws from following Subordinate Lodges are cor-
rected to conform with lav/ and Constitution, and approved as corrected.
Numbers 21, 429, 462, 819.
Amendments to by-laws from following Subordinate Lodges, ap-
proved. Numbers 6, 8, 10, 22, 59, 90, 96, 104, 123, 145, 190, 193, 220,
243, 260, 281, 286, 319, 324, 327, 349, 416, 466, 475, 509, 589, 619, 655,
742, 747, 780, 785, 812, 826, 870, 875, 903.
Amendments to By-Laws from following Subordinate Lodges are
corrected to conform with law and constitution and approved as cor-
rected. Numbers 108, 120.
Amendments to By-Laws from following Subordinate Lodges not
approved. Unconstitutional. Numbers 15, 121.
Full Code, By-Laws from following Rebekah Lodges are approved.
Numbers 134, 138, 154. 259, 267, 291, 642, 661, 665, 667, 668.
Full Code, By-Laws from following Rebekah Lodge are corrected
to conform with law and Constitution, and approved as corrected.
Number 244. Henry A. Stone,
W. E. P. Anderson,
Henry Phillips,
Duncan McDougall,
Committee on Judiciary and Appeals.
j^Juesday.^ [ GKAXD LODGE OF ILLINOIS^ I.O.O.F. 225
PROCEEDINGS OF THE THIRD SESSION
August 20, 1907.
Case No. 372.
Harry H. Kan, Sol. Rygel and M. Hoffman ^ Before Committee on
vs. > Judiciary and Appeals,
Washington Lodge No. 665, I. O. O. F. ) August Session, 1907.
Opinion by Brother Henry Phillips, of Lodge No. 16.
From the record before us it appears that Brother Leopold Hilb
had filed his claim for benefits against the Lodge, which claim be-
came the matter of litigation in said Lodge. By an agreement the
record made in the matter of said claim was withdrawn and the
claim for such benefits withdrawn, in other words, the matter stood
as if no claim had ever been filed.
Afterwards, on January 30th, 1907, a report was made to the
Lodge that the Committee having the matter in charge reported
that they could reach no agreement in regard to the matter and
requested the appointment of a commissioner to take evidence. There
appears to be nothing in the record to show how or in what manner
this Committee came into existence and nothing to show that any
new or other claim for benefits had been filed or presented to the
Lodge by Brother Hilb. The Lodge seems to take the position that
when the records in the case concerning the first claim for benefits
were withdrawn, that the whole matter was left as determined by
the Lodge on October 24, 1906, at which time the benefits were
formally refused, and that if any appeal was to be taken from the
action of the Lodge it should have been taken within ninety (90)
days from October 24, 1906, and that the claim was barred by the
statute of limitation.
On February 6, 1907, the Lodge waived its right, whatever that
might be, under the statute of limitation in the matter of said claim,
upon the condition that Brother Hilb would file an immediate appeal
with this committee. It appears that such an appeal has never been
taken, and three members of the Lodge bring the matter before us
and ask that the action of the Lodge be sustained. The action of
the Lodge asked to be sustained, so far as we can gather from the
records, seems to be in its refusal to appoint a commissioner to take
evidence as to the claim of Brother Hilb for benefits. We do not see
any reason why this appeal should be taken or what can be accom-
plished by it.
No commissioner has ever been appointed to take evidence and
the record fails to show that since the records in the matter were
formally withdrawn, thereby, as we understand, withdrawing also
12Q JOURNAL OF PROCEEDINGS. ] Noyfig^igOV.
the claim filed, which is as much a part of the record in the case
as any other matter. There seems to be nothing before the Lodge,
as no claim seems to have been filed and therefore no ground for
the appointment of a commissioner to take evidence concerning it.
In our view of this case, whenever a claim is filed by Brother
Hilb for benefits, such claim must be disposed of either by its pay-
ment or by its being contested, and when such contest is had and
the Lodge refuses its payment, or any such claim is ordered to be
paid, then an appeal can be taken from the action of the Lodge, and
the question of limitation and the effect of the former action of the
Lodge done by agreement and stipulation, can be appealed from and
come properly before this Committee for its action. Until such time
we can see no other course for us to follow than to dismiss this
appeal without prejudice to any party. It is therefore ordered that
this appeal be and is hereby dismissed.
Heney Phillips,
M. P. Berey,
Heney A. Stone,
W. E. P. Anderson.
Case No. S73.
Steeleville Lodge No. 873, I. O. O. F. | Before Committee on
vs. > Judiciary and Appeals,
John W. Sykes. j August Session, 1907
Opinion by Bro. M. P. Berry, of No. 412.
This case comes to us on appeal by Brother Sykes from the action
of the Lodge in expelling him from membership on July 23, 1907, and
we are asked to reverse the action of the Lodge. We have carefully
considered the record, and weighed all the testimony and circum-
stances surrounding the case, and are of the opinion that the verdict
of the Lodge should not be disturbed.
A complaint was filed in the Justice's Court by the girl in ques-
tion, in which she, under oath, charges Brother Sykes with being
the father of her unborn child. This affidavit is in this record with-
out objection by any one. The record of the Justice's Court further
shows, without objection, that Brother Sykes appeared before the
Justice, waived examination and gave bond for his appearance before
the County Court. Two witnesses testify to conversing with Brother
Sykes, one swearing that he admitted the guilt, the other that he
admitted having intercourse with the girl. This is about all the testi-
mony taken on behalf of the Lodge, and we confess it is not very
satisfactory proof of itself upon which to expel a Brother from his
Lodge, but in our judgment Brother Sykes himself strengthens it
when he goes upon the stand. He admits the conversation with the
wJv.^'gliyO?. ( GKAND LODGE OF ILLINOIS, I.O.O.F. 227
Brothers, and only denies that he admitted his guilt to them. He
does admit that he told them, or at least one of them, that he had
uad intercourse with the girl, and when on the stand in his own behalf
ne does not deny his guilt. If he was innocent it is strange he would
not avail himself of the opportunity of saying so.
Brother Sykes is not charged in this case with bastardy, but
with seducing and ruining the girl. This he might have done, even
though not guilty of bastardy. Brother Sykes was tried by his own
Lodge and found guilty, and by almost a unanimous vote expelled,
and we see no reason for disturbing this action of the Lodge. The
appeal is therefore dismissed and the action of the Lodge sustained.
M. P. Bekry,
Henry A. Stone,
Henry Phh-lips,
W. E. P. Anderson.
By-Laws and Amendments.
Subordinate and Rebekah Lodge
Before Committee on
Judiciary and Appeals,
August Session, 1907
Opinion by Bro. Henry A. Stone, of No. 122.
Full Code by-laws from following Subordinate Lodges are ap-
proved. Numbers 336, 460, 626, 673, 894, 943.
Full Code by-laws from the following Subordinate Lodges are cor-
rected to conform with law and constitution, and approved as cor-
rected. Numbers 506, 566. 935. 941.
Amendments to by-laws from following Subordinate Lodges are
approved. Numbers 35, 70, 134, 200, 299, 308, 330, 402, 416, 435,
467, 485, 639, 668, 825, 829, 868, 892, 931.
Amendments to by-laws from following Subordinate Lodges are
corrected to conform with law and constitution, and approved as
corrected. Numbers 689, 929.
Full Code by-laws from following Rebekah Lodges are approved.
Numbers 19, 427, 658, 662, 669.
Full Code by-laws from the following Rebekah Lodge corrected
to conform with law and constitution, and approved as corrected.
Number 666.
Amendments to by-laws from following Subordinate Lodge are
not approved. Unconstitutional. Number 133.
Amendments to by-laws from following Rebekah Lodge are ap-
proved. Number 12.
Henry A. Stone,
Henry Phillips,
M. P. Berry,
W. E. P. Anderson.
Committee.
228 JOURNAL OF PROCEEDINGS. J nJv.^^9^ 1^07.
PROCEEDINGS OF THE FOURTH SESSION,
November 19, 1907.
Case No. 368.
In the matter of the Questions \ ^ « <^ •++^^ „
I Before Committee on
submitted to the Judiciary ( judiciary and Appeals,
and Appeals Committee by ^ November Session, 1907.
Grand Master Fred B. Merrills.
Opinion by Bro. M. P. Berry, of No. 412.
Questions. When a member of our Order in good standing in his
Lodge becomes insane and is committed to the Insane Asylum, to whom
should the Lodge pay his sick benefits? If the insane brother has a con-
servator, could the Lodge legally pay the benefits to him?
The above questions are important ones and questions that might
arise in any Lodge at any time. They have been submitted to this Com-
mittee by Grand Master Merrills, with the request that we answer them.
The questions are not new, however, they have been asked and ans-
wered at different times, both by our Grand Lodge and by the Sovereign
Grand Lodge, but in all the answers that have been made to them, the
answers have been based upon the facts of some particular case, and
such answers do not clearly state general principles of the law, appli-
cable to and that will govern in all such cases. It is such an opinion as
that which we presume our Grand Master desires, as we have the facts
of no particular case before us. To arrive at a clear and perfect under-
standing of what the law of our Order is in such cases, we must obtain
our first light from a careful study of the fundamental principles, of the
real aims and objects of Odd Felloivship. W[ithout this light we will
be compelled to grope our way in darkness and uncertainty, but with
this light in our minds at all times the questions are easily answered.
"Odd Fellowship is organized Benevolence." The work of an Odd .
Fellows' Lodge is a Benevolent ivork. Its benefits are Benevolences,
pure and simple. "The Independent Order of Odd Fellows is a union of
its membership for mutual relief, in times of sickness and distress."
The spirit of our laws contemplates that every member, when in good
health, must earn a livelihood for himself and for all those dependent
upon him. So long as he possesses a healthy body, a strong arm and a
clear mind, he is not entitled, as a matter of law, to benefits or financial
aid of any kind, but our laws recognize the fact that sickness often lays
its paralyzing hand upon the life of a brother, and weakens his arm, or
clouds his brain, and renders him unable to support himself or those
dependent upon him. It is then, and not till then, that Benevolence be-
gins its work, and undertakes to supply the loss, to some extent, that
Tuesday,^ ( GRAND LODGE OF ILLINOIS, I.O.O.F. 229
has come to our brother, by reason of his inability to earn a livelihood
for himself and family. Hence, weekly sick benefits are given for
one purpose, and one purpose only, namely: to supply the present, per-
sonal needs of the brother and those dependent upon him, so long as he
is sick or disabled from supplying them himself. Sick benefits, as paid
by the Lodges of our Order, are purely personal benefits, given not as a
charity, but given in the performance of a duty which we as Odd Fel-
lows believe each member owes to his unfortunate fellow man. This
makes our benefits benevolences. Our Order assumes no further obli-
gation than this; none other is needed. The first question then is easily
answered :
If a brother becomes insane, and is confined in the Insane Asylum,
the Lodge should become his conservator for the purpose of paying out
the benefits due him, and they should be paid out as follows:
First — For the comfort of the brother.
Second — If there is anything left and the brother has a wife and
infant children, pay the balance to them. If the brother has no wife or
children, but some other person in his family,, that is dependent upon
him, the balance, or so much thereof as might be needed, should be
paid to them.
Third — If the insane brother has no family, and there is no one
dependent upon him, the Lodge should use so much of his benefits as
are needed for the brother's comfort and retain the balance, so if at
any time the brother recovers and calls for it, the Lodge will have it
to render to him. If the brother dies leaving no family and no one
is dependent upon him for support, the Lodge will have fully per-
formed its obligations, and there being no one entitled to the remain-
der, it will become the property of the Lodge.
This we believe to be the established law of our Order.
White's Digest, page 57, Section 46 and authorities there cited.
Merrills' Code, page 242, Sections 2068 and 2072, and authorities
there cited.
And now as to the second question. If the brother has a conserva-
tor, will it be legal for the Lodge to pay such benefits to him?
Our answer is. No! Under no circumstances should the benefits be
paid to the conservator. A conservator is a person duly appointed by
the Courts of the State to take charge of the estate, personal and real,
of a person that is not capable of attending to his own affairs. He gives
bond to the Court and becomes, virtually, an officer of the Court, and is
subject to its orders and directions. He files with the Court a com-
plete schedule of all the property of his ward, and the same then be-
comes assets in his hands for the payment of the debts of his ward;
hence, if the sick benefits of the brother were paid to his conservator,
they might, and very likely would be. diverted entirely from the chan-
nel intended by the laws of our Order; they would be subject to the
230 JOURNAL OF PROCEEDINGS. 1 Nov.7iU967.
debts, if any, of the brother, and would be the conservator used in
that way. While Odd Fellows believe in every man paying his debts,
and every good Odd Fellow, so far as he can, does pay them, still Odd
Fellowship does not undertake to pay the debts of its members. That
is no part of its mission in the world. It does not undertake to liqui-
date past obligations, but to supply present needs. It feeds the hungry,
clothes the naked, and brings comfort to those in distress. Its bene-
fits are gifts, prompted by man's love for his fellow man, they are cups
of cold water given to the thirsty. The funds in the treasury of a Sub-
ordinate Lodge are sacred funds, and should be used only for the pur-
pose for which they are intended, that is, the personal comfort of the
brother and of those dependent upon him; hence, in no case should
a Lodge pay these benefits to the guardian or conservator of a brother
while he is living, nor to his executor or administrator after his death,
for in doing so the funds would likely be diverted from their proper
use. As long as the Lodge retains the benefits, they are under the con-
trol of the Grand Master and the Grand Lodge, but the moment they
were paid to a conservator or administrator, they pass forever beyond
such control, and this is not the intention of our laws. We believe it
has always been, and we trust always will be, the purpose of our Order
to direct the channel through which its benevolences shall flow, and no
civil court would ever undertake to deprive it of this right.
Merrills' Code, page 259, Section 2206 and authorities there cited.
White's Digest, page 69, Section 92 and authorities there cited.
S. G. L. Journal, Vol. 12, page 39.
S. G. L. Journal, Vol. 20, pages 27, 365, 388, 413.
M. P. Beery,
Henry A. Stone,
Duncan McDougall.
Subordinate and Rebekah Lodge ) Before Committee on
V Judiciary and Appeals.
By-Laws. j November Session, 1907.
Opinion by Bro. Henry A. Stone, of No. 123.
Full Code by-laws from following Subordinate Lodges are ap-
proved. Numbers 43, 243, 569, 937.
Full Code by-laws from following Subordinate Lodges are cor-
rected to conform with law and the Constitution, and approved as cor-