Rejecting A Candidate.

REJECTING A CANDIDATE .

THE Masonic Order is essentially a cosmopolitan brotherhood , and yet , at the same time , it is one of the most exclusive combinations to be found

anywhere among the human race . Its benefits are open to the whole world , the only qualifications being that a candidate shall be of good character , of full age , ancl a free man . On the other hand , two or three members of a Lodge can exclude any person

they may consider unsuitable to become one of their number , or against whom they may entertain feelings of animosity . We are aware it is most un-Masonic to keep a man out of the Order simply on account of personal disagreement , but at the same

time we know such a course is adopted , and no doubt we shall continue to hear of instances for all time . In spite of what may be urged to the contrary , there is something to be said in support of those who

consider that in some cases the use of tho ballot for the purpose of rejecting a candidate on merely personal grounds may be excused , or certainly tolerated ; it is really the only method available , in some quarters , to ensure a continuance of peace and harmony in a Lodge , or at least among a section of its members . But it must not be imagined we are in

favour of its general adoption—on the contrary , we consider great harm is likely to follow whenever it is practised , but , as we have said , it is sometimes the only course open , and as such it fully deserves careful consideration . We have

recently received "A Taper on Voting , read by Brother E . V . Greatbach , at the Menturia Lodge , No . 418 , of which Bro . Greatbach is a Past Master , and from this we gather one of the strongest ,

it not the only argument , that can be used in favour of rejecting a candidate on the ballot . In using it , however , we do not by any means wish to support it , except as showing what is sometimes necessary , and

as oflering a word of excuse for those brethren who at times find themselves compelled to depart from ordinary procedure . Bro . Greatbach asks , "What have we to submit as a step whereby an obiectionable

candidate may be prevented gaining admission without the use of the blackball ? " and he replies , " Simply this—there has for years past existed an honourable understanding amongst us that any meinren

navmg objections to a candidate , who has been , or is about to be proposed , shall tell the Worshipful Master that such an objection exists ; it is optional whether or not the grounds of the

obiec"on are stated , though personally I should specify them . The Worshipful Master then informs the proposer that an objection or objections exist , and that , consecmentlv . his nominee mav

not be accepted ; after that it is for the friends of the candidate to decide whether or not they will force him to the ballot . If they do so , it is done with their eyes

wide open—they know the indisputable right of every brother to emphasise his objection , in a way not to be resisted , so that if the candidate is then taken to the ballot by his friends , they must accept the result , and

the blame , if any , afterwards rests upon their shoulders . " The course here set out by Bro . Greatbach is certainly the best , and we think it is tho one most generally adopted , but it has certain drawbacks ;

at times it is absolutely impossible to adopt such a line of action , however much a brother may desire it . Bro . Greatbach knows of one of the drawbacks to which we refer , as later on he says : — " I know

it is alleged that these objections ( the existence ot which has been communicated to thc W . M . ) have not been held sacred by Worshipful Masters , but I think that must be due to a misapprehension of facts . " To

support the argument we allude to , let us take a typical case : a gentleman is proposed , against whom certain objections exist in the minds of one or two of the Lodge members . To make these known to even

the Worshipful Master might do the candidate far more harm than his ultimate rejection on the ballot , even if worse results were not likely to follow , and in such cases blackballing is resorted to—and we

consider fairly so . Let us suppose the member or members who object to the candidate communicate with the Worshipful Master , simply saying that an objection did exist , they might expect to be called i upon to give full particulars , and , on their

considering it unwise to do so , might lose the respect and esteem of their fellow members , although they might be actuated by the best of motives . It is very well to argue that the communication addressed to the Master should be held sacred bv him . but how

often is such really the case ? We do not say that Masters intentionally betray the trust reposed in them , but somehow or other the facts get known all round , and , occasionally with far more disastrous

results among the members themselves than would have been the case if the objection had been kept back until the time of ballot . This , then , is one of the arguments that may be used in support of the

principle of blackballing a candidate , when that course unfortunately becomes absolutely necessary , but we do not give it here merely to encourage Masons to adopt that most unmasonic proceeding ; in

ninety-nine cases out of every hundred it can , and should be avoided , but in the one remaining case it is perhaps absolutely imperative , and this beinc t /

A . J . A » O the fact , we should not too harshly condemn the brother who has to resort to it . In his " Paper" Bro . Greatbach considers this

question o ± blackballing , and voting generally , from other standpoints ; indeed he seems to thoroughly exhaust the subject , and in such a way that his lecture

might well be repeated m other Lodges . Eor this we have no doubt he will willingly grant permission . Later on we may have occasion to refer at greater length to his remarks .