The Use of the Ballot

By: The Freemason's Chronicle 14th October 1876

In [the last two]  articles we have been urging on our readers the absolute necessity there is for exercising the extremist caution in the election of new members.

We have endeavoured to impress upon them that mere increase in numerical strength does not necessarily bring with it increased moral weight.

Often times, indeed, the moral influence of a society or other body of men is in an inverse ratio to its numbers, being weaker according as its numbers are greater, and stronger when its circle of members is restricted.

We pointed out in two recent articles, entitled respectively ” Indiscriminate Charity ” and the ” Indiscriminate Admission of Candidates,” that, as regards the former, the abuse of charity was one of the surest means of encouraging into our ranks the needy and unscrupulous adventurer, who would join ns with the sole object of making as much profit as possible out of Freemasonry; while, as to the latter, the incautious admission of applicants would furnish a never failing supply of these adventurers.

The indiscriminate bestowal of charity must exercise a magnetic influence on the worthless alms seeker, who prefers living on other people’s good nature to living by honest labour, and the careless admission of all candidates indiscriminately must facilitate the purpose he has in view.

We therefore urged it as a principal duty on the part of all Freemasons that they should be cautious in the distribution of alms, and still more cautious in the proposal and election of candidates, or Freemasonry will sink below the level of a benefit society.

We now purpose devoting a brief space to the proper use of the ballot, partly because cases now and again occur which show unmistakably there are many who do not attach due importance to the exercise of this right, but chiefly because the more careful we are in the use of the ballot, the likelier are we to secure Freemasonry from the intrusion of worthless members.

Too many regard the ballot with supreme indifference. They consider it a mere form, which may be used or abused at pleasure.

They seem not to be aware that it is a right accorded to them under the Constitutions, and that when they join our Society, they bind themselves by a most solemn obligation to exercise this right in common with all other rights and privileges, in a manner conducive to the honour and wellbeing of Freemasonry.

We noted in our article on the “Indiscriminate Admission of Candidates, “two most flagrant cases of the abuse of the ballot, in one of which a P. M. openly boasted of having blackballed a candidate, and of the reason which had induced him so to do.

The other occurred in a District Lodge in Australia, and led to a scene of violence, which we believe we are justified in describing as well nigh without parallel in the history of Freemasonry.

It is clear that in neither of these cases had the offenders the slightest notion of the object of the ballot; and it is certain that though these were probably exceptional cases, others less objectionable are constantly occurring even in Lodges which are ordinarily well governed.

We frequently hear of slight contretemps in connection with our system of voting, while the fact of our highest dignitaries laying so much stress on it is sufficient evidence that its abuse is not infrequent, and moreover is generally known throughout the Craft.

A word or two in support of these dignitaries will not be out of place just now, when fresh Lodges are being constituted all over the country, and the number of the inexperienced is on the increase.

In a Society like ours, the plan of voting by ballot for the admission of candidates is obviously necessary.

Were any other than the secret plan of voting adopted, then in the case of an applicant who was admitted, but not unanimously, it would be well nigh impossible for him to associate comfortably with the one or two members who had opposed his election.

It is only in accordance with human nature that a feeling of soreness should influence him in his relation with them, and they, too, probably would reciprocate this feeling to a certain extent. Hero, then, we have a terrible cause of discord among those whose relations should be harmonious.

The ballot, then, being absolutely necessary in order to secure general harmony, it must be apparent to every one that the purpose with which it was adopted will be entirely lost sight of, if the necessary secrecy is not observed, If Bro. A. proclaims openly that he has cast, or intends casting, a blackball in the case of this or that candidate, the essential condition of the ballot system is violated, and open voting might as well be the order of the day.

It is clearly of little avail for learned writers, skilled in all the intricacies of Masonic jurisprudence, to rule emphatically that under no circumstances must a brother make known his vote, if, as a matter of fact, brethren think lightly of the ballot, and are never so happy as when announcing that they have voted, or intend voting, black in certain cases.

It is indisputable that voting is one of our most important duties. We bind ourselves, on our admission into Freemasonry, to observe faithfully all the duties required of us by the Constitutions.

There is no graduated scale of obligation. “We do not undertake to observe certain duties absolutely and unreservedly, while in the case of certain others the observance is simply contingent on our likes or dislikes.

The obligation includes all, and we are as much bound to vote secretly and conscientiously as we aim to fulfil the tenure of our other undertakings.

Again, it must not be overlooked that neglect of our duty in the case of the ballot is well nigh certain to entail most serious consequences to the wellbeing of the Craft.

Wherever there is an abuse of the ballot, there it is well nigh certain that discord will prevail. As for instance, A. proposes a candidate, who is rejected—it may be rightly, but it may equally well be, unjustly. B. or C. proposes a candidate, who is likewise rejected, not, however, on his merits, but simply because he is the nominee of B. or C, and B. or C. is pretty generally believed to have blackballed A. ‘s nominee.

Then rival cliques are formed in a Lodge, and, apart from such general dangers as are inevitable where there is cliquism, it is manifestly impossible that any applicant for admission, how respectable soever he may be, will find his application successful, except, indeed, by accident.

In these and similar cases, the ballot is made a means for the exercise of spite or favouritism.

There is nothing like the conscientious observance of a duty we are bound to fulfil, and thus the character of Freemasonry is depreciated.

“We are presumed to exercise towards one another, in private as well as in public, the strictest honour, but where the ballot is misemployed, as we have said it is, too frequently, there is an entire absence of this honourable feeling.

Instead of being the moral exemplars we hold ourselves out to be, we descend to the exercise of the pettiest and most lamentable malice.

We are not worthy of the name of Masons, for we deliberately set at naught the most cherished principles of Masonry—those of honour and of justice.

While, however, on the one hand, the ballot is often times employed in satisfying the paltry dislikes of this or that member, to the detriment of individuals, and, indeed, of the whole Craft, there is, on the other hand, a very serious danger threatening those Lodges whose members lack the courage to use the ballot justly when occasion requires.

A brother is proposed as member or a candidate for admission whose antecedents are certainly not commendable, but he is elected in spite of his various disqualifications because sundry members of the Lodge in which he is proposed are too tender hearted, or, be it said rather, too weak minded. They know well enough that his election must be detrimental to the true interests of the Lodge.

They have it in their power, each, at least, so far as his individual vote is concerned, to secure his rejection.

But though they are well aware of the importance of rejecting him, they are silly enough either to vote white, or else take no part in the ballot. Equally in such case do those who act thus fail in their duty. They are bound to the conscientious fulfilment of every Masonic duty.

The law provides a means where by the fulfilment of this particular duty may be observed without fear of question; yet are there far too many brethren who, from excess of good nature, do as we have said, and vote white, when their better judgment tells them they should vote black, or absent themselves from the ballot altogether.

If, as very many hold, Dr. Oliver is not the safest authority in the world on Masonic history, he is certainly a trustworthy guide in all matters relating to the interior working of the Craft.

He had a large and varied experience, extending over upwards of sixty years.

His views were certain to be broad and comprehensive, and being above all things a gentleman, he was certain to exercise an impartial judgment, dealing out justice with an iron hand, yet always avoiding even the semblance of harshness.

Let us see what he says anent this important duty of voting.

In considering whether it is constitutional for any brother to be present at a ballot and remain neutral—that is, of course, abstain from casting his vote, either for or against the candidate, Dr. Oliver says, at p. 43 of his Masonic Jurisprudence:—

” We should consider such conduct un-Masonic (although we are not aware of any law to prevent it), for this reason, that where a brother becomes a member of any Lodge, he is supposed by the simple act of affiliation to renew his O. B. , by which he undertook when he was made a Mason to be governed by the ancient usages and customs of the Order; one of the most important of which undoubtedly is, to keep the Lodge pure and harmonious, by the exclusion of unworthy candidates : this can only be effected by means of the ballot.

Every Mason ought to feel the full extent of his obligations. But if a single dissatisfied brother, whose unfavourable opinion of the candidate would induce him to give an adverse vote if he voted at all, should refrain from the exercise of this privilege, out of courtesy or tenderness for the candidate’s reputation, he might, undesignedly, but not the less surely, inflict an incurable wound on the Lodge, and be indirectly accessory to the introduction of an unworthy member. “

And our late Reverend Brother proceeds to argue that if a member

” may with impunity evade this paramount duty, the same rule might possibly operate to nullify all his other Masonic obligations; and should every brother be tempted to pursue the same injudicious course, the Order would soon be reduced to a chaotic state. ”

And he argues that as few members would themselves knowingly propose an improper person as candidate, so should they be equally careful, by voting strictly in accordance with their conscience, to guard against the intrusion of similar candidates if proposed by others.

Here, then, we have the deliberate opinion of a sound and worthy Mason, that no sense of courtesy, no tenderness for a candidate’s reputation, must ever induce us to abstain from recording our vote.

It is a duty we owe to the Craft that we acquit ourselves in the matter of voting justly and conscientiously. We are bound to fulfil our obligations, be their fulfilment never so unpleasant.

Where duty and good nature are opposed to each other, it is the former which must be obeyed, and obeyed implicitly. We have shown in the course of these remarks that on the one hand, the ballot box must not, as Dr. Oliver expressively puts it, ” be converted into an unjust and oppressive engine of mortification and punishment. “

It certainly affords ” facilities for the exercise of vindictive feelings, and the private expression of dislike and ill will. ” But itis obviously impossible that any one who allows these feelings to influence him can be worthy of the name of Mason.

On the other hand, no excess of delicacy must ever stand between us and the conscientious fulfilment of an important duty, for the simple reason that it is impossible to calculate the amount of harm we may be, indirectly, the means of inflicting on our Order.

Two things are, in fact, necessary if we would exclude unworthy persons.

The first is that members should exercise the greatest care whom they propose as candidates; the second is that they exercise their right of voting in strict accordance with their own conscience and the welfare of Freemasonry.

The Square Magazine Podcast

The Square Magazine Podcast