THE MASONIC UNION.
TO THE EDITOR. Sik, —Under the heading "Masonic," in last night's issue, you state :—" The following address was delivered by the D.G. Chaplain, S.C. (Bro. A. Barrett), at the meeting on Fiiday night." You have been misinformed, for Bro. Barrett did not favor the "thirty-six brethren" and the two reporters who were present on Friday night with the address. It was read by Bro, Barrett at a meeting of a Scotch lodge some months ago. Allow me to point out the inconsistency of Bro. Barrett, who at the present time is a member of a union for the promotion of a grand lodge. The Rev. W. Ronaldson and myself are the principal promoters of the movement in this district, and yet neither of us have seen those " able papers " of Messrs Cherrie and Ncill which Bro. Barrett says show "that the magnitude of a grand lodge with the many district grand lodges would necessitate a financial outlay on a scale considerably beyond present requirements." If Bro. Barrett had read the articles of union prepared by the sixty-eight brethren who formed the convention of the 11th and 12th September, he would have seen that the district grand lodges, with their expensive machinery, wero wiped out of existence, and one grand body substituted at an expense of not more than LSOO a year. The present system of government costs nearly L 2.000 per annum. Bro. Barrett holds the opinion that the multiplying of grand lodges is a retrograde movement. What does experience prove? The Grand Lodge of South Australia has been in existence about five years ; they have funds to the extent of over L 3,000; they are buildiDg almshouses and giving pensions to aged brethren. We have 1501odges;theyhaveonly thirty-five. Surely, if we follow in their footsteps we cannot go wrong, especially as our funds may be said to be, and can never under the present system be otherwise than nil. Everyone has a right to express his own opinion, but I take it that the sixty-eight brethren who met in convention the enajority of whom were veteran past masters, and not younc; Masons, as Bro. Barrett incorrectly states—have a right to expect that their side of the question should bo read and intelligently studied by brethren in Bro. Barrett's position. I hope, sir, that as you have, through a misconception, given Bro. Barrett the opportunity of expressing his views, that you will allow me and the Rev. W. Ronaldsnn, at some future time, the privilege of stating at moderate length our views on this important question.—l am, etc., T. G. Dkßenzv, f.M., District Grand Treasurer, E.C. Dunedin, October 22.
Permanent link to this item
THE MASONIC UNION., Evening Star, Issue 8044, 22 October 1889