54G& 
 
 • NRLF 
 
 
irtr THE 
 
 SOVEREIGN GRAND LODGE 
 
 I. O. O. F. 
 
 PATRIARCH J. B. WILSON, 
 
 Appellant, 
 
 vs. 
 
 crttJ ~ : S, ? 
 
 GOLDEN GATE ENCAMPMENT, 
 
 Respondent . 
 
 Appeal from the Grand Encampment of California. 
 
 BRIEF FOR RESPONDENT. 
 
 CHAS. N. FOX, P. G. M., 
 
 For Respondent, 
 
 Winterburn & Co. Printers. 
 

N THE SUPREME GRAND LODG 
 
 I. O. O. F. 
 
 PATRIARCH J. B. WILSON, 
 
 Appellant, 
 
 vs. 
 
 r 
 
 GOLDEN GATE ENCAMPMENT, 
 
 Respondent, j 
 
 APPEAL FROM THE GRAND ENCAMP- 
 MENT OF CALIFORNIA. 
 
 BRTEP FOR RESPONDENT. 
 
 The By-Laws of Golden Gate Encampment fix- 
 ing the rate of benefits, as amended, contains the 
 following proviso : 
 
 "Provided, second : That when any patriarch has 
 received in the aggregate, as sick benefits, the sum 
 of $1,000, he shall thereafter be entitled to and 
 receive, during his sickness, the sum of $2.00 per 
 week only." 
 
 871666 
 
[a J 
 
 Before the adoption of said proviso, Patriarch 
 Wilson had received from the Encampment up- 
 wards of $1,000 sick benefits. After its adoption, 
 he continuing sick, the Encampment paid him 
 regularly the sum of $2.00 per week. He now 
 claims that it should have paid him at the larger 
 rate, to which he would have been entitled in the 
 absence of the proviso; and demands payment of 
 some 55800, the amount of the difference between 
 the sum which he received after the adoption 
 of the proviso, and the sum which he claims that 
 he should have received. This demand the En- 
 campment refused to comply with, and the Grand 
 Encampment sustained it in such refusal; hence 
 this appeal: 
 
 The decision of the Grand Encampment is so 
 manifestly and directly in accord with the law as 
 laid down by this Grand Lodge at its last session, 
 in the matter of the appeal of H. T. Dorrence, P. 
 G. M., from the action of the Grand Lodge of 
 California, (Jour. 1880, P. 8329,) that but one 
 conclusion can be reached, as to the object of this 
 appeal I ,<iz : Tiifet.-ttisJ to secure a reconsideration 
 of the question. by this Grand Lodge. ' 
 
 We feel hardly at liberty to assume that this 
 Grand Body will again enter upon, or listen to a 
 discussion of a question so recently and so plainly 
 decided in accordance with a principle adhered to 
 since the foundation of the Order; but if it should 
 consent to do so, justice to this respondent, and 
 to all the subordinates of our great Fraternity, 
 must be our excuse for endeavoring to show that 
 the law, as now established, is founded upon the 
 
[ 5] 
 
 great principal of right, and that this appeal should 
 be dismissed. 
 
 We will not discuss the question of the right of 
 a subordinate to control its own finances, and 
 within such limitations as may be provided by the 
 Grand Body under which it exists, to regulate by 
 by-law, the amount of its dues and benefits. This 
 right has been so often asserted by this Grand 
 Lodge as no longer to be open to discussion (See 
 Dorrence's appeal above referred to, and cases there 
 cited.) 
 
 .In fact, as to the amount of benefits to be paid, 
 the subordinate is sovereign, so long as the laws 
 of the State Jurisdiction are obeyed. 
 
 Journal 1864, pp. 3684, 3698. 
 
 There is nothing in the laws of the State Juris- 
 diction which limits the right of a subordinate to 
 alter or amend its By-Laws in relation to the 
 amount of benefits to be paid, at its pleasure, ex- 
 cept that it shall not abolish all benefits. In 
 practice, By-Laws of subordinates making such 
 changes, come up for approval every year, and the 
 right to make such change is constantly recog- 
 nized and acknowledged. 
 
 L o 
 
 The provision of By-Law under consideration 
 in this case, is similar in principle, and in effect, 
 to that considered by this Grand Lodge in 1871, 
 when the action of the subordinate was fully sus- 
 tained. 
 
 Journal 1871, pp. 5138, 5234. 
 
[ 4 ] 
 
 There has been, in the entire jurisprudence of 
 the Order, no single departure from the rule, that 
 while the subordinate must pay some benefits 
 to its sick and disabled members, the amount 
 thereof may be fixed by its own By-Laws, subject 
 to local regulation. 
 
 By-Laws are always made by their own terms 
 subject to alteration or amendment, in a mode 
 therein prescribed: and that they shall be so 
 subject is a part of the obligation and covenant of, 
 and contract between, the members of every sub- 
 ordinate. To deny the right of a subordinate to 
 amend its By-Laws in this respect, would not only 
 operate to impair the contract which members 
 have made with each other on the subject, but 
 would impair the very obligation of membership 
 itself. 
 
 If, then, a subordinate can amend its By-Laws 
 in this respect at any time, it follows that it can 
 change the amount of benefit to be paid at any 
 moment, and without regard to the question of 
 who may be sick and entitled to benefits at the 
 moment the change is made, or the amount of 
 benefits which any member may have received 
 prior to the change. If the amendment had been 
 a general reduction of all benefits from $10.00 to 
 $2.00 per week, without" regard to any amount 
 that had been theretofore paid, it would have been 
 in such strict accord with the law and the usage 
 of the Order, that no one would have thought to 
 question the right of the subordinate to make it. 
 Why is it less lawful because it is only to apply 
 
[6] 
 
 when, and after, the Patriarch shall already have 
 received $1000 in sick benefits ? 
 
 If a subordinate can receive the financial, moral , 
 and fraternal support of a member for a quarter 
 of a century, under a By-Law allowing ten dollars 
 per week sick benefits, but without having drawn 
 a dollar, and then, in his old age, so reduce the 
 amount as that, when taken sick for the first time 
 in his life, he shall receive but two dollars per 
 week, why can it not provide for such reduction 
 to apply to members who have, and when they 
 shall have already received from the common fund 
 the sum of $1000 in benefits actually paid? We 
 can see no difference in the principle affecting the 
 right, and assuredly the latter provision is more 
 just than the former. 
 
 Being entirely uninformed, and unable to con- 
 ceive, of an}' argument that has been or can be 
 made in support of this appeal, we submit the 
 case, with a prayer that the appeal be dismissed. 
 
 Fraternally, 
 
 CHAS. N. FOX, P. G. M., 
 
 for Respondent. 
 
Photomount 
 
 Pamphlet 
 
 Binder 
 
 laylord Bros., Inc. 
 
 Makers 
 Stockton, Calif. 
 
 PAT. JAN. 21. 1908 
 
 871666 
 
 THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LIBRARY 
 
: WI&B&