Answer In The Maccabee Case

ANSWER IN THE MACCABEE CASE

An answer has been filed in the chancery case of "The Great Hive of the Ladies of the Maccabees for the state of Michigan vs. The Supreme Hive of the Ladies of the Maccabees of the World, its board of trustees and Lillian M. Hollister, Bina M. West, Helen M. Bradbeer, Ann E. Wartell and Louise A. Meyers, defendants." It will be recollected Judge Kinne overruled the demurrer and was sustained by the supreme court. The answer of the defendants denies that the complainant is not auxiliary or subordinate to any other association or corporation.

"This defendant is not able to understand the proposition made in paragraph 22 of said bill that in order to keep complainants' assessments at the present prevailing rate it is important that it should enlarge its field of operations. This defendant suggests that the statements made in paragraph 22 of the bill and in other parts of said bill tend to prove that to enlarge the area of complainant's operations under its present plan and with its present assessment, it is to enlarge the ultimate area of disaster."

The answer, which is in the nature of a cross bill, rehearses the history of the order. "In February, 1891, at a supreme tent review a considerable number of Lady Maccabees of Michigan, including officers of great hive, appeared and addressed the supreme tent and urged upon it that it make provision in the laws for the formation of a supreme hive. This action was the result of sentiment existing in Michigan, Ohio and New York in favor of a body with general power and jurisdiction over the ladies of the order. In October, 1892, the movement resulted in the organization of the supreme hive, auxiliary to the supreme tent."

At the third annual review of the great hive, held at Detroit August and September, 1892, at a meeting of the great executive committee for the completion of business left unfinished, held at the Russell House Oct. 19, in a set of resolutions passed occurred the following: "Resolved further, that the great hive L. O. T. M. for Michigan extends to the sisterhood throughout the country a warm, fraternal greeting and congratulates the supreme hive on the success which it has already met in establishing the order in other states."

The provision quoted in the answer "from section 1 of the laws denominating the complainant an auxiliary body to the Great Camp of the Knights of the Maccabees for Michigan, was continued in the published editions of the laws until to and including the edition of 1898. In the laws as amended and published in 1900, the words 'and is an auxiliary body to the great Camp of the Knights of the Maccabees for Michigan,' are omitted. This amendment to the laws was not made in the manner provided for changing the laws of complaint. It was not proposed to the great executive committee, published in the official organ, nor passed by any great hive in review in the manner provided by the laws of the complainant for making amendments to its laws.

In Lansing in September, '94 the great hive amended its laws to read "The great hive has jurisdiction within the state of Michigan, and is the highest tribunal of the order of the Ladies of the Maccabees in such state subject only to the supreme hive laws of said. order bearing upon the ritualistic and social work and paying to the supreme hive such per capita tax and be entitled to such representation as shall be fixed by the great hive and accepted by the supreme hive reviews, etc., etc."

It is claimed the relations between the parties were harmonious for some time until the complainant refused to pay the per capita tax and its representatives were not admitted to seats in the supreme hive.

"Defendant prays for this answer the benefit of a cross bill and for affirmative relief against the complainant, and that a decree may be entered in the cause perpetually restraining and enjoining complainant and its officers, agents, servants and employes from using the name 'Ladies of the Maccabees.' the ritual secret work," etc.

The answer filled 22 typewritten pages.  The solicitors of the defendant are Lincoln Avery and Russell C. Ostrander.