That was the question to be decided. Should the rule be the guide, and the Executive Committee have the management, or should lodges be allowed to stop their colliery in opposition to the constitution, and suffer none of the consequences? The Washington case afforded the opportunity for the settlement, and that is the reason why it is made part of this history. The dispute arose about the application of an agreement made by themselves. The nature of the agreement is of no import now. The action of the lodge and its relation to the rule is what we have to consider. The manager put one interpretation on the agreement, the workmen another, and they were the signatories. Numbers of agreements had been disputed prior to that, and had been brought before Joint Committee or some other properly arranged tribunal, and managed by the agents, or Executive, in accordance with rule. Washington, however, set rule aside, disregarded the Committee, and stopped the pit on the 10th of August. On the 11th the corresponding secretary met their deputation in Newcastle, and told them they were acting illegally, and that they could not be paid from the funds. The deputation, however, were confident the Council would grant them strike pay, although they admitted they were breaking the rule. Other means were adopted to induce them to resume work. The lodge appealed to the Council for a grant; it was not put on the programme. The trustees objected to the treasurer paying the money. They had taken the opinion of Mr Atherley Jones previously. The question submitted to the Counsel was: "Supposing a lodge came out on strike in violation of the rule, without first having obtained the permission of the Committee or Council, would the fact that the Council, after the men came out on strike, approved of their action alter the position or liability of the trustees?" The opinion was as follows:-- MR JONES' OPINION _August 30th, 1897._ With regard to the question raised, whether, under the circumstances described, the trustees have power to allow payments to be made to the men on strike who have violated Rule 50, I am of opinion that they have no such powers, and any payment so made would appear to be a direct breach of trust. Nor do I think the position or liability of the trustees would in any way be altered by the subsequent vote of the Council approving such payments. The wording of Rule 51 is quite clear:-- "Any lodge ceasing work" "under the circumstances which have happened" "shall forfeit all claims on this Association"; and even though the whole Association were to vote in favour of strike pay being granted, I cannot see how the effect of that rule could be removed.