C. W. Moore (Freemasons Magazine xii, page 290) states: “We suppose it to be generally conceded that Lodges cannot properly be adjourned. It has been so decided by a large proportion of the Grand Lodges in America, and tacitly, at least, concurred in by all. We are not aware that there is a dissenting voice among them. It is, therefore, safe to assume that the settled policy is against adjournment.”

Moore argues that adjournment is a method used only in deliberative bodies, such as legislatures and courts. Since Lodges do not share this character, adjournments are deemed inappropriate. While this rule is widely accepted, Moore's reason may not be fully sufficient. If a Lodge were allowed to adjourn by majority vote, it would shift control of labor from the Master to the members. According to Masonic principles, the Master alone controls and directs the hours of labor.

The fifth of the Old Charges, approved in 1722, declares: “All Masons shall meekly receive their wages without murmuring or mutiny, and not desert the Master till the Lord's work is finished.” The Master is responsible for determining when “the work is finished” and thus has the authority to suspend business at his discretion. Consequently, no motion for adjournment can be entertained in a Masonic Lodge, as it would interfere with the Master’s prerogative.

The Earl of Zetland, when Grand Master of England, ruled on November 19, 1856, that a Lodge has no power to adjourn except to the next regular day of meeting. He stated: “I may say that Private Lodges are governed by much the same laws as Grand Lodges, and that no meeting of a Private Lodge can be adjourned; but the Master of a Private Lodge may, and does, convene Lodges of Emergency” (Freemasons Magazine, 1856, page 848).

This prerogative of opening and closing the Lodge is vested in the Master because he is responsible to the Grand Lodge for the Lodge's good conduct. He is charged to hold the Landmarks in veneration and to conform to every edict of the Grand Lodge. For any violation or disobedience, he is accountable to the supreme Masonic authority. Thus, the Master must have the power to prevent resolutions or actions that could be subversive to Masonic laws and usages.