The following material was scanned and converted into a text, PDF and HTML files by W.B. Ralph W. Omholt, Librarian for PhoenixMasonry.
It should be appreciated that M∴ W∴ Brother William Upton's 1899 paper on the recognition of Prince Hall Masonry stands as a historic monument within the Craft; speaking to the issue of the Level among Mason's, despite the contrary “equality attitudes, more typical of the time.
Still, it took nearly another century, before the matter of Prince Hall recognition became a globally widespread reality.
This file is not intended as a near-perfect rendition of the original essay. It represents a text source for the researcher's need to expediently cut-and-paste the desired sections of the original document – also offered as a PDF file.
LIGHT ON A DARK SUBJECT
BY
WILLIAM H. UPTON, A. M., LL. M.,
Grand Master of Masons in the State of Washington.
LIGHT ON A DARK SUBJECT
BEING
A Critical Examination
OF OBJECTIONS TO THE LEGITIMACY OF THE MASONRY EXISTING
AMONG THE NEGROES OF AMERICA.
_____________________________________________________________
BY WILLIAM H. UPTON, A. M., LL. M.,
Grand Master of Masons in the State of Washington.
_______________________________________________________ ______
PRICE, $1.00.
_____________________________________________________________
SEATTLE
THE PACIFIC SEATTLE MASON, PUBLISHER.
1899.
_____________________________
COPYRIGHT BY J.M. TAYLOR, 1899
_____________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________
Wilson & Blankenship, Printers
Olympia, Wash.
PREFACE.
The following paper was originally prepared for the use of the members of the Grand Lodge of Washington, Free and Accepted Masons. The opinion having been expressed that the interest felt by members of the Fraternity throughout the country in the subject to which the paper relates will occasion a demand for the "Proceedings" of that Grand Lodge which would cast an undue burden on the Grand Lodge; and THE PACIFIC MASON, with its usual public spirit, having offered to come to the relief of the Grand Lodge by publishing a separate edition of the essay, a few copies are now issued in the present form.
The writer can add nothing to the idea expressed in the introductory part of the paper: That it was written solely with a view of supplying, in a convenient form, more correct information upon the subject of "Negro Masonry” than is generally accessible. If the paper assists the candid seeker after truth to form a more correct conception of the history and rightful status of the Negro Mason, its end will have been accomplished.
The writer will be glad to be informed of any errors or inaccuracies that may have crept into the paper. W. H. U.
Walla Walla, June, 1899.
4 REPORT ON CORRESPONDENCE
A CRITICAL EXAMINATION
Of Objections to the Legitimacy of the Masonry Existing Among
the Negroes of America.
SECTIONS.
INTRODUCTORY. ……..….……………………………….……….………………………….………….…… 1-8
LIST OF OBJECTIONS ……..….……………………………………………….………….……….……….…… 9
Objections to the initiation of PRINCE HALL ………………………………….…………….……….……….… 10-16
Objections to the inchoate Lodge, 1775-1787 ……………………….……………………….…………….……….…17
Objections to African Lodge, No. 459. ………………………………………….…………….……….……18- 21,33-43
BRITISH MASONRY, 17 75-1787 — a Digression ……….……….……………………….…………. 22-26
MASONRY IN MASSACHUSETTS, 1775-1787 — a Digression ………………………….……….…. 27-32
Objections to the career of African Lodge, 1808-1847, ………………………….………….………… 44-48
Objections to Lodges founded by PRINCE HALL ……….……….…………………………….………. 49-58
Objections to the first negro Grand Lodge …………………………….……….……….…………………. 59-67
Objections to later negro Grand Lodges ……….……….………………………….………….…….……… 68- 71
MASONRY IN THE PHILIPPINES AN ALLEGORY ……………..………………………….…………. 73
Objections to recognition ……….…………………………….…………..….……….……….……….……….………. 74-89
How to solve the problem ……….…….……………………………….…………….……….……….……….………. 90-93
Appendices ……….……….………………………….………….……….……….……………………………… ………... 94
INTRODUCTORY.
§1. At the Annual Communication of the Grand Lodge of Washington in 1897 a respectful petition was received from two colored men who claimed to be Masons, praying the Grand Lodge to "devise some way” whereby they might be "brought into communication with” members of the Craft in this state. The petition was referred to a committee composed of Past Grand Masters THOMAS MILBURNE REED and JAMES EWEN EDMISTON and the present writer, then a Grand Warden. The committee reported the following year, and its report was adopted by an almost unanimous vote. In their report the committee plainly expressed the personal belief of the members thereof, that the negro Masons of the
GRAND LODGE OF WASHINGTON. 5
United States who can trace their descent from the Grand Lodge of England are as fully entitled to the name of Masons as any other brethren.
But, as they knew that a different view was entertained in many quarters; and were satisfied that the ends of justice could be served without any change in our law; out of comity, and in the interest of harmony, they recommended only the adoption of certain resolutions, which left the status of the petitioners as it was under the Landmarks and ancient usages of the Craft, except that the Grand Lodge declared that the colored Masons might cultivate the royal art and regulate their own affairs within this state without molestation from it. * Because the committee took the view that the matter before it concerned this Grand Lodge alone, and was prepared to answer orally on the floor of the Grand Lodge any questions that might be asked; and because it intended to propose no change in our law, unless the declaration just mentioned amounts to a change, it did not deem it necessary to discuss — with three exceptions, and these but briefly — the objections that
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________
* The following were the resolutions adopted:
"Resolved, That, in the opinion of this Grand Lodge, Masonry is universal ; and, without doubt, neither race nor color are among the tests proper to be applied to determine the fitness of a candidate for the degrees of Masonry.
“Resolved, That in view of recognized laws of the Masonic Institution, and of facts of history apparently well authenticated and worthy of full credence, this Grand Lodge does not see its way clear to deny or question the right of its constituent Lodges, or of the members thereof, to recognize as brother Masons, negroes who have been initiated in Lodges which can trace their origin to African Lodge, No. 459, organized under the warrant of our R. W. Brother THOMAS HOWARD, Earl of EFFINGHAM, Acting Grand Master, under the authority of H. R. H. HENRY FREDERICK, Duke of CUMBERLAND, etc., Grand Master of the Most Ancient and Honourable Society of F. & A. Masons in England, bearing date September 29, A. L. 5784, or to our R. W. Brother PRINCE HALL, Master of said Lodge; and, in the opinion of this Grand Lodge, for the purpose of tracing such origin, the African Grand Lodge, of Boston, organized in 1808— subsequently known as the Prince Hall Grand Lodge of Massachusetts, the first African Grand Lodge of North America in and for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, organized in 1815, and the Hiram Grand Lodge of Pennsylvania may justly be regarded as legitimate Masonic Grand Lodges.
“Resolved, That while this Grand Lodge recognizes no difference between brethren based upon race or color, yet it is not unmindful of the fact that the white and colored races in the United States have in many ways shown a preference to remain, in purely social matters, separate and apart. In view of this inclination of the two races— Masonry being pre- eminently a social Institution—this Grand Lodge deems it to the best interest of Masonry to declare that if regular Masons of African descent desire to establish, within the State of Washington, Lodges confined wholly or chiefly to brethren of their race, and shall establish such Lodges strictly in accordance with the Landmarks of Masonry, and in accordance with Masonic Law as heretofore interpreted by Masonic tribunals of their own race, and if such Lodges shall in due time see fit in like manner to erect a Grand Lodge for the better administration of their affairs, this Grand Lodge, having more regard for the good of Masonry than for any mere technicality, will not regard the establishment of such Lodges or Grand Lodge as an invasion of its jurisdiction, but as evincing a disposition to conform to its own ideas as to the best interests of the Craft under peculiar circumstances; and will ever extend to our colored brethren its sincere sympathy in every effort to promote the welfare of the Craft or inculcate the pure principles of our Art.
“Resolved, That the Grand Secretary be instructed to acknowledge receipt of the communication from GIDEON S. BAILEY and CON A. RIDEOUT, and forward to them a copy of the printed Proceedings of this annual communication of the Grand Lodge, as a response to said communication. “— Proceedings, G. L. of Washington, 1898, p. 60.
6 REPORT ON CORRESPONDENCE.
have been urged, from time to time, against the legitimacy of negro Masonry; but contented itself with remarking that they had been "fully met and completely answered, over and over again. “Subsequent events seem to me to demonstrate that this course was a mistake; and I feel free to say so, as I prepared the report of the committee. For, during the year, those same old, threadbare and untenable objections have been brought forward in numerous Grand Lodges; with the result, not only that this Grand Lodge has been condemned without a hearing, but that the question itself has been prejudiced in many Grand Lodges for another generation, by the mistaken notion that its merits were fully examined in the year 1898-0 by committees of those jurisdictions. As a matter of fact, no single committee — so far as indicated by its report — has given it more than a superficial examination, or shown any acquaintance with the later literature of the subject, referred to by the Washington committee last year.
§ 2. The comity and consideration for the opinions of others shown by the Washington committee and Grand Lodge were neither appreciated nor reciprocated. During the year, in a number of Grand Lodges, the position of this Grand Lodge has been savagely attacked, often in language disgraceful to Masonry. Men whose utterances fail to disclose even a superficial acquaintance with either the history or the law of the subject, have presumed to sit as judges in condemnation of this Grand Lodge; and Grand Lodges have usurped a supervisory power over our actions which, if acquiesced in, means not only the destruction of the sovereignty of this Grand Lodge, but the end of that principle of self-government among Masons which has been claimed as a cornerstone of our Institution since the dawn of its history.
§ 3. Under these circumstances, it seemed to me to be due to the brethren of this Grand Lodge — who, last year, confided in the judgment, knowledge and integrity of their committee, and who, this year, may be called upon to again pass upon similar questions; as well as to friends of this Grand Lodge elsewhere who may lack time or opportunity to investigate the subject for themselves, that a plain statement should be made of the reasons which exist for considering the negro Masons of America within the pale of the Ancient and Honorable Fraternity of Free and Accepted Masons. I had hoped that some other of the many hands in this jurisdiction more capable than mine might prepare this statement; and especially that it might be undertaken by that beloved brother who has ruled over two generations of Masons and now dwells in honor among the third, and who has had no superior among Masons in the state of his nativity*, or
______________________________________________________________________________________________________
* Grand Secretary REED first saw both the light of nature and the light of Masonry in Kentucky—the jurisdiction which was the first to denounce us, and the one which employed the most indecent language. Brother EDMISTON, another member of our committee on Negro Masonry, and a Mason who, as chairman of the Committee on Jurisprudence, has made a reputation as a Masonic jurist such as no other son of Arkansas enjoys, is a native of that State; and in the Confederate army did what he could to rivet the shackles of slavery on the negro. The Grand Lodge of his native State sought to rival Kentucky in malignant abuse of this Grand Lodge.
GRAND LODGE OF WASHINGTON. 7
in the State whose foundations he assisted to lay. But one circumstance after another seemed to lay the task upon me. It is a task which I would gladly have escaped. I have no taste for controversy; I feel no special interest in negro Masonry, and originally discussed the subject only because detailed to that duty by my Grand Master. Other deterrent circumstances, also, exist, too personal in their nature to be of interest to the reader, but which constantly remind me of the vanity of all things earthly; and, most of all, of the frivolity of such petty prejudices and technicalities as have prompted the recent attacks on this Grand Lodge, and of those attacks themselves: "He that sitteth in the heavens shall laugh: the Lord shall have them in derision.“
§ 4. I am not particularly intimidated by the knowledge, which has come to me during the year, not merely by what has appeared in print but by abusive letters, that the undertaking will subject me to scurrilous abuse and cowardly vituperation; for since I have learned how thin the veneer of Masonry and of civilization is upon some men who have held high places in Masonic councils; and that, as one eminent brother has expressed it, men whom I had been wont to look up to as leaders are "fifty years behind the times and a thousand years behind the principles they profess, “I have become indifferent to their abuse: as LAURENCE DERMOTT expressed it, "I do not find that the calumny of a few Modern Masons has done me any real injury. “
I shall write for four classes of readers: First, the little band of Masonic scholars who, in diverse climes, pursue their studies for the sake of truth alone—the most of these already know and declare that the Grand Lodge of Washington is right; second, that large class of brethren who have neither time nor opportunities for personal investigation, and are compelled to take their information at second hand; third, a determined and implacable and well organized band of men who have determined that, right or wrong, Mason or no Mason, come what may, the negro shall not be recognized by American Grand Lodges; and, lastly, the members of my own Grand Lodge, who may be called upon to act upon the matters which I shall discuss, and who have a right to feel sure of their ground before acting. I feel that the first and last of these classes know me well enough to rely implicitly on the frankness and candor with which I shall address them. I feel quite as certain that the discordant and malignant cries of the third class will so drown my voice that for the present it will not reach the ears of the second; and possessed of this conviction I am content to address the few of today, the many of tomorrow—to appeal to posterity and a future age.
§ 5. In casting about for a plan on which to present my view of the subject, no better one has occurred to me than to take up, one by one, every objection that has ever been urged against the regularity of the Masonry found among the negroes, and set forth, under each, the reasons why it failed to impress me as sound. This, therefore, is the course I shall adopt in the following pages; and when I have done this I shall have placed my reader, so far as my ability to express my meaning
8 REPORT ON CORRESPONDENCE.
clearly, and the unfavorable circumstances under which I write permit, in a position to see why I reach the conclusion that no single one of the objections is valid; and to judge for himself whether he agrees with me or not. When I have done this, my task will have been completed; unless I invite such readers only as reach the same conclusions as I do, to consider briefly what course ought to be adopted by the white Masons of America to restore the ancient universality of Masonry. "The curious subject of Freemasonry, “said HALLAM,* eighty years ago, "has been treated of only by panegyrists or calumniators,— both equally mendacious. “What was true of Freemasonry even fifty years after HALLAM spoke, is nearly as true today of "the curious subject” of Negro Masonry.
While I shall write of it avowedly as a partisan, I shall endeavor not to deserve the reproach which the historian applied to our ancient brethren.
I shall avoid as much as possible the tone of controversy, and shall cite authorities for statements of fact not found in the commoner Masonic histories. I hope I may be pardoned for adding that I have sufficient confidence in my own intellectual honesty to believe that Time, if she shall point out any trifling errors of statement, and whether she confirms or refutes my conclusions, will vindicate the candor with which I present the subject and the correctness of my statements of historical facts.
§ 6. Origin of Negro Masonry.f—The origin of Masonry among the negroes of the United States was as follows:
On March 6, 1775, an army Lodge attached to one of the regiments stationed under General Gage, in or near Boston, Mass., initiated PRINCE HALL and fourteen other colored men of Boston into the mysteries of Freemasonry. From that beginning, with small additions from foreign countries, sprang the Masonry among the negroes of America. These fifteen brethren were probably authorized by the Lodge which made them — according to the custom of the day— to assemble as a Lodge.
At least they did so, but it does not appear that they did any “work “ until after they were regularly warranted. They applied to the Grand Lodge of England for a warrant, March 2, 1784. It was issued to them, as "African Lodge No.459, “f with PRINCE HALL as Master, September
_______________________________________________________________________________________________
*Middle Ages, iii, 359.
This sketch of the origin of negro Masonry is substantially that compiled by the present writer in 1895 (Proceedings, G. L. of Washington, 1895, Cor. Rep., p. 206) and adopted by the Washington committee on Negro Masonry ( Proceedings, 1898, p. 52 ). It was originally compiled from data drawn from a great variety of sources. Its general correctness has not been questioned by any Grand Lodge committee during the heated controversy of the past year ; but, nevertheless, it is not here presented as authoritative, but merely as a thread to string our inquiry upon. The few points in it concerning which any question has ever been raised will be discussed in subsequent sections. CLARK — a trustworthy authority — states that PRINCE HALL was initiated a short time before March 6, but the others on that day.— Negro Masonry in Equity, 13.
1: Were we ignorant of the manner in which Lodge numbers were assigned, in view of subsequent events we might suspect that grim humor had led a prophetic Grand Secretary to assign to African Lodge the number which was borne by that “Spectator, “in which ADDISON had said, “We have just enough religion to make us hate, but not enough to make us love, one another. “
GRAND LODGE OF WASHINGTON. 9
1884, but not received until May 2, 1787. The Lodge was organized under the warrant four days later. It remained upon the English registry— occasionally contributing to the Grand Charity Fund—until, upon the amalgamation of the rival Grand Lodges of the "Moderns “and the "Ancients “into the present United G. L. of England, in 1813, it and the other English Lodges in the United States were erased.
Brother PRINCE HALL, a man of exceptional ability, worked zealously in the cause of Masonry; and, from 1792 until his death in 1807, exercised all the functions of a Provincial Grand Master. In 1797 he issued a license to thirteen black men who had been made Masons in England to “assemble and work “as a Lodge in Philadelphia. Another Lodge was organized, by his authority, in Providence, Rhode Island. In 1808 these three Lodges joined in forming the "African Grand Lodge “of Boston— subsequently styled the "Prince Hall Grand Lodge of Massachusetts” — and Masonry gradually spread over the land.
The second colored Grand Lodge, called the “First Independent African Grand Lodge of North America in and for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, “was organized in 1815; and the third was the "Hiram Grand Lodge of Pennsylvania. “These three Grand Bodies fully recognized each other in 1847, by joining in forming a National Grand Lodge, and practically all the negro Lodges in the United States are descended from one or the other of these.
It is known to a certainty that they have our secrets and practice our rites. * Many foreign Grand Lodges recognize their organizations; and where this is not done, their individual members are commonly received as visitors.
§ 7. oStatus conceded them.— In the earliest days their Lodge was freely visited by white Masons; + and down to the present time many white Masons, when influenced by curiosity or higher motives, have not hesitated to thus recognize them. But gradually, especially after some white Grand Lodges, t — acting upon the slight information that was then accessible — had questioned their standing, and the advantages of exclusive territorial jurisdiction had become apparent, their origin was lost sight of; and the view that they were — for what reason was generally but vaguely understood—more or less irregular, became prevalent, and finally crystallized among the rank and file of the Fraternity into almost an axiom. The subject has, however, been examined occasionally; and,
_______________________________________________________________________________________________
* Proceedings, G. L. of Washington, 1895, Cor. Rep., pp. 208, 209. Letter of P. G Master L. V. BIERCE ; New Day — New Duty, 16.
-I* PRINCE HALL incidentally mentions this ; ( see Appendix 11, post) ; and JACOB NORTON, speaking of the same period, says, in a letter dated Sept. 26, 1872, printed in the London Freemason: "I have indubitable proof that African Lodge was then repeatedly visited by white brethren. “
I The terms "white Grand Lodge”and "white Lodge, “where employed in this paper, are used merely as convenient terms to distinguish our own organizations—in the majoritg of which no “color line”is nominally drawn —from the negro bodies.
II New York as early as 1818 and 1829.
10 REPORT ON CORRESPONDENCE.
roughly speaking, there may be said to be about six different ideas as to how the negro Masons should be classed, to-wit:
1. As impostors, not Masons at all; but pretending to be; and therefore more unworthy than ordinary profanes.
2. As persons whose claim to Masonic consideration has been passed upon adversely—legislatively, and upon an ex parte showing—by the local Grand Lodge, and is therefore to be considered no further.
3. As Masons, more or less irregular, whose claims to legitimacy it would be inconvenient to acknowledge; and who, therefore, had better be quietly ignored, under the best excuse, that may be at hand.
4. As persons whose claims have never been passed upon by our Grand Lodge, and of whom, therefore, every Mason of our jurisdiction must be his own judge.
5. As Masons, found to have been made consistently with the Landmarks and general laws of the Institution at large; and, therefore, with certain claims upon us which we are not at liberty to wholly ignore; but to whose organizations it is not expedient (out of comity for certain other Bodies, and under certain "American doctrines") for us to accord formal or, perhaps, any official recognition.
6. As Masons, whose organizations ought to be accorded by us the same recognition as that accorded to other American Grand Lodges and Lodges.
The literature of the subject during the last year would indicate that the official Grand Lodge classification of them—which, in the North, has usually been somewhat more rigorous than the personal views of leading members of the Grand Lodges—in a majority of jurisdictions of the United States places them in class 2; though sometimes the language points to classes 1 or 3. The Washington committee last year* found them in this State, in class 4; and although the committee plainly stated that the personal opinion of its members placed them in class 5—not in class 6, as has been inferred—it recommended leaving them in class 4.
And that is where they stand in Washington today. Masonic sentiment outside of the United States—and possibly parts of Canada—is practically unanimous in placing them in classes 5 or 6.
Since the subject was under consideration in 1869 and 1876, there has been a slight but perceptible drift of opinion in favor of the correctness of some of the claims put forward by the negro Masons.t Thus, even in Delaware the Grand Master now admits that- "This is not a question of the regularity and legitimacy of PRINCE HALL'S making, but of the right which he exercised to erect Lodges of Negro Masons. * * * “
One of the most virulent of the anti-negro writers, who in 1876 reported to his Grand Lodge that the negro Lodges were "irregular and must be held to be clandestine, “has now reached the conclusion that- -Il
_______________________________________________________________________________________________
*Proceedings, G. L. of Washington, 1898, p. 50.
fSee also the views of Dr. JOSEPH ROBBINS, in Appendix 28, post.
tEdict against the Grand Lodge of Washington, Jan. 10, 1899.
IJosuai H. DRUMMOND; proceedings, G. L. of Maine, 1899. Cor. Rep., p. 309
GRAND LODGE OF WASHINGTON. 11
"If one of these colored Lodges were in existence in Washington today and should ask to give in its adhesion to the Grand Lodge of Washington, and that Body should accept, and issue a charter to it, that Lodge would thereby become, as to all the world, a regular lodge. * “
Of course, such would not be the case had the Lodge and its members been "clandestine. “
§ 8. Definitions. This last remark illustrates the wisdom of having definite meanings for the words we employ. The words "regular, “"nonregular, “"irregular” and "clandestine, “in particular, will frequently occur throughout this paper. It is unfortunate that they are sometimes employed by Masons in different senses. "Irregularities” may, of course, be either trifling or enormous. The phrase "a regular Lodge, “however, has a definite and certain meaning, given it by one of the "Old Regulations” of 1721; wherein the only. Grand Lodge in the world declared that when members of its Lodges desired to form a new Lodge "they must obtain the GRAND MASTER'S warrant to join in forming a NEW LODGE, “
until which time the "REGULAR LODGES” were not to countenance them.* This subject will be fully discussed in subsequent parts of this paper;t and hence we need observe here, only that while there was but one Grand Lodge, a "regular” Lodge was one that, having been formed by authority of the Grand Master or his representative, was enrolled or entitled to be enrolled upon its Register. As other Grand Lodges were formed, the definition was naturally extended to include all Lodges which had been formed under the authority of any Grand Lodge or Grand Master; or, having been formed otherwise, had been "regularized” by being placed on the roll of a Grand Lodge. All other Lodges were non-regular. On this point a brother who has made this subject his peculiar field, and who, for accuracy of knowledge and of expression stands second to no other Mason, of this or any other age, says4 "What was meant by the "regularity” of Lodges in early days was that such Lodges as were under the jurisdiction (sub regula) of the Grand Master were styled Regular. This did not imply that all other Lodges were irregular; far from it. They were non-Regular, but not necessarily clandestine or unlawful. A similar distinction holds in the Roman Catholic church between the secular (or parochial) clergy, and the regular (or monastic) clergy. This does not stigmatize the former as irregular.
Some of our historians have failed to grasp the distinction, and have thought Regular Lodges alone could be lawful at any period of our history. “
In later times inexact writers, in and out of Grand Lodges, have used the term "regular” as though it applied only to Lodges upon the roll of recognized Grand Lodges. But this indicates a total misconception of the meaning of the term. The word "regular” has no relation to the legitimacy of a Lodge, but relates solely to the question of its right to enrollment. The Grand Lodge of Washington has never formally "recognized” any of the German Grand Lodges; but unquestionably it regards
_______________________________________________________________________________________________
*General Regulations, A. D. 1721, viii.
-See i4 22, 23, 51 et seq., post.
W. J. CHETWODE CRAWLEY, Ars Quatuor Coronatorum, ix, 125. See also Appendix 16 post.
12 REPORT ON CORRESPONDENCE.
all their Lodges as "regular, “if they be Masonic Lodges at all. By a similar latitude, Grand Lodges have been wont to vote that such and such a Lodge is "irregular” or "clandestine. “This only means that they will so regard it, and is similar to the action of Grand Lodges which vote a Master Mason the "rank” of Past Grand Master. All the world knows that he is not a past Grand Master. There is nothing in the world to prevent the Grand Lodge of Kentucky from voting that our Lodge Olympia, No. 1, is an "irregular” or a "clandestine Lodge. “But such a vote does not affect the actual standing of the Lodge, but only its subjective standing with relation to that particular Grand Lodge and such other bodies as elect to adopt that vote to govern their own concerns. From the practice last mentioned, it results that a Lodge may be "regular” in one jurisdiction and with reference to the general law of the Institution, and yet be under a judgment of irregularity in another. The word "clandestine” is also used somewhat recklessly at times--by reckless writers, when looking around for some word that is strong enough to express their detestation; but nearly all writers admit that, properly, it is a much stronger word than "irregular. “Perhaps the clearest idea of the correct use of the word may be obtained by applying this test: Anything that can or could be "healed” or cured, in any way or by any body, is not "clandestine, “but is, at most, "irregular. “A great lawyer* speaking of what acts might be held to amount to "fraud, “said:
"The court very wisely hath never laid down any general rule, beyond which it will not go; lest other means for avoiding the equity of the court should be found out. “
Perhaps a similar respect for the ingenuity of depravity ought to deter us from making any definite list of acts that may be clandestine.
J. List of objections. It may be a convenience to the reader if I now give a list of the objections which will be considered in this paper. To make the list serve the purpose of a table of contents, I add, after each objection, the numbers of the sections in which it is answered. This will enable the reader to skip those parts of the paper which relate to objections which he already knows to be puerile. (I claim that this is one of the most unselfish suggestions ever made by any writer; for it will justify many well-informed Masons in closing the book as soon as they have run their eye over the list !) Objection to the initiation of PRINCE HALL and his companions.
1. That there is no evidence that they were ever made Masons.—% 10.
2. But if made, they were made in an army Lodge.— 11.
3. That in 1773 a Provincial Grand Lodge at Boston had forbidden army Lodges to initiate civilians.— 12, 13.
4. That negroes are ineligible to be made Masons.— 14- 16.
Objection to the inchoate Lodge.
5. That until 1787 the first negro Lodge had no warrant or charter.— 17.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________
*HARDwnIcE, C., in 3 Atk., 278.
GRAND LODGE OF WASHINGTON. 13
Objections to African Lodge, No. 459.
6. That it never had a warrant; but the pretended warrant -vas a forgery.-§§ 18, 19.
7. That England ipso facto lost the right to warrant Lodges in the United States when the independence of this Nation was recognized§ 20.
8. That the warranting of African Lodge was an invasion of the jurisdiction of a Massachusetts Grand Lodge.-§§ 21, 33-36.
9. That it is not known that African Lodge was ever formally "constituted. “-§ 37.
10. That the organization of the Grand Lodge of Massachusetts in 1792 invalidated the further existence of African Lodge.-§ 38-43.
Objections to the career of African Lodge, 1808- 1847.
11. That the Lodge became dormant, some time after 1807.-§ 44.
12. That it was dropped from the English register at the end of 1813.§ 45.
13. That it surrendered its warrant to England in 1824.-§ 46.
14. That it declared itself independent, in 1827.-§ 47.
15. That it surrendered its warrant to the National Grand Lodge in 1847.-§ 48.Objections to Lodges founded by PRINCE HALL.
16. That African Lodge was not a Grand Lodge, and PRINCE HALL not a Grand Master; and consequently they could not establish other Lod ges .-§§ 49-58.
17. That the Lodges established by them were in invasion of the jurisdictions of existing Grand Lodges.-§§ 68-71.
Objections to the first negro Grand Lodge.
18. That its erection was an infringement of the "American Doctrine”
of the exclusive territorial jurisdiction of Grand Lodges.-§§ 61-64.
19. That it became dormant.-§ 65.
20. That in 1847 it surrendered its independence-sovereignty-by becoming a constituent of the National Grand Lodge.-§ 66.
21. That the negro Masons abandoned the requirement that candidates be "free born. “-§ 67.
Objection to later negro Lodges and Grand Lodges.
22. That their existence is an invasion of jurisdiction.-§ 68- 71.
Objections to recognizing.
23. That however legitimate negro Masonry may be, the Grand Lodge of Massachusetts has, it is said, decided against it, and all the world is bound by that decision.-§§ 77- 83.
24. That the language of our installation charges precludes recognition.-§ 84.
25. That there are rival Grand Lodges among the negro Masons, and they are "not ready” for recognition until they have settled their internal differences.-§ 85.
26. That recognition would injuriously affect the "high degree” bodies.-§_ 86.
14 REPORT ON CORRESPONDENCE.
27. That recognition would involve a recognition of the "social equality” of the negro.-6 87.
28. That recognition by one Grand Lodge might occasion inconvenience to others which did not recognize.—§ 88.
29. That for other Grand Lodges to recognize a particular negro Grand Lodge, before it had been recognized by the white Grand Lodge of the State in which it is situated, would be an infringement of that spirit of comity which pervades the relations between the white Grand Lodges.— § 89.
Objections to the initiation of PRINCE HALL and his companions.
10. Doubts as to their making.—The first objection to the regularity of PRINCE HALL and his associates which I shall consider is one of the "conclusions” of the Massachusetts committee of 1876,* that there is "No evidence that they were made Masons in any Masonic Lodge. “While the suggestion of such a doubt, never heard of until a century after the event to which it alludes, is an illustration of the methods of those who, having predetermined that—right or wrong—the claims of the negro Masons shall be rejected; it is to the credit of American Masons that few of them have laid any stress upon it. Like most of the "conclusions” of that committee, there is nothing at all in the body of the report to base it upon. Of course, the sufficient answer to this objection is that the Grand Master of England was satisfied on that point before he granted his warrant for African Lodge. That answer is not only a conclusive one when the matter is approached as a question of Masonic jurisprudence, but it was en
_______________________________________________________________________________________________
*Proceedings, G. L. of Mass., Sept. 1876, p. 59. This report, which appears to be about all of the literature of the subject which most of the southern committees have ever read, will be spoken of again in 182, post. As these so-called "conclusions"—many of which are not conclusions at all, and do not follow from anything stated in the report proper, but are mere assertions and opinions—haire been copied into nearly every committee report during the year and accepted as gospel, I give them here; and have inserted in brackets after each the sections of this paper wherein its subject is incidentally disposed of.
"1. No evidence that they were made Masons in any Masonic Lodge. [3, 10.] "
2. If made, they were irregularly made. M 11- 16.]"
3. They never had any American authority for constituting a Lodge. N 19.] "
4. Their charter from England was granted at a time when all American Masonic authority agrees that the Grand Lodge of England had no power to make Lodges in the United States after the acknowledgment of our independence, November 30, 1782, and the treaty of peace made November 3, 1783. 20.] "5. The Grand Lodge of England dropped African Lodge from their list in 1813. 45.] Said Lodge does not appear to have worked since PRINCE HALL'S death, in 1807, except this: that in 1827 parties calling themselves African Lodge, No. 459, repudiated the Grand Lodge of England. 44.] "6. The Grand Lodge of England did not delegate to African Lodge any power to constitute other Lodges, or to work elsewhere than in Boston. 50, 64, 68-71.] "7. No Masonic authority exists for any of the organizations since 1807, whether pseudo Lodges or Grand Lodges N 49-60]; and no evidence of the Masonry of any of their members has come to our knowledge. [3 6 last note.] "8. Neither English nor any other Masonic authority exists, nor has at any time existed for these colored Lodges located out of Boston to make Masons or practice Freemasonry.
N 50, 64, 68-71.] Each of them began its existence in defiance of the Masonic community of the State where located, and continues unrecognized by the regular Masons of the State. “[068-71.]
GRAND LODGE OF WASHINGTON. 15
tirely convincing to my mind when I approached the subject as a private inquirer. Yet for the benefit of the more skeptical, I add the following; Brother CLARK informs us* that "The records of the initiation of these fifteen colored men is in possession of the Prince Hall Grand Lodge of Massachusetts. “
Grand Master WILLIAM SEWALL GARDNER, in his address i to the Grand Lodge of Massachusetts, said (italics mine):
"I have no doubt that, on the 6th of March, 1775, the day after WARREN delivered his celebrated oration in the Old South Church, where he was menaced by British troops, PRINCE HALL and thirteen others received the three degrees in a travelling Lodge attached to one of the British regiments in the army of General GAGE, by whom Boston was then garrisoned; that PRINCE HALL and his associates met as a Lodge thereafter in Boston, without any warrant or authority until May, 1787. “
A committee reported to the Grand Lodge of Ohio in 1876 as follows:
"Your committee deem it sufficient to say that they are satisfied beyond all question that Colored Freemasonry had a legitimate beginning in this country, as much so as any other Freemasonry; in fact, it came from the same source. “
The absurdity is apparent of supposing that no denial of their Masonry would have been made at the time; no attempt to prevent their obtaining a warrant, when the fact of their initiation was common talk in Boston, and when the public press had stated that they had sent to England for a warrant, and were disappointed at its non-arrivall How many Lodges, formed in 1784, can now show where their members were initiated? But, after all, the true answer to this objection is that sufficient evidence must have existed in 1784 to satisfy the Grand Master of England; and it is immaterial whether that evidence still exists or not.
11. Objection that they were made in a Military Lodge.— It is objected that the making of PRINCE HALL and his associates was irregular because they were made in a military Lodge, and military Lodges — it is alleged — were forbidden by the law of the Grand Lodge of England to initiate civilians. If this last allegation were true — instead of being absolutely without any foundation whatever -it would be completely answered by the fact that these brethren were "regularized, “in 1784, in the only way then known to Masonry —by receiving the warrant of the Grand Master of England and being enrolled as Lodge No. 459 on the register of the premier Grand Lodge of the world.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________
*The Negro Mason in Equity by M.•.W.'.SAmuEc W. CLARK (n. p. [Cincinnati]: 1886), 14.
This admirable work so completely demolishes the principal arguments against the negro Masons that the present report would be superfluous were Bro. CLARK'S book in the hands of the brethren generally. JACOB NORTON and others examined these records. See 44, note; 80, note, post.
tProceedings, G. L. of Mass., 1870, p. 34. Grand Master GARDNER was the arch-enemy of the negro Masons, and this address is incomparably the ablest document of all that have appeared against them.
T_Composed, as has been said, "of the leading Masons of Ohio": Lucius V. BIERCE, ENOCH T. CARSON, FERDINAND WILMER, Louis H. PIKE and CHARLES A. WOODWARD.— Proceedings G. L. of Ohio, 1876, p. 17.
See 15, post; and Appendix 7.
16 REPORT ON CORRESPONDENCE
But let us probe this objection a little deeper. Who could make a law prohibiting the military Lodge from making PRINCE HALL a Mason?
Obviously, the Grand Lodge to which it belonged. Recognizing this, some of our critics * have cited OLIVER'S “Dictionary of Symbolic Masonry “for the statement that a law of the ( "Modern “) Grand Lodge of England forbade the initiation of civilians by military Lodges. It is almost cruel to give the answer to this rare instance in which those who have assumed that the Masons of Washington were ignoramuses, have deigned to cite any authority for their assertions. In the first place, OLIVER'S inexactness is so well known that he is never cited, by scholars, as authority on a disputed point; in the second place, at this point OLIVER was speaking of a period long subsequent to 1775; and, finally, it is absolutely certain that neither of the English Grand Lodges had any law on that subject at that time. I have before me the 1764 and 1807 editions of the "Ahiman Rezon “of the “Ancient “± Grand Lodge, the former of which was in force when PRINCE HALL was initiated — the next edition having appeared in 1778 -and in neither of these is there the slightest trace of any law on that subject. And I am authorized by the highest authority in England on such a point, Bro. WILLIAM JAMES HUGHAN, to quote him as saying that no such law appears "in any edition of the Constitutions “of the "Modern “Grand Lodge "until the year 1815. “t Should it be shown that PRINCE HALL'S initiation occurred in a Scotch or Irish Lodge, an even more stunning response to this objection would exist.
12. Same.—The Vote of 1773 .11—But so eager has been the desire to omit nothing that might becloud the mind of too inquiring brethren, that we have been gravely reminded that in 1773 the St. Andrew's Provincial Grand Lodge at Boston “passed a vote “that “no traveling Lodge had the right in this jurisdiction to make Masons of any citizens. “** It was -I will not say uncandid, but unfortunate and misleading that Grand Master GARDNER attributed this to “the Massachusetts Grand Lodge "; ft and Bro. WOODBURY to "the” Provincial Grand Lodge "of Massachusetts. “ft Many have been misled thereby into supposing that this vote
_______________________________________________________________________________________________
*Special report of Committee on For. Cor.; Proceedings, G. L. of Arkansas, 1898 ; et seq.
( By the last two words I mean, See also the reports of numerous other committees who have lazily followed the Arkansas assertion, and copied it into their reports, without investigation ) t The reader unfamiliar with the terms “Ancient “G. L. and “Modern “G. L. will find them explained in i24, post.
Bro. HUGHAN wrote the same thing to Bro. W. R. SINGLETON of the D. C., but Bro.
SINGLETON could not read his letter ! See Proceedings, G. L. of D. C., 1898, Cor. Rep., s.
v. "Kentucky. “
See 13, post.
**The language of this "vote” is not quite identical in all our authorities. My quotation is from the Woodbury Report.— Proceedings, G. L. of Mass., Sept. 1876, p. 67.
ft Address ; Proceedings, G. L. of Mass., 1870, p. 34.
Woodbury Report, ut supra. The St. Andrew's (Provincial) G. L. died with its Provincial G. M. in 1775. Or, if, as some of our Massachusetts brethren—of whom Grand Master GARDNER was not one (Address, p. 23)—prefer to hold, it be considered identical
GRAND LODGE OF WASHINGTON. 17
was passed by the Grand Lodge of Massachusetts, and there lies before the writer at this moment a letter from a most respected New England Grand Master, in which it is suggested that he and the Grand Master of Washington are precluded by "this action by the Grand Lodge of Massachusetts, with which the Grand Lodges of Washington and are in affiliation "! It may be advisable for the younger reader who desires to more clearly understand the condition of Masonry in Massachusetts at the time this vote was passed, to turn, at this point, and read what is said of the "Ancients” and "Moderns” in sections 22 to 26, and of Masonry in Massachusetts in sections 27 to 32. To appreciate the absurdity of citing this vote of 1773, the well-read Mason needs to be reminded of but few points:
First, that the body that passed it was not a Grand Lodge at all, but was a Provincial Grand Lodge* existing by the will and pleasure of the Provincial Grand Master appointed by the Grand Master Mason of Scotland; and had no jurisdiction whatever except over the four Scotch Lodges in Massachusetts, St. Andrew's and Massachusetts Lodges in Boston,
_______________________________________________________________________________________________
Tyrian with the independent body organized in 1777, it did not assume the name of "The Massachusetts Grand Lodge of Ancient Masons” until 1782. The present "Grand Lodge of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, “created by the union of the last-named body of "Ancient” Masons with the rival St. John's (Provincial) Grand Lodge of "Modern” Masons.
was not formed until 1792. The matter is more fully discussed in 27-32, post.
*The Address of Grand Master GARDNER, which contains the ablest attack on the negro Masons we have seen, also contains an able and scholarly discussion of the Provincial Grand Lodge system, from which the following correct statement of the subject is condensed:
"The Provincial Grand Master was appointed by commission of the Grand Master, wherein the extent of his powers were set forth, and by virtue of which he convened his Grand Body. In the language of early days, this commission was styled a Deputation, and this word conveys the true idea of the Provincial's position. It was a Deputy Grand Lodge, with its various Deputy Grand Officers, convened by the power and authority of the Provincial Grand Master as the Deputy of the Grand Master. It possessed no sovereign powers. * * * * "The allegiance of the Lodges and of the Craft was to the Grand Lodge of England [or Scotland, etc., as the case might be], and to the Provincial Grand Lodge and Grand Master, through the parent Body. There was no direct allegiance to the Provincial from the Craft. * * * * "Thus it will be seen that the Provincial Grand Master was appointed for the convenience of the administration of the affairs of the Grand Lodge of England in distant parts in the same manner that our District Deputies are appointed at the present time. * * "The Provincial Grand Lodge was the creation of the Provincial Grand Master, and was wholly under his direction and control. * * * In this Grand Lodge there was no inherent power, save what it derived from the Provincial Grand Master, by virtue of his delegated authority, thus making it the very reverse of a Sovereign Grand Lodge. * * "Such a Grand Lodge never possessed any vitality which would survive the life of the commission appointing the Provincial Grand Master.
"The death of the Provincial would also lead to the same result. The commission to him from the Grand Master would lose all its force upon his decease. * * * * [After quoting authorities]:
"If these authorities support the position taken, and if the conclusions arrived at are correct, it follows beyond all controversy that when Provincial Grand Master JOSEPH WARREN expired on Bunker Hill, June 17, 1775, the Provincial Grand Lodge, of which he was the essence and life, expired also, and with it all the offices of which it was composed. “— Proceedings O. L. of Massachusetts, 1870, pp. 13-23.
—2
18 REPORT ON CORRESPONDENCE.
at Gloucester, and St. Peter's at Newburyport;* that it was an "Ancient” body and had or claimed no jurisdiction over "Modern” Masons or their Lodges; and that a Provincial Grand Master, or the Grand Lodge of his province, had no jurisdiction over military Lodges temporarily in the province. The latter, whether "Ancient” or "Modern, “English, Scotch or Irish, owed no allegiance save to the Grand Lodge, whose warrant they held; and could laugh to scorn any assertion on the part of a petty Provincial body to legislate concerning them.± If the authors of the vote of 1773 had any idea of usurping jurisdiction over the English and Irish army Lodges, they forgot their own history, and disregarded the words of their own Grand Master; for when, in 1762, the English Lodges in Boston objected to the establishment of the first Scotch Lodge in that city, St. Andrew's Lodge, as an infringement on the jurisdiction of JEREMY GRIDLEY, the English Provincial Grand Master, the Grand Master Mason of Scotland wrote t (italics mine):
"I do not doubt nor dispute his [GmDLEy's] authority as Grand Master of all the Lodges in North America, who acknowledge the authority and hold of the Grand Lodge of England, as he certainly has a warrant and commission from the Grand Master of England to that effect. The Grand Master and Grand Lodge of Scotland have also granted a warrant and commission to our Rt. Worshipful Brother, Col. JOHN YOUNG, Esq., constituting and appointing him Provincial Grand Master of all the Lodges in North America who acknowledge the authority and hold of the Grand Lodge of Scotland. These commissions when rightly understood can never clash or interfere with each other. “
The Grand Master Mason of Scotland was right: He himself had no jurisdiction over the English and Irish army Lodges in America, and the petty Provincial Grand Lodge, whose very existence was dependent upon the pleasure of his Provincial Deputy, had none.
13. Same.—I had written section 12 before it occurred to me that it could possibly be necessary to verify the correctness of the statements of the Massachusetts writers, that there was such a vote as they speak of.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________
* For the last three Lodges, see Proceedings G. L. of Massachusetts, 1869, p. 172; and Drummond, in Gould's History, iv, 343. For St. Andrew's Lodge, see l 28, post.
t This was undoubtedly the general rule. The idea that a Grand Lodge ruled over territory instead of over the Lodges upon its own roll only and their members—could legislate for other Lodges or Masons, and even for profanes—first found adherents in any numbers, at a much later day. Indeed, if the "vote of 1773”was intended to suggest such a dogma, it probably is entitled to the distinction of being the first assertion of it, and may become as famous in history as the "crime of 1873. “Some reasons for thinking that it— remember we are now speaking of the legislative power of Grand Lodges, not of the judicial functions of a Lodge—is a false doctrine, and contrary to a fundamental principle of Masonry will be found in the introduction to the Masonic Code of Washington (Ed. 1897.) ; The letter is—or purports to be—quoted by DRUMMOND, Gould's History, iv, 300.
Throughout this paper, in citing Gould’s "History of Freemasonry, “the reference is to the American (pirated) edition—for the unavoidable reason that very few American readers have access to the English edition. In justice to GOULD, it should be remembered that he is not responsible for anything in the American edition after page 294 of volume iv. Pages 297-529 of that volume are by Past Grand Master J. H. DRUMMOND. The former is one of the most accurate and reliable of historians—Masonic or secular. The other writer is exactly the opposite; his quotations must always be verified and his conclusions received with caution, especially when he is engaged in controversy.
GRAND LODGE OF WASHINGTON. 19
Having now examined the official proceedings,* I find there never was any vote which purported to forbid the initiation of civilians by army Lodges.
But I will let section 12 stand, as a monument to the trouble to which a man can be put by writers who will not or do not quote correctly.
Past Grand Master GARDNER'S language was:± "October 1, 1773, the Massachusetts Grand Lodge, after mature deliberation, decided that neither the Lodge at Castle William, nor any other travelling Lodge, 'has any right to make Masons of any citizen. “
Brother WOODBURY'S committee said:
f "It is somewhat singular that the Provincial Grand Lodge of Massachusetts, October 1, 1773, passed a vote that 'no travelling Lodge had the right in this jurisdiction to make Masons of any citizens.' * * *”
But the original record, under the date above mentioned, reads as follows (the brackets are mine): I1 "The Petition of RICHARD CARPENTER & Others, under the 2d of June was this Evening Read, and The Substance therein debated, [The Grand Lodge being fully of Opinion that the Lodge at Castle William nor no other Travelling Lodges, has any Right to Make Masons of any Citizen,] The same was put wether the Prayer of the said CARPENTER & Others should be Granted, Passed in the Negative. “
What the nature of the petition was does not appear.
A child can see that Brothers GARDNER and WOODBURY— unintentionally, I do not doubt—quoted what was not in the record; that the matter which I have placed in brackets was not voted on; that that part of the record is but the opinion of the Grand Secretary, Brother HOSKINS, as to what influenced the minds of the members of the Grand Lodge. Had Brothers GARDNER and WOODBURY been writing up the Proceedings of their Grand Lodge in 1870 and 1876, respectively, they might have inserted the opinion that the Grand Lodge was "fully of Opinion” corresponding to theirs; but the Grand Lodge did not say so in their cases.** Similarly, Brother HOSKINS may have made a fine speech, taking the view expressed within the brackets, and may not have made a single convert to his view—and yet believed he had convinced all present.
However this may be, if the Prov. G. L. was of this "Opinion, “it did not say so. If it thought travelling Lodges did not have "any Right” to initiate civilians, either because it knew that it had no jurisdiction over them, or for some other reason, it did not venture to "decide” or "pass a vote” that they should not do so; and that is the end of this objection.
§14. Negroes ineligible.—We have now disposed of every objection that has been made to the mere initiation of PRINCE HALL and his associates, unless it be the objection that negroes are ineligible to be made Masons. During the last year there has been great anxiety manifested to waive this objection, and to insist that no question of race or color is
_______________________________________________________________________________________________
*Proceedings in Masonry, St. John's Grand Lodge 1733-1792, Massachusetts Grand Lodge 1769-1792. Boston. Published by the Grand Lodge of Massachusetts, 1895.
Address; Proceedings, G. L. of Mass., 1870, p. 34.
Proceedings, G. L. of Mass., Sept. 1876, p. 67.
1; Proceedings in Masonry, ut supra, p. 250.
**See 03 81, 82, post.
20 REPORT ON CORRESPONDENCE.
involved, and Southern committees have pointed triumphantly to the fact that they borrowed their arguments from Northern Masons — thereby claiming to clear their skirts of the charge of "race prejudice. “The writer has no earthly interest in showing that race prejudice is, and always has been, the real foils et origo of the opposition to our negro brethren; but such, beyond all question, is the fact. But for that, African Lodge No. 459 would have been as eagerly urged to come into the Grand Lodge formed in Massachusetts in 1792 as was St. Andrew's Lodge.
But for that, no Grand Lodge would have declared non-intercourse with WASHINGTON during the last year—not even those whose laws declare that a candidate for Masonry must be a "WHITE man;” or the one which recognized the Gran Dieta of Mexico at a time when, with no Bible on its altar, it was initiating women into Masonry, and which itself authorizes the three degrees to be conferred for a fee of ten dollars. It is insulting to our intelligence to appeal to the North as the friend of the negro. It was the North that mobbed GARRISON and murdered LOVEJOY. He spoke truth who so coarsely said, "The South said to the negro, 'Be a slave and God bless you:' the North said, 'Be free, and God damn you.' “
Even in California, less than forty years ago, to call a man an "Abolitionist” was the deadliest of insults. No, we are all "tarred with the same brush; ”tainted with prejudice, not so much against the negro race as against the race that has been one of slaves; and the Grand Master of Washington could produce scores of letters, written by Masons of national reputation, which, starting out with the claim that "this is not a question of color, but of jurisdiction, “wind up with a wail that "the presence of vast hordes of negroes makes this a practical question in the South; ”and that "if negroes be recognized, Masonry in the South will be destroyed. “
The answer to this is very simple: It is not true that Masonry compels me to recognize every Mason as my social equal; or to take him into my family or my Lodge. "For though all MASONS are as BRETHREN upon the same level, yet MASONRY takes no Honour from a Man that he had before; nay rather it adds to his Honour, especially if he has deserv'd well of the Brotherhood, who must give Honour to whom it is due, and avoid ILL MANNERS. “* If the law of Freemasonry excludes negroes, you do well to object to their presence. If it does not, and you are unwilling to submit to its laws, Freemasonry can do without you—is better off without you—though you represent a dozen Grand Lodges and carry half a million so- called "Masons” with you. Masonry does not exist "to vindicate the social supremacy of the Caucasian race,:' and the man who is particularly fearful of losing his social standing is usually the man whose social standing rests on a very unsubstantial foundation.
15. Same.—But this objection, though now largely abandoned from sheer shame at its unmasonic character, has been earnestly urged. Thus, in discussing this very question, it was said:
"It is indisputable that whatever theory we adopt as to the origin of
_______________________________________________________________________________________________
* The Charges of a Freemason, 1723.
GRAND LODGE OF WASHINGTON. 21
Masonry, that theory carries us back to the Caucasian race. * * * Masonry was originally what it is mainly to-day, a Social Institution; * * * into which it is not credible that anyone of the negro, or of any other of the inferior races, could have been admitted. * * * Under no circumstances whatever ought the legality of negro Masons to be acknowledged. “* In view of the protests to which reference has been made, it may be well to give a few out of the many illustrations, that are at hand, of the fact that race prejudice has been and is a potent factor in the matter.
LEWIS HAYDEN in a letter in The Pacific Appealt says:
"An article appeared in the Columbia Sentinel, published in Boston, in 1787 (before our charter was received), wherein sport was made by the White Masons over the supposed loss of our charter. As further evidence of the spirit of caste, contemporaneous with our existence, the historian Belknap, in 1795, gleaned the following statement from a White Masonic brother: 'The truth is, they are ashamed of being on an equality with blacks. Even the fraternal kiss of France, given to merit without distinction of color, doth not influence Massachusetts Masons to give an em brace less emphatical to their black brethren. * * *' “
In 1847, the Grand Lodge of Ohio adopted the following,t repealed in 1869, I believe:
-Resolved, That, in the opinion of this Grand Lodge, it would be inexpedient and tend to mar the harmony of the fraternity to admit any of the persons of color, so-called, into the fraternity of Free and Accepted Masons within the jurisdiction of this Grand Lodge. “
In 1851, the Grand Lodge of Illinois, "Resolved, That all subordinate lodges under this jurisdiction be instructed to admit no negro or mulatto as a visitor or otherwise, under any circumstances whatever. “II Iowa and New York also bear witness:
"Eighteen years ago [i. e., in 1852] the Grand Lodge of Iowa adopted a report on foreign correspondence, which embodied and endorsed the action of the Grand Lodge of New York, declaring that the 'exclusion of persons of the negro race is in accordance with Masonic law and the ancient charges and regulations,' and also declaring it 'not proper to initiate them in our lodges;' also, at the same time, it was declared 'inexpedient, as a general rule, to initiate persons of the Indian race, or constitute lodges among them.' "** The Grand Lodge of Delaware passed in 1867, and expunged in 1869, the following:tt "Resolved, That lodges under this jurisdiction are positively prohibited from initiating, passing, raising or admitting to membership, or the right of visitation, any negro, mulatto, or colored person of the United States.
This prohibition shall be an obligation, and so taught in the third degree. “
16. Same.—The Grand Master of Florida, speaking of the proposal of
_______________________________________________________________________________________________
*R. W. DANIEL SAYRE, Gr. Sec.; Proceedings, G. L. of Alabama, 1876.
tQuoted in the Voice of Masonry, May, 1876, p. 392.
New Day—New Duty (Cincinnati: 1875), pp. 11, 18.
11 Voice of Masonry, May, 1876, p. 393. I believe Illinois reverted to the ancient landmarks in 1871.
**Address of JOHN LONG, G. M.; Proceedings, G. L. of Iowa, 1870. Iowa rescinded this law in 1870.—New Day—New Duty, 25.
New Day—New Duty, 14.
22 REPORT ON CORRESPONDENCE.
Grand Master ASA H. BATTIN of Ohio to recognize the colored Grand Lodge of Ohio, said, in part:
"Does our brother for a moment stop to consider the vast horde of utterly ignorant negroes, liberated in the South, who aspire to reach after and lay hold of every privilege the white man enjoys? * * * I am fully of opinion that if our good brother, as many of the brethren of his jurisdiction have done, would sojourn a while with us, he would certainly be of the opinion that the fullness of time had not yet come; and that while this measure might possibly work good with him, it would work destruction to others of the Great Fraternity of Masons. * * * I will say in conclusion * * * that, with our distinguished brother, ALBERT PIKE, * * * 'When I have to recognize the negro, as he now is, as a Mason, I shall leave Masonry.' * * *"* The constitution of the Grand Lodge of Kentucky, still in force, provides that— "A candidate for initiation must be of the age of twenty-one years and a free-born white man. “± The Committee on Foreign Correspondence of South Carolina, in a special report on Negro Masonry, says:
"The Ahiman Rezon of South Carolina, compiled by that eminent author, erudite scholar and unsurpassed Masonic jurist, ALBERT G.
MACKEY,t and adopted by the Grand Lodge, specifically declares that a candidate must be of free white parents. “Il Let Texas be our last witness:
"As the result of that [a committee report in 1876] and of cognate reports, the following standing resolution was adopted, and which [sic] is now prominent in our laws:
“'This Grand Lodge does not recognize as legal or Masonic any body of negroes working under their charters in the United States, without respect to the body granting such charters, and they [sic] regard all such negro Lodges as clandestine, illegal and unmasonic; and, moreover, they [sae] regard as highly censurable the course of any Grand Lodge in the United States which shall recognize such bodies of negroes as Masonic Lodges.' Art. 36, Masonic Laws of Texas. “**
No, brethren, "Let us be honest. “If there is any man in America— black or white—who is wholly free from race prejudice, he may thank God that he is exceptionally favored. The writer cannot claim to be free from race feeling; but, it seems to him that if there are two places where it ought to be held in check they are in the Church and in the Masonic
_______________________________________________________________________________________________
*Proceedings, G. L. of Florida, 1876.
fArticle viii, Section 5.
that that I have said is, that the Masonry of this country, like that of every other country, recognizes no distinction of race or color in the qualifications of a candidate. “A LBERT G. MACKEY, in Voice of Masonry, June, 1876, p. 424.
II Proceedings, G. L. of S. C., 1898, p. 50.
**Proceedings, G. L. of Texas, 1898, p. 69. I may add that since the foregoing was in type I have been informed by two Texas-made Masons that in that State—and, they think, in other Southern States— white Masons are required to enter into an obligation not to recognize negro Masons. My informants are unable to remember whether this applies to all negro Masons or only to those made in the "negro Lodges. “That such an extraordinary and extreme departure from the basic principles of Masonry can have been made seems incredible—although, as we have seen in the text, it once occurred in Delaware; an d further comment will be reserved for a later page. See 3 87, post.
GRAND LODGE OF WASHINGTON. 23
Lodge. Not that men need worship or lodge together—that is a different thing. Masonry gives every Mason in the universe an absolute veto on any other man's entering his Lodge as a visitor or as a candidate; but it does seem that when we are called upon to pass upon the question whether a certain man is a Mason we ought to be able to put race prejudice beneath our feet. Whether we can do so or not, the fact remains that the color of PRINCE HALL'S skin did not vitiate his initiation; for by the practice of the tenets of Masonry, as PRESTON taught as far back as 1772,* "We are taught to regard the whole human species as one family,. the high and low, the rich and poor; who, as children of the same Parent, and inhabitants of the same planet, are to aid, support and protect each other. “
Objection to the inchoate Lodge, 1775-1787.
17. The Lodge before the warrant.—”I would inform you, “wrote PRINCE HALL, apparently to the Grand Secretary of England, in March, 1784, "that this Lodge hath been founded almost eight years. We have had no opportunity to apply for a warrant before now. * * * “
Brethren who have taken it for granted that Masonic usages in the eighteenth century were the same as those at the end of the nineteenth may be surprised, both at the idea of a Lodge without a warrant ( or charter ) and at the openness with which PRINCE HALL mentions his connection with such a Lodge. The latter fact was doubtless due in part to the fact, of which we shall produce ample evidence in another part of this paper, that such Lodges were so common at that time as to cause no remark, and to reflect no discredit— but sometimes quite the opposite— on those who established or belonged to them. The reader familiar with the usages of that time will have little doubt that PRINCE HALL and his associates assembled, as so many other Lodges then did, by authority of the Lodge which initiated them.** But whether they had such authority or not, and whether it was sufficient or not, is of no moment at this point; for these brethren conferred no degrees until they received their warrant in 1787, and that warrant made them as regular as any Lodge in the world. This last point I do not ask the reader to take for granted, but we will proceed to consider it.
Objections to African Lodge, No. 459.
18. That the warrant was forged.—No one believes in this objection today. We now know that, like most of the objections that have been made to the genuineness of the Masonry of the colored men, it was origi
_______________________________________________________________________________________________
* Illustrations of Masonry (14 Ed., London: 1829), 42.
1See the ringing words of the Grand Master of Ireland, upon this point, in Appendix 18, post.
t Negro Mason in Equity, 27; Proceedings G. L. of Mass., Sept. 1876, pp. 67, 68. HALL had been one of the first to volunteer in the defense of his country in 1775, and during the war had had little opportunity to think much about warrants.
II See 51-57, post.
**See the references last cited, and Appendix 1, post.
24 REPORT ON CORRESPONDENCE.
nally put forward not as a reason but as an excuse for denying them their rights. But as it makes an affirmative assertion of something which there was never the slightest foundation for believing to be true, it must have been put forth, originally, with a deliberate intent to deceive; and therefore it illustrates the methods of some who have written on this subject, as well as the credulity and ignorance of those who have been content to accept and repeat their assertions, without investigation. And this last mentioned habit, and the willingness of men to write about subjects of which they have not studied even the rudiments, explains why scholars and men who have any real knowledge of negro Masonry, or of the facts, principles and usages upon which the question of its legitimacy really depends, have nothing but contemptuous pity for the utterances of certain committees, Grand Officers and editors, during the past year.
"Fools rush in where angels fear to tread;” but men who in all the other affairs of life demand the use of modern critical and scientific methods in investigating historical questions, cannot, simply because they are Freemasons, disregard the knowledge which they have labored to obtain, at the instance of men too inert to ascertain the facts, or too deficient in the apparatus of criticism to appreciate the effect of the facts when they are presented by another. Nor can the man who views Masonry from the standpoint of the student, ever admit that questions of history, of law or of morals are to be determined by counting noses. GALILEO will still whisper, "It moves, nevertheless. “But "let us return to our sheep, “ lest some one be offended.
The objection that the warrant of African Lodge was a forgery was at one time urged as confidently as any of those which have been so passionately presented and implicitly relied upon during the past year. It is now in no greater contempt than they will be in a few years. Therefore, let us treat every objection, great or small, with equal seriousness.
19. Same.—It is now indisputable that a warrant in the usual form, attested by the Grand Secretary, and bearing date 29th September, 1784, was issued by authority of the Grand Master of England—of the premier Grand Lodge—to PRINCE HALL, BOSTON SMITH, THOMAS SANDERSON and others, constituting them "into a regular Lodge” under the title of "African Lodge. “* The Grand Secretary receipted for the fees for the warrant, 28th February, 1787. Its arrival in Boston was mentioned in the "Massachusetts Centinal” of May 2, 1787. The Lodge was placed on the roll of the Grand Lodge as No. 459, ranking from the year 1784, and appeared on every list of its Lodges until the Grand Lodge itself was absorbed in the United Grand Lodge at the end of 1813.± At the renumbering of the Lodges in 1792 it became No. 370. t
_______________________________________________________________________________________________
* GOULD'S Hist. of Freemasonry, iv, 268.; Proceedings, G. L. of Mass., 1870, p. 34; Id.
September, 1876, p. 65. The warrant has been often printed, e. g, in each of the Massachusetts pamphlets here cited; and in New Day—New Duty, 17; and CLARK'S Negro Mason in Equity, 28. See Appendices 4 to 9, post.
t R. F. Gould’s, "The Four Old Lodges and Their Descendants (London: 1879), 72, 78; W.
J. HUGHAN, Voice of Masonry, Nov., 1876.
Ibid.
GRAND LODGE OF WASHINGTON. 25
The warrant was seen by a committee of six members of the Grand Lodge of Massachusetts who reported, in 1869,— "Your committee have examined the charter and believe it is authentic. “* § 20. The independence of the United States had been recognized.—The objection that the Grand Lodge of England ceased to have jurisdiction to warrant Lodges in America when the treaty of peace was signed in 1783, will have greater weight in my mind when I learn that national independence operates to erect a Chinese Wall which Masonry cannot cross. I shall not waste time over this puerile objection. The Mason seeks the Master's Word that he may travel in foreign countries and work there; and no Mason, in ancient or modern times, ever did a Mason's work except in a Lodge. There is no Lodge on the continents of Europe, Asia or Africa that is not a monument of the right of a British Grand Lodge to erect Lodges in foreign, independent, Nations. The declaration of July 4, 1776,—not the treaty of 1783—made Massachusetts what China is today, an independent State; and it left England, in Massachusetts, the same right that Massachusetts to-day exercises in China, to erect Lodges there;—unless some totally different reason than the fact that the political independence of Massachusetts had been recognized, existed. I am not ignoring the fact that it is claimed that another reason did exist, but will next consider that.
21. Invasion of Massachusetts jurisdiction.—This brings us to a crucial point; for one of the two objections that has been chiefly relied upon by those who have written adversely during the last year has been that the warrant to African Lodge No. 459 was invalid because, in granting it, the Grand Master of England "invaded the territorial jurisdiction” of the Grand Lodge of Massachusetts, and consequently, it is asserted, African Lodge was clandestine or irregular ab initio. Recognizing the fact that this objection is a stumbling block to many honest minds, I shall waive the fact that, to my mind, to call a Lodge warranted by the Grand Master of England "irregular” is to employ a contradiction of termsj and to call such a Lodge "clandestine, “is the height of absurdity; and shall undertake to show: 1. That in 1784 and 1787 the doctrine of exclusive territorial jurisdiction did not exist; 2. That, had the doctrine existed, there was, at that time, no Grand Lodge which had or claimed exclusive jurisdiction over Massachusetts or even over Boston; 3. That the Body referred to by our critics was not one that the Grand Master who warranted African Lodge, or African Lodge itself, was bound to, or lawfully could recognize as a Grand Lodge of Masons; and, 4, that no invasion of jurisdiction, real or pretended, occurred.
But to make these matters entirely clear to any but the quite well-informed of my readers, I must ask leave to indulge in two long digres
_______________________________________________________________________________________________
*Proceedings, G. L. of Mass., 1869, p. 135.
jThe original definition of an irregular Lodge was "one formed without the Grand Master's warrant. “See 8, ante, and references there cited.
26 REPORT ON CORRESPONDENCE.
sions:* one for the purpose of showing the condition of British Freemasonry at the time referred to; the other for the purpose of showing the state of Masonic government in Massachusetts at the same period.
British Masonry, 1775-1787,—a Digression.
22. "Modern”Grand Lodge.—Origin of warrants and charters.— The Reformation of religion, by putting an end to the erection of great ecclesiastical buildings in England, seems to have dealt a heavy blow to the Fraternity of Free and Accepted Masons. The lack of employment seriously affected both the importance and the number of the operative members; and for a time the fortunes of the Fraternity were at so low an ebb that it was almost lost sight of, so that until very recently our historians were wont to confound our Fraternity with the guild masons — men who, as the researches of Brother SPETH and others have rendered fairly certain, were the very antipodes of our brethren. t The building necessitated by the great fire of London in 1666, said to have been inflicted upon the English on account of their cruelties to "the poor and innocent people of the Island of Schellingh, “t afforded relief to two generations; but early in the eighteenth century destruction seemed to stare the Fraternity in the face. At this juncture, a few brethren determined upon a radical step, viz.: to cut loose—so I am inclined to interpret our only historian of this period il—from the intimate relations they had maintained, from 1620 at least,** with the guild masons—the Masons' Company of London,—and "cement under a Grand Master as the center of Union and Harmony. “ft They formed, in 1717, the first Grand Lodge of Masons, and elected the first Grand Master, in the sense in which that title is now used. Until that time, indeed until 1721—nay, quite generally until many years latertt—the right to form a Lodge depended on no superior authority, but was regarded as inherent in the Masonic character. I am aware that at some unknown date in or before the preceding century, some now forgotten body, at some place equally unknown NI attempted to place
_______________________________________________________________________________________________
* Covering 22 to 32 inclusive.
t G. W. SPETH, What is Freemasonry? ( London, n. d., [ 1893 ] ); Ars Quatuor Coronatorum, x, 10; CONDER, The Hole Crafte and Fellowship of Masons, passim; Proceedings, G. L. of Washington, 1895, p. 184.
1. Londe-as Puyn-Hoop oft Godts Rechvaerdige Strafe, etc. (Rotterdam: 1666.) II ANDERSON, New Book of Constitutions, 1738.
**CONDER, Hole Crafte, pp. 7, 145.
ft ANDERSON, ut supra.
t See N 51-58, post.
I will anticipate a criticism by writers of a class which has been very much in evidence during the past year in discussing Negro Masonry and volunteering to instruct the benighted brethren of Washington by the recital of oft exploded old wives' tales,—brethren who have read nothing written concerning Masonry within thirty years except Grand Lodge Proceedings, and to whom the writings of that brilliant school of writers, founded by WoonFORD and HUGHAN and adorned by a score of names hardly less honored than these, who have revolutionized our ideas of Masonry, are a terra incognita;—by stating that the New' Articles were not "made and agreed upon by a General Assembly”held in 1663 by the Earl of ST. ALBANS. See HUGHAN, Old Charges, (1895 edition,) 122, 121. Local readers will find these New Articles in The Masonic Code of Washington, p. 190.
GRAND LODGE OF WASHINGTON. 27
a slight restriction on this right by adopting the "New Articles”or "Additional Orders;” but these Orders either fell still-born or soon became obsolete, and the fact that there was Masonic "work, “either operative or speculative to be done was sufficient warrant for the proper number of Masons to form themselves into a Lodge.* But, in 1721, the young Grand Lodge approved a set of General Regulations, No. viii of which, while it did not venture to deny this ancient right, sought to discourage it by declaring that the regular Lodges—that is the Lodges on the roll of the Grand Lodget—were not to "countenance” or own as "fair brethren and duly formed, nor approve of their Acts and Deeds, “any "set or number of Masons"—already members, as the context shows, of Lodges on the Grand Lodge roll—who should "take upon themselves to form a Lodge without the Grand Master's Warrant, “that is, authority.f This new rule was intended by the Grand Lodge to apply to the members of its own Lodges only,—for the idea that a Grand Lodge can legislate for anyone but its own constituents is an innovation of comparatively recent date and, if I mistake not, of American origin. There were other Lodges in England, and we shall presently see that the acceptance of this new dogma was very slow, and may be led to doubt whether it has even yet become quite universal. II
23. Rise of the "Ancient Masons. “—When the first Grand Lodge was formed in 1717, there were Masons in London who took no part in the new movement, some of whom began to observe its course with disfavor.
But the revival and "great run” which the Institution experienced, especially about the year 1722, due partly to the benefits of the Grand Lodge system, but perhaps more to the fact that a peer had accepted the Grandmastership, redounded to the benefit of these independent Masons as well as to that of the "regular” Lodges. "Old Brethren who had neglected the Craft” not only "visited the Lodges, “as ANDERSON tells us, but began to form Lodges of their own, "without the Grand Master's Warrant” but in accordance with immemorial usage. It used to be assumed that they were rebels** from the Grand Lodge, and even in so recent a work as his great History,ft Brother GOULD commonly styles the
_______________________________________________________________________________________________
* W. J. CHETWORDE CRAWLEY, Caementaria Hibernica, I, Introduction, 15; Lost Archives, 5; The Grand Lodge of Munster, 6. See also 51-58, post, and Appendix 16; but this fact is now universally admitted.
t See 8, ante.
T.That the word "warrant” here means "authority, “see Ars Q. C., viii, 193 et seq.; and Caementaria Hibernica, I, 7. Local brethren will find an account of how the authority was given, in Masonic Code of Washington, 111, note.
See 23, 24, 51 et seq. Towards the end of 1722 the Grand Lodge appears to have had 20 Lodges on its register.—ANDERSON, Constitutions, 1723. Dr. CRAWLEY, than whom no higher authority on this subject exists, estimates that prior to the organization of the Grand Lodge of the "Ancients” in 1751-2, the number of English brethren who were without "the Grand Master's warrant”for their Lodges, exceeded the number in the "regular Lodges. “—SPETH's An English View of Freemasonry in America (Tacoma: 1898), 14.
**Gould, The Athol Lodges (London: 1879), v.
ifThe last volume of which first appeared in 1887.
28 REPORT ON CORRESPONDENCE.
Antients, "schismatics. “But the later researches of SADLER* and CRAWLEYt have demonstrated that, for the most part, the brethren of these Lodges had never been connected with the "regularl Lodges; and, also, that from a very early date their relations with the Masons of Dublin were very intimate; and Irish names were very numerous on their rolls. II These independent Lodges, most of them new, but a few dating from pre-Grand Lodge times, existed in other parts of England, also, and were commonly called "St. John's Lodges. “** In Ireland they were sometimes styled "hedge” or "bush” Lodges. They are alluded to in the records of the Grand Lodge in 1723, 1724, 1735, 1739, 1740, 1749, 1752 and later.-t-t To detect the members of these Lodges when they presented themselves as visitors, the Grand Lodge, at a date which .may not be quite certain, and which is unimportant to our purpose, but which is commonly said to have been 17394$ "adopted some new measures, “which were immediately denounced as—and, although adhered to until 1813, at the union of the latter year were admitted to have been—a departure from the Landmarks; namely, it reversed the names of two columns— with all that that implies. This circumstance led many to renounce their allegiance to the Grand Master NI and increased the number of non-regular Lodges.
24. Same.—"Ancient” Grand Lodge. “—On July 17, 1751, a "General Assembly” of members of five or six of these non-regular Lodges —existing, as PRINCE HALL'S Lodge did from 1776 to 1784 or 1787, "without the Grand Master's warrant"—formed an organization to which the descent of more than three fourths of the "recognized” Grand Lodges in the United States can be traced. From the first, their record styled this body a Grand Lodge,***although they had no Grand
_______________________________________________________________________________________________
* Masonic Facts and Fictions (London: 1887),—an epoch-marking book.
t Caementaria Hibernica.
I Let it be understood that a "regular” Lodge meant one that had been "regularized” by having the warrant of the Grand Master for its existence;—that is, one that was sub regula, subject to the laws of, the Grand Lodge.—Gould, History, iii, 136, note 2. See 8 ante.
It is perhaps safe to say that an Irish Mason, especially one who belonged, socially, to the lower or lower-middle class, on going to England, A. D. 1730-1800, was almost certain to join an independent or "Ancient” Lodge and not a "regular” or "Modern” one. Of course there were exceptions.
**While the Grand Lodge always discouraged fraternizing with them, the less intolerant particular Lodges were often content if a visitor hailed "from a Lodge of the holy Saint John of Jerusalem, “instead of from "a regularly constituted Lodge. “Evidence of this can be found in the minutes—sometimes in the by-laws—of numerous eighteenth century Lodges. See post, 57 ad fin.
tjANnEnsoN, New Book of Constitutions, 1738, New Regulations passim. Gould, History, iii, 127, 128, 138, 142, 145, 147, 148.
1 GOULD, History, iii, 149.
PRESTON, quoted by GOULD, Ibid.
***JOHN LANE, Ars Q. C., v, 166 et seq. For this fact, and certainty as to the exact date of the organization, we are indebted to "Morgan's Register, “the "Large folio bound in White Vellum” mentioned by DERMOTT (GOULD, History iii, 187), long lost, which was discovered by SADLER and identified by LANE in 1885—apparently after GOULD'S account of the Ancients was written. GOULD (History, iii, 147, 191), on evidence which the researches of Brothers SADLER and CRAWLEY have rendered less conclusive, thought that even the olde-t of the Lodges which composed this Grand Body did not ante-date 1747.
GRAND LODGE OF WASHINGTON. 29
Master. Afterwards, "to supply the deficiency of a Grand Master, “they organized a "GRAND COMMITTEE, “presided over by a President. Its minutes are extant and full from Feb. 5th., 1752, when its "Grand Secretary, “JOHN MORGAN, resigned, and the talented LAURENCE DERMOTT was elected his successor—a meeting at which were "present the Officers of Nos. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10, being the representatives of all the Ancient* Masons in and adjacent to London. “On Dec. 5, 1753, by electing a Grand Master, this Committee transmuted itself into an undoubted Grand Lodget—the famous Grand Lodge of the Antient, or Atholl Masons, or Free and Accepted Masons according to the Old Institutions.
Space would fail us to properly eulogize the extraordinary genius of its Grand Secretary LAURENCE DERMOTT, the journeyman painter, to whom the marvelous influence of this body was due. "As a polemic, “says MACKEY, II "he was sarcastic, bitter, uncompromising, and not altogether sincere or veracious.** But in intellectual attainments he was inferior to none of his adversaries, and in philosophical appreciation
