The Builder Magazine

January 1918 - Volume IV - Number 1

 

"DEMOCRACY FOR ME "

BY BRO. THOMAS RILEY MARSHALL, 33D ACTIVE

VICE PRESIDENT, U.S.A.

ADDRESS BEFORE THE SUPREME COUNCIL, A.A.S.R., N.M.J.

THESE are days when he who is uncertain as to whether what he is about to say will help or harm his country's cause would better remain silent. These are hours when the ordinarily thoughtful man is looking backward, looking forward, looking around, and looking within.

 

He wants to know the history of his country; to diagnose present conditions; to determine, if possible, the future, and his part in this world tragedy. He beholds in retrospect almost a century and a half of unexampled progress and prosperity, and reverently lifting his eyes to the God of Nations, exclaims with the Psalmist of old, "He hath not dealt so with any nation."'

 

He searches his dictionary for a word that will express the dominant feature of these glorious years. He reaches the conclusion that America in all these decades has spelt, at home and abroad, more clearly than any other the word "Opportunity."

 

He observes that America has not been exclusively a land where only men thoroughly imbued with the principles upon which it was founded might build for themselves homes. Isolated from the beginning by countless leagues of sea, it was never dreamed that it could become involved in the politics and policies of Europe. This isolation led the rulers to throw its gates open to all who might care to enter. These came in unnumbered thousands and for reasons, often times, remote from those purely of government--some to advance their fortune and some their social standing; others to divorce themselves from distressful conditions -- social, economic, political, or religious.

 

It was not thought necessary to require the use of the official language in family and social life. We rather discouraged than encouraged the use of English. In many States we provided for the teaching of the home language in the public schools.

 

So thoughtless and indifferent were we to the shrinking of the ocean by steam and electricity that we rejoiced to observe everywhere business being conducted and social energies evinced under the hyphenations of British-American, Irish-American, German American, Franco-American, and Italio-American.

 

We took no trouble to protest against dual citizenship. We permitted foreign-born citizens to vote, with full knowledge of their right - which meant our consent - that whenever they chose to do so they could repudiate their American citizenship by appearing before a consul of their native land and become alien enemies.

 

All this and more because we never dreamed of European complications. We had but few whom we were pleased to denominate just plain, old-fashioned, American citizens. Within my knowledge, learned and patriotic Senators have debated with zeal whether it was American or Irish or German citizens who won for us our freedom in the Revolution.

 

Now, no one ever doubted the loyalty to the flag of all these people whether foreign-born or the sons of foreign-born. Our isolation made it immaterial to us whether there was any difference between loyalty and patriotism, and true to a thousand years of tradition, we did not face the question until it became of moment. The years drew us closer and closer to Europe in the ties of commerce and the friendly relations of travel. More and more we became a part of the world; and suddenly a mad monarch, drunk with military power and crazed with the idea that he was divinely ordained to rule the world, plunged Europe into a war so awful that all wars which had preceded it paled into insignificance.

 

Still we stood by our ancient ideas of isolation, but in two years and a half we discovered that there was a vast difference between loyalty and patriotism. The hearts of men flamed up very largely in response to the blood that flowed in their veins. Patriotism showed itself as dependent, not upon place of residence nor political ideas, but rather upon heredity.

 

Patience at last was exhausted, and there was nothing for a self-respecting people to do, if their Republic was to be true to its traditions, save to engage in the war on the side of democracy. I do not care to engage in any hair-splitting, although there seems to be much discussion as to whether this war is being waged "to make the world safe for democracy" or "to make democracy safe for the world." Of course, it was meant by the President, when he spoke of making "the world safe for democracy," of making it safe for real democracy.

 

We all know that liberty is not license, nor democracy demagogy. We all know that the world can not be made safe for murder and arson and pillage and anarchy and everything for which the syndicalist and the I. W. W.'s may stand; and we also know that such things as these can not be made safe for the world.

 

I do not stop to speak of the tradition, the history, and the duties of our own fraternity. There are three great forces, aside from arms and armament, which are molding the future as they have shaped the past. These are the teachings of the Nazarene, the tenets of our fraternity, and the tendency of democracy as disclosed in the ideas and ideals of the Republic.

 

When rulers and people are willing to do as they would be done by, when they are willing to meet upon the level, act by the plumb, and part upon the square. and when governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, then there will be a large assurance of permanent peace.  This can be brought about only by an appeal to the conscience. To do so, discussion is needful. Free thought must never be hampered. But because a man thinks a thing to be true, and has a right to utter his belief under a democracy, he is not justified, if he believes in God, in brotherhood, and in the Republic, in voicing his views under all circumstances.

 

There are many of us who should accept Paul's advice to the Corinthians: "All things are lawful unto me, but all things are not expedient."

 

Democracy means the rule of the people under whatever form of government they may choose to express it, but when once the rule of the people has been expressed, through their chosen representatives, then --and particularly in the hour of war-- however much any of us may think that certain of the policies are mistaken policies, free speech, free press, and liberty of conscience do not justify criticism, for criticism, however unintentional, invariably gives aid and comfort to the enemy.

 

Conscription as a principle may be a subject of debate, but not now. This Democracy has adopted it for the purposes of this war, and discussion of it ought to be held in abeyance. This Government, by its chosen Representatives, has declared this war. If there be any who think it is not justified, let him not be of aid and comfort to the enemy by voicing his sentiments. If laws are silent in the midst of arms, let all discussion as to the rightfulness or wrongfulness of the war, and as to the methods by which it is being prosecuted cease, unless by discussion the cause of the Republic and of human liberty can be advanced.

 

Democracy is constructive, not destructive; it is advisory, not critical. I would not have it understood that it is our duty to walk over the dead bodies of out convictions even to attain success. I admit that failure with honor is preferable to success with disgrace; but, believing as I do in the justice and necessity of our cause, I beg my brothers of this most loyal order when they speak, to speak whole-heartedly for the cause in which we are engaged, and not to criticize until mature thought and consideration have convinced them that by criticism they can advance the cause of our country and of universal democracy.

 

I do not speak of your duty to the Flag, nor of duty at all. I know duty is with us always; that it rises with us in the morning, sits down with us at the breakfast table, goes with us to shop and field and office; that it is the very shadow of ourselves, and the governor which keeps the engine of life moving smoothly.

 

I would have all men with us in this cause from a sense of duty, if for no other reason, but I would preferably have all enter into it from a higher sense, that of living sacrifice for generations yet unborn.

 

And now, in the wilderness of thought and of words and in the darkness and desolation of this hour, eyes are being turned to the sunlight of a new day, and we are asking ourselves, "What of the morrow?" "Is America to continue to be the land of opportunity?" To this we all answer fervently, "Yes," but to the question, "Is America to be exclusively the land of opportunity?" many of us answer, "No." America must be more than the land of opportunity. It must also be the land of obligation, for if the sun break above the cloud tempest and the battle din of this war upon a land exclusively of opportunity, then we shall have a people who may be loyal to the material interests of the Republic, but whose inner sentiments may be disloyal to its ideals.

 

Common gratitude to the fathers and savers of the Republic demand that we pour out the last drop of blood and expend the last dollar of money in the cause in which we have engaged. This, loyalty demands; but objectives in crucial hours assume new forms. Martin Luther thought he died a loyal Catholic; instead he died the founder of a new church. Abraham Lincoln thought he was called to the presidency to preserve the Union; instead he died the emancipator of the black man.

 

Whatever the original causes of this war and whatever the motives in its earlier prosecution may have been, they have now resolved themselves into a conflict between the two great systems of government --autocracy and democracy.

 

If, therefore, America is to remain just the land of opportunity, then nothing of any moment will have been accomplished by this war, so far as we are concerned. What, therefore, is the lesson of the hour to a body of men whose obligation is to the flag of their country? I dare not speak for you. I speak only for myself, and yet I would that it might be for you also. That lesson is, that this war shall furnish a new definition of patriotism. The word shall no longer mean the land of a man's birth, or the land of his adoption, the language he speaks, or the place where those he loves reside. It shall have evolved into a different meaning. It will demand of everyone who owes allegiance to any prince, or potentate, or autocratic power on earth, that he renounce that allegiance, and renounce also allegiance to every purely selfish pursuit and aim; that he subordinate the material interests of this Government to its ideals; that he take an oath of allegiance to an invisible government which believes, which teaches. which holds that all men are born free and equal, that governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, that none is fit to rule save of the free and untrammeled consent of the majority of those over whom he rules, that wealth is good and honor is better, but above all, that democracy is best. Whoever believes these things is worthy to be an American; whoever does not, is unworthy.

 

The world around, a free expression of opinion would show a majority of the people to be for the right and not for the wrong; for justice, not for injustice; for honesty, not for dishonesty; for peace, not for war, and that given the opportunity, the people will speak for the arbitration of courts, rather than for the arbitrament of arms.

 

To these old ideas, reborn in the travail of war, I pledge my fealty. I want this war to end, but not to end until the people in every land shall possess the right to make peace and declare war, either directly or through their chosen representatives. I want blood, and birth, and social standing, and educational qualifications, and religious trend all to be forgotten in this new parliament of new men, this federation of the world. I want those in this our land who do not thus believe to become fewer and fewer as the days go by.

 

I do not want entangling alliances with European nations. It is not necessary to have them. When we sit at the council table of the world, I trust we may do so as the representative of a newer and better isolation --an isolation of the spirit, free to say to the Germanic people, "Have what Government you please, but let us know that it is yours ;" free to say to the oldest of constitutional governments, the British Empire, "We have made this fight with you as our ally in the cause of democracy, but we are not willing to change our system. The Windsor tie does not harmonize with the cut of our democracy."

 

In other words, I want to be in the world to voice a view, to uphold a theory, but never to be compelled to do a wrong unless unfortunately it be for my own country.

 

This seems to me but to express lamely the view;. of the President of the United States. If this were a Democratic war, I should keep silent; if it were a Republican war, I probably should say unjustifiable things. It is neither. It is an American war, for only a coward, a poltroon, a trickster, or a political charlatan, seeking personal advantage, would have dared to evade it.

 

The flag can not wave with terror to its enemies save in the hands of a standard bearer. What you and I may think of the domestic views of the standard bearer can afford to wait. Forgetting blood and business, there are now, as always, just two grades of citizens in the Republic--the man who asks himself, "What can I do for my country?" and the man who asks, "What can my country do for me?"

 

So long as America was simply the land of opportunity I had much to say about these two classes and the unjustifiable advantages which were afforded to the latter. But now that we have become the land of obligation my voice is silent for the present. I await the conduct of my fellowmen, as I trust they will await mine, if mine be of any moment. So far as mere partisan debts are concerned, I have declared a moratorium until the war ends.

 

Rich and poor, high and low, labor and capital, protected and unprotected, all are forgotten. What they have, what they do, is of no moment if they be willing to sacrifice for the Republic and for democracy.

 

I am hoping to see revised one of Macauley's lays of ancient Rome, in which it can truly be said that none is for the party, but all for the state. I have already seen so much splendid self-sacrifice upon the part of men whom I have freely criticised heretofore that I stand dumb and speechless in the presence of mere partisan politics, and dare to lift my voice only in the hope that there may be in it one clear call of loyalty and devotion to the principles in which we pretend to believe, and to the man who is our spokesman.

 

It was the custom, upon the crowning of a Roman emperor, for the legions to pass in review before him. As each-legion appeared it halted and the commander took a solemn obligation to be loyal to the emperor and to the gods of Rome. As he concluded, each man in the legion lifted his good right hand to Heaven, crying out "This for me," This solemn ceremonial was enacted alike at the crowning of Marcus Aurelius, seeker after God, and of Nero, finder of the devil. The man was nothing, the office all.

 

Democracy in its partisan sense, Republicanism, Socialism, are just now in abeyance. The chosen representatives of the American people, regardless of their partisan views upon internal matters, have taken their oath of loyalty and devotion to the principles of the Republic, and to the President of the United States. Is it not possible to have until the conclusion of this war all hands in America lifted to the God of our fathers, and all voices proclaiming, "Woodrow Wilson. America, democracy, for me?"

 

----o----

 

THE GRAND ORIENT OF FRANCE AND THE THREE GREAT LIGHTS

 

BY BRO. J. H. RAMSEY, IOWA

 

The grouping of England, America and France as "Allies" in the present war has furnished civilization with many peculiar situations, in which Masonry shares. Believing that our Members will be deeply interested in knowing the facts surrounding the non-intercourse of English-speaking branches of the Fraternity with the French, we announce a series of articles, of which this is the first, dealing with various aspects of the situation.

 

The first, distinctly historical in its scope, is a paper which was prepared by Brother Ramsey in response to a question proposed at a Study Club meeting of Anamosa Lodge No. 46, in which the sole effort was to present the reasons why the Grand Orient took the position it did regarding the use of the Bible, and the subsequent action of American Grand Lodges. At the Lodge discussion when this paper was read, two ministers of the Gospel were present. One of them had travelled in France, and was familiar with the subject, which caused him to take a most sympathetic attitude toward the French viewpoint.

 

The second contribution on this subject comes from the pen of Brother R.E. Kellett, Grand Master of Manitoba, and though it bears the title "Internationalism and Freemasonry," its dominant theme is the position which the Grand Orient of France occupies in the Masonic category. The essay was written before the entrance of America into the war. It has been read before the Masters' and Past Masters' Lodge of Christchurch, New Zealand, bringing out a discussion which we hope to be able to digest for our readers in due time. This discussion, occurring in a Lodge most intimately associated with the Mother Grand Lodge, revealed a wide diversity of opinion on the subject, as it will undoubtedly do among our own members. We mention this particularly, not only because it reveals the broadmindedness and temperate spirit of our New Zealand brethren, but because the very fact that a whole session of the Masters' and Past Masters' Lodge was devoted to it is in itself significant of the scholarly qualities of the paper.

 

The third essay, "Freemasonry in France," has been written at our request by Brother Geo. W. Baird, 33d, P.G.M., of the District of Columbia, whose name is already a familiar one to our readers, and who was made a Mason in Portugal in a French Lodge. Through his position as Fraternal Correspondent of his Grand Lodge, Brother Baird has had an exceptional opportunity to keep himself in touch with world movements. This article will appear in an early number of THE BUILDER.

 

All of these contributions evidence an eagerness on the part of the writers that some way shall be found by which the nonintercourse of nearly forty years shall be eliminated. Justification for a careful research of the facts, if needed, may be found in the recent action of the Grand Lodges of New York, California and Kentucky, permitting their soldier members to visit Lodges in France.

 

The Question Box and Correspondence columns of THE BUILDER are open to you, Brethren. We wish to hear both sides, and know that there are many who will not be slow to take up the cudgels in support of the historic position heretofore taken by our Grand Lodges. If this discussion shall be the means of ultimately acquainting our members with the facts, it may also give French members of the Society an up-to-date expression of the American position--a result which may perhaps be of influence to both sides, in the future. EDITOR

 

JUST forty years ago, or to be exact, on September 14th, 1877, the Grand Orient of France voted to eliminate from its ancient constitution the following article: "Freemasonry has for its principles the existence of God, the immortality of the soul and the solidarity of mankind." It adopted in lieu thereof, the following:

 

"Whereas Freemasonry is not a religion and has therefore no doctrine or dogma to affirm in its constitution, this Assembly has decided and decreed that the second paragraph of Article 1, of the Constitution (above quoted) shall be erased, and that for the words of the said article the following shall be substituted:

 

1. Being an Institution essentially philanthropic, philosophic, and progressive, Freemasonry has for its object, search after truth, study of universal morality, science and arts, and the practice of benevolence. It has for its principles absolute liberty of conscience and human solidarity. It excludes no person on account of his belief, and its motto is 'Liberty, Equality and Fraternity."'

 

At the next annual session of the Grand Body in 1878 a move was made to conform the ritual to the change of the constitution and a committee directed to make report and recommendation for consideration at the following session.

 

Accordingly in September, 1879, upon report of the committee, a new ritual was adopted wherein all reference to the name and idea of God was eliminated, but liberty was given to the Lodges to adopt the new or old rituals as they should see fit. We are told, and can easily believe, that this action was taken in the Grand Lodge session amidst great excitement and in spite of a vigorous and determined opposition of the minority. Naturally, and as a matter of course, the change in the Constitution and ritual permitted the removal of the Bible from the Altar.

 

It is not too much to say that the Masonic world stood shocked and astounded at this radical departure taken by the French Masons. Probably nothing in Masonic affairs with the exception of the Morgan episode ever excited such widespread interest and apprehension. The Masonic press in every country was filled with vigorous discussion and many felt that it foreshadowed the division of the Craft into two great sections--one believers in Deity and non-political, and the other atheistic and democratic.

 

Grand Lodges especially in all English-speaking countries lost no time in condemning in bitterest terms the action of the Grand Orient and in severing fraternal relations. In our own State (Iowa) in the Grand Lodge session of 1878, the Grand Master said:

 

"The Grand Orient of France having obliterated from its constitution the paragraph which asserted a belief in the existence of Deity, and by such action placed itself in antagonism to the traditions, practice and feelings of all true and genuine Masons in this jurisdiction and the world, deserves no longer a recognition as a Masonic body from this Grand Lodge. Some years ago that Grand Orient persisted in an invasion of the American doctrine of Grand Lodge sovereignty, to the extent of organizing lodges in the jurisdiction of the Grand Lodge of Louisiana and other states. We then cut loose for a time from all fraternal intercourse with French Masons rendering obedience to that Grand Orient. Having not only set at naught the supreme authority of American Grand Lodges over their respective jurisdictions, but that of God over men and Masons, we should wipe our hands of all such bogus Masonry."

 

The deep concern with which the Grand Lodge of Iowa viewed this matter was but an indication of the sentiment prevailing in Grand Lodges of all English speaking countries at that time and in order that we may realize something of this let us read the resolution of our Grand Lodge in 1878:

 

To the M. W. Grand Lodge of Iowa:

 

"The special committee to whom the committee on the M. W. Grand Master's address referred so much of the same as relates to the Grand Orient of France, submit the following report:

 

"While we cordially agree with and endorse all of the views of our M.W. Grand Master and the Committee on this subject, yet we consider that its importance requires more than a mere resolution. If the course of the Grand Orient of France is allowed to go unrebuked and become the recognized law, we may well say farewell to Masonry. It is the glory of our Institution that we do not interfere with any man's religious or political opinions. At the same time we discountenance atheism and doubt, disloyalty and rebellion. No atheist can be made a Mason; and the first inquiry made of a candidate, after entering the lodge is, in whom does he put his trust? These are the essential requisites, and the cornerstone on which our Masonic edifice is erected. Remove them, and the structure falls. What is the course that the Grand Orient of France takes ? They have entirely blotted out this necessary qualification, and leave it to the "ipse dixit" of each initiate to decide as he prefers, thus entirely ignoring the imperative belief in God and His attributes, as understood in all enlightened countries. American Masons will not submit to such a monstrous proposition, and the mere thought of it is well calculated to arouse our indignation and dissent. We protest against such an innovation, and "wipe our hands" of it. Let such sentiments prevail, and our enemies will desire no better argument with which to destroy us. The Grand Lodges of Ireland and England have set noble examples to the Masonic world, by remonstrating, and breaking off all intercourse with these iconoclasts. Several of our Grand Lodges have followed their example, and others will doubtless soon join their ranks. We feel that we speak the sentiments of the Masons of Iowa when we say that we disapprove and condemn the course of the Grand Orient of France, and we desire to express these opinions still more emphatically by the resolution hereunto appended:

 

"RESOLVED, That the Grand Lodge of Iowa, having learned with surprise and regret that the Grand Orient of France has departed from the ancient landmarks, by blotting from the constitution and ignoring the name of God, and not making a belief in Deity a prerequisite for initiates, does hereby express its indignation at the course she has taken, and herewith severs all relations heretofore existing between us.

 

"RESOLVED, That a copy of this resolution be sent to the Grand Orient of France, and to each of the Masonic jurisdictions with which we are in amicable relation."

 

With both friends and enemies of Masonry unreservedly condemning the action of the French Brethren it would seem that there must be little justification or defense. But as is usually the case there were two sides to the issue. There were some peculiar circumstances including such a radical departure, and the most interesting part of this discussion will be to learn the motives and objects which actuated those responsible for it. Do not forget, that if allowed to exist at all in Catholic countries, as frequently they could not, Masonic Lodges necessarily had to he much different in character than are ours in this "land of the free and home of the brave." France and the French people had been under the dominion of the Catholic Church from time immemorial and at that period a large majority of the population were its members. The Church controlled all affairs of the State. Of course Masons were struggling for liberty, justice and equality in order to accomplish the separation of the Church and State and to loosen the hold of the Church on the school system and public affairs, it was essential that the reformers should be united and that none should be excluded by reason of his belief. Thus the Grand Orient stood as the logical nucleus around which an organization might be effected. They needed the support of all men of every shade of religious belief, hence the declaration of absolute freedom of thought and the elimination of all dogma, always,--as they expressed it--"the starting point of narrowness and persecution." This was in 1877.  In 1907--thirty years later--France accomplished the division of the Church and State and Catholicism no longer remained "The Religion of France."

 

There was another factor in the controversy-- The Scottish Rite body of Masonry, with which the Grand Orient had been in continual controversy for many years over matters of jurisdiction and the right to confer certain degrees. The Grand Orient Masons have always resented the accusation that they promulgated unbelief and atheism. In fact, and in support of an opposite contention, they cite the circumstance, that when the amendment to change the constitution was proposed, at a meeting of the Council, preliminary to the Grand Session, a Protestant minister, M. Desmons, drew the report in support of the resolution in which he argued that the disappearance of the original article of belief would not imply a profession of atheism, but merely an admission into the Craft of men of all opinions, and that Masonry should welcome men of all doctrines and every shade of thought.

 

Here is the idea of a member of the Grand Orient, expressed only a few weeks since:

 

"The Grand Orient of France, while it respects all philosophical beliefs, insists upon absolute liberty of belief. This does not mean that we banish from our lodges the belief in God. The United Grand Lodge of England on the contrary desires to make a belief in God in some manner compulsory. The Grand Orient of France is much more liberal, since in proclaiming the absolute liberty of belief it permits to each one of its members the liberty to believe or not to believe in God, and by so doing desires to respect its members in their convictions, their doctrines and their beliefs.

 

"This is the reason why fraternal relations do not exist between the United Grand Lodge of England and the Grand Orient of France. We regret this exceedingly. England has always been considered, rightly in other respects, a country of liberty. It is difficult to understand under the circumstances why the Freemasons of this great and noble nation should want to deprive their brothers of France of this same liberty."

 

Brother J. G. Findel, the well known scholar, historian and journalist, in writing to the London Freemason in 1878, ably stated the contentions of the French body in these words:

 

"But it is not my intention to give such general declarations on the true meaning of the Royal Art, as it seems more necessary to help to a right understanding of the resolution of the Grand Orient of France. Our French brethren have not deserted the belief in the existence of God and immortality of the human soul, in striking out the discussed words of the first article of the constitutions, but they have only declared that such a profession of faith does not belong to Masonic law. The Grand Orient has only voted for liberty of conscience, not against any religious faith. Therefore, the true meaning of the French constitution is now only, that each brother Mason may believe in God or not, and that each French Lodge may judge for itself which candidate shall be initiated or not. The French vote is only an affirmative of liberty of conscience, and not a negation of faith.

 

"The excommunication of the Grand Orient of France by the Masonic Grand Lodges, is therefore an intolerant act of Popery, the negation of the true principles of the Craft, the beginning of the end of cosmopolitan Freemasonry. The excommunication of the Grand Orient of France only proves the sectarian mind of the excommunicating Grand Lodges, which have forgotten that Masonry has for its purpose to unite all good men of all denominations and professions: they profess the separating element, and destroy the Craft, and waste the heritage of our more liberal and more tolerant forefathers. The Masonic union will in future be a mere illusion, if the AngloSaxon Masons condemn the French, German, Italian Masons, &c., and vice versa."

 

The great questions of recognition, invasion of jurisdiction, establishment of irregular lodges and many other matters which grew out of this movement can hardly be followed here. They are worthy of further discussion.

 

What we started to tell was "Why the French Grand Orient removed the Bible from its altar." It has been noted in a very brief way how they did it and under the exigency of the situation "got by with it" with a good conscience. That they were actuated by high purposes few will deny, but most Grand Lodges then held and still aver that Masonry can not be Masonry without strict adherence to the requirement of a belief in God. Few of the Grand Lodges severing relations have ever resumed them. Such action is still within the range of future possibilities. Who can tell ?

 

----o----

 

OPINION AND ACTION ON MILITARY LODGES BY GRAND MASTERS

 

In the December issue of THE BUILDER we published, in an article of five pages, a number of replies from Grand Masters of the United States and Canada concerning the action taken or contemplated in regard to the issuance of Dispensations to Military Lodges in their respective Grand Jurisdictions. The personal opinion of the Grand Masters was given where no action had been taken. Many of these replies were crowded out of that issue for lack of space and these are here presented.

 

ALBERTA REQUEST FOR DISPENSATION REFUSED

 

At our Annual Communication in May, 1916, M.W. Brother S.Y. Taylor, Grand Master, in his annual address stated that he had received requests from several brethren who were members of the 56th Overseas Battalion, to grant a Dispensation to them to form a Masonic Lodge. After careful investigation by him the request was not acceded to, and the Grand Lodge approved of his decision. After discussing the matter in Grand Lodge, the three principal objections brought forward were:

 

1. That as the Battalions leaving Canada would doubtless be broken up and drafted into other Battalions it would be difficult for the Lodge to hold its identity.

 

2. It was considered an infringement of jurisdiction to grant a charter to hold Lodges outside Alberta.

 

3. There were sufficient Lodges in England, France and elsewhere to amply look after our Military brethren Masonically.

 

Without going further in the matter, I personally am in complete accord with the decision of our Grand Lodge. W.M. Connacher, Grand Master.

 

* * *

 

ARIZONA GRAND MASTER DOUBTS PROPRIETY OF SUCH LODGES

 

I have given some consideration to the question you present and, in my judgment, the establishment of these Lodges would be of very unquestionable propriety, for several obvious reasons. First, it would be extremely difficult to exercise the same degree of care in the choice of materials, as well as in the actual operation of the Lodges, in conformity with the principles and precepts of Masonry. Second, it seems to me that, with the great responsibility now resting on our Government and the Nation, it is the duty of us all to eliminate to the least possible degree, every activity not calculated to contribute directly to the energetic prosecution of the war. Our soldiers, and many of them are Masons, will have an immense amount of work to perform that they will have but little time, if any, to devote to outside interests. It seems to me that the whole thought and energy, not only of our Army and Navy, but to a very large degree of our whole people, should be devoted, for the present at least, to this one great enterprise. Masons can serve not only their country but our Institution better in this way than if their energies are divided or in any way directed to the organization or maintenance of anything not calculated to contribute directly to the successful prosecution of the one enterprise.

 

Charles C. Woolf, Grand Master.

 

FLORIDA GRAND MASTER NOT INCLINED TO MILITARY LODGE IDEA BUT THINKS HIS GRAND LODGE READY TO ASSIST OTHER GRAND LODGES IN ANY ADVANTAGEOUS ARRANGEMENT

 

In the main I do not approve of the idea of Military Lodges for history shows there is great difficulty in keeping records, etc., which to my mind is highly important.

 

However, I am sure it is the desire of the Grand Lodge of Florida to assist the American Grand Lodges in this matter as fully as circumstances will permit, and to make any arrangement that will be advantageous to the American Forces in Europe which will enable Army Lodges to confer degrees upon citizens of Florida who may be serving in the Army at that time and place, taking it for granted that the fact of the applicant being regularly in the service and on foreign soil, it would be considered a waiver of jurisdiction sufficient to enable the soldier or sailor to receive the degrees in a Lodge chartered by any of the American Grand Lodges. Apelles S. York, Grand Master.

 

* * * KANSAS DEPUTY GRAND MASTER STUART FOLLOWS PRECEDENT OF FORMER GRAND MASTERS AND DECLINES TO AUTHORIZE FORMATION OF MILITARY LODGE

 

I was called upon to take action on such matter, and the following is a copy of my decision. Wm. I. Stuart, Deputy Grand Master.

 

(Copy) Colonel Frank L. Travis,  Ammunition Train, 117th Division,  Garden City, Long Island, New York.

 

My dear Sir and Brother:

 

The petition of yourself and other brethren addressed to the Most Worshipful Grand Master, Charles E. Lobdell, asking for letter of Dispensation, to form a military Lodge U. D., under authority of the Grand Lodge of Kansas, has in the absence of Brother Lobdell from the state, been referred to me. After giving the matter careful and due consideration, I have come to the conclusion that it is neither expedient or desirable to grant such a letter of Dispensation. To do so would be to act contrary to the rulings already laid down on this subject by previous Grand Masters. In the proceedings of the Grand Lodge of Kansas of 1866, page 15, it is said in relation to Military Lodges:

 

"Now when these lodges have ceased to exist, truly, indeed, it is said that the 'questions raised' are of the most grave and serious import. The Grand Lodge of Kansas has cause to rejoice that she unhesitatingly refused to give the sanction of her Masonic authority to a single military lodge, and may congratulate herself that none of those Masonic Ishmaelites can trace their paternity to her indiscretion."

 

The history of military lodges in other Grand Jurisdictions has proven most unsatisfactory. Most Worshipful Thomas J. Turner, Grand Master of Illinois, in his address to the Grand Lodge of Illinois in 1865, concerning military lodges, had this to say:

 

"Previous to my installation, several dispensations had been granted by my predecessor to open military lodges in the army then in the field. I have never been fully informed as to the extent of the powers granted by these dispensations, but I suppose they did not confer any authority to invade foreign jurisdictions and make Masons from the citizen soldiery of other States. In all the dispensations for military lodges granted by me, jurisdiction was limited to a single regiment of Illinois troops to which the dispensation was granted. I am led to believe that some of the military lodges working under dispensation from our jurisdiction have greatly abused their privileges, and brought reproach upon our Order. Instead of confining their operation to Illinois regiments and troops exclusively, as they ought to have done, they made Masons indiscriminately from soldiers and citizens of other States, with very little regard for the kind of material used. Wisconsin, Minnesota Iowa, and Missouri, have especial cause to complain in this respect.

 

"M.'. W.'. Brethren Geo. W. Washburne, Grand Master of Wisconsin, A.T.C. Pierson, Grand Master of Minnesota, and E. A. Guilbert, Grand Master of Iowa, in the most fraternal manner, called my attention to the fact that these military lodges were in the habit of making Masons of citizens belonging to their respective jurisdictions, and that candidates had been admitted whose characters wholly disqualified them from becoming Masons. As soon as these facts became known to me, I at once addressed letters to the Masters of all the military lodges working under dispensations from our jurisdiction, instructing them not to receive or act upon the petition of any one who was not known to be a citizen of the State of Illinois. About that time most of our military lodges suspended work, and, the war being closed, they ceased to exist, having done some good and much mischief. I would fraternally ask our sister Grand Lodges to overlook errors which were not designed or sanctioned by the Grand Master or the Grand Lodge of Illinois.

 

"There is one question connected with our military lodges to which I invite your careful attention. What is to be the status of Masons who were made in those lodges? The lodges ceased to exist when the war closed. Some of them had been broken up through the long marches and hard fighting which immediately preceded the cessation of hostilities; the brethren have no dimits, and in many cases cannot procure even certificates of having been made Masons; some have received only one and others only two degrees. They are all Masons, and will naturally seek affiliation with Masons when they return to their homes. How that affiliation shall be accomplished, and how those who seek advancement shall be disposed of, are questions of grave importance, and of sufficient magnitude to demand your prompt attention.

 

"In behalf of the brethren who have been made Masons in our military lodges from citizens of other States than Illinois, I would fraternally ask that our sister Grand Lodges adopt some plan by which they may, if found worthy, become affiliated with lodges in their respective jurisdictions."

 

That part of his address above quoted, was referred to a Committee on Grand Masters' addresses, who submitted the following as their report thereon:

 

"Very grave and serious questions are raised by so much of the address as relates to military lodges and their action. Either by direct authority of the Grand Lodge in dispensations conferred, or by usurpation of power in those to whom the dispensations were committed, it is clear that the rights of sister Grand Lodges have been repeatedly invaded. Masons have been made not only of citizen soldiers of Illinois in the field, but also of known citizens both of loyal and disloyal states, under apparent authority from this Grand Lodge. For those who were thus made Masons, and who reside in this jurisdiction, this Grand Lodge should provide by recognizing them as such, and a resolution to that effect is appended. For those who have been made Masons, and who of right belong to other jurisdictions, this Grand Lodge can do no more than to request the appropriate Grand Bodies where they may permanently reside to adopt them into the general Brotherhood, if in other respects found worthy, and thus to heal the breach which has been made in the walls.

 

"It is to be hoped that this experience will forever close the question of traveling lodges operating within regular foreign jurisdictions."

 

I desire also, to call your attention to an opinion of the Grand Lodge of California on this subject. It says:

 

"An army lodge is an anomaly in Masonry. Its meetings are held at any place where the exigencies of the military service may cause a temporary encampment. If held in our own country, such meetings are necessarily an invasion of the jurisdiction of other regularly constituted lodges. During the clash of battle in our late Civil War, it sometimes happened that army lodges, with their charters and records, were swept from existence, and the unfortunate members of such lodges were thus deprived of membership, without dimits or other records to show that they had received the degrees of Masonry in a regularly chartered Masonic Lodge."

 

There are many other authorities holding to the same effect, but it would seem unnecessary to quote them further. For the good of the Fraternity generally, throughout not only the Grand Jurisdiction of Kansas, but throughout the world, I am constrained to deny your petition for letter of Dispensation for such military Lodge. (Signed) Wm. I. Stuart, Deputy Grand Master.

 

* * *

 

LOUISIANA OPPOSED TO MILITARY LODGES--FAVORS RECOGNITION OF FRENCH MASONS

 

After giving the matter very careful consideration I must state that personally I am opposed to the establishment of Military Lodges in this country for various reasons.

 

First, I do not believe there is any power vested in the Grand Master to issue Dispensations for so-called Travelling Lodges. Second, I do not believe that one could avoid intrusion upon the jurisdiction of other Grand Lodges.

 

Third, The proper safe-guards could not be provided in the way of suitable Lodge rooms so that work could be done by the Lodges in a creditable manner.

 

Fourth, A Travelling Lodge cannot have the facilities of a Regular Lodge, as to tracing the genealogy of the profane, and upon this score it would cause confusion upon the disbanding of the Travelling Lodge and the members made therein might not be such as would be acceptable in a Regular Lodge. And if such were the case, those who had attained the Master Mason Degree in a Travelling Lodge and who would make application for affiliation to a regular Lodge would be more or less humiliated should they be unable to obtain membership in a Regular Lodge after their Travelling Lodge had disbanded.

 

I take the stand that in this country all cantonments are located near cities that have Masonic Lodges and in my jurisdiction, where I find that there are not sufficient Lodges, I recommend the establishment of another Regular Lodge.

 

I am also taking steps to provide proper rest-rooms, reading-rooms, etc., under the supervision of the Masonic Lodges located in cities near the cantonments. So far, we are utilizing the lower floors of the Masonic Temples for the purpose and committees are appointed to look after the welfare of visiting soldier-Masons.

 

I realize, however, that some arrangement should be made to look after the American soldier-Masons while in France, because of our not being in fraternal intercourse with the French brethren, and I believe there should be a concerted action by all Grand Lodges or Grand Masters.

 

I, for one, am strongly in favor of putting into practice that which we teach--"The Universality of Freemasonry," and stretching forth our-hands to our French brother and calling him "Brother" in every sense of the word. And why not do it? John W. Armstrong, Grand Master.

 

* * *

 

MAINE NO ACTION TAKEN--GRAND MASTER UNFAVORABLE TO THE IDEA No action has been taken by the Grand Lodge of Maine on the question of Military Lodges, neither have I taken any action in the matter. Personally I am not in favor of granting such permission.  Waldo Pettengill, Grand Master.

 

* * *

 

MASSACHUSETTS PRESENT CONDITIONS DO NOT WARRANT GRANTING SUCH DISPENSATIONS-- BECOMMENDS ARMY AND NAVY MASONIC CLUBS Under existing conditions I do not feel that it would be wiseto grant Dispensations for Army or Travelling Lodges during the period of the war. Indeed there is perhaps some doubt as to whether or not, without an amendment to the Grand Constitutions, the Grand Master has the right to grant such privilege. It may be that conditions will change so that it will seem best at some future time to authorize the forming of Army Lodges under the jurisdiction of our Grand Lodge as was done during the period of the Revolutionary and Civil Wars. I do not believe that such a time will come.

 

Masonic intercourse can be sustained and encouraged through the forming and maintaining of Masonic Clubs both in the Army and Naval branches of the service. With Masonic Lodges in almost every village and hamlet in this country there will certainly be no lack of opportunity to attend Lodge meetings so long as our military forces remain in the country.

 

Should the war be long continued and large numbers of our Massachusetts enlisted brethren be sent abroad the question of Travelling Lodges may assume a different aspect. For the present I do not think we should authorize such Lodges. Leon M. Abbott, Grand Master.

 

* * *

 

NEVADA GRAND MASTER OPPOSED TO MILITARY LODGES BUT FAVORS MEETINGS OF BRETBREN FOR INSTRUCTION, EXCHANGE OF FRATERNAL GREETINGS AND FOR MASONIC FUNERAL SERVICES On the subject of Military Lodges our Grand Lodge has taken no action whatever. There are no cantonments within this State, neither are there any Regiments or other military organizations formed in, or coming from this State. Therefore my opinion will be personal and from a Masonic standpoint only, and as follows:

 

The several Grand Lodges should not issue Dispensations for Travelling Military Lodges during the period of this war for the following reasons:

 

The jurisdiction of a Grand Lodge of any State is confined entirely to the territory within the boundaries of that State, and therefore a Lodge receiving its charter from one jurisdiction could not hold its meetings in another State and do so without there being an invasion of Masonic rights.

 

I believe it would be unwise, irrespective of any legal barrier, to grant a Dispensation to a Lodge in a training camp, with full power to perform Masonic work. It would have a tendency to place our Institution on a plane beneath the one it has always held and to which it rightfully belongs.

 

Proper investigation on the part of committees on petitions might not be made, for reasons which must be apparent and need no setting forth at this time. Even in stable communities we all know the black ball is one of our pillars of protection and regret to admit that perhaps it is not used as often as it should be.

 

In the event of removal to France, let us say, of any Regiment holding a Dispensation from a certain jurisdiction which does not recognize the Grand Orient of France, what then ? These brethren would not have the right of visitation and again it would be worse than an invasion on the rights of the French Masons; not recognizing them, yet establishing a Lodge in their midst, or in other uords, "flaunting a red flag."

 

The real Mason or Builder of the craft will not lose an opportunity to visit a nearby Lodge or to mingle with the brethren as often as possible, even if he be confined to a military camp. Nor will he forget his teachings, should he have a proper understanding of what Masonry tries to impart to its votaries.

 

I feel that permission should be given, on proper request and after due investigation, to our brethren to assemble in safe places for instruction if necessary, for the exchange of fraternal greetings and to hold Masonic services over a deceased brother. Thomas Lindsay, Grand Master.

 

* * *

 

NORTH DAKOTA MATTER UNDER CONSIDERATION--ANY REQUEST MADE WILL PROBABLY BE GRANTED We have had no request for a dispensation for a Military Lodge. However, this matter has been under consideration by us for some time and we are inclined to feel that should such request come to this office that it will be granted. North Dakota has gone squarely on record as backing the government and we wish ts show every consideration to the members of the Masonic fraternity who have responded to their country's call. William J. Reynolds, Grand Master.

 

NOVA SCOTIA GRAND MASTER FAVORABLE TO TIIE IDEA BUT REFUSES TO GRANT DISPENSATION FOR MILITARY LODGE TO BE COMPOSED ONLY OF OFFICERS Perhaps I can best convey my views on the question of Military Lodges, by the following extract from my address to the Grand Lodge of Nova Scotia, delivered at the last annual communication, held in June, 1917:

 

"While the Brigade of Nova Scotia Highlanders were encamped at Aldershot undergoing training, I received a request from some fifty members of our Lodges who were officers praying for permission to establish a Lodge in connection with the Brigade, which they would take with them Overseas. Previously I had discussed the idea with some of our Brethren in the service there and who were members of this Grand Lodge, and had expressed myself as favourable to the idea. I believed that it would not be establishing a precedent, that dispensations had been issued in other Grand Jurisdictions for similar reasons, and I knew that we could not do too much to brighten the time while absent from us of our many brothers in this valiant Brigade. When the application, which was in perfect form, reached me, there was an accompanying number of resolutions, which had been adopted by the applicants at an informal meeting held some days previously. One of these resolutions was in effect that the membership of the Lodge would be restricted to the officers, of whom some eighty, I was told, were Masons. At the same time I was aware that there were in the ranks, among the non-commissioned officers and men also a large number of our Brethren. The reason advanced for the restricted membership was largely fear that a Lodge open to all classes in the Brigade would be unwieldy. While I had much sympathy with this view, the petition was denied on the grounds that owing to the governing resolution it might be construed as the establishment of a class Lodge."

 

The special committee appointed to report on the address did not deal specifically with this portion, but generally treated of the official acts in these terms:

 

"Regarding his official acts, we feel assured that dispensations were not granted unless the Grand Master was satisfied that it was in the best interest of the Craft that they should be. Your Committee concurs in the decisions he has given anrl recommend they receive your approval."

 

 The report was unanimously adopted by Grand Lodge.

 

A close perusal of the annals of British history, especially with regard to naval and military adventure will establish that Masonry closely followed the flag. An instance is recorded in connection with the wresting of Canada from the French in 1759. The expedition was under command of General Wolfe and captured the strongholds of Louisburg and Quebec. A part of the "furniture" of the expedition was a Masonic Lodge, which held meetings on board the ships of the squadron. Don F. Fraser, Grand Master.

 

* * *

 

OHIO DISPENSATION GRANTED TO OHIO BRETHREN IN ALABAMA--CAN CONFER DEGREES ONLY IN FRANCE ON OHIO MATERIAL Answering yours of the 18th relative to Military Lodges will say that I made a recommendation against such Lodges in my annual Address, but of course based upon the hypothesis that these Lodges would be conferring degrees in various Jurisdictions of this Country.

 

At the meeting of our Grand Lodge a resolution was offered to grant a dispensation to a number of Ohio Brethren at Camp Sheridan, Montgomery, Alabama, to organize an Army Lodge, which, however, would not have power to confer any degrees anywhere in the United States, but only in France, and then upon such applicants as would be eligible to petition Ohio Lodges for the degrees. These and a number of other safeguards were provided in the regulations. After this there was no opposition whatever to the granting of the dispensation, and it was readily and unanimously granted by the Grand Lodge.

 

The Grand Master, Brother Henry M. Hagelbarger, of Akron, Ohio, has also been given power to grant dispensations to other Army Lodges in Ohio under the same restrictions and regulations. Joel C. Clore, Past Grand Master.

 

* * *

 

OKLAHOMA

 

GRAND MASTER HAS ISSUED DISPENSATIONS FOR CONFERRING DEGREES OUT OF TIME BUT IS OPPOSED TO ORGANIZATION OF MILITARY LODGES

 

Personally I am not in favor of chartering a lodge at any of the military or cantonment stations.

 

It is my opinion that the lodges near are sufflcient to carry on the work of the fraternity in a wholesome manner. I do not believe in too much fraternal agitation when we have to make a display of it as the chartering of a lodge would certainly do.

 

Personally, as Grand Master, I have given hundreds of special dispensations to confer the degrees out of time on worthy young men whose petitions for the degrees had been regularly received and had remained with the lodge a constitutional number of days for ballot, and who have been duly elected.

 

In my judgment this is the best way to handle the Masonic situation as far as military force is concerned. Any man who desires to become a Mason has the opportunity of being made one under such regulations as th;s and at the same time each individual lodge has the constitutional length of time to study the character of each applicant before he is elected.

 

If they petition for the degrees and have to leave before they can be elected, a special dispensation, together with a request, will give the applicant the work at whatever cantonment or fort at which he happens to be located.

 

In my judgment this is not the time to argue, or raise the question of the patriotic duty of the President or those associated with him in granting or refusing secret orders privileges on military grounds.

 

In other words, I am with the Government of the United States and intend to sustain our President, at least until the close of the war.

 

This battle is in the interests of democracy and democracy is in the interests of Masonry.

 

Samuel W. Hogan, Grand Master.

 

ONTARIO GRAND LODGE AND GRAND MASTER OPPOSED TO GRANTING OF SUCH DISPENSATIONS--REFUSED TO DO SO IN 1914 AND 1915

 

The question of granting dispensations to Naval and Military Lodges was, in 1914 and 1915, suggested by some of the members in our jurisdiction, but the weight of opinion was, and I think still is, that it would be unwise to grant Military and Naval warrants in these days when Grand Lodges are so evenly distributed in such numbers over the civilized world. It was felt that there would be great difficulty in regulating the powers of such lodges, controlling the conduct of the members thereof and preventing encroachments in jurisdictions where sensitive brethren might be offended by unwarranted trespassing on their rights. No matter how praiseworthy our conduct might be and how pure our motives, we felt there was too much to be lost and too little to be gained by warranting Military and Naval Lodges. We, therefore, decided to take no action.

 

I do not intend this as any reflection on any jurisdiction that has granted or intends to grant warrants for Military and Naval Lodges. I wish these courageous brethren all success.

 

W. H. Wardrope, Grand Master.

 

* * *

 

PENNSYLVANIA MILITARY LODGES WOULD DETRACT FROM THE BUILDING OF CHARACTER

 

No occasion has arisen for the official action of this Grand Lodge upon the subject of Military Lodges.

 

As Grand Master I have discouraged applications being made for warrants of "Regimental" or "Army Lodges." As I view it, there are several objections to the granting of such warrants--among them might be mentioned the difficulty and almost impossibility of keeping proper records. Then, too, Freemasonry is a solemn and serious business. One of its main objects is the building of character. This requires deliberate and careful study of the genuine principles of our Fraternity. The conditions which would warrant a peripatetic Lodge would be unfavorable to this result. In all probability neither the character of our work, nor the spirit of Freemasonry would be maintained to the high degree to which it is entitled, by the establishing of Military Lodges.

 

Louis A. Watres, Grand Master.

 

* * *

 

QUEBEC NO DEMAND FOR SUCH ACTION IN THIS JURISDICTION IN MANY YEARS

 

I presume your inquiry has been prompted by the prospective large number of soldiers going overseas but so far as this jurisdiction is concerned neither myself nor this Grand Lodge has taken any action in connection with the matter seeing that there has never been any demand for same for many years.

 

My personal opinion is that the necessity for such Lodges has long since passed away seeing that the common practice existing from 75 to 150 years ago of sending regiments to far off countries and keeping them there for long periods has to a large extent ceased and the rapid growth of Masonry in those parts of the world has placed within easy reach of Military forces Masonic communications which did not previously exist.

 

This country has four hundred thousand men on active service 3,000 miles from their homes, but no question of this nature has arisen, indeed under present conditions of warfare such Lodges would be of little service or benefit. At the present time a Mason may easily be fighting at the front today and tomorrow night he may be in London attending his Lodge meeting. What a change in conditions from the time the battle of Waterloo, for instance, was fought! W. W. Williamson, Grand Master.

 

RHODE ISLAND

 

OBJECTIONS TO SUCH LODGES OUTWEIGH RESULTANT GOOD SOUGHT FOR

 

The Grand Lodge of Rhode Island has taken no action with reference to the establishment of Military Lodges. The Semi-Annual Communication of the Grand Lodge will be held in November, but so far as I am advised there is no intention to take favorable action upon this question at that time. In my opinion the objections to the advisability of granting permission for the organization of such Lodges far outweigh the resultant good that is sought to be accomplished.

 

1. While there may be ample precedents for the establishment of Military Lodges, such precedents are founded more upon the old than the new conception of Masonic regularity.

 

2. It would be impossible to exercise over Military Lodges that direct supervision and control which now ensures harmony and uniformity among subordinate Lodges.

 

3. The nature of the environment and the vicissitudes of military life would necessarily preclude the exercise of such prudence as should always safeguard Masonic activities.

 

4. The inherent difficulty and impossibility at times of complying with constitutional rules and regulations and the consequent hasty, incomplete and ineffective exemplification of the work resulting therefrom.

 

5. The temporary and transitory character of the authorization of such Lodges, the inevitable conflict of powers underdispensations from so many grand jurisdictions, and the slight and imperfect connection and attachment to a supreme body.

 

6. The certainty of there being such a large number of unaffiliated Masons throughout the country after the termination of the war upon the revocation of the dispensations authorizing such Lodges.

 

7. In general the establishment of such Lodges would not tend toward the maintenance of the present high standard of Masonic qualification that is now exacted, but would tend to the impairment of the authority, regularity, conservative reputation and future usefulness of the Fraternity. Herbert Ambrose Rice, Grand Master.

 

SOUTH CAROLINA

 

NO ACTION TAKEN--WOULD BE UNWISE UNDER PRESENT CONDITIONS

 

I have your two letters requesting me to give you my views as to the advisability of getting permission for the organization of Military Lodges.

 

Our Grand Lodge has not taken any action with reference to this matter and I do not personally favor any such action at this time. So far as I know, all of the cantonments are located near regularly constituted Lodges and the Masons in this State are extending every privilege and courtesy to the brethren in camps. So long as this condition exists, I do not think it would be wise to authorize the organization of Military Lodges. In addition to this, it is very doubtful whether the War Department would permit such organizations.

 

R. A. Cooper, Grand Master.

 

 SOUTH DAKOTA MILITARY LODGES FAVORED--PROSPECTIVE CANDIDATES SHOULD BE ELECTED BY THEIR SOME LODGES--MILITARY LODGE TO CONFER DEGREES AND PROPERLY INSTRUCT CANDIDATES

 

The young manhood of our country is called upon to pass through an experience the far-reaching consequences of which they do not perhaps fully realize.

 

It is to be theirs to assist in the determination of the future of nations: to change the course of history.

 

They are going out to unknown perils--physical and moral.

 

Their physical welfare will be provided for as far as is possible.

 

Can we, believing as we do in the elevating influence of Masonry, do better than to make it easier for those eligible to admission to obtain entrance into our Order and receive the benefit of its infiuence as a moral balance-wheel ?

 

I believe Army Lodges should be established; that they should not have power to receive and act on petitions; that prospective candidates should apply to their home lodges and, if elected, the lodge electing notify the army lodge, which should be empowered to confer the degrees and properly instruct the candidate, who would become a member of the electing lodge upon receiving the M. M. degree.

 

Fred H. Rugg, Grand Master.

 

TEXAS

 

NO PROVISION IN TEXAS LAW AUTHORIZING MILITARY LODGES

 

Our Grand Lodge meets in Annual Communication the first week in December, when this matter will probably come up for action. At present, there is no provision under our law for army lodges, and I do not believe that our Grand Lodge will establish them.

 

Frank C. Jones, Grand Master.

 

 VIRGINIA

 

WOULD GRANT DISPENSATION TO MILITARY LODGE FOR SOCIAL AND BENEVOLENT PURPOSES

 

Your letter addressed to Brother Field has been passed on to me. Brother Field died on July 31st, and I have succeeded to the position of Grand Master.

 

I am opposed to the organizing of Military Lodges, at the present time. In 1864, Grand Master Harmon, who was in the Confederate Army refused to grant dispensations for the organization of Military Lodges in Virginia. When a soldier, who would of all men know of the needs of such Lodges, refused to organize same, I am constrained to believe that it would not be for the best interest of Masonry in Virginia for me to issue dispensations at this time to organize Military Lodges. I would strongly resent any Military Lodges coming into this Grand Jurisdiction and conferring degrees either on a man from Virginia or not. The facilities for obtaining the degrees are so great now that no worthy man need be kept out. In addition to this, no Grand Master would refuse to grant dispensations to those who are either in, or ready to go in, the Military service of the Country, that would expedite the conferring of the degrees upon them. I would, however, not object where there was a sufficient number of Masons in a Company or a Regiment from this State to granting them a dispensation to open a Masonic Lodge, provided that they would not be permitted to receive the petitions of anyone or confer degrees. In other words, if they wanted a Lodge for purely social and benevolent purposes, I would not be adverse to granting dispensation for same.  Earnest L. Cunningham, Grand Master.

 

WISCONSIN GRAND LODGE HAS TAKEN NO ACTION

 

The Grand Lodge has taken no action on the matter and I have given it no consideration as yet. I will be glad to write you at a later time concerning this. W. S. Griswold, Grand Master.

 

WYOMING FIELD LODGES NOT FEASIBLE

 

You have asked me what, if any, action has been taken by the Grand Lodge, A. F. & A. M., of this jurisdiction or myself as Grand Master, upon the question of Military Lodges and in reply I beg to state that no action along this line has been taken either by the Grand Lodge or by myself. The Annual Communication of the Grand Lodge was held in September and the matter was not discussed; neither has any request or suggestion along the line been made to me in my official capacity.

 

My first impressions, after reading your letter were that Military Lodges might be considered somewhat in the nature of a necessity under the present stress of circumstances and that their creation would therefore be for the good of the craft. Upon more mature reflection, however, I am about convinced that no permanent and lasting good could come from this free and easy, and haphazard manner of dispensing Masonic authority. In the first place, a Military Lodge could in no sense of the word be stable or permanent; its officers and membership must necessarily be continuously changing with the demands of military necessity. A Lodge cannot give best results except under a Master and Wardens, as well as inferior officers, who are in a sense, permanent for at least a period of time, working for the welfare of the Lodge and the brethren. One of the Landmarks of the Institution is that only men of character and of good report before the world should be admitted to membership. The only method by which society may arrive at its conclusion as to these characteristics in a man is by observation of the deportment of an individual living in a community for a period of time. In a Military Lodge this would be entirely dispensed with and while it might be handled with sufficient care in the case of permanent Lodges in admitting military men without the required length of residence to afford security, yet where the entire membership is of this class, more or less slipshod methods would necessarily obtain. The bar naturally created by military discipline between officers and enlisted men would not serve to a good advantage in a Lodge composed strictly of these classes, while the same bar would not have effect in the ordinary civilian Lodge where officers and men mingle with civilians. The naturally floating character of a Military Lodge, the difficulty of keeping its records and keeping track of its membership, together with the very near offense against Masonic tradition and law of a Lodge under one Grand Jurisdiction sitting as a Lodge within a sister Grand Jurisdiction, throws a realm of doubt around the proposition which leads me to believe that it would not be the part of Masonic wisdom to constitute strictly Military Lodges, unless, perhaps, it might be at permanent military posts under the Grand Jurisdiction in which they are located.

 

The demand in our jurisdiction has been taken care of to a considerable extent by special dispensation to confer the degrees upon applicants who have been called to the colors.

 

T. Blake Kennedy, Grand Master.

 

----o----

 

THE RENASCENCE OF THE SCOTTISH RITE

 

BY BRO. FREDERICK W. HAMILTON, 33d ACTIVE, GRAND SECY., MASS.

 

THIS momentous event was far more than a union or reunion of bodies which had unfortunately fallen into separation and discord. Had it been only that, it would well deserve our rejoicings. Its inner significance, however, was so much greater that, so far as the Northern Masonic Jurisdiction of the United States is concerned, the title which I have chosen for this paper does not go beyond the facts.

 

Only the briefest historical resume is desirable at this time. We all remember how two movements purporting to be beginnings of the Scottish Rite were started in New York at nearly the same time, one by Bideau, the other by Cerneau. Judged by modern standards the Bideau movement was of doubtful regularity, the Cerneau movement undoubtedly irregular. We know how any irregularities which may have attached to the Bideau movement were healed by the action of the Southern Supreme Council, and we know how the Cerneau movement, again and again dying and as often revived, managed to maintain a precarious existence. We know the story of the unfortunate break in the ranks of the body descending from Bideau when the majority of the members of the Supreme Council repudiated the leadership of Raymond and chose Van Rensellaer for their head. We know also how the Raymond body combined with the Cerneau body and in turn reunited fifty years ago with the followers of Van Rensellaer.

 

We can never fully understand what occurred until we realize where the real root of the trouble is to be found. It lay in the unregulated and sometimes reckless use of the unquestionably great powers belonging to a Sovereign Grand Inspector General. A man who had attained to this rank was and is a Masonic monarch. Excepting so far as his powers were limited by the Constitutions of Frederick the Great, he was a Masonic autocrat. Even the Constitutional limitations were not always observed. The Sovereign Grand Inspectors General not only possessed these great powers, but they possessed the right of conferring them upon others without diminution. Unfortunately, these powers carried with them the opportunity for personal emolument, as it was entirely within the right of a Sovereign Grand Inspector General to take fees for degrees and deputations, and to convert those fees to his own use. Theoretically, these powers still belong to the office of a Sovereign Grand Inspector General. In practice, as I need not remind you, they are generally held in abeyance, at least so far as their exercise by individuals is concerned. In the earlier phase of the Scottish Rite in America, however, the Sovereign Grand Inspectors General took themselves and their powers very seriously indeed. We find them founding new bodies by their own authority and without conference with other Masons of like grade: We find them admitting others by patent to their own exalted rank, and these others, in turn, extending the Rite and passing on their powers by deputation. We find any Sovereign Grand Inspector General, without always exercising much care as to the letter of his authority and jurisdiction, conferring degrees on whomsoever-he chose.

 

The powers of a Sovereign Grand Inspector General were ad vitam, and he could confer powers ad vitam upon others by deputation. All the officers of Supreme Councils, whether elected or appointed, served ad vitam. It is only necessary to recall these conditions to see how practically inevitable it was that confusion should occur, that acts of doubtful regularity should be done, that questions of authority should arise practically impossible of solution, and that arbitrary and improper use should be made of power.

 

Indeed under those circumstances it would be very difficult to decide how far the powers of an individual Sovereign Grand Inspector General or of a Sovereign Grand Commander did really extend, or to pass authoritatively upon the regularity of many acts which might be seriously questioned though committed with the best of intentions. In fact the schism in the Northern Supreme Council arose out of just such a condition.

 

Fortunately we are not called upon to sit in judgment today upon the men of the period before 1867 or upon their acts. We are concerned only with the facts and we are happily able to say that the most important facts involve constitutional questions about which equally good men might wisely differ, questions which, indeed, have not been settled to this day. No one can question the absolute sincerity and entire conscientiousness of Edward A. Raymond. His distinguished career as a Mason in Massachusetts, leading through many honors and culminating in the great office of Grand Master of that ancient jurisdiction, is sufficient testimony to the quality of the man. Acting with a high sense of responsibility he interpreted in the largest sense the powers which he held not only as a Sovereign Grand Inspector General but as Sovereign Grand Commander. He undoubtedly felt that this last position gave him a measure of authority over the other Sovereign Grand Inspectors General which was in some respects even greater than the prerogatives of a Grand Master. The majority of the other Sovereign Grand Inspectors General, whom we should today consider as his peers, took a different view. They were men whose sincerity and conscientiousness are no more open to question than Raymond's. Among them were some of the wisest and most accomplished Masons of their day. Moved by the same high sense of duty and responsibility they not only refused to recognize the powers which Raymond claimed and exercised, but they went farther and claimed the right to depose him, a right which he in turn refused to recognize.

 

There was here an irreconcilable difference of opinion upon a grave question of Constitutional Law concerning which equally well intentioned men with equal knowledge of the Constitutions and equal Masonic vision and experience might and did differ irreconcilably. We are not called upon today to say that either party was wrong or that either was right. As we shall presently see, the question was removed from the region of practical importance by the conditions of the reunion.

 

 The schism once created, the inevitable evil consequences ensued. It is not necessary to go into the details of mutual attack and defense, of competition and rivalry, or of desperate plans laid to meet desperate conditions. It is enough to say that in the storm and stress of the struggle between the rival councils, both were led to do things which neither would have thought of doing under normal conditions. It is significant that after the reunion the brethren were unwilling to discuss those days which seemed like nightmares in their recollections.

 

Our Ill. Brother Gallagher made earnest and repeated efforts to induce Ill. Brother Samuel C. Lawrence to record his memory of those days, offering to send a stenographer to whom General Lawrence could talk informally, and to do the work of editing these informal notes, submitting them to General Lawrence for his final approval, but in vain! Even to this day Ill. Brother Daniel W. Lawrence, the Nestor of Massachusetts Freemasonry, is unwilling to go into these discussions.

 

But after all these occurrences did not indicate the real nature of the brethren of those days. Most, if not all, of the members of both Supreme Councils were clear of head and sound of heart. Consider for a moment who and what they were. All men have a right to have their words and deeds, real or alleged, judged in the light of their personality and of their entire records. A certain man said, "I came not to bring peace, but a sword." The words themselves might well have fallen from the lips of the arch enemy of mankind. Their true value appears when we consider them in the light of the life and character of the man who uttered them, the man who has been called for nineteen centuries the Prince of Peace.

 

The members of the Rival Supreme Councils were picked and chosen from the body of Masonry, that is to say, from a body of men already selected with care. They had been tried and tested by many years of experience and of service. They had won the love and respect of their Brethren. Many of them stood very high in the esteem of their fellow citizens generally. They were outstanding individuals in the splendid body of American manhood and citizenship. Such men could not fail to perceive and to deplore the conditions which existed, nor could they fail earnestly to desire their amendment.

 

It was only necessary that they should be brought together face to face and kept together long enough to wear away the first antipathies and asperities and to bring their real natures to the surface, to bring about an amicable adjustment. Fortunately there were those among them who were ready to promote and assist such a conference, and who had the tact, the persistency, and the sweet reasonableness which would enable them to do away with surface difficulties and to keep at their task of peacemaking until the heart of the matter was reached. These peacemakers set about their task with a patience and a devotion worthy of their purpose. Without a trace of selfish ambition or desire for personal aggrandizement they set themselves wholeheartedly to the noble and glorious world of saving our beloved Institution from the condition into which it had fallen and making possible the realization of the splendid ideals of Scottish Rite Masonry. How gloriously successful they were, we know. How they labored and what sacrifices they made, we can never fully know. How full and free the mutual surrender and renunciation was which actually took place we have many times been told. It is no wonder that these men, not weaklings or callow youths, but strong men, mature, distinguished, flung themselves into each other's arms with shouts of joy, that they wept and sang, and danced and shouted like a group of school boys. They did not rejoice with the calm satisfaction of the statesmen who sees the fruition of plans long cherished. They rather rejoiced with the exuberant satisfaction of those who throw off an intolerable burden, who escape from thraldom and who feel that at last they can be themselves.

 

Had they stopped to think about it as statesmen they could hardly have adequately estimated the importance of what they had done. They had done more than bring together two rival bodies. They had brought together into a harmonious and effective whole two widely different temperaments and sets of ideals. The old Scottish Rite Masonry was deeply imbued with the political and social ideals of Continental Europe before the French Revolution, the age of the benevolent despots. It was deeply tinctured with the philosophical universalism and independent free thinking of a time when these intellectual qualities had to be cherished in secret. In spirit it was thoroughly monarchical. All power was inherent in and proceeded from the Sovereign Grand Inspectors General. Authority devolved downward from the head. It was not derived from the members. It was no accident that Frederick of Prussia was its great patron and organizer. The complex character of Frederick, the most autocratic of monarchs who yet considered himself the first functionary of the state, the military genius who found his greatest pleasure in writing verses and playing the flute, the widely read philosopher who regarded all religions with toleration not quite free from disdain, and who spent his life in the service of his fellow men as he understood it, but without ever learning to love them, finds many a reflection in the temper and spirit of the older Scottish Rite Masonry.

 

Blue Lodge Masonry, however, was of different origin and of a different spirit. In its organized form it came from England and brought with it the traditions of English liberty and democracy. Descended from a long line of organizations of intelligent workingmen, it was full of sturdy independence, of democratic self-reliance, of the wholesome scorn of artificial social distinction native to those who have learned in the school of breadwinning that true aristocracy restores efficiency and service.

 

While free from the narrow limitations of sect or creed, it was in fact mainly Christian and not a little disposed to be Puritan. In spirit it was thoroughly democratic. Its Grand Masters possessed great inherent powers and prerogatives. They were monarchs, it is true, but they were elected, Constitutional monarchs, serving for but a short time and returning into the body of the Brethren by whom they had been chosen and from whom they had derived their powers. The distinguishing characteristic of Blue Lodge Masonry of British origin is that the seat of power is not in a monarch or in a House of Peers; it is in the great body of the Brethren.

 

The happy blending of these widely differing temperaments and methods gave the newly organized Supreme Council union, stability, and power. The old lawless fashion of exercising the great powers of the Sovereign Grand Inspector General without regulation and without responsibility to his peers was distinctly ended. The introduction of the system of the election and appointment of the officers of the Supreme Council, including the Sovereign Grand Commander, for terms of short duration settled the question of the responsibility of the Sovereign Grand Commander to the Supreme Council. The question of the power of the Council to depose its Commander is hardly more than an academic one when that officer is elected for a term of only three years. He may well serve so long as health and strength may permit, but his peers by their triennial exercise of the suffrage pass judgment upon his stewardship.

 

The powers of a Sovereign Grand Inspector General are today in no wise really diminished or impaired, but his use of them is carefully regulated and remedies are provided for their abuse. More important than all the Constitutional regulations is the new spirit of solemn responsibility in the exercise of a great trust. The Sovereign Grand Inspector General no longer considers himself a ruler over his brethren, but a servant among them, recognizing in the high office to which he has been called, not a personal honor, a gift of power, or an opportunity for enrichment, but seeing in it only the call to a great service which his Brethren deem him better fitted than another to render.

 

The powers of the Supreme Council are unimpaired. It is still the source of all power and authority in the Rite. There is neither power nor authority anywhere in the Rite which does not devolve from it, but the Council as a body feels a solemn sense of responsibility in the exercise of these powers. It does not work for itself or for its members, it works for the good of the brethren.

 

The philosophy of the Rite is as broad and inclusive as ever. It knows no distinction among men who strive to find and serve God. It does not inquire into their philosophy or their theology. It does not ask in what sacred book they find their instruction and inspiration, it does not inquire into the form or substance of their prayers or even ask the name by which they address the one God when offering to him their petitions. It believes that God is God, no matter what men name Him, no matter how they pray to Him, no matter how they think about Him, for, after all, these matters depend largely on the accident of birth. The Christian Bishop might well be a Brahmin, if he had been born in India, and the Jewish Rabbi might well be a Protestant minister, if he were born in New England of Mayflower ancestry, but the new sense of responsibility extends here as well and the Scottish Rite Masonry of today, though not less tolerant, is more devout.

 

It is to these inner qualities more than to the external union that we owe the prosperity of the present and the splendid prospects for the future. Union, stability, and power have been realized. Like all of the finest things in the world, they are in their essence spiritual and not material. We are not strong because divisions have been banished from among us or because we are daily increasing in numbers and wealth, although the Rite enjoys a growth of prosperity undreamed of, indeed undesired, fifty years ago, but because we have learned better the Royal Secret, because into the new body created by the union of 1867 there has come a new soul. It is like the old stories which tell us how by some experience a being strong, beautiful, but mortal, became endowed with immortality through the infusion or the awakening of a soul. The future of our beloved Rite through the long vista of the years is safe because it has found its soul.

 

----o----

 

OF MASONRY: AN ODE

BY JOHN BANCKS OF SUNNING

 

I. GENIUS of MASONRY ! defcend,

In mystic Numbers while We fing:

Enlarge Our Souls; the Craft defend;

And hither all Thy Influence bring.

With focial Thoughts Our Bofoms fill,

And give Thy Turn to ev'ry Will!

 

II.

While grofs BATAVIA, wall'd with Mud,

Thy purer Joys delight no more;

And winding SEINE, a captive Flood,

Laments Thee wand'ring from his Shore;

Here fpread Thy Wings, and glad thefe Ifles,

Where ARTS refide, and FREEDOM fmiles.

 

III.

Behold the LODGE rife into View!

The Work of INDUSTRY and ART.

Tis grand, and regular, and true:

For fo is each good MASON'S Heart.

FRIENDSHIP cements it from the Ground,

And SECRESY fhall fense it round.

 

IV.

A STATELY DOME o'erlooks Our Eaft,

Like Orient PROEBUS in the Morn:

And TWO TALL PILLARS in the Weft

At once fupport Us, and adorn.

Upholden thus, the Structure ftands,

Untouch'd by facrilegious Hands.

 

V.

For Concord form's, Our Souls agree;

Nor Fate this Union fhall deftroy:

Our Toils and Sports alike are free;

And all is Harmony and Joy.

So SALEM'S Temple rofe by Rule,

Without the Noife of noxious Tool.

 

VI.

As when AMPHION tun'd his Song,

Ev'n rugged Rocks the Mufick knew;

Smooth'd into Form they glide along,

And to a THEBES the Defert grew.

So at the Sound of HIRAM'S Voice,

We rife, We join, and We rejoice.

 

VII.

Then may Our Vows to Virtue move!

To VIRTUE, own'd in all her Parts:

Come CANDOUR, INNOCENCE, and LOVE;

Come, and poffefs Our faithful Hearts!

MERCY, who feeds the hungry Poor,

And SILENCE, Guardian of the Door !

 

VIII.

And Thou ASTRAEA, (tho' from Earth,

When Men on Men began to prey,

Thou fled'st, to claim celeftial Birth;)

Down from OLYMPUS wing Thy Way!

And, mindful of Thy antient Seat,

Be prefent ftill where MASONS meet!

 

IX.

Immortal SCIENCE, too, be near !

(We own Thy Empire o'er the Mind)

Drefs'd in Thy radiant Robes appear,

With all Thy beauteous Train behind:

INVENTION, young and blooming, there;

Here GEOMETRY, with Rule and Square.

 

X.

In EGYPT'S Fabrick Learning dwelt,

And ROMAN Breafts could Virtue hide:

And VULCAN'S Rage the Building felt,

And BRUTUS, last of ROMANS, dy'd:

Since when, difpers’s the Sifters rove,

Or fill paternal Thrones above.

 

XI.

But, loft to half the human Race,

With Us the VIRTUES fhall revive;

And, driv'n no more from Place to Place,

Here SCIENCE fhall be kept alive:

And MANLY TASTE, the Child of SENSE,

Shall banifh VICE and DULNESS hence.

 

XII.

United thus, and for thefe Ends,

Let SCORN deride, and ENVY rail:

From Age to Age the CRAFT defcends;

And what We build fhall never fail:

Nor fhall the World Our Works furvey;

But ev'ry BROTHER keens the KEY.

 

From the Miscellaneous Works in Prose and Verse of John Bancks, (of Sunning, Berkshire, England), vol. 1, pages 33-39. London, 1738.

 

----o----

 

CORRESPONDENCE CIRCLE BULLETIN -- NO. 14

 

DEVOTED TO ORGANIZED MASONIC STUDY

 

Edited by Bro. Robert I. Clegg

 

THE BULLETIN COURSE OF MASONIC STUDY F