The Builder Magazine
October 1920 - Volume VI - Number 10
MEMORIALS TO GREAT MEN WHO WERE MASONS
GENERAL RICHARD GRIDLEY
BY BRO. GEO. W. BAIRD, P.G.M., DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
IN THE 1916 report of the Grand Lodge of Massachusetts will be found the entry that Richard Gridley, the brother of the Grand Master, was his Deputy.
General Richard Gridley, the subject of this sketch, was born in Boston in 1710, and died at Stoughton in 1796. He was at an early age particularly clever in the strongest of the sisters of science, mathematics. He became a surveyor, then a civil engineer, and later a military engineer and the associate of the famous John Henry Bastide, the Dictator of His Majesty's Engineers.
Gridley was commissioned a Lieutenant Colonel in the English Army in 1745, and assigned to the comrnand of the Grand, or Royal, Artillery, which was opposite the harbor of Louisburg, and which was captured by English forces in 1745. Gridley erected all of the Pepperrell batteries. He drew the designs for Governors Island in Boston Harbor, and for Fort Halifax in the Kennebec river.
He was with Wolfe in the great battles of the Plains of Abraham, back of Quebec, the importance of which historians have shied at, for, in the belief of the writer, the success of Wolfe and Washington, and in fact the whole of the British Army, in driving back the Romish French beyond the St. Lawrence, made it possible for our colonists to establish a Republic which guaranteed civil and religious liberty; a freedom which alone protected our lives and consciences against compulsory superstition, sorcery and vagaries. The writer verily believes that these Colonial battles were more effective in establishing civil and religious liberty than the battles of the Revolution.
Liberty, that right which we enJoy in saying and doing what pleases us, provided it does not interfere with a like right in others: and which liberty is fast being displaced by license, as the hyphenated American gains ascendancy.
At the outbreak of the Revolutionary War Richard Gridley was appointed Chief Engineer, and he constructed the defenses at Breeds (Bunker) Hill the night before the battle, June 17th, 1775. He was afterwards commissioned Major General, and commanded in the Continental Army.
The name of Gridley is enrolled in so many of the Army Corps, Divisions, Regiments and ships lists of the nation that it is almost a household word. Another Gridley, broken in health, under orders to return home to die, commanded a ship in Dewey's fleet at Manila, in 1901. Commander Gridley's relief arrived on the eve of the battle. He begged that he might carry his ship through the action, come what might, and Dewey was big enough to withhold the orders returning Gridley home, until after the battle. “Steve” Gridley, as he was called, was at the front and in the thick of the fight.
MASONRY IN MEXICO
BY BRO. OLIVER DAY STREET, J.G.W., ALABAMA
Since this report on Masonic conditions in Mexico was submitted to the Grand Lodge of Alabama in December, 1919, much additional information from that country has come into our possession. The most important of this are three pamphlets printed in Mexico City a few months ago. One of these, entitled “York Grand Lodge of Mexico, Free and Accepted Masons,” by Cecil C. Freston, is in the form of a printed communication addressed to “Mr. Oliver D. Street, Chairman of Foreign Correspondence Committee, M. W. Grand Lodge of Alabama, F. and A. M.”, and was published in December, 1919. Another entitled “The Irregularities of the so-called York Grand Lodge of Mexico,” is by Dr. Earnest Forbes, and was published early this year. The third, entitled “York Grand Lodge of Mexico,” is by a Committee on Publicity of that Grand Lodge. While all are controversial in tone, yet they are important contributions to the Masonic literature of that country.
Most of this recent information is only confirmatory of the statements and conclusions of this report, yet some of it is new and corrects some errors into which we had fallen. Some of this we have appended in the form of notes, deeming it best not to alter the original text.
Oliver D. Street
MASONRY both of the York and Scottish Rites was introduced into Mexico early in the last century. Five lodges chartered by New York in 1826 formed a Grand Lodge in October of that year for the government of Craft Masonry in that Republic. (Trans. Leicester Lodge of Research 1912‑'13, p. 110.)
There soon ensued between the partisans of the two Rites a bitter struggle which was carried into politics. It would seem that each Masonic faction attempted to utilize the political parties of the day and that the political parties in turn attempted to utilize the Masonic factions. Grand Lodge is said to have closed in 1828. (See York Grand Lodge Pamphlet [1920] p. 59.)
In 1833, certain of the leading brethren of both Rites in order to put an end to the unseemly struggle and to place Masonry on a proper basis formed the Grand Orient of the Mexican National Rite. This was a compromise system consisting of the three degrees of Ancient Craft Masonry and six others practically borrowed from the Scottish Rite. The compromise did not succeed and soon the Mexican National Rite found itself also drawn into the political maelstrom.
By the year 1859, the warring factions, namely, the “Yorkinos” (partisans of the York Rite) and the “Escoseses” (partisans of the Scottish Rite) had just about succeeded in exterminating each other. A few fragments of each remained but nothing worthy of recognition as organized Masonry. At this period there existed at Mexico City a lodge “Union Fraternal” chartered about 1855 by the Grand Lodge or Supreme Council of Cartigena, New Granada (Columbia), which will be noticed further in the course of this report.
The year 1859 marks the beginning of a new era for Masonry in Mexico but not one of peace and prosperity. In this year, Brother Albert Pike, the then Sovereign Grand Commander for the Southern Jurisdiction of the Scottish Rite, dispatched Brother Lafon Ladebat to Mexico with instructions to attempt to place Masonry in that country on a sound basis. It has been stated (but we are unable to say) that Ladebat's instructions forbade his establishing Scottish Rite bodies with authority over the first three degrees. If such ware Ladebat's instructions. he violated them by creating at Vera Cruz a Supreme Council claiming jurisdiction over the Blue degrees, and it began to establish lodges throughout Mexico.
Thereupon the fragments of the old Mexican National Rite and of the old Scottish Rite, still lingering in the Republic, began to take notice. The former attempted a renewed organization in 1863, and the latter on December 27, 1865.
Thereupon ensued a brief struggle between this new Supreme Council of the Scottish Rite and the Ladebat Supreme Council but this was ended in 1868 by the union of the two. During the same year a loose sort of fusion was brought about between this united Supreme Council and the Grand Orient for the Mexican National Rite. The Grand Orient retained control over its own ritual and internal government. It seemed that at last Masonry in Mexico was about to close its wrangling and present a solid front for the spread of Masonic principles. But this unity was of short duration. About 1870, the “Supreme Grand Orient of the Scottish Rite” was formed, claiming exclusive jurisdiction over all Scottish Rite Symbolic lodges. A little later, about 1872, the Mexican National Grand Orient severed its understanding with the Supreme Council. There also sprang upon about the same time what was called the “Reformed Scottish Rite” but it was regarded as clandestine by nearly all Mexican Masonic bodies. (See York Grand Lodge Pamphlet, p. 60.) We mention these Scottish Rite bodies because they have had an ineradicable share in the creation of such Masonry as may now exist in Mexico. Not even the York Grand Lodge has been unaffected by these influences.
The Supreme Council and the Mexican National Grand Orient seem to have renewed their loose compact about the year 1882. This year marks the beginning of another epoch in the history of Mexican Masonry.
It would be in vain as well as profitless to our present purpose to attempt to trace further the devious, obscure and confused path of Masonic history in Mexico prior to 1882. Suffice it to say that at that date all Masonry of the Craft, Symbolic, or Blue degrees, except possibly a few lodges of the old Mexican National Rite, had fallen under the control of Scottish Rite bodies, of which there were at least three, contending with each other for supremacy. There were so-called Grand Lodges in several of the states of the Mexican republic, but they owed and acknowledged their allegiance and subordination to the higher bodies of the Scottish Rite.
To summarize, it seems that at this period (1882) there existed in Mexico, (1) a small remnant of the old Grand Orient of the Mexican National Rite, (2) the united Supreme Council of the Scottish Rite controlling the 4th to 33rd degrees, with its subordinate Grand Lodges in various states, controlling the three degrees, (3) the Reformed Scottish Rite, very weak, and (4) the Supreme Grand Orient of the Scottish Rite, exercising control over the first three degrees only, also very weak. (1)
It was under these circumstances that early in January, 1882, the Grand Lodge of Colon and the Island of Cuba chartered three Symbolic lodges at Vera Cruz. On January 28, 1883, these three lodges formed a Grand Lodge at Vera Cruz under the name of the Independent Symbolic Mexican Grand Lodge, temporarily claiming jurisdiction throughout the Republic of Mexico over Symbolic Masonry. So far as we can ascertain its organization was in strict accord with the rules for the erection of an independent Grand Lodge of Ancient Craft Masonry.
The Scottish Rite Supreme Council and its subordinate Grand Lodges bitterly resented the action of the Grand Lodge of Colon and the Island of Cuba in establishing these lodges, claiming it was an invasion of their territory but Cuba justified its course by insisting that in the absence of any independent Grand Lodge of Ancient Craft or Symbolic Masonry in Mexico that country was unoccupied territory. Thereupon, in their effort to head off this movement, the Supreme Council undertook in April, 1883, to establish in Mexico City a “Central Grand Lodge” to hold jurisdiction over all Symbolic lodges in the Republic, but this aroused so much opposition on the part of its own subordinate lodges and Grand Lodges that the movement was dropped, and a decree promulgated May 27, 1883, effective June 24, 1883, whereby the Supreme Council absolutely and unconditionally surrendered control of Symbolic Masonry to the Grand Lodges then existing in the several States or that might thereafter be erected.
The Independent Symbolic Mexican Grand Lodge at Vera Cruz announced from the very beginning that its purpose was not permanently to monopolize for itself the whole of Mexico, but that it would gladly surrender the territory of any State, except Vera Cruz, to a regular Grand Lodge as soon as one was formed therein. The result of the combined actions of this Grand Lodge and the Supreme Council was that soon there were independent Grand Lodges in many of the Mexican States. Conditions thus seemed auspicious for the orderly development of Freemasonry along lines that have proven so wholesome in other countries.
On December 24, 1889, by solemn treaty the Supreme Council again renounced forever its claim over the three Symbolic degrees and the old Grand Orient of the Scottish Rite disbanded. This was part of a plan well conceived but mistakenly executed whereby all Symbolic Masonry was to be united in one central governing body for the entire Republic. Accordingly in February, 1890, there was formed the “Gran Dieta Simbolica,” to which the several State Grand Lodges were to be subordinate, with Porfirio Diaz, the then President of Mexico, as Grand Master and Dr. Ermilio G. Canton as Grand Secretary. The position of President Diaz seems to have been purely nominal and Dr. Canton was in fact the real head of the “Gran Dieta.” (10 Ars Q. C., p. 68.) It started off auspiciously and at the height of its prosperity held under its sway seventeen State Grand Lodges and about 225 lodges. Its position was analogous to what would be that of a General Grand Lodge for the United States of America, so often proposed but as often rejected. It practiced only the three degrees and while the Scottish llite ritual of these degrees was the official, lodges were allowed to work in the York Rite. (7 Ars Q.C., p. 73.)
The following Masonic organizations seem to have been in existence which did not unite in the formation of the “Gran Dieta” and which never united with it, namely, (1) the fragment of the Mexican National Rite, (2) the Reformed Scottish Rite, (3) the United Mexican Grand Lodge of Vera Cruz, (4) the Grand Lodge of the Federal District, and (5) the Independent Grand Lodge of the Federal District, an entirely different body from the “Grand Lodge of the Federal District.” (6 Ars Q. C., p. 115.) Though it has been claimed that the Reformed Scottish Rite and the Mexican National Rite were both already dead. (7 Ib., p. 72.)
The alleged discarding of a declaration of a belief in Deity, the alleged removal of the Bible from its altars, and the alleged admission of women, proved its ultimate undoing. We say “alleged” because all these charges were denied. On July 1, 1901, the “Gran Dieta” dissolved. It had been practically dead since 1895, several of its most influential Grand Lodges having withdrawn. In the early '90's the statement was made that the Grand Orient of the Mexican National Rite consisted of only a “few lodges” but was respected because it was “the first Masonic organization” in Mexico and for the great men whom it had numbered among its members; that it was preserved “as a kind of souvenir.” (Alabama Cor. Rep. 1892, p. 135.)
With the dissolution of the “Gran Dieta” in 1901, began another era of independent State Grand Lodges, and this era was still prevailing when Masonry, like everything else in Mexico, was torn to atoms by the Revolution still in progress.
The Republic of Mexico, like our own, consists of separate States and Territories and a Federal District. The States are twenty-eight in number and the Territories two. Theoretically with them, as with us, there may be one Sovereign Grand Lodge in each State, in each Territory and in the Federal District. A recent communication received by your Committee from the Grand Lodge “Benito Juarez” in the State Coahuila, says:
“Generally speaking there is a Grand Lodge in every State of the Republic, founded when at least three Symbolic lodges had been installed in the State. In no State of the Republic can there be two Grand Lodges at the same time, because Blue Masonry is prohibited to invade territories occupied by another Grand Lodge. After a Grand Lodge has occupied a vacant territory and has installed three lodges, these will form their own Grand Lodge for that State.”
This wholesome policy does not, however, appear to have been nor is it now universally observed by Mexican Masons or Grand bodies.
Our information is that at present there are, or recently were, four Grand Lodges in the Federal District, each claiming to be sovereign and independent, and each exercising jurisdiction not only in the District but in several States. They are:
1. The Grand Lodge Valle de Mexico, Mexico City.
2. The York Grand Lodge, Mexico City.
3. The Grand Lodge of the Federal District, Mexico City.
4. The Independent Grand Lodge of the Federal District, Mexico City.
We are not certain that the one numbered three of the foregoing is still in existence and the one numbered four is the creature of the so-called Reformed Scottish Rite and is regarded as clandestine. (2)
There are, or lately were, Grand Lodges in other States as follows:
STATE NAME SEAT
Aguas Calientes The Grand Lodge of Aguas
Calientes
Basabal The Grand Lodge of Basabal
Campeache The Grand Lodge of Campeache Campeache
Chihuahua The Grand Lodge “Cosmos” Chihuahua
Coahuila The Grand Lodge “Benito
Juarez” Torreon
Durango The Grand Lodge of Durango
Guanajuato The Grand Lodge of Guanajuato Guanajuato
Guerrero The Grand Lodge of Vicente
Guerrero
Hidalgo The Grand Lodge of Hidalgo
Jalisco The Occidental Mexican Grand
Lodge Guadalajara
Juarez The Occidental Grand Lodge Juarez
Lower California The Grand Lodge of Lower
California La Paz
Morelos The Grand Lodge of Morelos Cuernavaea
Nuevo Leon The Grand Lodge of Nuevo Leon Monterey
Oaxaca The Grand Lodge of Oaxaca Oaxaca
Puebla The Grand Lodge of Puebla Puebla
San Luis Potosi The Grand Lodge “El Potosi” San Luis Potosi
Sonora The Grand Lodge of Sonora Hermosillo
N. Tamaulipas The Grand Lodge “Light of
the Frontier, No. 14” Nuevo Lareao
Tamaulipas The Grand Lodge “Ignacio
Ramirez” Tampico
Tamaulipas The Grand Lodge “Jacob De
Molay”
Tlaxcala The Grand Lodge of Tlaxcala
Vera Cruz The United Mexican Grand
Lodge Vera Cruz
Yucatan The Oriental Grand Lodge of
Yucatan Merida (3)
Our Circular of Inquiry was sent to all of these Grand Lodges but replies were received from York of Mexico, Valle de Mexico, Cosmos, Benita Juarez, Nuevo Leon, and Vera Cruz only. Brother E. V. Anaya, a member of the supreme Council, A. & A. S. Rite, of Mexico, stated in “American Freemason” for March, 1918, that Tamaulipas at Tampico, Occidental at Guadaljara, and Oriental at Merida were then working regularly. There have been and may yet be other Grand Lodges in the Republic not mentioned in the foregoing list. The statement is made in Ars Quatuor Coronatorum (1897), vol. 10, p. 68, that each State of the Republic had its own Grand Lodge. (4)
Valle de Mexico. - The Grand Lodge Valle de Mexico, Mexico City, logically comes in for first treatment. It was formed in 1865. The charge has been made that brother James C. Lohse arbitrarily divided Lodge “Union Fraternal,” into three lodges, namely, “Union Fraternal,” “Emules d'Hiram,” and “Eintracht,” and that these three then united to form the Grand Lodge “Valle de Mexico.” Brother Lohse and the “Valle de Mexico,” on the other hand, claimed that this division was but the separation of “Union Fraternal” into its “original parts” (whatever this means) and that the formation of the three lodges out of one was under the circumstances entirely regular. (5) Your Committee confesses its inability with the lights before it to decide the point.
“Valle de Mexico” claims some sort of descent from the old Grand Lodge founded in 1826. (6) The best information, however, that we have been able to get is that “Union Fraternal” lodge, from which “Valle de Mexico” was formed, was chartered by the Grand Lodge (or Grand Orient, or Supreme Council) of Cartigena, New Granada (now United States of - Columbia), a Scottish Rite body, at some date prior to 1855. (See Alabama Cor. Rep. 1902, p. 91.)
The “Valle de Mexico” claims to have lodges in the States of Guanajuato, Jalisco, Aguas Calientes, Hidalgo, Sonora, Zacatecas, and Lower California.
Until 1878, “Valle de Mexico” worked in subordination to the Scottish Rite bodies but in that year it declared its independence.
Upon the formation in February, 1890, of the illstarred “Gran Dieta Simbolica” at Mexico City, “Valle de Mexico” became one of its constituent Grand Lodges as “Valle de Mexico, No. 1,” that is to say, it was recognized as the senior Grand Lodge upon the roll of the “Gran Dieta.” It never, however, surrendered its independence completely. It adhered to the “Gran Dieta” until August 13, 1895, when it again declared its independence, and remained independent at least until 1910, since which time there are charges and evidences that it has again fallen under Scottish Rite control at least in part.
So far as we can ascertain the only Grand Lodges, recognized by us, which recognize the “Valle de Mexico” are Cuba, Indiana, Louisiana, Queensland, and Tasmania. It claims others but the claim is not borne out by their lists. It has been several times refused recognition by Alabama. (See Proceedings 1902, p. 91; 1905, p. 56; 1906, p. 79; 1911, p. 166; 1913, p. 170.)
At one time the “Valle de Mexico” gave promise of developing into a regular and well ordered Masonic governing body, but about 1910 it fell strongly under the influences of the Scottish Rite Supreme Council of Mexico. This led to a disruption in 1910, resulting in the formation of two Grand Lodges, each styling itself “Valle de Mexico.”
The merits of this division have been the subject of acrimonious dispute. Each charged and still charges the other with causing it by its unlawful and irregular practices. Each claims to have had the support of a majority of the lodges and Masons of the original “Valle de Mexico.” The faction under consideration still calls itself “Valle de Mexico” while the other faction in 1911, changed its name to “York Grand Lodge of Mexico, legitimate successor to Grand Lodge Valle de Mexico.”
At the 1911 Annual of York Grand Lodge, the Grand Master thereof, J. J. Reynoso, gave the following account of this schism:
“At the last Annual Session of this Grand Body (April, 1910), we had thirty-two lodges, of which five were under dispensation with a total membership of 1,426. At that session we regret to say that some of the representatives of seven lodges expressed themselves as dissatisfied with the election as decided by a large majority vote and left the Grand Lodge room. These lodges were Benito Juarez No. 3, Union No. 6, Felix Diaz No. 7, Lealtad No. 15, Ignacio Ramirez No. 20, all chartered, of the Federal District. These lodges together with Benito Juarez No. 24 of Guadalajara, commenced agitating for a separation of the lodges working under the Scottish Rite ritual from those working under the York ritual.
“It was believed that such separation could be amicably arranged and the discussion of such an arrangement between the interested parties had even reached the point of the drawing up of a basis of separation which was signed by the Committees of the Scottish ritual lodges of the Federal District and of the York ritual lodges of the Federal District, to be submitted to all of the lodges of the jurisdiction, when on June 23,1910, we were astounded to learn that the seven Scottish ritual lodges above mentioned had held a secret meeting, without advice to the other lodges of the jurisdiction and then and there declared the Annual Session of the Grand Lodge (April, 1910) irregular and the elections illegal and proceeded to elect themselves as officers of the Grand Lodge “Valle de Mexico.” Among these representatives was our Grand Secretary, who turned over to the seceders the offices and records of the Grand Master and Grand Secretary. They then demanded of the other lodges of the jurisdiction by telegraph that such lodges join them within three days or be declared irregular.”
To this demand two other lodges under charter and three under dispensation yielded, making a total of thirteen lodges which joined in the new movement. To an impartial observer the merits of this controversy appear to rest with the York Grand Lodge and this division appears to have been due to two causes, racial prejudices and the age-old antagonism in Mexico between the York and Scottish Rites. The new “Valle d Mexico” carried with it nearly all lodges and Masons speaking Spanish, while the “York Grand Lodge” carried with it nearly all those speaking other languages. In1911, the York changed its official language to English. Manuel Levi, who led the “Valle de Mexico” faction, is now the Sovereign Grand Commander of the Mexican Supreme Council of the Scottish Rite. It very doubtful if the present “Valle de Mexico” is independent of the Supreme Council. Its adversaries charge and evidence indicates that it is not. (7) We do not, however, wish to be understood as attempting to judge the question either of its origin or of its subsequent regularity. We desire further information.
York Grand Lodge. - This Grand Lodge owes its existence, as above stated, to a dissension that arose in 1910 in the bosom of the old Grand Lodge “Valle de Mexico.” The “York” carries upon its seal the legend “Organized October, 1825,” but this can be regarded only as a flourish and as a suggestion that the genuineness of its Masonry traces back in some way through the old “Valle de Mexico” and “Union Fraternal” lodge to the old Mexican Grand Lodge formed in 1826. This thread of descent must, however, be admitted to be of an exceedingly tenuous nature. (8)
The following Grand Lodges, recognized by us, recognize the “York,” namely, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Costa Rica, District of Columbia, Cuba, Idaho, Kansas, Manitoba, New York, Philippine Islands, Prince Edward Island, Texas, Utah, Victoria, Virginia, and West Virginia. It also claims recognition by California, Connecticut, Georgia, Indiana, Iowa, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Dakota, Ohio, Oregon, South Dakota, England, Ireland, New Brunswick, New South Wales, Scotland, San Salvador, South Australia and Tasmania, but their lists do not bear out this claim. Further information concerning it will be found in our general Reports on Foreign Correspondence for the year 1916, p. 195; 1917, p. 213; 1918, p. 111, and also for the present year.
The “York” was refused recognition by Alabama in 1913, pp. 170-176.
The York Grand Lodge does not restrict itself to the Federal District but has lodges in the States of Sonora, Chihuahua, San Luis Potosi, Puebla, Jalisco, Nuevo Leon, Hidalgo, Tamaulipas, Guanajuato and perhaps others. It claims jurisdiction over “all Symbolic York Rite Masonry throughout the Republic of Mexico.” (Alabama, 1912, pp. 32-33.) (9)
This claim of jurisdiction in States outside of the political subdivision in which the “York” is located has been denounced by some Grand Lodges as in violation of the doctrine of exclusive territorial jurisdiction, so jealously maintained by American Grand Lodges. (Alabama Cor. Rep. 1912, pp. 81-2.) The “York” replies that, so far as Ancient Craft Masonry is concerned, the entire Republic of Mexico is unoccupied territory, thus invoking another well-settled Masonic doctrine. It claims that so-called Mexican Grand Lodges are either non-existant or are subordinate to the Scottish Rite Supreme Council. (10)
United Mexican Grand Lodge. - We have already given an account of the formation at Vera Cruz of the “Independent Symbolic Mexican Grand Lodge” in January, 1883, with seven lodges. In June, 1883, a rival body called the “Grand Lodge of the State of Vera Cruz” was erected as an independent Grand Lodge, claiming to have been first organized in 1869. If this date be the true one, it was as a subordinate of the Supreme Council of the Scottish Rite and it did not claim independence until after the Supreme Council in April 1883 renounced its control over the Blue degrees. In November, 1885, these two Grand Lodges united, forming the “United Mexican Grand Lodge of Vera Cruz.” It maintained its independence of the “Gran Dieta.” (Alabama Cor. Rep. 1896, p. 95.) It is recognized by Louisiana and Cuba. Frankly, it can prove about as strong, if not stronger, case of regularity of formation than any of the Mexican Grand Lodges. (11)
The receipt of our Circular of Inquiry sent this Grand Lodge was acknowledged April 30, 1919, and we were advised that it had been referred to their Committee on Foreign Relations. We have, however, to date received nothing further from it. It was stated in 1913 that this Grand Lodge was strongly dominated by the Supreme Council of the Scottish Rite. (Trans. Leicester Lodge of Research 1912-13, p. 119. See also York Grand Lodge Pamphlet [1920], pp. 41, 50-52.)
Grand Lodge of Federal District. - This Grand Lodge was formed at Mexico City, on June 23, 1883, by fourteen Symbolic lodges of the Scottish Rite. No lodge of the York Rite participated. Carlos K. Ruiz was chosen Grand Master. At the same time and in the same Temple, another so-called Grand Lodge was formed with Porfirio Diaz, the then President of Mexico, as its nominal Grand Master. The Ruiz body quickly secured complete ascendancy over its Diaz rival. In March, 1896, President Diaz was elected Honorary Grand Master of the Ruiz body. The Grand Lodge of the Federal District did not unite with the “Gran Dieta.” (Alabama Cor. Rep. 1896, p. 95.) Alabama declined to recognize this Grand Lodge in 1885. In 1891, Grand Master G. W. Tyler, of Texas, stated that the “Federal District” then had no subordinate lodges but this charge was immediately and indignantly denied. (12) Brother Carlos K. Ruiz from 1883 was the enlightened leader in propagating the idea of an independent Grand Lodge in each State of the United States of Mexico with jurisdiction over the territory of the State and with exclusive control of the first three degrees. In short he seems to have grasped completely the system that has worked so well in our country.
“Cosmos.” - This Grand Body in 1890 joined the “Gran Dieta Simbolica” but in 1896 it proclaimed its independence of that body. It had trouble with its constituent lodges and by 1903, is alleged to have been reduced to a single lodge. In this year enough members were taken from this lodge, and two other lodges were formed of them under charters from the United Mexican Grand Lodge of Vera Cruz. The three then “reorganized” the Grand Lodge “Cosmos.”
A somewhat different version of this “reorganization” obtained currency to the effect that this one lodge was arbitrarily divided into three and that these reorganized “Cosmos.” (Alabama Cor. Rep. 1909, p. 41.) We confess we do not know what the precise facts were. It continued to work and to grow slowly until the present disturbances began in that country, as a result of which several of its lodges fell asleep.
Another “reorganization” was had and according to a communication recently received from it by your committee it now boasts five lodges with a membership of about 400. The Supreme Council 33d, A. and A. S. Rite has by treaty recognized the Grand Lodge “Cosmos” as the sole governing body of Symbolic Masonry in the State of Chihuahua. It works according to the Scottish Rite ritual. It is recognized by Connecticut and Louisiana. It also claims recognition by California and New Mexico, but the lists of recognized Grand bodies published by them do not support the claim. Alabama refused it recognition in 1905. (Alabama Proc. 1905 p. 56; See also Alabama Proc. 1908, p. 91.)
At one time the “Cosmos” was generally held to be irregular by not only the Grand Lodges of the United States of America but by some of those of Mexico on the alleged ground that it excluded the Bible from its lodges. We do not know its present attitude on that question but we do know that its lodges are dedicated “To the Glory of the Grand Architect of the Universe” and that its documents are so inscribed (22 Ars. Q. C., p. 216.) A writer in 1913 made the statement that “Cosmos” was then strongly dominates by the Supreme Council of the Scottish Rite. (Trans Leicester Lodge of Research, 1912-13, p. 119; See York Grand Lodge Pamphlet [1920], p. 61.)
“Benito Juarez.” - From this Grand Lodge, named for the great Mexican citizen and President, Benito Juarez, we have received a very full reply to our Circular of Inquiry.
It was founded at Saltillo, State of Coahuila, in 1890, under the auspices of the “Gran Dieta Simbolica.” Upon the dissolution July 1, 1901, of the “Gran Dieta,” it assumed independence and sovereignty. It now claims jurisdiction over the two important States of Coahuila and Durango. On April 29, 1906, the Grand Lodge “Progreso,” which also claimed jurisdiction over Coahuila and had its seat at Torreon, united with “Benito Juarez.” “Progreso” had been formed in 1905 by three lodges under the Grand Lodge Santos Degollado.
At present “Benito Juarez” has nine lodges working with a membership of over 300, while several other lodges are sleeping, owing to the political conditions. It controls only the first three degrees and professes to observe the “Ancient Charges and Landmarks as laid down by Dr. Anderson in 1721.” The official ritual of the three degrees is that of the Scottish Rite but any lodge may employ “any regular and recognized ritual” it may desire. “Benito Juarez” claims not to have failed to hold a single meeting at the appointed time, notwithstanding the political conditions prevailing in Mexico. It also professes to work in conformity to the “ancient landmarks and customs” and that it has never intermeddled in politics or religion and has constantly respected the de facto authorities who have governed the State.
Aguas Calientes. - This Grand Lodge was in existence in the '80's but when or under what auspices it was formed we do not know. (Alabama Cor. Rep. 1892, p. 133.) If not dead, it is now dormant.
Campeache. - This Grand Lodge was formed before June, 1885, and in 1886 declared its independence of the Scottish Rite bodies which created it. We know nothing of its present condition.
Guanajuato. - This Grand Lodge was in existence in 1883 with six lodges. (3 Gould's His., p. 372.) Its present condition or whether in existence we do not know.
Hidalgo. - Formed as an independent body about 1885 by six Mexican, three English, two French, and one Italian lodges. Whether it still weathers the political storm we do not know.
“Independent Grand Lodge of Federal District.” - This body is to be distinguished from the “Grand Lodge of the Federal District” mentioned above and seems to be appendant or subordinate to the Reformed Scottish Rite. It is considered clandestine by all the Mexican Masonic bodies excepting the Reformed Scottish Rite (if such be still in existence). (13)
“Jacob DeMolay.” - A Grand Lodge of this name existed in the State of Tamaulipas in 1887. (Alabama Cor. Rep. 1887, p. 90.) Whether still claiming existence or whether it was changed or merged into the Grand Lodge “Ignacio Ramirez” or “Light of the Frontier No. 14” we have not ascertained.
Juarez. - Of the time, place, or circumstances of the organization of this body we have been able to learn nothing. We only know that it was working in 1918.
Lower California. - This Grand Lodge was formed about 1884 by the Scottish Rite bodies. (Alabama Cor Rep. 1887, p. 68.) We do not know its present status, if it exists.
Mexican National Rite. - There is a Grand Lodge of this name, claiming jurisdiction over Symbolic Masonry throughout the Republic, which is not recognized by the other Mexican Masonic bodies. It is not the old “Mexican National Rite,” which has been dead for several years, but it is a new organization “arrogating to itself a name and origin to which it is not entitled.”
Morelos. - This Grand Lodge was in existence as a Scottish Rite subordinate in 1883 with five lodges (3 Gould's His., p. 372.) On May 23, 1885, it declared itself independent. (Alabama Cor. Rep. 1886, p. 66.)
North Tamaulipas. - This Grand Lodge under the name of “Light of the Frontier, No. 14” was in existence in 1892 as a subordinate of the “Gran Dieta.” The “No. 14” means it was the fourteenth Grand Lodge on the roll of the “Gran Dieta.” (Alabama Cor. Rep 1892, p. 130.) It was recognized by Louisiana and Georgia. We know nothing concerning its recent fate
Nuevo Leon. -This Grand Lodge was formed by lodges chartered by the United Mexican Grand Lodge, Vera Cruz. It refused at one time to place the Bible on its altars on the ground that it is “a sectarian boots which has no place in Freemasonry,” and thereby called down upon itself much adverse criticism. This rule is now changed and the Bible is regarded as a fundamental requisite. (22 Ars Q.C., pp. 216-217; See York Grand Lodge Pamphlet [1920], pp. 41, 61.)
We know this Grand Lodge is still in existence because your Committee is in receipt of a circular from it, dated September 15, 1919, in which it appeals to the Grand Lodges of the United States for a better understanding not only between the Masonries but between the peoples of the two countries. This spirit manifested in this circular is in every way commendable.
Oaxaca. - Formed about 1883 as a Scottish Rite subordinate. (Alabama Cor. Rep. 1886, p. 65; Ib. 1887 p. 68.) It was reorganized as an independent body on February 5, 1886. Said to be still working in 1909 (22 Ars Q.C., p.216.) (14)
Occidental Mexican, Jalisco. - In existence in 1883, as a Scottish Rite subordinate, with seven lodges. (3 Gould's His., p. 372.) Independent in 1889 but in 1890 passed under the control of the “Gran Dieta.” Independent again in 1901, and still working as such.
Puebla - In existence in 1883, as a subordinate to the Scottish Rite bodies, with six lodges. (3 Gould’s His., p. 372.) Became independent in 1885. (Alabama Cor. Rep. 1886, p. 66.) In 1909 had been dormant “for some years.” (22 Ars Q. C., p. 216.) (15)
Tamaulipas. - After a slumber of some years we revived in 1909. (22 Ars Q. C., p. 216.) Do not know its present status. (16)
Tlaxcala. - In existence in 1883 as a subordinate to the Scottish Rite bodies, with five lodges. Became independent in 1885. Passed under the control of the “Gran Dieta” in 1890. (3 Gould's His., p. 372; Alabama Cor. Rep. 1886, p. 65-6.)
Vicente Guerrero. - In existence in the '80's but we know nothing of its present condition. (Alabama Cor. Rep. 1892, p. 133.)
Yucatan. - In existence in 1883, as subordinate the Scottish Rite bodies, with six lodges. (3 Gould His., p. 372.) Was recognized by Louisiana. Working actively in 1918 as an independent body.
Of the remaining Grand bodies listed in the above table we have no further information than there shown.
Owing to the unsettled conditions in Mexico both from the Masonic and the political point of view, not to speak of any other reason, we do not recommend recognition of any of the Mexican bodies claiming to be Masonic.
We append the three following interesting letters touching Mexican Masonry as an
APPENDIX
(For the translation of the letter from the Valle de Mexico we are indebted to the fraternal courtesy by Brother William J. Rowe, of Birmingham, Ala.)
A.L.G.D.G.A.D.U.
OFFICE OF SECRETARY
GRAND LODGE A.'. F.'. & A.’ M.'. “VALLEY OF MEXICO.”
P. O. Box No. 10, Mexico, D. F.
Number 323. Or.’. of Mexico, May 21st, 19;19, E.'. V.'. To the Grand Lodge A.'. F.'. & A.'. M.’. of Alabama,
Or.'. of Guntersville, Alabama, U. S. A.
Prosperity Strength Union
Most Worshipful Grand Master & Brother:
We have in our possession your Circular (without date) relating to the action taken by your thigh Bodies, seeking to find a way to enter into relations with all Masonic Powers in both the Hemispheres, the institution being of Universal character; and requesting that you be given the information as per questions in said Circular:
In replying, we are honored to state that it has and always will be of great responsibility to the Masonic populace to remain lofty in their ideals without sacrificing in any way the proper egoism for the good of Universal Brotherhood. It is for this reason, that the activity of your Grand Lodge, in seeking relations with all lodges, is worthy of great praise and set an example of the highest Masonic spirit which is justly deserved by a Grand Lodge composed of elements of such Large Virtues, Firm Tolerance and love for the institution. Proof of that Masonic Spirit has been given in so noticeable a manner in the Circular.
Complying with your Just and Noble desires, we give you the information that you desire, giving this in concrete form so as to avoid a lengthy explanation.
This Grand Lodge is derived from the extinct Grand Symbolic Regimen of the United States of Mexico, which in its time surged from the extinct Grand Lodge “Santos Degollado” universally accepted and recognized.
Our archives date from the year 1878. Before the Revolutionary movement of 1910, this Grand Lodge was composed of forty-five lodges. Afterwards and in view of the abnormal existing conditions, we have twenty-two active Tiles with strong hopes of elevating fifteen other lodges that are dormant.
Our Jurisdictional Territory embraces the Federal District, States of Mexico, Guanajuato, Jalisco, Aguas Calientes, Hidalgo, Sonora, Zacatecas and Lower California.
The exact title of our Grand Body is “Grand Lodge of Ancient Free and Accepted Masons Valley of Mexico.”
We have in our Ritual all the Rites that are universally recognized and we only control in our Jurisdiction the three degrees of Primitive Masonry.
The Philosophical Degrees are circumscribed to their radius of fundamental action, absolutely not mixing in the Symbolic Regimen.
In the Territory of the Republic there are various Sovereign and Independent Grand Lodges existing, and even when in some States of the Union two or more Grand Lodges have or exercise Masonic authority, that authority rests only and exclusively in the territory occupied by the lodges of their obedience without interfering in the Regimen and Sovereignty that each one controls.
In the territory of the Republic there is a Grand Lodge existing that calls itself “Rito Nacional Mexicano” and which the other Grand Lodges existing in said territory do not recognize. There are many reasons that have caused similar state of affairs, among them, the fact that the true and legal “Rito Nacional Mexicano” has ceased to exist several years past, the said body arrogating a title and origin to which they are not entitled.
Our relations with Bodies of other Rites are Fraternally essential as we consider the Brothers that perform and instruct the York as well as the Scottish Rite Fair and Just.
We find our Archives to be honored with correspondence of that Grand Lodge during the year 1908 and for unknown reasons, our relations have remained in suspence since that time.
We believe the time has come for us to effectively realize the Fundamental Principles of Brotherhood and that is only accomplished by exercising Tolerance and a great desire for Union and Plosperity which are absolutely essential in this great cause.
The Grand Lodge A.’. F.’. & A.’. M.’. of Alabama is worthy of great Honor, having initiated with such energy and good will the Symbol of Fortitude and can rest assured that the fruit of their labors will be reaped by the good impressions left in all hearts of the great work verified by the Sacred Laws of Justice and Duty.
For better understanding, we enclose the Treaty between this Grand Lodge and the Supreme Council of the 33 degree and last Gr.’. Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite fo the Jurisdiction of the United States of Mexico, not giving you more data concerning our International Relations and list of friendly guarantees with the Grand Symbolic Bodies of the Exterior, as it would make this letter too lengthy.
Receive therefore, our sincere and enthusiastic applause and that flattering success will crown your Noble efforts.
We greet you with the highest honors that you deserve and to which you are entitled.
The Most Worshipful Grand Master,
Signed: Ignacio Cortes, 32d
In faith
The first Grand Sec'y.
Signed: S. Palma, 14d
A.’.L.’.G.’.D.’.G.’.A.’. D.’.U.’.
MUY RESP.’. GRAND.’. LOG.’. “BENITO JUAREZ”
De Antiguos LL.’. y AA.’. MM.’.
Del Estado de Coahuila.
Apartado 87
TORREON, COAU.
Gran Secretaria No. 330.
Reply to Circular of Inquiry Received from Grand Lodge of Alabama.
Nos. questions:
1. Regarding time, place and circumstances of the formation of our Grand Lodge, I enclose herewith a booklet in the English language, “The History and Constitution of the Grand Lodge of Coahuila, Benito Juarez,” and with reference to the number of lodges participating; there are at present nine subordinate lodges in this jurisdiction and several more lodges which are not working now, due to our political commotions, will soon begin work again.
2. The reply to the first part of this question will be found in the enclosed pamphlet. Our territory comprises the States of Coahuila and Durango. The State of Coahuila is the third largest in extension in the republic of Mexico and one of the very richest in mines, agriculture and cattle. The State of Durango is also extensive and rich.
3. This question is also answered in the booklet. At present there are more than three hundred active members.
4. The exact title of our Grand Body is in the Spanish language: “Gran Logia 'Benito Juarez' de Antiguos, Libras y Aceptados Masones del Estado de Coahuila,” or in English: “Grand Lodge 'Benito Jaurez' of Ancient, Free and Accepted Masons of the State of Coahuila.” Benito Juarez was a prominent figure in the republic, a great Mason, and considered by all Mexicans as one of the great men of America, and in Latin America he is given the title of “The well deserving of all America.”
5. The Grand Lodges of this republic control only the three Symbolic Degrees, or Blue or St. Johns' Masonry, the other degrees, from the fourth to the 33rd, belong to the jurisdiction of the Supreme Council of the 33rd and the last degree of the republic of Mexico, residing at Mexico City. Since several years ago the Masonry of this republic celebrated a treaty whereby the Symbolic Bodies became independent and sovereign, united in Grand Lodges with well defined jurisdictions. Generally speaking, there is a Grand Lodge in every State of the republic, which was founded when at least three symbolic lodges had been installed in the State. In no State of the republic can there be two Grand Lodges at the same time, because Blue Masonry is prohitited to invade territories occupied by another Grand Lodge. After a Grand Lodge has occupied a vacant territory and has installed three lodges, these will form their own Grand Lodge for that State.
6. The Grand Lodge of the State has jurisdiction over all lodges of her dependency, although the subordinate lodges are free, independent and sovereign with regards to their internal government. The latter are united to the Grand Lodge by the constitutional covenant and they owe her obedience, within the law, and while they govern themselves freely they must report to the Grand Lodge the movement of their members, of the treasury and a resume of the work of the lodge. They are represented in the Grand Lodge by delegates, with right to vote, they assist in the making of laws and in the elections of the Grand Officers. Sentences of the subordinate lodges pass to her for review and revision, in case of non-confirmity of a decision. Aside from this, although the Ancient, Free and Accepted Scottish Rite is of the official, each lodge has the privilege to work in any regular and recognized rite she may desire, by giving notice to the Grand Lodge. Instruction is given to the brethren in all rites and besides the old sciences, which comprise the Royal Art, the modern, social and political, are also studied.
7-10. The seventh and eighth questions are partly answered in previous replies. There are treaties of friendship in force with several Masonic Grand bodies in this republic and also foreign, maintaining friendly relations with the whole Latin American continent and several European Grand Lodges, with whom we are in correspondence. The Supreme Council of the 33rd and last degree of the Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite of the United States of Mexico maintains friendly relations since many years with all Supreme Councils including the Southern and Northern Jurisdictions of the United States of America and was represented at the Grand Convention at Laussanne, Switzerland, and forms part of the Confederation.
Our Grand Lodge has its residence in Torreon, state of Coahuila, and its members have not missed working a single day set for its meetings, notwithstanding the political disturbances the country is undergoing, and in conformity with our ancient landmarks and customs it has never intermeddled in politics or religion and has constantly respected the dispositions of the de facto authorities who have governed the State.
Recognized by all Masonic authorities in the republic our members have found protection and help, whenever needed, and liberal as our rite is, we do not make distinctions in nationality, religion or race of a brother to give him assistance.
As I have said before, we do not limit ourselves to extend our relations to the Grand bodies of this republic only; we are also in connection with foreign bodies, particularly Latin-American, and if we in the past have neglected our sister republic to the north, the reason is, that we have been informed that those who do not belong to the York Rite, profess the Protestant religion, and express themselves in correct English, have been slighted, a thing which we have regretted very much and which has been the cause that numerous Mexicans living in the State of Texas seek the Mexican National Rite.
God grant that the Grand Lodges of the United States, in a spirit more fraternal, less egoistic and more in accordance with the Constitutions of the Scottish Rite and with the Old Landmarks, will inaugurate a new era of good relationship between the regular Grand Lodges of the two Americas and in this manner shall we the Sons of the Widow better fulfill our great mission and enable us to help the whole world in these difficult times.
El Muy Respetable Gran Maestro,
Lic. Jesus Maer Bosque.
El Gran Secretario,
N. R. Garcia. [ Seal.]
A.’.L.’.G.’.D.’.G.’.A.’.D.’.U.’.
GRAN LOGIA “COSMOS”
DE AA.’.LL.’. Y AA.’. MM.’.
Del Estado de Chihuahua
(R.’.E.’.A.’.A.’.)
Gr.’. Secretaria
Direccion:
Apartado Postal 221
A la Grand Lodge A.’.F.’. & A.’. M.’. of Alabama.
Or.’. de Guntersville, Alabama.
Lib.’. Ig.’. Frat.’. Num. 429.
This Grand Lodge was united to the “Grand Dieta” in 1890, and proclaimed its independence in 1896 according to the unanimous consent of all the constituent lodges.
In 1899 entered a treaty of Alliance and Friendship with the Supreme Council of the 33 Gr.’. of the A.’. and A.’. S.’. R.’. for the Masonic jurisdiction of Mexican Republic. In this Treaty, which is still in force, it is recognized the territorial jurisdiction for the Estate of Chihuahua, of the Grand “Cosmos” Lodge.
Some disturbances among its membership were the cause for the apostasy of two of its constituent lodges, and in order to avoid this abnormal condition, from one of the loyal lodges were taken the necessary members to constitute two new lodges, that under warrant started to work at once, and a short time after, such new lodges were granted their charters issued by the Grand United Mexican Lodge of Vera Cruz, which is one of the most reputed and credited as regular in this Republic.
Previous to the above proceedings, in the early part of the year 1903, was started the reorganization of the Grand Lodge “Cosmos” with the help of the Grand United Mexican Lodge of Vera Cruz, represented by the V.’. Bro. Rafael L. Molina, who duly installed the officers of the constituent lodges “Constancia y Trabajo No. 1,” “Mariano Escobedo No. 2” and “Hidalgo No. 3.”
In 1901 were entered friendly relations with the Grand Lodge of California, and with the Grand Lodge of New Mexico, U. S. A.
In 1903 the Grand Lodge of France appointed as Guaranty of Friendship before this Grand Lodge Cosmos the Bro. Rafael L. Molina.
The work of increasing of the institution was continued uninterruptedly until, unfortunately, the political events of our country came to interrupt such work.
Having been proclaimed sleeping, some of the constituent lodges of this High Corps were reorganized and now are in active and regular work. The following lodges constitute the “Grand Cosmos Lodge”:
“Constancia y Trabajo No. 1” - V.’. Master, Pedro Escapite; Secretary, S. Villalobos.
“Mariano Escobedo No. 2” - V.’. Master, Eduardo L. Becerra; Secretary, M. F. Monzon.
“Perseverancia y Lealtad No. 12” - V.’. Master, Martin Rubio; Secretary, Ramon Rodriguez D.
“Benito Juarez No. 10” - V.’. Master, Jose Murillo; Secretary, Justino Cortes.
“Guelatao No. 5” - V.’. Master, Filiberto Guenrostro; Secretary, Baudelio Perez.
The above five lodges are in actual work with a membership of no less than four hundred all together, according to the A.’.A.’.S.’. ritual, under the jurisdiction of the Grand Lodge “Cosmos” of State of Chihuahua, which is the only Masonic Power recognized by the following High Corps for the three symbolic degrees:
Supreme Consejo del 33d - Mexico, D. F.
Grand Lodge “Valle de Mexico” - Mexico, D. F.
Grand Lodge “Unida Mexicana” - Vera Cruz, V. C.
Grand Lodge “Occidental Mexicana” - Guadalajara, Jal. Mex.
Grand Lodge “Oriental” - Merida, Yuc.
Grand Lodge de Estado - Monterey, N. L.
Grand Lodge “Benito Juarez” - Torreon, Coah.
Grand Lodge de Chile - Chile.
Grand Lodge - Lima, Peru.
Grand Lodge - Guatemala, Guatemala.
Grand Lodge Cuscatlan - San Salvador, C. America.
Supreme Consiglio del 33d ed ultimo gardo - Roma, Italia.
Supreme Counseil de la Rep - Argentina - Buenos Aires.
and some other Corps with whom now we have re-established our interrupted relations.
We send you our fraternal greetings.
Grand Secretary,
Cayetano Sainz Pardo.
Grand Master:[Seal.]
Gumerindo Balderrama. [ Seal.]
SUMMARY
The present status of Masonry in Mexico, in brief, seems to be about this:
There are twelve Grand Lodges at work. These claim and exercise jurisdiction over the first three degrees only, except the lodges may, as in this country, confer the Past Master degree on Masters-elect. Eleven of these Grand Lodges recognize each other as regular and as a rule use the Scottish Rite Symbolic ritual. They do not recognize the York Grand Lodge and have no Masonic intercourse with it.
There is a Supreme Council of the A. & A. Scottish Rite, located in Mexico City, claiming exclusive jurisdiction throughout the Republic. It receives applicants for its degrees from the group of eleven Grand Lodges above mentioned and did until November, 1919, receive them from members of the York Grand Lodge, but it now strictly forbids any intercourse with or recognition of members of the “York.”
An unofficial letter from Brother Jose Cos, Sovereign Grand Commander of the Supreme Council, says:
“1st. This Supreme Council claims no jurisdiction, whatsoever, over any Symbolic body or over the Capitular bodies, Chapter, Council and Commandery of the York Rite;
“2nd. The only possible connection this Supreme Council has with Symbolic bodies is, as it is in all other jurisdictions the world over, to know that the Lodge of Perfection does not accept an application from any Symbolic Mason of the Third degree unless he is a member of a lodge which owes allegiance to a legally constituted Grand Lodge;
“3rd. There is, in this Jurisdiction, a Philosophic body by the name of “Rito Nacional Mexicano” which claims jurisdiction over Symbolic bodies but this body has been declared by this Supreme Council as spurious. (See copy of Balustre No. 78, transmitted herewith.)”
There is also Mexico City Chapter of Royal Arch Masons holding under the Grand Chapter of Texas. On December 26, 1919, the High Priest of this Chapter submitted a decision at a regular meeting of the Chapter, holding the eleven Grand Lodges above mentioned to be regular and all others in Mexico, including the “York,” to be illegitimate.
There are also a Council of Royal and Select Masters, Mexico City Commandery No. 1, and Anezeh Temple, A.A.O.N.M. Shrine. We are informed that all these bodies are now drawing the line on the “York.”
The strongest point of attack made against the “York” is that it is a body of foreign Masons speaking a foreign language who have attempted to monopolize Symbolic Masonry in the entire Republic. The “York” virtually admits this charge; its Grand Master at its 1919 Annual said, “we are a mere nucleus of Americans and English here in a foreign country.”
(1) Freston states (p. 4) that the Supreme Grand Orient ceased to exist February 26, 1890. Its lodges passed to the several Grand Lodges within whose territory they were situated. (Light, Vol. 4, p. 63.) We are also assured that the so-called “Reformed Scottish Rite” has died out.
(2) A well informed brother in Mexico writes that “the Grand Lodge of the Federal District of Mexico” went out of existence in 1904, when it united with the Grand Lodges “Santos Degollado” and “Valle de Mexico,” carrying with them the rights of those bodies to Grand Lodge Valle de Mexico. The so-called “Independent Grand Lodge of the Federal District of Mexico,” says this brother, was a revival “by a person or persons who were not even members, and used for political and pecuniary purposes, calling its Grand Lodge 'Distrito Federal,' after the old Grand Lodge.” He pronounces this last Grand body “absolutely clandestine and so pronounced by all students of Masonry in Mexico.” (Concerning “Santos Degollado,” see York Grand Lodge Pamphlet [1920], pp. 26, 27-8, 44.)
(3) A recent unofficial letter from Brother Jose Cos, Sovereign Grand Commander of the Supreme Council of Mexico, says that the following Grand Lodges mentioned in the foregoing list are “dead,” namely, “Distrito Federal,” “Distrito Federal Independente,” Aguas Calientes, Durango, Guanajuato, Vicente Guerrero, Hidalgo, Morelos, “Ingnacio Ramirez.” He says the following “never existed,” namely, Basabal, Juarez, Lower California, Sonora, “Light of Frontier, No. 14,” “Jacob de Molay” and Tlaxcala.
These Grand Lodges may have “never existed” otherwise than on paper, but all have been from time to time mentioned in Masonic publications. Brother Cos says we failed to mention the regular Grand Lodge of Tamaulipas. (Concerning a Grand Lodge at Victoria, Tamaulipas, see York Grand Lodge Pamphlet [1920], p. 26.)
Brother Freston, in his pamphlet, (p. 8), says he understands that there is a Grand Lodge in the State of Tabasco. We have never met with other reference to it. There was also at one time a Grand Lodge in the State of Mexico. (York Grand Lodge Pamphlet [1920], p. 26.)
(4) Of the foregoing list it is quite certain that the following have ceased to exist, namely, Aguas Calientes, Basabal, Campeache, Durango, Guanajuato, Vicente Guerrero, Hidalgo, “Occidental” of Juarez, Lower California, Morelos, “Light of the Frontier, No. 14,” “Jacob de Molay” of Tamaulipas, and Tlaxcala.
Baluster No. 79, issued in November, 1919, by the Supreme Council of the Scottish Rite for Mexico shows the following Grand Lodges as existing and at work in Mexico, namely:
Grand Lodge “Unida Mexicana” of Free and Accepted Masons of the State of Veracruz.
Grand Lodge of Ancient, Free and Accepted Masons “Valle de Mexico,” Mexico, D. F.
Grand Lodge of Free and Accepted Masons of the State of Oaxaca.
Grand Lodge “La Oriental” of Free and Accepted Masons, Yucatan.
Grand Lodge “Cosmos” of Ancient, Free and Accepted Masons of the State of Chihauhau.
Grand Lodge “Benito Juarez” of Ancient, Free and Accepted Masons of the State of Coahuila.
Grand Lodge of the State of Nuevo Leon.
Grand Lodge “Occidental Mexicana” of Ancient, Free and Accepted Masons, Jalisco.
Sovereign and Independent State Grand Lodge “El Potosi” of Free and Accepted Masons, San Luis Potosi.
Grand Lodge of Ancient, Free and Accepted Masons of Tamaulipas.
Grand Lodge of Free and Accepted Masons of the State of Puebla.
The Supreme Council strictly forbids its members receiving or holding Masonic intercourse with any Mason or Masonic body not embraced within this list. This inhibition is especially directed against the York Grand Lodge of Mexico, which it regards as an “irregular body” for the following reasons, namely:
”1. Because it was illegally organized by a group of Masons who segregated themselves from the Grand Lodge Valle de Mexico.
“2. Because immediately after the so-called organization took place, and claiming to be the successor of the Grand Lodge Valle de Mexico, which body has never ceased to exist, did on its own self-constituted authority proceed to include all other jurisdiction throughout the whole territory of this Republic, a jurisdiction which the Grand Lodge Valle de Mexico has never pretended, nor pretends now to possess.
“3. Because upon exercising the mentioned jurisdiction, and by establishing lodges in various parts of the Republic, it has invaded the Masonic territory of various regular Grand Lodges legally chartered in this country.
“4. Because by having adopted the English language as the official one, it has simply become a self-constituted Grand Lodge of foreigners, included within the territory of a free, sovereign and independent nation.
“5. Because by asserting to be the only regular Symbolic body within the territory of the Republic of Mexico, and their lodges working in the English language, it has dispossessed all Mexicans who are not familiar with the aforesaid language, of the right to make themselves regular Masons.
“6. Because there has been permitted in some of their lodges the use of ceremonies, vesture equipment, and certain badges highly improper for the symbolic degrees, and thus flagrantly violating their spirit and traditions.”
Of the State Grand Lodges shown in our list, the well-informed brother above mentioned, says:
“Some of these Grand Lodges of States are in a very precarious condition on account of the years of internal troubles which have thinned the membership but as this is only a temporary condition it will not change the standing of those Grand Lodges and probably those others which are mentioned by you as having once existed may again come to life.”
(5) Brother Forbes, who is friendly to “Valle de Mexico,” admits in his pamphlet (p. 10) that the Columbian records disprove that three charters were issued for “Union Fraternal” but only one, and that the manner of formation of “Valle de Mexico” was “clandestine, irregular and illegitimate.”
(6) Brother Forbes, who is a protagonist of the “Valle de Mexico,” in his pamphlet (p. 53), denies that “Valle de Mexico” claims any connection with the old Grand Lodge of 1826. He admits that it originated in 1865, and was formed from “Union Fraternal” Lodge chartered by the Supreme Council Neogranadino of Cartigena, Columbia.
(7) This charge is indignantly denied by Brother Forbes in his pamphlet (p. 54). He says:
“This is such a deliberate lie that it has to be characterized as one, and the lie was told in order that foreign Grand Lodges should believe that the York Grand Lodge was the only Masonic institution in this Republic which did not owe or give obedience to the Supreme Council of the Scottish Rite, and the foreign Grand Lodges would be inclined, for this reason, to accord recognition to the York Grand Lodge. To say nothing of this being a deliberate lie, you can easily see how the Mexican Masons were belittled and disparaged in the eyes of symbolism everywhere on earth, it being supposed that your Grand Master told the truth - that Mexicans had spurned Symbolic Masonry and had returned to the fold of the Scottish Rite, from which they were liberated in May, 1883.”
(8) Brother Forbes, in his pamphlet, says that the York Grand Lodge cannot produce “a scintilla of evidence to maintain its allegation” of descent from the Grand Lodge of 1825. He further says:
“This is a lie, or false statement, which ever you like to call it, and was never used by the Grand Lodge Valle de Mexico, to which Grand Lodge the York Grand Lodge claims to have succeeded. It was used only by the somewhat astute politicians who gained control of the Grand Lodge Valle de Mexico, when changing its name to the York Grand Lodge, solely for the purpose of impressing foreign Grand Lodges that the York Grand Lodge was an ancient and regular institution.”
(9) We learn from Brother Freston's pamphlet as well as from other sources that the Grand Lodge “Valle de Mexico” now claims jurisdiction over Symbolic Masonry only in the Federal District, coupled with the right to found lodges in any State or Territory where there is no Grand Lodge.
(10) Freston says (p. 7) that the lodges of “Valle de Mexico” in common with all Mexican Grand Lodges except the York, work according to a “Colonial Rite, probably Prussian in its origin.” We understand from other sources that they use the Scottish Rite ritual of the first three degrees.
(11) Brother Freston, (a partisan of the York Grand Lodge), says in his pamphlet (p. 8) of the United Mexican Grand Lodge of Vera Cruz, “that it is undoubtedly a legitimate Grand Body.”
(12) Our latest information is that the Grand Lodge of the Federal District went out of existence when, in 1904, it voluntarily united with Grand Lodge “Santos Degollado,” which in 1908 merged with “Valle de Mexico.”
(13) Late information from reliable sources in Mexico City is that both the “Reformed Scottish Rite” and the “Independent Grand Lodge of the Federal District” are now unknown there and have been so for many years. (See York Grand Lodge Pamphlet [1920], pp. 26, 60.)
(14) In November, 1919, Grand Lodge of Oaxaca was working and is recognized by the other Mexican Masonic Grand Lodges, except the York.
(15) Grand Lodge of Puebla is again at work and is recognized as regular by the Mexican Masonic bodies, according to late and reliable reports.
(16) Late information is that the Grand Lodge of Tamaulipas is still at work. Brother Freston in his pamphlet (p. 7) savagely attacks it in these words:
“2. The Grand Lodge of Tamaulipas, Dr. Guzman, G. M., Tampico. Colonial Rite. This Grand Lodge was illegally formed by one Lic. Teodoro Montemayor, as a political move to assist the late General Bernardo Reyes in his fight for the Presidency as against Don Porfirio Diaz. The old Grand Lodge of Tamaulipas died a natural death some years ago for want of members. The building in which they met had been donated to the Craft by one General Flores, an enthusiastic Mason of the old times. A condition of the gift was, that if ever the Craft ceased to work the building was to revert to the Government. To avoid this a fragment of one lodge, 'Vitrex No. 1,' always kept alive, held a meeting once in about six months. They admitted anybody that had the price, Negro, Arab, Syrian, Chinese, Mexican stevedores, - anyone that could pay five pesos for the degrees. When Montemayor was named a 'Propagandist' on behalf of General Reyes, he conceived the idea of reviving this lodge, and of using the Craft for political purposes. Accordingly, he divided Vitrex Lodge into two parts and organized a stevedore lodge in a small nearby village with timber taken from the docks and loading gangs of the stevedores. He gave them the degrees free, in consideration of their voting for his man. Out of this element he organized his Grand Lodge. The Charters were obtained from the Grand Lodge of Vera Cruz, which Grand Body, when the true facts were brought to its notice, promptly revoked them. However the harm was done and when the seceders from the Grand Lodge in 1910 formed their spurious Grand Lodge, recognition was promptly given to the body under discussion, and what is even worse, after the good old lodge of Vera Cruz enacted the unholy treaty with the pseudo Grand Lodge Valle de Mexico, they recognized Tamaulipas Grand Lodge also.”
