The Builder Magazine
September 1926 - Volume XII -
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Morgan Affair - BY BROS. ERIK MCKINLEY ERIKSON AND J. HUGO TATSCH
Refreshment Days By BRO. WILLIAM L. BOYDEN, Washington, D. C.
Rite of Strict Observance - By BRO BURTON E. BENNETT, Washington
Masonic Objection - By BRO. FREDERIC E. MANSON, Pennsylvania
AND WARDENS IN HABERDASHERS' COMPANY
Freemasonry in Ulster - By BRO. JOHN HERON LEPPER, Ireland
Memorials to Great Men Who Were Masons - John Penn - By BRO. GEORGE W. BAIRD,
P. G. M., District of Columbia
Language in Lodges - By BRO. ROBERT I. CLEGG, Associate Editor, Illinois
RELIGION AND MASONRY
NORTHEAST CORNER - Bulletin of the National Masonic Tuberculosis Sanatoria
Association - Incorporated by Authority of the Grand Lodge of New Mexico, A.F.
DE MAISTRE, FRANC-MACON.
AMERICAN MASONRY AND CATHOLIC EDUCATION.
QUESTION BOX and CORRESPONDENCE
FUNDAMENTALISM AND THE BIBLE
SENIOR DEACON AND THE CANDIDATE
CHARLES A. THOMPSON AND WILLIAM BARTON
PYTHAGOREAN LODGE AND ITS FIRST MEMBERS
ORIGIN OF DEGREES
BROS. ERIK MCKINLEY ERIKSON AND J. HUGO TATSCH
is the second article on the subject of anti-Masonry and the Morgan Affair.
Bro. Tatsch needs no introduction to readers of The Builder; Bro. Erikson is
Professor of American History at Coe College, Cedar Rapids Iowa. He has
recently published in the Bulletin of the Grand Lodge of lowa a series of
valuable articles on the anti-Masonic leaders of the period. IT has been a
common error for Masons to say that nothing had occurred up to 1826 to mar the
progress of Freemasonry in the United states. The impression is given that the
tidal wave of AntiMasonry which featured the period from 1826 to about 1840
was precipitated by the Morgan Affair of 1826--that it came without warning
like a bolt out of a clear sky. It has been shown, however, in "The Rise and
Development of Anti-Masonry in America, 1737-1826," (1) that anti-Masonry had
begun to develop early in this country and that the evidences of opposition to
the Fraternity were plainly apparent just prior to the Morgan episode.
Nevertheless, the importance of this incident should not be discounted too
much, for it was the disappearance of William Morgan, through the machinations
of some over-zealous and misguided Masons in Western New York, that gave the
enemies of the Fraternity a definite basis for their attacks and made possible
the most highly organized anti-Masonic movement this country has ever
considering this anti-Masonic movement with its baneful influence on religion
and politics and its devastating effect on the Masonic Institution, it is
desirable to learn just what the Morgan Affair was. During the period of the
"excitement" a voluminous mass of literature was poured from the press dealing
with both the anti-Masonic and the Masonic sides of the question-material
characterized generally by a display of passion and prejudice. The same may be
said of most of the writing that has been done on the subject in more recent
years. But it is now one hundred years since Morgan so mysteriously vanished,
and since the people who lived through the tragic period have passed from this
earth, it should be possible to approach the subject scientifically, and
carefully examine the great mass of evidence in an attempt to arrive at the
truth regarding one of the most controversial incidents in American history.
Despite all the efforts that have been made during the past century to
ascertain the facts about William Morgan, most of his career is still shrouded
in mystery. What is known of him prior to his appearance in New York can be
briefly stated. He was born in Culpepper County, virginia, in 1775 or 1776
(Rob Morris gives Aug. 7, 1774, at the date). Just what he did during about
the first forty years of his life is not definitely known. On one hand it was
claimed that he was engaged in piratical activities in the Gulf of Mexico with
the notorious Lafitte, and incidentally fought in the battle of New Orleans;
on the other it was asserted by the anti-Masons that he held a captain's
commission in the United states Army and served brilliantly with General
Andrew Jackson in the famous victory over the British, Jan. 8, 1815.
Satisfactory documentary evidence, from the War Department or elsewhere, in
support of either contention, was never produced, nor is there evidence to
corroborate Colonel William L. Stone's statement that Morgan was merely a
private soldier in the army during the War of 1812.
1819, he was married in Washington County, Virginia, to Lucinda Pendleton, the
sixteen-year-old daughter of a respectable Methodist minister. Two years
later, J. Ross Robertson relates, Morgan removed to Toronto and then to York
in Upper Canada, where he worked on a farm for a time and then was employed in
a brewery. The burning of the brewery left him without employment and induced
him to remove, in 1823, to Rochester, New York, where he took up the trade of
an operative mason, an occupation in which he apparently had been engaged
prior to his sojourn in Canada. During the same year he moved on to Batavia,
New York, but worked at his trade wherever opportunity offered. It therefore
happened that he was in Le Roy, New York, in 1825, where he succeeded in
ingratiating himself with certain Masons, notably James Ganson.
no record has ever been discovered to show where or when Morgan was made a
Mason, it is evident that he convinced his Masonic acquaintances that he had
taken the first six degrees. Robertson makes it clear that Morgan was not made
a Mason in Canada, as he seems to have claimed. It is a commentary on the
laxness of the lodges and chapters of that time to note that Morgan was
allowed to visit various lodges, in Batavia and neighboring towns, and that on
May 31, 1825, he "was duly prepared and was exalted to the degree of Royal
Arch Mason" in Western star Royal Arch Chapter No. 35 at Le Roy, merely being
vouched for by some Mason, probably Ganson. Evidently, nobody at the time
suspected Morgan of being an impostor.
Shortly after this, as related in stone's Letters, Morgan was disappointed in
his expectation of employment on a contemplated Knights Templar building at Le
Roy, and returned to Batavia with a feeling of resentment, a feeling that was
soon to be greatly aggravated. In 1826, a few Royal Arch Masons of Batavia
petitioned the Grand Chapter of the state for a charter to establish a chapter
in the village and Morgan was allowed to sign the petition. This displeased
some of the petitioners who had observed with growing disapproval Morgan's
Accounts of the character of Morgan are very conflicting, varying from the
eulogistic statements of the Anti-Mason, Samuel D. Greene, to the denunciatory
descriptions by Rob Morris, the Masonic writer, who spent about forty years
seeking information on the Morgan Affair, and who interviewed about one
hundred persons who were acquainted with Morgan. That he was a heavy drinker
there can be no doubt. Howeyer, he was not a drunkard in the legal sense of
the word, which at the time was applied only to those who were intoxicated
more than half the time. He neglected his family and otherwise demonstrated
his in stability of character. On occasion he displayed, according to the
Anti-Masonic writer, stone, a disposition that was "envious, malicious and
vindictive." In view of this knowledge of Morgan, the original petitioners for
a chapter secretly destroyed the petition and secured a dispensation from the
Grand High Priest and Deputy Grand High Priest by a petition from which his
name was omitted. (2) When he learned what had been done, Morgan was naturally
furious and resolved to secure revenge by exposing the secrets of Masonry.
MILLER, THE OTHER PROTAGONIST
happened that there was in the village of Batavia, a printer named David C.
Miller, who, since 1811, had published the "Republican Advocate." Prior to
coming to Batavia, Miller had taken the Entered Apprentice Degree at Albany,
New York, but had not taken the following degrees because, as Rob Morris
claimed, the Fraternity was unwilling to "advance" him further. Whether this
were true or not, it is evident that Miller had a strong dislike for Masons, a
dislike that was increaseed by an incident that oecurred shortly before the
Because of a quarrel with Miller, some men who had been his political friends
established a new journal in Batavia styled the "People's Press," which soon
attracted most of the printing business from the "Advocate" office. According
to Henry Brown, a fellow villager, and author of a well-known contemporary
Masonic account of the Morgan Affair, Miller chose to regard himself as "an
object of Masonick persecution." It is evident, therefore, that he was in the
proper frame of mind to offer himself as the publisher of Morgan's alleged
expose'. Further, as Stone said, "a similarity of tastes and habits had
brought him and Morgan into the relations of intimate association, and it was
but natural that they should discourse to each other of their private griefs."
Miller, at least, seems to have possessed the idea that the publication of a
Masonic expose would result in great financial gain, and accordingly threw his
energies into the project. Probably as early as March, 1826, Morgan and Miller
took into their partnership John Davids, a Batavian, and Russell Dyer of
Rochester, and in August a mysterious Canadian with much needed capital, named
Daniel Johns, was added to the select circle.
examination of the various sources dealing with the subject makes it clear
that no attempt was made by the partners in the infamous affair to conceal
their project. On the contrary it was evidently part of the scheme to excite
the Masons and thereby insure increased sales for the exposure Morgan was
preparillg. Morgan himself boasted in bar-rooms and elsewhere of his
intentions, and Miller, through his newspaper, conveyed to the public
intimations of what was contemplated. When Morgan, on Aug. 14, 1826, deposited
with the clerk of the Northern District of New York, the title, Illustrations
of Masonry, for the purpose of securing a copyright, there could be no doubt
of his intent.
AND EESENTMENT OF THE UNINSTRUCTED MASONS
the "more respectable and intelligent portion of the Fraternity gave no heed"
to the matter, some Masons were considerably agitated and began scheming to
prevent the publication of their secrets. On Aug. 9, 1826, some Mason
[probably Nicholas G. Cheseboro] caused to be published in a Canandaigua paper
a warning against Morgan, saying, "Morgan is considered a swindler, and a
dangerous man." This notice was soon reprinted in the newspapers of Batavia
and elsewhere. Though much was later made of this notice by most anti-Masons,
stone's opinion was that it was issued in accordance with the long existent
Masonic custom of inserting advertisements in newspapers "to put the brethren
on their guard against unworthy and expelled members."
Brown was one of the prominent Masons who sought to allay the excitement, and
to this end published, on Sept. 1, 1826, in a Batavia paper called "The Spirit
of the Times," an article signed "A Brother," in which he urged that the
matter be disregarded, as the Fraternity could not be injured by the
contemplated publication of secrets. The advice was disregarded and the more
rash Masons went on with their plans to frustrate Morgan and his associates.
As Brown stated in his Narrative:
rash, foolish and impolitick measure was never devised. Had Miller and Morgan
been left to themselves--had the book been printed without any efforts to
prevent it--and had the Masons manifested no anxiety whatever, on the
occasion, it would have fallen of its own weight, still born, from the press;
and the author and publisher, as such, never been heard of more. Masonry,
however, it seems, as well as religion, was destined to have its officious and
Though, later, the Anti-Masons freely claimed (without any legal basis for
their claim) that it was the plan of the Masons to murder Morgan, the evidence
in the case does not warrant any stronger conclusion than that they intended
to bring about a separation of Morgan from Miller, and secure possession of
Morgan's manuscript. As early as August, 1826, there were signs of discord
between Morgan and his partners, which may have influenced the Masons
concerned to think that they could persuade Morgan to give up his plans and
leave the village. Both stone and Morris agree that negotiations were carried
on between Masons and Morgan, but whether or not the latter agreed to
surrender his manuscript and accompany the Masons away from Batavia is one of
the many controversial points in the affair which can never be definitely
ATTEMPT TO BURN MILLER'S OFFICE
only were such negotiations carried on, but attempts were made to secure or
destroy such papers as were in Miller's possession. On the night of Sept. 8,
1826, a crowd of men assembled in Batavia for the evident purpose of securing
entrance to Miller's office by force, but attempted no action when they found
the place was guarded. Two nights later the building was set on fire but the
flames were extinguished before making any headway. Masons were charged with
incendiarism and it was counter-charged that Miller himself had started the
fire to create excitement. A few months later, on March 7, 1827, a group of
twenty prominent Masons, including Henry Brown, Ebenezer Mix, Frederick
Follett and J. S. Ganson, offered a reward of one hundred dollars for the
apprehension of the supposed incendiary, but the reward was never claimed.
very morning preceding this fire, the first definite step in the actual
"abduction" of Morgan occured, when Nicholas G. Cheseboro, a Mason of
Canandaigua, secured a warrant for the arrest of Morgan on a charge of petit
larceny. Taking with him Holloway Hayward, a constable, and several others,
Cheseboro proceeded to Batavia, where, on the morning of Sept. 11, 1826,
Morgan was placed under arrest by Hayward. It happened that Morgan a few weeks
before had been placed in "jail limits" because of his debts, that is, he had
been released on bail on condition that he would not leave Batavia. Miller,
who had furnished the bail, objected to the law officer's contemplated action
in taking Morgan away. But the officer overruled the objection (properly, as
was later decided in court) on the ground that the warrant was for a criminal
offense and therefore it was permissible to take Morgan to Canandaigua. Morgan
himself made no objection to leaving Batavia.
BECAME OF MORGAN
what happened to Morgan after he left Batavia probably never will be
determined. The evidence at every step is of such a controversial nature that
it is impossible to draw conclusions which will satisfy everybody. But by
sifting out the material found in the numerous books, pamphlets, newspaper
accounts and reports of the grand jury investigations and court trials, it is
possible to set forth the rival claims and to give such facts as have been
cannot be questioned that Morgan was taken to Canandaigua, where, on Sept. 12,
he was arraigned before a magistrate and acquitted of the charge of having
stolen a shirt and cravat while in the village a few months previously. He was
immediately rearrested on a debt charge and placed in jail but was released
that evening. Then he entered a closed carriage and was transported, willingly
as claimed on one side, or forcibly as claimed by the Anti-Masons, to Ft.
Niagara, passing through Rochester and Lewiston and reaching the fort, then
without a garrison, on Sept. 11, 1826, where he was confined in a magazine.
What happened to him thereafter is still an unsolved mystery.
Through the fruitless efforts of Mrs. Morgan to find her husband at
Canandaigua, it became noised abroad that Morgan had been kidnapped and
concealed. Rumors began to circulate that there was a widespread conspiracy to
suppress Morgan's book and that his disappearance was a result of this
conspiracy. On Sept. 18, Miller definitely charged, in his newspaper, that
Morgan had been abducted. Accordingly, a public meeting was held at Batavia on
Sept. 26, 1826, and a committee of ten was appointed to conduct investigations
and attempt to learn what had happened to Morgan. This Batavia committee was
the first of the notorious "Morgan committees," which were practically
self-constituted groups of men organized in the various counties of
northwestern New York. The most active committee was that in Monroe County,
which included in its membership Thurlow Weed, and which, at first, probably
did more than any other agency to stir up Anti-Masonic feeling in western New
York. Other noteworthy committees were those in Genesee, Livingston, Niagara
and Ontario counties. These various committees met together at Lewiston and
Ft. Niagara early in 1827 and were thereafter frequently denominated the
first Masons participated in the activities of these committees, at least in
that of Monroe County. But when it was charged that they were reporting all
that transpired in the committee "to the Chapter, meetings of which were held
simultaneously with the meetings of the investigating committee" (to quote
Weed), they withdrew and left the non-Masons to conduct the investigations as
they pleased. Under the direction of the "Morgan committees" evidence was
collected and presented to grand juries, in attempts to have suspccted Masons
indicted, not only for kidnapping but also for murder.
GIDDINS AND HIS STORY
their charges largely on the statements of Edward Giddins, a professed
atheist, whose testimony the courts refused to accept, the Anti-Masons began
to assert that Morgan had been drowned in the Niagara River. They even fixed
on the night of Sept. 19, 1826, as the date of the alleged murder. They sought
desperately to secure tangible evidence, and under the direction of Weed and
others, the lower part of the Niagara River and the adjacent part of Lake
Ontario were thoroughly dragged, the vain search for Morgan's body extending
over several months.
hope of finding Morgan had about died out when, on Oct. 7,1827 (over a year,
it should be noted, after Morgan's disappearance), a body was washed up on the
shore of Lake Ontario at Oak Orchard. The coroner took charge and after a
brief inquest, ordered the putrid body to be buried. When the news reached
Rochester, Batavia and other points, there was great excitement.
Representatives of the Morgan commit tees hastened to the scene, led by
Thurlow Weed, had the body exhumed and secured a second inquest. wit nesses
were examined and, on Oct. 15, the coroner's jury returned a verdict that the
body was that of William Morgan. This verdict was returned in spite o the fact
that none of the clothing on the body was Morgan's.
secured the desired verdict, the Anti-Masons made capital of it. The body was
taken to Batavia, accompanied by a great parade. As the news spread, hundreds
and even thousands of people flocked to Batavia to attend the funeral of the
"Masonic Martyr.' As stone related it, "A funeral discourse was preached, and
at the close of the solemn services, the body was once more committed to its
kindred earth, amidst the tears of the widow, and the curses of the people,
deep and bitter, against the Masons."
THIRD INQUEST ON MONRO
the triumph of the Anti-Masons was short lived. It happened that in September,
1827, a Canadian, named Timothy Monro, has disappeared and it was suspected
that he had been drowned in the Niagara River. When his family and friends
heard of the events on the American side of the river, they hastened to
Batavia where, on their insistence, the body was again disinterred and a third
inquest held on Oct. 29, 1827. Mrs. Monro positively identified every item of
the clothing found on the body, and this combined with other evidence, caused
the coroner's jury to return a verdict that the body was that of Timothy Monro,
and that he had been accidentally drowned on Sept. 26, 1827. It was on this
occasion that Thurlow Weed was accused of remarking that the body was "a
good-enough Morgan until after the election."
only did the Anti-Masons fail to discover the body of Morgan, but they failed
dismally in their attempts to establish judicially the fact that Morgan was
murdered. This fact certainly stands out in bold relief though they continued
to freely assert that they knew when, where and by whom Morgan was murdered.
Anti-Masons were never able to even secure an indictment for murder, though
they exerted themselves to the utmost to do so. It would be a wearisome task
to rehearse here the details of these efforts as contained in the reports of
grand jury investigations and court trials. An analysis of these shows that
between 1826 and 1829 inclusive (the latter year being the last in which
indictments could be secured under the statute of limitations) there were at
least fourteen grand jury investigations of the Morgan Affair and that
forty-three men were indicted. None of these was indicted for an offense more
serious than conspiracy and kidnapping, which, under the New York law in 1826,
was merely a misdemeanor and not a felony. Some of these individuals were
indicted more than once. The first of the "Morgan trials" was held in January,
1827, at Canandaigua, and the last in the Niagara Special circuit Court in
March, 1831. No less than eighteen separate trials of alleged kidnappers were
held, and twenty-nine different persons were tried, some of them more than
once, but the net result was the conviction of only six Masons, and all of
these for complicity in abducting Morgan.
CONVICTIONS FOR COMPLICITY
of interest to note that four of these convictions were secured in the first
trial when John C. Spencer, who shortly afterwards became a leading
Anti-Mason, was counsel for the defense. On the advice of Spencer, three of
the men, Nicholas G. Cheseboro, Colonel Edward Sawyer and Loton Lawson,
entered a plea of guilty and received sentences from Judge Enos T. Throop (the
later Governor) as follows: Cheseboro, one year in the Ontario County jail;
Lawson, two years in jail, and Sawyer, one month in jail. John Sheldon elected
to stand trial but was found guilty and sentenced to three months in the same
next conviction was not secured until August, 1828, when Eli Bruce, who had
been removed as sheriff of Niagara County by Governor DeWitt Clinton on Sept.
26, 1827, was found guilty of aiding in Morgan's abduction, and was sentenced
to serve for two years and four months in the jail at Canandaigua. In the
following May, John Whitney, who at first fled but voluntarily returned, was
convicted and sentenced to one year and three months in the same jail. (3)
Colonel William King, who fled to Arkansas, but later returned voluntarily to
face trial, died suddenly, on May 28, 1829, before he could be tried. Burrage
Smith, who fled with King, died before he could return and so he did not face
trial. David Hague (or Hogue) also died before he could be tried. A few other
sentences were imposed in connection with activities carried on against
Morgan's partner, Miller, (4) while several others were punished for contempt
of court in connection with the trials.
to accomplish the things they had hoped to bring about, the Anti-Masons heaped
their denunciations on the Masons without discrimination. Their failure to
secure more convictions they attributed to "Masonic interference" and
"influence," and they complained that the state government did not
sufficiently cooperate. But the facts show that Governor DeWitt Clinton,
before his sudden death on Feb. 11, 1828, though he was the leading Mason (5)
in the United States at the time, did what was in his power to do in
apprehending the alleged conspirators against Morgan.
GOVERNOR CLINTON'S PART
Anti-Masonic writers as Weed and even Masonic writers as Morris and Robertson
assert that Governor Clinton was cognizant of, and gave his sanction to, the
plans to remove Morgan from Batavia, and even furnished funds for the purpose.
On the other hand, Colonel stone, while advocating in his Letters the
abolition of Freemasonry, defended Clinton against such charges, and pointed
to the Governor's record as evidence that he was interested in apprehending
the Morgan abductors.
soon as the Batavia committee wrote informing him, on Oct. 2, 1826, of the
excitement prevailing in the locality over Morgan's disappearance, Clinton
issued a proclamation, on Oct. 7, calling on all officers to do their duty,
"to pursue all proper and efficient measures for the apprehension of the
offenders, and the prevention of future outrages," and requesting "the good
citizens of this state to cooperate with the civil authorities in maintaining
the ascendency of law and good order." He also promised "compensation" for any
expenses that might be incurred in securing the punishment of offenders. On
Oct. 26 the Governor issued a second proclamation offering rewards up to three
hundred dollars "for the discovery of the offenders." This proving
ineffectual, he issued a third proclamation, March 19, 1827, offering "One
Thousand Dollars for the discovery of the said William Morgan if alive, and if
murdered, a reward of Two Thousand Dollars for the discovery of the offender
or offenders, to be paid on conviction."
Governor Clinton also wrote to the governors of Upper and Lower Canada asking
that investigation be made to learn whether or not Morgan was being forcibly
detained in Canada. Both the Earl of Dalhousie, the Governor of Lower Canada,
and P. Maitland, the Governor of Upper Canada, complied with the request, and
reported that they had secured no satisfactory evidence regarding Morgan. This
information Clinton passed on to the Batavia committee. Later, Governor
Clinton removed Eli Bruce, a Mason, from the office of Sheriff of Niagara
County, when he failed to defend himself against charges, filed with the
Governor, that he had taken part in Morgan's removal. But while he was thus
performing his duties as Governor, Clinton remained loyal to the Masonic
Institution. In his letter to the Anti-Masonic Batavia committee, on Jan. 8,
1827, after reporting that he had written to the Canadian officials, he made
one of the best defences of Masonry that appeared during the period. He said:
persuaded, however, that the body of Freemasons, so far from having any
participation in this affair, or giving any countenance to it, reprobate it as
a most unjustifiable act, repugnant to the principles, and abhorrent to the
doctrines of the fraternity. I know that Freemasonry, properly understood, and
faithfully attended to, is friendly to religion, morality, liberty and good
government; and I shall never shrink, under any state of excitement, or any
extent of misrepresentation, from bearing testimony in favor of the purity of
an institution, which can boast of a Washington, a Franklin and a Lafayette,
as distinguished members, and which inculcates no principles, and authorises
no acts, that are not in perfect accordance with good morals, civil liberty
and entire obedience to government and the laws. It is no more responsible for
the acts of unworthy members, than any other association, or institution.
Without intending, in the remotest degree, a comparison, or improper allusion,
I might ask whether we ought to revile our holy religion, because Peter
denied, and Judas betrayed?
only did the Governor lend his support to the effort to apprehend the Morgan
conspirators, but the state legislature, after receiving a petition from the
Lewiston committee, also took action to aid in the prosecutions. In 1827 it
approved the offer of a reward for the apprehension of offenders in the Morgan
case, and on April 15, 1828, enacted a law providing for a "special counsel"
to conduct the cases for the state. Daniel Moseley of Onondaga County was
first appointed to fill the offlce. When he resigned on March 3, 1829, to
accept a judgeship, John C. Spencer, "the converted counsel," received the
appointment. Unable to secure convictions, he resigned early in 1830, and
sought to fasten blame on Governor Throop for not cooperating. He was
succeeded by victor Birdseye, who held office until the special act creating
the office expired in April, 1831, because of the refusal of the legislature
to renew it. In view of the fact that these special prosecutors failed to
solve the Morgan mystery, and in spite of their strenuous efforts, could not
secure convictions, it is reasonable to conclude that the charges that Morgan
was murdered were based on mere hearsay evidence.
to find Morgan's body and failing in their efforts to secure judicial
recognition of his alleged murder, the anti-Masons sought to prove their
contention by citing "confessions" by various individuals that they committed
the murder. Even today some of these "confessions" are paraded before the
public as proof of Morgan's murder. An examination of the several
"confessions" proves nothing except the perversity of human nature. They
exhibit such glaring inconsistencies that it is not possible to accept any of
them as giving a true account of Morgan's disappearance.
are alleged confessions of at least five individuals to be considered. The
first was by R. H. Hill of Buffalo, who, on Oct. 16, 1827, shortly after the
discovery of what proved to be Monro's body, confessed that he had murdered
Morgan by cutting his throat. He was placed under arrest and was removed to
Lockport for trial. His case was presented to the grand jury at the next
session but the jury refused to indict him, and ordered his discharge on the
ground that he was insane.
next alleged confession was that of Richard Howard, reported by the notorious
seceding Mason and expose author, Avery Allyn. Allyn, in March, 1829, made
affidavit that Howard had confessed "in February, or March, 1827," at a
Masonic meeting in St. John's Hall in New York city, that he was one of the
assassins of Morgan. Allyn further asserted that the Masons had furnished
funds to pay for Howard's passage to Europe. This alleged confession, coming
indirectly through such a person as Allyn, without satisfactory supporting
evidence, can be given no credence.
L. Valance's was the third confession which arrests attention. It did not
appear in print until 1849, when it appeared in pamphlet form, allegedly "As
Taken Down by John L. Emery, of Racine County wisconsin, in the Summer of
1848," when Valance was on his death bed. According to this confession,
Morgan, with weights fastened to his body, was taken in a boat by three men
and was pushed overboard into the Niagara River by Valance. The latter said
that he had been a Canadian Mason, and was selected by lot to aid in the
execution of Morgan. It is to be noted of Valance's confession that it does
not agree with any of the others and is entirely unsupported. Certainly it
does not harmonize with the "confession" of Samuel Chubbuck, who shortly
before his death, June 4, 1881 stated that he, together with John Whitney and
Colonel William King, had, on the night of Sept. 24, 1826, dropped a weighted
"parcel" into the Niagara River, the "parcel" being Morgan's body. J. Ross
Robertion, the historian of Canadian Masonry, is inclined to accept Chubbuck's
"confession", but there is no more reason apparent for accepting it than any
other "confession" .
most widely heralded "confession" of the murder of Morgan is that of John
Whitney. In fact, there are two alleged confessions by Whitney, the one
related by Weed, and the other of a decidedly contradictory nature, told by
Rob Morris. Unfortunately for Weed, he told his version of the Whitney
"confession" too many times, exhibiting important discrepancies in his various
stories. In 1875, 1879 and 1881, Weed gave out his alleged Whitney
"confession" in newspaper interviews, and again, on Sept. 28, 1882, he told
the story under oath for publication in the New York "Sun." A version of the
"confession" was also contained in a letter written Sept. 9, 1882, at the
request of the secretary of the National Christian Association, and read at
the national convention at Batavia on Sept. 14, 1882, when the Morgan monument
was dedicated. Weed's Autobiography, published in 1884, also contains the
"confession", but in this case some glaring errors were corrected.
briefly, Weed alleged that in 1831, in the presence of two witnesses, Whitney
confessed to him that Morgan had been abducted with the intent of turning him
over to Canadian Masons who were to settle him in Canada. After he had been
taken to Ft. Niagara, the Canadian Masons refused to receive him. At about
that time a large number of Masons assembled at Lewiston to install a Royal
Arch Chapter (6) and, as a result of the Masonic enthusiasm generated by the
occasion, five Masons, William King, John Whitney, [Richard or Henry?] Howard,
Samuel Chubbuck and George Garsides, were impelled to leave the meeting, go to
the fort, take Morgan in a boat, and throw him overboard into the Niagara
River. Weed then related that he intended to get Whitney's signed confession,
and visited him at Chicago in 1860, while attending the Republican National
Convention. He left Chicago without securing the written confession, and when
he wrote from Europe in 1861, he learned that Whitney was dead. (7) The fact
remains that Whitney did not die until 1869, and this fact Weed evidently
"discovered" after his story had been published in the newspapers, for in his
Autobiography, he changed the date of his letter to Whitney to 1869. This
discrepancy between the newspaper accounts and the Autobiography account is
enough to cause Weed's story to be questioned. It is rather remarkable that
Weed should have been so careless as to fail to secure a written confession
from Whitney when the opportunity offered! As it is the confession is entirely
unsupported, and as Weed was trying to justify the prominent part which he
played in the Anti-Masonic movement, the alleged confession cannot be
there is another reason for rejecting Weed's version of the Whitney
"confession," and that is because Rob Morris published another Whitney
"confession" which is in strong contrast to Weed's account. According to
Morris, Whitney did not promise, in 1860, to furnish Weed with a written
confession, but rather threatened Weed with violence if he did not desist from
telling lies about him.
MORRIS AND WHITNEY
story of Morgan's disappearance, as Morris claimed that Whitney told it to him
in 1859, was substantially as follows: When the agitation among the Masons
commenced because of the rumors that Morgan was about to publish the Masonic
secrets, Whitney and Nicholas G. Cheseboro formulated a plan for getting
Morgan away from Batavia and carried out the plan with the help of a few other
Masons. Whitney claimed, according to Morris, that Morgan agreed to depart,
and the matter of having him arrested was devised as a means of getting him
out of the Batavia "jail limits." It was asserted that Morgan was a willing
party to all the transactions, that no force had to be employed, and that he
was taken to Ft. Niagara which was reached without difficulty on Sept. 14,
1826. After that he was taken across the river accompanied by Whitney, Eli
Bruce and Colonel William King, in a boat rowed by Elisha Adams and Edward
Giddins, at the time engaged in operating a ferry near the fort. There,
details of Morgan's disposal were developed with two Canadian Masons, who are
unnamed, Morgan giving his assent to everything. For a few days Morgan
remained in an empty powder magazine of the fort until, on the night of Sept.
17, the two Canadians came after him and conveyed him to the Canadian side,
and, on the next night, accompanied him "to a point near the present city of
Hamilton." Here Whitney asserted (according to Morris) that Morgan was left
after signing a receipt for five hundred dollars and agreeing to remain in
Canada until given permission by King, Bruce or Whitney "to change his
location." After the excitement over Morgan's disappearance began in New York,
preparations were made to bring Morgan back, but he had disappeared.
Unfortunately, this version of Whitney's "confession," like that related by
Weed, is entirely unsupported. While it is at least as worthy of acceptance as
the Weed version, one would be justified in rejecting it, providing he also
rejected Weed's story. The historian must reject both of these alleged
"confessions," together with the "confessions" of Hill, Howard, Valance and
MYSTERY STILL UNSOLVED
it is evident that the disappearance of Morgan remains yet to be explained,
and the probability is that his ultimate fate will always remain an unsolved
mystery. Perhaps in the future, stories (8) will be exhumed from the musty
records of the past, telling how Morgan was murdered or how he fled to Smyrna
in Asia Minor, or went to Holland and became a merchant, or went out west and
became a chief among the Indians, or lived and died as a hermit in Northern
Canada. But an examination of the tales will reveal that they belong to the
mythology that early developed around Morgan and that they have little in them
worthy of acceptance.
a sufficient commentary on the character of the Anti-Masonic leaders that they
continued to freely assert that Morgan had been put to death by the Masons,
though they knew full well that they had failed to prove their case. The
shrewd individuals who were responsible for the development of Anti-Masonry
were not inclined to be scrupulous on that point! They had found something
that would appeal to the passions of the people and they made the most of it.
Incidental to their main design of organizing what they expected to be a
powerful Anti-Masonic political party, these leaders kept up as long as
possible the excitement over Morgan's disappearance, encouraging the
persecutions of Masons who were ministers and church members, and seeking to
prevent Masons from serving on juries or holding public offices. It seems to
be a justifiable conclusion that anti-Masons, disguising tlleir ulterior
motive of securing political power for themselves under a pretense of
righteous indignation at a "murder" that they could not prove, sought to
annihilate the Masonic Institution, using every means possible. How nearly
they succeeded will be made clear later.
PERSlSTENCE OF THE ACCUSATIONS
before leaving the "Morgan Affair" itself, there is one more point that should
be mentioned, and that is the fact that the charge that the Masonic Fraternity
was responsible for the "murder" of Morgan persists to the present time. While
this phase of the subject merits special attention, it may be briefly observed
that when the original Anti-Masonic leaders laid down their mantles, their
places were taken by a number of comparatively obscure individuals who have
kept alive Anti-Masonry to the present day. Not content to repeat in public
addresses and to circulate in pamphlets and through the columns of such
periodicals as the "Christian Cynosure" the absurd and self-contradictory
charges against the Masons, these modern Anti-Masons attained the height of
the ridiculous when, in 1882, they dedicated a monument to William Morgan at
building of such a monument was suggested as early as 1828, but nothing
definite was done until after the "National Association of Christians Opposed
to Secret Societies" was organized at a convention held in Pittsburg,
Pennsylvania, in May, 1868. This organization, which, in 1874, was
incorporated in Illinois under the name of "The National Christian
Association," undertook to make itself the successor of the Anti-Masonic party
of the earlier period. It took advantage of interest aroused by the
publication of Weed's versions of the alleged Whitney "confession" between
1875 and 1882 to raise the money for erecting the monument. On Sept. 11, 1882,
the anniversary of Morgan's departure from Batavia, in connection with their
fourteenth annual convention, held at Batavia, Sept. 8-13, "The National
Christian Association" dedicated, to the accompaniment of eulogies of the
"martyr" and condemnations of the Masons, a cylindrical granite shaft
surmounted by a noble appearing figure purporting to be Morgans' Tablets
bearing inscriptions were placed on each side of the base. The inscription on
the first tablet, placed on the south side, reads as follows:
to the memory of William Morgan, a native of Virginia, a Captain of the War of
1812, a respectable citizen of Batavia, and a Martyr to the freedom of
Writing, Printing and Speaking the Truth. He was abducted from near this spot
in the Year 1826 by Freemasons, and murdered for revealing the Secrets of
as one passes by the Batavia cemetery on a New York Central train, he may see
this monument close at hand. It promises to stand for many years, a source of
wonderment to those who do not know the history of the "Morgan Affair" and of
amazement to the informed that such credulity could exist as to make possible
its erection with the inscription quoted-words which Rob Morris denounced as
"words of blackest falsehood."
Hugo Tatsch, THE BUILDER, Aug., 1926, (2) The Grand Chapter, meeting at
Albany, Feb. 6-10, 1827, approved this action and granted a Warrant to Lucius
Smith, William Seaver, Henry Brown and others to hold a Chapter "by the name
of Batavia Chapter, No. 122." Cf. Proceedings of the Grand Chapter, 1827, pp.
The complete list of those indicted was as follows: Elisha Adams, Noah Beach,
Jerimiah Brown, Eli Bruce, John Butterfield, Nicholas G. Cheseboro, Samuel M.
Chubbuck. Chauncey H. Coe, Francis H. Cummins, Jedediah Darrow, William Dover,
Willard Eddy, Nathan Follett, James Ganson, James Gillis David Hogue, Holloway
Hayward, Henry Howard, Hiram Hubbard, Ezekiel Jewett, Simeon B. Jewett,
William King, James Lakey, Loton Lawson, Elihu Mather, Henry Maxwell, William
Miller, Asa Nowlen, Blanchard Powers, Moses Roberts, Edward Sawyer, John
Scofield, Timothy Shaw, John Sheldon, Harris Seymour, Norman Shepard, Burrage
Smith, William R. Thompson, Orsamus Turner, John Whitney, Parkhurst Whitney,
Solomon C. Wright and one other.
these the following were brought to trial: Adams, Beach Brown, Bruce,
Chubbuck, Coe, Darrow, Ganson, Gillis, Hayward, Howard, Hubbard, Ezekiel
Jewett, Lakey, Lawson, Mather, Maxwell, Miller, Roberts, Sawver, Seymour,
Sheldon, Shepard, Turner, both Whitneys and Wright.
Sept. 12, 1826, Miller had been arrested by a posse, headed by a constable
named Jesse French, on a warrant sworn out by his erstwhile partner, Johns,
who had deserted him a few days earlier, and who was seeking to recover a sum
of about forty dollars which he had advanced to Miller. The latter was taken
before a magistrate at Le Roy but was released when Johns failed to appear
against him. It was alleged that French attempted unsuccessfully to rearrest
Miller when he started back to Batavia. For participations in these
transactions French was sentenced in April, 1827, to serve a year in jail, and
two companions, Roswell Wilcox and James Hurlburt, received sentences of six
months and three months, respectively.
From 1806 to 1820, Clinton was Grand Master of the New York Grand Lodge; from
1799 to 1802 he was Grand High Priest of the Grand Royal Arch Chapter of New
York, and from 1816 until his death he was General Grand High Priest of the
General Grand Royal Arch Chapter of the United states. At the time of his
death he was also Grand Master of the Grand Encampment of New York. [The
terminology used is that found in the early Proceedings.]
According to the newspaper accounts. The Autobiography version states that it
was an Encampment of Knights Templar which attracted the Masons to Lewiston.
The authors are indebted to Bro. R. I. Clegg of Chicago for securing a copy of
Whitney's burial record from the office of the Graceland Cemetery Co. This
copy shows that Whitney died on May 2, 1869, at the age of seventy-four years.
Rob Morris said he had been told at least twenty stories, all of which
purported to account for Morgan after his disappearance.
During the excitement the anti-Masons circulated a portrait purporting to be
that of Morgan at work on his manuscript. There is evidence that it was
fictitious. There are marked similarities between the intellectual looking
figure portrayed and DeWitt Clinton; certainly the portrait was not Morgan's.
accounts of the "Morgan Affair" are combined with narratives of its aftermath,
such as the development of religious and political anti-Masonry. The general
histories of the United States hardly mention Morgan. Brief accounts may be
found in various Masonic histories, such as in the fourth volume of Robert
Freke Gould's History of Freemasonry (New York, 1889), 4 v., and the seventh
volume of Robert I. Clegg's revision of Mackey's History of Freemasonry
(Chicago, 1921) 7 v. In the second volume of J. Ross Robertson's History of
Freemasonry in Canada . . . (Toronto, 1900) is found some interesting
material, including an account of Chubbuck's alleged "confession."
Articles, based on original research easily accessible to Masons include: J.
Hugo Tatsch's "An American Masonic Crisis: The Morgan Incident of 1826 and Its
Aftermath," in Transactions of Quatuor Coronati Lodge, No. 2076 (London), Vol.
XXXIV (1921), pp. 196-209; [Erik McKinley Eriksson's] The Morgan Affair," in
Masonic Service Association Speakers' Bulletin, No. 9 (1922), Emery B. Gibbs'
"The Anti-Masonic Movement," in The Builder, Vol. 4 (December, 1918), pp 341
Palmer's Morgan and Anti-Masonry (Washington 1924) is a small compilation
included in the M.S.A. Little Masonic Library.
Charles McCarthy's "The Anti-Masonic Party," in American Historical
Association Annual Report for 1902, Vol. pp. 365-574, gives but brief
consideration to the "Morgan Affair."
most useful account of the "Morgan Affair" by a Masonic writer is Rob Morris'
William Morgan, Or Political Anti-Masonry, Its Rise, Growth and Decadence (New
York 1883). This book of 398 pages contains a wealth of material but is poorly
organized. It is to be greatly regretted that Morris was not trained in modern
historical methods. Another interesting and useful work is Rob Morris' The
Masonic Martyr. The Biography of Eli Bruce . . . (Louisville, Ky., 1861).
useful contemporary Masonic account is Henry Brown's Narrative Of The Anti-Masonick
Excitement western Part Of The State Of New York, During the Years 1826, '7,
'8, And A Part Of 1829 (Batavia, N. Y., 1829) Huntington's The True History
Regarding Alleged Connection Of The Order Of Ancient Free And Accepted Masons
With The Abduction And Murder Of William Morgan . . . (New York, 1886) is also
a book with a strong Masonic bias.
O'Reilly's American Political Antimasonry, With Its "Good-Enough Morgan" . . .
(New York, 1880), 55 pp., is a highly impassioned pamphlet directed against
Weed by the man who was editor of the "Rochester Daily Advocate," 1826-1830
works on the subject by Masonic writers include A. P. Bentley's History Of The
Abduction Of William Morgan . . . (Mt. Pleasant, Iowa, 1874); John Riggs
Crandall's The Morgan Episode (a brief pamphlet published by The Committee On
Antiquities Of The Grand Lodge Of The state Of New York, 1907); and Peter
Ross' "The Morgan Craze," in the Miscellany Of The Masonic Historical Society
Of The state Of New York, 1902, pp. 5-29, This last work contains a lengthy
anti-Masonic side the more useful sources are William L. Stone's Letters On
Masonry And Anti-Masonry, Addressed To The Hon. John Quincy Adam's (New York,
1832), The Autobiography Of Thurlow Weed (Boston, 1884), edited by Harriet A.
Weed, and its companion volume, The Memoir Of Thurlow Weed (Boston, 1884),
edited by Thurlow Weed Barnes. Also of considerable value is William H.
Seward: An Autobiography From 1801 To 1834 With A Memoir Of His Life. And
Selections From His Letters 1831-1846 (New York, 1891), edited by Frederick W.
widely circulated pamphlet, first published by order of the "Morgan
Committees," and still being circulated by present-day Anti-Masonic agencies,
is A Narrative Of The Facts And Circumstances Relating To The Kidnapping And
Presumed Murder of Wm. Morgan . . . (Rochester, N. Y., 1827), 84 pp.
of mention chiefly because of its rarity and because of its publication in
Europe is a 256-page book entitled Free Masonry Exposed: A Narrative Of The
Seduction And Murder Of Wiiliam Morgan, For Threatening To Divulge The
Pretended Secrets Of Free Masonry. With An Account Of The Trials, Acquittal,
And Condemnation Of Many Of Those Implicated In The Horrible Transaction
(Glasgow, Edinburgh, London, 1836).
Concise summaries of the "Morgan trials" are contained in Frederick
Whittlesey's "Report On The Abduction And Murder
William Morgan" and John C. Spencer's "Report On The History Of Judicial
Proceedings" [relating to alleged offenders in the Morgan Affair], contained
in the Proceedings of the 1830 and 1831 anti-Masonic national conventions,
anti-Masonic sources are Samuel D. Greene's The Broken Seal; Or, Personal
Reminiscences Of The Morgan Abduction And Murder (Boston, 1870) and a pamphlet
entitled Appeal Of Samuel D. Greene . . . (Boston, 1834), 64 pp.
special pamphlets used are Trial of Parkhurst Whitney, Timothy Shaw, Noah
Beach, William Miller, and Samuel M. Chubbuck . . . (Lockport, N. Y., 1831),
63 pp.; Confession Of The Murder Of William Morgan As Taken Down By Dr. John
L. Emery, Of Racine County, Wisconsin, In The Summer of 1848, Now First Given
To The Public (New York, 1849), 24 pp., purporting to be the confession of
Henry L. Valanceand A Supplementary Report Of The Committee Appointed To
Ascertain The Fate Of Capt. William Morgan (Rochester, N.Y., 1827).
interesting information relative to "Morgan trials" and other phases of the
subject was gleaned from various newspapers and periodicals of the period,
including: "The Craftsman," 1829, 1830, published at Rochester; the "American
Masonick Record," 1827-1832, published at Albany; "The Masonic Mirror and
Mechanic's Intelligencer," 1824-1828; "The Amaranth or Masonic Garland," 1828,
1829; and "The Masonic Mirror," New Series, 1829-1833. The last three were
published at Boston by Charles W. Moore and Edwin Sevey. Moore rendered great
service to the Masonic cause at the time. Later, from 1842 to 1873, he edited
the "Freemason's Monthly Magazine," at Boston.
enumeration of exposes, including that by Morgan which was published, is
included here as this phase of the subject will be dealt with later. There are
numerous other sources, dealing with special phases of the anti-Masonic
excitement, that will also be cited later.
authors wish to make special acknowledgment to Bro. William L. Boyden,
librarian of the Library of the Supreme Council, Ancient and Accepted Scottish
Rite, 33d Southern Jurisdiction, Washington, D. C., who placed valuabie
malerial at their disposal.
correspondent proposes the following inquiry:
said that every lodge has six jewels, three immovable and three movable--the
Square, Level, Plumb, Rough Ashlar, Perfect Ashlar and Trestle Board. Now
which of these do you consider the immovable and which the movable jewels?"
National Masonic Convention, held at Baltimore, in May, 1843, decided that the
first three were the immovable jewels. They are the permanent and unchangeable
jewels of the lodge, and can never be taken or removed from their proper
places, to be worn by officers of inferior rank, or who are acting in any
other capacities than those indicated by the jewels. They belong permanently
and immovably to the three principal chairs or offlces. The Square, removed
from its proper position, or out of its true angle, is no longer a Square, and
the same is true of the Plumb and Level.
above are some of the reasons we have heard urged in support of the decision
of the Convention, which we believe now to be the general practice of the
country. We are free to admit that we do not attach much importance to the
reasoning; nor do we think it very essential whether the first or last three
be considered the immovable jewels. It is desirable, however, that there
should be uniformity, and as the Convention decided the question in the manner
stated, the lodges have very properly, as a general thing, felt bound to abide
by that decision. -The Freemasons' Monthly Magazine, Vol. VII (1847).
Refreshment Days By BRO. WILLIAM L. BOYDEN, Washington, D. C.
custom of having refreshments in the lodge dates back to the days of the
medieval gilds, when they celebrated their annual meetings with a feast.
Toulmin-Smith, in his history of English gilds, says that the day of the feast
was usually the day of the saint to which the gild, if it had a saint's name,
was dedicated. "It was then that the brethren and sistern being all assembled,
gave their alms, and feasted together, for the nourishing of brotherly love."
Robert Plot, in his Natural History of Staffordshire, printed in 1686,
referring to the customs of the county, among them being that of "making
any are admitted, they call a meeting (or Lodg as they term it in some places
. . . and entertain with a collation according to the custom of the place:
this ended they proceed to the admission of them.
diary of Elias Ashmole, referring to a lodge meeting which he attended in
London, in 1682, he says:
dined at the Half Moon Tavern in Cheapside, at a noble Dinner prepared at the
Charge of the new accepted Masons.
quote from Bro. John T. Thorp's article on Masonic Convivialities, in the
Transactions of the Lodge of Research, No. 2429, Leicester, England:
justified in assuming, therefore, that from very early times a feast formed a
part in some cases no doubt, a very important part, of the proceedings at the
periodical assemblies of the Masons. Of what the refreshments consisted in
these very early times, we have now very little means of judging. The fare
varied probably, according to the position and wealth of the members, from the
"Noble dinner" of Ashmole, to the humble bread and cheese supper, following in
one case by port wine and rum punch, and in the other by ale, brandy and
quite probable that the custom originally arose in a veritable necessity, for
doubtless many members of the early lodges came considerable distances, on
horseback or on foot, to attend the meetings, and it was an absolute necessity
that they should be provided with some refreshment on their arrival, or before
setting out on their return journey. The Junior Warden's "call off" then was
of practical value and significance, and not as in later times very frequently
a mere symbolic allusion.
the quotation in Plot's book and from other sources, it would seem that the
brethren partook of their refreshments before they entered upon their "work,"
and not as in later days, after the work was over.
olden days most of the lodges met in taverns or inns, the landlord generally
being a member of the Craft, and he usually attended to the "inner man,"
serving the refreshments either in the regular dining hall or set it out in
the lodge room. The Stewards of the lodge had the arrangements in charge, and
it was under their direction that the banquet, dinners or other meals were
provided. Bro. Heiron in his history of Old Dundee Lodge, London, referring to
the period of about 1763, gives an idea of the lodge at refreshment:
easy to reconstruct the scene: the tables (having six leaves) set out on
tressels in the middle of the Lodge; at first the brethren were seated on
chairs at these tables, but as the membership increased forms were provided in
place of the chairs as being more convenient and leaving a larger space for
the ceremoniesbut it will be remembered that, as our Lodge room from 1763 to
1820 was 44 feet long by 2.5 feet wide, and 15 feet high, there was plenty of
room available for these tables.
yards of bordered green cloth were purchased (1790) to cover same with, and on
these tables were placed the bowls of steaming punch, bottles of wine, rum,
Hollands, brandy, sugar, lemons, nutmegs, and glasses; and for the smokers,
"churchwardens," screws of tobacco (called "papers"), and pipe lights were
supplied; it being remembered that smoking and drinking were also allowed in
Grand Lodge for many years. When food was served, white table-cloths, napkins,
and knives and forks were laid our own charlady (a Mrs. Benning in 1801)
assisting to wash and iron the napery for our brethren.
of the lodges had regulations in their by-law:; with respect to eating and
drinking in the lodge. St. John's Lodge of Boston as early as 1733 had the
No brother or brothers shall set any victuals in the lodge room while the
lodge is open without the leave of the Master or Wardens, nor call for any
liquor or tobacco without leave as aforesaid.
Philanthropic Lodge, No. 291, Highbridge, had this by-law in 1793:
That the Stewards do keep an account of all food or liquor brought into the
lodge each night, and demand the bill in due season and that the whole night's
expenses do not exceed one shilling and sixpence each (visiting fees and
nights of making excepted) and that the bill be discharged each night before
ten o'clock. Any liquor brought into the lodge after that time shall be paid
for by the person ordering the same, and if the Steward neglects his duties
(as above) he shall pay all extra expenses himself.
evident that refreshments were often provided at the funeral of a deceased
brother, as witness the following from Richmond Lodge, No. 10, Richmond,
Virginia, under date of May 5, 1818:
Steward's bill amounting to .. including refreshments for the funeral of Bro.
Robert Mayo, ordered to be paid.
the rules of the old Grand Lodge at York, in 1725, provides:
bowl shall be filled at the monthly lodges with punch once, Ale, bread,
Cheese, and Tobacco in common, but if anything more shall be called for by any
brother, either for eating or drinking, that brother so calling shall pay for
it himself besides his club.
probably to prevent a too liberal after-dinner indulgence at the common
expense that the Lodge of Edinburgh, in arranging for the annual festival of
in place of tickets each brother at his entry to the Chapel shall pay one
shilling sterling for eating and ale or small beer, and to pay for what wyne
or punch they think fitt to call for; and that the theasurer [treasurer]
furnish coall and candle on the public expenses of the lodge.
lodge in Pennsylvania evidently had to "go slow" on expenses, for while it
probably had ale or beer as a matter of course, a motion was made Dec. 14,
Phoenix is desired to supply the lodge with a good cheese & one bag of
Royal York Lodge, London, the early reference to the lodges' gastronomic
relaxations are confined to vague mentions of refreshments and supper; but at
a Lodge of Emergency, held in December, 1785, the Secretary throws off his
reserve and confides to posterity the solid fact that the brothers agreed
on Saint John's Day at half after 7 on pickled pork, leg of mutton and fowls.
27, 1796, the following payments are noted:
Bill 3 15s 5d, Brandy 1s 6d; an other bottle 3s 6d, total 4 5d. Cook 2s 6d,
maid 2s 6d; waiter 5s; Tyler 5s, total 4 15s 5d.
Lodge of Emulation, London, evidently had a special treat, for under date of
July 20, 1789, the Secretary records:
thanks of the lodge were drank with the Honours of Masonry to Bro. Delamore
for his handsome present of a fine Turtle which they had just been partaking
is another lodge that evidently had to curtail its refreshment expenses,
namely, Mt. Vernon Lodge, No. 4, Providence, Rhode Island, for in 1805 it was
that Bro. Steward be requested to procure a tin cheese box.
extract from one of the old minutes of Jerusalem Lodge, London, contains the
Brethren, This evening (This being Election night for Master, Wardens &
Treasurer) having been Geenteely Entertained by Bro. Haughton with Roast
Chimes, Fowls and Turkeys, Boiled Fowls Pudding Pies &c, they collected 1
shilling Each being 42 Present which was disposed of, viz. James 10s 6d; Cook
10s 6d; House Maid, 10s 6d; Barr Maid 7s 6d; 1 Boy 2s; 3 Porters 3s.
annual feast of Old Dundee Lodge, London, June 23, 1748, there were eleven
members and two visitors present. Here is the expense of the menu:
ducks ....................... 9 0 1 ham, 18 lbs. at 4 1/2d............ 8
3 2 Necks veal, 15, at 4 1/2d....... 5 7 Wine.............. ......... 1
3 0 Rum ...................... 4 0 Sugar and lemons................
3 6 Beer and tobacco................. 4 6 Beans 6 Qts.; Pease 6 Qts........
6 0 Eating? ....................... 6 0 Dressing .....................
5 0 Tarts ........................ 7 6 Tyler .........................
2 6 Servants ...................... 2 6
4 7 4
would seem to us that some of the old lodges were unusually harsh with their
members when it came to a matter of eating. The Lodge of Felicity, at London,
enacted this by-law:
That no member whatsoever shall be allowed the Privilege of eating anything in
the Lodge Dureing Lodge Hours (without the Master's leave) penalty a bottle of
Solomon's Lodge, Poughkeepsie, New York, Oct. 3, 1785, Bro. Brooks was fined
to the extent of one shilling, for not attending lodge and keeping the keys of
the Refreshment Closet.
Lodge, Albany, New York, on March 19, 1800, passed the following:
Resolved, That some brother be appointed to procure refreshments for this
Lodge consisting of good brandy, spirits, crackers and cheese, for which he
shall collect one shilling from each member and visitor partaking of the same,
and, for every neglect, he shall forfeit and pay the Sum of 25 cents into the
Treasury unless a reasonable excuse can be given.
Dumfries Kilwinning Lodge, No. 53 (formerly the Old Lodge of Dumfries),
Scotland, had as one of its by-laws:
That any member, within the District of Masonry who does not dine annually
with the Lodge upon St. John's Day, shall pay one shilling for his dinner, or
time went on the lodges for various reasons began to economize. Old Colony
Lodge, Hingham, Massachusetts, Jan. 10, 1793
Not to have any refreshments but liquors and crackers and cheese.
Lodge of St. Andrew, Boston, Nov. 28, 1809:
that the refreshments for the ensuing year be tongues and bread.
1833, St. James' Lodge, Scotland, resolved that "a fourpenny pie and a bottle
of toddy" shall be the fare of each brother at the feast of St. John, and in
1843, owing to the lack of funds, it was resolved that every Mason be
furnished with "a 4d pie and a bottle of ale for every two."
Columbian Lodge was one of the first of the Masonic bodies in Boston which
discontinued the habitual use of refreshments. Except on rare occasions the
practice has since 1810 been entirely suspended. Early in that year its
discontinuance was agreed upon for four months, and at the expiration of that
term refreshments were prohibited for another period of four months. At the
close of the year the office of closet steward was virtually abolished, and
the by-law demanding a fee of visitors rescinded. The custom was discontinued
in Massachusetts Lodge about 1822, both solid and liquid. In Corinthian Lodge,
Concord, Massachusetts, March 24, 1823, Bro. Asa Bigelow offered the following
resolution which was unanimously adopted:
this Lodge abolish the practice of using refreshments , (except it be on some
special occasion) at our regular communications.
Montgomery Lodge, Reading, Pennsylvania, in 1818, wanted to turn over a new
leaf in reference to the use of liquors, for a motion was then made
no spirituous liquors should be brought into the Lodge in the future.
motion was amended at the next stated meeting, Feb. 4, 1818, so as to provide
no fermented or spirituous liquors, bread, butter, or beef nor any other kind
of refreshment except water, should be brought into the Lodge in the future.
of the brethren visiting Washington Lodge, Philadelphia, Dec. 12, 1819,
evidently did not like the looks of the "eats," for the Secretary says:
the Lodge had closed and the brethren had retired to the banquet room, seven
of the visiting brethren refused to partake of the refreshments prepared for
the occasion, and, after demanding their money back (which was promptly
returned) they retired.
the provisions for refreshments adopted by Alexandria Washington Lodge, No.
22, at Alexandria, Virginia, on Dec. 26, 1789, is the following:
That the "Caterers," for the time being shall be restricted to the following
articles, viz.: good spirits, loaf sugar, best cheese, superfine crackers, or
bread, and dried venison mutton or bacon-hams; and that the said "Caterers"
shall forfeit and pay the sum of three shillings for every neglect of duty.
the brethren of the lodge had an understanding that each one in his turn was
to provide refreshments for the lodge at his own expense. Under this
arrangement it became Bro. William Hodgson's "turn" to provide an
entertainment on the 25th of May, 1793. Bro. Hodgson was a well-to-do member
and much was expected of him, and hence on this occasion a goodly number of
the brethren were present to partake of an anticipated rare treat; but Bro.
Hodgson, not having the fear of the lodge before his eyes, neglected to make
provision for the evening, and on this announcement being made the brethren
waxed wroth, and showed their displeasure by adopting the following
appearing that William Hodgson, whose duty it was to furnish refreshments for
this night, hath neglected the same notwithstanding he had received due
information thereof the Secretary is ordered forthwith to communicate to Bro.
Hodgson, the displeasure which the Lodge feels in consequence of his
delinquency, together with the earnest solicitations that he may he more
mindful of that duty in the future.
Rite of Strict Observance
BURTON E. BENNETT, Washington
system of the Strict Observance grew out of what is known as Templarism.
Templar Masonry commenced to grow up in France soon after true Freemasonry was
introduced. This was about 1725. However, no Grand Lodge was established till
1752. It is not till then that we are on sure footing. What went before can
only be approximated. The Strict Observance as a separate system was formed
Germany and dates from about 1748. It was produced by a process of evolution.
The Strict Observance, and our present Knights Templar Masonry, as well,
cannot, even, be reliably understood without knowing something out the
Crusades, and with the three great orders that they produced, the Teutonic
Knights, the Hospitallers and the Knights Templar.
Crusades were a series of wars carried on Western Europe to recover the Holy
Land from the Moslems. They began in the 11th century and extended over a
period of some five hundred years. The Christian Crusades utterly broke down
in 1449, and in 1453 Constantinople fell before the Mohammedans. It has ever
since remained under Moslem rule, as has the Holy Land, and all of Asia Minor,
till the end of the Great War. During all of the time of the Crusades the
Church of Rome largely governed the Western World. The Crusades mightily
changed European History.
sense of the word the Crusades were a continuation of the age-old fight of the
East against the West, and while, apparently, the West started it, and it was
carried on offensively, still it was really defensive--the Christian world
trying to stem the onrush of the Moslem hordes. It was a religious war--a war
between the Christian and the Infidel. It was an attempt of the Roman Church,
as a temporal power, to conquer the world with the sword, just as the Moslems
were trying to do. It failed. The Moslems nearly succeeded in their aim. They
took all of Asia Minor, all of civilized Africa, Sicily and other
Mediterranean islands and even Spain in the West. They took a great part of
Eastern Europe and reached as far West as Vienna. Here in 1683 they were
finally stopped. But for the Crusades it is possible that they might have
entirely overrun the Western World and suppressed the Christian religion, or,
at least, absorbed it entirely within their system. The impartial student of
history, comparing the civilization of the Moors in Spain with that of the
Church and its Inquisition, which replaced it, must decide that the former
was, by far, the preferable. The civilization of Medieval Europe certainly had
little to commend it. However, taking a broad survey there can be no question
that it is a mighty blessing that the West prevailed over the East, as it
always had before, and that the beneficent religion of Christ was not replaced
by the religion of Mahomet. No handicap, however great, can permanently stand
before the onward progress of the Western division of the Aryan people, their
intellect has become too great for this; too many brains stand at the
Hejira took place in 622. Omar took Jerusalem in 637, and in Moslem hands it
remained till the end of the first Crusade. The Church of the Sepulchre was
fanatically destroyed in 1010. In 1071 the Seljukian Turks captured Jerusalem.
Till then pilgrimages to the Holy Land were fairly easy and especially so up
to the final separation of the Eastern and Western Churches in 1054. Now not
only were the native Christians persecuted, but the Pilgrim Christians as
CAUSES OF THE CRUSADES
been stated that the purpose of the Crusades was to recover the sepulchre of
Christ from the Infidel. The underlying causes, however, were deeper and far
greater. They were, (1) the desire of the Papacy for conquest, (2) the desire
of the mercantile classes to open up trade routes to the East, (3) the desire
of the Byzantine emperors to recover their lost territories and (4) the desire
of princes to carve new kingdoms out of the East.
barbarians who overran the Roman Empire had hardly become settled among the
ruins they had caused, and commenced to repair them, when Scandinavian pirates
sailed up their rivers and sacked and plundered their towns just as they had
sacked and plundered the mighty cities of the Empire. Some of these pirates
finally settled down in Northern France and established the Dukedom of
Normandy. In 1066 the Norman Duke, William the Bastard, conquered England and
established his kingdom of England. In 1090 the Norman Duke Roger conquered
Sicily from the Moslems and established his kingdom there. The Norman Duke
Godfrey was one of the commanders in the first Crusade. On July 15, 1099,
Godfrey took Jerusalem, and while the shrieks of the dying were heard and the
rivers of blood still gurgled and eddied, he founded his Norman kingdom of
Jerusalem. The traders, the princes, the Emperor and the Pope devoutly thanked
God for the successful termination of so glorious a cause. But the Crusades
for the purpose of conquering the world for Christianity, and extirpating the
Infidel, was a complete failure. However, good came out of them--incalculable
good. They helped to dissolve feudalism, to develop trade, to build up cities
and to increase knowledge. It would be foolish to say that they were the cause
of all this, but they certainly contributed toward it.
above all, by far, they show the strivings of man for an ideal, for the
infinite, for immortality, as nothing on this earth has ever done before or
since; they attempted to answer the age-old question as it has never been done
before nor since--can mortality be shaken off for immortality, can the finite
be merged in the infinite?
MILITARY ORDERS OF THE CRUSADES The Crusades produced the Teutonic Knights,
the Hospitallers and the Knights Templar, and thus Templar Masonry, and so, in
one sense of the word, they are the cause of the Strict Observance.
Teutonic Knights of St. Mary's Hospital of Jerusalem was one of the three
great religious and military orders produced by the Crusades. It was founded
during the third Crusade, and was the last one formed. Its hospital was
founded by Germans. Very early in the history of the Order its members were
all ennobled, and they have remained so ever since. It was never a universal
Order, like the Templars and the Hospitallers. It was strictly national in
character. Like the other two Orders it began as a charitable society, passed
into a military one and finally reached sovereign power. In 1291 it was
expelled by the Moslems from the Holy Land. In 1309 it established itself in
what is now Marienburg, West Prussia. It had begun its work, however in
Eastern Germany a hundred years before for the purpose of subduing and
converting the heathens. The Knightly Order of Dobrzin, founded for the
purpose of conquering the heathen Prussians, was merged in the Teutonic Knight
1235, just as an older organized for the same pose, was merged in it years
before. The Order finally became a governing aristocracy, holding its lands in
Eastern Germany as a fief of the Pope of Rome. The Grand Master became in
reality a king with the Pope as Emperor. However, the monarch, if such it may
be called, a limited one as a council of brethren had to be consulted in all
affairs. The state was really the church, and the government was
ecclesiastical in character. The country was governed somewhat as the States
of the Church in Italy were governed before 1871, when the temporal power of
the Pope was abolished. The greater part of their subjects were the conquered
Prussian heathens from whom the present peasants are descended. They were
serfs bound to the soil. 0f course their souls were now safe, but the only
earthly right, if right it could be called, that they obtained through their
conversion, was the right to work for the Knights, their masters, and fight
for them in time of war.
Order reached its height in the latter part of the 14th century. Its very
rights weighted it down. Its neighbors envied its wealth, and wanted its
territories. The Hundred Years War weakened it. Poland finally got West
Prussia, and while East Prussia was left to the Knights, Poland became its
overlord. Lutherism gave it its final blow. When the Hohenzollern Albert,
Grand Master of the Order, turned Protestant, he secularized its territories
into a Duchy under Poland. Later on all of the country East of Germany was
secularized and the Order confined wholly to Germany. The German Grand Master
became a Prince of the Empire.
Order still continued on in its conservatism, always claiming its old rights.
It maintained itself from its still large revenues from its estates in
different parts of Germany. During the French Revolution, however, it was
deprived of all of its estates, which went to the different principalities in
which they were situated. It was suppressed in 1809, but in 1840 it was
revived in Austria under the patronage of the Emperor of Austria, and so
continued down to the ending of the Great War.
KNIGHTS OF MALTA
Hospitallers, known officially as "Knights of the Order of the Hospital of St.
John of Jerusalem," was founded at Jerusalem during the first Crusade. It has
been known also
"Knights of Rhodes", and as the "Sovereign Order of the Knights of Malta." It
was at first a charitable Order, while the Templars was from the first a
military one. With the fall of the Latin kingdom of Jerusalem in 1291, the
Knights retired to the island of Rhodes. In 1522 the Turks finally took
Rhodes, and the Hospitallers removed to Malta. Here they remained till 1793,
when Napoleon took Malta, and added it to the French Republic. This ended it
as a sovereign power. While the Knights had to leave Malta, shorn of their old
power and great wealth, they still continued on in different countries. The
Knights took with them from Malta their precious relics--chief among them
being the hand of St. John the Baptist, the miraculous image of Our Lady of
Pherlemon, and a fragment of the true cross.
of the Knights went to Russia and elected the Emperor Paul I Grand Master, and
the then Grand Master, Hompesch, resigned in his favor. A chapter of the
Knights granted the Pope of Rome authority to name a Grand Master, which he
did. When this Grand Master died the head of the Order was called a Lieutenant
Grand Master till 1879, when Leo XIII restored the ancient title of Grand
Master. The Order of St. Anthony and St. Lazarus were united to the
Hospitalers in 1782.
oldest house of the Order was in France. It is still occupied by the Order. In
Italy and Germany it is now called the "Sovereign Order of Malta." Applicants
for knighthood must have sixteen quarterings of nobility and in Austria,
before the Great War, also, the consent of the Emperor. The Grand Cross of the
Order is a gold white enameled Maltese cross surmounted by a crown. There are
two Protestant Orders of St. John of Jerusalem, branches of the parent Order
--one in Germany and the other in England. These chapters joined in the
Reformation, but for a long time continued their contributions to the head of
Prussia members of the Order must be Protestants of noble birth and belong to
the Evangelical Church. The Grand Cross there is a Mallese cross of white
enameled gold with four black eagles between the arms. Since the Great War the
Order has worked for the restoration of the monarchy. In 1924 von Hindenburg
officiated at the knighting ceremonies of the Knights of St. John, but after
he was elected president of the German Republic he told the Knights that he
"resigned his functions." In 1925 as president of the republic he forbade the
former kaiser s son, Eitel Frederick, to officiate at the knighting ceremonies
and ordered that they be held in a small chapel at Sonnenberg, instead of in
the monarchist church at Potsdam, as usual.
England the Order was never formally suppressed, and in 1888 Queen Victoria
granted it a charter. In 1889 King Edward VII, then Prince of Wales was made
Grand Prior. In Great Britain, as in Prussia, the sovereign is the head of the
Order, and the heir to the throne Grand Prior. In England it is an
aristocratic Order, but not to the extent that it is in Prussia. While members
do not have to be Protestants they must believe in Christianity. The Grand
Cross in Great Britain is, of course, the gold white enameled Maltese cross,
but between the arms are placed two lions and two unicorns.
first photograph ever taken of a chapter in session appeared in the London
Graphic of Sept. 13, 1924. It was one of a meeting of the Priory of Wales at
Powis Castle, Welshpool. It shows Knights and Esquires on the steps of the
castle in full regalia, including the Right Honorable Lord Kylsant, Sub-Prior
for Wales, who deputized for the Prince of Wales, who is Grand Prior.
moment you abate anything from the full rights of men to each govern himself,
and suffer any artificial positive limitation upon those rights, from that
moment the whole organization of government becomes a consideration of
convenience - Burke
BRO. FREDERIC E. MANSON, Pennsylvania
THROUGH its Committee on Lectures the Grand Lodge of Pennsylvania is carrying
on a campaign of Masonic education, utilizing 100 lecturers who follow
approved lecture "outlines", and Bulletins dealing particularly with Masonic
history symbolism and philosophy with special reference to the Pennsylvania
Ritual. These Bulletins are approved by the R. W. Grand Master, and are used
in the Subordinate Lodges, more or less as text-books. Bulletin No. 6,
"Masonic Objection," written by Past Master, Bro. Frederic E. Manson, chairman
of the Committee on Lectures, contains subject matter of so much importance
that it seemed desirable to give the benefit of it to members of other
Jurisdictions. At the request of The Builder the committee, through its
chairman, has most kindly given permission for its reproduction here. WHAT
constitutes a "Masonic Objection" is not clear to many members of the Craft.
Consulting the Ahiman Rezon they find that to a petitioner whom they may
regard "unworthy" they may make objection orally, by written communication, or
by blackball. Referring to the Digest of Decisions they discover no definition
except those implied in Article 412, which refers to intoxication, Article 179
relating to legitimacy of birth, and Article 596, which pertains to literacy.
Consequently they determine whether a petitioner is "worthy" very largely on
absence of information to the contrary, or regard him "unworthy" because of
statements concerning him which may or may not be based on fact, and for which
no one in particular may be responsible. Too frequently brethren deem
petitioners "unworthy" because of purely personal reasons which do not deserve
Masonic recognition, much less consideration. Masonic objection may seldom be
predicated on personal reasons.
the Ahiman Rezon and Grand Masters in their edicts assume that as brethren
know the ritualistic work and traditions of the Craft, they should not need
definition of either "Masonic Objection," or "Masonic Reason." Such assumption
is entirely reasonable for Masons are pre-supposed to know Masonry and, if
they do not, their ignorance is not the fault of the Grand Masters, much less
of the Ahiman Rezon. It is because of lack of such knowledge that the
following observations are made. These observations begin with the form of
petition with which every Mason should be thoroughly acquainted.
filling out a petition to a Masonic lodge for initiation and membership every
candidate states his age, place of birth, place of residence, and length of
he asserts that he is free by birth, i. e., that he is born of lawful wedlock
and under civil law is the peer of his fellows.
Further, he declares that he applies not because he has been solicited, nor is
actuated by mercenary or improper motives, but because he has conceived a
favorable opinion of the institution, and desires knowledge.
Finally, he declares his belief in a Supreme Being, without which no man ever
should be made a Mason.
making these several statements the petitioner has deliberately
misrepresented, he himself has created cause for Masonic objection.
before we dismiss consideration of the form of petition let us remember that
the candidate is required to sign it. Possibly brethren have thought that
signature is merely identification of the petitioner, as he has stated that he
has or has not petitioned before; or evidence of authority for all statements
made. But it is also evidence of his literacy. No illiterate man is regarded
as eligible to Freemasonry.
in Pennsylvania there has been no ruling regarding illiteracy, other than that
of Grand Master Henderson, the Grand Lodge of England has officially commented
quite extensively on the inability of candidates to write. Among other things
it said: "Any individual who cannot write is consequently ineligible to be
initiated into the Order." Similar rulings obtain in other Grand
Jurisdictions. In Pennsylvania a petitioner must sign his own name to the
petition, and should do so in the presence of his recommenders.
deductions might be made from the form of petition were it proper to do so in
print; but consideration should be given to the report of the Investigating
Committee, charged with determining the petitioner's character, position in
society, and fitness to be made a Mason.
these three specifications--"character," what the man really is; "position in
society," his ability to afford Masonry without financial injury to family, or
anybody else; and "fitness to be made a Mason," his moral and physical
condition in detail. Here may or may not be grounds for further Masonic
objection, and the committee's report should fully assure the lodge one way or
the other. If for any reason it fail to do so, any member possessing positive
knowledge becomes responsible for the welfare of the lodge.
REPUTATION AND CHARACTER
sometimes reputation is confused with character. Reputation is not necessarily
what a man is, more frequently what people think he is, perhaps from his words
and acts. And these may be misconstrued, misinterpreted, even misrepresented
because of some peculiarity of the man on the one hand, and of prejudice of
his fellows on the other. Consequently reputation if subject to criticism
should beyond a reasonable doubt be determined in justice to both the
petitioner and Freemasonry, as to whether or not it reflects his true
character. Only when this cannot be done may there be reason for Masonic
when investigating committees do report in favor of the petitioner, and
brethren use the blackball, the latter assume tremendous responsibility, to
both petitioner and Freemasonry; indeed, may violate their own Masonic
standing in society has been stressed as financial, rather than social or
civic. While no man who cannot afford it should be initiated into Freemasonry,
even a man of unimpeachable moral character may not promise to be a desirable
member of the lodge. Consequently his social and civic standing is important,
too; his attitude toward whatever makes for progress and uplift, his service
to his fellows, his influence upon the community. A man who is generally
recognized to be of little consequence to society may reasonably be adjudged
of little consequence to Masonry, for Masonry demands personality.
beyond all this the committee is charged with determining the candidate's
"fitness to be made a Mason," a phrase of greater purport than appears on the
face of it. He may pass every test previously discussed and not that which
this imposes and continues to impose until he may be raised a Master Mason. It
is necessary to emphasize the landmarks as regards age, sex, soundness in all
members, possession of his senses; it is well, too, to stress dependence on
God as well as belief in Him, ability to control his tongue, to yield
obedience, and to keep himself chaste as well as to protect the chastity of
the other sex. But gaining membership "under the tongue of good Masonic
report," he must give assurance that he will continue under such report, else
he discredits the Craft. He must reasonably be expected to keep all his
covenants, else he dishonors the Fraternity.
Finally, in the obligation of the Third Degree there are prohibitions each and
every one of which is basis for Masonic objection, indeed makes objection
obligatory upon every member of the Craft.
RECORD OF THE CANDIDATE
Naturally the question arises as to whether or not a candidate's character,
position in society, etc., in the past, if not what they should have been,
should be taken into consideration even though he has reformed and become a
good citizen. Here is opportunity for charity but judgment should direct
charity. It depends very much on what the record is and how complete the
reformation has been, also on whether or not, if the reformation has been
complete, initiation and membership would prejudice the Craft. Several cases
of this kind have occurred in our own Jurisdiction, and they have been
disposed of on their merits. In another Jurisdiction the "present fitness" of
the petitioner was debated in "open" lodge. When justice to all concerned can
be tempered with mercy, Masonry may exercise charity.
must now be obvious that definition of "Masonic Objection" or "Masonic Reason"
lies in Masonry itself, not in the Ahiman Rezon, nor in the edicts of the
Grand Masters. Consequently it must appear to every thinking Mason that if he
is thoroughly to understand the terms he must know what Masonry is, what its
purpose, its ritual, usages and traditions. In previous Bulletins these
matters have been discussed but it can here be said that no member of a
Masonic lodge can create a Masonic objection to a petitioner, the objection
must have been created, directly or indirectly, by the petitioner himself.
What is more to the point, any brother who attempts to do so lays his Masonry
open to question. Ordinary personal differences between brethren have no place
in the lodge, nor those between brethren and the profane. No brother has any
"right" to raise Masonic objection that is not inherent in Masonry, Masonic
law and tradition, and cannot be protected in any assumed right--only in such
right as Masonry itself gives him. It is Masonic right with which every Grand
Master's edict is concerned and none other.
RIGHT OF OBJECTION
Evidently if a Mason expects protection in his exercise of any Masonic right
he must personally and not by proxy exercise the right; that is, he cannot ask
a brother Mason to act for him for any reason whatever. While the brother so
acting may not be questioned by the Master or by any member of the lodge, the
fact remains that he has in thus assuming responsibility for another violated
Masonic ethics, possibly violated the obligations of a Master Mason. A Mason
who knows a petitioner to be "unworthy" has an obligation to himself, to his
lodge, and to Masonry in general which only he can and should discharge. Only
by discharging his obligation himself can he claim protection of his right of
the most unethical uses of the right of objection is when a member assumes the
personal prejudices of a brother member against a petitioner, and worse when
he prevents him from becoming a Mason because of the dislike of a friend not a
member of the Craft. In doing either the one or the other he forfeits not only
protection of right of objection, but also the right itself, laying himself
open to charges and discipline for a Masonic offense. Yet Masons sometimes so
far forget Masonic law as to commit this offense, which in several cases has
resulted in their expulsion from Masonry.
Finally, no Mason has any right, much less protection in assumption of right
of objection when he predicates protest against a petitioner on any personal
dislike, prejudice or animosity to or regarding him, that would not, if
impartially investigated, affect the petitioner's character, standing in
society, or fitness to be made a Mason. To make this clear let us cite a case
from a sister Jurisdiction. "A" who was a Mason and traded with "B" got behind
in his payments and was "dunned" for settlement. "B" had applied for
initiation and membership in "A's" lodge, and when the ballot was declared was
found to have been blackballed. When the Junior Warden so announced "A"
expressed his gratification in such manner as to attract attention, and later
openly boasted that he had kept "B" out of the lodge. Charges preferred, "A"
was tried and suspended, but appealed to the Grand Master, who in the course
of his decision sustaining the lodge said:
Personal grievances that do not impugn character can in no way be distorted
into Masonic reason for objection. They belittle the Mason more than they
injure the petitioner. In this case the brother further proved his own
unworthiness when he boasted his injury to the petitioner, and violated the
secrecy of the ballot, to the injury of his lodge and the Craft as a whole. .
. . For these and other reasons the appeal is denied and the lodge sustained.
Discussing the right to object, a contributor to a Masonic magazine of
national reputation held that "it should be exercised only with the greatest
caution and consideration comprehensive at once of the petitioner, the lodge,
the Craft, and the member himself," declaring that "moral as well as Masonic
law imposes tremendous responsibility on the brother who exercises
it"--"responsibility, however," he goes on to say, "which should be assumed if
the petitioner is 'unworthy' regardless of possible consequences to self." In
concluding his article he says that "Members of the Craft need not, however,
be at a loss to know when they should assume such responsibility, and when
they should not, for from the presentation of the petition to the lodge, to
the moment of balloting, test after test of the fitness of the petitioner can
and should be applied, tests with which every Mason should be familiar."
Mason once said that "if members would make proper distinction between the
'worthy' and 'unworthy,' Masonry would gain strength more rapidly than it
does, for somehow or other some men gain membership who should not, and some
are denied it who should have it." In this observation there is a great deal
of truth, as will be admitted by members of any lodge. Generally speaking the
"unworthy" are admitted because of their popularity in the community, and the
influence of friends within the lodge. On the other hand, "worthy" petitioners
are kept out of the lodge frequently because they are unknown to members, or
because they are unobtrusive and unostentatious, living quietly, perhaps very
much to themselves, though capable of valuable service if presented
opportunity to render it. Too little attention in both cases is given the
petitioner when his name appears in the notice--too little consideration
sometimes to the disadvantage of Masonry, one way or another. Under such
circumstances there can be no discrimination such as should obtain if Masons
observe their obligations.
Masonry is more than a fraternity--it is an institution because it has purpose
that pertains to the wellbeing of society as well as to that of its members.
Any less conception of Masonry displays ignorance. An institution with such
purpose has to be perpetuated, and quality of material in perpetuation is of
vastly greater importance than quantity, for quality can in the end accomplish
more than quantity in promoting social, civic and moral progress. Masonry
should be able to continue to boast that its members are carefully selected,
and this it will do only so long as the "worthy" are admitted through its
portals as certainly as the "unworthy" are turned back. The great objection
any Mason can entertain and maintain is that Masonry deteriorate in the
personnel of its membership, and this is insured against only when those
desiring admittance are carefully investigated, closely scrutinized, and
tested by every standard that Masonry demands they shall measure up to. And
this will be done only when Masons understand the basis for "Masonic
Objection," and the significance of "Masonic Reason."
AND WARDENS IN HABERDASHERS' COMPANY
use of the terms Master and Warden as designating the presiding officer of a
trade company is not uncommon. Of the two Master is found more frequently and
Warden only occasionally. It is indeed rare to find both, particularly in the
sense in which they are applied to the Masonic Craft. The following quotation
represents one of those rare instances and while it has doubtless been pointed
out in the past, it will do no harm to again make reference to it.
volume I, page 75, of Boswell's "Life of Samuel Johnson, LLD.," edition of
1925, J. M. Dent and Sons, Limited, publishers, there appears in a footnote
this interesting reference to the Haberdashers' Company of the city of London.
Boswell writes that Dr. Johnson had been offered the Mastership of a school
founded by one William Adams, but that it was necessary for him to acquire the
degree of Master of Arts before he could receive the appointment. The time at
which the incident took place was during the year 1738 and during the summer
months. This comment is made relative to the school. "William Adams, formerly
citizen and haberdasher of London, founded a school at Newport, in the county
of Salop, by deed dated 27th November, 1656, by which he granted the 'yearly
sum of sixty pounds to such able and learned schoolmaster, from time to time,
being of godly life and conversation, who should have been educated at one of
the Universities of Oxford or Cambridge, and had taken the degree of Master of
Alts, and was well read in the Greek and Latin tongues, as should be nominated
from time to time by the said William Adams during his life, and after the
decease of the said William Adams by the governours (namely, the Master and
Wardens of the Haberdashers' Company of the city of London) and their
successors.' The manour and lands out of which the revenues for the
maintenance of the school were to issue are situate at Knighton and Adbaston,
in the county of Stafford."
value of this quotation in showing a parallel development between the
Haberdashers' organization and that of the Masons' Company of London is
questionable, although the period referred to in the quotation is 1656. The
first edition of Boswell's "Life" was published in London on April 20, 1791,
and evidently did not contain this note, as Boswell say that "I, in my first
edition, suggested that Pope must have, by mistake, written Shropshire,
instead of Staffordshire. But I have since been obliged to Mr. Spearing,
attorney-at-law, for the following information." The second edition appeared
on July 1, 1793, and was the last in which Boswell acted as editor. It would
appear then that the note itself was written some time between these two
dates. It is possible, therefore, that the use of the term "Master and
Wardens" is merely a coincidence; on the other hand it occurs in a quotation
evidently taken directly from the charter of the school.
Freemasonry in Ulster
BRO. JOHN HERON LEPPER, Ireland
Freemason who hails from the County of Down has every right to boast that he
comes from no mean Masonic province, for not only does it possess the oldest
warranted lodge in Ulster, to-wit., St. Patrick's, No. 77, Newry (whose
charter dates from 1737), but also has produced some of the names that will be
forever held in honor by all students of Masonic history and antiquities, to
mention but two, the late Bro. F. C. Crossle--whose son, Bro. P. C. Crossle,
is an apt illustration of the adage that the "apple does not fall far from the
tree"--and Bro. John Robinson, of Comber, who, happily, is still With us. The
author, therefore, who has the courage to set out to tell us something new
about Freemasonry in Down knows beforehand that his work will be liable to
criticism both on its own merits and in comparison with what has already been
done by other well-known Masonic writers.
say at once that my friend, Bro. W. G. Simpson, has been justified in his
courage. His former book on the Saintfield lodges (1) was full of delightful
and useful glimpses at the lodge life of a century ago-his new book, which is
the occasion of this article, (2) is something more. As the Masonic history of
a district for a particular epoch it could hardly be surpassed. All that a
reviewer can do is to offer a few indications of what may be found in it and
to advise students to read the book for themselves.
main text of Bro. Simpson's excerpts has been drawn from the old minute books
of three Comber lodges, omitting the most famous of all, Temple of Fame, No.
46, as he rightly considers that there is only one living Mason who should
meddle with the history of that fine old Lodge; but while awaiting what Bro.
John Robinson may please to give us on this subject, we shall find something
to go on with in the documents relating to Lodges 133, 136 and 165.
most of the minute books of the period, many of the entries are distressingly
meagre, yet, sometimes, even in their meagreness sufficiently picturesque:
9, 1830--"Lodge in due form. Worshipful in the Chair. Expended 4d. each and
9, 1835--"Nobody here but my father and Alexander M'Morran and myself W. R. a
very wet night."
Sometimes a single word in the lists of members tells a story-"Certified,
Cleared, Expelled, Died, To America." In this connection I cannot refrain from
quoting as illustration a passage from the minutes of a famous County Antrim
Lodge, No. 615 Larne (almost 150 years old now), showing what hopes and
sentiments some of these emigrant Masons carried with them:
3, 1832. N. B. Brother William McCalmont has ordered it to be inserted in the
lodge book that if ever he finds himself worth Five Thousand Dollars he will
remit 30 on purpose to treat his brethren of Lodge 615 to a dinner."
very word America is a great temptation to digress and give my readers other
instances of early fraternal communication between the Constitutions on either
side of the Atlantic, but that story must wait while we return to Comber.
mind, the most valuable portion of Bro. Simpson's book is that dealing with
one of the Comber Lodges which was originally chartered as No. 887 by the
Schismatic Grand Lodge of Ulster. It subsequently returned to the true fold
and received a legal warrant. Its great interest to the Masonic historian,
however, lies in the fact that in its minute book we have documentary evidence
of the "Seton" Masons being "healed" on becoming regular. I have not come
across any other instance of such a practice being recorded in writing, though
doubtless it was usual-just as the Antients and Moderns reciprocally "healed"
one another in the bad times of the Masonic split. It is a great feather in
Bro. simpson's cap to have put this discovery to his credit.
old lodge has preserved, as well as its early minute books, many other
interesting possessions from the early days, before the governing bodies of
the higher degrees had come into being in Ireland. Thus we find that among its
effects are, "two well preserved Royal Arches of the wood"; the lodge chest,
over a century old; the drum formerly used in processions and painted with
symbols; a dinner plate with Masonic design, of a rather late date, 1846; and
the fine old decorated Master's chair. Incidentally, the book would be well
worth possessing for the reproductions of the old Masonic charts and seals.
shall find here some light on the difficulties that beset our bygone brethren
in keeping the torch of Masonry alight. One of the old lodge rooms is still in
existence, and here will be found plans and photographs of it.
roof is 8 feet high in the centre, and slopes to a height of only 2 feet from
the floor at each side wall.... The lodge room measures 15 ft. 6 in. by 15 ft.
During labour it was illuminated by a rude, unpainted, wooden chandelier of
twelve branches, each furnished with a tin socket for a candle."
this wretched apartment was placed a Master's chair similar to a canopied
four-poster bed, 7 feet high. It too had its painted symbols, including Adarn
and Eve (minus aprons). Such discomfort must have been the rule rather than
the exception in the early eighteenth century among the country lodges; yet
they preserved the flame pure and undimmed and passed it on to us. Honor to
their memory! And may we be worthy of it.
lodges of poor simple Masons had their ideals. In the year 1814, some years
before the Grand Lodge of Ireland had made illiteracy a bar to initiation.
Lodge No. 136 adopted the following by-law:
"Ordered that no Candidate be admitted in the lodge who has not received the
Benefits of whatever Place of Worship he belongs to and in no Case shall a
Candidate (be) admitted who cannot Read the Scriptures."
unseldom we get a smile at some long-vanished custom, not essentially Masonic,
but proper to the period and place. Thus we find in the year 1821 the fees of
honor payable by the newly elected officers varying from one pint of "the wine
of the country" from the Master down to "one-quarter naggen" from the Junior
Deacon. Curiously enough, the Ensign who was a more junior officer than the
last named had to provide one-quarter pint; perhaps, as his duties consisted
in carrying the banner on St. John's Day processions, he was expected to stand
more--perhaps he was chosen for his greater capacity--but such conjectures are
beautiful reproduction of the smoke seals used by these lodges almost tempts
me into another digression. They will be particularly interesting to any one
of my readers who is acquainted with Bro. Sachse's works on Pennsylvanian
Freemasonry or within reach of the Grand Lodge museum of that state. The
migration of Masonic symbolism is a branch of research hardly touched as yet;
that is, as regards certain concrete, known facts, which if collected and put
in juxtaposition might warrant conclusions being drawn. Thus I have in my mind
while writing these words one elaborate Masonic design which crops up in use
in places so widely removed as London, Philadelphia and the North of Ireland
between the years 1759 and 1800, nor, so far as the evidence I have noted
goes, does the American lodge appear to have copied the other districts. But
it is only by a careful collation of such Masonic designs that we can arrive
at any real knowledge. Bro. E. H. Dring's monumental essay on the English
Tracing Boards is an instance of what has been done. Masonic seals still await
such an inquirer, and there is some material in this book to go on with.
most curious of all these seals are those used in connection with the degree
of Pillar'd Priest, which used to be most popular in Ireland but has now
become extinct there. Manuscript rituals of the degree are fairly common--I
possess transcripts of some twenty collected in various parts of Ireland--and
from one of these Bro. simpson gives us the by-laws of the Union Band held in
was only one of the many "side degrees" which used to be conferred in the
Craft lodges in those days. Chapter and verse are quoted here for the
occurrence of the following: Ark, Wrestle, Black Cross, White Cross, Knights
of the Garter, Architect, Knights of Mount Seni (Sinai?), Knight of the
Elysian Shades. I have chosen these out of many as being now extinct in
Ireland. A certificate enumerating some of these degrees and granted to Samuel
Jamison in 1811 by Lodge No. 649, Raffry, County Down, will be found quoted
here. The original is now in the possession of the Grand Lodge of
Pennsylvania, one of many interesting Irish certificates owned by that body.
six months--for till the year 1875 Irish Lodges installed their officers twice
yearly, on St. John's Days--these lodges elected a committee, one of whose
most important functions was to decide disputes arising between the
brethren--for it was looked upon as a crime to go to law with a brother before
attempting such a means of accommodating the difference and to try those who
were accused of committing a breach of their Masonic duty. Some typical
instances of such a committee's proceedings are noted here. The following may
serve as an example:
23, 1815, Betwixt John Shields Complainant and John Jamison Defendant
Brother Crossens John Jameson had a Herring Preparing to eat on the fire Br.
Robt. Clark Catched the Herring afterwards a Dispute took place Concerning It
and on the Road going home it was Renewed struck him several times without any
offence John Shields threw him down on the Road told him he Would not Strack
him but Would take Care of him another Way but he still Persisted to Quarrel.
our undivided opinion that Br. John Jamison is to be obsolved from all the
Benifits of masonry for the space of one year and six months after this Date
23 of October 1815 and after he Clears off all Just Debts that Belongs to this
Lodge and at that Date he is to be Restored.
brother thus under sentence by his lodge committee had, of course, the right,
which was often exercised, of appeal to Grand Lodge. The latter body usually
referred the matter to three neighboring lodges for their report, unless when
there happened to be a standing county committee in existence when the matter
went before it. As regards the County Down committee, Bro. Simpson has been
fortunate enough to obtain from that sound Masonic scholar, Bro. W. Jenkinson,
of Armagh, who has made a special study of these early county committees, a
valuable note on the disagreements that attended the formation of such a body
in the county by the Grand Lodge of Ireland. For this and much else the reader
may be referred to the book itself.
would be easy to lengthen this article by further extracts relating to the
lodge accounts, processions and attendance at funerals, but that is not
necessary. Enough has been written already to show that this is a book which
will interest all who make a study of oldtime Masonic customs.
as one of the lessons tacitly inculcated by our beloved Order is that no man
should live for himself alone, so the Masonic student soon finds that his
knowledge of the history of his own Mother Constitution tends to become
short-sighted and biased till enriched by acquaintance with what was happening
simultaneously in other Jurisdictions. A disturbance in any one part of the
wide sea of the Craft will cause ripples eventually on its farthest shores.
The greater the original disturbance the easier, of course, to trace the
effects elsewhere: the clash of Antient and Modern is felt in America; Dublin
senses the shock of the American anti-Masonic campaign. Great events such as
these are demonstrable of proof; still it may be asked what possible effect
can the proceedings of a handful of Irish lodges meeting a century ago have
had upon trans-Atlantic Masonry? It does not follow that because we cannot
point to a visible ripple that one did not reach that length, though I think
that the tide of emigration westwards lets us assume the existence of such
ripples as an axiom.
Setting this on one side, however, every reader of this book can be safely
promised a great deal of entertainment and information about a Masonic
Jurisdiction on which too little has been written. That this is not due either
to lack of new matter or ability in authorship Bro. Simpson's book is an ample
History and Antiquities of Freemasonry in Saintfield, CO. Down, Ireland. * vo.
Demy, 96 pages, 2 plates. Post free 2/8
Masonry of the Olden Time in the Comber District, County Down Ireland. 8 vo.
Demy, 92 pages 8 plates. Price 3/8 post free. The whole profits to be devoted
to the Irish Masonic Charities
these works were privately printed, and it is possible that the stock is
exhausted. Inquiries may be made to Bro. S.H. Kingham. The Academy, Saintfield,
Belfast, or through the Book Department of the National Masonic Research
Memorials to Great Men Who Were Masons
BRO. GEORGE W. BAIRD, P. G. M., District of Columbia
PENN, one of those who signed the Declaration of Independence, is one of the
nine members of that illustrious group of men of whom we can say positively
and certainly that he was a Freemason. That there were more than nine is
indeed highly probable and weight must be given to the statements of earlier
writers to the effect that twenty or more of the number were members of the
Craft, for they seem based on a living memory then still existing. So few
membership rolls and lodge records have come down to us from the Revolutionary
period that positive documentary proof is generally most difficult to find,
even when the facts known all point in that direction.
memory of the Signers of the Declaration should be sacredly cherished by their
countrymen, and yet how little is known of them individually. The patriotic
orator carries his audience off its feet with his fervid eloquence, but how
many of them know or care that three of the men to whose leadership this
country so largely owes its Independence lie in unknown and neglected graves
in Philadelphia? And how many Masons know that one of the three was their
brother in the Craft? One of Penn's biographers says that he died in North
Carolina in September, 1778, but none mention where he was buried.
series of articles on the memorials to our great men and brothers it is
somewhat like playing Hamlet with the Prince of Denmark absent to write of one
to whom neither his friends and relatives nor yet his countrymen thought to
erect a monument. But perhaps even more, for that very reason, should the name
of John Penn be recorded here.
report of the Grand Lodge of Carolina for 1912 (page 752) gives the facts
known about our illustrious brother. He was born in Caroline County in
Virginia on May 17, 1741. His family was well connected and in comfortable
circumstances. In spite of this it would seem that his education was badly
neglected after his father's death. But like most men of mark this handicap
was not to keep him down. He had ambition and industry, and set to work to
make good the deficiency. He studied law in the office of Mr. Edmund Pendleton
and in 1762 set up in practice for himself, in which he soon became very
successful. In 1774 he moved to Granville, N. C., where he found a larger
field for the exercise of his abilities. He succeeded Richard Caswell in the
Continental Congress of 1775, through which circumstance it was that he was
concerned in the famous Declaration.
out of Congress for two years but was returned again in 1778 by a good
majority. During the occupation of North Carolina by the British troops under
Cornwallis he was placed in charge of public affairs, providing what means
were possible for provisioning the population. He was also receiver of taxes
for the Federation, a difficult and thankless task.
married Miss Susan Lyme, by whom he had three children. He is said to have
possessed "a sweet, persuasive eloquence and no small share of public
confidence" and their effect at the bar were distinguished for their force and
Watson in his "Annals of Philadelphia" tells of a challenge for a duel given
and received between John Penn and Mr. Laurens, a striking instance of the
difference of social customs. Even in that day this occasioned general
surprise that one of such an amiable and lovable character should have been
involved in such a proceeding. It shows the power that the point of honor then
had. However, the affair was arranged with satisfaction to all parties, and
they never met in conflict.
ancestry has been investigated, but apparently his family had no connection
whatever with that of William Penn, the colonizer of Pennsylvania, though the
latter's son by his second wife bore the same name as the subject of this
the last minute Winfield's History of Caroline County has come to the writer's
attention in which it is stated that John Penn died at his home in Granville
County, North Carolina, and was buried near Island Creek, and that in 1874 his
remains were removed and buried in Guilford Battle Grounds, a few miles from
Greensboro, together with those of John Hooper. The spot is said to be marked
by a stone on which the following inscription is to be found:
William Hooper and John Penn, delegates from North Carolina, 1776, to the
Continental Congress, and signers of the Declaration of Independence. Their
remains were re-interred here in 1874. Hewes' grave is lost. He was the third
writer has not been able to verify this statement, which is doubtless
reliable, nor to secure a photograph of this monument.]
Language in Lodges
BRO. ROBERT I. CLEGG, Associate Editor, Illinois
since the Roman era was once much more liberally employed than it is today. In
the scientific world and in university training the language is still favored,
though it has long been designated as dead. In pharmacy most of us are
familiar with its use on the prescription blanks left by the doctor when some
ailment or another threatens our health. Latin is also commonly used by the
Roman Catholic Church priesthood. Modern uses of the language have declined
nevertheless, though here and there as in the above instances we find it still
means of international communication among educated men a revival of the
language has been proposed. Even the simplification of the language in grammar
and addition of many new words to the vocabulary have been urged to fit Latin
for present day conditions. How practical this project might be is not now my
purpose to discuss. Probably the use of Esperanto, the international auxiliary
or secondary language, would be preferable. This would not involve the
alterations incident to changing over and modernizing the Latin, mangling it
into something foreign to itself, and thus bring the noble language of the
Roman Empire of old into harmony with the latest demands and conditions that
prevail with the inventions and industries of our own times.
Esperanto, by the way, is used by a Masonic Lodge in Paris, and similar
organizations have been proposed for London and elsewhere. Mention was made in
the handbook entitled the Masonic Year--1926, published by the Masonic History
Company, Chicago, Illinois, of the Roman Eagle Lodge of Edinburgh, Scotland,
which formerly worked the degrees and kept the records in Latin.
A. H. Mackey, of St. David's Lodge in the same city, the Lodge, by the way, of
which the famous novelist, sir Walter Scott, was a member, told me of the
curious circumstance that in the early days the work was translated into Latin
for those who knew no English but had an acquaintance with the language of
ancient Rome. Allusion being made to this matter in the Masonic Year, Brother
Mackay has very kindly copied the respective items from the old Minutes and
has thoughtfully added a number of explanatory notes. The incident throws much
light upon Lodge conditions in Edinburgh, a city of culture and renown, and
also suggests the fame that Freemasonry then enjoyed in other lands on the
Continent of Europe.
Worshipful" was and is yet a term of respect applied to the Masters of Lodges
in Scotland. The expression "Writer to the signet" means in Scotland a member
of a society of law agents. They have the exclusive power to prepare all
writs, charters and so forth to be issued by governmental authority. "Writer,"
as used by Brother Mackay, is an abbreviation of the term "Writer to the
Extracts from the Minutes of Lodge St. David, Edinburgh, No. 36:
"Emergency 13th Septr, 1783.
Hewit, S. W.
Ferguson, J. W.
Master Wardens and Secretary absent.
Lodge being convened on an Emergency and the R.W. being in the Country, Br. W.
Ferguson took the chair and represented, That Fabian Gordon, Esqr., Colonel of
Horse Carolus Gordon, Esqr., Major of Foot, Stefanus Dziembowskie, Esqr.
Captain of Foot, all in his Polish Majesty's Service, and Joseph Bukaty, Esqr.,
Secretary to the Polish Embassy at London, had applied to him to be made
Masons and Members of this Lodge, and as he is particularly acquainted with
them all, he recommends to his Brethren to grant their request, which being
unanimously agreed to, they were introduced in the order above mentioned, when
the ceremony was performed by the R. R. Br. John Maclure, Grand Chaplain, &
translated into Latin by Br. John Brown, M. D., as none of them understood
Brethren were entertained in the most Elegant Manner by Vocal & Instrumental
Music, particularly by the whole Band of the 21st Regiment, with French Horns,
Cor-de-Chasse Trumpets, HautBoys & Bassoons.
(Signed) "Wa. Ferguson, O. M."
on the foregoing:
Right Worshipful Master in 1783 was Brother James Home, Writer to the signet,
who was probably residing at his country seat of Linhouse during the vacation
of the law courts in Edinburgh.
presiding officer, Brother Walter Ferguson, was R.W. Master of the Lodge in
1754. (See references to him in "sir Walter Scott as a Freemason" in Ars
Quatuor Coronatorum Vol. xx. )
Gordon, Colonel in the Polish Army and "Royal Prussian Brigadier in the
National Cavalry," was the son of Alexander Gordon, who emigrated to Poland,
and grandson of Alexander Gordon, of Coldwells, in the Parish of Ellon,
Aberdeenshire. He was apparently born in Poland and came to Scotland to pursue
the process of being legally served as heir to his grandfather. The Colonel
took possession of the estate formally in order to sell it to James Keay,
writer, Edinburgh. for 1650 on 23rd September, 1783, the deed being recorded
in Edinburgh on that same day.
Carolus Gordon. (Karol.) Colonel Polish Army, commander of the free town of
Cracow. Son of Peter Gordon, Collector of Customs, Cracow and Judge of
Czerniechow, and grandson of John James (Polish) "Marquis of Huntly."
Stefanus Dziembobski. Captain of Foot. Not identified.
Josephus Bukaty, Secretary to the Polish Embassy at London, was probably a
relative of Brother Francis Bukaty, Polish resident Minister there,
representative in London of the Grand Lodge of Poland in 1784, and a member of
the Sun Fire Offlce Lodge. (See the American New Age Magazine for September,
1906, page 250.)
Brother, the Rev. John McClure, initiated in Canongate Kilwinning, Edinburgh,
No. 2, on 3rd June, 1752, became an Honorary Member of Lodge St. David in
December. 1754. He became, on 30th November, 1758, the first Grand Chaplain of
the Grand Lodge of Scotland, and continued in that office until his death in
1787. It is recorded of him that throughout a long life he maintained "the
character of a good man and an excellent Mason, being considered the oracle of
the Craft in Edinburgh."
John Brown, known as the founder of the Brownonian System of Medicine, was the
first Right Worshipful Master of Lodge Roman Eagle, Edinburgh, No. 160,
chartered in 1785. As an incitement to his students, many of whom were
members, he caused the business of the Lodge, and the Minutes, to be written
Masters Lodge, 18th Septr, 1783.
Hewit, S. W., p. t.
Thomson, J. W., p. t.
Brown, T. "
R. W. having appointed Brothers Captain James Ferguson and Alexr. Ferguson to
be Past and Dept. Masters, and Brs. Hewit and Dickson to be Wardens,
represented to the Lodge, That the four Polish Brethren had been extremely
diligent in learning the apprentices' part. and as their time in this Country
was to be short, they were anxious to be promoted to the higher Degrees and
for that purpose he had ordered this Masters' Lodge to be conveened and hoped
their request wou'd be granted and their Entries having proved tedious, first
giving it in English and then translating it into Latin, so the Most W.
Charles Wm. Little Esqr. Subt. G. M. of Scotland had voluntarily offered to
assist Br. John Brown, M. D., and Br. Clark, of St. And'ws Lodge, and
accordingly the Ceremony which took up above three hours was performed in very
Elegant Latin, and the fees of the whole were paid to Br. James Brown,
Treasurer, after which these new entered Brethren who are to set out for
Poland in a few days having requested that the Lodge wou'd give them
Certificates of their being made Masons and Members of this Lodge. Although
this request was new and contrary to the practice of the Lodge, and had been
refused in former cases, yet there was a distinction in this case, the
Brethren being Foreigners, who never were, nor probably wou'd ever be again in
Scotland, and that giving such certificates might be a means not only of
increasing Masonry, but also a probability of extending the authority of the
G. Lodge of A., therefore it was unanimously agreed to and the same were wrote
on Vellum in the following words:
all the Brethren of the ancient and honourable Society of Free and Accepted
Masons, Be it known that the Bearer hereof, Fabian Gordon, Esqr., Colonel in
his Polish Majesty's Army, has been entered and received a Brother in the
Royal Lodge of St. Davids, Edinburgh, and Inrolled as a Member thereof, and
has passed through the different Degrees of Apprentice, Fellowcraft and Master
Mason. In testimony whereof the Common Seal is hereto appended and we, the
presiding officers of the Lodge, have subscribed these presents at Edinburgh
this 18th day of September, 1783 years, and in the year of Masonry, 5783.
Signed, Wa. Ferguson, M.Ja. Ferguson, Past M.; Alexander Ferguson, Dept M.,
John Brown, Orator. To the left side-James Hewit, Senr W.; Robt. Dickson, Junr
W.; James Brown, Treasr; John Armour, Secty. At the foot--Wm. Charles Little,
Subt. G. M. of Scotland. A large Mason Seal by Deuchar in a White Iron Box
appended by a White Ribbon. (Signed) "Wa. Ferguson, O. M."
on the foregoing:
acting Past Master, Captain James Ferguson, was a son of Brother Walter
Ferguson, the presiding offlcer. (See reference to him in "Sir Walter Scott As
a Freemason," A. Q. C., Vol. xx. )
Brother William Charles Little, eleventh Laird of Liberton, Advocate, was
Substitute Grand Master of Scotland, 1782-83. He was Depute Master of Lodge
St. David during the years 1784-85-86. In 1787-88-89 he was R. W. Master of
the Roman Eagle Lodge, Edinburgh, No. 160, and in 1791 R. W. Master of Lodge
Edinburgh St. Andrews, No. 48. His great-great-grandson, Bro. Brigadier
General Robert Gordon Gilmore of Liberton and Craigmiller, C.B., C.V.O., D.S.O.,
is a Past Grand Master Mason of Scotland, Grand Standard-Bearer in the Supreme
Council 33rd Degree, and Past Grand Sword-Bearer in the Grand Lodge of the
Royal Order of Scotland.
L. CLEGG, Ohio
GILBERT W. DAYNES, England
H. DERN, Utah
CHARLES F. IRWIN. Ohio
E. MORCOMBE, California
FORT NEWTON, New York
C. PARKER, New York
M. WHITED, California
E. W. WILLIAMSON, Nevada
RELIGION AND MASONRY
an established rule among all Freemasons that no religious questions can be
raised in the lodge. Contrary to generally accepted belief in America, this is
equally true of those countries where Masonry is supposed to have political
aims and an anti-religious bias as among ourselves. That is the law, and it is
to be found in the Constitutions and regulations of all Masonic Jurisdictions
throughout the world. Whether it is always obeyed in spirit and letter is
another question altogether. We fear that sometimes, even in enlightened
America, the danger line of transgression is sometimes very closely approached
by zealous brethren in the presence of a sympathetic audience.
hard question arises it is often to be found that a solution may be obtained
by returning to first principles. It may therefore be useful here to recall
the earliest formulation of this rule in the first edition of Anderson's
Constitutions. The passage is very well known of course, but it may not be
amiss, nevertheless, to quote the exact words. They are found in Article VI of
the Charges of a Freemason. The whole refers to the behaviour of Masons, and
the first section deals with their behaviour in the lodge, the second with
that after the lodge "is over and the brethren not gone." It is in this second
section that the allusion is found, a point worthy of remembering. We are told
of the brethren enjoying themselves, "with innocent mirth," of refreshments,
both edible and potable apparently, of the avoidance of all excess or of doing
anything that might "blast our harmony and defeat our laudable purposes." For
this reason no "private piques or quarrels" may be introduced,
far less any Quarrels about Religion or Nations or State Policy, we being only
as Masons of the Catholic Religion above referred to; we are also of all
Nations, Tongues, Kindreds and Languages, and are resolved against all
Politics, as what never yet conduced to the welfare of the Lodge, nor ever
Catholic Religion here spoken of is the statement in the first Charge,
"Concerning God and Religion," which runs:
Mason is oblig'd by his Tenure, to obey the moral Law; and if he rightly
understands the Art, he will never be a stupid Atheist nor an irreligious
which Masons are obliged only
. . .
to that Religion in which all Men agree . . . that is to be good Men and true,
or men of Honour and Honesty, by whatever Denominations or Persuasions they
may be distinguish'd.
later versions, both Anderson's second edition and others, some changes were
made in this. An explicit reference to Christian Masons in Christian countries
was added for one thing, and yet the essential meaning does not seem to be
changed. Certainly this reference to Christian Masons does not bar
non-Christians, for it is distinctly said that Masons were to be found in all
countries, "even of divers religions." The context making it quite clear that
religions other than Christianity are meant.
Changes were also made in the sixth Charge. While the original language of
Anderson was largely retained all through, even as he had loosely quoted and
incorporated phrases and passages from the old Manuscripts, yet an important
difference appears. The rule regarding the introduction of religious and
political questions is made to refer to the lodge and not to the informal
gathering after it was over "and the brethren not gone." In this we may see a
distinct evolution. The earlier rule is in form and substance little more than
a by-law, a purely private affair. Certain things are to be avoided because
they are liable to disturb the harmony that should subsist among Masons when
met together. The later transpositions and additions seem to indicate that it
was felt that such a rule was hardly general enough, or even dignified enough,
to have a place in Constitutional law. At the same time it had come to be
seen, due doubtless to the fact that by this time the Craft was beginning to
make a stir in the world, that there was a wider aspect from which the matter
should be considered. It was coming to be important to consider the
relationship in which the Fraternity stood to society and to the state. Not
only must harmony be maintained within, between brethren of different
political opinions, and belonging to different religious communions, but the
outside world must be assured that Masonry had no political or religious aims
or purposes. To do this it was constitutionally impossible for any action of
such nature to be taken, because no questions or proposals referring to the
forbidden subjects could ever be introduced, much less discussed or acted
governments, those of old Japan and Tibet being exceptions, have ever objected
to their citizens having intercourse with those of other countries. Few
religions bar their adherents from all communication with those not of their
faith. A Mohammedan will give a Christian hospitality, no church dreams of
disciplining its members for buying or selling, walking or talking, with those
outside the fold. Even close companionship and friendship, though it may be
discouraged and deprecated, cannot well be forbidden outright. And this
because all these things are neutral, they imply no consequences in loyalty or
belief. It seems obvious on reflection that Freemasons, or at least their
leaders, at the period when the Craft became definitely a purely Speculative
Institution, deliberately endeavored to make it neutral in the same sense,
neutral as to politics and questions of state, neutral as to creeds and dogmas
and the regulatory disciplines of the different sects and churches. Very
largely the effort was successful, although some churches and some governments
refused to believe in the reality of this neutral attitude, and acted
according to their fears and suspicions, whether real or pretended.
spite of all there are positive relationships in which the Craft stands to
religion. Among ourselves there is the declaration of a belief in God, and the
presence of the Bible upon the altar of the lodge. The first is, of course, a
creed at its minimum. No candidate is, or may be, asked why he believes, or
how he conceives the Deity; so long as in some sense satisfactory to his own
conscience he can use the words of the simple formula it is enough. Yet the
statement is certainly religious and in a sense dogmatic.
Bible seems to be more difficult to reconcile with the religious neutrality of
Masonry. Even if we allow the Old Testament alone to be used in a Hebrew
lodge, or remember the possibility that once only the Books of the Gospels
were used, the Scripture in part or as a whole is incompatible with the
reception of followers of many other forms of faith and belief, to whom it is
no more than any other book. But the difficulty clears when we remember that
though in the various versions of the ritual the candidate is exhorted more or
less definitely to reverence it, and is informed that it is the rule and guide
of faith, yet nowhere is any particular mode of interpretation set forth
concerning it, nor any definite belief about it demanded of those who enter
the Order. It is presented to them as one of the three chief sources of
illumination in Masonry, but under such circumstances and in such a context
that we can only say, however much more it may be to the individual, it is in
the Masonic system first and always a symbol. There is surely no need to dwell
on this in detail--to Masons it is the Volume of the Sacred Law, the Trestle
Board of the Grand Architect of the Universe. As each Mason is free to have
his own conception of God, so is he also free to interpret this symbol for
various sects and denominations of the Christian religion have in the past
been bitterly opposed to each other, and though a reign of outward tolerance
is now more or less established, yet it is very largely only a state of armed
neutrality or passive hostility. The differences between them may be of such
vital importance as to warrant this state of affairs; on that we, as Masons,
can express no opinion; but it certainly does seem to be a general rule that
the more convinced a man is that his creed is right the more certain is he
that all others are wrong, and the corollary logically follows, that if his
way and practice leads to salvation then all other paths must lead astray, if
not to perdition. But with all this, Masonry has nothing to do, and
necessarily so, for otherwise it would have to have its own interpretation and
its own creed and become in fact, what many of its enemies profess to believe
it, a secret religion itself. It would have to be this or else break up into
sections, each part (if it lived) being restricted to members of some
particular religious communion, and by that restriction cut off from all
fraternal intercourse with the rest.
Masonry therefore irreligious? Some of its opponents have said so, but the
question can only be answered if we strictly define our terms. If by religion
we understand some particular sect, then, in that sense, it would be
irreligious. But those who make the accusation do not put it in this way, they
are guilty of the fallacy of using a word in two senses and assuming that what
is true in one is true also in the other. What such people really mean is that
Masonry does not require the beliefs that their own religion demands, and that
therefore it is contrary to all religion. But in the general sense of the
word, Freemasonry is, as the Constitutions imply, religious, in so far as it
requires those essential elements found in all the higher forms of religion at
least; those essential points about which all good men are agreed; while it
requires nothing of those things upon which good men differ. Of course, again,
if anyone chooses to interpret "good" in such a way as to be applicable only
to adherents of his own creed he is at liberty to do so-as we are to refuse to
discuss the matter further with him.
correspondent has raised the question, and it is largely in response to his
request that this article has been written, in what sense it can be said, to
use his own words, that the "Bible is the foundation of Masonry," and how far
Masons are, as such, bound by what it says. The difficulty had been raised in
his mind by a discussion whether it was right and proper for the executive
committee of a lodge to meet on Sunday. It would have been easy enough to have
replied that it was really a relative matter, depending entirely upon
circumstances, and not one of principle. That even if it is said in the ritual
that our ancient brethren, conceived as Hebrew craftsmen working on the
Temple, did consecrate the seventh day of the week to the worship of God, yet
Christians celebrate the resurrection of their Lord on the first day of the
week, and that there is not a word in the New Testament to indicate that the
law of the Sabbath was to be transferred from the seventh to the first day,
while there is that, on the other hand, that implies that real religion is not
concerned at all with days and seasons, and meats, and rites and ceremonies.
It was the Master himself who said that the "Sabbath was made for man and not
man for the Sabbath," making it forever clear that no ritual or ceremonial
observance was to be allowed to stand before even the material and physical
welfare of men. It would have been easy, too, to have pointed out that even if
it were right for Christian Masons to apply the rules of the Sabbath to
Sunday, Jewish Masons could not be so required, nor could those of other
beliefs be bound by either rule if their own conscience did impose it upon
them. It would have been easy to have said this and let it pass, but it seemed
more satisfactory to go so far as possible to the root of the matter.
are always prone to tithe mint, anise and cummin; many of us think that
because we do not grow these herbs in our gardens that this has no application
to our own conduct. But we are all of us inclined to do exactly the same kind
of things that our Lord denounced in the Pharisees, who were very good men
according to their lights. In external observances men easily forget the
"weightier matters of the law," or as Hudibras has it, to
Compound the sins they are inclined to By damning those they have no mind to.
so much easier to follow some superficial rule than to change the motives of
life and conduct. In a recently published book of exploration in New Guinea,
the author (who incidentally gives us to understand that he is an atheist)
speaks of the work of the missionaries. He has the greatest respect for them,
for their lives and their work, whether Romanist, Protestant or Church of
England; yet he cannot help pointing out a tendency to regard the putting the
male converts into trousers and the female into chemises and petticoats as
being an important factor in conversion. Others have said much the same thing.
When one thinks of St. Paul, who was all things to all men if haply he might
win some to Christ, one wonders what he would have done. Probably if it would
have helped him to get into closer touch he would have put on a loin cloth and
shell necklaces himself.
the Bible is the rule and guide of faith and the foundation of Masonry. Let it
be so, and let us see what it tells us. Says the prophet Micah:
Wherewith shall I come before the Lord and bow myself before the high God?
Shall I come before him with burnt offerings, with calves of a year old?
then he answers his own question as to this matter of ceremonials and
hath shown thee, O man, what is good; and what doth the Lord require of thee,
but to do justly, and to love mercy and to walk humbly with thy God ?
there is higher authority yet. It was Christ Himself who declared that to love
God and your neighbor was the fulfillment of the law; and after the parable of
the good Samaritan we can be in no doubt as to who is our neighbor--just
anyone who needs our help. "Pure religion and undefiled," says James, the
servant of God, "is this; to visit the fatherless and the widow in their
affliction and to keep himself unspotted from the world." This then is the
religion that Freemasonry holds by; no more than this; the religion in which
all good men agree. It sounds simple, and yet it is a basis of union upon
which each may work according to his own faith.
Bulletin of the
National Masonic Tuberculosis Sanatoria Association
Incorporated by Authority of the Grand Lodge of New Mexico, A.F. & A.M.
MASONIC TEMPLE, ALBUQUERQUE, N.M.
OFFICERS AND BOARD OF GOVERNORS
HERBERT B. HOLT, Grand Master, President
RICHARD H. HANNA, Vice-President
ALPHEUS A. KEEN, Secretary
FRANCIS E LESTER, Executive Secretary, Las Cruces, New Mexico
W. TURNER, Treasurer
ARIZONA - Lloyd C. Henning, Holbrook.
ARKANSAS - Claude L. Hill, Grand Master, Booneville.
CONNECTICUT - Fred A. Borland, Past Grand Master, South Manchester.
FLORIDA - Cary B. Fish, Grand Master, Sarasota.
- Will H. Gibson, Grand Master, Boise.
KENTUCKY - G. Allison Holland, Grand Master, Lexington.
MINNESOTA - Albert F. Pray, Grand Master, Minneapolis,
MISSISSIPPI - John R. Tally, Grand Master, Hattiesburg.
MISSOURI - Wm. W. Martin, Grand Master, Daniphan
JERSEY - Benjamin F. Havens, Junior Grand Warden, Trenton.
MEXICO - Herbert B. Holt, Grand Master, Las Cruces.
CAROLINA - Dr. J. C. Braswell, Past Grand Master, Whitakers.
OKLAHOMA - Gilbert B. Bristow, Past Grand Master, Roosevelt.
ISLAND - Howard Knight, Past Grand Master, Providence.
CAROLINA - Charlton DuRant, Grand Master, Manning
DAKOTA - L. M. Simons, Grand Master, Bellefourche.
TENNESSEE - Andrew E. McCullagh, Grand Master, Maryville.
- Dr. Felix P. Miller, El Paso.
Fred M. Nye, Ogden.
VERMONT - Christie B. Crowell, Grand Master, Brattleboro.
DAKOTA - Dr. J. S. Lamont, Dunseith.
WASHINGTON - Morton Gregory, Grand Master, Masonic Temple, Tacoma.
WlSCONSIN - Fred L. Wright, Past Senior Grand Warden, Milwaukee.
WYOMING - Frank S. Knittle, Grand Master, Casper.
OF THE EASTERN STAR, GENERAL GRAND CHAPTER - Mrs. Clara Henrich, Most Worthy
Grand Matron, Newport, Ky.
J NEWTON Editor Publicity Director N. M, T. S. A. Las Cruces New Mexico.
* * *
FORTY-SIX YEARS TO HIS LIFE
old-time newspaper man passed away in San Antonio, Texas, last year. He was
for some time editor and publisher of the Texas Freemason and was active in
Masonic work almost up to the date of his death. Bro. Leonard A. Heil was
superintendent of the National Cemetery at San Antonio, and as he had
recovered from tuberculosis he was much interested in the effort to provide
sanatoria for sick Masons. He wrote an account of his experience for
publication some time before he died which is now printed for the first time.
Bro. Heil figured that he had prolonged his life just forty-six years after
the time set by his physician for him to die, and always considered this a
good joke upon his doctor, whom he out-lived by many years.
1877 I was working in the State Printing Office, Topeka, Kan., as a
compositor. My lungs were bad and getting worse. Nothing I could do seemed to
benefit me to any extent.
"Finally the doctor said that if I went to Southwest Texas I might live two
years more. Of course .. a man in my condition and age – 34 - wanted to
prolong life as long as possible, and so I came to Texas in November, 1877,
landing in Austin, where I was engaged to edit a greenback paper. The end of
January, 1878, I landed in San Antonio, and was employed as foreman of the job
office of the San Antonio Herald, then the leading daily. Then next month I
went into the counting room and remained there until the Herald went into the
hands of a receiver. My health was not much improved, but not much worse, and
in the fall, October, 1878, 1 went to work for the San Antonio Express as
traveling correspondent: as I was not considered fit for office work, the
management telling me that they could not afford to pay my funeral expenses.
that time there were no railroads west of this city and only one to the town,
the Southern Pacific. There were few ranches and few fences, the ranges being
open with water holes for the stock. I doubted my strength to stand a
horseback trip, and consulting Dr. Amos Graves, at that time the leading
physician in this city, who said that he would fix up something for me, with
the instruction that when tired to slide off the horse and take a swig of the
concoction, and when rested to climb aboard of the animal and make another
step of the trip. Well, I SLID off several times, and finally reached St.
Hedwig, a small hamlet 20 miles southeast of San Antonio. The next morning I
was so sore and stiff I could hardly sit on my horse, but made Laverina, 10
miles farther. From that time I began improving, and the trip was over 200
miles before getting back to town, much improved. I wrote a letter a week for
the paper, giving the physical condition of the country, its resources, etc.
This I kept up for about three years, often traveling 50 or more miles a day,
and my improvement was certain, though gradual.
to the motif of this letter. I have seen few who came here for the benefit of
their lungs (and if not too late, and it is rather hard to say just what may
be considered too late) who have not been benefited. But they must live
practically out-of-doors. In that consists the virtue of this climate. Its
mildness permits one to live out-of-doors. No one can hope to be benefited
suffering with tuberculosis and stay in and about the house. It takes pure and
fresh air to cure that disease. My observation is that anywhere in Southwest
Texas, where it is dry, not swampy, and the water is pure, is beneficial to
persons suffering with lung troubles, and if they come in time they can hope
for improvement, if not complete recovery. I consider tuberculosis curable, as
I have seen many cases cured, but if benefited the patient must remain where
the improvement is experienced, for to return to the locality where the
disease is contracted, a relapse is almost sure to take place, and usually it
ends with death. The conditions which caused the disease will renew it.
now in my 82nd year, and my friends say that I do not look over 65. My health
is good as it ever was since 17, when I first contracted lung troubles from a
severe cold in Albany, N. Y., in 1860. My army life during the Civil War
helped very much, and if I had remained out of a printing office I would
probably never have got down with the terrible scourge, the White Plague, but
once down I could not shake it off while in the North, and couldn't have done
it here had I not taken to out-of-door life.
James D. Hamrick, Past Grand Master Grand Lodge of Georgia, F. & A. M.,
will be my pleasure to assist and urge the Grand Master to comply with your
request that much good may come to the Craft at large. The real work of our
Fraternity should be carried home to the hearts of the great Fraternity and
then much good will be accomplished, but until the personnel of the Fraternity
have been educated to such work."
A. McHan, Grand Secretary, Grand Chapter, R. A. M., Macon, Georgia.
will be glad to give him all the assistance in my power.
Grand Master is deeply interested in the matter and has had several articles
in the paper regarding the matter and I have also had some articles myself.
hope to interest Masons in the state so that we shall be able to give some
help to the National Masonic Tuberculosis Sanatoria Association "
Richard C. Davenport, Grand Master Grand Lodge, A. F. & A. M., Harrisburg,
wish also to congratulate you and the brethren of New Mexico on the work you
are undertaking on behalf of the above mentioned enterprise.
have been considering carefully the work of the Association, and I believe it
will result in a great amount of good."
Articles of Incorporation of the National Masonic Tuberculosis Sanatoria
order that members of the National Masonic Research Society may be fully
informed as to the scope and constitutions of the new organization to combat
tuberculosis, we are reproducing in full the Articles of Incorporation by
which it becomes a legal entity. It will be seen that provision is made for
the representation of the Grand Lodges and all other Masonic bodies. If these,
or a majority of them, will only take the matter up, it will become in
actuality what it is planned to be, a national organization to meet a national
WHEREAS, hertofore, to-wit, on the 18th day of February, A. D. 1925, during
the Forty-seventh Annual Communication of the Grand Lodge of Ancient, Free and
Accepted Masons of New Mexico, there was adopted a recommendation embodied in
the report of the Committee on Grand Master's Address that proper steps be
promptly taken to provide a legal entity to raise and administer funds for the
development of National Masonic Tuberculosis Sanatoria and conferring upon the
incoming Grand Master authority to take all necessary steps to develop such
WHEREAS, pursuant to such action by the Grand Lodge, the said Grand Master
duly appointed a Committee on Masonic Tubercular Sana oria, with authority to
WHEREAS, at a meeting of such committee held at Las Cruces, New Mexico, on,
to-wit, Oct. 22, 1925, there was adopted a resolution in substance providing
for and authorizing the incorporation under and in accordance with the
provisions of Sections 1055 and to 1061, inclusive, of the New Mexico Statutes
Annotated, Codification of 1915, of a National Masonic Tuberculosis Sanatoria
Association to be vested with all powers, rights and privileges prescribed in
and by the aforesaid statute;
THEREFORE, for the purpose of executing the aforesaid expressed desire and
will of the Grand Lodge of Ancient, Free and Accepted Masons of New Mexico,
and acting under power and authority emanating from such Grand Lodge,
conferred upon us through appointment by the Grand Master of such Grand Lodge,
we, the undersigned, do hereby mutually agree to unite and associate ourselves
as a body corporate under and in accordance with the provisions of and to be
vested with all of the powers authorized and conferred by, the aforesaid
statute; and do hereby adopt the following ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION, to-wit:
name of the corporation shall be "NATIONAL MASONIC TUBERCULOSIS SANATORIA
location of the principal office and place of business of the corporation
shall be at the City of Albuquerque, County of Bernalillo, State of New
Mexico, and the name of the designated agent of the corporation, upon whom
process may be served, is Alpheus A. Keen, of Albuquerque, New Mexico.
offices may be established at such other place or places as may be designated
by the Board of Governors or Executive Committee of the corporation.
term for which the corporation shall exist shall be in perpetuity.
corporation is organized for, and shall be devoted to, benevolent, charitable,
scientific and literary purposes and the establishment and conduct of training
schools and other educational institutions, facilities and libraries for the
training, vocational training, education, improvement and mental, physical,
moral and. spiritual betterment of those who may become its beneficiaries: for
all of which purposes, its objects shall be as follows, to-wit:
act as an agency, or trustee, to receive and administer funds contributed, or
acquired for the relief of Freemasons, and members of their families, or
others, suffering from tuberculosis, or who may be in distress from other
secure hospitalization for the sick, and employment for the well; and to
render service of any kind according to the need and the ability of the
acquire, erect, establish, maintain and operate Sanatoria, Hospitals, and
other institutions for the care, treatment and education of Freemasons and
members of their families afflicted with tuberculosis in any form, or
suffering from any other disease, and who may be relieved by institutional
acquire and hold such real estate and personal property as may be necessary or
proper for the furtherance of its objects, or convenient for its uses and
purposes; and to sell or mortgage the same.
acquire and own lands and town lots, and to improve, cultivate, rent,
sub-divide and mortgage or alienate the same; and to construct, erect and
operate water plants and storage dams, and to otherwise acquire and develop
irrigation facilities and water supply for such lands, and other property of
acquire, erect, establish, maintain and operate hotels, bath houses and other
buildings, structures, enterprises and equipment, and to establish and
maintain training schools and out-door and in-door sports and facilities for
the training, benefit and pleasure of its patients, and members of their
families, and of its employees, and to acquire, develop, maintain and carry on
such agricultural, industrial, mercantile or other enterprises and equipment
as shall be appropriate for the purpose of providing vocational training and
employment for the patients and employees in and of the institutions,
establishments and enterprises under the control of the corporation, and for
the members of their families, and such as may be deemed necessary for the
advantage and purposes of the corporation.
do and perform such other and further acts and things as may be calculated to
aid in the prevention, treatment or cure of tuberculosis among Masons, or
their families, or others, or to provide for the care and treatment of such
persons who may be afflicted with other ailments or diseases; and to take such
other and further action as may be deemed necessary or appropriate to
contribute to the relief of those thus afflicted.
disseminate among the Freemasons of America, and their families and others,
scientific knowledge and useful information as to the causes and methods of
treatment for the prevention, relief and cure of tuberculosis; and as to the
purposes and objects of the corporation.
Generally, to do whatever may be deemed essential to the accomplishment of the
aforesaid purposes and objects and to the encouragement and promotion of works
of humanity and charity, for the relief of poverty, sickness, distress,
suffering and danger; all of the activities and operations hereunder to be
devoted to the aforesaid purposes and objects, and to the ultimate relief of
sickness and distress, and the education and betterment of mankind, to the
exclusion of personal or private gain or profit.
corporation shall be empowered:
sue or be sued in any court of law.
make and use a common seal.
adopt by-laws for the government of its affairs, which, together with all
amendments thereto, shall be duly filed in the office of the State Corporation
Commission of New Mexico, in accordance with law.
take and hold real estate and personal property by lease, purchase, gift.
devise or bequest, and to use or occupy, or to sell or mortgage the same; also
to acquire and hold other real estate or personal property which shall have
been bona fide conveyed to it, by way of security, or in satisfaction of debts
or purchased at sales under judgment or decree obtained for such debts.
do and transact all business, and to possess and exercise all powers and
privileges connected with or necessary or convenient to the attainment of the
objects set forth in this Certificate of Incorporation, or such as may be
incidental to any or all of the aforesaid purposes and objects.
purchase, lease or otherwise acquire, in whole or in part, the business, good
will, rights, franchises and property of every kind, and to undertake the
whole or any part of the assets or liabilities of any person, firm,
association or corporation engaged in, or authorized to conduct any business
similar to any business authorized to be conducted by this corporation, or
owning property necessary or suitable for its purposes, and to pay for the
same in cash, in bonds of this corporation, or otherwise; and to hold or in
any manner dispose of, the whole or any part of the business or property so
acquired, and to exercise all the powers necessary or incidental to the
conduct of such business.
accordance with law, to consolidate its debts, property, assets and
franchises, with any other like association or corporation, created either
under the laws of New Mexico, or those of any state or territory of the United
States, in such manner as may be agreed upon by the respective governing
bodies of such corporations.
acquire by purchase, subscription or otherwise, and to hold, sell, assign,
transfer, mortgage, pledge or otherwise dispose of, the stocks, bonds, or
other obligations of any association or corporation formed for or then or
theretofore engaged in or pursuing any one or more of the kinds of business,
purposes, objects or operations hereinabove indicated, or owning or holding
any property of any kind herein mentioned, or of any association or
corporation owning or holding the stocks and or obligations of any such
association or corporation.
conduct business, have one or more offices or agencies, and to purchase,
mortgage, lease and convey real estate and personal property, or any estate or
interest therein in any part of the world, but always subject to local laws,
and to the general purposes and objects for which this corporation is formed,
and to keep such books of the corporation outside of New Mexico as are not
required by law to be kept within the state.
Without in any particular limiting or restricting any of the other purposes,
objects and powers of the corporation, it is hereby expressly declared and
provided that for the purchase or acquisition of property, business, rights or
franchises, or for additional working capital, or for any other object in or
about, and not inconsistent with, its business or affairs and its general
purposes and objects, and without limits as to amount, the corporation shall
be empowered to incur debt, and to raise, borrow and secure the payment of
money, in any lawful manner, including the issuing and sale or other
disposition of bonds, warrants, debentures, obligations, negotiable and
transferable instruments and evidences of indebtedness of all kinds, whether
secured by mortgage, pledge, deed of trust or otherwise, to make and perform
contracts of every kind and description; to issue bonds and other obligations
in payment for property purchased or acquired by it, or for any other object
in or about and not inconsistent with, its business; to mortgage or pledge any
stocks, bonds or other obligations or any property which may be acquired by
it, to secure any bonds or other obligations by it issued or incurred; and in
carrying on its business, or for the purpose of attaining or furthering any of
its objects or purposes, to do any and all other things, and exercise any and
all other powers which now or hereafter may be permitted by law.
foregoing clauses shall be construed both as objects and powers, but no
recitation, expression or declaration of specific or special powers or
purposes herein enumerated, shall be deemed to be exclusive, but it is hereby
expressly declared that all other lawful powers not inconsistent therewith are
and all of the rights, powers, privileges or restrictions in this Certificate
of Incorporation, granted and contained, conferred or imposed, may be
enlarged, amended, altered, changed in any manner and to any extent, or
repealed by a Certificate of Amendment, in accordance with the laws of the
State of New Mexico.
business and operations of this corp3ration, and of the institutions which it
may establish and control, shall at all times and for all purposes, in each
and every branch, be under the jurisdiction and control of a Board of
Governors to be composed of members, one for each state, one from the District
of Columbia, and from each of the territories of the United States, who may be
appointed by the Grand Master of each Grand Jurisdiction, elected by the Grand
Lodge of each Grand Jurisdiction, or selected by the Board of Governors, or
its Executive Committee; also of members-at-large who may be appointed
respectively by the supreme heads of the General Grand Chapter of Royal Arch
Masons of the United States of America; the General Grand Council of Royal and
Select Masters of the United States of America; the Grand Encampment of
Knights Templar of the United States of America; the Supreme Council of the
Thirty-third and Last Decree of the Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite of
Freemasonry for the Southern Jurisdiction of the United States of America; the
Supreme Council of Sovereign Grand Inspectors-General of the Thirty-third and
Last Degree of the Ancient Accepted Scottish Rite of Freemasonry for the
Northern Masonic Jurisdiction of the United States of America; the Imperial
Council of the Ancient Arabic Order of the Nobles of the Mystic Shrine for
North America; and the General Grand Chapter, Order of the Eastern Star, or
elected by the governing bodies of such organizations, or such
members-at-large may be selected by the Board of Governors or its Executive
PROVIDED: Until the first meeting of the Board of Governors, and thereafter if
so authorized by such Board, the Executive Committee as hereinafter named,
with such additional members as they may elect or appoint, and their
successors in office who may be elected or appointed by the Board of Governors
from time to time, shall have and exercise all of the powers conferred upon
such Board of Governors by this Certificate of Incorporation, the Laws of New
Mexico, and the By-Laws of this corporation, when said Board of Governors is
not in session, subject to suc1h restrictions and regulations as may be
imposed by said Board.
corporation shall have the right to organize subsidiary, state, county and
local branches, societies or committees, for the more complete accomplishment
of the purposes for which it is created and organized; and may grant charters,
warrants or franchises to such subsidiary branches or organizations, and the
organization and operation of such subsidiary branches shall at all times be
under the control and supervision of the Board of Governors, or its Executive
Committee, under rules and regulations to be thus prescribed for their
guidance and government.
officers and members of this Association shall be: the Chairman and members of
the Board of Governors, the Chairman and members of the Executive Committee,
honorary Presidents, the President, Vice-President, Secretary, Treasurer,
Executive Secretary, and such other officers, employees, committees and
members as may be provided for and authorized by the Board of Governors, or
its Executive Committee, and the members of the Grand Lodge of Ancient, Free
and Accepted Masons of New Mexico, and of its constituent lodges; and of the
Grand Chapter of Royal Arch Masons of New Mexico, and of its subordinate
Chapters; and of the Grand Commandery of Knights Templar of New Mexico and its
subordinate Commanderies; and of Santa Fe Lodge of Perfection, No. 1, and of
its co-ordinate bodies; and of Ballut Abyad Temple of the Ancient, Arabic
Order of the Nobles of the Mystic Shrine; and of the Grand Chapter of New
Mexico, Order of the Eastern Star; together with such persons as may
contribute money, services or anything of value to further the work of the
first officers and members of the Association, of its Board of Governors, and
of its Executive Committee, who shall serve until their successors are duly
chosen, and their respective residences, shall be and are as follows, to-wit:
Chairman of the Board of Governors
Chairman of the Executive Committee
Roswell, New Mexico
Vice-President - Richard H. Hanna - Albuquerque, New Mexico
Vice-President - Herbert B. Holt - Las Cruces, New Mexico
Secretary - Alpheus A. Keen - Albuquerque, New Mexico
Treasurer - John W. Turner - Silver City, New Mexico
Executive Secretary - Francis E. Lester - Mesilla Park, New Mexico
Neither this corporation, nor any of its subsidiary branches, shall have any
capital stock or pay any dividend to any officer or member; but all profits
derived from operations hereunder shall be used to further the aforesaid
purposes and objects of the incorporation.
WITNESS WHEREOF, we have hereunto set our hands and seals, this 31st day of
October, A. D. 1925.
HERBERT B. HOLT,
ALPHEUS A. KEEN,
FRANCIS E. LESTER.
* * *
M. White, Missouri Consistory, No. 1, El Jebel Temple, Denver, Wheat Ridge,
"Catholic Institutions are in every state for the care of the Tuberculars. The
Printers' Union has a fine Sanatorium in Colorado Springs as well as the
Modern Woodmen of the World, and I as well as hundreds of other Masons have
wondered why the Order had no place to take care of Masons stricken with T. B.
R. Jones, Lingle Lodge, Lingle, Wyo., Fort Lyon, Colo.
Mason and as a physician limiting my practice to tuberculosis I wish to ask to
be considered as an unqualified advocate of the plan."
Senator Ralph H. Cameron, United States Senate, Arizona:
are sponsoring a most worthy cause, and from my heart I send thanks and
appreciation for the courageous and brotherly way you are going about it to
arouse interest of our organization throughout the country, whom I hope will
heed your call and come generously to your aid and thus help our afflicted
DE MAISTRE, FRANC-MACON. By Paul Vulliaud. Published by Emile Nourry, Paris.
May be purchased through the Book Department of the National Masonic Research
Society, 1950 Railway Exchange Building, St. Louis, Mo. Paper, 250 pages.
Table of contents.
is a biography of a very remarkable man, of whom it may be safe to say not one
American Mason in a thousand has ever heard, and doubtless a goodly percentage
of this minority who know of him would be unaware that he was a member of the
Craft. From the way he writes, it would seem that Mr. Vulliaud is not a Mason
himself, for he speaks with the tone of an outside observer. He begins his
work with the sentence, "The Count Joseph de Maistre, a genius of haughty and
paradoxial character, has often provoked the most extreme judgments." When it
is known that he was, (luring part of his life, a most enthusiastic Mason, a
member of the Martinistic Rite, and yet at the same time one of the most
powerful and thorough-going defenders of the Papal system, out-heroding Herod
in fact, and claiming, and backing by solid argument (his premises once
granted) that the Pope is superior to all temporal governments, that all
people should be ruled by kings and princes with despotic power, and all kings
and princes should be the obedient servants of the Pope, the ordinary American
Mason may go further than saying he was paradoxical and assert he was simply
times change and circumstances with them. De Maistre was born in 1754, and
died of paralysis in 1821. A native of Savoy, of an ancient and noble family,
he entered the service of the state at an early age. The invasion of the
kingdom by the French Republican armies drove him into exile from which he did
not return till after the end of Napoleon and the restoration of the Bourbons.
During his exile, he served his king in various capacities, at one time being
envoy extraordinary and minister plenipotentiary at St. Petersburg (as it was
then). During this long period it was that he wrote most of his books, some of
a mystical character, others highly polemical. He was constantly warring
against republicanism, liberal philosophy and the current intellectual ideas
of the period. One of his best known and most talked of pieces was his defense
of the executioneer as the chief pillar of society. He was nothing, if not
thoroughgoing. Despotism ecclesiastical and civil entails punishments,
punishments to be effective must be severe, they need agents to carry them
out, the hangman and the familiars of the Inquisition were therefore not only
necessities of the social order, but to be esteemed in virtue of their
usefulness. All this is to be found in the ordinary works of reference. What
Mr. Vulliaud has done is to give us a very penetrating and critical account of
the man himself. The most difficult problem to resolve is how he could have
reconciled his ardent championship of papalism with his equally enthusiastic
regard for Freemasonry. It is true that after 1809 he deserted the Fraternity,
and was convinced apparently by the works of Barruel, Lefranc, Robison and the
rest (of whom Mrs. Nesta Webster is the true descendant and representative in
our own time) that Masonry was but part of a deep conspiracy, a wheel in an
occult machine, intending to destroy all religion, all morality and all
government; hating Protestants as well as Romanists, Republics as well as
must be remembered that the Bull, In eminenti, had been issued by Pope Clement
XII in 1738, and reinforced by that entitled Providas of Benedict XIV in 1751,
three years before de Maistre was born. It was a capital offense for a man to
be a Mason in the Papal states as it was in Spain. It is true that according
to the complex ecclesiastical jurisprudence of Rome, that a Papal edict does
not take effect until it has been promulgated in a given country, yet it seems
strange that a man such as our hero, who though a layman was more
ecclesiastically minded than most priests, should not have considered himself
bound by such solemn denunciations from the highest source of authority of the
exceeding harmfulness and wickedness of Masonry, even if technically it had
not yet the force of law. One is inclined to suspect that his love of despotic
authority was altruistic; intended only for others and not for himself.
Maistre saw in Freemasonry, as he received it, an esoteric and mystical school
of doctrine, definitely Christian and in no way incompatible with the faith of
the Catholic, that is Roman, Church. He was one of those, apparently, who are
attracted by this sort of thing as naturally as a duck seeks the water. The
author gives us a penetrating critical account of Martinism, based on the
examination of all available sources of information, both what has been
published and what still remains in manuscript. He is not very much impressed
by the value of its teaching, but we can understand from what he tells us how
those seeking mystical illumination would be attracted by it, and analogous
systems. Freemasonry was still a novelty in Europe, its mystery aroused
curiosity, wonderful things were ascribed to it, and it is easy to see how
those looking for what Bro. Arthur Waite calls a "secret tradition,"
Kabbalistic, Theosophic, Alchemistic, or otherwise, should have come to knock
at the door of the lodge, and that when they found only a fraternity based on
the simple though fundamental precepts of morality and wisdom, should have
supposed that these were only the preliminaries, and that higher grades
possessed the wonderful secrets for which they longed. Supply follows demand,
and with this idea current in the Craft such "higher" grades naturally came
into being. To the Duke of Brunswick, one of de Maistre's princely
correspondents, to all of whom he was fond of offering advice apparently, he
says: "Our mysteries contain something great and truly worthy of mankind," and
he seems to have been for a long time convinced that the Craft was quite
compatible with Christianity as understood by Rome, and even that it might
form a means whereby the warring sects of Christendom could be brought back
into the fold of unity again-unity would, of course, for him, have implied
communion (and submission) to the Pope as head of the Church. It, Freemasonry,
ought to be, he thought, a government, and a government modeled on that of the
Papal hierarchy. Mr. Vulliaud pertinently asks if he was not transgressing the
Masonic ideal, which-
according to its statutes, forbids all religious or political discussions, or,
at least, has never ceased to so affirm. In practice, it is true, no Mason
observes the rule.
course, it is difficult, and always has been, for individual members of the
Craft, or groups of them, to always clearly distinguish between what is
constitutionally permissible and what is not. Still more difficult is it for
those outside. The difficulty is not in making broad statements, but in
practically separating the Mason's natural rights as a man and a citizen to
discuss and work for any religious or political cause he may choose, and his
duty from abstaining from all this in his Masonic character. In groups of
Masons all of one mind politically or religiously, the difficulty increases in
proportion, and in such a case it will be very hard indeed for the observer on
the outside to see the difference, and hard enough for those on the inside to
maintain the distinction.
been already noted, after 1809, de Maistre turned against the Fraternity on
the grounds that it had become an anti-religious, revolutionary organization,
though it is not clear that he formally severed his connection with it; and
even in 1810 he was invited to a Masonic reunion at St. Petersburg, and seems
to have been inclined to attend, "in order to see," what was going to be done,
we suppose. But he seems to have been finally convinced by the successors of
Barruel and Robison of the enormities of the Craft, although previously he had
very acutely controverted their arguments. Even later than this he wavered at
times in his opinion, it would seem, as when in writing to the Czar Alexander
he said that he did not know if the “sect is really organized, if it forms a
society, properly speaking, with its laws and its superiors, or whether it be
only the result of a crowd of men who all desire the same thing." A statement
of very great significance.
question arises as to whether the breach between Masonry and the Church was
really inevitable. One would almost be inclined to think that it was not. It
must be remembered that the first official action on the part of the Papacy
was really in its capacity as a temporal power. The Papal States, like most
European governments of the period, were despotically ruled. It was the Pope
as a temporal ruler who was alarmed at the secrecy of the lodges, and not so
much in his capacity as a spiritual Father-in-God. Though naturally
ecclesiastical censures accompanied the temporal punishments. Suppose that
Freemasonry had been left alone, or that the suspicious rulers had done what
Napoleon did later, and had a nominee of their own chosen as Grand Master, the
Craft in Europe would either have retained its character of complete
indifference or neutrality to all contentious questions, or else it might have
tended to split up into definite national groups with little or no fraternal
intercourse, much as the Freemasonry of Denmark and Scandinavia has done. But
once it was condemned by the Church as being not only a religious, but
irreligious, and suppressed by various governments as being liberal and
revolutionary, two reactions inevitably followed. With all the reluctance they
may have felt towards it, Freemasons were unwillingly forced into a position
in which they found themselves regarded as enemies to the powers that were.
And the public effect this would have was to lead precisely the liberals and
revolutionaries to seek to join it, with the result that more and more of its
membership came to be composed of men of this class of mind. It would seem,
indeed, that Rome has in Europe, and elsewhere, created an enemy where she
might have made a friend.
other hand, it may be argued that the tendency of Freemasonry, so far as it
has had an influence on men, is always toward freedom, freedom in the state,
in social intercourse, in religious and philosophic opinion. One must suppose,
that this being the case, Rome could not do anything else but oppose it, for
freedom has always seemed to be the one thing she cannot patiently endure.
* * *
AMERICAN MASONRY AND CATHOLIC EDUCATION.
Rev. Michael Kenny, S. J. Paper, 30 pages.
FREEMASONRY. By Lucian Johnston. Paper 24 pages. Published by the
International Catholic Truth Society. May be procured through the National
Masonic Research Society, 1950 Railway Exchange Bldg., St. Louis, Mo.
two pamphlets should be very interesting to Masonic readers. Though they are
written from rather different standpoints, at least the author of the second
tries to consider his subject fairly, and without animus against individual
Masons, yet the conclusions reached are very much the same. Mr. Johnston
prefaces what he has to say by observing that in his experience the average
American Mason is not especially hostile to the Roman Church, and is rather
puzzled to know why the latter should oppose Masonry. His trait is an attempt
to make the causes for this opposition quite plain and clear, and in a
friendly way "to try and show them why the Church is justified in condemning
their Society in spite of their tolerance and frequent kindness to her own
members." And he goes on to say that possibly one reason is that the average
American Freemason aforesaid "does not really know what is real Masonry - the
kind that is so irreconcilable with [Roman] Catholicity." Both writers stress
this point, the Rev. Michael Kenny in a "Postscript" speaks of the "large, but
decreasing number of Masons unacquainted" with Masonic purposes. Earlier he
speaks of the candidate in the 30d being informed that in the first three
degrees he had been "intentionally misled by false interpretations" of the
symbols. Mr. Johnston says that he finds "from a perusal of Masonic writers"
that his suspicions were correct, and typographically emphasizes the statement
that "the average Mason is ignorant of the real aim and meaning of Masonry"
and that "the highest Masonic authorities assert that the majority of Masons
are deliberately and purposely kept in ignorance of the inner secrets." And
again "The amazing thing about this ignorance among the great mass of Masons
is that they are deliberately kept in ignorance by those higher up." On the
same page he quotes Morals and Dogma in support of this contention. "Part of
the symbols are displayed there [in the symbolic degrees] to the initiate; but
he is intentionally misled by false interpretations."
all due respect to the author on account of his kindly tone, and his
undoubtedly sincere attempt to judge with candor and reprehend without malice,
the writer would not wish to hurt his feelings for the world, but all this is,
to a Mason, too funny for words. Yet one can easily see how such statements
will almost inevitably be misunderstood by the profane. What those outside
cannot appreciate is that Masonry is rather an Institution, a Fraternity, than
an organization. They fail to realize, if indeed they know, that every Grand
Lodge is a separate independent, sovereign, entity; that Chapters,
Commanderies, Grand and Supreme Councils are higher than the Grand Lodges only
in a numerical sense, or as a sequence by which a man becomes successively
qualified to join new societies and orders if he wishes. Of course, in a
symbolic progression the official interpretations must claim to be higher or
deeper, or more recondite, to offer any plausible reason for their existence.
If you are going to have systems of degrees the later, or higher in order,
must extend something new even if they have to go very far afield to get it.
Mr. Kenny speaks of the Supreme Grand Commander of the Scottish Rite issuing
commands to his two million Blue Lodge and Scottish Rite Masons, quite unaware
that any attempt on the part of a Supreme Council to interfere with the
affairs of the Blue Lodge would simply operate to prevent whatever it wanted
being done, besides raising a very serious conflict; one which might, indeed,
easily end in the Scottish Rite being banned altogether in that particular
jurisdiction. While even in the Rite itself tiny attempt to issue orders
outside of the ritual requirements inside the Lodges, Councils and
Consistories would disrupt it as swiftly and effectively as a charge of
the outsider, reading Masonic books and periodicals, and especially the
Romanist outsider, finds it so difficult to appreciate is that there are no
creeds, no dogmas, nothing de fide in Freemasonry. This is especially hard for
the Romanist to realize, accustomed as he is to an organization which sets
forth an elaborately detailed system of dogma within which his thoughts and
opinions and judgments are strictly limited. There can be no concerted action
political or otherwise among Masons because there is no machinery for deciding
on a policy and no means of exacting obedience to it from the members. Masons
as such are not bound to obey anybody, or anything, but the moral law. The
most obscure Mason in the country is on the same level in this regard as the
most prominent "Ruler" of the Craft. Neither is there any orthodox teaching,
outside the simple precepts of common morality, and even they are not so much
taught as enjoined. Symbols are employed, and official interpretations are
given, which are indeed so superficial and almost banal that they can satisfy
only the most superficial minds. The 18d or 30d or other degrees may offer
other explanations, but these are no more authoritative than the earlier ones.
The opinions held by the youngest Mason are as good as those of Pike, Mackey
and Churchward, the authorities most quoted by our present authors. But they
have not the position in Masonry that Bellarmin or St. Thomas Aquinas, for
example, have in the Roman Church, as seems to be supposed. They carry weight
only as other members of the Order choose individually to accept them. Any
Mason can make his own interpretation, is free to argue for it, write about
it, and remain in perfectly good standing even if he contradicts these
authorities and expresses his opinion that they were all wrong and didn't know
anything about the subject.
authors both insist that Freemasonry is Freemasonry and that being all one
thing our own brand is party to the crimes and misdemeanors (alleged) of that
of France. Mr. Johnston ends one stage of the argument with the following
conclusion as to the absence of any real difference between American and
French Masonry or of any real rupture between them is put beyond all doubt by
the unity of all Freemasons all over the world despite occasional and
would make some good brethren either furiously angry, or else helpless with
laughter; those especially who will not even allow the name Freemason to the
French organizations. He quoted earlier than this a statement in the
Encyclopedia Brittanica that Masonic history could be as fully written by
non-Masons as by Masons, and from this jumps to the conclusion, by a confusion
of thought, that non-Masons are as well able to state the present state of
Masonic thoughts, feelings and relationships as the Mason. The absurdity of
this can be appreciated if we change the subject. A biographer need not be a
member of a man's family to do his work well, he may know more about his
subject than the latter's grandchildren do, but (unless a member of the family
or an intimate friend) he does not know whether the cousins and second cousins
are on friendly terms, or have quarreled, or simply have lost track of each
other's existence. To have an outsider tell American Masons that really they
have no differences with the Grand Orient of France, that they are all one and
the same organization, seems preposterous. A man had no quarrel at all with
his mother-in-law though he ejected her forcibly from his house and threw her
belongings out into the street after her. What more could he do?
possible that more space has been given to these tracts than they really
deserve; to fully discuss them (were it worth while) would run to greater
length than the text criticised, for these misunderstanding misstatements (in
Mr. Johnston's case at least, we feel sure they are most sincerely believed),
these nonsequiturs and fallacies in argument abound on every page, almost in
every sentence, and for this reason they make exceedingly interesting, and may
we add, instructive reading.
FUNDAMENTALISM AND THE BIBLE
recent book review in THE BUILDER the writer says "Fundamentalists may
disagree with the idea of evolution because it cannot be reconciled with the
Bible, but even so man came from somewhere, and the evolutionists' explanation
of his origin is as capable of proof as that of the fundamentalist, possibly
more so." I agree with the writer that the idea of evolution cannot be
reconciled with the Bible. As for proof the fundamentalist asks no better
proof than the Bible that "in the beginning God created the heaven and the
earth." This ought to be sufficient for every Freemason who heard this
Scripture quoted when he was initiated and was taught "that the Bible is God's
inestimable gift to man and is the rule and guide of our faith and practice."
Any theory of evolution which cannot be harmonized with the first chapter of
Genesis is un-Masonic and should not disturb any intelligent Freemason. The
Bible does not try to prove the existence of God: it assumes it and dismisses
the atheist with the declaration, "The fool hath said in his heart 'there is
no God.' "
"Twenty-six letters in due order set:
Suffice for all of Shakespeare's varied verse
elements of Nature's alphabet
and simple spell the universe
they by chance together hurled
Compose a hamlet or create a world?"
as unthinkable as the other. Evolution is not susceptible of proof. Embryology
does not favor it: it only shows the harmony of the Creator's work.
God, one law, one element and one far off divine event
which the whole creation moves."
Several years ago Bryan threw out this challenge, "Of the million species of
life that science claims to know today, show me a single instance where you
have ever crossed the line between species and produced a new and fertile
quoted this to a college professor one day and remarked that scientists had
never met this challenge. "They will do it yet," was his reply. I am waiting
for them to do it. In this connection let me quote from Huxley's Study of
Zoology: So definitely and precisely marked is the structure of each animal
that in the present state of our knowledge there is not the least evidence to
prove that a form in the slightest degree transitional between any two of the
groups, Vertebrata, Annulosa, Mollusca and Coelenterata either exists or has
existed during that period of the earth's history recorded by the geologist."
plain truth is: science has nothing to do with beginnings and it is sheer
impertinence to try to dignify the wild guesses of evolutionists with the name
of science. Dr. T. H. Morgan of Columbia University said a few years ago, "We
are teaching too much in the subject of evolution and comparative anatomy. The
result has been that the young student loses his faith in God and theology.
This tendency is very prevalent in Western universities. It is time to call a
halt in our emphasis upon the theory of evolution. We must remember its sole
foundation is comparative anatomy and that the data which forms its foundation
Evolutionists make merry over what they call the Carpenter Theory of Creation.
It is far more reasonable than their Hermit Crab theory which represents the
Creator, if there is a Creator, watching the slow unfolding of life until at
least a form appears into which he can slip an immortal soul and call it
“’Man.” However plausible your theories of evolution may be in accounting for
man's physical structure, they cannot account for conscience - the moral
nature. Here is a chasm which no theory of evolution can ever bridge.
are very glad to publish this letter of M. W. Bro. Briggs. However there are
zealous Christians according to their lights who, with a good conscience, are
not Fundamentalists, as well as good Masons. English-speaking Freemasonry, as
is well known, does not demand more of a man than belief in God, and does not
ask whether he be Christian. Jew, or Mohammadan. He may even be a Theosophist
or a Free Thinker. Obviously then, the Bible in a Masonic lodge must be, as
most authorities explicitly assert, a symbol only and not necessarily an
object of faith.]
* * *
SENIOR DEACON AND THE CANDIDATE
correct an error in the May BUILDER? In one of your answers in the Question
Box, pp. 159-60, on which side of the candidate should the Senior Deacon walk,
you say: "There is nothing essential about it one way or the other." But it is
essential that the S. D. be on the candidate's right so that during the
perambulation the seated brethren-and the officers may convince themselves
that the candidate is "duly' and truly prepared."
B., New York.
regard to the query in THE BUILDER for May as to the proper side for the
Senior Deacon to take his position in conducting the candidate, there is in
Iowa a regular sequence. In the E. A., on the left side, grasping him by the
left hand in the Senior Deacon's peculiar grip. In the F. C., on the right
side, and in the M. M., on the left. I always thought it was tied up thus
because in the E. A. the left side is and the right in the F. C. preparation.
recall, everywhere I have visited it was done the same way, though I may be
mistaken in this.
two letters taken together seem to be in themselves a sufficient justification
for the opinion expressed on page 160 of THE BUILDER for May that there is
nothing essential about the method to be adopted.
* * *
CHARLES A. THOMPSON AND WILLIAM BARTON
study of the Great Seal of the United States, I find that Charles A. Thompson,
the first Secretary of Congress, and William Barton, of Philadelphia, were
responsible for many of the designs that appear on both sides of the seal, and
that these bear strong marks of being Masonic.
you tell me anything about these two men as far as their belonging to the
Masonic Fraternity is concerned?
S., New Hampshire.
time ago I prepared an article on the Great Seal of the United States, which
appeared in the January and February issues of "The Sojourner," which paper I
these articles I made considerable research regarding the reverse side of the
Great Seal. I am unable to definitely state, however, that Thompson and Barton
were Masons; but the fact that both these gentlemen retained and preserved the
conception as proposed by Monsieur Du Simitiere and improved by Thomas
Jefferson, would indicate that there is some reason to believe that they were.
F. Unmacht, Washington, D. C.
* * *
PYTHAGOREAN LODGE AND ITS FIRST MEMBERS
endeavoring to get the Masonic history of five brothers who were connected
with the early history of Pythagorean Lodge, A. F. & A. M., of Marion, Mass.
Would you kindly ask through your Question Box if any brother can help me?
should like to know where and when they were initiated, passed and raised, and
any other information in regard to their Masonic connections, especially
whether they have held any offices in other lodges, The only information I
have at present is as follows:
Bonney, one of the brothers to whom Dispensation was granted, Aug. 20, 1861.
Not mentioned as a charter member.
Davenport, ditto; held office of Junior Warden under Dispensation.
Captain Enoch Norton, ditto, but held no office; died March 13, 1862, aged 66
years, 7 months, 17 days.
D. Allen, one of brothers to whom Dispensation was granted; Worshipful Master
under Dispensation; charter member July 15, 1863; J. D. 1863-1866; Tyler
1869-1874 and 1877-1 Treasurer 1859-1880; died May 26, 1904. (Born in
Rochester, Mass., Feb. 9, 1815.)
Barnabas Douglas, one to whom Dispensation was granted and a charter member;
died in March, 1873.
information, even a clue to some lodge that might know of these brothers, will
be greatly appreciated.
Macafee, Marlon, Mass.
* * *
other day I was reading a book on Turkey entitled "Forty Years in
Constantinople," by Bro. Sir Edwin Pears, and in it there was reference to
Freemasonry in that country, and I enclose herewith an extract containing what
the author has to say on the subject in connection with the Young Turk Party
and the Revolution.
it be too much trouble if you published in THE BUILDER some time a brief
statement as to Freemasonry in Turkey? Is there a sovereign Grand Lodge there,
and if so is it recognized by the other Grand Lodges of the world? What is the
status of such individual lodges as may exist?
extract referred to is given below. We have not any definite information to
hand as to recent developments in Turkey. Shortly before the war a Grand
Orient was formed by a number of lodges holding warrants from the governing
bodies of France, Italy and Spain. Turkish Freemasonry has had a number of
truly admirable men in its ranks but uncertainty as to its origin and rumors
of political activities have led to a general refusal of recognition on the
part of English speaking Grand Lodges.
Extract from "Forty Years in Constantinople," by Sir Edwin Pears, Chapter
XVIII, pages 258, 259:
not know that anyone in particular was aimed at when the committee was labeled
as consisting of atheists, Jews and Freemasons. . . .
probably influenced unfavorably a few of the lower elements of the population.
Freemasons used in connection with Young Turkey never appeared to me to have a
specially objectionable meaning. As a Mason myself, I can assert that very few
indeed of the Party were Masons before the Revolution. The fact which lent
vividness to the term as revolutionary was that in the Italian Lodge in
Salonica some members of the Committee bad been accepted, and, according to
general repute, employed the lodge as a means of keeping the movements of the
revolutionary body from the outside world. The cry that the opponents of Abdul
Hamid were Freemasons had indeed the effect of causing a great many Turks to
desire to become Masons, and indeed gave Freemasonry a lift in the country
such as it had never had before. The Revolution, however, would not have made
much progress if its supporters had been limited to Jews, atheists and
Freemasons. The cry that the revolutionary party consisted of them was really
dangerous only in name. I doubt whether it did the cause of Young Turkey any
harm whatever, except perhaps among the adherents of the Roman Catholic
ORIGIN OF DEGREES
can you tell me where the first three degrees of Masonry derived the name Blue
Lodge, and what is the symbolism of it in Masonry and from whence did the name
might be briefly answered by saying that the designation was derived from the
color used in the lodges as a binding to the white apron and for other
decorations. But the question then arises, why was the color blue selected,
and that is very far from being easy to answer. In some places (as Scotland)
each lodge chooses its own color, and in the eighteenth century, or at least
in the first part of it, this seems to have been general. Nevertheless there
seem some indications to show that blue was used by Masons as well as white
(in their gloves and aprons). When the chapter degrees were organized the
color red, or red and crimson, or purple, was adopted and it then became an
easy way of designating the bodies. The Masonic Order of Templars was at one
time often called in the same way, "Black Masonry," because originally the
Knights wore black aprons. The term Blue Lodge is a convenient one and because
of its convenience has persisted without any clear logical or symbolical
* * *
asked many of our brethren concerning the origin of the Dueguard of the First
and Second Degrees, but none of them have been able to enlighten me on this
point. I finally wrote to Bro. Haywood, of the Masonic Outlook, and he
suggested that I write to you.
shall be grateful for any information you can give me on this subject.
presume by origin you have in mind how they came into our present ritual. Up
until the closing years of the eighteenth century they were not so
distinguished. The expressions "Due guard" and "Sign" were used
interchangeably as designating the same thing. In fact, the specific actions
which we in the United States today distinguish as the DG of the EA and FC
degrees were not finally so termed until 1843. You must understand that many
changes have been made in our ritual by well meaning brethren who have sought
to rationalize it. That is, they have tried to establish a logically
1760, what is now the EA sign was called the EA's "due guard or sign." What
are now the EA and FC DG's were unknown or at least not used as such. There
was only one sign each in the EA and FC degrees. Some time about 1800 (the
date is indeterminate) it occurred to someone to incorporate one movement or
action to be known as the due guard, and the other as the sign. These were as
EA degree, what is now the due guard was then termed the sign and what is now
the sign was called the due guard.
FC degree, the two were given almost as now, except they were never given
MM degree, the due guard was given with the right hand only.
1843, a convention was held at Baltimore, Md., to agree on a uniform ritual.
Among other things, they reversed the procedure in the EA degree. What was
then the due guard they made our present sign and vice versa. In the MM degree
they adopted the use of both hands in giving the MM due guard.
Morris defined a due guard as a position and a sign or a movement. Up till
1843 there was, as we have shown, no distinction. I might say the expression
"due guard" comes from a passage in the old rituals where, in opening the
lodge, the Master said, " Brethren, please to guard yourselves as Masons."
* * *
Enclosed find my check for $2 for use in the tuberculosis work among Masons.
a brother who recently found he has an arrested case of T. B. He could easily
say, in thinking of these active cases, "There, but for the grace of God, goes
donation is small but I am hoping it will be duplicated by all the brothers
throughout the world and this unfair burden thus lifted from the shoulders of
our brothers in the great Southwest.
* * *
Chicago Board of Education has caused a classic essay to be immortalized in
type. It's about frogs, and was written by a young Norwegian. It runs as
a wonderful bird the frog are! When he stand he sit, almost. When he hop he
fly, almost. He ain't got no sense, hardly. He ain't got no tail, hardly,
either. When he sit he sit on what he ain't got, almost."