The Builder Magazine

February 1930 - Volume XVI - Number 2

 

Historical Sketch of Albany Sovereign Consistory Sublime Princes of the Royal Secret

By BRO. ISAAC HENRY VROOM, JR., New York

THE City of Albany, N. Y., has the distinction of being the home of the oldest working body of the Ancient Accepted Scottish Rite of Freemasonry, Ineffable and Sublime Grand Lodge of Perfection having received its Charter on December 20, 1767, from Henry Andrew Francken, " Deputy Inspector General of all the Superior Degrees of Masons in the West Indies and North America."

 

The early records of the lodge were long lost, but were recovered in 1901 through the efforts of the late Ill. John Hally Lindsay, 33d, and the late Ill. William Homan, 33d, then Deputy for New York State. Ill. Bro. Homan caused the Minutes from 1767 to 1774 to be published in the Proceedings of the New York Council of Deliberation for 1902, and also a photographic copy of them in the Proceedings for 1906. There appeared also in the 1902 Proceedings a concise history of Ineffable Lodge by Ill. John Hally Lindsay, 33d, then its T.P.G.M.

 

These records throw a flood of light on the early history of Scottish Rite Masonry in Albany and, in conjunction with the records of Masters Lodge No. 2 (now No. 5), F. & A. M., give us a fairly complete story of the building of "The First Lodge House Owned by a Masonic Lodge in America." This house (1) was situated at the northwest corner of Maiden Lane and Lodge Street (hence the name) on the site of the present Masonic Temple; a bronze tablet in the vestibule of which records the fact that:

 

On This Site

 

Purchased Oct. 17, 1766 By

Brother Samuel Stringer

The First Lodge House

Owned by a Masonic

Lodge in America

Was Erected in 1768

and Remained the

Property of

Masters Lodge

Number Five

Until Presented to

The Masonic Hall

Association

in 1895

 

A Grand Council of Princes of Jerusalem was established at the same time, but, unfortunately, there are no early records available.

 

On December 6, 1768, Ill. Bro. Francken appointed Dr. Samuel Stringer a Deputy Grand Inspector and at a Lodge Meeting on March 27, 1769, "Br. Samuel Dr. Samuel Stringer, Deputy Grand Inspector, December 6, 1768.

 

Stringer produced to the Lodge a Warrant from our Worpl. Founder, Constituting him a Depy. Grd. Inspector, which was read and admitted of by the Body. " Bro. Stringer was Master of the Lodge of Perfection from 1770 to 1774, and was also Master of Masters Lodge for many years. His portrait is here produced.

 

Bro. William Gamble, the first Master of Ineffable Lodge of Perfection, was a Civil Engineer by profession and a draftsman of ability. It was he who, probably, executed the "Constitution and Patent" of Ineffable Lodge and he also prepared tracing boards for many of the Degrees. Eleven of these are reproduced in the Proceedings of the New York Council of Deliberation for 1906. and one of them will be shown in the March issue.

 

The Minutes of Ineffable Lodge end with the meeting of December 5, 1774, when the "Lodge closed till this Night fortnight"; but the Lodge met for some years thereafter. For some unknown reason the Lodge suspended labor and was revived in 1820 or 1821 by Bro. Giles Fonda Yates, as will later appear. The Grand Council of Princes of Jerusalem was also revived and continued active for several years. It exercised the power of issuing Charters and one of these is reproduced. Although it is evident that several of the Albany Brethren received the higher degrees of the Rite, there was no Consistory established until 1824, and what follows is an attempt to gather together into a consecutive narrative the material at present available concerning the early history of Albany Sovereign Consistory, S. P. R. S.

 

The early history of Albany Sovereign Consistory is so intimately connected with that of Bro. Giles Fonda Yates that a short sketch of his life seems appropriate. He was born in Schenectady, N. Y., on November 8, 1798, the son of John and Margaret (Fonda) Yates. He was graduated from Union College in the Class of 1816, with Phi Beta Kappa rank, and later received the degree of Master of Arts. He was by profession a councellor-at-law and held the office of Surrogate of Schenectady County from 1821 to 1840. For many years he edited the Schenectady Democrat and Reflector.

 

Bro. Yates was Initiated Entered Apprentice in Morton Lodge No. 77, of Schenectady, N.Y., on October 23, 1820, and received the degrees of FellowCraft and Master Mason on October 27, 1820. On December 15, 1820, he was elected Senior Deacon and the following year Senior Warden, to which office he was re-elected in 1822, but was not advanced in 1823. On December 7, 1824, he affiliated with St. George's Lodge No. 6, but did not sign the By-Laws until June 24, 1825. W. Bro. Yates served as Master of St. George's Lodge in 1826 and 1827, and again in 1844 and 1845. He was also a Royal Arch Mason and a Knight Templar.

 

It is not known when he received the Scottish Rite Degrees, but it must have been during 1820 or 1821, for in the Minutes of Ineffable Lodge of Perfection of January 31, 1822, he is recorded as Senior Grand Warden, and on November 11, 1823, he was elected Sublime Grand Master.

 

Ill. Bro. Yates received the 33d on October 24, 1825, from Ill. Bro. John Barker, special agent of the Supreme Council of Charleston, S. C. - as noted in the Reprint of the Proceedings of the Supreme Council, 33d, . . . Portland, 1876, p. 36. Later, Ill. Bro. Yates stated that he took his vows as a Sovereign Grand Inspector General "between the hands" of Bro. Joseph M'Cosh, Ill. Gr. Secretary-General of the Supreme Council at Charleston, South Carolina. (2)

 

While the Supreme Council for the Northern Masonic Jurisdiction was established in 1813, it was not until 1828 that the two Councils agreed upon a jurisdictional division of territory. On July 5, 1828, Ill. Bro. Yates was "acknowledged and admitted" a member of the Northern Supreme Council and Representative near it of the Southern Supreme Council, his appointment as such Representative having been made May 11, 1826. His Patent of 1828 is in the Library of St. George's Lodge No. 6, of Schenectady, N. Y., and is here reproduced. On June 15, 1844, he was appointed "Most Illustrious Inspector Lieutenant Grand Commander ad vitam" of the Supreme Council, N. M. J., and in 1851 succeeded Ill. Bro. John James Joseph Gourgas, 33d, in the office of M. P. Sovereign Grand Commander. At a meeting of the Supreme Council on September 5, 1851, he delivered a most important address, in the course of which he said:

 

"I turned my attention to the history of the 'Sublime Degrees' very soon after my initiation as a Mason. My intercourse in 1822 with several old Masons (3) in the city of Albany led to the discovery that an 'Ineffable Lodge of Perfection' had been established in that ancient city on the twentieth December, 1767. I also discovered that not only the Ineffable, but the Superior Degrees of our Rite had been conferred at the same time on a chosen few, by the founder of the lodge, Henry A. Francken, one of the Deputies of Stephen Morin of illustrious memory. It was not long, moreover, before I found the original warrant of this lodge, its book of minutes, the patents of III. Brothers Samuel Stringer, M. D., Jeremiah Van Rensselaer and Peter W. Yates, Esquires, Dep. Inspectors General, under the old system; also the 'regulations and Constitutions of the nine commissioners,' etc., 1761, and other documents that had been left by Bro. Francken with the Albany Brethren when he founded that lodge. With the concurrence of the surviving members of said lodge residing in Albany, Dr. Jonathan Eights and the Hon. and R. W. Stephen Van Rensselaer, P.G.M. of the Grand Lodge of New York, I aided in effecting its revival.

 

"The necessary proceedings were thereupon instituted to place the same under the Superintendence of a Grand Council of Princes of Jerusalem, as required by the old Constitutions; and such Grand Council was subsequently opened in due form in said city.

 

"Having been made aware of 'the new Constitution of the thirty- third Degree,' ratified on the first of May, 1786, conferring the Supreme Power over our Rite on 'Councils of nine Brethren,' I hastened to place myself in correspondence with Moses Holbrook, M. D., at the time S. G. Commander of the Supreme Council at Charleston, and with my esteemed friends Joseph McCosh, III. Gr. Sec. of the last named Council, and Bro. Gourgas, at that time III, Gr. Gen. of the H. E. for this Northern Jurisdiction. Lodges of Perfection in the Counties of Montgomery, Onondaga, Saratoga and Monroe in the State of New York, were successively organized, and placed agreeably to the Constitutions under the superintendence of the Grand Council before named, The establishment of this last named Body was confirmed, and all our proceedings in 'sublime Freemasonry' were legalized and Sanctioned by the only lawful authorities in the United States, the aforesaid Supreme Councils.

 

"On the sixteenth day of November, 1824, I received a patent appointing me S(overeign) of S(overeigns) of a Consistory of S. P. R. S., established in the city of Albany. I would here also state, that on the thirteenth day of February, 1825, a charter was granted to III. Bro, Edward A Raymond, of Boston, Mass., and eight associates, constituting them a Grand Council of Princes of Jerusalem; a charter was also granted them for a Consistory of S. P. R. S., both Bodies to be holden in the city of Boston. All these several Bodies named, as well as the Albany Grand Council and Consistory, have since their establishment, paid due faith and allegiance to our Northern Supreme Council."

 

At the close of his address - having appointed Ill. Edward A. Raymond Lieut Gr. Commander - Ill. Bro. Yates resigned the office of M. P. Sov. Gr. Commander and installed Ill. Bro. Raymond as his successor. The latter, appreciating Ill. Bro. Yates' great services to the Supreme Council and desiring to retain him in active office, appointed him Ill. Grand Chancellor, H. E., which office he retained until his death - at the same time serving as Deputy for New York.

 

The latter years of Ill. Bro. Yates' life were spent in New York City, where he took an active interest in the local bodies of the Rite. Between April, 1856, and May, 1857, Cosmopolitan Consistory was organized in that city and he was appointed the first "Sovereign of Sovereigns.

 

He died on December 13, 1859, and his body rests in the Union College plot of the Vail Cemetery, Schenectady, N. Y.

 

The foregoing account of Ill. Bro. Yates' activities is condensed from a longer article by the present writer on the same subject, printed in the Proceedings of the New York Council of Deliberation, 1914.

 

Portions of the correspondence to which Ill. Bro. Yates refers have been preserved and were printed in the "Official Bulletin of the Supreme Council of the 33d Degree, for the Southern Jurisdiction of the United States, " Vol. X, No. 1, June, 1890, pp. 179-254. It is from these letters that most of our information relative to the early days of our Consistory has been obtained.

 

While the Northern Supreme Council was established in New York in 1813, the Charleston Supreme Council apparently continued for some time to grant charters in the Northern territory. It was the practice of this Supreme Council never to establish more than one Consistory, 32d, in a state. The Supreme Council only chartered Councils, 16d, and Consistories, 32d, the Councils chartered Lodges of Perfection and the Consistories regulated the degrees from the 17th on. (Bul. Vol. X, No..1, p. 189.) This will account for the absence of any early records or mention of Albany Sovereign Chapter of Rose Croix, which was, apparently, incidental to the Consistory, although established at the same time.

 

When Ill. Bro. Yates commenced his correspondence with Ill. Bro. Holbrook he was unaware of the existence of the Supreme Council in New York City.

 

Ill. Bro. Holbrook had appointed Ill. Bro. John Barker as agent to effect the establishment of Consistories and Councils, and it was he who instituted the Consistory at Albany in the fall of 1824 or early in 1825. In 1826, the New York Supreme Council commenced correspondence with the Charleston Supreme Council relative to the bodies established by it in the Northern States - especially the Consistory at Albany - and the Charleston Supreme Council on September 22, 1826,

 

"RESOLVED: That the different subordinate bodies now under this jurisdiction in the Northern States be directed to furnish and make out full returns of the names of all of their initiates into any or all the Sublime Degrees specifying which degree and their place of residence and avocations together with the date and place of birth and religious persuasions that it may preparatory to transferring the Jurisdiction over them to the legal Supreme Council of the 33rd Degree in the Northern States."

 

"The Consistory of Sublime Princes of the Royal Secret for the State of New York will be pleased to take due notice of the above order and govern themselves accordingly." (5)

 

In response to this resolution Ill. Bro. Yates prepared a return from which is taken that portion relating especially to the Consistory:

 

"To the Three Illustrious Supreme Council of the Sov. Gr. Inspectors General of the 33rd Degree in the U. S. A. situated under the C. C. of the Zenith, which answers to the parallel of 32d 47' N. L. and to the Meridian of 2d 32' (or 79d 48') West Longitude.

 

"The Consistory of Sub. Princes of the Royal Secret for the State of New York, established in the G. east of the City of Albany, in said State, would most respectfully beg to leave to represent:

 

"That they have hitherto deemed it inexpedient to exalt and perfect any Princes of Jerusalem (in any of the Sublime degrees conferred by them), except those associated with the original founders of their body in the organization of the same, who were not present to receive said degrees from Ill. Bro. John Barker, general Agent of your Supreme Council.

 

"The above Brethren received the degrees of Sup. from that of Rose Croix to that of Sublime Prince of Royal Secret from the hands of Ill. Bro. John Barker, General Agent of the Sup. C. Of Sco. (3) Imp. Genl. 33rd Degree of the Southern Tiers of U. S. in 1825 and admitted members of grand Consistory of Su. C. P. R. T. for State of New York at the City of Albany.

 

"Bro Beck has moved to Vermont, and will not be able to assist us. Bro. Van Dusen whose name was given in our Warrant, is at present under censure, perhaps unjustly . . ."

 

The return continues with lists of members of the Council of Princes of Jerusalem and of Ineffable Lodge of Perfection. It was copied many years ago and a portion was printed in the Proc. N. Y. Council of Deliberation, 1902, pp. 150-153. On March 22,1827, the Charleston Supreme Council transferred the Consistory to the jurisdiction of the Northern Supreme Council, as is shown by the following letter:

 

"Supreme Council Chamber, "Charleston, S. C., 17th May, 1827.

 

"Most Illustrious Brothers of S. P. R. S.:

 

"Agreeably to a resolution passed by this Supreme Council at its sitting of the "Vernal Equinox," 23rd of the 12th month, called Adar, of the Hebrew year 5587, answering to Thursday, 22d March, A. M. 5831, A. D. 1827, I am directed to write and inform you that, in conformity with a mutual arrangement, which is legal and will be conducive to the good to the Craft, your Consistory of S. P. R. S. at Albany will henceforth pay all due faith and allegiance to the Grand Supreme Council of S. G. I. G. of the 33d Degree for the Northern District and Jurisdiction of the U. S. A., rendering them all due obedience which of right heretofore could be claimed or exercised with justice; hereby renouncing on our part all our rights and privileges of control or direction. In thus separating, as parent and child, this Supreme Council wishes you prosperity both individually and as a Body, and can assure your respectable Body that it will always give great Satisfaction to hear of your success.

 

"I have the honor to remain, with the best wishes, most illustrious brothers, for your welfare both temporal and eternal,

 

"Deus Meumque Jus, "MOSES HOLBROOK, M. D., "R+, K - H. S. P. R. S., S. G. I. G of the 33d Degree, "(L S. 33d) and Grand Commander in the Southern Jurisdiction of the U. S. A.

 

"P. S. Your orders and directions will be received from the Illustrious Brother J. J. J. Gourgas, Esqr., Sec'y Genl. of H. E., to whom you will as soon as may be, report yourselves."

 

The correspondence indicates that several of the Brethren were reluctant to sign a "Submission" to the Northern Supreme Council and that some of them resigned. By this time the Anti-Masonic excitement was gaining strength and it was difficult - if not impossible - to hold meetings. In 1828, Bro. N. N. Whiting, one of the charter members of the Consistory, applied for a dimit on the ground that "he must give up Masonry or lose his place as a Baptist clergyman, on which, and which alone, he depends for his daily bread." (Bul. S. C., Vol. X, No. 1, p. 218.) In a letter to him, dated April 4, 1828, Ill. Bro. Yates gives the following interesting information:

 

"You know that the charter for the Consistory to be located at Albany was granted by said Supreme Council (at Charleston, S. C.), to five or six persons, including yourself, and that circumstances have prevented us from doing anything as a body since the receipt of the charter in the fall of 1824. You know too that, afterwards on account of our location, it was deemed proper by said Sup. Council to transfer their jurisdiction over our Consistory to the Sup. Council at New York. To effectuate this object and also that the interests of the Southern Sup. Council and of our Consistory might be promoted, they thought it expedient to appoint a representative in the Northern Sup. Council, and as I was the presiding officer of the Consistory this appointment fell upon me. I could not, however, act as such representative without first receiving the degree of Grand Inspector of the 33d, &c., which I accordingly I received shortly after.... On the 6th September, 1826, ' the Sup. Council at New York wrote to the Sup. Council at Charleston as follows: 'Your request to have us recognize Ill. B. Giles F. Yates, of Sehenectady, as your representative near our Sup. Council is accepted with satisfaction. . . ."

 

From the facts thus far obtained we may gather that the Consistory at Albany, N. Y., was chartered by the Supreme Council at Charleston, S. C., on November 16, 1824, with the title of "The Consistory of Sublime Princes of the Royal Secret for the State of New York," and Ill. Giles Fonda Yates was named as the first Sovereign of Sovereigns. It was instituted either later in the fall of 1824 or in 1825 by Ill. John Barker, General Agent of the Charleston Supreme Council. The Consistory was transferred to the jurisdiction of the Northern Supreme Council at New York City by the Southern Supreme Council on March 22, 1827. The Consistory had jurisdiction over the degrees from that of Prince of Jerusalem (16d), consequently there was no separate organization of a Chapter of Rose Croix. Little, if any, work was done for many years for, on April 4, 1828, Ill. Bro. Yates wrote: "We can hardly be said to be as yet completely organized," so that the organization would seem to have been in posse rather than in esse, potential more than actual.

 

NOTES

 

1. An article by the present writer was published in THE BUILDER for 1920 under the title, "The First Lodge House Owned by a Masonic Lodge in America." For those readers who are unable to refer to this it may be said here that no drawing or description of this earliest building erected in America for exclusively Masonic purposes now exists

 

2. Proc. Sup., Courtland, 1876, p. 236.

 

3. In the passage quoted it will be observed that Ill Bro. Yates gives the date of this revival as being 1822. The evidence, however points to meetings having been held two years previously, in 1820.

 

4. Proc. N. Y. Con. Del., 1911, pp. 280-303.

 

5. Idem., 1902, p. 150.

 

6. While the date of Ill. Bro. Yates' birth is here given as November 9, 1799, the usually accepted date is November 8, 1798. The former date would make him but 19 years old at the time of his initiation into Masonry (October 23, 1820).

 

7. It is evident that these abbreviations have been copied incorrectly.

 

8. Bul. Sup. Coun. S. J., Vol. X, No. 1, p 192, Proc N. Y. C. of D., 1902, p 164.

 

(To Be Concluded)

 

----o----

 

Historical Notes on Masonry in the Civil War

 

By BRO. FRANK P. STRICKLAND, Kansas (Concluded from January)

 

GRAND MASTER JOHN F. HOUSTON, of Missouri, who had consistently refused the incessant demand for Masonic privileges for the so- called "good fellows" for whom such privileges were generally asked, congratulated his brethren upon their freedom from the entanglements of military Masonry; but he suggested that, as many Masons had been made in army lodges, some method of procedure should be devised by which subordinate lodges might be governed in their intercourse with these Masons. The Grand Lodge of Wisconsin, still unhappy over the fact that citizens of that state had made Masons in army lodges, chartered by other Grand Lodges, ruled, June 13, 1865, that all citizens of that jurisdiction so made were to be regarded as clandestines until formally healed, the healing process to consist of submission to the same regulations as those governing the application for the degrees.

 

Among the thousands of citizens of the border state of Tennessee who served in both the Federal and Confederate armies were many Masons and prospective Masons who sought affiliation with military lodges. Upon their return from service they naturally sought Masonic intercourse in their home surroundings. Although Grand Master Thomas A. Hamilton felt that many of these brothers were not influenced by proper motives, yet the Grand Lodge, on October 2, 1865, ruled that, as there had been many worthy applicants admitted to the degrees in army lodges in both armies, they should be admitted into full membership upon their return to the jurisdiction of Tennessee.

 

At its Annual Communication, October 3, 4, 1865, the Grand Lodge of Illinois took steps to evolve a plan of action tending to eliminate the evils resulting from army Masonry; and instructed the Grand Secretary to issue a bulletin notifying other Grand Bodies of the action taken. Because of the light which it throws upon the subject of military Masonry, the copy sent to Kansas is appended in its entirety:

 

To the M. W. Grand Master, R. W. Deputy Grand Master, R. W. Grand Wardens and Worshipful Brethren of the M. W. Grand Lodge of Kansas: The Grand Lodge of Illinois sends Fraternal Greetings.

 

Dear Brethren: At a Regular Grand Annual Communication of the Grand Lodge of Illinois, M. W. Thomas J. Turner, Grand Master, begun and held at Springfield, on the 3d and 4th days of October, A. D. 1865, A. L. 6865, the following proceedings were had:

 

October 3d. 1865.

 

* * * * *

 

The Grand Master delivered his annual address, which, on motion of R. W. Bro. S. A. Hurlbut, was referred to a Select committee of five.

 

EXTRACT

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

* * * * *

 

The Grand Master appointed R. W. Breth. S. A. Hurlbut, of No. 60; W. James M. True, of No. 260; John A. McClernand, of No. 71; Mason Brayman, of No. 4, and John M. Pearson, of No. 27, said committee.

 

October 4th, 1865.

 

* * * * *

 

R. W. Stephen A. Hurlbut, from the Committee on Grand Master's Address, submitted the following report, which was received and read:

 

 EXTRACT

 

"Very grave and serious questions are raised by so much of the address as relates to military lodges and their action.

 

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

 

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

 

* * * * *

 

On motion, the consideration of the report was postponed until 2 o'clock P. M.

 

* * * * *

 

2 O'CLOCK P. M.

 

The Grand Lodge called to labor.

 

* * * * *

 

The Grand Lodge resumed consideration of the report of Committee on Grand Master's Address.

 

W. Bro. L. B. Dugger moved to consider the resolutions proposed by the committee seriatim. Carried.

 

Resolution No. 1 was then taken up, considered and adopted:

 

1. Resolved, That all Masons made in military lodges under dispensation from this Grand Lodge should, upon the best evidence that can be procured of that fact, be acknowledged and received as such, and, if found worthy, should become members of subordinate lodges where they reside, and be advanced if incomplete.

 

Resolution No. 2 was then taken up, considered and adopted:

 

2. Resolved, That our sister Grand Lodges are fraternally requested to take into their charge such Masons within their jurisdictions as have been made under these dispensations, and, if found worthy, to incorporate them into the fraternity where they may reside.

 

A true copy from the record.

 

Given under my hand and the seal of said Grand Lodge, at Springfield, this 9th day of November, A. D. 1865, A. L. 5865.

 

HARMON G. REYNOLDS,

 

Grand Secretary  (17)

 

(SEAL)

 

This bulletin was issued too late in the year to receive general consideration in 1865, as most Grand Bodies had already held their Annual Communications. It aroused a great deal of discussion in the annual meetings of the following year, when the troubles growing out of army Masonry finally came to a head.

 

With the advent of the year 1866 and the disbanding of the armies of the Union and the Confederacy, and the resulting dispersion of the membership of the army lodges, large numbers of army-made Masons were "left in the air," so to speak, with no Masonic connection and little, if any, evidence to show that they were brethren of the Mystic Tie. Upon their return to their homes they naturally sought recognition. Their activities in this direction brought up for final solution the problem which was engaging the thoughtful attention of Masonic leaders. And a solution was now acutely necessary. Those Grand Bodies which, through patriotism or other motive, had created the problem, now were seeking, with anxiety, some method of solving it; those Grand Lodges which had kept themselves free from the entanglements of army Masonry, although they now saw their course justified, yet were drawn into the tangle, and forced to aid in the solution.

 

Maryland refused to subscribe to the Illinois plan. Oregon refused recognition to any soldier Mason unless he could prove that at the time of making he was a resident of the jurisdiction which authorized the military lodge in which he received his degrees. Florida made the same ruling.

 

On the other hand, the District of Columbia adopted the Illinois scheme; as did South Carolina. At the Annual Communication of the latter Grand Lodge, in 1866, Grand Secretary A. G. Mackey, reporting for the Committee on Correspondence, discussed the subject of military Masonry:

 

Not more important to the Masons of Illinois than to those of South Carolina is the consideration of these questions. Between the years 1860 and 1864, the several Grand Masters who, during that eventful period, presided over this jurisdiction, issued dispensations for the establishment of ten military lodges among the troops of this State. From not one of these lodges have I received a return of the dispensation, any report of its proceedings, or list of its members. Many of them, established in regiments quartered for some time near Charleston, did, I know, much work, initiating, passing and raising many candidates. Some of their work, too, was unfinished, from causes which, I have no doubt, were beyond their control; and there are now in this State many Entered Apprentices, as well as Fellow Crafts, who received the degrees, as far as they have taken them, in military lodges. Most of these Masons, finished and unfinished, have now returned home, their lodges informally disbanded, and they themselves without any external evidence of their Masonic character, and are knocking at the doors of our regular lodges for affiliation and for advancement, and the completion of that work which the military lodges were unable to accomplish. I have received many communications, asking for my opinion as to the proper course to be pursued in these cases. My answers have uniformly been to this effect: I have looked upon these military lodges as extinct lodges, whose records have been lost or destroyed, and of whose membership there is no documentary evidence in the archives of the Grand Lodge. In such cases, it is impossible to obtain dimits, and as the law does not and cannot require impossibilities, I have advised that the lodge to whom application is made for affiliation or advancement, may lawfully dispense with the production of the dimit, and on the person applying proving his status by "due trial and strict examination", the lodge might proceed to ballot for his affiliation or advancement. But in cases where the lessons of Masonry had been so badly taught or so carelessly received, that they had made no impression, then I conceived (there being no evidence, external or internal, of Masonic character or standing) that the petitioner should be treated as a profane making application for initiation.

 

This, it has seemed to me, is the only way in which this difficulty can be overcome; but the very fact of the existence of the difficulty in no measured degree, has led me very seriously to reflect on the history and character of military lodges as a part of the Masonic Institution . . . my experience of the working of the system for the last four years would hereafter render me exceedingly averse to their establishment in volunteer organizations which have but a temporary existence. When the regiments are in activity, but little time or opportunity is afforded to the soldier to acquire any useful knowledge of the nature and object of the degrees which he has received; and when the regiment is disbanded, the members are dispersed over the country with little or no means of proving their Masonic character or standing, and every jurisdiction is likely to be incommoded with a large class of unaffiliated and unaffiliable Masons.

 

I will say nothing of the chances that, in a military lodge, a rigid scrutiny of the character of messmates and of companions in labor and peril will not be so likely to be exercised as in a lodge of civilians, but will base my objections solely on the ground that a volunteer regiment, organized for a particular purpose and for a definite period, is of too temporary a nature to admit within it of the establishment of a lodge, which should always be a permanent institution. (18)

 

The Grand Lodge of Michigan, feeling that any blame in the matter of making a Mason in an army lodge rested, not with the individual, but with the lodge making him, decided to recognize Masons so made in military lodges authorized by other Grand Bodies, or working in other jurisdictions, so long as they remained in good standing, and, if dimited, to admit them.

 

The Grand Lodge of Missouri, never having countenanced military lodges, evinced but little interest in the problem; but inasmuch as many Missourians had been made in army lodges, the Grand Lodge ruled that they were to be regarded as clandestines until healed, the healing process to consist, in the case of those found worthy, in their regular election and advancement through the degrees. Iowa adopted the same procedure, while the Grand Lodge of Mississippi required its subordinates to affiliate, pass and raise those soldiers who had received a part of the work in army lodges, provided their petitions were handled in the same manner as those of other applicants. Grand Master W. S. Patton, in speaking of the military Mason, remarked:

 

Masonry has no censure to inflict, or rebuke to administer, on account of religious or political tenets, or his views or the position he took in the past struggle (provided he is otherwise worthy) (19).

 

At the Annual Communication of the Grand Lodge of Kansas, in 1866, Grand Master Jacob Saqui, in handing a copy of the Illinois bulletin to the brethren, announced that:

 

A circular has been received from the Most Worshipful Grand Lodge of Illinois in relation to the Masonic position of members of military lodges acting under the authority of that Grand Lodge. Now when these lodges have ceased to exist, truly, indeed, it is said the "questions raised" are of the most grave and serious import. The Grand Lodge of Kansas has cause to rejoice that she unhesitatingly refused to give the Sanction of her Masonic authority to a single military lodge, and may congratulate herself that none of those Masonic Ishmaelites can trace their paternity to her indiscretion. The circular marked "A" I lay before you, confident that you will do the best you can with what at best is a "bad matter" (20).

 

The committee appointed to study the subject made the following report, which was adopted by the Grand Lodge: To the M. W. Grand Lodge of Kansas:

 

Your committee, to whom was referred the communication from the M. W. Grand Lodge of Illinois, relating to military lodges, and the status of Masons made therein, would respectfully report, that in the opinion of your committee that and other Grand Lodges exhibited but little Masonic wisdom in granting itinerant dispensations, which evidently have brought confusion among the Craft, and we earnestly hope that the sad lesson taught thereby may prove to them the necessity of guarding more closely the true interests of Masonry in the future.

 

In regard to the status of such as received the degrees in such lodges, your committee are of the opinion that, however impolitic or, as some may say, illegal, the granting of such dispensations may have been, we must recognize as Masons those who received the degrees of Masonry in such lodges.

 

Fraternally submitted, C. K. HOLLIDAY, J. C. RICHMOND,

 

Committee (21).

 

With the close of the year we thus see that while certain Grand Bodies still withheld recognition to the army made Mason the bulk of them were preparing to absorb him into the general body of the Fraternity.

 

By 1867 most of the Grand Lodges had reached a decision in the matter of military Masonry, and the agitation aroused by the soldier Mason began to subside. A few Grand Bodies, however, still wrestled with the problem. In that year Louisiana decided to recognize all army made Masons; Wisconsin ruled that these men must be first healed before they could be considered as being Masons. The healing process prescribed required each applicant to petition in the regular manner; if elected, he was to take the obligation of each degree at intervals of not less than twenty days, show the usual proficiency in each degree and pay a fee of not less than ten dollars.

 

In spite of all the agitation growing out of army Masonry, Iowa, in 1868, permitted the degrees to be conferred, out of time, upon a number of returning soldiers. On the other hand, in Indiana, a hotbed of military Masonry throughout the war, the pendulum had swung so far away from the soldier Mason that, in 1869, the Grand Lodge even refused to allow its subordinates to participate as such in the Memorial Day exercises.

 

Kansas, the stern exponent of regular Masonry throughout the war, never fully accepted the soldier Mason, although it had subscribed to the Illinois plan. Even at late as 1871, Grand Master John H. Brown aroused some unfavorable comment in the Grand Lodge of New York, and in other Grand Bodies, by ruling that a certificate of standing, or a dimit, from a military lodge was not admissible in Kansas; and that an applicant should be formally healed before being admitted, even as a visitor to a Kansas lodge.

 

MASONRY AND THE CONDUCT OF THE CIVIL WAR

 

At various times during the progress of the War efforts were made to inveigle the Fraternity into the political dissentions of the period. Many Craftsmen believed that Masonry, founded upon the principle of "peace on earth, good will to men," should endeavor to bring about a cessation of the unnatural strife, and should use its influence to restore peace. But the attempt to involve the Order in the political confusion of the times was almost universally discouraged and condemned by the wise leaders who held the helm of the Craft in those troublous days. Although few Grand Masters failed to refer to the War in their addresses, yet they invariably sought to impress upon their brethren the necessity of carefully separating their duty as Masons from their duty as citizens.

 

Although Grand Master N. Greene Curtis eloquently expressed his sorrow, at the Annual Communication of California, May 14, 1861, over the national troubles, yet he thought that his brethren were doing their duty sufficiently when they invoked the Grand Architect of the Universe to speedily end the unnatural conflict.

 

A large part of the address of Grand Master Alexander C. Downey, at the Annual Communication of the Grand Lodge of Indiana, May 27, 1861, was devoted to a discussion of the perilous condition of the country. Brother Downey thought that there were ways of clearing up the misunderstanding existing between the two sections of the country. But he made no suggestion that his Grand Lodge enter into the matter. On the same day, Grand Master McFarland, of Missouri, exhorted his brethren to remember that Masonry knew no sectional or political lines; that regardless of whatever they did as citizens, they should always remember the teachings of the Craft.

 

At the Annual Communication of Kansas, October 15, 1861, the Committee on Correspondence, in reporting upon certain communications from the Grand Lodges of Nebraska, Tennessee and Pennsylvania, referring to action that might be taken by Grand Bodies in the political troubles, stated that, while it deplored the loss of peace and hoped for a peaceful solution of the contest which threatened to wreck the government, yet Masonry was a brotherhood which eschewed interference in warlike projects; that it was the duty of the Institution to attempt to relieve the horrors of war but not to bear a part in the strife. The Committee, therefore, recommended that the Grand Lodge take no political action.

 

Brother John Dove, reporting for the Committee on Correspondence, at the Annual Communication of Virginia, in 1861, remarked:

 

"A few communications have been received from Grand Masters, bearing on the distracted political condition of our suffering country, but on these we forbear to comment, and would earnestly deprecate any concerted movement on the part of the Masonic fraternity, as such, to interfere in any shape with the discordant political questions now agitating the public mind. With these our glorious old Institution has nothing to do; its mission is 'Peace on earth and good will to mankind'; and when, by the relentless force of patriotic duty it becomes necessary for the Mason to assume the character of soldier, he should never be unmindful of the divine attributes with which his sword is emblazoned - Faith, Hope and Charity " (22) His pacific words evidently had little influence, for we find that, in 1862, his Grand Lodge prohibited members of its jurisdiction from having any intercourse with Masons who adhered to the Union. (23)

 

At the Annual Communication of Iowa, in June, 1862, Grand Master Thomas H. Benton, Jr., in his address, quoted Mackey to the effect that: "No civil commotion can sever Masonic ties, or render nugatory Masonic obligations." (24) He went on to say:

 

"That while the revolt of certain States against the authority of the government, receives my unqualified disapprobation and condemnation, I know of no reason why it should interfere with Masonic jurisdictions. Masonry is a private Institution, established solely for social improvement, and the inculcation of the principles of benevolence, morality and virtue. It is restricted by no metes and bounds of civil jurisdiction, and has no special identity with any particular government. Its character is universal, and its objects everywhere, and for all time, the same. " (25)

 

At the Annual Communication of Kansas, October 21, 1862, Grand Master Jacob Saqui felt that, in the excited state of the public mind, there was some danger to the Craft. He realized that obedience to the government was one of the cardinal duties of Masons which the brethren should cheerfully perform; but he feared that, in their zeal for the preservation of the Republic, they might lose sight of that charitable spirit which should ever guide the conduct of draftsmen in their dealings with mankind. He begged them not to bring into the lodge political rancors which would cause them to act toward brethren of opposite political opinion as Masons should never act. He called attention to the fact that:

 

"Masonry never yet descended from her high position to participate in the struggles of policy or of warfare that the error was not fatal to her prosperity and usefulness, and not infrequently to her local existence." (26)

 

During the progress of the war several attempts were made to organize Masonic conventions whose general purpose was to draw the Order into the political arena. Few Grand Bodies participated in their deliberations, and the attempts were all abortive. Grand Master George Armstrong, in discussing these conventions, at the Annual Communication of Nebraska, June 2, 1862, expressed the opinion that there was nothing "which the Masonic fraternity could advise that would be mutually acquiesced in by the belligerent parties." (27)

 

The Grand Lodge of New York, in the same year, decided that the relations of Masonry to the civil government, both of the United States and of the Confederacy, were not such as to permit it to interfere with any line of policy which either might see fit to adopt. consequently, Grand Master Finley M. King had refused to attend a so-called Masonic convention, to be held at Louisville, Kentucky, as he conceived that "it must necessarily be of a political character," and he had no authority "to mingle in the deliberations of such a body. " (28)

 

When American Grand Lodges refused to attend these conventions, it was hardly to be expected that foreign Grand Bodies would care to be represented. Thus Grand Master T. Douglas Harrington, of the Grand Lodge of Canada, reported, July 8, 1863, that he had declined an invitation, extended him by the Grand Lodge of Maine, to attend such a meeting to be held in New York. While he desired to see an end of the struggle of the Civil War, and felt that Canada would gladly assist in bringing about this end if she could do so with propriety, yet he did not think it proper for him to attend the convention - "First, because my attendance might be looked upon as an unauthorized interference in a domestic quarrel with which Canada had nothing to do, and secondly, because no Southern brethren could have an opportunity of giving expression to their feelings." (29)

 

Many Masons believed that Masonic punishment should be inflicted upon those who held political beliefs opposite to their own. In the North, certain brothers thought that those who followed the fortunes of the Confederacy should be expelled from the Order. In the South, some believed that the Order should be purged of those who adhered to the Union. This sentiment was constantly frowned upon by Masonic leaders. Speaking upon this subject in 1861, M. Wor. Bro. Garfielde, of Washington Territory, said:

 

"While the cloud of misfortune hangs black and threatening over the land; while States are discordant and hostile armies meet to spill fraternal blood, it is the high and holy mission of our fraternity to pour oil upon the troubled waters; to act as ministers of peace, mercy and conciliation, and at all times maintain our unity. Masonry knows no North, no South, no East, no West, no nation or race. Its home is the world; its devotees, the worthy of all nations; its faith centers in Deity, and its hope in immortality. Let us act as Masons, while we think and feel as citizens of the Republic. So shall we always be found true to ourselves, true to our families, true to our country, our race and our GOD." (30)

 

Speaking of Masonic punishment, at the Annual Communication of the Grand Lodge of Kentucky, October 21, 1862, Grand Master Hiram Bassett said:

 

"While I observe with pleasure that most of the Grand Lodges, whose Proceedings it has been my pleasure to examine, have wisely abstained from introducing any political legislation, I have been grieved to find that some of our brethren in this jurisdiction have conceived the idea that what they deem political offenses - crimes against the State or civil government - are also breaches of Masonic obligations. In order to preserve that harmony among the brethren, which is our strength and our support, it seems to me neither ill-timed nor out of place to notice briefly here, the relation which Masonry, as an Institution, bears to the civil government." He quoted from the Ancient Charges:

 

"A Mason is a peaceable subject to the civil powers, wherever he resides or works, and is never to be concerned in plots and conspiracies against the peace and welfare of the nation, nor to behave himself undutifully to inferior magistrates, for as Masonry has been always injured by war, bloodshed and confusion, so ancient kings and princes have been much disposed to encourage the craftsmen, because of the peaceableness and loyalty, whereby they practically answered cavils of their adversaries, and promoted the honor of the fraternity, which ever flourished in times of peace. So that if a brother should be a rebel against the State, he is not to be countenanced in his rebellion, however he may be pitied as an unhappy man, and if convicted of no other crime, though the loyal brotherhood must and ought to disown his rebellion, and give no umbrage or ground of political jealousy to the government for the time being, they cannot expel him from the lodge, and his relation to it remains indefeasible.'' (31)

 

That there was not always unanimity of opinion, even in an individual Grand Body, upon the subject of Masonic punishment, is shown by the action taken in the Grand Lodge of Indiana regarding an incident which occurred in that jurisdiction in 1863. A subordinate lodge desired to know whether or not it had the right to expel a member who had gone south, accepted a commission in the Confederate army, and was then fighting against the Union. Grand Master John B. Fravel ruled that a brother could not be expelled for disloyalty alone. But the Committee on Jurisprudence, to whom the matter was referred, did not agree with the Grand Master, and ruled:

 

"Expel him, and expel him quickly; and should you ever catch him engaged in his unholy purposes, treat him just as you would the assassin who, in the dead hour of night, would, with stealth, enter your bed-chamber, and there, while carrying out his purpose of robbery, plunge the dagger to the heart of the wife reposing on your bosom. Your committee deny, in the most emphatic terms, that there is any law of Masonry contravening or setting aside the first law of nature self-preservation." (32)

 

However, the report of the committee was tabled, and justly, in the opinion of the Committee on Correspondence of Kansas, which was "glad to see that the Grand Lodge of Indiana is not disposed to misconstrue the Ancient Charges on this point. However much our erring brethren may be politically culpable, it is only politically that they are so; and however much as patriots we may detest their course, we should not, by extravagant pleading, or farfetched and unnatural construction, attempt to shove the old and sacred landmarks of the Order out of their natural position, in order to gratify our patriotic ardor. By such a course we injure the Order, open a gap for innovation, and gain no advantage either to our country or the Craft." (33)

 

The Grand Lodge of Ohio gave proof that the policy of aloofness in political matters was not unanimous among Grand Bodies, when, at its Annual Communication, October 20, 1863, it passed fiery resolutions "expressive of their utter condemnation of the infamous traitors engaged in the unholy work of rebellion"; these resolutions further announced the "complete and thorough determination of the Grand Lodge to sustain the government in its efforts to restore the union of the States at every hazard." (34)

 

A survey of the situation as respects politics shows that, while sporadic attempts were made to involve the Institution in the tangle of political cross currents, the Order, in general, abided by the landmarks and refrained from taking those steps likely to involve it in the political contests of the time.

 

MASONIC RELIEF WORK IN THE CIVIL WAR

 

While the Masonic Institution regarded the army-made Mason with suspicion and even hostility, and while it refused to be inveigled into attempting to influence the conduct of the War, yet Masonry showed no unwillingness to render all possible aid to the soldier in the field. There were few, if any, Grand Bodies that did not contribute in some way toward the relief of the troops. Some furnished money to be used by sanitary commissions in aiding the sick and wounded; others provided medical and other supplies. Certain Grand Bodies also donated the services of visitors who made personal contacts among the troops. And this relief work was not confined to the soldiers of one side only, but was extended to the men of both armies. Outstanding among Masonic bodies in its relief work, was Louisiana Relief Lodge, No. 1, of New Orleans, Louisiana. In 1861, this lodge reported its receipts for 1860 as $3876.46; of which, $3087.15 had been expended for the relief of soldiers regardless of the side on which they fought. (35) Although its resources became more and more circumscribed as the War advanced, yet the lodge continued its good work throughout the years of the great struggle, its expenditures, as late as 1866, being $2392.36 The splendid work of the brethren of this lodge aroused the admiration of Grand Master William C. Belchor, of California, who, in 1863, called the attention of his Grand Lodge to the "noble act of J. Q. A. Fellows of New Orleans, who, in spite of all opposition, fearlessly did his whole Masonic duty toward those of our brethren who had the misfortune to be prisoners of war in that city." (37)

 

The Grand Lodge of the District of Columbia, in 1862, organized a complete system of relief for the troops of both armies; Grand Master McJilton, in 1863, reported that he had visited many army hospitals, in his capacity of head of the Grand Lodge of Maryland, and had found the need of Masonic chaplains so great that he had appointed Reverend Brother Robert Piggott to begin the good work, an idea that was strongly supported in many Grand Bodies.

 

A final problem growing out of the War was the attitude Masonry was to take toward maimed candidates. Many Grand Lodges, as in the case of Missouri, ruled that, in the case of such petitioners, the subordinate lodges should adhere to the landmarks and the rules and regulations of the Grand Bodies upon the subject of the admission of candidates. Other Grand Lodges were inclined to be lenient in the matter, as in the case of the Grand Lodge of Mississippi, which, on January 21, 1867, ruled that it was proper to confer the degrees of Fellow Craft and Master upon candidates who had lost an arm or leg, provided they had been initiated before such loss, and provided, further, they could physically perform the ceremonies.

 

CONCLUSIONS

 

With every line of human endeavor disjointed by the holocaust of the Civil War, it was inevitable that Masonry should reel before the storm. The conflicting ideas of various Grand Lodges as to the proper method of dealing with army Masonry naturally led to great confusion which involved not only those Grand Bodies yielding to the desires of the soldier petitioner, but, also, those which, adhering to the doctrine of Grand Lodge sovereignty, sternly refused to bow to army Masonry. Further, there was a large body of sentiment among the membership of the Craft in favor of the Institution entering the realm of polities and taking a hand, as an organization, in the conduct of the struggle between the states - a sentiment which required the utmost efforts of Masonic leaders to combat and suppress.

 

And this state of affairs was naturally bound to follow under the circumstances. But, confronted by unusual conditions, the several Grand Bodies sought, honestly and conscientiously, we believe, to solve the problems which were presented to them. And the evidence shows that they did, finally, solve them. During the period of reconstruction adjustments were made and the damage largely repaired. The worthy army-made Masons were absorbed into the stream of regular Masonry, which was soon flowing as placidly as ever, unpolluted by any contamination growing out of political entanglements.

 

But there is a lesson to be learned from a study of the trials and tribulations of Masonry during the period of the Civil War. In times of great national danger when men are arming themselves for battle, there is, among them, a vital need for Masonry. After all, men are but adult children. As the ties of family and home are broken, and the perils of the battlefield draw near, they cast about for some staff upon which to lean for strength and support. Religion does not always furnish that support. But who that has not experienced it can appreciate and understand the mighty strength and help of the tie with which Masonry binds together its votaries? It is stronger than the tie of comradeship which binds soldiers closer together than the tie of blood brotherhood. How many American Masons will ever forget the cheer and encouragement and comfort which they derived from the informal little Masonic gatherings in the muddy trenches and reeking dugouts on the shell torn fields of France?

 

From the earliest times there has been an intimate connection between the Mason and the soldier. Our ancient operative brethren were exempted from military duty, but they followed the Roman legions into the fastnesses of western Europe and erected their bridges and fortifications; the great cathedrals, which were their handiwork, were erected only after the soldier had conquered the land. From the very beginning of Speculative Masonry, we find, sprinkled over the roster of its leaders, the names of warriors. Who can estimate the value to American Masonry, of the labors of the soldier draftsman of colonial times? In all the history of mankind, the Mason and the soldier have worked hand in hand - each the complement of the other. In the soldier, Masonry has always had a defender; in Masonry, the soldier has always found that peace and relaxation denied him by his stern profession.

 

The laws and regulations formulated for the establishment and government of civilian, or regular lodges, are not, as a whole, landmarks. They are conventions developed to meet conditions and have responded to changes in those conditions; they may be subject to changes in future. The American doctrine of Grand Lodge sovereignty, although it has come to have something of the status of a landmark, is not one in the sense that the Ancient Charges are landmarks, and it is virtually unknown in European Masonry.

 

Why, then, should there not be a place in American Masonry for the soldier Mason? In what way would the landmarks be violated by the enactment of legislation having for its objects the control of military Masonry during period of hostilities, and the orderly absorption of the army made Masons upon the return of peace? Why should the defenders of the country (including the Masonic Institution) be made to feel, upon their return from war, that, because they received their degrees in military lodges, they were pariahs and Ishmaelites? Does it not seem that the Grand Lodges of the United States might deliberately agree upon a policy to be adopted should any similar emergency unhappily arise in the future? Is there not prescience enough, and statesmanship enough, among the leaders of the Craft to accomplish this?

 

NOTES 

 

17 Proc. Kansas, 1866, pp. 24-5. 

18 Review, Proc. So. Car, 1866, in Proc. Kans., 1867, pp. 250-1. 

19 Review, Proc. Miss., 1866, in Proc. Kans, 1867, p. 259. 

20 Address, G. M. Saqui, in Proc. Kans., 1866, p. 15. 

21 Proc. Kans., 1866, p. 51. 

22 Review, Proc. Va., 1861, in Proc. Kans., 1864, p. 464. 

23 Review, Proc. D. of C., 1862, in Proc. Kans., 1863, p. 388. 

24 Review, Proc. Iowa, 1862, in Proc. Kans., 1863, p. 392 

25 Review, Proc. Iowa, 1862, in Proc Kans., 1863, p. 393. 

26 Address G. M. Saqui, in Proc. Kans., 1862, pp. 264-5-6.

27 Review, Proc. Nebr., 1862, in Proc Kans., 1862, p. 320. 

28 Review, Proc. N. Y., 1862, in Proc. Kans, 1862, p. 322. 

29 Review, Proc. Can., 1863, in Proc. Kans., 1864, p. 454. 

30 Review, Proc. Wash., 1861, in Proc. Kans., 1862, p. 326. 

31 Review, Proc. Ky., 1862, in Proc. Kans., 1863, pp. 393-4. 

32 Review, Proc. Ind., 1863, in Proc. Kans., 1863, p 390. 

33 Ibid. 

34 Review, Proc. Ohio, 1863, in Proc. Kans., 1864, p. 477.

35 Review, Proc. La., 1861, in Proc. Kans., 1862, p. 316. 

36 Review, Proc. La., 1866, in Proc. Kans., 1866, p. 91. 

37 Review, Proc. Calif., 1863, in Proc. Kans, 1863, p. 386.

 

----o----

 

Seth Warner; The Green Mountain Boy

 

By BRO. WILLIAM M. STUART, New York

 

A STUFFED catamount crouching upon the signboard of the Green Mountain Tavern in Bennington, and apparently snarling toward the province of New York, reflected, a few years prior to the outbreak of the Revolution, the spirit of the times.

 

In this tavern were wont to assemble the leaders of those settlers who had resolved to protect their rights against the authority of New York, even to the shedding of blood. And of these leaders, who gathered on frosty evenings about the roaring flames in the fireplace and discussed over their wine and long-stemmed pipes projected raids against the officers of the law, the two most noted ones were the gigantic Ethan Allen and his smaller friend, Seth Warner.

 

Seth Warner had been born in Woodbury, Connecticut, in 1743, removing with his father to Bennington twenty years later. The dispute with New York was just then beginning and young Warner soon found himself involved.

 

The first settlement in what is now known as Vermont was made at Fort Dummer, now Brattleborough in 1724. The region was claimed by both New Hampshire and New York. The governor of the former colony disregarding the rights of New York, issued grants of land in the new territory so indiscriminately that the region became known as the NEW HAMPSHIRE GRANTS.

 

New York resorted to the courts, obtained a favorable decision and endeavored to eject the settlers who had cleared and rendered valuable their isolated farms. These pioneers now banded together, assumed the name of GREEN MOUNTAIN BOYS, chose for their leaders Ethan Allen and Seth Warner, and proceeded to resist the execution of the law. In the mountains of THE GRANTS ensued a species of guerrilla warfare, in which the New York officers usually had the worst of it.

 

On the 9th of March, 1774, the Legislature of New York Province passed an act of outlawry against the leaders of the Green Mountain Boys; mentioning by name, and offering a reward of fifty pounds for the capture of each, the following persons: Ethan Allen, Seth Warner, Remember Baker, Robert Cochron, P. Sunderland, S. Brown, J. Smith and J. Brackenridge.

 

The valley of Otter Creek was the scene of this mountainous warfare, which was yet of pigmy size. The locality and many of the events have been described vividly by Daniel P. Thompson who, in 1839, published his novel, Green Mountain Boys.

 

Ernest Peixotto, in 1917, while collecting data for his book, A Revolutionary Pilgrimage, motored through the valley of Otter Creek (or river) and thus described it:

 

"From Rutland southward the road follows the Otter River, threading a beautiful valley, hemmed in between the Taconic Ridge on the one side and the main range of the Green Mountains on the other. The day . . . was showery, and gray clouds hung thick at times about the mountains, hiding one peak and revealing another; screening one range entirely and crawling over another in long, white filaments, that hung like ghosts among the trees, and by their air of mystery enhanced the sense of height."

 

It is likely that the contemplation of such scenes as that portrayed by the artist Peixotto had much to do with inspiring Allen and Warner to cast in their fortunes with the common cause. When the guns of Lexington sent their alarming message reverberating among the crags where the "Boys" had been forced to pitch their camp, in order to avoid the New York officers, they realized that their own petty quarrel must inevitably be engulfed in the greater one now at hand. As many peaks were required to produce the grandeur that was the Green Mountains, so the fate of the "Grants" would depend upon the success of the "Old Thirteen." The bickering with New York must now be cast aside so that all true men might hasten to the defense of the common country.

 

So, when Ethan Allen led his men to the surprise of Fort Ticonderoga, Seth Warner was in command of the rear guard. Allen captured the fort, " In the Name of the Great Jehovah and the Continental Congress," before Warner could cross. But Allen now sent his lieutenant to surprise Crown Point.

 

Warner was at first driven back by a sudden storm, but two days later he took the place, garrisoned by twelve men, without firing a shot. Much plunder was secured, including sixty-one cannon fit for service. At the last moment Warner had been joined by Captain Remember Baker - another proscribed Green Mountain Boy - with a small contingent of troops. Baker had seized on the way two boatloads of British troops who were endeavoring to escape to St. Johns.

 

On July 27, 1775, Seth Warner was elected by his own men lieutenant-colonel of the Green Mountain Boys, now organized as a regiment. It was at about this time that he accompanied Ethan Allan to Albany to offer the services of their organization to the common cause.

 

The New York legislators were somewhat embarrassed. The attainder against Allen and Warren had never been wiped off by a repeal. Could the Solons receive in their midst the outlaws of the mountains?

 

After considering the matter from all angles, they admitted their former enemies, by resolution, "to the floor of the House. " The hatchet was buried.

 

It is likely that it was at this time that Seth Warner was raised to Masonic Light in old Union Lodge No. 1, now Mount Vernon Lodge No. 3, the oldest in the state outside of New York City.

 

The history of this Lodge is an interesting one. It was organized in Albany in 1759, under authority of the Grand Lodge of Ireland, originally issued to brethren of what is now called in the British service, the Royal Scots Regiment. During the years 1758-59, this regiment was located in Albany, and many prominent citizens of the town were admitted to its Lodge. When, in 1759, the regiment was ordered away, it left a copy of its warrant with the Albany Brethren, to enable them to continue their meetings.

 

The Lodge worked under the copied authority until February 21, 1765, when it was chartered as Union Lodge No. 1, by Provincial Grand Master Harrison. Eight years later (July 30, 1773) the charter was confirmed by Sir John Johnson, the son of Sir William Johnson and at this time Provincial Grand Master. On January 6, 1807, it received a warrant from the Grand Lodge of the State of New York, as Mount Vernon Lodge No. 3.

 

The By-Laws of Union Lodge, drawn up by request of said body by Peter W. Yates in 1773, and approved by Sir John Johnson, were signed in order by the various members, beginning with Peter W. Yates, Master. Seth Warner was the ninety-sixth signer. Until No. 274, no mention was made regarding the dates of the various degrees. The Brother who signed as No. 274 received his first degree, January 14, 1794. It is therefore probable that Colonel Seth Warner was initiated, passed and raised during the summer of 1775, receiving at least the first degree while on his visit to the New York Legislature.

 

Colonel Seth Warner commanded some of the Green Mountain troops at the siege of Fort St. Johns, under General (Brother) Richard Montgomery, and was instrumental in carrying the operations to a successful conclusion. When Governor Carleton approached with a relieving force, he was ambushed by Warner and his men and driven into headlong rout.

 

Later, Colonel Warner was at Quebec, and he covered the retreat of the Americans from Canada to Ticonderoga.

 

On July 5, 1776, he was appointed by Congress colonel of a regiment in the Continental Line.

 

He was with St. Clair at Ticonderoga, and when the Americans were forced to evacuate that fortress, he commanded the rear-guard. It was on July 7, 1777, that he fought his heaviest action at Hubbardton.

 

General Arthur St. Clair, a Master Mason, the grandson of a Scottish earl, and perhaps the most unfortunate officer in our service, had been fairly outgeneralled by Burgoyne at Ticonderoga. The fort was fully commanded by Sugar Loaf Hill, later called Mt. Defiance. This elevation had been deemed by St. Clair inaccessible for artillery. Burgoyne proved that the contrary was true. With a battery planted on this height, he held the key to Ticonderoga. St. Clair was forced to evacuate in the night and beat a hasty retreat.

 

Contrary to orders, someone fired a building and the flames betrayed to the British the retreat. An immediate pursuit was organized. Colonel Seth Warner, known as a bulldog fighter, commanded the brigade that was the last to leave. At Hubbardton he was overtaken by the enemy 's advance guard under General Fraser. Colonel Warner had three regiments - 1300 men. Fraser had 800 veterans.

 

At seven in the morning of that hot July day Fraser began the attack. Pushing from the forest, the red-coated British infantry made a rapid charge. Warner's men opened with quick volleys and broke up the assault. All would now have been well had not a raw militia regiment commanded by Colonel Hale given way and fled. This left Warner but 700 men to continue the action.

 

The Americans were, however, stationed in a strong position on the brow of a hill, partially screened by trees. From this post they poured a galling fire upon the British grenadiers, who occupied the Castleton road, and caused them to fall back. Victory was again in sight for Warner's men, when drums were heard in the forest, and soon the tossing of banners and the gleaming of steel informed all that Reidesel and his Germans had arrived to support Fraser.

 

An overpowering charge followed. Warner 's brigade was forced to flee over the Pittsford Mountains. The loss on each side was very heavy.

 

Colonel Warner collected his own regiment at Manchester and at once began whipping it into shape for further conflicts. It was soon to be needed.

 

When, the following month, hard-pressed Burgoyne sent Colonel Baume with his German mercenaries on the Bennington raid, with orders to "scour the country from Rockingham to Otter Creek," John Stark (soon to become a Master Mason in Albany) took charge of the threatened territory, rallied the militia and sent a messenger post haste to Colonel Seth Warner, begging his help.

 

At once Warner ordered his men to march. All that day and part of the night they plodded through the rain over muddy roads and arrived at Bennington during the watches of the morning. Here they remained for a time, drying their clothes and preparing their arms for battle. But Colonel Seth Warner joined Stark as an aide.

 

The first part of the Battle of Bennington ensued. General Stark made his famous speech, containing the allusion to the future slumbers of his wife - provided the red-coats were not beaten; Baume was mortally wounded, his artillery and most of his men captured and the rest driven away. The militia had fought well, but the end was not yet. Colonel Breyman arrived on the stricken field with British reinforcements, at once charged the scattered American militia, and it seemed that the battle would be lost by the patriots.

 

But now, just in the nick of time, the drums of Colonel Seth Warner's veteran regiment were heard beating the charge. Through the ruck the Continentals shoved with advanced bayonets, fell upon Breyman's troops and drove them steadily until darkness settled and the historic contest was over - the contest that proved to be the first nail in the coffin of Burgoyne's military reputation.

 

Once more Seth Warner and his men had proved their worth.

 

But the Green Mountain Boy's work was not yet done. At the battle of Saratoga he was to meet again his old antagonist of the fight at Hubbardton - General Fraser. In this decisive conflict of the war for American independence Warner and his men rendered excellent service. At the end Fraser was killed and Burgoyne surrendered. The war in the far North was over.

 

In this campaign Seth Warner soldiered with such Brother Masons as Daniel Morgan, the old wagoner general; Colonel Peter Gansevoort, a member of his own Union Lodge No. 1; Colonel Cilley of New Hampshire ; Benedict Arnold, of Hiram Lodge No. 1, New Haven; General Gates himself; Marinus Willett, the final savior of the Mohawk Valley; Stark, Poor, Whipple, Paterson, Wilkinson, Glover, Dearborn and Hull. Surely, Masons helped mightily at Saratoga to build the foundations of the Republic.

 

Colonel Seth Warner was destined barely to see his country independent. Early in 1782 he was forced by ill health to leave the military service. He retired to Woodbury, Connecticut, the place of his birth, and there two years later he died, being but forty-one years of age.

 

Friend of the puissant Ethan Allen, Green Mountain Boy, patriot of the Revolution, Master Mason, Seth Warner - though his life was brief - qualified as one of the builders of the nation.

 

----o----

 

THE DUCE'S REVENGE

Translated from DIE LEUCHTE by Bro. Jacob Ruehl, Illinois.

 

SOMETIME ago we gave an account of the situation of the Italian Masons who have been exiled in the Lipari Islands. We based our report upon the information of a journalist who had had permission to visit the Island. Today we present the information given by three fugitives, Rosseli, Lussu and Nitti. The former is a well known Professor of the University of Genna and the latter a nephew of the some time Prime Minister, Nitti, who has for years been living in exile. The escaped brethren are now safe in Paris with their friends.

 

According to the Ogenbacher Zeitxng, the trial of a Mason takes the following course:

 

Place of action: Prefecture of any city in Italy

 

People Present: The committee, consisting of the Prefect the Chief of Police, the Secretary of the City Administration, and an Attorney for the Secretary of the Interior, dressed in the robes of a judge.

 

A gentleman enters the courtroom escorted by police. Three months ago he was arrested. All that time he has been in jail without any preliminary hearing. The Attorney rises from his seat, puts his cap upon his head and proclaims the judgment already decided upon, to- wit: "Upon affirmation that you have been connected with the defense of Anti-fascism, you are sentenced to five years deportation in the Island of Lipari." The convicted is escorted out of the courtroom, the committee is dismissed. The end.

 

Twelve hundred of such sentences have been given in one year. They are usually reported: "Sent off by order of the administration." The prisoners are divided upon the Islands Lipari, Ustiea, Ponza and Triniti. Amongst the prisoners are intellectuals like General Beneivenga, once a dignitary of the Grand Orient of Italy, and President of the Union of Italian Journalists. There also is the leader of the Peoples Party, Turati; the representatives of the burghers, of the republican party, men of letters, savants, Fascists who refused to be such any longer; there are people who stood in the way of some higher officer of the Fascist hierarehy. The official sentence is always based "Upon affirmation." The trip to the Islands takes about fourteen days, during which time the prisoner is handcuffed or laid in chains. The transport is made in railroad cars traveling about eight kilometers per hour. At night we lodge in penitentaries. The Island lies in a northwestern direction from Messina and is about thirty-eight square kilometers and has about five hundred population. Amongst the deported are highway robbers and other criminals from the gutter. Four hundred guards watch the prisoners. Around the Island circle continuously three gun-boats, and one high-sea-boat does patrol service. The shores are watched by a chain of sentinels about two for every one hundred meters. At night searchlights throw light upon the island every ten minutes. Radio, aeroplanes and every modern technical device is carefully put in service. The living allowance for prisoners has been reduced from 20 Lire to 10 Lire per diem. Out of this sum the cost of living quarters and food must be paid. Diseases are very common. It is forbidden to send food or clothing to the prisoners on the island. Letters are severely censured, which means physical and mental repression, which again causes the prisoners to become homesick or to lose their minds if there is no chance for an escape.

 

To shake off these conditions was the work of three of Italy's best men. Reluctantly they tell of their escape, some of their escape, not all, because one incautious word and the whole secret is exposed. They gave representatives of the French press the following narration of their experience:

 

In the night of June 27, a night with no moon, the three at a certain signal jumped into the sea. It was about 9 p. m. At 9:10 p. m., they had to be at a certain rock in the sea, which lay about one hundred and fifty meters from the shore. At 9:20 a boat was to be at this rock. At 9:25 they had to be in the boat, or their chance of liberty was lost because at 9:30 the last roll call took place and their absence would be noticed, and then every means would be at once put in motion to find the fugitives; if found life as well as liberty would be in danger. Professor Roselli was a few minutes behind, with his clothes on he jumped in the water, he had no time to take them off. While swimming he saw the Carabineri on patrol, but they did not see him. Once he had to dive in order to avoid the searchlights. Finally he came to the rock. The others were waiting for him. holding on to the rock with their hands, keeping their heads above water, with such thoughts as: "Are we on time? Oh, faith! One minute we are saved and - one minute we are lost." On the minute, there was the boat, another minute and we are in it. We are saved. Ten minutes later the whole island is alarmed; too late! We are saved.

 

----o----

 

EDITORIAL

 

R.J. MEEKREN, Editor in Charge

 

BOARD OF ASSOCIATE EDITORS

 

LOUIS BLOCK. Iowa

ROBERT I. CLEGG, Illinois

GILBERT W. DAYNES, England

RAY V. DENSLOW, Missouri

 

GEORGE H. DERN, Utah

N.W.J. HAYDON, Canada

R.V. HARRIS, Canada

C.C. HUNT, Iowa

 

CHARLES F. IRWIN, Pennsylvania

A.L. KRESS, Pennsylvania

F.H. LlTTLEFIELD, Missouri

JOSEPH E. MORCOMBE, California

 

ARTHUR C. PARKER, New York

J. HUGO TATSCH, Iowa

JESSE M. WHTED, California

E. E. THIEMEYER, Missouri

DAVID E.W. WILLIAMSON, Nevada

 

THE STUDY CLUB DEPARTMENT

 

IN the autumn of 1927 we made a considerable change in the Study Club pages of THE BUILDER. For quite a number of years before that they had been used for series of articles of a nature that could hardly be described as elementary. In short, from 1921 up to 1927 the material used in this department was in no way essentially different in character from the general articles and papers published in the body of the magazine. In the years preceding that a supplement had been published first under the heading of the "Correspondence Circle Bulletin." The title was varied somewhat in different years, but the substance was much the same. From 1915 to 1921 a series of elementary lessons in Freemasonry were published (the greater part of which has been since republished in book form) which very fully covered the whole ground. Research never comes to an end, but the boundaries of elementary teaching in every branch of knowledge are not very extensive and do not change very much; obviously from the very nature of things.

 

This ground having been once fully covered it was a natural development to proceed into more advanced subjects until at last it became apparent that the separation of the articles thus labelled was a purely arbitrary distinction. For this reason a radical change was proposed. It was sought to make the department really accord once more with the elementary character of Study Club work, but as it was absurd to cover the ground once more when perfectly adequate material was readily available, the new