THE BUILDER MAGAZINE
January 1918
volume 4 - number 1
"DEMOCRACY FOR ME "
BY BRO. THOMAS RILEY MARSHALL, 33D ACTIVE
VICE PRESIDENT, U.S.A.
ADDRESS BEFORE THE SUPREME COUNCIL, A.A.S.R., N.M.J.
THESE are days when he who is uncertain as to whether what
he is about to say will help or harm his country's cause would better remain
silent. These are hours when the ordinarily thoughtful man is looking backward,
looking forward, looking around, and looking within.
He wants to know the history of his country; to diagnose
present conditions; to determine, if possible, the future, and his part in this
world tragedy. He beholds in retrospect almost a century and a half of
unexampled progress and prosperity, and reverently lifting his eyes to the God
of Nations, exclaims with the Psalmist of old, "He hath not dealt so with any
nation."'
He searches his dictionary for a word that will express the
dominant feature of these glorious years. He reaches the conclusion that America
in all these decades has spelt, at home and abroad, more clearly than any other
the word "Opportunity."
He observes that America has not been exclusively a land
where only men thoroughly imbued with the principles upon which it was founded
might build for themselves homes. Isolated from the beginning by countless
leagues of sea, it was never dreamed that it could become involved in the
politics and policies of Europe. This isolation led the rulers to throw its
gates open to all who might care to enter. These came in unnumbered thousands
and for reasons, often times, remote from those purely of government--some to
advance their fortune and some their social standing; others to divorce
themselves from distressful conditions -- social, economic, political, or
religious.
It was not thought necessary to require the use of the
official language in family and social life. We rather discouraged than
encouraged the use of English. In many States we provided for the teaching of
the home language in the public schools.
So thoughtless and indifferent were we to the shrinking of
the ocean by steam and electricity that we rejoiced to observe everywhere
business being conducted and social energies evinced under the hyphenations of
British-American, Irish-American, German American, Franco-American, and Italio-American.
We took no trouble to protest against dual citizenship. We
permitted foreign-born citizens to vote, with full knowledge of their right -
which meant our consent - that whenever they chose to do so they could repudiate
their American citizenship by appearing before a consul of their native land and
become alien enemies.
All this and more because we never dreamed of European
complications. We had but few whom we were pleased to denominate just plain,
old-fashioned, American citizens. Within my knowledge, learned and patriotic
Senators have debated with zeal whether it was American or Irish or German
citizens who won for us our freedom in the Revolution.
Now, no one ever doubted the loyalty to the flag of all
these people whether foreign-born or the sons of foreign-born. Our isolation
made it immaterial to us whether there was any difference between loyalty and
patriotism, and true to a thousand years of tradition, we did not face the
question until it became of moment. The years drew us closer and closer to
Europe in the ties of commerce and the friendly relations of travel. More and
more we became a part of the world; and suddenly a mad monarch, drunk with
military power and crazed with the idea that he was divinely ordained to rule
the world, plunged Europe into a war so awful that all wars which had preceded
it paled into insignificance.
Still we stood by our ancient ideas of isolation, but in
two years and a half we discovered that there was a vast difference between
loyalty and patriotism. The hearts of men flamed up very largely in response to
the blood that flowed in their veins. Patriotism showed itself as dependent, not
upon place of residence nor political ideas, but rather upon heredity.
Patience at last was exhausted, and there was nothing for a
self-respecting people to do, if their Republic was to be true to its
traditions, save to engage in the war on the side of democracy. I do not care to
engage in any hair-splitting, although there seems to be much discussion as to
whether this war is being waged "to make the world safe for democracy" or "to
make democracy safe for the world." Of course, it was meant by the President,
when he spoke of making "the world safe for democracy," of making it safe for
real democracy.
We all know that liberty is not license, nor democracy
demagogy. We all know that the world can not be made safe for murder and arson
and pillage and anarchy and everything for which the syndicalist and the I. W.
W.'s may stand; and we also know that such things as these can not be made safe
for the world.
I do not stop to speak of the tradition, the history, and
the duties of our own fraternity. There are three great forces, aside from arms
and armament, which are molding the future as they have shaped the past. These
are the teachings of the Nazarene, the tenets of our fraternity, and the
tendency of democracy as disclosed in the ideas and ideals of the Republic.
When rulers and people are willing to do as they would be
done by, when they are willing to meet upon the level, act by the plumb, and
part upon the square. and when governments derive their just powers from the
consent of the governed, then there will be a large assurance of permanent
peace. This can be brought about only by an appeal to the conscience. To do so,
discussion is needful. Free thought must never be hampered. But because a man
thinks a thing to be true, and has a right to utter his belief under a
democracy, he is not justified, if he believes in God, in brotherhood, and in
the Republic, in voicing his views under all circumstances.
There are many of us who should accept Paul's advice to the
Corinthians: "All things are lawful unto me, but all things are not expedient."
Democracy means the rule of the people under whatever form
of government they may choose to express it, but when once the rule of the
people has been expressed, through their chosen representatives, then --and
particularly in the hour of war-- however much any of us may think that certain
of the policies are mistaken policies, free speech, free press, and liberty of
conscience do not justify criticism, for criticism, however unintentional,
invariably gives aid and comfort to the enemy.
Conscription as a principle may be a subject of debate, but
not now. This Democracy has adopted it for the purposes of this war, and
discussion of it ought to be held in abeyance. This Government, by its chosen
Representatives, has declared this war. If there be any who think it is not
justified, let him not be of aid and comfort to the enemy by voicing his
sentiments. If laws are silent in the midst of arms, let all discussion as to
the rightfulness or wrongfulness of the war, and as to the methods by which it
is being prosecuted cease, unless by discussion the cause of the Republic and of
human liberty can be advanced.
Democracy is constructive, not destructive; it is advisory,
not critical. I would not have it understood that it is our duty to walk over
the dead bodies of out convictions even to attain success. I admit that failure
with honor is preferable to success with disgrace; but, believing as I do in the
justice and necessity of our cause, I beg my brothers of this most loyal order
when they speak, to speak whole-heartedly for the cause in which we are engaged,
and not to criticize until mature thought and consideration have convinced them
that by criticism they can advance the cause of our country and of universal
democracy.
I do not speak of your duty to the Flag, nor of duty at
all. I know duty is with us always; that it rises with us in the morning, sits
down with us at the breakfast table, goes with us to shop and field and office;
that it is the very shadow of ourselves, and the governor which keeps the engine
of life moving smoothly.
I would have all men with us in this cause from a sense of
duty, if for no other reason, but I would preferably have all enter into it from
a higher sense, that of living sacrifice for generations yet unborn.
And now, in the wilderness of thought and of words and in
the darkness and desolation of this hour, eyes are being turned to the sunlight
of a new day, and we are asking ourselves, "What of the morrow?" "Is America to
continue to be the land of opportunity?" To this we all answer fervently, "Yes,"
but to the question, "Is America to be exclusively the land of opportunity?"
many of us answer, "No." America must be more than the land of opportunity. It
must also be the land of obligation, for if the sun break above the cloud
tempest and the battle din of this war upon a land exclusively of opportunity,
then we shall have a people who may be loyal to the material interests of the
Republic, but whose inner sentiments may be disloyal to its ideals.
Common gratitude to the fathers and savers of the Republic
demand that we pour out the last drop of blood and expend the last dollar of
money in the cause in which we have engaged. This, loyalty demands; but
objectives in crucial hours assume new forms. Martin Luther thought he died a
loyal Catholic; instead he died the founder of a new church. Abraham Lincoln
thought he was called to the presidency to preserve the Union; instead he died
the emancipator of the black man.
Whatever the original causes of this war and whatever the
motives in its earlier prosecution may have been, they have now resolved
themselves into a conflict between the two great systems of government
--autocracy and democracy.
If, therefore, America is to remain just the land of
opportunity, then nothing of any moment will have been accomplished by this war,
so far as we are concerned. What, therefore, is the lesson of the hour to a body
of men whose obligation is to the flag of their country? I dare not speak for
you. I speak only for myself, and yet I would that it might be for you also.
That lesson is, that this war shall furnish a new definition of patriotism. The
word shall no longer mean the land of a man's birth, or the land of his
adoption, the language he speaks, or the place where those he loves reside. It
shall have evolved into a different meaning. It will demand of everyone who owes
allegiance to any prince, or potentate, or autocratic power on earth, that he
renounce that allegiance, and renounce also allegiance to every purely selfish
pursuit and aim; that he subordinate the material interests of this Government
to its ideals; that he take an oath of allegiance to an invisible government
which believes, which teaches. which holds that all men are born free and equal,
that governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, that
none is fit to rule save of the free and untrammeled consent of the majority of
those over whom he rules, that wealth is good and honor is better, but above
all, that democracy is best. Whoever believes these things is worthy to be an
American; whoever does not, is unworthy.
The world around, a free expression of opinion would show a
majority of the people to be for the right and not for the wrong; for justice,
not for injustice; for honesty, not for dishonesty; for peace, not for war, and
that given the opportunity, the people will speak for the arbitration of courts,
rather than for the arbitrament of arms.
To these old ideas, reborn in the travail of war, I pledge
my fealty. I want this war to end, but not to end until the people in every land
shall possess the right to make peace and declare war, either directly or
through their chosen representatives. I want blood, and birth, and social
standing, and educational qualifications, and religious trend all to be
forgotten in this new parliament of new men, this federation of the world. I
want those in this our land who do not thus believe to become fewer and fewer as
the days go by.
I do not want entangling alliances with European nations.
It is not necessary to have them. When we sit at the council table of the world,
I trust we may do so as the representative of a newer and better isolation --an
isolation of the spirit, free to say to the Germanic people, "Have what
Government you please, but let us know that it is yours ;" free to say to the
oldest of constitutional governments, the British Empire, "We have made this
fight with you as our ally in the cause of democracy, but we are not willing to
change our system. The Windsor tie does not harmonize with the cut of our
democracy."
In other words, I want to be in the world to voice a view,
to uphold a theory, but never to be compelled to do a wrong unless unfortunately
it be for my own country.
This seems to me but to express lamely the view;. of the
President of the United States. If this were a Democratic war, I should keep
silent; if it were a Republican war, I probably should say unjustifiable things.
It is neither. It is an American war, for only a coward, a poltroon, a
trickster, or a political charlatan, seeking personal advantage, would have
dared to evade it.
The flag can not wave with terror to its enemies save in
the hands of a standard bearer. What you and I may think of the domestic views
of the standard bearer can afford to wait. Forgetting blood and business, there
are now, as always, just two grades of citizens in the Republic--the man who
asks himself, "What can I do for my country?" and the man who asks, "What can my
country do for me?"
So long as America was simply the land of opportunity I had
much to say about these two classes and the unjustifiable advantages which were
afforded to the latter. But now that we have become the land of obligation my
voice is silent for the present. I await the conduct of my fellowmen, as I trust
they will await mine, if mine be of any moment. So far as mere partisan debts
are concerned, I have declared a moratorium until the war ends.
Rich and poor, high and low, labor and capital, protected
and unprotected, all are forgotten. What they have, what they do, is of no
moment if they be willing to sacrifice for the Republic and for democracy.
I am hoping to see revised one of Macauley's lays of
ancient Rome, in which it can truly be said that none is for the party, but all
for the state. I have already seen so much splendid self-sacrifice upon the part
of men whom I have freely criticised heretofore that I stand dumb and speechless
in the presence of mere partisan politics, and dare to lift my voice only in the
hope that there may be in it one clear call of loyalty and devotion to the
principles in which we pretend to believe, and to the man who is our spokesman.
It was the custom, upon the crowning of a Roman emperor,
for the legions to pass in review before him. As each-legion appeared it halted
and the commander took a solemn obligation to be loyal to the emperor and to the
gods of Rome. As he concluded, each man in the legion lifted his good right hand
to Heaven, crying out "This for me," This solemn ceremonial was enacted alike at
the crowning of Marcus Aurelius, seeker after God, and of Nero, finder of the
devil. The man was nothing, the office all.
Democracy in its partisan sense, Republicanism, Socialism,
are just now in abeyance. The chosen representatives of the American people,
regardless of their partisan views upon internal matters, have taken their oath
of loyalty and devotion to the principles of the Republic, and to the President
of the United States. Is it not possible to have until the conclusion of this
war all hands in America lifted to the God of our fathers, and all voices
proclaiming, "Woodrow Wilson. America, democracy, for me?"
----o----
THE GRAND ORIENT OF FRANCE AND THE THREE GREAT LIGHTS
BY BRO. J. H. RAMSEY, IOWA
The grouping of England, America and France as "Allies" in
the present war has furnished civilization with many peculiar situations, in
which Masonry shares. Believing that our Members will be deeply interested in
knowing the facts surrounding the non-intercourse of English-speaking branches
of the Fraternity with the French, we announce a series of articles, of which
this is the first, dealing with various aspects of the situation.
The first, distinctly historical in its scope, is a paper
which was prepared by Brother Ramsey in response to a question proposed at a
Study Club meeting of Anamosa Lodge No. 46, in which the sole effort was to
present the reasons why the Grand Orient took the position it did regarding the
use of the Bible, and the subsequent action of American Grand Lodges. At the
Lodge discussion when this paper was read, two ministers of the Gospel were
present. One of them had travelled in France, and was familiar with the subject,
which caused him to take a most sympathetic attitude toward the French
viewpoint.
The second contribution on this subject comes from the pen
of Brother R.E. Kellett, Grand Master of Manitoba, and though it bears the title
"Internationalism and Freemasonry," its dominant theme is the position which the
Grand Orient of France occupies in the Masonic category. The essay was written
before the entrance of America into the war. It has been read before the
Masters' and Past Masters' Lodge of Christchurch, New Zealand, bringing out a
discussion which we hope to be able to digest for our readers in due time. This
discussion, occurring in a Lodge most intimately associated with the Mother
Grand Lodge, revealed a wide diversity of opinion on the subject, as it will
undoubtedly do among our own members. We mention this particularly, not only
because it reveals the broadmindedness and temperate spirit of our New Zealand
brethren, but because the very fact that a whole session of the Masters' and
Past Masters' Lodge was devoted to it is in itself significant of the scholarly
qualities of the paper.
The third essay, "Freemasonry in France," has been written
at our request by Brother Geo. W. Baird, 33d, P.G.M., of the District of
Columbia, whose name is already a familiar one to our readers, and who was made
a Mason in Portugal in a French Lodge. Through his position as Fraternal
Correspondent of his Grand Lodge, Brother Baird has had an exceptional
opportunity to keep himself in touch with world movements. This article will
appear in an early number of THE BUILDER.
All of these contributions evidence an eagerness on the
part of the writers that some way shall be found by which the nonintercourse of
nearly forty years shall be eliminated. Justification for a careful research of
the facts, if needed, may be found in the recent action of the Grand Lodges of
New York, California and Kentucky, permitting their soldier members to visit
Lodges in France.
The Question Box and Correspondence columns of THE BUILDER
are open to you, Brethren. We wish to hear both sides, and know that there are
many who will not be slow to take up the cudgels in support of the historic
position heretofore taken by our Grand Lodges. If this discussion shall be the
means of ultimately acquainting our members with the facts, it may also give
French members of the Society an up-to-date expression of the American
position--a result which may perhaps be of influence to both sides, in the
future. EDITOR
JUST forty years ago, or to be exact, on September 14th,
1877, the Grand Orient of France voted to eliminate from its ancient
constitution the following article: "Freemasonry has for its principles the
existence of God, the immortality of the soul and the solidarity of mankind." It
adopted in lieu thereof, the following:
"Whereas Freemasonry is not a religion and has therefore no
doctrine or dogma to affirm in its constitution, this Assembly has decided and
decreed that the second paragraph of Article 1, of the Constitution (above
quoted) shall be erased, and that for the words of the said article the
following shall be substituted:
1. Being an Institution essentially philanthropic,
philosophic, and progressive, Freemasonry has for its object, search after
truth, study of universal morality, science and arts, and the practice of
benevolence. It has for its principles absolute liberty of conscience and human
solidarity. It excludes no person on account of his belief, and its motto is
'Liberty, Equality and Fraternity."'
At the next annual session of the Grand Body in 1878 a move
was made to conform the ritual to the change of the constitution and a committee
directed to make report and recommendation for consideration at the following
session.
Accordingly in September, 1879, upon report of the
committee, a new ritual was adopted wherein all reference to the name and idea
of God was eliminated, but liberty was given to the Lodges to adopt the new or
old rituals as they should see fit. We are told, and can easily believe, that
this action was taken in the Grand Lodge session amidst great excitement and in
spite of a vigorous and determined opposition of the minority. Naturally, and as
a matter of course, the change in the Constitution and ritual permitted the
removal of the Bible from the Altar.
It is not too much to say that the Masonic world stood
shocked and astounded at this radical departure taken by the French Masons.
Probably nothing in Masonic affairs with the exception of the Morgan episode
ever excited such widespread interest and apprehension. The Masonic press in
every country was filled with vigorous discussion and many felt that it
foreshadowed the division of the Craft into two great sections--one believers in
Deity and non-political, and the other atheistic and democratic.
Grand Lodges especially in all English-speaking countries
lost no time in condemning in bitterest terms the action of the Grand Orient and
in severing fraternal relations. In our own State (Iowa) in the Grand Lodge
session of 1878, the Grand Master said:
"The Grand Orient of France having obliterated from its
constitution the paragraph which asserted a belief in the existence of Deity,
and by such action placed itself in antagonism to the traditions, practice and
feelings of all true and genuine Masons in this jurisdiction and the world,
deserves no longer a recognition as a Masonic body from this Grand Lodge. Some
years ago that Grand Orient persisted in an invasion of the American doctrine of
Grand Lodge sovereignty, to the extent of organizing lodges in the jurisdiction
of the Grand Lodge of Louisiana and other states. We then cut loose for a time
from all fraternal intercourse with French Masons rendering obedience to that
Grand Orient. Having not only set at naught the supreme authority of American
Grand Lodges over their respective jurisdictions, but that of God over men and
Masons, we should wipe our hands of all such bogus Masonry."
The deep concern with which the Grand Lodge of Iowa viewed
this matter was but an indication of the sentiment prevailing in Grand Lodges of
all English speaking countries at that time and in order that we may realize
something of this let us read the resolution of our Grand Lodge in 1878:
To the M. W. Grand Lodge of Iowa:
"The special committee to whom the committee on the M. W.
Grand Master's address referred so much of the same as relates to the Grand
Orient of France, submit the following report:
"While we cordially agree with and endorse all of the views
of our M.W. Grand Master and the Committee on this subject, yet we consider that
its importance requires more than a mere resolution. If the course of the Grand
Orient of France is allowed to go unrebuked and become the recognized law, we
may well say farewell to Masonry. It is the glory of our Institution that we do
not interfere with any man's religious or political opinions. At the same time
we discountenance atheism and doubt, disloyalty and rebellion. No atheist can be
made a Mason; and the first inquiry made of a candidate, after entering the
lodge is, in whom does he put his trust? These are the essential requisites, and
the cornerstone on which our Masonic edifice is erected. Remove them, and the
structure falls. What is the course that the Grand Orient of France takes ? They
have entirely blotted out this necessary qualification, and leave it to the
"ipse dixit" of each initiate to decide as he prefers, thus entirely ignoring
the imperative belief in God and His attributes, as understood in all
enlightened countries. American Masons will not submit to such a monstrous
proposition, and the mere thought of it is well calculated to arouse our
indignation and dissent. We protest against such an innovation, and "wipe our
hands" of it. Let such sentiments prevail, and our enemies will desire no better
argument with which to destroy us. The Grand Lodges of Ireland and England have
set noble examples to the Masonic world, by remonstrating, and breaking off all
intercourse with these iconoclasts. Several of our Grand Lodges have followed
their example, and others will doubtless soon join their ranks. We feel that we
speak the sentiments of the Masons of Iowa when we say that we disapprove and
condemn the course of the Grand Orient of France, and we desire to express these
opinions still more emphatically by the resolution hereunto appended:
"RESOLVED, That the Grand Lodge of Iowa, having learned
with surprise and regret that the Grand Orient of France has departed from the
ancient landmarks, by blotting from the constitution and ignoring the name of
God, and not making a belief in Deity a prerequisite for initiates, does hereby
express its indignation at the course she has taken, and herewith severs all
relations heretofore existing between us.
"RESOLVED, That a copy of this resolution be sent to the
Grand Orient of France, and to each of the Masonic jurisdictions with which we
are in amicable relation."
With both friends and enemies of Masonry unreservedly
condemning the action of the French Brethren it would seem that there must be
little justification or defense. But as is usually the case there were two sides
to the issue. There were some peculiar circumstances including such a radical
departure, and the most interesting part of this discussion will be to learn the
motives and objects which actuated those responsible for it. Do not forget, that
if allowed to exist at all in Catholic countries, as frequently they could not,
Masonic Lodges necessarily had to he much different in character than are ours
in this "land of the free and home of the brave." France and the French people
had been under the dominion of the Catholic Church from time immemorial and at
that period a large majority of the population were its members. The Church
controlled all affairs of the State. Of course Masons were struggling for
liberty, justice and equality in order to accomplish the separation of the
Church and State and to loosen the hold of the Church on the school system and
public affairs, it was essential that the reformers should be united and that
none should be excluded by reason of his belief. Thus the Grand Orient stood as
the logical nucleus around which an organization might be effected. They needed
the support of all men of every shade of religious belief, hence the declaration
of absolute freedom of thought and the elimination of all dogma, always,--as
they expressed it--"the starting point of narrowness and persecution." This was
in 1877. In 1907--thirty years later--France accomplished the division of the
Church and State and Catholicism no longer remained "The Religion of France."
There was another factor in the controversy-- The Scottish
Rite body of Masonry, with which the Grand Orient had been in continual
controversy for many years over matters of jurisdiction and the right to confer
certain degrees. The Grand Orient Masons have always resented the accusation
that they promulgated unbelief and atheism. In fact, and in support of an
opposite contention, they cite the circumstance, that when the amendment to
change the constitution was proposed, at a meeting of the Council, preliminary
to the Grand Session, a Protestant minister, M. Desmons, drew the report in
support of the resolution in which he argued that the disappearance of the
original article of belief would not imply a profession of atheism, but merely
an admission into the Craft of men of all opinions, and that Masonry should
welcome men of all doctrines and every shade of thought.
Here is the idea of a member of the Grand Orient, expressed
only a few weeks since:
"The Grand Orient of France, while it respects all
philosophical beliefs, insists upon absolute liberty of belief. This does not
mean that we banish from our lodges the belief in God. The United Grand Lodge of
England on the contrary desires to make a belief in God in some manner
compulsory. The Grand Orient of France is much more liberal, since in
proclaiming the absolute liberty of belief it permits to each one of its members
the liberty to believe or not to believe in God, and by so doing desires to
respect its members in their convictions, their doctrines and their beliefs.
"This is the reason why fraternal relations do not exist
between the United Grand Lodge of England and the Grand Orient of France. We
regret this exceedingly. England has always been considered, rightly in other
respects, a country of liberty. It is difficult to understand under the
circumstances why the Freemasons of this great and noble nation should want to
deprive their brothers of France of this same liberty."
Brother J. G. Findel, the well known scholar, historian and
journalist, in writing to the London Freemason in 1878, ably stated the
contentions of the French body in these words:
"But it is not my intention to give such general
declarations on the true meaning of the Royal Art, as it seems more necessary to
help to a right understanding of the resolution of the Grand Orient of France.
Our French brethren have not deserted the belief in the existence of God and
immortality of the human soul, in striking out the discussed words of the first
article of the constitutions, but they have only declared that such a profession
of faith does not belong to Masonic law. The Grand Orient has only voted for
liberty of conscience, not against any religious faith. Therefore, the true
meaning of the French constitution is now only, that each brother Mason may
believe in God or not, and that each French Lodge may judge for itself which
candidate shall be initiated or not. The French vote is only an affirmative of
liberty of conscience, and not a negation of faith.
"The excommunication of the Grand Orient of France by the
Masonic Grand Lodges, is therefore an intolerant act of Popery, the negation of
the true principles of the Craft, the beginning of the end of cosmopolitan
Freemasonry. The excommunication of the Grand Orient of France only proves the
sectarian mind of the excommunicating Grand Lodges, which have forgotten that
Masonry has for its purpose to unite all good men of all denominations and
professions: they profess the separating element, and destroy the Craft, and
waste the heritage of our more liberal and more tolerant forefathers. The
Masonic union will in future be a mere illusion, if the AngloSaxon Masons
condemn the French, German, Italian Masons, &c., and vice versa."
The great questions of recognition, invasion of
jurisdiction, establishment of irregular lodges and many other matters which
grew out of this movement can hardly be followed here. They are worthy of
further discussion.
What we started to tell was "Why the French Grand Orient
removed the Bible from its altar." It has been noted in a very brief way how
they did it and under the exigency of the situation "got by with it" with a good
conscience. That they were actuated by high purposes few will deny, but most
Grand Lodges then held and still aver that Masonry can not be Masonry without
strict adherence to the requirement of a belief in God. Few of the Grand Lodges
severing relations have ever resumed them. Such action is still within the range
of future possibilities. Who can tell ?
----o----
OPINION AND ACTION ON MILITARY LODGES BY GRAND MASTERS
In the December issue of THE BUILDER we published, in an
article of five pages, a number of replies from Grand Masters of the United
States and Canada concerning the action taken or contemplated in regard to the
issuance of Dispensations to Military Lodges in their respective Grand
Jurisdictions. The personal opinion of the Grand Masters was given where no
action had been taken. Many of these replies were crowded out of that issue for
lack of space and these are here presented.
ALBERTA REQUEST FOR DISPENSATION REFUSED
At our Annual Communication in May, 1916, M.W. Brother S.Y.
Taylor, Grand Master, in his annual address stated that he had received requests
from several brethren who were members of the 56th Overseas Battalion, to grant
a Dispensation to them to form a Masonic Lodge. After careful investigation by
him the request was not acceded to, and the Grand Lodge approved of his
decision. After discussing the matter in Grand Lodge, the three principal
objections brought forward were:
1. That as the Battalions leaving Canada would doubtless be
broken up and drafted into other Battalions it would be difficult for the Lodge
to hold its identity.
2. It was considered an infringement of jurisdiction to
grant a charter to hold Lodges outside Alberta.
3. There were sufficient Lodges in England, France and
elsewhere to amply look after our Military brethren Masonically.
Without going further in the matter, I personally am in
complete accord with the decision of our Grand Lodge. W.M. Connacher, Grand
Master.
* * *
ARIZONA GRAND MASTER DOUBTS PROPRIETY OF SUCH LODGES
I have given some consideration to the question you present
and, in my judgment, the establishment of these Lodges would be of very
unquestionable propriety, for several obvious reasons. First, it would be
extremely difficult to exercise the same degree of care in the choice of
materials, as well as in the actual operation of the Lodges, in conformity with
the principles and precepts of Masonry. Second, it seems to me that, with the
great responsibility now resting on our Government and the Nation, it is the
duty of us all to eliminate to the least possible degree, every activity not
calculated to contribute directly to the energetic prosecution of the war. Our
soldiers, and many of them are Masons, will have an immense amount of work to
perform that they will have but little time, if any, to devote to outside
interests. It seems to me that the whole thought and energy, not only of our
Army and Navy, but to a very large degree of our whole people, should be
devoted, for the present at least, to this one great enterprise. Masons can
serve not only their country but our Institution better in this way than if
their energies are divided or in any way directed to the organization or
maintenance of anything not calculated to contribute directly to the successful
prosecution of the one enterprise.
Charles C. Woolf, Grand Master.
FLORIDA GRAND MASTER NOT INCLINED TO MILITARY LODGE IDEA
BUT THINKS HIS GRAND LODGE READY TO ASSIST OTHER GRAND LODGES IN ANY
ADVANTAGEOUS ARRANGEMENT
In the main I do not approve of the idea of Military Lodges
for history shows there is great difficulty in keeping records, etc., which to
my mind is highly important.
However, I am sure it is the desire of the Grand Lodge of
Florida to assist the American Grand Lodges in this matter as fully as
circumstances will permit, and to make any arrangement that will be advantageous
to the American Forces in Europe which will enable Army Lodges to confer degrees
upon citizens of Florida who may be serving in the Army at that time and place,
taking it for granted that the fact of the applicant being regularly in the
service and on foreign soil, it would be considered a waiver of jurisdiction
sufficient to enable the soldier or sailor to receive the degrees in a Lodge
chartered by any of the American Grand Lodges. Apelles S. York, Grand Master.
* * * KANSAS DEPUTY GRAND MASTER STUART FOLLOWS PRECEDENT
OF FORMER GRAND MASTERS AND DECLINES TO AUTHORIZE FORMATION OF MILITARY LODGE
I was called upon to take action on such matter, and the
following is a copy of my decision. Wm. I. Stuart, Deputy Grand Master.
(Copy) Colonel Frank L. Travis, Ammunition Train, 117th
Division, Garden City, Long Island, New York.
My dear Sir and Brother:
The petition of yourself and other brethren addressed to
the Most Worshipful Grand Master, Charles E. Lobdell, asking for letter of
Dispensation, to form a military Lodge U. D., under authority of the Grand Lodge
of Kansas, has in the absence of Brother Lobdell from the state, been referred
to me. After giving the matter careful and due consideration, I have come to the
conclusion that it is neither expedient or desirable to grant such a letter of
Dispensation. To do so would be to act contrary to the rulings already laid down
on this subject by previous Grand Masters. In the proceedings of the Grand Lodge
of Kansas of 1866, page 15, it is said in relation to Military Lodges:
"Now when these lodges have ceased to exist, truly, indeed,
it is said that the 'questions raised' are of the most grave and serious import.
The Grand Lodge of Kansas has cause to rejoice that she unhesitatingly refused
to give the sanction of her Masonic authority to a single military lodge, and
may congratulate herself that none of those Masonic Ishmaelites can trace their
paternity to her indiscretion."
The history of military lodges in other Grand Jurisdictions
has proven most unsatisfactory. Most Worshipful Thomas J. Turner, Grand Master
of Illinois, in his address to the Grand Lodge of Illinois in 1865, concerning
military lodges, had this to say:
"Previous to my installation, several dispensations had
been granted by my predecessor to open military lodges in the army then in the
field. I have never been fully informed as to the extent of the powers granted
by these dispensations, but I suppose they did not confer any authority to
invade foreign jurisdictions and make Masons from the citizen soldiery of other
States. In all the dispensations for military lodges granted by me, jurisdiction
was limited to a single regiment of Illinois troops to which the dispensation
was granted. I am led to believe that some of the military lodges working under
dispensation from our jurisdiction have greatly abused their privileges, and
brought reproach upon our Order. Instead of confining their operation to
Illinois regiments and troops exclusively, as they ought to have done, they made
Masons indiscriminately from soldiers and citizens of other States, with very
little regard for the kind of material used. Wisconsin, Minnesota Iowa, and
Missouri, have especial cause to complain in this respect.
"M.'. W.'. Brethren Geo. W. Washburne, Grand Master of
Wisconsin, A.T.C. Pierson, Grand Master of Minnesota, and E. A. Guilbert, Grand
Master of Iowa, in the most fraternal manner, called my attention to the fact
that these military lodges were in the habit of making Masons of citizens
belonging to their respective jurisdictions, and that candidates had been
admitted whose characters wholly disqualified them from becoming Masons. As soon
as these facts became known to me, I at once addressed letters to the Masters of
all the military lodges working under dispensations from our jurisdiction,
instructing them not to receive or act upon the petition of any one who was not
known to be a citizen of the State of Illinois. About that time most of our
military lodges suspended work, and, the war being closed, they ceased to exist,
having done some good and much mischief. I would fraternally ask our sister
Grand Lodges to overlook errors which were not designed or sanctioned by the
Grand Master or the Grand Lodge of Illinois.
"There is one question connected with our military lodges
to which I invite your careful attention. What is to be the status of Masons who
were made in those lodges? The lodges ceased to exist when the war closed. Some
of them had been broken up through the long marches and hard fighting which
immediately preceded the cessation of hostilities; the brethren have no dimits,
and in many cases cannot procure even certificates of having been made Masons;
some have received only one and others only two degrees. They are all Masons,
and will naturally seek affiliation with Masons when they return to their homes.
How that affiliation shall be accomplished, and how those who seek advancement
shall be disposed of, are questions of grave importance, and of sufficient
magnitude to demand your prompt attention.
"In behalf of the brethren who have been made Masons in our
military lodges from citizens of other States than Illinois, I would fraternally
ask that our sister Grand Lodges adopt some plan by which they may, if found
worthy, become affiliated with lodges in their respective jurisdictions."
That part of his address above quoted, was referred to a
Committee on Grand Masters' addresses, who submitted the following as their
report thereon:
"Very grave and serious questions are raised by so much of
the address as relates to military lodges and their action. Either by direct
authority of the Grand Lodge in dispensations conferred, or by usurpation of
power in those to whom the dispensations were committed, it is clear that the
rights of sister Grand Lodges have been repeatedly invaded. Masons have been
made not only of citizen soldiers of Illinois in the field, but also of known
citizens both of loyal and disloyal states, under apparent authority from this
Grand Lodge. For those who were thus made Masons, and who reside in this
jurisdiction, this Grand Lodge should provide by recognizing them as such, and a
resolution to that effect is appended. For those who have been made Masons, and
who of right belong to other jurisdictions, this Grand Lodge can do no more than
to request the appropriate Grand Bodies where they may permanently reside to
adopt them into the general Brotherhood, if in other respects found worthy, and
thus to heal the breach which has been made in the walls.
"It is to be hoped that this experience will forever close
the question of traveling lodges operating within regular foreign
jurisdictions."
I desire also, to call your attention to an opinion of the
Grand Lodge of California on this subject. It says:
"An army lodge is an anomaly in Masonry. Its meetings are
held at any place where the exigencies of the military service may cause a
temporary encampment. If held in our own country, such meetings are necessarily
an invasion of the jurisdiction of other regularly constituted lodges. During
the clash of battle in our late Civil War, it sometimes happened that army
lodges, with their charters and records, were swept from existence, and the
unfortunate members of such lodges were thus deprived of membership, without
dimits or other records to show that they had received the degrees of Masonry in
a regularly chartered Masonic Lodge."
There are many other authorities holding to the same
effect, but it would seem unnecessary to quote them further. For the good of the
Fraternity generally, throughout not only the Grand Jurisdiction of Kansas, but
throughout the world, I am constrained to deny your petition for letter of
Dispensation for such military Lodge. (Signed) Wm. I. Stuart, Deputy Grand
Master.
* * *
LOUISIANA OPPOSED TO MILITARY LODGES--FAVORS RECOGNITION OF
FRENCH MASONS
After giving the matter very careful consideration I must
state that personally I am opposed to the establishment of Military Lodges in
this country for various reasons.
First, I do not believe there is any power vested in the
Grand Master to issue Dispensations for so-called Travelling Lodges. Second, I
do not believe that one could avoid intrusion upon the jurisdiction of other
Grand Lodges.
Third, The proper safe-guards could not be provided in the
way of suitable Lodge rooms so that work could be done by the Lodges in a
creditable manner.
Fourth, A Travelling Lodge cannot have the facilities of a
Regular Lodge, as to tracing the genealogy of the profane, and upon this score
it would cause confusion upon the disbanding of the Travelling Lodge and the
members made therein might not be such as would be acceptable in a Regular
Lodge. And if such were the case, those who had attained the Master Mason Degree
in a Travelling Lodge and who would make application for affiliation to a
regular Lodge would be more or less humiliated should they be unable to obtain
membership in a Regular Lodge after their Travelling Lodge had disbanded.
I take the stand that in this country all cantonments are
located near cities that have Masonic Lodges and in my jurisdiction, where I
find that there are not sufficient Lodges, I recommend the establishment of
another Regular Lodge.
I am also taking steps to provide proper rest-rooms,
reading-rooms, etc., under the supervision of the Masonic Lodges located in
cities near the cantonments. So far, we are utilizing the lower floors of the
Masonic Temples for the purpose and committees are appointed to look after the
welfare of visiting soldier-Masons.
I realize, however, that some arrangement should be made to
look after the American soldier-Masons while in France, because of our not being
in fraternal intercourse with the French brethren, and I believe there should be
a concerted action by all Grand Lodges or Grand Masters.
I, for one, am strongly in favor of putting into practice
that which we teach--"The Universality of Freemasonry," and stretching forth
our-hands to our French brother and calling him "Brother" in every sense of the
word. And why not do it? John W. Armstrong, Grand Master.
* * *
MAINE NO ACTION TAKEN--GRAND MASTER UNFAVORABLE TO THE IDEA
No action has been taken by the Grand Lodge of Maine on the question of Military
Lodges, neither have I taken any action in the matter. Personally I am not in
favor of granting such permission. Waldo Pettengill, Grand Master.
* * *
MASSACHUSETTS PRESENT CONDITIONS DO NOT WARRANT GRANTING
SUCH DISPENSATIONS-- BECOMMENDS ARMY AND NAVY MASONIC CLUBS Under existing
conditions I do not feel that it would be wiseto grant Dispensations for Army or
Travelling Lodges during the period of the war. Indeed there is perhaps some
doubt as to whether or not, without an amendment to the Grand Constitutions, the
Grand Master has the right to grant such privilege. It may be that conditions
will change so that it will seem best at some future time to authorize the
forming of Army Lodges under the jurisdiction of our Grand Lodge as was done
during the period of the Revolutionary and Civil Wars. I do not believe that
such a time will come.
Masonic intercourse can be sustained and encouraged through
the forming and maintaining of Masonic Clubs both in the Army and Naval branches
of the service. With Masonic Lodges in almost every village and hamlet in this
country there will certainly be no lack of opportunity to attend Lodge meetings
so long as our military forces remain in the country.
Should the war be long continued and large numbers of our
Massachusetts enlisted brethren be sent abroad the question of Travelling Lodges
may assume a different aspect. For the present I do not think we should
authorize such Lodges. Leon M. Abbott, Grand Master.
* * *
NEVADA GRAND MASTER OPPOSED TO MILITARY LODGES BUT FAVORS
MEETINGS OF BRETBREN FOR INSTRUCTION, EXCHANGE OF FRATERNAL GREETINGS AND FOR
MASONIC FUNERAL SERVICES On the subject of Military Lodges our Grand Lodge has
taken no action whatever. There are no cantonments within this State, neither
are there any Regiments or other military organizations formed in, or coming
from this State. Therefore my opinion will be personal and from a Masonic
standpoint only, and as follows:
The several Grand Lodges should not issue Dispensations for
Travelling Military Lodges during the period of this war for the following
reasons:
The jurisdiction of a Grand Lodge of any State is confined
entirely to the territory within the boundaries of that State, and therefore a
Lodge receiving its charter from one jurisdiction could not hold its meetings in
another State and do so without there being an invasion of Masonic rights.
I believe it would be unwise, irrespective of any legal
barrier, to grant a Dispensation to a Lodge in a training camp, with full power
to perform Masonic work. It would have a tendency to place our Institution on a
plane beneath the one it has always held and to which it rightfully belongs.
Proper investigation on the part of committees on petitions
might not be made, for reasons which must be apparent and need no setting forth
at this time. Even in stable communities we all know the black ball is one of
our pillars of protection and regret to admit that perhaps it is not used as
often as it should be.
In the event of removal to France, let us say, of any
Regiment holding a Dispensation from a certain jurisdiction which does not
recognize the Grand Orient of France, what then ? These brethren would not have
the right of visitation and again it would be worse than an invasion on the
rights of the French Masons; not recognizing them, yet establishing a Lodge in
their midst, or in other uords, "flaunting a red flag."
The real Mason or Builder of the craft will not lose an
opportunity to visit a nearby Lodge or to mingle with the brethren as often as
possible, even if he be confined to a military camp. Nor will he forget his
teachings, should he have a proper understanding of what Masonry tries to impart
to its votaries.
I feel that permission should be given, on proper request
and after due investigation, to our brethren to assemble in safe places for
instruction if necessary, for the exchange of fraternal greetings and to hold
Masonic services over a deceased brother. Thomas Lindsay, Grand Master.
* * *
NORTH DAKOTA MATTER UNDER CONSIDERATION--ANY REQUEST MADE
WILL PROBABLY BE GRANTED We have had no request for a dispensation for a
Military Lodge. However, this matter has been under consideration by us for some
time and we are inclined to feel that should such request come to this office
that it will be granted. North Dakota has gone squarely on record as backing the
government and we wish ts show every consideration to the members of the Masonic
fraternity who have responded to their country's call. William J. Reynolds,
Grand Master.
NOVA SCOTIA GRAND MASTER FAVORABLE TO TIIE IDEA BUT REFUSES
TO GRANT DISPENSATION FOR MILITARY LODGE TO BE COMPOSED ONLY OF OFFICERS Perhaps
I can best convey my views on the question of Military Lodges, by the following
extract from my address to the Grand Lodge of Nova Scotia, delivered at the last
annual communication, held in June, 1917:
"While the Brigade of Nova Scotia Highlanders were encamped
at Aldershot undergoing training, I received a request from some fifty members
of our Lodges who were officers praying for permission to establish a Lodge in
connection with the Brigade, which they would take with them Overseas.
Previously I had discussed the idea with some of our Brethren in the service
there and who were members of this Grand Lodge, and had expressed myself as
favourable to the idea. I believed that it would not be establishing a
precedent, that dispensations had been issued in other Grand Jurisdictions for
similar reasons, and I knew that we could not do too much to brighten the time
while absent from us of our many brothers in this valiant Brigade. When the
application, which was in perfect form, reached me, there was an accompanying
number of resolutions, which had been adopted by the applicants at an informal
meeting held some days previously. One of these resolutions was in effect that
the membership of the Lodge would be restricted to the officers, of whom some
eighty, I was told, were Masons. At the same time I was aware that there were in
the ranks, among the non-commissioned officers and men also a large number of
our Brethren. The reason advanced for the restricted membership was largely fear
that a Lodge open to all classes in the Brigade would be unwieldy. While I had
much sympathy with this view, the petition was denied on the grounds that owing
to the governing resolution it might be construed as the establishment of a
class Lodge."
The special committee appointed to report on the address
did not deal specifically with this portion, but generally treated of the
official acts in these terms:
"Regarding his official acts, we feel assured that
dispensations were not granted unless the Grand Master was satisfied that it was
in the best interest of the Craft that they should be. Your Committee concurs in
the decisions he has given anrl recommend they receive your approval."
The report was unanimously adopted by Grand Lodge.
A close perusal of the annals of British history,
especially with regard to naval and military adventure will establish that
Masonry closely followed the flag. An instance is recorded in connection with
the wresting of Canada from the French in 1759. The expedition was under command
of General Wolfe and captured the strongholds of Louisburg and Quebec. A part of
the "furniture" of the expedition was a Masonic Lodge, which held meetings on
board the ships of the squadron. Don F. Fraser, Grand Master.
* * *
OHIO DISPENSATION GRANTED TO OHIO BRETHREN IN ALABAMA--CAN
CONFER DEGREES ONLY IN FRANCE ON OHIO MATERIAL Answering yours of the 18th
relative to Military Lodges will say that I made a recommendation against such
Lodges in my annual Address, but of course based upon the hypothesis that these
Lodges would be conferring degrees in various Jurisdictions of this Country.
At the meeting of our Grand Lodge a resolution was offered
to grant a dispensation to a number of Ohio Brethren at Camp Sheridan,
Montgomery, Alabama, to organize an Army Lodge, which, however, would not have
power to confer any degrees anywhere in the United States, but only in France,
and then upon such applicants as would be eligible to petition Ohio Lodges for
the degrees. These and a number of other safeguards were provided in the
regulations. After this there was no opposition whatever to the granting of the
dispensation, and it was readily and unanimously granted by the Grand Lodge.
The Grand Master, Brother Henry M. Hagelbarger, of Akron,
Ohio, has also been given power to grant dispensations to other Army Lodges in
Ohio under the same restrictions and regulations. Joel C. Clore, Past Grand
Master.
* * *
OKLAHOMA
GRAND MASTER HAS ISSUED DISPENSATIONS FOR CONFERRING
DEGREES OUT OF TIME BUT IS OPPOSED TO ORGANIZATION OF MILITARY LODGES
Personally I am not in favor of chartering a lodge at any
of the military or cantonment stations.
It is my opinion that the lodges near are sufflcient to
carry on the work of the fraternity in a wholesome manner. I do not believe in
too much fraternal agitation when we have to make a display of it as the
chartering of a lodge would certainly do.
Personally, as Grand Master, I have given hundreds of
special dispensations to confer the degrees out of time on worthy young men
whose petitions for the degrees had been regularly received and had remained
with the lodge a constitutional number of days for ballot, and who have been
duly elected.
In my judgment this is the best way to handle the Masonic
situation as far as military force is concerned. Any man who desires to become a
Mason has the opportunity of being made one under such regulations as th;s and
at the same time each individual lodge has the constitutional length of time to
study the character of each applicant before he is elected.
If they petition for the degrees and have to leave before
they can be elected, a special dispensation, together with a request, will give
the applicant the work at whatever cantonment or fort at which he happens to be
located.
In my judgment this is not the time to argue, or raise the
question of the patriotic duty of the President or those associated with him in
granting or refusing secret orders privileges on military grounds.
In other words, I am with the Government of the United
States and intend to sustain our President, at least until the close of the war.
This battle is in the interests of democracy and democracy
is in the interests of Masonry.
Samuel W. Hogan, Grand Master.
ONTARIO GRAND LODGE AND GRAND MASTER OPPOSED TO GRANTING OF
SUCH DISPENSATIONS--REFUSED TO DO SO IN 1914 AND 1915
The question of granting dispensations to Naval and
Military Lodges was, in 1914 and 1915, suggested by some of the members in our
jurisdiction, but the weight of opinion was, and I think still is, that it would
be unwise to grant Military and Naval warrants in these days when Grand Lodges
are so evenly distributed in such numbers over the civilized world. It was felt
that there would be great difficulty in regulating the powers of such lodges,
controlling the conduct of the members thereof and preventing encroachments in
jurisdictions where sensitive brethren might be offended by unwarranted
trespassing on their rights. No matter how praiseworthy our conduct might be and
how pure our motives, we felt there was too much to be lost and too little to be
gained by warranting Military and Naval Lodges. We, therefore, decided to take
no action.
I do not intend this as any reflection on any jurisdiction
that has granted or intends to grant warrants for Military and Naval Lodges. I
wish these courageous brethren all success.
W. H. Wardrope, Grand Master.
* * *
PENNSYLVANIA MILITARY LODGES WOULD DETRACT FROM THE
BUILDING OF CHARACTER
No occasion has arisen for the official action of this
Grand Lodge upon the subject of Military Lodges.
As Grand Master I have discouraged applications being made
for warrants of "Regimental" or "Army Lodges." As I view it, there are several
objections to the granting of such warrants--among them might be mentioned the
difficulty and almost impossibility of keeping proper records. Then, too,
Freemasonry is a solemn and serious business. One of its main objects is the
building of character. This requires deliberate and careful study of the genuine
principles of our Fraternity. The conditions which would warrant a peripatetic
Lodge would be unfavorable to this result. In all probability neither the
character of our work, nor the spirit of Freemasonry would be maintained to the
high degree to which it is entitled, by the establishing of Military Lodges.
Louis A. Watres, Grand Master.
* * *
QUEBEC NO DEMAND FOR SUCH ACTION IN THIS JURISDICTION IN
MANY YEARS
I presume your inquiry has been prompted by the prospective
large number of soldiers going overseas but so far as this jurisdiction is
concerned neither myself nor this Grand Lodge has taken any action in connection
with the matter seeing that there has never been any demand for same for many
years.
My personal opinion is that the necessity for such Lodges
has long since passed away seeing that the common practice existing from 75 to
150 years ago of sending regiments to far off countries and keeping them there
for long periods has to a large extent ceased and the rapid growth of Masonry in
those parts of the world has placed within easy reach of Military forces Masonic
communications which did not previously exist.
This country has four hundred thousand men on active
service 3,000 miles from their homes, but no question of this nature has arisen,
indeed under present conditions of warfare such Lodges would be of little
service or benefit. At the present time a Mason may easily be fighting at the
front today and tomorrow night he may be in London attending his Lodge meeting.
What a change in conditions from the time the battle of Waterloo, for instance,
was fought! W. W. Williamson, Grand Master.
RHODE ISLAND
OBJECTIONS TO SUCH LODGES OUTWEIGH RESULTANT GOOD SOUGHT
FOR
The Grand Lodge of Rhode Island has taken no action with
reference to the establishment of Military Lodges. The Semi-Annual Communication
of the Grand Lodge will be held in November, but so far as I am advised there is
no intention to take favorable action upon this question at that time. In my
opinion the objections to the advisability of granting permission for the
organization of such Lodges far outweigh the resultant good that is sought to be
accomplished.
1. While there may be ample precedents for the
establishment of Military Lodges, such precedents are founded more upon the old
than the new conception of Masonic regularity.
2. It would be impossible to exercise over Military Lodges
that direct supervision and control which now ensures harmony and uniformity
among subordinate Lodges.
3. The nature of the environment and the vicissitudes of
military life would necessarily preclude the exercise of such prudence as should
always safeguard Masonic activities.
4. The inherent difficulty and impossibility at times of
complying with constitutional rules and regulations and the consequent hasty,
incomplete and ineffective exemplification of the work resulting therefrom.
5. The temporary and transitory character of the
authorization of such Lodges, the inevitable conflict of powers
underdispensations from so many grand jurisdictions, and the slight and
imperfect connection and attachment to a supreme body.
6. The certainty of there being such a large number of
unaffiliated Masons throughout the country after the termination of the war upon
the revocation of the dispensations authorizing such Lodges.
7. In general the establishment of such Lodges would not
tend toward the maintenance of the present high standard of Masonic
qualification that is now exacted, but would tend to the impairment of the
authority, regularity, conservative reputation and future usefulness of the
Fraternity. Herbert Ambrose Rice, Grand Master.
SOUTH CAROLINA
NO ACTION TAKEN--WOULD BE UNWISE UNDER PRESENT CONDITIONS
I have your two letters requesting me to give you my views
as to the advisability of getting permission for the organization of Military
Lodges.
Our Grand Lodge has not taken any action with reference to
this matter and I do not personally favor any such action at this time. So far
as I know, all of the cantonments are located near regularly constituted Lodges
and the Masons in this State are extending every privilege and courtesy to the
brethren in camps. So long as this condition exists, I do not think it would be
wise to authorize the organization of Military Lodges. In addition to this, it
is very doubtful whether the War Department would permit such organizations.
R. A. Cooper, Grand Master.
SOUTH DAKOTA MILITARY LODGES FAVORED--PROSPECTIVE
CANDIDATES SHOULD BE ELECTED BY THEIR SOME LODGES--MILITARY LODGE TO CONFER
DEGREES AND PROPERLY INSTRUCT CANDIDATES
The young manhood of our country is called upon to pass
through an experience the far-reaching consequences of which they do not perhaps
fully realize.
It is to be theirs to assist in the determination of the
future of nations: to change the course of history.
They are going out to unknown perils--physical and moral.
Their physical welfare will be provided for as far as is
possible.
Can we, believing as we do in the elevating influence of
Masonry, do better than to make it easier for those eligible to admission to
obtain entrance into our Order and receive the benefit of its infiuence as a
moral balance-wheel ?
I believe Army Lodges should be established; that they
should not have power to receive and act on petitions; that prospective
candidates should apply to their home lodges and, if elected, the lodge electing
notify the army lodge, which should be empowered to confer the degrees and
properly instruct the candidate, who would become a member of the electing lodge
upon receiving the M. M. degree.
Fred H. Rugg, Grand Master.
TEXAS
NO PROVISION IN TEXAS LAW AUTHORIZING MILITARY LODGES
Our Grand Lodge meets in Annual Communication the first
week in December, when this matter will probably come up for action. At present,
there is no provision under our law for army lodges, and I do not believe that
our Grand Lodge will establish them.
Frank C. Jones, Grand Master.
VIRGINIA
WOULD GRANT DISPENSATION TO MILITARY LODGE FOR SOCIAL AND
BENEVOLENT PURPOSES
Your letter addressed to Brother Field has been passed on
to me. Brother Field died on July 31st, and I have succeeded to the position of
Grand Master.
I am opposed to the organizing of Military Lodges, at the
present time. In 1864, Grand Master Harmon, who was in the Confederate Army
refused to grant dispensations for the organization of Military Lodges in
Virginia. When a soldier, who would of all men know of the needs of such Lodges,
refused to organize same, I am constrained to believe that it would not be for
the best interest of Masonry in Virginia for me to issue dispensations at this
time to organize Military Lodges. I would strongly resent any Military Lodges
coming into this Grand Jurisdiction and conferring degrees either on a man from
Virginia or not. The facilities for obtaining the degrees are so great now that
no worthy man need be kept out. In addition to this, no Grand Master would
refuse to grant dispensations to those who are either in, or ready to go in, the
Military service of the Country, that would expedite the conferring of the
degrees upon them. I would, however, not object where there was a sufficient
number of Masons in a Company or a Regiment from this State to granting them a
dispensation to open a Masonic Lodge, provided that they would not be permitted
to receive the petitions of anyone or confer degrees. In other words, if they
wanted a Lodge for purely social and benevolent purposes, I would not be adverse
to granting dispensation for same. Earnest L. Cunningham, Grand Master.
WISCONSIN GRAND LODGE HAS TAKEN NO ACTION
The Grand Lodge has taken no action on the matter and I
have given it no consideration as yet. I will be glad to write you at a later
time concerning this. W. S. Griswold, Grand Master.
WYOMING FIELD LODGES NOT FEASIBLE
You have asked me what, if any, action has been taken by
the Grand Lodge, A. F. & A. M., of this jurisdiction or myself as Grand Master,
upon the question of Military Lodges and in reply I beg to state that no action
along this line has been taken either by the Grand Lodge or by myself. The
Annual Communication of the Grand Lodge was held in September and the matter was
not discussed; neither has any request or suggestion along the line been made to
me in my official capacity.
My first impressions, after reading your letter were that
Military Lodges might be considered somewhat in the nature of a necessity under
the present stress of circumstances and that their creation would therefore be
for the good of the craft. Upon more mature reflection, however, I am about
convinced that no permanent and lasting good could come from this free and easy,
and haphazard manner of dispensing Masonic authority. In the first place, a
Military Lodge could in no sense of the word be stable or permanent; its
officers and membership must necessarily be continuously changing with the
demands of military necessity. A Lodge cannot give best results except under a
Master and Wardens, as well as inferior officers, who are in a sense, permanent
for at least a period of time, working for the welfare of the Lodge and the
brethren. One of the Landmarks of the Institution is that only men of character
and of good report before the world should be admitted to membership. The only
method by which society may arrive at its conclusion as to these characteristics
in a man is by observation of the deportment of an individual living in a
community for a period of time. In a Military Lodge this would be entirely
dispensed with and while it might be handled with sufficient care in the case of
permanent Lodges in admitting military men without the required length of
residence to afford security, yet where the entire membership is of this class,
more or less slipshod methods would necessarily obtain. The bar naturally
created by military discipline between officers and enlisted men would not serve
to a good advantage in a Lodge composed strictly of these classes, while the
same bar would not have effect in the ordinary civilian Lodge where officers and
men mingle with civilians. The naturally floating character of a Military Lodge,
the difficulty of keeping its records and keeping track of its membership,
together with the very near offense against Masonic tradition and law of a Lodge
under one Grand Jurisdiction sitting as a Lodge within a sister Grand
Jurisdiction, throws a realm of doubt around the proposition which leads me to
believe that it would not be the part of Masonic wisdom to constitute strictly
Military Lodges, unless, perhaps, it might be at permanent military posts under
the Grand Jurisdiction in which they are located.
The demand in our jurisdiction has been taken care of to a
considerable extent by special dispensation to confer the degrees upon
applicants who have been called to the colors.
T. Blake Kennedy, Grand Master.
----o----
THE RENASCENCE OF THE SCOTTISH RITE
BY BRO. FREDERICK W. HAMILTON, 33d ACTIVE, GRAND SECY.,
MASS.
THIS momentous event was far more than a union or reunion
of bodies which had unfortunately fallen into separation and discord. Had it
been only that, it would well deserve our rejoicings. Its inner significance,
however, was so much greater that, so far as the Northern Masonic Jurisdiction
of the United States is concerned, the title which I have chosen for this paper
does not go beyond the facts.
Only the briefest historical resume is desirable at this
time. We all remember how two movements purporting to be beginnings of the
Scottish Rite were started in New York at nearly the same time, one by Bideau,
the other by Cerneau. Judged by modern standards the Bideau movement was of
doubtful regularity, the Cerneau movement undoubtedly irregular. We know how any
irregularities which may have attached to the Bideau movement were healed by the
action of the Southern Supreme Council, and we know how the Cerneau movement,
again and again dying and as often revived, managed to maintain a precarious
existence. We know the story of the unfortunate break in the ranks of the body
descending from Bideau when the majority of the members of the Supreme Council
repudiated the leadership of Raymond and chose Van Rensellaer for their head. We
know also how the Raymond body combined with the Cerneau body and in turn
reunited fifty years ago with the followers of Van Rensellaer.
We can never fully understand what occurred until we
realize where the real root of the trouble is to be found. It lay in the
unregulated and sometimes reckless use of the unquestionably great powers
belonging to a Sovereign Grand Inspector General. A man who had attained to this
rank was and is a Masonic monarch. Excepting so far as his powers were limited
by the Constitutions of Frederick the Great, he was a Masonic autocrat. Even the
Constitutional limitations were not always observed. The Sovereign Grand
Inspectors General not only possessed these great powers, but they possessed the
right of conferring them upon others without diminution. Unfortunately, these
powers carried with them the opportunity for personal emolument, as it was
entirely within the right of a Sovereign Grand Inspector General to take fees
for degrees and deputations, and to convert those fees to his own use.
Theoretically, these powers still belong to the office of a Sovereign Grand
Inspector General. In practice, as I need not remind you, they are generally
held in abeyance, at least so far as their exercise by individuals is concerned.
In the earlier phase of the Scottish Rite in America, however, the Sovereign
Grand Inspectors General took themselves and their powers very seriously indeed.
We find them founding new bodies by their own authority and without conference
with other Masons of like grade: We find them admitting others by patent to
their own exalted rank, and these others, in turn, extending the Rite and
passing on their powers by deputation. We find any Sovereign Grand Inspector
General, without always exercising much care as to the letter of his authority
and jurisdiction, conferring degrees on whomsoever-he chose.
The powers of a Sovereign Grand Inspector General were ad
vitam, and he could confer powers ad vitam upon others by deputation. All the
officers of Supreme Councils, whether elected or appointed, served ad vitam. It
is only necessary to recall these conditions to see how practically inevitable
it was that confusion should occur, that acts of doubtful regularity should be
done, that questions of authority should arise practically impossible of
solution, and that arbitrary and improper use should be made of power.
Indeed under those circumstances it would be very difficult
to decide how far the powers of an individual Sovereign Grand Inspector General
or of a Sovereign Grand Commander did really extend, or to pass authoritatively
upon the regularity of many acts which might be seriously questioned though
committed with the best of intentions. In fact the schism in the Northern
Supreme Council arose out of just such a condition.
Fortunately we are not called upon to sit in judgment today
upon the men of the p | 
