they remain within the territory of New York can be transmuted into Freemasons by merely removing to the State of Washington, nor can the Grand Lodge of New York consent that the Grand Lodge of Washington shall confer upon such persons sufficient appearance of Masonic status to enable them in returning to New York to cause confusion in the Craft of this jurisdiction.

The doctrine of exclusive jurisdiction, always asserted by the Grand Lodge of New York, was clearly laid before the Grand Master of Washington in the letters addressed to him by my predecessor; and the position taken by the Grand Master of New York was emphatically endorsed and approved by the Grand Lodge of New York at its recent session. This identical and fundamental principle was also laid before the Grand Lodge of Washington, not only by many other Grand Masters and many other Grand Lodges, but by one of the distinguished Past Grand Masters of the Grand Lodge of Washington as well; for in the proceedings of that Grand Lodge, 1899, page 389, we find the following record:

"M... W... BROTHER LOUIS ZIEGLER presented the following resolution, and moved its reference to the Committee on Jurisprudence, to report next year, which motion was adopted:

"Whereas, This Grand Lodge did at our Annual Communication of 1897 annul its edict of non-intercourse against the Grand Lodge of Hamburg for her unwarranted invasion of the jurisdiction of the Grand Lodge of New York by still maintaining her spurious offspring, namely, Pythagoras Lodge, within the State of New York, contrary to the American doctrine of Grand Lodge sovereignty, now, therefore, be it

"Resolved, That the action of this Grand Lodge of 1897 in annulling said edict be rescinded, and that said edict be declared in full force."

Had the Grand Lodge of Washington promptly restored the edict of non-intercourse with the Grand Lodge of Hamburg, there would have remained with me the right to extend to its "declaration" the benefit of a reasonable doubt; but, in deliberately deferring action upon the resolution offered by M.. W... BROTHER ZIEGLER, the attitude of the Grand Lodge of Washington towards the Grand Lodge of New York became un

mistakably clear. The Grand Lodge of Washington not only declares that any lodge of its obedience may admit as a visitor or affiliate a negro claiming to have been made a Mason in the city of New York in a negro lodge, notwithstanding that he is not a Freemason within the State of New York; but also declares that a member of Pythagoras Lodge, so called, in the city of New York, chartered by the Grand Lodge of Hamburg, a person who cannot enter a single Masonic lodge within the State of New York, may be received with open arms by any lodge within the jurisdiction of the State of Washington.

The Grand Lodge of New York cannot by any act appear to acquiesce in such doctrines; but being genuinely desirous that the cordial relations previously existing between the jurisdictions shall continue, and believing that a severance of fraternal relations should be resorted to only as an extreme measure, I have refrained from issuing an edict of non-inter

course.

The fear of appearing too importunate prompted me to withhold any written expression of my views to the Grand Master of Washington, but the unexpected receipt of a courteous communication from him, under the date of March 21st last, fraternally requesting an exchange of representatives, obliged me to reply, in substance as herein set forth, announcing that the attitude which the Grand Lodge of Washington now occupies towards the Grand Lodge of New York forbade a compliance with his request.

It is to be borne in mind, however, that there yet remains the hope that our sister jurisdiction will fully rescind its objectionable resolutions and restore its edict of non-intercourse with the Grand Lodge of Hamburg, thereby conceding that no person can be lawfully received into a Masonic lodge in the State of Washington unless he proves himself, if hailing from the State of New York, to be a member of a Masonic lodge recognized as such by the Grand Lodge of New York. I therefore cordially recommend that full authority be given our incoming Grand Master to take such steps as he may deem necessary when he shall have ascertained the action taken by the Grand Lodge of Washington at its session to be held on the 12th day of June next.

PERPETUAL PENAL JURISDICTION.*

In 1896, the Grand Lodge of New York abandoned the claim of perpetual jurisdiction over rejected candidates by the adoption of a new constitution. Previous to that time a candidate rejected by a Masonic lodge in the State of New York could not apply to the same or any other lodge in the State of New York until the expiration of six months, and if applying to any other lodge, could at no time be initiated without the consent of the lodge which rejected him. That provision was stricken out of our constitution in 1896, and in its place is simply the provision that one rejected in any lodge in the State of New York cannot apply for initiation to the same or any other lodge until the expiration of one year. Since the adoption of the amended constitution in 1896, it has not been necessary for a person rejected by one lodge in the State of New York to obtain. the consent of that lodge before being initiated into another one. He still has to answer in his application the question as to any former rejection, and it still remains the duty of the investigating committee to inquire as to the cause of his rejection in order to determine whether the person is fit material; but the lodge which rejected him no longer holds penal jurisdiction over him.

The constitutional provision terminating the claim of a lodge in this State over its rejected material in one year after the date of rejection is thoroughly understood and faithfully obeyed by our lodges, but it is not so well understood nor is its application to material rejected by us accepted by the neighboring jurisdiction of Pennsylvania, as will be shown by the following incident:

In the year 1897, a resident of this State petitioned one of our lodges for initiation and was rejected. Subsequently, in the same year, he removed to Pennsylvania, where he now resides. A few months ago, the petitioner applied to a Pennsylvania lodge for initiation, whereupon the Grand Master of Pennsylvania wrote me, under the date of March 14th, requesting me to inquire of our New York lodge whether it had any Masonic

* See Report Committee on Constitution.

objection to the acceptance of the said petitioner by the Pennsylvania lodge.

I promptly replied, informing the Grand Master of Pennsyl vania that under our law the New York lodge could have no objection to the initiation of the petitioner in Pennsylvania, its penal jurisdiction over him having expired twelve months after the date of his rejection. I gladly assured him that if the committee of investigation of the lodge under his jurisdiction desired to ascertain any facts respecting the petitioner, and in doing so. wished to learn anything of the brethren of the New York lodge, I would cheerfully do all in my power to facilitate their inquiries and to stimulate the fullest answers thereto. I assured him, however, that there was no need of my intervention in that respect, as I had no doubt that if his committee would write to the Master of the New York lodge, or to any of its members, for information respecting the petitioner, his committee would receive a prompt, full, and courteous reply. I gave him the assurance of the Grand Lodge of the State of New York that there was no objection within the State of New York to the initiation of the petitioner into a lodge in the State of Pennsylvania, and pointed out that the assurance was given him by virtue of the constitutional provisions of the Grand Lodge of New York.

The Grand Master of Pennsylvania replied saying, "We cannot take any action on the petition because he is not under the tongue of good Masonic report,' by virtue of his rejection in your lodge; and as there is no way provided by law to have that objection removed, we will be obliged to return him his petition, when he will be at liberty to again petition your lodge, should he so desire; and as he is now a resident of this jurisdiction, that lodge, through you to me, can inquire of the lodge nearest his place of residence whether it has Masonic objection to him."

To this I replied, saying that the petitioner could, of course, apply to any lodge in the State of New York, but not being a resident of the State of New York, there was no lodge within our jurisdiction that could lawfully initiate him without the consent of the lodge under the territorial jurisdiction of which the candidate dwelt. He having been for two years a resident of Pennsylvania, the Grand Lodge of New York had lost every

vestige of jurisdiction over him, and so had every subordinate. lodge under its jurisdiction. I expressed regret that the Grand Master of Pennsylvania was unable to accept the assurance that the Grand Lodge of New York, as well as its subordinate lodges, had no jurisdiction whatsoever over the petitioner, and that no legal reason existed why any lodge within the State of Pennsylvania, having territorial jurisdiction, should not receive him as a candidate. I further expressed the regret that in declining to accept this assurance from the Grand Lodge of New York, the Grand Master of Pennsylvania pressed upon our Grand Lodge his desire to receive that identical assurance from one of our subordinate lodges. I reminded him that the Grand Lodge of New York has ever contended that it is supreme within the territorial limits of the State of New York, and superior to any of its subordinate lodges; that our Grand Lodge had legislated on this subject for and on behalf of every lodge in the State of New York, and that that legislation had gone into our organic or constitutional law; that it was because of the constitution of the Grand Lodge that I gave him fully, freely, and cordially the assurances of the Grand Lodge of the State of New York that no legal objection existed within the State of New York to the initiation of the petitioner into a lodge in the State of Pennsylvania. I begged him to believe that the Grand Master of New York could not, in keeping with the dignity of his office, subordinate his Grand Lodge and its constitution to the pleasure of one of the seven hundred and forty-eight lodges in the State of New York, even though, by the law of Pennsylvania, the latter State was debarred from receiving material over which no lodge in the State of New York had the slightest measure of jurisdiction.

The Grand Master of Pennsylvania again responded that as the petitioner had been rejected by a New York lodge, and had so stated in his petition, Pennsylvania "could not touch him until that objection was removed," and he had therefore ordered that the candidate's petition be returned to him and that no further proceedings be taken by the Pennsylvania lodge.

The foregoing is now submitted to Grand Lodge for review and for such action, if any, as may be deemed wise and timely.