66

We admit there might be exceptions justly taken in some instances to the presentation made in reference to the action by the Grand Master of Peru, but we confine ourselves to the reference to the sentence in the edict promulgated by M.. W.. BRO. SUTHERLAND, then Grand Master of the Grand Lodge of New York: "Let it, therefore, be most emphatically understood that no Godless temple can be reared in the name of Freemasonry." As an isolated statement, it is a fact which can not be gainsaid. We do not understand that M.. W.. BRO. SUTHERLAND made it as an assertion against the Grand Lodge of Peru, for the discarding of the Bible did not comprehend a disavowal of a belief in Diety. A careful reading of the text of the edict issued discloses naught but a sound and unbiased presentation of principle involved, and hence we deemed the inference of making speeches to the galleries" as uncalled for.

The following defines our brother's position, and we quote in full:

"We agree with our brother that this is a vital question, and we insist moreover that it has two equally vital aspects and that no Craftsman can afford to split hairs in either direction. Neither the Michigan Committee, nor the Grand Master of New York, nor the Grand Master of England, has any more right to add to the one inclusive and exclusive religious test prescribed for Masons by both the written and the unwritten law, than he has to take that test away. All that Masonry asks is the acknowledgment of God and of the sanctions of the moral law. This it invariably demands, and once made every God-trusting brother stands on a level of perfect equality with every other brother regardless of whether their opinions in other matters appear orthodox or heterodox in each other's eyes. It is not material to us what may have been the custom in the earlier ages of Freemasonry, for while we know that it was confessedly sectarian prior to the Grand Lodge period, we also know that since the Charges of a Freemason were agreed to as the fundamental and paramount law of the Institution, Masonry and not dogma is declared to be the center of union and the means of conciliating true friendship among persons that must have remained at a perpetual distance,' and it is avowedly to secure this desirable end that the law provided that thenceforth Masons were to be obliged only 'to that religion in which all men agree, leaving their particular opinions to themselves-that is, to be good men and true, or men of honor and honesty by whatever denominations or persuasions they may be distinguished.' Does our ritual mean anything? Undoubtedly it means something to every brother, and it means more or less according to what he has within him to which its formulas and symbols appeal. By original endowment, or education, or environment, or all these combined, each individual is compelled to fix his own valuation upon what he receives in Masonic teaching. No two individuals probably place the same value upon either or all of the symbols which are correlated together as the great lights of Masonry so far as their adaptation to the uses to which they are put either in or out of the fraternity. But what has all this to do with the question of theism or atheism? The ritual nowhere teaches that the opinion one holds about either of the great lights has anything to do with that acknowledgment of God which is made a condition precedent to his being made a Mason. Hence it is no defense to our imputation that the brethren referred to had made speeches to the galleries or unwarrantably dogmatized about the Bible to ask: Does our ritual mean anything?'

"The charge against Senor DAM and his sodality was one in which theism was in no way involved, but simply that he had removed one of the essentials of a Lodge of Freemasons-not the only essential, but one of themand one so rooted in the structure of Masonry that, as we have before said, every Grand Lodge that had become in any sense a sponsor for the Masonic character of the body over which he ruled was placed under instant constraint to repudiate both in the name of Masonry. When, therefore, in the performance of this duty Grand Masters went outside of the record and

lugged in the utterly foreign subject of atheism they were emphatically making speeches to the gallery, and in seeking to convey the impression that the avowed theism of Masonry was required to be grounded upon the Bible, they were dogmatizing about the latter in a way not warranted by the charges of a Freemason."

In reference to the oversight in the translations, while we have to submit to " the irony of fate," we wish to be relieved of the responsibility

therefor.

About eighty pages are devoted to negro Masonry, recapitulating the action taken by the several Grand Lodges, and defining the position of our brother upon this question. As has been heretofore stated, he upholds the Grand Lodge of Washington in its action of 1898. We are of the opinion that the consensus of judgment must rule and the declaration of the Grand Lodge of Washington, June, 1899, in its reconsideration and repeal of its former action, demonstrates that the general opinion is a governing factor with the majority in that jurisdiction.

We append our brother's summing up:

"It is perhaps too early to forecast all the results of the ebullition now happily subsiding, consequent upon the reopening of this question, but a survey of field shows an increasing consensus upon two points.

"There is a more general readiness to concede without any apparent reservation the grounds of the first of the Washington resolutions-that 'Masonry is universal, and, without doubt, neither race nor color is among the tests proper to be applied to determine the fitness of a candidate for the degrees of Masonry.

The well-nigh universal interpretation of the action of the Grand Lodge of Washington-which, by the light of its own declaration that it involved no proposal to enter into relations with the negro Grand Lodges, appeared to us to be intended only as an expression of opinion that historically certain negro organizations were entitled to be regarded as legitimate-to be an absolute recognition of negro Grand Lodges in the ordinary acceptation of the term, giving those bodies a legitimate status, so far as Washington action could accomplish it, in the jurisdictions where they exist, of course precipitated a general discussion and a general denial of the right or power of Washington to do so; and the argument all along the line discloses a general consensus of opinion that the only practicable and clearly correct method of accomplishing it involves such action on the part of the Grand Lodge of Massachusetts as will lift from African Lodge the clandestine status entailed upon it by non-participation in the formation of that Grand Lodge, and regularize the subsequent work of the Lodge in that jurisdiction.'

M.. W.. CHARLES F. HITCHCOCK (Peoria), Grand Master, and R.'. W.. J. H. C. DILL (Bloomington), Grånd Secretary, re-elected.

78th Communication.

INDIANA.
INDIANAPOLIS.

May 23, 1899.

M.. W.. SIMEON S. JOHNSON, Grand Master, and the representatives of four hundred and eighty-four Lodges.

The Grand Master delivered a good business address-five new Lodges had been created under dispensation, and he had ordered fraternal relations resumed with the Grand Lodge of Peru. Excellent judgment was

25

evinced in declining to issue a dispensation to establish an army Lodge among the Indiana soldiers then in camp in the South.

The prevalence of the use of a "cipher work," in some of the Lodges of this jurisdiction, called forth the just condemnation of the Grand Master for the unlawful and disreputable proceeding and the violation of Grand Lodge enactments. Seemingly, when any Lodge or the members thereof are guilty of this practice, sharp and decisive discipline should be exercised. From the number of instances cited it is apparent that a general overhauling is a necessity. The Grand Lodge adopted stringent regulations thereon, and their enforcement will soon eradicate this evil.

The Grand Master reported the following communication from the Master of a Lodge:

"It has come to my notice that we have a member in our Lodge who and was admitted on a dimit from Olentangy Lodge, No. 5, of Columbus, Ohio. This Lodge (Olentangy) is clandestine. The member's name is

the date of his dimit is August 14, 1896,' and asking what should be done. I answered that in my opinion St. Joseph Lodge, No. 45, should declare their action in admitting such clandestine Mason null and void, and prohibit all Masonic intercourse with the party."

The decision of the Grand Master was approved, and, as a precaution against any such occurrence in the future, the requirement was established that the certificate of the Grand Secretary, certifying to the regularity of the Lodge, should appear upon the dimit, in all cases of petitions for membership from sister Grand Jurisdictions. This should be the regulation in all Grand Jurisdictions.

From a large number of decisions reported, we select the following. No. 11 would not be universally held to be correct:

66

10. A candidate residing in a place more than six months, but his family not so long, is he eligible for the degrees, he having taken residence there with intent to remain?

"Yes; residence is both a question of fact and intention.

"11. A candidate, twenty-one years of age, January 26, 1899, can he be elected to receive degrees at stated meeting, January 25, 1899?

Yes; and receive degrees when twenty-one years old.

"12. Is it lawful to confer degrees upon a black man having the necessary qualification?

Yes.

"24. Would it be a violation of Masonic Law to receive the fee of a minister of the Gospel and, after initiation, for the Lodge to vote him a donation of the full amount of the fee?

"If not a technical violation of Section 78 of Grand Lodge General Regulations, it is a violation of the meaning and intent of such Regulations and no such action can be had. It is beyond my comprehension why Lodges should continue in attempt to give degrees to ministers without charge. Masonry knows no privileged class, and no man ought to ask for the degrees unless he can afford to pay the fee.

"25. Election night of Lodge coming on December 24, when the members desire to attend Christmas exercises, voted to abolish the meeting of December 24 so as to hold election on December 10.

"This novel way of amending By-laws, remarkable for its simplicity and convenience, had never occurred to me, nevertheless I ruled action of Lodge was illegal, and that the By-laws could not be amended in so summary

manner.

"Question. Has a Lodge the right to call off from one day to another and then call on and then finish the work?'

"Answer. In my opinion no such meeting should be called off till another day to finish work.'"

An elaborate report was presented upon the action had by the Grand Lodge of Washington (1898) in its recognition of negro Masonry. This therein cited" that there exists to-day in the State of Indiana a colored Grand Lodge styling themselves Freemasons. The origin of this clandestine organization may, without doubt, be traced back to the clandestine organization of colored Masons of Pennsylvania." The conclusions of the committee were that:

“The declaration of the Grand Lodge of Washington is that all colored Grand Lodges, all colored Lodges, and all colored men made Masons therein are genuine Freemasons, and must be so recognized by all Freemasons wheresoever dispersed around the globe. Furthermore, the said Grand Lodge of Washington has by its action attempted to set aside and trample upon the great American doctrine of Grand Lodge sovereignty in each State and Territory of the United States. From this action your committee dissents and enters a solemn protest against its adoption."

The Grand Lodge adopted resolutions severing fraternal intercourse with the Grand Lodge of Washington and its members" until such time as the Grand Lodge of Washington shall recede from, and revoke its order, recognizing as regularly made Masons those held and declared to be clandestine by the Grand Lodge of Indiana."

The Grand Secretary, in the presentation of his twenty-first annual report, took occasion to say that during that period he had received and turned over to the Grand Treasurer the sum of $551,961.90-a good record.

Under the direction of the Grand Lodge the Trustees had erected a new warehouse for rental purposes, and made improvements upon the Grand Lodge buildings, with an expenditure of $27,067.12.

An amendment to the regulations was adopted providing for transfer of membership from one Lodge to another within the jurisdiction, upon a principle somewhat similar to that in vogue in New York State.

A proposition to increase the annual dues to Grand Lodge to thirtyfive cents for each Lodge member did not prevail.

An amendment to reduce the fee for conferring the degrees so that the minimum shall be fifteen dollars was emphatically rejected. We do not believe in cheapening Freemasonry.

In regard to a more general reading of reports on Correspondence, we have only to say that you can not compel the brethren to read them, and those who have an interest in that direction will take measures to gratify their desires. The great trouble is that the Lodges receive the report of the proceedings of the Grand Lodge, including Correspondence, and instead of it being accessible to the membership, no one sees it unless it may be the Master and Secretary. It might have a chance to circulate, if comeat-able.

The Grand Lodge ordered that each Lodge should be furnished with one copy of McDonald's "History of Freemasonry in Indiana," and also of Smythe's "Indiana Masonic Law and Forms of Procedure," and that they be kept in the Lodge-room "within easy access to every member of the Fraternity."

It was also ordered that an appropriation of $300 be made for the purpose of erecting a suitable headstone to mark the grave of M.. W.. ALEXANDER A. MEEK, Grand Master, 1818-1820.

Charges having been preferred against a brother predicated upon the following specifications:

"2. That he holds, and has so expressed himself to his brethren, that the Holy Bible is a fraud and written by designing men;

"3. That he holds that no part of it was written by inspiration; and the Lodge having suspended the brother for a period of forty-nine years, an appeal therefrom came before the Committee on Grievances and Appeals, said committee affirmed the action of the Lodge, holding "that the charge shows a total unbelief in, and disregard for the spiritual trestleboard which we have adopted as a rule and guide of conduct, and, therefore, contrary to the teachings of Masonry, contrary to its doctrines, and to the injury of Masonry, and, therefore, conduct unbecoming a Mason." Receipts, $57,104.99; disbursements, $53,375.98, and balance on hand, $17,968.69. Next Annual Communication, Indianapolis, May 22, 1900.

CORRESPONDENCE.

M.. W.. NICHOLAS R. RUCKLE presents an able report on Correspondence (239 pp.), embracing the proceedings of fifty-four Grand Bodies.

Preliminary to the report proper the chairman devotes eighty-four pages to a comprehensive statement of all facts bearing upon the action by the Grand Lodge of Washington in re negro Masonry. Special report of the Washington Committee and action of the Grand Lodge thereon, 1898, the action already had by various Grand Lodges and a critical review by our brother. It is hardly necessary to say that the action of the Grand Lodge of Washington is unqualifiedly disapproved. In view of the position of affairs at the date of this report, it hardly appears necessary to reproduce to any extent the able argument submitted by M.. W.. BRO. RUCKLE. One prominent point has an application to the present position of affairs:

"No Grand Lodge can license or permit its Lodges, or the members of its Lodges, to recognize as regular Masons, persons made in Lodges held in another jurisdiction, which under the Regulations of that jurisdiction are clandestine, and maintain fraternal intercourse with the Grand Body whose authority they assist in defying and setting aside. What difference is there between the recognition of the negro Grand Lodge of Ohio, or the Cerneau' Grand Lodge of Ohio? Is it intended that one shall pave the way for the other?"

New York for 1898 has just consideration. Referring to our suggestion that "the only practical solution of the contention in reference to jurisdiction over rejected candidates will be the establishment of the principle of each Grand Lodge giving the same force to a rejection within their jurisdiction, as held by the Grand Lodge within whose jurisdiction the rejection originally occurred," he remarks: