CHAPTER LVII

Back to index

HISTORY OF THE INTRODUCTION OF FREEMASONRY INTO EACH STATE AND TERRITORY OF THE UNITED STATES

The Cryptic Degrees

In the Freemason’s Library and General Ahiman Rezon, by Samuel Cole, P.M., published in Baltimore in 1826, we find a list of forty-three degrees which was taken from a “late publication, 1816,” which the author states are conferred in the Sublime Grand Lodges in Charleston, S. C., in the city of New York, and in Newport, R.I., which we have heretofore quoted.

“Besides those degrees, which are in regular succession, most of the Inspectors are in possession of a number of detached degrees, given in different parts of the world, and which they generally communicate, free of expense, to those brethren who are high enough to understand them. Such as Select Masons, of 27, and the Royal Arch, as gnven under the Constitution of Dublin, etc., etc.”

In a description of the degree of Select Master, the writer says: There is reason to believe that this degree was in use long before those of Most Excellent or Mark Master.”

It is well enough to quote from the charge to a Select Master, to indicate its proper place in the “curriculum” of the degrees: “Companion - Having attained to this degree, you have passed the circle of perfection in Ancient Masonry.”

This indicates that the Select degree closed all the degrees appertaining to the “Secret Vault,” as it really did, up to 1826 at least.

The edition of the above work of 1817 contains an article by Hezekiah Niles on the Select degree, in which he says : “Though this beautiful Degree is known to some persons in many parts of the United States, we are not informed that it is worked anywhere but in Baltmore. We have been told that a regular Chapter of Select was held at Charleston, S.C., many years ago, but believe it has declined.

Bro. John Dove of Virginia, says: “This beautiful Degree is comparatively of Modern Origin, having been, with the Degree of Royal Master, in the possession of a distinguished Chief, in the State of Maryland, as a purely honorary Degree, elucidatory of, and appendent to Royal Arch Masonry, and by him conferred without fee; he delegated authority to others, to use them, in the same way, until the year 1824, when the Grand Chapter of Maryland, with his consent, took charge of the Degrees, and ordered them to be given before the Most Excellent Master; where all intelligent workers in the Royal Arch must at once perceive the propriety of their location.”

Brother A.G. Mackey says: “For many years there have been three distinct claims urged for jurisdiction over these degrees, in America - first, by the Supreme Council of the 33d Degree; next by some of the Grand Chapters; and lastly by the Grand Councils, composed of the subordinate Councils of each State.”

“Connected with this question of jurisdiction is another in reference to the historical origin of the Degrees, and, as the person or persons, by whom they were first introduced into America. The Masons of Maryland and Virginia contend, that the Royal and Select Degrees were introduced by Philip P. Eckel, of Baltimore, one of the most distinguished and enlightened Masons of his day, who, in 1817, communicated them to Jeremy L.  Cross, and gave him authority to confer them in every Royal Arch Chapter which he might visit in his official character.” This clearly shows that they were to be subsequent to the Royal Arch.

Dr. Robert Folger says: “The Masons of that day (1816) were divided in opinion concerning the proper place to which these degrees (Royal and Select) belonged. One party preferred that they should be kept separate, and left where they were - a separate system.”

At the fourth meeting of the General Grand Chapter, June 6, 1816, a discussion took place upon the proposition for the admission of the Grand Chapter of Maryland and the District of Columbia, Philip P. Eckel and Benj. Edes being the representatives of that Grand Chapter. We learn from the published minutes of that meetig, that a committee made the following report:

“The undersigned having been appointed a Committee for the purpose of conferring with M.’. E.’. Comps. Philip P. Eckel and Benjamin Edes, delegates of the Grand Royal Arch Chapter of the State of Maryland, beg leave to report that they have had an interview with the above named Companions, from whom they received the following proposition, to wit : The Grand Chapter of the State of Maryland and District of Columbia is willing to support the Constitution of this General Grand Chapter. It will not grant any warrants out of its District and will discountenance all chapters formed contrary to the General Grand Constitution; but requests that it shall not be forced to alter its mode of working, if any difference should exist, at present, and to be received on an equality with the other Grand Chapters.

 

“Under a consideration of all the above circumstances, your Committee recommend that the said Grand Chapter of the State of Maryland be admitted to an union with this General Grand Chapter.

“(Signed by the Committee).

 

The Undersigned, delegates from the Grand Chapter of Maryland and District of Columbia, agree to the above report.

 

“Signed P.P. ECKEL, G.’. H.’. P.’.

“BENJ. EDES.”

 

This report being read and accepted, it was thereupon voted to receive the said Grand Chapter of the State of Maryland and District of Columbia under the jurisdiction of the General Grand Chapter. (1) Folger, referring to this meeting of the General Grand Chapter, says: “The whole matter then came up for discussion, Mr. Eckel, of Maryland, taking a very prominent part in advocating the Union of these two degrees with the services of the Royal Arch Chapter. The discussion became warm and lasted the better part of two days, when the motion to unite them was rejected. Whereupon, immediately after adjournment, the State Grand Council of Royal Masters was formed, and the different Councils came under that governing power, and continued so up to 1828. It was this move

 

Proceedings General Grand Chapter, 1816, p. 44.  on the part of the General Grand Chapter, in refusing a recognition of those degrees, that determined Mr. Cross in his future course.

“Mr. Eckel, the Baltimore delegate, then went home; and when Cross, who at that session of the General Grand Chapter had been appointed and confirmed as General Grand Lecturer, started on his lecturing tour, he stopped at Baltimore and purchased and received the privilege from Eckel and Niles to erect and establish councils of Royal and Select Masters throughout the Southern and Western States. This privilege he carried out pretty effectually, beginning with New Jersey; and all the councils in existence in those States, mentioned in his narrative, were established by himself, also the Eastern States, except Rhode Island.” Bro. Edw. T. Schultz, in commenting upon what Folger had published as above, said:

“From the above quotations it will be perceived that it was the general belief that the control of the Royal and Select Degrees were vested in Eckel and Niles.

“But we think Bros, Dove, Mackey, and Folger, and others, make a great mistake in coupling the Royal Master’s Degree with the Select, in connection with the names of Eckel and Niles; for there is no evidence whatever to show that these Brethren ever exercised or claimed control of the Royal Master’s degree, or that they were even in possession of that degree, at the periods named by them.”

From Bro. Josiah H. Drummond we learn that, on apparently good authority, Eckel did not get the Royal Master’s degree until 1819; when he and Benj.  Edes, of Baltimore, received it from Ebenezer Wadsworth, of New York. Bro.  Schultz thinks “this is probably true, for there is no mention of that degree being worked in this jurisdiction (Maryland) in any document, or upon the records of the Grand Chapter or its subordinates earlier than 1850. Bro. Cole, in 1817, speaks of it incidentally, but not as among the degrees conferred.”

Cole’s edition of 1826 (p. 319), says Royal Master and Ark Master or Noachite.”

These are considered as merely preparatory, and are usually conferred immediately before the solemn ceremony of exaltation. It will be remembered itat on page 220 of Cole we quoted him as saying that among those degrees communicated “to those brethren who are high enough to understand them, such as Select Masons of 27” and the Royal Arch, as given under the Constitution of Dublin, etc. This evidently shows that even as late as 1826 these two degrees of Royal and Select were not united; and also, that the Royal Master preceded the Royal Arch; and it was most likely that the Select degree followed the Royal Arch. We show herewith a facsimile copy of the original commission to Jeremy L. Cross, from Eckel and Niles.

To all whom it may concern

Imprest with a perfect conviction that a knowledge of the misteries of the degree of Royal Arch are eminently promoted by a knowledge of those revealed in the Council of Select Masons; and Whereas, the said degree of Select is not so extensively known as its wants and the good of the Craft require -Therefore Know Ye, That reposing especial confidence in my beloved and trusty Companion, Jeremy L. Cross. I do hereby, by the high powers in me vested, authorise and empower him to confer the said degree as follows (viz.): In any place where a regular chapter of Royal Arch Masons is established, the Oficers or Members approving, he may confer said degree according to its rules & regulations, but only on Royal Arch Masons, who have taken all the preceding degrees, as is required by the General Grand Chapter. When a competent number of Select Maosns are thus made, he may grant them a warrant to open a Council of Select and confer the degree and do all other business appertaining thereto.

Given under my hand and Seal at Baltimore, the 27th day of May, A.D. 1817, and in the year of the Dis. 2817, Sigm Philip L. Eckel

Thrice Illustrious & Grand Puissant in the Grand Council of Select at Baltimore & Approved as G.G. Scribe.

Approved and attested as Ill. in the Grand Council.

H. Niles

The Select degree was recognized by the constitution of the Grand Chapter of Maryland adopted in 1824, but the Royal Master’s degree is not mentioned.

Bro. Schultz continues: “Furthermore, the Warrant granted to Cross, by Eckel and Niles, a copy of which, taken from a photograph copy of the Original, in the possession of Bro. Wm. R. Singleton, of Washington, is here inserted, and from which it will be seen that the Select Degree alone is mentioned.”

In the first warrants issued by Cross under this commission, the Companions were empowered “to form themselves into a regular Council of Select Masters,” but in the warrants issued by him in 1819 and thereafter, the High Powers in him vested, by the Grand Council at Baltimore, were enlarged to include the Royal Master’s degree.

It is well to state that from the action subsequently taken by Grand Chapter of Maryland in 1827, from documents submitted, “upon the subject of the institution of the Select Degree independent of the Grand Royal Arch Chapter,” which were referred to a committee, who recommended that a circular be sent to the several Grand Chapters, regarding the matter, and which was adopted. Cross was charged with having abused the “authority delegated or meant to be delegated” to him, and it had been asserted that he had been expelled by the Grand Chapter but Bro. Schultz assures us that there is nothing in the records to warrant such an assertion.” Moreover, Cross did not belong to any chapter under the jurisdiction of the Grand Chapter of Maryland.

Cross, it is said, established about thirty-three councils in various parts of the United States. He also delegated others, with power in like manner to issue warrants for councils of Royal and Select Masters.

“From all that has been stated, it is evident, not only that Eckel and Niles claimed to have had the supreme control and authority over the Select degree, but that this claim was generally regarded valid; and it is equally as evident, we think, that these Brethren never claimed the control of the Royal Master’s degree.” “It has always been a question of much interest with Masonic writers to know the source whence these Brethren received their authority, and the control of the Select degree. An old document, that most unexpectedly came to the knowledge of the writer about a year ago, settles that question beyond a doubt. It is as follows :

“Whereas, In the year of the Temple, 2792, our thrice illustrious Brother Henry Wilmans, Grand Elect, Select, Perfect Sublime Mason, Grand Inspector General, and Grand Master of Chapters of the Royal Arch, Grand Elect and Perfect Master’s Lodges and Councils, Knight of the East, Prince of Jerusalem, Patriarch Noachite, Knight of the Sun, and Prince of the Royal Secret, did by and in Virtue of the powas in him legally vested, establish, ordain, erect and support a Grand Council of Select Masons in the City of Baltimore, and wrought therein, to the great benefit of the Craft, and to the profitable extension and elucidation of the Mysteries of Masonry:- and Whereas, we the subscribers to these presents are by regular succession possessors of all the rights, privileges and immunities and powers vested in any way whatsoever in the said Grand Council of Select Masons, considering the great advantages that would accrue to the Craft, in an extension of the knowledge of the Royal Secret, as introductory to, and necessary for, the better understanding of the Superior Degrees.

“Know all, whom it may concern, that we do hereby authorize and empower our trusty and beloved Companions K.S....K. T.... H.A.... of the same, to open and to hold a Chapter of Select Masons in the City of Baltimore and under such By-Laws and regulations as may be enacted and established for the government of the same subject to the following general rules and regulations.”’ (Which we omit.)

From some cause the dispensation was not used, but the fact is fully and emphatically stated by Eckel and Niles, under their hand and seal, that they were, “by regular succession, possessors of all the rights, privileges, and immunities and powers vested in any way whatsoever in the said Grand Council of Select Masons,” which has been instituted in the city of Baltimore, in the year 1792, by Henry Wilmans, “Grand Inspector General.”

“This document, in connection with the Rules and Regulations of the Lodge of Perfection (referred to above), leave no room for doubt that Wilmans was an Inspector of the Rite of Perfection, and that he exercised, in the City of Baltimore, in 1792, the powers claimed by such Inspectors. But from whom did Wilmans acquire his powers of ‘Grand Inspector General,’ and the authority ‘to establish, ordain, erect and support a Chapter of Select Masons?’”

“We regret that we can not answer the question, nor could the learned Brethren in vaious parts of the country, to whom we applied. The name of Wilmans does not appear upon any register or document in the archives of the Supreme Council of the Southern Jurisdiction, or upon any other known document or record containing the names of the early Inspectors. From the fact that in both the documents he is styled ‘Grand Inspector General,’ while those deriving their powers from Morin are styled ‘Deputy Inspectors,’ led to the supposition that he might have derived his powers from Europe; acting upon which supposition, letters were addressed to the Grand Lodges at Berlin and Bremen. While the result of the correspondence, which ensued, was of an interesting nature, nothing in regard to his Masonic character could be learned.

“It has been ascertained that Wilmans was a native of Bremen, and that he emigrated to this country as early at least as the year 1790, and settled in Baltimore. The first mention of his name, on the records of the Grand Lodge, is in connection with Concordia Lodge, in 1793, of which he was appointed the first or Charter Master. In the same year he was elected Deputy Grand Master and in the following year, Grand Master of Masons in Maryland. The register of the Old Zion Lutheran Church, of this city, shows that he died in 1795.”

“In a MSS. book of Moses Holbrook, of South Carolina, written in 1829, it is stated that Joseph Myers, a Deputy Inspector General, deposited in the year 1788, in the archives of the Grand Council of Princes of Jerusalem at Charleston, ‘a certified copy of the Royal and Select Master’s degrees received from Berlin.’”

“This is evidently an error, so far as it relates to the Royal Master’s degree. As intimated, the degree was first known in the Eastern States, and the earliest reliable mention of it there, is in the year 1809.” “Bro.

Holbrook wrote his book in 1829, at which time both degrees were conferred at Charleston, and naturally he connected the two in his statement, making a similar error that others do, when stating that Eckel and Niles claimed the control of the Royal Master’s degree. The book referred to contains also the statement, that somewhere about the year 1788, Joseph Myers was for a time located at Baltimore.”

“Did Wilmans receive the Select degree from Myers, or did Myers receive it from Wilmans?”

“If the degree came from Berlin, it is quite probable that Wilmans brought it with him, as he came from Germany, about the time mentioned for the deposit, in the MSS. of Holbrook.”

“There is a tradition existing in the Eastern States, that Eckel received the degree from a Prusian, temporarily sojourning in Baltimore. The period of Wilmans’ residence in Baltimore was perhaps not over eight years, and with some propriety, he might have been regarded as a sojourner - and a Prussian.”

“It is stated, but upon what authority we know not, that the Royal and Select degrees were conferred by Andrew Franken at Albany in 1769, and that he conferred them upon Samuel Stringer, who afterwards removed to Maryland; but we have not been able to find this name upon any of the records of this jurisdiction.”

“These statements or traditions, it will be seen, all point to Maryland as the source from whence the select degree, and (as the writers will have it) Royal Master’s degree also, were subsequently introduced into other parts.” 

Folger says Eckcl, at the session of the General Grand Chapter, advocated “the Union of the degrees with the services of the Royal Arch Chapter.”

“From 1824 to 1852, the Select degree only was worked in the chapters in Maryland and District of Columbia. After 1852, both degrees were worked in Councils specially convened for the purpose, after the Most Excellent and prior to the Royal Arch.”

The true history of the origin and progress of the Cryptic Rite in the several States, if it were possible to produce it, would prove of great interest to the Masonic student.

From the preceding pages, taken mostly from the labors of Companion Edw. T.  Schultz in his valuable History of Masonry in Maryland, we learn that, while the degrees of Royal Master and Select of Twenty-seven may have been conferred in various places prior to 1792, yet we must concede that the organization of the Council of Select Masons in Baltimore by Philip P.  Eckel and Hezekiah Niles, under the sanction of Henry Wilmans, was the very first organized effort to propagate the rite in this country. Companion Schultz has shown, very clearly, that we can not go beyond the date of that organization, so far as any ancient records have been discovered.

After Companion Jeremy L. Cross had been appointed the Grand Lecturer of the General Grand Chapter, at the session of 1816 -we learn, from several sources, that Cross went to Baltimore in 1827 - and there, no doubt, was initiated into the degree of Select Master and recoved the Warrant from Eckel and Niles which is referred to on the preceding page of this chapter.  A photograph copy of the original is in the possession of the present writer. This photo copy was submitted to the daughter of Bro. Eckel, who was the wife of Brother, Hon. Elijah Stansbury, Ex-Mayor of Baltimore, and they both certified that they recognized his signature; and, moreover, sent the writer an original letter written by Bro. Eckel in 1819. These evidences were submitted to experts in handwriting, and the certificate to Cross was pronounced a forgery because the real later signature was of so much better caligraphy than the signature in the suspected paper, as, according to the expert’s idea, it should not have been better, being two years older!!! The writer has in his possession several other papers signed by Eckel, and in no two of them do his signatures correspond. Our duty as a historian requires this statement to be made. Our own opinion is yet, that the document shown by Cross was a veritable commission from Eckel and Niles to propagate the degree, and the Masonic World should be glad thereof; as by his means, the rite spread rapidly in the South and West.  The writer was made a Royal and Select Master, in one of Cross’s councils, in St. Louis, Mo., in 1841, about the time the Grand Council of the State was organized, as he then copied their records into the record-book. The Grand Chapter of Maryland, having incorporated the Select degree into the chapter work in 1824, in 1828 that Grand Chapter sent communications to other Grand Chapters suggesting the propriety of the several Grand Chapters in the United States assuming jurisdiction over the degrees of Royal and Select Masters.

In the Grand Chapter of South Carolina, this matter was referred to a committee, who reported February 26, 1829, which report was unanimously adopted by the Grand Chapter :

“That Committee, after extensive and careful investigation, reported, that in February, 1783, Dr. Dalcho and many others received those degrees in Charleston in the sublime Grand Lodge of Perfection, then established in that city. That when the Grand Council of Princes of Jerusalem was established in Charleston, February 20, 1788, Joseph Myes, one of the Deputy-Inspectors who established it, deposited in the Archives certified Copies of the degrees of Royal and Select Masters from Berlin in Prusia, to serve for the future guidance and government of that new body. That from 1788, the Grand Officers and Supreme Council of Inspectors-General, at Charleston, had been steadily in the habit of conferring these degrees; and in 1828, numbers of councils of Select Masters were acting under their authority in the Southern and Western States.

“The Committee had seen and perused the first copy of those degrees that ever came to America, and old copies of Charters that had been returned by Councils, in States where Grand Councils had been formed, and Charters obtained from such Grand Councils. And the Committee reported, that these degrees had been under regular and independent Masonic protection and authority for more than forty-six years, and were so circumstanced in the United States, at a period long prior to the establishment of Grand or General Grand Royal Arch Chapters, or even of Chapters of Royal Arch Masons, in any part of the world; and that the Grand Chapter of South Carolina ought to avoid all collision with contemporary Masonic jurisdictions, regularly established, and much longer in existence than their own; and so reported a formal resolution (which the Grand Chapter unanimously adopted) that it was ‘improper and inexpedient to assume a jurisdiction over the said degrees, and thus to interfere with the rights and privileges of our brethren in another and higher order of Freemasonry.’

“Of the Illustrious brothers Myers, Spitzer and Forst, that Committee said, ‘the above named three respectable Brethren and Companions are, and steadily have been, Members and Officers of the said Council of Princes of Jerusalem. Their evidence therefore, must be conclusive upon these points.’

“The same Committee (Royal Arch Masons, be it observed, and a Committee of a Royal Arch Chapter, enquiring into its own jurisdiction) said of the Brothers and Companions, Dr. F. Dalcho, Dr. Isaac Auld, Dr. James Moultrie, Senior, and Moses C. Levy, Esq., who received these degrees in Charleston in 1783, from the sublime Grand Lodge of Perfection: ‘Three of the above named Brothers are still living, venerable for their years and warm attachment to the glorious cause of Freemasonry, and highly respected and esteemed for their standing in the community where they have so long honorably sojourned, and they are still members of the same Sublime Body.’ There is still further testimony to be adduced. The report to the Grand Chapter, which we have quoted, was made by Compn. Moses Holbrook, its Chairman, and unanimously adopted; the Grand Chapter thus affirming, the veracity of the Masonic Witnesses, whose testimony was adduced. In 1830 the same Compn., Holbrook, was M.’. P.’. Grand Commander of the Supreme Council of Sovereign Grand Inspectors General of the 33 degree for the Southern jurisdiction of the United States at Charleston.

“In February, A.I. 2383, the M.’. E.’. G.’. High-Priest of the Grand Chapter of South Carolina, John H. Honour, who was then and still is (1853) M.’. P.’. W.’. Commander of the Sup.’. Council, S.’. G.’. I.’. G.’. of 33 degree, for the Southern Jurisdiction of the United States at Charleston, stated in his address to the Grand Chapter, that he had in his possession a manuscript copy of the degrees of the Royal and Select Masters, in which there was a note in the handwriting of Brother Holbrook dated March 15, 1830, in these words:

 

In Brother Snell’s book is written the following:

“’Supreme Council Chamber, Charleston, S. C., 10th Feb., 1827.

“’I hereby certify that the detached degrees, called Royal and Select Master, or Select Masters of 27, were regularly given by the Sublime Grand Lodge of Perfection (No. 2 in the U.S.A.), established by Brother Isaac Da Costa, in Charleston, in Feb., 1783, one of the original Members of which Most Illustrious Brother Moses C. Levy, is still alive and a Member of it to this day, without ceasing to be so for a day; and further, that at the first establishment of a Grand Council of Princes of Jerusalem, in Charleston, February, 1788, by the III.’. Dep.’. Inspectors General, Joseph Myers, B. M. Spitzer, and A. Forst, Brother Myers (who succeeded Brother Da Costa after his decease) deposited a certified copy of the Degrees from Berlin, in Prussia, to be under the guidance and fostering protection of the government of the above Grand Council of Princes of Jerusalem.’

“Brother Myers shortly after this (Feb. 20, 1788,) resided some time in Norfolk, Richmond, and Baltimore, previous to his removal to Europe, and he communicated a knowledge of these degrees to a number of brethren in those cities. The original copy is still in my keeping, and agreeably to the obligations of the same, and the Grand Constitutions governing those degrees, viz. : Royal and Select Mason Of 27, it is correct and lawful to give them either to Sublime Masons, who have arrived to the Knights of the Ninth Arch (13th) or to the Companions of the 3d Arch (Royal Arch Masons).”

From this statement, of those who held the control originally, it will be observed that it was the design, always, to confer, at least the Select degree, only on those who had a knowledge of the Royal Arch degree; hence to impart the mysteries of the Ninth Arch to anyone “beneath the dignity of the Royal Arch,” was to invert the true order of succession, so essential in all Masonic degrees.

It has been asserted by some that the Cryptic degrees had been worked in this country earlier than 1783; as early perhaps as 1766 in the city of Albany, and that they were brought from France, and not from Prussia.  Brother Pike said in his report:

“We can soon learn how it was that the Council degrees came about 1766 from France and not from Prussia. In 1761, the lodges and Councils of the superior degrees being extended throughout Europe, Frederic II. (or the Great), King of Prussia, as Grand Commander of the Order of Princes of the Royal Secret, or 32d degre, was by general consent acknowledged and recognized as Sovereign and Supreme Head of the Scotch Rite.”

“On the 25th October, 1762, the Grand Masonic Constitutions

(1) “History of Masonry and Concordant Orders,” p. 649.  were finally ratified in Berlin, and proclaimed for the government of all Masonic bodies working in the Scotch Rite over the two hemispheres; and in the same year they were transmitted to Stephen Morin, who had been appointed, in August, 1761, Inspector General for the New World by the Grand Consistory of Princes of the Royal Secret, convened at Paris, under the presidency of Chaillon de Joinville, representative of Frederic, and Substitute-General of the Order. It will be remembered that the 33 degree was not then created; and, under Frederic the Great, there was no rank higher than the 32 degree, nor any body superior to a Consistory. When Morin arrived in the West Indies, he, agreeably to his patent, appointed M.  Hayes a Deputy Inspector General, with the power of appointing others when necessary. It was under this authority, coming, it is true, from the Consistory of Paris held by that consistory as the delegate and representative of Frederic the Great, that the Lodges of Perfection in Albany and Charleston were established, with authority to confer these detached degrees.”

“Many rites flourished in Europe awhile and died. The French and Scotch Rites reduced the degrees practiced by their votaries, the former to seven, the Seventh being the Rose Croix, the latter to thirty-three and some auxiliary degrees. By common consent it became Masonic law that the first three degrees were the joint property of all, but the others, the peculiar property of the inventors. Royal Arch Masonry separated itself from ‘Blue’ Masonry, organized itself, invented three new degrees, and commenced an independent existence. The Royal and Select Masters formed themselves into councils, and after a time they, too, organized themselves into Grand Councils, and claimed an independent existence. The Supreme Council did not deny the right, but simply retained their original right to confer the degrees, and Charter councils in States where no Grand Councils have been organized.”

The following is a copy of a decree issued by the Supreme Council A.’. A.’.  A.’. S.’. Rite of the Northern jurisdiction, the true copy of which was sent to the Southern jurisdiction and was presented to the writer many years since by General Albert Pike.

“The Supreme Grand Council of Sov. Grand Inspectors General for the Northern Masonic District and jurisdiction of the U. States of America duly, lawfully, and constitutionally assembled on the 10th day of June, 1850, at its Grand East, the City of New York, in its Supreme Grand Council of Princes of Jerusalem do declare and make known as follows:

“That in addition to the regular series of degrees and order of the ancient and accepted rite, the said rite had, from time immemorial, been in possession of, and claims as its exclusive property, a number of detached degrees which are illustrative of, connected with, and necessarily appendant to certain degrees in said right or departments thereof: and that the Supreme Grand Council, as the sole conservators of said rite, in said Northern Jurisdiction, is sacredly bound to preserve intact and free from any amalgamation with foreign rites or Masonic Bodies, not acknowledged by us or our said rite, all and every one of the detached degrees referred to.

“That two of such detached degrees, called ‘Royal Master’ and ‘Select Master,’ or ‘Select Masons of 27,’ having in various ways and at different times fallen into the hands of persons in no way connected with the sublime system of free Masonry, or the said ‘ancient and accepted rite,’ have been and are now cultivated in a garbled form, by bodies styling themselves Masonic, and working under self-assumed powers and authority in this regard, claiming the right to grant charters to confer them; and, moreover, that these degrees, in some places of this jurisdiction, have become amalgamated with a Modern American rite, and are also claimed as the property of the American Royal Arch Chapters.

“This Supreme Grand Council therefore, as in duty bound, protests against this invasion of its rights and privileges, and further declares and makes known that the said degrees of Royal and Select Master, from their nature or character, and the history they develop, and circumstances upon which founded, can not, except in an anachronistic and improper manner be conferred disconnected from the ineffable degrees, and lodges of perfection (14th degree ancient and accepted rite) and that said degrees belong not only characteristically and historically, but legitimately, to ‘Ineffable Masonry’ and ‘Lodges of Perfection,’and do not appertain and can not consistently and lawfully be made an appendage to any Masonic system except said ‘Sublime System,’ nor to any rite except said ‘ancient and accepted rite.’

“And whereas, such assumed authority over the detached degrees aforesaid, may, as we have reason to believe in some instances, have been exercised in good faith, but without a due appreciation of our rights and prerogative in regard to them, this Supreme Grand Council for the sake of harmony is willing to confer and advise with our illustrious Brethren, the Southern Supreme Grand Council at Charleston, S. Carolina, and act in concert with them in adopting such measures in reference to those degrees, as may be mutually adjudged most feasible and proper, without infringing in any way whatever upon our Supremacy over the said degrees.

 

“’Deus meumque jus,’

“J.J.J. GOURGAS,

Sovereign Grand Commander of 33d”

for the Northern D. and J., U.S.A.

JILES F. VATES,

Insp. Lieut Grand Commander.

 

 

“N.B. - Signed on the original by Arch d Bull, Sov. Gr. Insp. General 33d;

 

K.H. Van Rensselaer, Sov. Gr. Insp. Gen (1) 33 d, and Francis Turner, Prince of Jerusalem Rose + H.R.D.M.; K.H.; S.P.R.S, and now a member of this Supreme Grand Council.

“To the Supreme Grand Council of the 33 degree, ancient and accepted rite,’ at their Grand East, the City of Charleston, S. Carolina.

“Through their Illus. Brother, Albert G. Mackey, M. D., Grand Secretary General of their H. E.”

A true copy,

W.R. SINGLETON, 33d.

The Supreme Council of the Southern Jurisdiction held to the same contention until at a meeting of the Supreme Council at Baltimore, May, 1870, they surrendered all claim to these degrees.

Dr. Olivar, in his Historical Landmarks, gives an account of the legend of the Secret Vault as discovered in the construction of theSecond Temple, as follows:

“The foundations of the Temple were opened, and cleared from the accumulation of the rubbish, that a level might be procured for the commencement of the building. While engaged in excavations for this purpose three fortunate sojourners are said to have discovered our ancient stone of foundation, which had been deposited in the secret crypt by Wisdom, Suength, and Beauty, to prevent the communication of ineffable secrets to profane or unworthy persons.

“The discovery having been communicated to the prince, prophet and priest of the Jews, the stone was adopted as the Chief Corner-Stone of the re-edified building, and thus became, in a new and more expressive sense, the type of a more excellent dispensation. An avenue was also accidentally discovered, supported by seven pairs of pillars, perfect and entire, which, from their situation, had escaped the fury of the flames that had consumed the Temple, and the desolation of war that had destroyed the city.

“The Secret Vault, which had been built by Solomon as a secure depository for certain secrets that would have inevitably been lost without some such expedient for their preservation, communicated by a subterranean avenue with the King’s palace; but at the destruction of Jerusalem, the entrance having been closed by the rubbish of falling buildings, it had been discovered by the appearance of a keystone among the foundations of the Sanctum Sanctorum. A careful inspection was then made, and the invaluable secrets were placed in safe custody.”

Brother Mackey says: 

“To support this legend there is no historic evidence and no authority except that of the Talmudic writers. It is clearly a mythical symbol, and as such we must accept it. We can not altogether reject it, it is so intimately and so extensively connected with the symbolism of the Lost and recovered Word, that if we reject the, theory of the Secret Vault we must abandon all of that symbolism, and with it the whole of the science of Masonic symbolism. Fortunately there is ample evidence in the present appearance of Jerusalem and its subterranean topography to remove from any tacit, and as it were, conventional assent to the theory, features of absurdity and impossibility.

“Considered simply as a historic question, there can be no doubt of the existence of immense vaults beneath the superstructure of the original Temple of Solomon. Prime, Robinson, and other writers, who in recent times have described the topography of Jerusalem, speak of the existence of these structures, which they visited, and, in some instances, carefully examined.” Dr. Barclay (City of the Great King) describes in many places of his interesting topography of Jerusalem, the vaults and subterranean chambers which are to be found beneath the site of the Old Temple.

“In the earliest ages the cave or vault was deemed sacred. The first worship was in cave-temples, which were either natural or formed by art to resemble the excavations of nature.

“The vault was, in the ancient mysteries, symbolic of the grave; for initiation was symbolic of death, where alone Divine Truth is to be found.  The Masons have adopted the same idea. They teach that death is but the beginning of life; that if the first or evanescent temples of our transitory life be on the surface, we must descend into the Secret Vault of death before we can find that sacred deposit of truth which is to adorn our second temple of eternal life. It is in this sense an entrance through the grave into eternal life, that we are to view the symbolism of the Secret Vault. Like every other myth and allegory of Masonry, the historical relation may be true, or it may be false; it may be founded on fact, or be the invention of imagination, the lesson is still there, and the symbolism teaches it, exclusive of the history.”

The above quotations; have been made because the present writer had devoted many years to the study of the topography of Jerusalem and its immediate vicinity in connection with his studies in the various Masonic rites which locate their mysteries in that city and in and about the Temple area now called Harem-esh Sheriff. His conclusions are that not a single degree in Masonry can properly be located near the city of Jerusalem nor on or in the “Sacred Area” of the Temple.

So far as the caves or cisterns which are to be found under the surface of the “Area” at the present day did give a key to those who formulated the Cryptic degrees, he feels assured that the originators of those degrees did have some knowledge of their existence -but with accurate maps of that “Area” and the location of every vault or cistern before us, furnished by the accurate survey of Captain Chas. Warren in 1867, we could not for one moment entertain the belief that such a system of vaults or arches ever existed there, as described in our lectures of any of the Rituals -but we do believe that these rituals, being symbolic and allegorical, were founded upon the fact of vaults found in that locality. We can refer to the legend of Enoch and his vaults, erected to conceal the sacred delta, constructed by him and his son Methuselah, after the ineffable NAME of Deity had been revealed to him, and which name he had engraved upon the delta, which by the command of God, he was to conceal and secure, for future generations to discover. These vaults, nine of them, were securely constructed, and two pillars were erected, and placed near, with inscriptions to indicate the locality of the vaults. It is possible that the pillars were destroyed and carried away by the flood. The fable further states that when King Solomon commenced the preparation of the ground on Mount Moriah for the temple, his workmen broke into these vaults and found certain mysterious things there; and upon reporting to King Solomon what they had found, he directed them to cease their labors, as he supposed the vault had been a secret place for the worship of the gods of the original inhabitants of Canaan. God, however, notified him in a dream that he should proceed; as he had designed that spot for the erection of the Temple for his worship, as it had been thrice dedicated, first by Enoch when he constructed the vaults and made the deposits of these mysterious emblems - second, on this spot Abraham erected the altar to sacrifice his son Isaac - and third, by his father David, where he erected the altar on the threshing floor of Arauna and sacrificed to stay the hand of the destroying Angel.

There is no doubt whatever in the mind of the writer but that the inventors of the degrees above the three original degrees - such as the Royal Arch and Select, designed to demonstrate to the postulant the value of the great and now ineffable and mysterious name of Deity.

It is well known to all students of the ancient mysteries of the Orient that after the initiation of a candidate in the lower mysteries, and a certain period having elapsed, by many severe tests, lustrations by the four elements and trials, he was invested with the great WORD in a very solemn and mysterious manner, by the Archi-Magus, who alone could communicate this word to the postulant. In receiving this word, was conveyed to him by its interpretation, the meaning of all the preceding ceremonies.

Those who arranged the series of degrees as above mentioned, from the Entered Apprentice to the Select Master, designed that in the last degree there should be a full explanation of all that which was concealed in the various forms and ceremonies, and in our present lectures in that degree it

is very evident that such was the design sign of closing the Ancient Craft Masonry with the Select of Twenty-seven, “to pass the Circle of Ancient Craft Masonry.”

GENERAL GRAND COUNCIL.

In 187I the Grand Council of Massachuseas undertook the task of bringing mder out of the disordered condition of the Cryptic Rite in the United States, and having enlisted the valuable services of our most distinguished Companion, Hon. Josiah H. Drummond, of Maine, who, in compliance with their request, called a convention, and fourteen Grand Councils were represented at the meeting in New York City, June 12, 1872, at which the following was adopted:

“Whereas, In some jurisdictions the question has been mooted of surrendering the Cryptic Degrees to the Chapters; and “Whereas, There are many Companions who have received the degrees in Chapters or from Sovereign Inspectors of A.’.A.’.S.’. Rite, therefore

“Resolved, That it is the sense of this Convention that the Cryptic degrees should be under the exclusive jurisdiction of Grand Councils, and that no one should be recognized as a regular Companion of the Rite who had not received the degrees in a lawfully constituted Council or by authority of the Supreme Council of the A.’.A.’.S.’. Rite previous to the date, or has been lawfully healed.”

The convention adopted a uniform system of nomenclature, which has since been generally adopted.

In June, 1873, another meeting of the Convention was held in New York and nineteen Grand Councils were represented. The following was adopted:

“That the order of the succession of the degrees be: First, Royal Master’s; second, Select Master’s; and that it be left optional with each Grand Council to confer the super-excellent Master’s degree as an honorary degree.”

The convention announced as its opinion that a General Grand Council of the United States should be formed. Subsequently meetings were held, December, 1874, in New Orleans; August, 1877, in Buffalo, N.Y.; at which latter meeting twenty-two Grand Councils were represented, and also Ontario, Canada. The convention, in the Cryptic Rite met at Detroit, August 23, 1880, when a constitution was adopted which it was required should be adopted by not less than nine regular Grand Councils, and then should become operative. The General Grand Recorder, George W. Cooley, gave notice, February 23, 1881, that the Grand Councils of New York, Minnesota, Ohio, Indiana, Maryland, Tennessee, Massachusetts, Alabama, and Louisiana had ratified the constitution. On March 1, 1881, Hon. Josiah H. Drummond, General Grand Master, issued his circular to the officers, and also announced that the Grand Council of South Carolina had adopted the constitution. The first sesion was held pursuant to this circular, at Denver, Col., August 14, 1883, and the following Grand Councils were represented: California, Florida, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Maryland, Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Missouri, New Hampshire, Ohio, New York, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Vermont. (Forever blessed be their memory.) Of those seventeen who originally acceded to the first formation of the provisional General Grand Council, in 1880, these were absent:

Georgia and Alabama; and South Carolina had since given her adhesion.  Alabama, having been with the seventeen Grand Councils to join in the formation of the provisional General Grand Council in 1880, was never represented at any subsequent assembly.

We will now, in a more regular manner, give the history of the formation of the General Grand Council. The General Grand Council of the United States was organized at a convention of delegates of seventeen Grand Councils which met at Detroit, Mich., August 23, 1880.

The action of this convention was at once approved by the following Grand Councils: New York, Minnesota, Ohio, Indiana, Maryland, Tennessee, Massachusetts, Alabama, and Louisiana.

South Carolina Grand Council soon thereafter organized, and ratified the constitution of the General Grand Council and resumed work. In the address of the General Grand Master, Josiah H. Drummond, at the first Triennial Assembly, held at Denver, Col., August 14, 1883, he states: “At the time of the formation of the provisional General Grand Council there were twenty-three Grand Councils, which had not adopted the ‘Mississippi Plan.’

“Of these, seventeen, viz., Alabama, California, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Missouri, New Hampshire, New York, Ohio, Tennessee, and Vermont, have become constituents of the General Grand Council.

Of the other six, five continue to exist, but have not become constituents of this body, viz., Connecticut, Michigan, New jersey, Pennsylvania, and Rhode Island. Some of these, however, have the matter under consideration.  It is understood why Connecticut has not given her adhesion is, the law of this body, that persons receiving the degrees in Chapters, or in Councils appurtenant to Chapters, can not be recognized.

“The remaining one of twenty-three, North Carolina, at its session held in June last undertook to dissolve and turn the degrees over to the Chapter.  While this occasions regret, it is no matter of surprise, because Royal Arch Masonry is at an exceedingly low ebb in that State, and it sometimes seems a matter of doubt whether the Grand Chapter itself will be able to maintain its existence.

“Grand Councils at the advent of the ‘Mississippi Plan’ existed in other States, as follows: Arkansas, Illinois, Iowa, Kentucky, Mississippi, Nebraska, South Carolina, and Wisconsin. All of which accepted in some form the general features of the ‘Mississippi Plan.’

“The Grand Councils of Arkansas, Illinois, and Kentucky have reorganized, but have not as yet ratified and adopted the General Grand Constitution.  The Grand Council of Illinois never formally dissolved, but maintained its existence and undertook to surrender the degrees to the Grand Chapter; this action had been rescinded by both grand bodies, and the Grand Council now exists with all its powers, and I trust with its pristine vigor.”

We have followed thus far the history of the Cryptic Rite as given by Companion Josiah H. Drummond in his address to the General Grand Council at the first Triennial Assembly, three years after the inauguration of that body. He further stated the following Grand Councils had taken no definite action, viz., Iowa and Nebraska. Mississippi had taken action in reference

to the over-whelming sentiment of the Craft, which looks toward reorganizing the Grand Council System. The situation in Wisconsin is anomalous; the Grand Council surrendered the degrees to the Grand Chapter, which authorized the conferring of them in a council appurtenant to a chapter, so that in theory, if not in practice, each chapter had a council appurtenant to it, the chapter officers being the officers of the council. But in 1881, in consequence, as I understand, of objections to the recognition of persons receiving the degrees in such councils, a convention of the delegates of these councils was called, and a Grand Council of Royal and Select Masters was organized.

We have given the above very interesting information as to the several States wherein the Cryptic Rite was worked in this place rather than in the separate individual jurisdictions, as it greatly saves space and time, reserving both of these for the details property belonging to each subordinate jurisdiction as to the organization of the constituent councils in each, as it will appear under the alphabetical arrangement.

Note. - Companion Drummond in the above sketch begins with Alabama, but that Grand Council never appears in any subsequent proceedings as a constituent of the General Council.

Alabama.

The information which we have been enabled to obtain concerning Cryptic Masonry in Alabama is somewhat vague. It is supposed that John Barker, of the A.’.A.’.S.’. R.’. Southern Jurisdiction, started the first councils of Royal and Select Masters, under his authority as Deputy Inspector-General.  It is conceded that a Grand Council was organized in 1838 (December 13th).

This Grand Council repudiated, very properly, the course of the Grand Chapter of Virginia, in capturing the degrees of the council, and incorporating them with the chapter work, in 1843. The council also, in 1849, protested against the Grand Consistory of Charleston granting (of) these degrees in its jurisdiction. (4)

This Grand Council met, with some omissions, as in 1840, 1861, 1862 or 1863, until in 1886 it was dissolved, when all branches of Masonry in that State were much depressed. Since then, however, matters have greatly improved. This Grand Council was never connected with the General Grand Council after 1881, although one of the first to join in the organization in 1880.

Arizona.

The proceedings of the Triennial assembly of the General Grand council of 1897 show that the following councils secured their warrants

Dispensation Granted. Chartered

Olive Council, No.1. At Prescott, July 1, 1893. August 22,

Phoenix, U.D. At Phoenix, April 4, 1895. Surrendered

February 17, 1897

Tucson, U.D. At Tucson, April 5, 1895. Surrendered

September 2, 1897

Arkansas.

Four subordinate councils were, at an early date, chartered by the Supreme Council A.’. A.’. S.’. R.’. of the Southern Jurisdiction. These four councils were formed by the State Grand Council, November 6, 1860. In 1878 the Companions adopted the system of incorporation with the chapters; but in 1881 resumed the independent form; and in 1886 united with the General Grand Council, and is yet within that organization. On the 25th of April, 1899, they had the sad misfortune to lose their Grand Recorder Companion James A. Henry.

California.

The Grand Council of Alabama granted charters to organize two councils in California. One council was chartered by the Grand Council of Tennessee, and one by the Grand Council of Texas. These four councils organized a Grand Council, June 26, 1860. In 1880 this Grand Council united with the General Grand Council in its organization.

Colorado.

The following councils were organized in Colorado under the General Grand Council :

Dispensation Granted. Chartered.

Denver, No. 1........Denver, January 16, 1892. August 21, 1894.

Rocky Mountain, No. 2 Trinidad, March 24, 1893 August 21, 1894.

Durango, No. 3........Durango, May 16, 1893. August 21, 1894.

Akron, No. 4..........Akron, May 23, 1893. August 21, 1894.

Canon City, No. 5.....Canon City, June 5, 1893 August 21, 1894.

Gunnison, U.D.........Gunnison.

Pueblo, No. 7.........Pueblo, April 10, 1894 August 21, 1894.

All of these councils are reported as being in existence at the Triennial held in 1897. At that session the General Grand Master reported that he had issued dispensations as follows :

To Hiram Council, at Greely, with sixteen members, December 8, 1894; but no interest being taken, the dispensation was surrendered, December 9, 1896.

To Zabud Council, at Colorado Springs, with thirty-two members, May 27, 1895. This council made reports for 1895, 1896, and 1897; paid dues for 1895 only, and asked for a Charter; but does not appear in the list of councils whose dispensations were continued; nor was it chartered.

To Leadville Council, at Leadville, June 10, 1895, and dispensation was surrendered, November 10, 1896.

Hiram, U. D., Greely, December 8, 1894, and surrendered.

Zabud, U. D., Colorado Springs, May 27, 1895, and continued.

Leadville, U. D., Leadville, June 10, 1895, surrendered.

Connecticut.

In 1818 Companion Jeremy L. Cross was very industrious in propagating the Cryptic Rite, and succeeded in forming ten councils in Connecticut. The first Grand Council of Select Masters for the State was organized by that name as claimed. There are no records of this body up to 1830. In 1825 the two degrees of Royal and Select Masonswere recognized. From 1826 to 1846, in consequence of the Morgan episode, very little if anything was done in this as well as other branches of Masonry.

Since the revival, in all the States where the anti-Masonic spirit had prevailed, Masonry has taken a “new and prolonged lease,” and flourishes to a much greater degree than ever before in its history. The sons and grandsons of the bitterest anti-Masons of 1830 are now the most zealous in their efforts to spread abroad the glad tidings of peace on earth and good-will toward men.”

Connecticut Grand Council does not belong to the General Grand Council, which is much to be regretted. The benefits of her union with that body would be mutual.

Delaware.

It is said that Jeremy L. Cross, when on his lecturing tour in the early days, visited Delaware and conferred the degrees in Wilmington and Newcastle. We have no funher information from that State.

District of Columbia.

The Cryptic degrees are first mentioned, in the history of Masonic degrees in the District of Columbia, in the records of the Grand Chapter which was organized in 1822. At the Semi-Annual Convocation held June 9, 1829, the report of the Committee on Correspondence refers to a circular letter which had been sent by the Grand Chapter of Maryland to each Grand Chapter in the United States; which is as follows:

“M.E. Sir and Companion:

“I am instructed by the Grand Chapter over which I have the honor to preside, to address you, and through you your Grand Chapter, upon the unsettled state of the degree of Select Mason, a subject deemed by us of sufficient importance to claim the particular attention of your Grand Chapter.

“This degree existed under the authority of a distinguished Chief in the State of Maryland, but without the recognizance of our Grand Chapter for many years; until, in the year 1824, upon the revision of our Constitution, it appearing, evident that the Select Degree not only has an intimate

connection with, but is in a measure necessary, as preparatory to and elucidatory of that of the Royal Arch; it was formally recognized by our Grand Chapter, and required to be given by our subordinate Chapters in its proper order immediately preceding that of the Royal Arch. Under this

arrangement we have since progressed, much to our satisfaction; but it is with regret that we have learned that Councils or Chapters of Select Masons have been established in some of our sister States, independent of Royal Arch Masonry, avowedly in pursuance of, but, as we are satisfied, through a great mistake or actual abuse of any authority delegated, or meant to be delegated, in relation to the Select Degree. We would, therefore, beg leave respectfully to recommend to your Grand Chapter the consideration of this degree, and the circumstances under which it exists, within your jurisdiction; with the hope that you will see it to be for the general interest of the Craft to take the degree under your recognizance and control, to whom of right it belongs, and thereby do away with what is felt to be a grievance, by those distinguished Chiefs, whose authority, delegated to a limited extent, and for special reasons, has been perveaed for sordid purposes, by the creation of an independent order, never contemplated by them; and which we believe to be inconsistent with the spirit and best interests of our institution.  “Respectfully and fraternally, &c.”

This was never officially communicated to the Grand Chapter of the District of Columbia by the Grand Chapter of Maryland, but was taken from the printed proceedings of that body, pp. 15, 16, and 17.

That committee also reported: “The Grand Chapter of North Carolina had determined that the degree should come under the jurisdiction of State Grand Chapters, and recommended it to the favorable consideration of the General Grand Chapter. The Grand Chapter of Maine had referred the subject to a Committee. It remains for the Grand Chapter to take such orders in the premises as it shall seem proper.”

The Grand Chapter of Ohio has passed a resolution of which the following is a copy, and which has officially been communicated to this Grand Chapter for its consideration. “At a regular communication of the Grand Chapter [of Ohio] in January, 1829, the following resolution was adopted:

“Resolved, That it is the opinion of this Grand Chapter that the General Grand Chapter of the United States ought to be dissolved.

“BELA LATHAM,

“Grand Secretary.”

A committee to whom the subject was referred reported:

“That they are decidedly of the opinion that the Royal and Select Master’s Degrees should be recognized by and conferred under the direction of the several Grand Chapters of the respective States and Territories of the Union. With regard to the proper time when these degrees should be conferred, whether before or after the Royal Arch Degree, they decline expressing an opinion, preferring that this point should bc left to the determination of the General Grand Chapter; and they recommend that the representatives from this Grand Chapter to that body, at its Triennial meeting, in September, be instructed to conform in their proceedings on this subject, to the tenor of the foregoing.” This was laid on the table for the present. When taken up again, it was “Resolved, That the further consideration thereof be postponed till the first Tuesday in August next; and that in the meantime the Grand Secretary be directed to forward a copy of the report this day made on that subject to the several Councils of Royal and Select Masters in the District of Columbia.”

At the special convocation, held August 31, 1829, the following appears:

Companion Baldwin, from a committee appointed by the Council of Royal and Select Masters of the City of Washington (which body had been addressed on the subject by the Grand Secretary, pursuant to order) presented to the Grand Chapter the following letter and report, viz. : (2)

WASHINGTON, August 31, 1829.

At a special meeting of the Council of Royal and Select Masters, held at the Central Masonic Hall, on Saturday, the 29th of August, instant, the written report having been presented and read, was, on motion, ordered to be transmitted to the Grand Chapter of the District of Columbia at their next meeting.

“JOHN CAROTHERS, T.I.G.M.

W.W. BiLLINGS, Recorder.”

Report.

 

“The Committee appointed by the Council of Royal and Select Masters of the City of Washington, to whom was referred the propriety of extending the jurisdiction of the General, Grand, and Subordinate Royal Arch Chapters so as to embrace the Degrees of Royal and Select Masters, have the honor to report :

“That they have had the subject under consideration, and are duly impressed with its vast importance. After the most mature deliberation they have corne to the following conclusions: That Masonic light in its principles, and the order of its development, is fixed and unchangeable ! That whatever power the Fraternity may have over forms and ceremonies, yet no body of Masons, however exalted, neither have nor can assume the power of changing the original landmarks, or altering its clements. Your committee are confident, from an intimate acquaintance with all the degrees, that those of ‘Royal and Select Master’ are not only posterior in order to the ‘Royal Arch,’ but that in our opinion it would not be consistent with ancient Masonry to make them previous.

 

“Whether the interests of the Craft would be promoted by this extended jurisdiction, your Committee are unable to say; but should that course be thought advisable, by the General Grand Chapter, in its solemn deliberation, your Committee are decidedly of the opinion that it can only be done under the following restrictions:

“1st. That the Degrees of Royal and Select Masters can only be conferred on Royal Arch Masons.

“2d. No one can be an officer of any Chapter who is not both a Royal and Select Master.

“Without these restrictions your Committee can never consent to a change in the present established mode of proceeding. (1)

“All of which is most respectfully submitted.

E. BALDWIN,

“W.W. BILLINGS, Committee.”

“J.A. KENNEDY,

The report of a committee made in June last on the subject of the degreewas taken up and read, and was passed by a majority of one vote only, and on motion it was

 

“Resolved, That the Grand Secretary transmit to the General Grand Secretary copies of the two reports above stated, together with the proper credentials of the proxies appointed to represent this Grand Chapter in the General Grand Chapter of the United States, at its ensuing meeting in New York; and that the Grand Secretary do prepare the proper instructions.”

At the meeting of the General Grand Chapter, September 11, 1829, the question came up for action on a communication from Comp. J.K. Stapleton, upon which a suitable committee made the following report, and it and the resolutions were adopted:

“Whereas, It is satisfactorily proved to this General Grand Chapter, that the Constitution of the Councils of Royal and Select Master Mason, in different parts of the United States, by sundry persons, has been without any legitimate authority,

“And Whereas, Those degrees are conferred in some chapters, under the authority of the General Grand Chapter; and whereas it was proved that it was the only and sole intention of the Most Excellent Companions from whom these degrees emanated that they should be conferred under the authority of Royal Arch Chapters; therefore, “Resolved, That this General Grand Chapter cordially recommend to the different Councils in the United States to adopt measures to place those degrees under the authority of the State Grand Chapters.

“Resolved, That authority be, and is hereby, granted to the several Grand Chapters, under the jurisdiction of the General Grand Chapter, to make such arrangements as shall be found necessary for conferring the degrees of Royal and Select Masters in Royal Arch Chapters; provided always that no Grand Chapter, within the limits of which is a Grand Council, shall authorize the Royal Arch Chapters under the jurisdiction to confer such degrees without the consent of such Grand Council.”

We have no records or accounts whatever in the District of Columbia as to what became of the “Council,” or Councils, if more than one, which is referred to above.

The chapters in the District continued to confer the Royal and Select degrees prior to the Royal Arch, until in 1833, when the Grand Chapter was dissolved. Several of the chapters again joined the Grand Chapter of Maryland, which body, thereafter, in 1844, added to its nomenclature “the District of Columbia,” and the Council degrees were worked within the chapters prior to the Royal Arch, until May 23, 1867, when the Grand Chapter of the District of Columbia was again organized; and on that day, the new Grand Chapter, by resolution, unanimously dropped those degrees from the curriculum of the chapter work, being well satisfied that they did not properly belong to the chapters. Soon after the organization of the Grand Chapter in 1867, Companion Benjamin B. French, the Inspector-General of the Southern Jurisdiction for the A.’.A.’.S.’.R.’., for the District of Columbia, issued three dispensations to form three new councils of Royal and Select Masters, for the District of Columbia.

Those who had recoved those degrees in regular organized councils refused to join in this movement. Soon after this, the question was agitated as to the legality and propriety of thus inaugurating a new method of propagating the Cryptic degrees, and the result was, these three councils went into “innocuous desuetude.” When the time was deemed judicious, the present writer, with eight others, who had been regular Council Masons, prepared a petition to the Grand Council of Massachusetts for a dispensation to open LaFayette Council. This was granted August, 1870, with the writer as Most Illustrious Master. The Grand Officers of the Grand Council of that State came to Washington and opened LaFayette Council.

Inasmuch as the great body of Royal and Select Masons in the District had received the degrees of Royal and Select Masters in their several chapters prior to the Royal Arch, it was decided that all such Royal Arch Masons, as well as those who had never received the Council degrees, should be

received at a nominal price (five dollars) for those degrees. Accordingly, in two nights sessions the Grand Officers conferred the Royal, Select, and Super-excellent degrees upon 158 R.A. Masons. A Charter was granted December 14, 1870, and the council started with flying colors and great

success. This council continued with some measure of prosperity for several years, when from internal dissensions the members lost their interest and in a few years ceased to attend, and the council died out.

 

When the General Grand Council of the United States was organized in 1881, the present writer, after correspondence with Companion Josiah H. Drummond, the General Grand Master, and a few members of the defunct body, petitioned for another council to be called “Washington,” with the principal officers of the deceased LaFayette Council at the head. A dispensation was granted, and started with good prospects. At the next meeting of the General Grand Council a Charter was granted. Since that time Washington Council, No. 1, has continued to grow, but not as rapidly as she should. Indeed, the District of Columbia should have several councils in prosperous operation, and that, too, under the constitution of a Grand Council for the District.

 

Florida.

 

The Southern Supreme Council, exercising its undoubted right of control at that time over the degrees of Royal and Select Masons, through some one of her inspectors, perhaps in South Carolina, had, previous to 1858, issued at different times warrants to form three councils in Florida. The present writer is personally aware of the one existing at Warrington, adjoining the navy-yard at that locality, as he reported for duty as Chief Constructing Engineer at that naval station February, 1857, and found a thriving lodge, chapter, and council in full operation, and it was his great pleasure to assist in the work in all of these bodies at that time.

January 13, 1858, these three councils organized a Grand Council, at the time of the agitation of who should control these degrees. After much discussion the Grand Chapter of Florida declined to act. The Grand Council became a member of the General Grand Body.

There have been no proceedings of the body issued since 1882, and there have been no meetings since 1884. In the proceedings of the General Grand Council for 1897 there is a broad black mark across the page opposite to Florida, where the Grand Recorder’s name should have been, but in the tables of annual assemblies from 1894 to 1896 Florida appears with names of the Grand Officers.

 

Georgia.

 

We learn that one of the deputies of the Southern Supreme Council, Abram Jacobs, conferred the degree of Select of Twenty-seven in the State of Georgia. On May 2, 1826, a Grand Council was organized by the authority of the Inspector-General of the Supreme Council, which is noticed in the publications of that day. June 25, 1841, three councils met, and a Grand Council was established by the authority of the Supreme Grand Council of the 33 degree, in Charleston, S.C. They adopted the constitution of the former Grand Council of 1826. That body, having ceased to work, became dormant and the records were lost. In the revised constitution of 1842 they claimed to be the highest source of legitimate Masonic authority in the State of Georgia, and of right ought to have the government and superintendence of all councils of Royal and Select Masters within its jurisdiction. (1) This Grand Council belongs to the General Grand Council and is reported in the proceedings of 1897.

 

Idaho

 

A council was organized in Idaho by a dispensation from the Officers of the General Grand Council, viz., Idaho Council, No. 1, at Pocatillo, December 15, 1896 - which was annulled afterward; also a dispensation for Adoniram Council, at Boise, January 30, 1896. Dispensation continued until next assembly.

Illinois

The Grand Council of Kentucky having issued charters to several councils in the State of Illinois, a Grand Council was organized March 10, 1854. In 1877 the degrees wcre surrendered to the control of the Grand Chapter of Royal Arch Masons, notwithstanding that in 1854 it refused to heal Royal and Select Masters who had been made in the chapters. The Grand Council, however, continued its annual sessions, its constituents being composed of the mixture of regularly made Council Masters and those made in the chapters. This did not prove satisfactory, and in 1882 the Grand Council and Grand Chapter agreed to resume their old condition. Illinois Grand Council is an independent Grand Body.

Indiana.

In the State of Indiana the Council degrees were given in the chapter work.  After the General Grand Chapter’s decision, councils were chartered by the Grand Councils of Kentucky and Ohio. Chapter Royal and Select Masons were “healed” and the Grand Council of Indiana was organized December 20, 1855.

Iowa.

When Royal Arch Masonry was first planted in Iowa, the Council degrees were part of the chapter work. After the decision of the General Grand Chapter, in regard to these degrees, Companions were “healed” by the authority of the Grand Master of the Grand Council of Illinois. Charters were issued by that Grand Council to councils in Iowa, which subsequently organized the Grand Council of Iowa, January 2, 1857. In 1878 the Grand Council merged itself into the Grand Chapter of Iowa, nineteen councils having been duly organized prior to that time. To the present day those degrees are merged into the chapter of Royal Arch.

Kansas.

Three councils of Royal and Select Masters were chartered by the Grand Council of Missouri, in the State of Kansas, and December 2, 1867, these three councils organized a Grand Council of Royal Select and Super-excellent Masons.

Kentucky.

The Select degree was carried into the State of Kentucky by J.L. Cross, when in 1817 he made his official tour through the Western States as General Grand Lecturer of the General Grand Chapter. December 10, 1827, six councils met by their delegates and organized a Grand Council of the State, which is said to be the result of John Barker’s efforts in behalf of the Supreme Council of the Southern Jurisdiction, A.’. A.’. S.’. R.’. This jurisdiction felt the effects of the Morgan anti-Masonic period from 1830 to 1840, when the Grand Council met only once. The degrees were merged into the chapter from 1878 to 1881. After the organization of the General Grand Council the Grand Council of Kentucky was re-organized. Companion H.B. Grant, M.’. III.’. Gr.’. Master, in his annals mentions the case of a Thrice Illustrious Master of a council who communicated the degrees outside of a council, and who construed his obligation to mean that he could not confer the degrees except in a council, but could communicate the degrees, and so directed the record to be made as if conferred in a council. This was declared by the Grand Master to be irregular, and required recognition to be refused until they were “healed” in open council. The Grand Council of Kentucky is an independent body.

Louisiana.

It is stated that John Barker in 1827 organized Holland Council, No. 1, in New Orleans, and in the “tableau” of the Grand Chapter of Louisiana in 1828 it is referred to. When in or about 1850 Capitular Masonry was re-organized, Cryptic Masonry was also revived. Four councils formed a Grand Council February 10, 1856. One of these was Holland, No. 1. The others had been chartered by the Grand Councils of Kentucky and Alabama.

Maine

At an early period a council had been organized in Maine, working under the General Grand Chapter. The Grand Council of Massachusetts organized three councils, and these, by their delegates, formed the Grand Council, May 3, 1855.

Maryland

In the introduction of this history of the Cryptic Rite, the connection of Eckel and Niles, as leaders at an early date, was noticed. (1) The Select degree was then only recognized as an appendant to the regular curriculum of degrees of the A.’. A.’. S.’. R.’. which was controlled by the Deputy Inspectors of that rite. This was prior to 1800, and perhaps extended into the present century, as late as the date of the certificate, or dispensation, given to Cross. We have seen, under District of Columbia, the steps which were taken, as eady as 1824 to incorporate these degrees with the chapter work and to precede the Most Excellent Master’s degree.  This union of the Cryptic with the Capitular system continued until 1872, when, by law, the Grand Chapter separated them. Six council after this (May 12, 1874) organized the present Grand Council of the State, which became a member of the General Grand Council and so continues.

Massachusetts.

In 1817 a voluntary council of Royal Masters was organized by Benjamin Gleason and others, and subsequently obtained the sanction of Columbian Council of New York. A Select council was formed at Springfield, May 28, 1818, by J.L. Cross. Six councils, at different times, having been

organized, their delegates met February 8, 1826, and on June 15, 1826, completed the formation of a Grand Council. The records of this body having been lost during the anti-Masonic period, nothing is known concerning these degrees until the re-organization in 1847. From the year 1853 the Grand Council has met regularly and great prosperity has followed. It is asserted that Hiram Council, at Worcester, with 1,070 members in 1897, is the largest council of Royal and Select Masters in the world.

Michigan

The Grand Council of Connecticut had chartered three councils in the State of Michigan, and these, by their delegates, met in convention on January 13, 1858, and organized a Grand Council for the State. In 1856 that Grand Council granted a Charter for a council at Detroit. This Grand Council is independent, and chapter -made Royal and Select Masons are not in favor.

Minnesota

The Grand Council of Iowa having chartered three councils in Minnesota, December 12, 1870, these three by their delegates organized a Grand Council. The council which had been chartered by the Grand Council of New York in 1855 soon became dormant. This Grand Council is a member of the General Grand Council.

Mississippi

From our careful exarnination into the early history of Cryptic Masonry in the State of Mississippi, we find that John Barker, before mentioned as agent for the Southern Supreme Council, established at Natchez, Miss., a Grand Council of Princes of Jerusalem in 1829, which assumed the control of the Royal and Select Master’s degrees, and under the auspices of the Council of Princes of Jerusalem seven councils were organized, and these by their delegates organized a Grand Council January 19, 1856. After the close of the war, in 1865, a number of the councils having surrendered their charters, and others having become dormant, the Grand Council, which had assemtacd annually, in 1877 adopted a plan which became widely known as the “Mississippi Plan,” which provided:

“Each Royal Arch Chapter shall hereafter open within its bosom, under its charter, as a Chapter of Royal Arch Masons, a Council of Royal and Select Masters; the officers of the Chapter corresponding in rank to those of the Council.

“All the Royal Arch Masons who have not received the degrees of Royal Master and Select Master shall be entitled to have the same conferred or communicated on their request and without charge; but candidates who shall hereafter receive the Royal Arch degree shall immediately thereafter, and in connection with the Royal Arch degree, receive the degrees of Royal and Select Master without additional charge.”

The Grand Council was dissolved, and this plan was adopted in many jurisdictions, the General Grand Chapter having placed on record at Lexington, Ky., at the meeting September 16, 1853, the following resolution

“Resolved, That this General Grand Chapter and the governing bodies of Royal Arch Masonry affiliated with, and holding jurisdiction under it, have no rightful jurisdiction or control over the degrees of Royal and Select Master.”

“Resolved, That this General Grand Chapter will hereafter entertain no question or matter growing out of the government or working of these degrees while in their present position.”

All of the independent jurisdiction except Iowa, which adopted the Mississippi Plan,” have rescinded the same and returned to the council organization. In 1888 the Grand Council of Mississippi at its session that year adopted the following :

“Resolved, That the Grand Royal Arch Chapter hereby releases control of the Cryptic Degrees and recommends that the Grand Council of Royal and Select Masters resume its former jurisdiction of the degrees.

“That Chapters are hereby prohibited from communicating and conferring the Cryptic Degrees, recognizing the authority of the Grand Council in all matters pertaining to said degrees.” In February, 1888, the Grand Council of Mississippi met, six of the officers being of those elected in 1877. Six councils were represented.

At the sixth triennial assembly of the General Grand Chapter, which met in Baltimore, Md., October 11, 1897, the following paper was unanimously adopted :

“Whereas, The report of Companion Josiah H. Drummond as chairman of the Committee on Correspondence of the Grand Council of Maine for the year 1894, and the Address of Companion Frederic Speed, Grand Master of the Grand Council of Mississippi for the year 1895, present facts that conclusively show that a misunderstanding has existed in the minds of our Companions in Mississippi for some years past, as to the attitude of General Grand Council towards the Grand Council of Mississippi; therefore be it

“Resolved, That the General Grand Council, through its Grand Master, extend to the Companions of the Grand Council of Mississippi its fraternal greetings and its best wishes for the prosperity of the Cryptic Rite in Mississippi.”

Also this minute appeared: “Most Illustrious Frederic Speed, Grand Master of the Grand Council of Mississippi, was announced and received with the Grand Honors, escorted to the East, and greeted by the Most Puissant Grand Master in a happy and felicitous manner.

“Companion Speed thereupon addressed the General Grand Council in very eloquent language; thanking the Puissant Grand Master for the cordiality of his reception, etc. The above preamble and resolution was then read and Companion Speed spoke feelingly as follows:

“’Most Illustrious Sir and Companions:

“’When I say that the reading of the resolution, which I have just heard, affords me the most sincere satisfaction and pleasure, I but feebly voice the emotions of my heart. If I know myself or the great-hearted men who comprise the Cryptic Masons of Mississippi, I can honestly say that we have taken no pleasure in the long estrangement which has unfortunately divided us, and I am sure they will receive with no less happiness than I now do, the message of peace and good will which come to us, through the action of this most illustrious Body. Receive then, Sir, this right hand as a

pledge, in their name, of reconciliation and peace, given with a determination to forget the past, and to strive in the bonds of friendship and brotherly love, with you, for the upbuilding of the temple of the Lord, letting the past bury its dead, and acting in the living present, heart within and God overhead. Whom God hath joined together, let no man put asunder.”

Missouri,

It is said by very good authority that Cross, in his tour through the West, conferred the Select degree in Missouri; in what year is uncertain. Also it is said that the Royal degree was introduced as early as 1828. In 1841 there were three councils in the State: one in St. Louis, one at Palmyra, and where the other was located the present writer can not recollect. At that time, 1841-42, he was in St. Louis and received the Royal and Select degrees in Missouri Council, No. 1, at St. Louis, about the time the Grand Council met. Immediately after the Grand Council closed he wrote up and recorded the transactions of the Grand Council.

These bodies became extinct, as well as some councils which had been chartered by the Grand Council of Kentucky. May 21, 1864, the Grand Council was organized.

In 1848 the writer having gone to Independence to construct a local railroad, found the Council degrees incorporated in the chapter by the Charter, to be worked subsequent to the Royal Arch.

Montana.

The following councils in Montana received dispensations from the General Grand Council, viz.:

Glendive, at Glendive...........April 22, 1896. Dispensation.

October 12, 1897. Chartered.

Custer, at Miles City...........October 24, 1897. Dispensation, Annulled.

Adoniram, at Livingston.........May 13, 1897.

Continued.

Mystic at Bozeman...............May 20, 1897.

Continued.

Zabud, No. 2, at Butte..........May 22, 1897.

October 12, 1897.

Montana, at Dillon..............October 24, 1897.

Annulled.

Deer Lodge, at Deer Lodge.......June 10, 1897.

Annulled.

Anaconda, at Anaconda...........June 11, 1897.

Annulled.

Hellgate, at Missoula...........September 1, 1897 Continued.

Hiram, at Kalispell.............September 2, 1897, Annulled.

These councils were all reported at the triennial of the Supreme Council in 1897.

Nevada.

The following councils were organized by dispensations issued by the Grand Officers of the General Grand Council for Nevada.

Dispensation.

Carson, at Carson................September 3, 1896.

Continued.

Mountain, at Virginia City.......September 4, 1896.

Continued.

Reno, at Reno....................September, 1896.

Continued.

Eureka, at Eureka................September 21, 1896.

Continued.

These were reported to the triennial of the General Grand Council in 1897.

New Mexico

The following, councils were granted dispensations, by the Officers of the General Grand Council, for New Mexico, viz.

Deming, No. 1, at Deming............April 8, 1887.

November 19, 1889.

Las Vegas, at Las Vegas.............March 16, 1895.

Annulled.

Santa Fe, at Santa Fe...............May 1, 1895.

Continued.

Hiram, at Albuquerque...............May 7, 1895.

Annulled.

Alpha, at Raton.....................May 11, 1895.

Annulled.

Nebraska.

Omaha Council was organized July 8, 1867, by a Charter from the Supreme Council of the Southern Jurisdiction. Two other councils were chartered by the Grand Council of Kansas. The Grand Council was formed by the delegates of the above-mentioned three councils, November 20, 1872. In 1878 the councils adopted the “Mississippi Plan.” In 1886 the Grand Council was revived, and then afterward joined the General Grand Council, where she is now.

New Hampshire.

August 5, 1815, four Companions organized a council of Royal Masters at Hopkinton, N.H. J.L. Cross, in 1819, instituted another council of Select Masons, at Hopkinton; these two were united in 1822. On July 9, 1823, a Grand Council was formed. During the period from 1835 to 1855 the councils were dormant. The above two councils, Orphan and Columbian, after 1855 were revived, and Adoniram Council, which had been chartered by the Grand Council of Connecticut united and formed a Grand Council, June 11, 1862.

New Jersey

Kane Council, No. 11, was chartered by the Grand Council of New York; and two other councils, viz., Scott, No. 13, at New Brunswick, and Gebal, No.  14, at Tretiton, were chartered by the Grand Council of Pennsylvania.  These three councils organized the Grand Council, November 26, 1860. It has always been an independent Grand Council.

New York.

The earliest time when we find any organization in the State of New York of the Council degrees is September 10, 1810; at which time a meeting of Royal Masters was held in St. John’s Hall, in New York City, and a council of Royal Masters was opened, with Companion Thomas Lowndes presiding; and it was determined to organize a Grand Council to be called Columbian Council of Royal Master Masons for the City of New York. Thomas Lowndes was elected and installed Thrice Illustrious Grand Royal Master. Nineteen members, Royal Master Masons, were present. It is thought, and no doubt correctly so, that this was the very first council formed, and was regarded as authority, as on the evening of December 6, 1817, a petition was received from a council organized in Boston, asking the sanction of Columbian Council for its formation. This was granted, and Benjamin Gleason was recognized as T.I.G.M. of the said new council.

From the records of Columbian Council it appears that a council of Knights of the Round Table was convened, as also a Chapter of Illustrious Knights of the Holy Order of the Garter, wherein Companions were installed Knights of the Illustrious and Invincible Order of St. George of Cappadoci, by which latter title the Order was sometimes known.

Thomas Lowndes was annually elected T.I.G.R.M. from the organization, September 2, 1810, to July 9, 1820, and presided at every meeting. Five Companions received the degree of Superexcellent Master December 22, 1817.  There is no record of the Select Master’s degree earlier than November 25, 1821. In January, 1823, it was “Resolved, That it is expedient to form a Grand Council of Royal Master Masons and Select Masons for the State of New York, and that T.I.G.R.M. Thomas Lowndes be requested to call a convention of all the present and past Grand Royal Masters and Deputy Grand Royal Masters and Grand Wardens in this city, in order to carry into effect the formation of said Grand Council.” A convention was held January 25, 1823, and a Grand Council of Royal and Select Masters was formed Thomas Lowndes being elected M.I.R.G.M., which council continued until June 4, 1860, when it united with a Grand Council which had been organized in the city of New York, May 27, 1854, by delegates from councils of Royal and Select Masons working under the authority of the Grand Council of Connecticut. In the formation of the General Grand Council the New York Companions took a very active part.

North Carolina.

At a very early date Masonry was introduced into North Carolina. A Warrant for a lodge, called “Royal White Hart Lodge,” at Halifax, was granted August 21, 1767, and the first Grand Council was formed at Fayetteville, June 21, 1822. At the convention for the organization of this body five councils were represented, they having all been chartered by the Supreme Council of the Southern Jurisdiction. The effort to incorporate the degrees with the chapter did not succeed. The Grand Chapter had endeavored to control the degrees, but in 1859 “Resolved, That this Grand Chapter, after due consideration, hereby disclaims for itself and subordinates any and all control over the Royal and Select Master’s degrees.” The Supreme Council of Southern jurisdiction chartered, by Dr. A, G. Mackey, as agent, three councils, and a Grand Council was organized June 6, 1860. In consequence of the War no meeting was held until 1868. This body was dissolved in 1883, and the degrees were turned over to the Grand Chapter.  In 1887 the Grand Council was re-organized. It is now an independent body.

Ohio.

John Barker, the agent of the Supreme Council Southern Jurisdiction, at a very early day organized five councils in Ohio. J.L. Cross had been in Ohio perhaps as early as 1817; some authors say 1816; we think not, as he had not received his commission as General Grand Lecturer until the session of the General Grand Chapter, June 8, 1816. Moreover, as the General Grand Chapter refused the proposition, at that session, to incorporate the degrees in the chapter work, and as it is asserted by Folger that Cross went to Baltimore, and the paper issued by Eckel and Niles is dated in 1817 (May 27th), the very fair presumption is that Cross did not attempt to confer the Select prior to the date of his authority, whether that “paper” was genuine or a forgery, as Companion Josiah H. Drummond has pronounced it to be. Companion Drummond has traced the “itinerary” of Cross through Western Pennsylvania, Ohio, Kentucky, Mississippi, and Louisiana, and thence to Baltimore, May, 1817. In 1827 a council was established at Cleveland by Charter from the Grand Council of New York. A Grand Council for the State was organized January 6, 1830, by the five councils organized by John Barker.

North Dakota.

The following councils received their dispensations from the Officers of the General Grand Council, viz. :

Dispensation. Charter.

Casselton, No. 1, at Casselton, December 7, 1888 November 10, 1889.

Hilkiah, No. 2, at Jamestown, September 1, 1893 August 21, 1894.

Dispensation.

Hiram Council, at Valley City......................December 31, 1895.

Continued.

Rae Council, at Grand Forks........................ January 2, 1896.

Annulled.

Zabud Council, at Devil’s Lake..................... January 3, 1896 Annulled.

Towner Council, at Towner..........................January 6,

1896

Continued

Adoniram Council, at Fargo........................February 15,

1896

Continued

Damascus Council, at Wahpeton.................... February 18, 1896 Annulled.

Mizpah Council, at Park River..................... March 15, 1896 Annulled.

Tyrian Council, at Lisbon..........................April 6, 1896

Continued

Bismarck Council, at Bismarck.....................April 20, 1896

Continued

Oregon.

By authority of the General Grand Master of the General Grand Council, Companion A.H. Hodson was authorized to convene not less than five Royal and Select Masters, and to confer the degrees upon not exceeding nine Royal Arch Masons. A dispensation was issued to Pioneer Council, U. D., at McMinnville.

Three councils convened February 3, 1885, and formed a Grand Council for Oregon under the jurisdiction of the General Grand Council.

Pennsylvania.

October 26, 1847, two councils in Pennsylvania, and one in Texas, formed the Grand Council. This Grand Council disbanded and was re-organized in 1854. Papers of the meetings from 1847 to 1851 have been found, but it seems no regular records were ever kept. It was proposed in the Grand Council, in 1854, to turn the degrees over to the control of the Council of Princes of Jerusalem, which, however, was not accepted; and December 30, 1854, the Grand Council was re-organized. It is an independent jurisdiction, but does not recognize those who have received the degree in chapters.

Rhode Island.

A meeting of Royal Masters was convened in Providence, R.I., March 28, 1818, and May 19th “Resolved, That the degree of Select Master be attached to this Council.” J.L. Cross gave that council a Charter in 1819. For many years this council was dormant, and no meeting was held until 1841. The Grand Councils of Massachusetts and Connecticut issued charters to other councils, and the Supreme Council of Northern Jurisdiction A.’.A.’.S.’.R.’.  gave authority to confer the degrees of Royal and Select Master upon a Charter for a Lodge of Perfection at Newport, which in 1870 was revoked, a Grand Council having been organized on October 30, 1860, from which a Charter was obtained. This Grand Council is independent.

South Carolina

In the preface to this chapter much of the early history of the Cryptic degrees has already been given in detail. The Supreme Council of the Southern Jurisdiction had great influence in the direction of the government of the Cryptic Rite in South Carolina. Nine councils of Royal and Select Masons were chartered in the years of 1858 and 1859. The Supreme Council in 1860 waived its rights, and a Grand Council was regularly formed, February 15, 1850. In 1880 the “Missisippi Plan” was adopted. However, in 1881, the Grand Council was re-organized and became a member of the General Grand Council.

South Dakota.

The following councils received dispensations from the Officers of the General Grand Council in South Dakota:

Alpha Council, No. 1, at Sioux Falls... D. April 11, 1891.

C. July 21, 1891.

Lakota “ “ Deadwood........September 7, 1895.

Annulled.

Black Hills Council “ Hot Springs.....September 9, 1895.

Annulled.

Zabud “ “ Yankton.........September 25, 1895.

Annulled.

Scotland “ “ Scotland........October 1, 1895.

Surrendered.

Omega “ “ Salem...........October 10, 1895.

Continued.

Hiram “ “ Canton..........October 30, 1895.

Annulled.

Koda “ “ Flandreau.......October 31, 1895.

Surrendered.

Brookings Council, No. 1 at Brookings... November 1, 1895.

Annulled.

Aberdeen “ “ Aberdeen........November 4, 1895.

Annulled.

Adoniram “ “ Webster.........November 6, 1895.

Annulled.

Emanuel “ “ Millbank........November 14, 1865.

Annulled.

Mitchell “ “ Mitchell........November 28, 1895.

Annulled.

Oriental “ “ Pierre..........December 12, 1895.

Annulled.

Mystic “ “ Huron...........December 30, 1895.

Surrendered.

Faulk “ “ Faulkland.......December 31, 1885.

Annulled.

Tennessee

Two councils derived their authority to organize councils in the State of Tennessee from the Supreme Council of the Southern Jurisdiction. Two other councils had obtained charters from the Grand Council of Kentucky, and one other had received a dispensation from the Grand Council of Alabama. These five councils by their delegates organized a Grand Council, October 13, 1847.

This Grand Council united with the General Grand Council.

Texas

From the history of the Cryptic Rite in Pennsylvania we learn that a council of Texas united with two councils in Pennsylvania in the organization of a Grand Council in 1847; hence these degrees must have been worked in a council in Texas at that time. June 24, 1856, a Grand Council for Texas was organized, which was disbanded in 1864, and the degrees remanded to the chapters, which can be conferred upon Royal Arch Masons only.

Utah.

The following dispensaions were issued by the Grand Officers of the General Grand Council to form councils in Utah, viz. :

Summit Council, at Park City, September 2, 1895, which was very soon surrendered.

Utah, No. 1, at Salt Lake City, dispensation granted February 13, 1892, and chartered August 21, 1894.

Vermont.

After J.L. Cross had made his tour in the South and West he was in Vermont in July, 1817. In a letter from Haverhill, N.H., he says: “I made no further tarry until I arrived at Windsor, Vermont, where I established a council of Select Masons. They, finding that the degree was full of information, and that it could not be given antecedent to that of the Royal Arch, wished for a warrant to empower them to confer it, upon which I granted them one in the words following.” (Omitted.)

Cross was made a Royal Arch Mason in Champlain Chapter, No. 1, at St.Albans, Vt., July 11, 1815, while engaged as a lecturer to the lodges.

Companion Drummond claims that the first permanent body of Select Masters was the council formed by Cross at Windsor, Vermont, July 5, 1817. He founded a council at Bradford, also, in 1817.

By himself or by his deputy, John H. Cotton, Cross organized nine councils.

The Warrant of the counch at Bennington having been preserved, we give it, as follows:

 

“To all whom these presents may come, GREETING:

 “Know ye, that by the high powers in me vested by the Thrice Illustrious and Grand Puissant in the Grand Council of Select Masters, held at the City of Baltimore, in the State of Maryland, North America, I do hereby constitute and empower the within named Companions to form themselves into a regular Council of Select Masters, and I do hereby appoint my worthy Companion Samuel S. Young to be first Thrice Illustrious Grand Master, Zacheus Hovey, to be first Illustrious Deputy Grand Master, and Oliver Abell to be the Principal Conductor, and I do grant them full power, with their constitutional number, to assemble, open, and confer the Degree of Select master, and do all other business appertaining to said degree, for which this shall be their warrant, until revoked by the Grand Puissant.  And I do further direct said Council to hold its meetings at Bennington, Bennington County, and State of Vermont. Given under my hand at Bennington this twenty-third day of May, A.D. 1818, and of the Discovery 2818.

 

“Signed JOHN H. COTTON,

“Acting Deputy Puissant in Grand Council.”

 

 These councils continued until 1826-1828. During the Morgan anti-Masonic period, like all other branches of Masonry, nothing was done. A re-organization took place in 1849, under their original warrants, until 1854. Four of these councils organized a Grand Council August 10, 1854.

Vermont united with the General Grand Council.

 

Virginia.

 

In the previous history of the rite we have shown that Myers remained for some time in Virginia and was in Norfolk and in Richmond, where he communicated the degrees of Royal Master and Select of Twenty-seven, under his authority as Inspector of the A.’.A.’.S.’. Rite. Jeremy L. Cross, it is said, established a council of Select Masters in December, 1817, in Richmond, and soon thereafter in Portsmouth and other towns.

 A Grand Council was formed in 1820 and often failed to meet, as in 1829 to 1839, and in 1847 was dissolved, and the degrees were remanded or rather turned over to the chapters, where they have remained to the present time.

 These degrees are conferred in the chapter preceding the Royal Arch under the mistaken idea that the incidents therein related occurred at the building of the Temple, and those of the Royal Arch were laid at the rebuilding thereof, forgetting that, as allegorical representations, they should of necessity for proper instruction be, as they were originally designed, subsequent to the “Mason of the Royal Arch,” or thirteenth of the A.’.A.’.A.’.R.’.

Washington.

The General Grand Council by its Officers issued dispensations to Washington to organize councils as follows :

Dispensation. Chartered.

To Tacoma, No. 1, at Tacoma.....February 9, 1891. July 21, 1891.

To Colfax, No. 2, at Colfax....June 9, 1893. August 21,

1894.

To Mt. Baker, No. 3, at New Whatcom... June 14, 1893 August 22, 1894.

To Spokane, No. 4, at Spokane...July 8, 1893 August 21, 1894.

To Pomeroy, No. 5, at Pomeroy...July 16, 1893 August 22, 1894.

To Seattle, No. 6, at Seattle...May 9, 1894 August 21, 1894.

These councils, by order of the General Grand Master, issued May 31, 1895, were assembled by their representatives, June 5, 1895, and the adoption of a constitution and the election of their Officers were duly and regularly constituted, and the Officers were installed by the Special Deputy, Elijah M. Beatty, and so reported to the General Grand Recorder.  Zabud Council, No. 7, at Walla Walla, had a dispensation granted December 8, 1874, and was reported for 1895. This council became a constituent, under a Charter, of the Grand Council of the State, chartered June 8, 1896.

Wisconsin.

The Grand Council of Ohio chartered three councils in Wisconsin, and a Grand Council was organized by the delegates of these three October 28, 1857. By arrangement and consent the degrees were turned over to the Grand Chapter in 1878. In 1881 a Grand Council was again organized by delegates from forty-nine councils.

Wisconsin is an independent Grand Council.

Wyoming.

The following dispensations were issued by the Grand Officers of the General Grand Chapter for Wyoming, viz.:

Cheyenne Council, at Cheyenne...........June 24, 1895.

 

Surrendered June 5, 1896.

Laramie “ “ Laramie............July 4, 1896.

Annulled.

Zabud “ “ Evanston.......... September 2, 1895.

Annulled.

Tyrus “ “ Green River........September 3, 1896.

Surrendered.

Sheridan “ “ Sheridan...........May 12, 1896.

Annulled.

ABSTRACT OF RETURNS OF SUBORDINATE COUNCILS FOR THE YEAR 1896

Name of Grand Lodge Held at Membership.

Washington, No. 1......Washington, D.C............125 Olive, No. 1...........Prescott, Ariz..............10 Phoenix, U.D...........Phoenix, Ariz.................  Tucson, U.D............Tucson, Ariz..................  Canon City, No. 5......Canon City, Col.............32 Hiram, U.D.............Greeley, Col................16 Zabud, U.D.............Colorado Springs, Col.......35 Leadville, U.D.........Leadville, Col..............30 Glendive, U.D..........Glendive, Mont..............12 Custer, U.D............Miles City, Mont.............9 Adoniram, U.D..........Livingston, Mont.............8 Mystic, U.D............Bozeman, Mont...............15 Zabud, U.D.............Butte, Mont.................22 Montana, U. D..........Dillon, Mont................12 Deer Lodge, U.D........Deer Lodge, Mont............11 Anaconda, U.D..........Anaconda, Mont..............12 Deming, No. 1..........Deming, N.M.................37 Las Vegas, U.D.........Las Vegas, N.M................  Santa Fe, U.D..........Santa Fe, N.M...............16 Hiram, U.D.............Albuquerque, N.M..............

Alpha, U.D.............Raton, N.M..................15

Casselton, No. 1.......Casselton, N. Dak...........23

Hilkiah, No. 2.........Jamestown, N. Dak...........20

Hiram, U.D.............Valley City, N. Dak.........22

Rae, U.D...............Grand Forks, N. Dak.........19

Zabud, U.D.............Devil’s Lake, N. Dak .......13

Towner, U.D............Towner, N. Dak..............11

Adoniram, U.D..........Fargo, N. Dak...............17

Damascus, U.D..........Wahpeton, N. Dak............10

Mizpah, U.D............River Park, N. Dak...........9

Tyrian, U.D............Lisbon, N. Dak..............11

Bismarck, U.D..........Bismarck, N. Dak............18

Alpha, No. 1...........Sioux Falls, S. Dak.........23

Lakota, U.D............Deadwood, S. Dak............21

Black Hills, U.D.......Hot Springs, S. Dak.........16

Zabud, U.D.............Yankton, S. Dak............16

Scotland, U.D..........Scotland, S. Dak............11

Omega, U.D.............Salem, S. Dak...............10

Hiram, U.D.............Canton, S. Dak..............14

Koda, U.D..............Flandreau, S. Dak...........17

Brookings, U.D.........Brookings, S. Dak...........16

Aberdeen, U.D..........Aberdeen, S. Dak............14

Adoniram, U.D..........Webster, S. Dak.............14

Emanuel, U.D...........Milbank, S. Dak.............10

Mitchell, U.D..........Mitchell, S. Dak............19

Oriental, U.D..........Pierre, S. Dak..............15

Mystic, U.D............Huron, S. Dak...............14

Faulk, U.D.............Faulkton, S. Dak............13

Utah, No. 1............Salt Lake City, Utah........38

Summit, U.D............Park City, Utah.............22

Cheyenne, U.D..........Cheyenne, Wyo.................

Laramie, U.D...........Laramie, Wyo................18

Zabud, U.D.............Evanston, Wyo...............13

Tyrus, U.D.............Green River, Wyo............17

Sheridan, U.D..........Sheridan, Wyo...............12

 

SUBORDINATE COUNCILS UNDER THE IMMEDIATE JURISDICTION OF THE GENERAL GRAND COUNCIL, 1896.

Council Location. Date of Date of Charter.

Dispensation.

 

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.

Washington, No. 1 Washington No dispensation August 14, 1883.

 

ARIZONA.

 

Oliver, No.1 Prescott July 1, 1893 August 22, 1894.

Phoenix, U.D. Phoenix April 4, 1895 Surrendered.

Tucson, U.D. Tucson April 5, 1895 Surrendered.

 

COLORADO.

 

Denver, No. 1 Denver Jan. 16, 1892 August 21, 1894.

Rocky Mountains, No.1 Trinidad March 24, 1895 August 21, 1894.

Durango, No. 3 Durango May 16, 1893 August 21, 1894.

Akron, No. 4 Akron May 23, 1893 August 21, 1894.

Canon City, No. 5 Canon City June 5, 1893 August 21, 1894.

Pueblo, No. 7 Pueblo April 10, 1894 August 21, 1894.

Hiram, U.D. Greeley Dec. 8, 1894 Surrendered.

Zabud, U.D. Colorado Springs May 27, 1895 Dispensation

Leadville, U.D. Leadville June 10, 1895 Surrendered.

 

IDAHO.

Idaho, U.D. Pocatillo Dec. 15, 1896 Annulled.  Adoniram, U.D. Boise Jan. 30, 1897 Dispensation continues.

MONTANA.

Zabud, No. 2 Butte May 22, 1896 October 12, 1897.

Glendive, U.D. Glendive April 22, 1896 Dispensation

continued.

Custer, U.D. Miles City April 24, 1896 Annulled.

Adoniram, U.D. Livingston May 13, 1896 Dispensation

continued.

Mystic, U.D. Bozeman May 20, 1896 Dispensation

continued.

Montana, U.D. Dillon May 24, 1896 Annulled.

Deer Lodge, U.D. Deer Lodge June 10, 1896 Annulled.

Anaconda, U.D. Anaconda June 11, 1896 Annulled.

Hellgate, U.D. Missoula Sept. 2, 1896 Dispensation

 

continued.

Hiram, U.D. Kalispell Sept. 2, 1896 Annulled.

NEVADA.

Carson, U.D. Carson Sept. 3, 1896 Dispensation continued.

Mountain, U.D. Virginia City Sept. 4, 1896 Dispensation

continued.

Reno, U.D. Reno Sept. 19, 1896 Dispensation

continued.

 

Eureka, U.D. Eureka Sept. 21, 1896 Dispensation continued.

NEW MEXICO.

Deming, No. 1 Deming April 25, 1887 November 19, 1889.

Las Vegas, U.D. Las Vegas March 16, 1895 Annulled.

Santa Fe, U.D. Santa Fe May 1, 1895 Dispensation

continued.

Hiram, U.D. Albuquerque May 7, 1895 Annulled.

Alpha, U.D. Raton May 11, 1895 Annulled.

NORTH DAKOTA.

Casselton, No. 1 Casselton Dec. 17, 1888 November 19, 1889.

Hilkiah, No. 2 Jamestown Sept. 1, 1893 August 21, 1894.

Hiram, U.D. Valley City Dec, 31, 1895 Dispensation continued.

Rae, U.D. Grand Forks Jan. 2, 1896 Annulled.

Zabud, U.D. Devil’s Lake Jan. 3, 1896 Annulled.

Towner, U.D. Towner Jan. 6, 1896 Dispensation continued.

Adoniram, U.D. Fargo Feb. 15, 1896 Dispensation continued.

Damascus, U.D. Wahpeton Feb. 18, 1896 Annulled.

Mizpah, U.D. Park River March 15, 1896 Annulled.

Tyrian, U.D. Lisbon April 6, 1896 Dispensation continued.

Bismarck, U.D. Bismarck April 20, 1896 Dispensation continued.

 

SOUTH DAKOTA.

 

Alpha, No. 1 Sioux Falls April 11, 1891 July 21, 1891.

Lakota, U.D. Deadwood Sept. 7, 1895 Annulled.

Black Hills, U.D. Hot Springs Sept. 9, 1895 Annulled.

Zabud, U.D. Yankton Sept. 25, 1895 Annulled.

Scotland, U.D. Scotland Oct. 1, 1895 Surrendered.

Omega, U.D. Salem Oct. 10, 1895 Dispensation continued.

Hiram, U.D. Canton Oct. 30, 1895 Annulled.

Koda, U.D. Flandreau Oct. 31, 1895 Surrendered.

Brookings, U.D. Brookings Nov. 1, 1895 Annulled.

Aberdeen, U.D. Aberdeen Nov. 4, 1895 Annulled.

Adoniram, U.D. Webster Nov. 6, 1895 Annulled.

Emanuel, U.D. Milbank Nov. 14, 1895 Annulled.

Mitchell, U.D. Mitchell Nov. 28, 1895 Annulled.

Oriental, U.D. Pierre Dec. 12, 1895 Annulled.

Mystic, U.D. Huron Dec. 30, 1895 Surrendered.

Faulk, U.D. Faulkton Dec. 31, 1895 Annulled.

UTAH.

Utah, No. 1 Salt Lake City Feb. 13, 1892 August 21, 1894.

Summit, U.D Park City Sept. 2, 1895 Surrendered.

WASHINGTON

Zabud, U.D. Walla Walla Dec. 8, 1894. Became Constituent Grand Council of Washington.

WYOMING.

Cheyenne, U. D.......... Cheyenne........ June 24, 1895.. Surrendered.

Laramie, U. D........... Laramie.......... July 4, 1895 ... Annulled.

Zabud, U. D............. Evanston.......... Sept. 2, i895-.. Annulled.

Tyrus, U. D........... Green River . . . . . SePt- 3, 1895... Surrendered.

Sheridan, U. 6......... Sheridan.......... May I2, i896.. Annulled.

 

SUMMARY OF GRAND COUNCIL RETURNS FOR THE YEAR 1896.

From the Proceedings of the General Grand Council, 1897.

Grand Council. Held at Membership.

Arkansas............Little Rock.............321

California..........San Francisco...........901

Florida.............Milton...................72

Georgia.............Macon...................518

Indiana.............Indianapolis..........2,525

Indian Territory....Muskogee.................97

Kansas..............Wichita.................797

Louisiana...........New Orleans.............207

Maine...............Portland..............2,189

Maryland............Baltimore...............555

Massachusetts.......Boston................5,294

Minnesota...........St. Paul................734

Missouri............Springfield.............704

Nebraska............Omaha...................371

New Hampshire.......Concord...............1,416

New York............New York City.........3,932

Ohio................Sandusky..............4,222

Oregon..............East Portland...........189

South Carolina......Charleston..............133

Tennessee...........Nashville...............507

Vermont.............Burlington............1,056

Washington..........Seattle.................215

Subordinates of General G Council...........962

 

INDEPENDENT GRAND COUNCILS.

Grand Council. Held at Membership.

Alabama..........Montgomery..................

Connecticut......Hartford....................

Illinois.........Chicago.....................

Kentucky.........Covington...................

Michigan.........Coldwater...................

Mississippi......Jackson.....................

New Jersey.......Trenton.....................

North Carolina...Wilmington..................

Pennsylvania.....Lancaster...................

Rhode Island.....Providence..................

Wisconsin........Milwaukee...................

 

FOREIGN GRAND COUNCILS.

Canada, Ontario...........Barrie, Ontario

England and Wales.........London

New Brunswick.............St. John ........

 

 

CHAPTER LVIII

Back to index

HISTORY OF THE GRAND AND SUBORDINATE COMMANDERIES IN THE SEVERAL STATES AND TERRITORIES OF THE UNITED STATES

 

Templar.

THE records of the early conclaves of the General Grand Encampment are the only sources of any definite information in regard to the introduction of the Templar Order into the several Masonic jurisdictions. Whoever, therefore, has gone over the pages of those early records for any extended information will say, that for want of order and exactness they will compare with any other defective records now extant. Discrepancies in dates continually occur, even within a few pages of each other, so that the compiler, after a diligent search and memoranda taken, will very soon have to alter the same. We can refer any reader, for example, to the statistical tables of the dates of organization of the several Grand Commanderies in the Proceedings of 1880 and of 1895 for comparison. In many cases in the reports of the General Grand Officers, as to the formation of the subordinate commanderies, it is said frequently: “Since the last conclave I have issued dispensations to the following subordinate Commanderies,” without giving any dates whatever, leaving the compiler the difficult task of searching in the future pages for the definite years, months, and dates to find when these commanderies had their dispensations issued to them. This was a constant source of error in dates, and, frequently, was a great annoyance in the preparation of this sketch. We trust that should errors in dates be found hereafter the finder will consider the quandaries of the compiler, and especially if he should undertake to rectify our errors.

We have endeavored sedulously and faithhfully, as historian, to gather all the facts upon record, to give a truthful narrative of the formation of the subordinate bodies, as well as the constitutions of them also; and the organization of the Grand Commanderies in the several jurisdictions. While

all this has been an arduous task, there has been mingled with the task quite a pleasurable sensation in traveling over the “sacred ground” of “Templarism”; and our “pilgrimage” has yielded much satisfaction in making the acquaintance of so many distinguished knights who wrought so hard in

building up an institution, which from the small beginnings of the eighteenth century, at its end, has resulted, in the close of the nineteenth century, in one of the most magnificent “Orders” the world has ever witnessed.

The Knight Templar order, as it is now constituted in the United States, has no rival in the world, and to emphasize its influences for good the Grand Encampment of the United States should, at its very next conclave, carry out the design of our most distinguished and lamented Knight, J.Q.A.  Fellows, to make the city of Washington the permanent headquarters, and erect such a Temple as would be commensurate with the dignity and importance of the Magnanimous Order of Knights Templars of the United States of America.

Note.-Dates of all the blanks marked with an asterisk could not be ascertained.

Alabama.

The Grand Commandery of Knights Templars for the State of Alabama was organized December 1, 1860, by the representatives of five commanderies, viz. :

Washington (Marion), at Marion; chartered in 1844. (No history.)

Mobile, No. 2, at Mobile; formed April 7, 1848, and chartered May 8, 1851.

Tuscumbia, No. 3, at Tuscumbia; formed August 1, 1848; chaptered October 12, 1850.

Montgomery, No. 4, at Montgomery; formed October 17, 1853; chartered September 19, 1853.

Selma, No. 5, at Selma; formed May 15, 1838; chartered September 16, 1859.

 

Arizona.

The Grand Commandery of Arizona was formed by Warrant from the Grand Encampment of the United States November 16, 1893.

The first commandery was Arizona, No. 1, at Tucson, February 22, 1883; (1) by dispensation, which was surrendered September 2, 1897. Then followed:

Ivanhoe, No. 2, at Prescott, by dispensation September 30, 1892, and chaqered December 2, 1892.

Phoenix, No. 3, Phoenix, by dispensation October 7, 1892, and chartered November 14, 1892.

 

Arkansas.

The Grand Commandery of Arkansas was constituted May 25, 1872.

The first commandery organized was Hugh de Payens, No. 1, at Little Rock, December 20, 1853, () which received a Charter September 10o, 1856.

Hugh de Payens, No. 3, at Fort Scott; dispensation granted April 13, 1867; chartered September 18, 1868; constituted October 11, 1868 (3).

Jacques De Molay, No. 3; dispensation granted December 30, 1868, (4) and chartered September 21, 1871. (5)

Baldwin, No. 4, Fayetteville; dispensation April 28, 1871; (7) chartered September 21, 1871. (7)

Bertrand de Guesclin, Camden; dispensation issued April 13, 1867 chartered September 10, 1868. (9)

 

California.

The Grand Commandery of Knights Templars for California was organized August 10, 1858, under the Warrant of the then Grand Master of the General Grand Encampment of the United States, Sir William B. Hubbard.

The first commandery formed in California was San Francisco, No. 1, at San Francisco, November 10, 1852, and chartered November 1, 1853.

The second was Sacramento, No. 2, at Sacramento, May 23, 1852, and chartered February 6, 1854.

The third was Pacific, No. 3, at Columbia, February 20, 1856, and chartered September 10, 1856.

Colorado

The Grand Commandery was constituted March 14, 1876. The commanderies were:

Colorado, No. 1, at Denver; dispensation granted January 13, 1866, and chartered September 10, 1868 constituted January 26, 1869.

Central City, No 2, at Central City; dispensation granted November 8, 1866, and chartered September 18, 1863. (3)

Pueblo, No. 3, at Pueblo; dispensation granted September 10, 1874, and chartered December 3, 1874.

Connecticut.

The Grand Commandery was constituted between 1829 and 1832, according to the list in the Proceedings of 1856, p. 358; but in the Proceedings of 1898 the date is given September 13, 1827. We assume the first date to be correct, as in the Proceedings of the Grand Encampment we find the Grand Encampment of Connecticut represented at the fifth meeting, held November 29, 1832, but not so represented at the fourth meeting, September 14, 1829, nor is any mention made of the formation of the Grand Body in the minutes of said meeting of 1829, which would have been if the Grand Commandery had been organized. The first commandery formed was Colchester, at Colchester;

Charter dated September, 1819. The second was New Haven, at New Haven; dispensation issued November 5, 1825, and chartered September, 1826.

Note. - At the second rneedng of the Grand Encampment, Proceedings of September 16, 1810, p. 6, say: “Resolved, That a charter of recognition be granted to the encampment of Colchester in Connecticut.”

At the conclave held in Pittsburg, 1898, the tabular statement for that year shows eleven subordinate commanderies.

Note. -The report of the General Grand Recorder for 1880, in tabular statement, p. 136, under Grand Commandery of Connecticut, says: “Organized July, 1796.”

Dakota Territory.

Dakota, No. 1, at Deadwood; constituted August 14, 1881. Cyrene, No. 2, at Sioux Falls; dispensation was granted August 14, 1881, and was formed November 22, 1881; chartered August 23, 1883.

February 25, 1882, dispensation was granted to De Molay, No. 3, at Yankton; formed March, 1882; chartered August 23, 1883.

March 23, 1883, dispensation granted to Tancred, No. 4, at Bismarck; formed April 12, 1883; chartered August 23, 1883.

Fargo, No. 5, at Fargo; dispensation issued June 24, 1883.

Delaware.

The first commandery formed in Delaware was St. John’s, No. 1, at Wilmington; dispensation dated March 10, 1868; chartered September 18, 1868.

District of Columbia.

The first commandery organized in the District of Columbia was Washington, No. 1, in Washington City, December 31, 1824; chartered January 14, 1825.

Columbia, No. 2, received a dispensation January 18, 1863, and a Charter September 7, 1865.

Potomac, No. 3, in Georgetown, received a dispensation March 4, 1870, and a Charter September 22, 1871.

De Molay, in Washington City, received a dispensation February 19, 1872, and a Charter December 3, 1874. This commandery is mounted.

Orient Commandery, in East Washington, received a Charter August 29, 1895, and was constituted October 19, 1895.

Four of these commanderies, viz.: No. 1, No. 2, No. 4, and No. 5, met in convention January 14, 1896, and organized the Grand Commandery of the District of Columbia by authority of a Warrant of the Grand Encampment dated December 2, 1895.

Potomac, No. 3, united with the Grand Commandery at its Organization under the Warrant, January 4, 1896.

Florida.

The Grand Commandery was organized August 15, 1895, by a Warrant dated August 1, 1895. The following commanderies were organized:

Coeur de Lion, No. 1, at Warrington; dispensation June 20, 1868; Charter *

1868; renewed December 3, 1874.

Damascus, No. 2, Jacksonville; dispensation May 18, 1870; chartered September, 1871.

De Molay, No. 3; dispensation March 17, 1851

Olivet, No. 4; dispensation * 1889.

Pulaski, No. 5; dispensation February 21, 1893

Plant City, No. 6; dispensation March 10, 1895.

Georgia.

The Grand Commandery was organized April 25, 1860, by authority approved

September 16, 1859.

Georgia Encampment, No. 1, at Augusta, received a dispensation dated in 1823, and chartered May 5, 1823.

St. Omar, No. 2, at Macon; dispensation granted July 26, 1848, and chartered September 11, 1850.

St. Aldema, at Columbus; dispensation dated December 1, 1857.

Coeur de Lion, at Atlanta; dispensation dated May 14, 1859, and chartered September 17, 1859.

Idaho.

The following commanderies have been instituted in Idaho Idaho, No. 1, at Boise City; dispensation May 24, 1882; formed September 13, 1882; chartered August 23, 1883.

Lewiston, No. 2, at Lewiston; chartered August 11, 1892.

Moscow, No. 3, at Moscow; chartered August 11, 1892.  Gate City, No. 4, Pocatello; chartered August 29, 1895; instituted December 14, 1895.

 

Illinois.

The Grand Commandery was organized October 27, 1857, by authority of the Grand Encampment June 27, 1857, and duplicated September 15, 1857. The subordinate commanderies were:

Apollo, No. 1, at Chicago; by dispensation 1844 to 1847, and chartered

September 14, 1847. The tabular statement in Proceedings for 1856, p. 358, is indefinite.

Belvidere, No. 2, Alton; by dispensation March 25, 1853, and chartered November 1, 1853.

Central, or Centre, No. 3, at Decatur; by dispensation July 26, 1856; extended October 24, 1856; and by order of Grand Encampment continued until the ensuing session of the State Grand Commandery.

Peoria, No. 4, at Peoia; by dispensation July 25, 1853, and Charter September 19, 1853.

Freeport, No. 5 at Freeport; by dispensation June 10, 1857, and Charter September 16, 1859.

Indiana.

The Grand Commandery of Indiana was organized May 16, 1854, by authority of the Grand Encampment April 24, 1854. The commanderies in Indiana were :

Roper, No. i, at Indianapolis; by dispensation May 14, 1848, and Charter October 16, 1860.

Greensburg, No. 2, at Greensburg; by dispensation January 25, 1851, and Charter September 19, 1853.

La Fayette, No. 3, La Fayette; by dispensation April 2, 1852, and Charter September 19, 1853.

Fort Wayne, No. 4, at Fort Wayne; by dispensation May 13, 1853, and Charter September 19, 1853.

Indian Territory.

The Grand Commandery was instituted by authority of the Grand Encampment December 17, 1895, the Warrant being issued November 28, 1895, at Muscogee.

The subordinate commanderies were :

Muscogee, No. 1, at Muscogee; by dispensation dated December 6, 1892, and

Charter *Chickasaw, No. 2, at Purcell; by dispensation dated May 31, 1894, and Charter August 29, 1895, and constituted October 29, 1895. 

McAllester, No. 3 at McAllester; by dispensation dated July 14, 1894, and Charter August 29, 1895, and constituted October 14, 1895.

 

Iowa.

The Grand Commandery of Iowa was organized June 6, 1864, by authority of the Grand Encampment September 19, 1859. The subordinate commanderies were:

De Molay, of Iowa, No. 1, at Muscatine; by dispensation March 14, 1855, and Charter September 10, 1856.

Palestine, No. 2, at Iowa City; by Charter at once, September 15, 1856.

Siloam, No. 3, at Dubuque; by dispensation February 9, 1857, and Charter September 16, 1859.

Des Moines, No. 4, at Des Moines; by dispensation July 10, 1857.

 

Kansas.

The Grand Commandery was constituted December 29, 1868, by Warrant from the General Grand Master, Sir William Sewall Gardner, December 2, 1868. The subordinate commanderies were:

Leavenworth, No. 1, at Leavenworth; dispensation issued February 10, 1864; chartered September 6, 1865.

Washington, No. 2, at Atchison; dispensation issued June 5, 1865; chartered September 6, 1865.

Hugh de Payen, No. 3, at Fort Scott; dispensation issued April 13, 1867; chartered September 18, 1868.

De Molay, No. 4, Lawrence; dispensation issued March 10, 1868; chartered September 18, 1868.

Kentucky.

The Grand Commandery was constituted October 15, 1847, by Warrant from the Grand Encampment. The subordinate commanderies were:

Webb, No. 1, at Lexington; by Charter at once, January 1, 1826.

Louisville, No. 2, at Louisville; by dispensation January 2, 1840, and by Charter September 17, 1851.

Versailles, No. 3, at Versailles; by dispensation April 26, 1842, and Charter * 1844.

Frankfort, No. 4, Frankfort; by Charter September 15, 1847.

Montgomery, No. 5, at Mt. Sterling; dispensation (1) some time between 1842 and 1847; by Charter September 15, 1847.

There is no note of a dispensation issued to Frankfort Encampment, but in the account current of the G.G. Recorder we find that Frankfort Encampment, Kentucky, paid for dispensation $90, also that Montgomery Encampment did the same, and as in the latter case the tabular statement, p. 358, mentions that dispensation as between 1842 and 1847, Frankfort Encampment may have been in the “same boat.” We have been forcibly impressed, in reading over these old records, how very careless the General Grand Officers and also the recorders and committees were in omitting important dates in their reports, which omissions have cost this writer many, many weary hours in hunting up such data as would enable him to supply these important dates for the benefit of the future student of Masonic history.

Louisiana.

The Grand Commandery of Louisiana was organized by the Warrant of the Grand Encampment February 12, 1864.

The Invincibles, at New Orleans, was organized between 1826 and 1829, and a Charter was issued some time in 1829.

Indivisible Friends, No. 1. This encampment was chartered by the Grand Encampment of New York in 1826. Jurisdiction was transferred to the General Grand Encampment in 1838 and accepted.

Jacob de Molay, No. 2, New Orleans; dispensation April 15, 1850; continued by order Seyember 12, 1850, and chartered April 25, 1851.

Maine

The Grand Commandery was constituted May 5, 1852, for the State of Maine.

Portland Encampment, No. 2, is the first one on the printed list

Front Proceedings of Grand Encampment, 1847, we copy this:

“Resolved, That the Report of the Committee of Dispensations and New Encampments be so amended as to permit Frankfort and Montgomery Encampments to join in the petition for the formation of a Grand Encampment in the State of Kentucky.” Which was rejected at Portland; dispensation issued between 1842 and 1847, and chartered September 14, 1847.

St. John’s, No. 3, at Bangor; dispensation February 18, 1850, and chartered September 17, 1850.

We can not find any evidence in the body of the Proceedings of No. 1, but the “Register” at end of 1847 and 1850 Proceedings gives “Maine,” No. 1, at Portland, * 1844, and chartered September 14, 1847.

Maryland.

The Grand Commandery was constituted January 23, 1871.

The first commandery instituted was Maryland, No. 1, at Baltimore. This encampment was first chartered by the Grand Encampment of Pennsylvania May 2, 1814, and it appears on the record of 1832 of the Grand Encampment of the United States. A resolution was passed admitting it under the jurisdiction of the General Grand Encampment, and directing that its Charter be endorsed by the General Grand Officers.(1)

Baltimore, No. 2, Baltimore; by dispensation June 17, 1859, and Charter September 16, 1859.

We shall now follow the history of the Knight Templar Order in Maryland by Sir Knight Edward T. Schultz, to whom the whole world of Masonry is indebted for his four volumes of the history of Masonry in that State. The result of this labors to himself has been almost total blindness, brought about by his incessant application in search of the facts connected with Masonry in Maryland.

Sir Knight Schultz says:

“The writer has for many years given much time and attention to the investigation of the origin of Encampment No. 1 of this city, and while he has been fortunate in obtaining documents which clearly establish the date of its organization, and many interesting facts in reference to its early history, he has not, he regrets to state, anything but theories to offer in regard to the source whence it emanated.”

He had been furnished by the Grand Recorder of the Grand Commandery of Pennsylvania, Bro. Creigh, with certified copies of several documents in his office, written in 1814 and 1815, by the Officers of Encampment No. 1 of Maryland to the Grand Officers of the Grand Encampment of Pennsylvania, which had been recently formed and in which formation Encampment No. 1 had participated and was then a constituent.  Here follow copies of several old documents under seal to prove the facts set forth.

In one of these documents is a Charter of “recognition” which allowed their claim to an original organization prior thereto - dated in 1790 - as the letter from Archbishop Dobbin says: “I am induced to state that this Encampment insists in receiving its number and rank according to the date of its institution, the complete organization of which took place in the year 1790.” Consequently we must class Maryland among the early jurisdictions where Templary had its origin. This Charter of “recognition,” we must observe, was issued to “Encampment of Knight Templars, No. 1, Maryland,” thus showing that the demand made by the encampment, to have in rank and number agreeable to the date of its institution, was admitted to be a valid claim by the Grand Commandery of Pennsylvania, and thereby the year 1790 was fully recognized to be the date of the complete organization of Encampment No. 1, of Maryland.

Sir Knight Schuhz shows by documents that this encampment has had a continued existance from 1790 to the present day, and is yet known by the same name. There is a fac-simile of a Templar diploma shown and a copy of its text in print which shows that this Encampment No. 1 was in 1802

attached to Washington Lodge, No. 3, as Royal Arch Chapters and Encampments of Knights Templars in those early days were generally, if not wholly, held under warrants of Master Masons’ Lodges, In Webb’s Monitors of 1802 and 1805 are shown three encampments in Maryland, viz.: Nos. 3, 13, and 24, and Sir Knight Schultz thinks they were Washington Lodge, No. 3; Concordia, No. 13; and Zion Lodge, No. 24; the first two located in Baltimore, and the last in Havre de Grace, Cecil County.

There is shown also another facsimile diploma issued by Encampment No. 1 to Philip P. Eckel, which Sir Knight Schultz thinks indicates that the encampment had severed its connection with Lodge No. 3 and had an independent organization, and says it must have been certainly as early as 1807, from a Masonic notice in the City Directory for that year, viz.:

“Maryland Encampment No. 1, Knights Templars, meets on the second Tuesday in every second month.”

The copper-plate from which this diploma was printed is in the Archives of Maryland Commandery. It was designed by Philip P. Eckel and engraved by John Bannerman. An old lady named Elizabeth Sadds, living in Baltimore in 1881, aged ninety-four years, informed Sir Knight Schultz that she knew Bannerman well; that he came from Scotland in 1773 and was the first

engraver who lived in Baltimore, and he died in 1809. The seal is the same on all the documents and was used until about 1814, when a new seal was made (which is shown). This latter seal was used until 1854, when the name was changed to its present title, “Maryland Commandery, No. 1.” Sir Knight Schultz has only theories to suggest as to the source from which the encampment was originally formed. From traditions among the old members of the commandery it was supposed that the orders came from San Domingo with immigrants from that island. He says: “We for a long time were inclined to believe that the encampment originated in the Rose Croix Chapter ‘La Verite,’ which was brought to Baltimore by the refugees from San Domingo; but the discovery of the 1802 diploma would indicate that, at that time at least, the Encampment was held under the authority of a Master Mason’s Lodge.”

Sir Knight Schultz refers to the list of degrees published by Cole and mentioned by us in Chapter LI. In this list we enumerated the orders of the Red Cross, Knights Templar, and Knights of Malta, that were said to have been conferred by the Sublime Lodges, at Charleston, New York, and Newport in 1816.

Sir Knight William B. Hubbard, who was Grand Master of Templars, said: I suppose that we owe the origin of Templar Masonry in the United States to a distinguished Sov.’.Ins.’. of the Scottish Rite.” Bro. A.G. Mackey thought that the Orders of Knighthood were introduced through the A.’.A.’.R.’., not the A.’.A.’.S.’.R.’., for that system dates only from 1801, when it is well known that the Templar and Red Cross had both been worked as early as the South Carolina patent shows, in 1783. Bro. Robert Macoy, in his sketch of the Knights Templar of New York, says:

“After a very careful examination of this important subject, we are impressed with the conviction that the introduction of the Order into this country was brought about somewhat in this wise: That a few Sir Knights, having received the Order in England, or Ireland and having immigrated to this country, met together, as they became known to each other, by appointment, in a secluded place in New York and other parts of the country; and after testing each other by the best evidence in their possession, organized themselves into ‘encampments’ or ‘conclaves,’ and assumed control of ‘territorial jurisdiction,’ conferred the Orders, elected officers, issued diplomas, etc.” “For the present, or something more reliable than any ‘statement’ yet presented can be accepted, we can offer nothing better as authentic history for the introduction of the Order of Knights Templar upon this Continent; nor do we deem it derogatory to the legitimacy of the ‘transmission’ or of the merits of the system of Templarism, to admit these conclusions. During the early period of the institution there was no organized body that possessed absolute authority to issue warrants, hence it was recognized as legal for any number of Sir Knights, having the inherent righl to assemble in a secure place, apply the essential tests to each other, open an encampment, receive petitions and create Knights Templar.”

Sir Knight Schultz concurs, somewhat, in the theories of Sir Knight Macoy, which he thinks “most worthy of acceptance,” and says: “In every instance in which there is a mention of the Templar degree being conferred in this country prior to the year 1800, it is in connection with a Master Mason’s Lodge. St. Andrew’s, of Boston, and St. Andrew’s Lodge, of Charleston, as has been stated, conferred the Order -the former in 1769 and the latter in 1783. The early encampments in Pennsylvania, Bro. Creigh says, were held under warrants of a Master’s Lodge; and Encampment No. 1, of Maryland, as shown by the first diploma, was attached to Washington Lodge, No. 3.”

After the organization of the Supreme Council of the A.’. A.’. S.’.R.’. at Charleston, in 1802, the Inspector-General took charge of all the degrees having no governing head, and as was stated by Cole, above referred to, “the Sublime Lodges at Charleston, Albany, and Providence conferred as many as fifty-five degrees.”

Subsequent to 1800, “Encampments were formed by Knights who received the Orders from an Inspector, or High Grade Mason.”

At the constitution of the Grand Encampment of New York, Elias Hicks, Orator of the day, said: “The numerous Encampments of Knights Templar now existing within this State being self-created bodies, are consequently governed by their own private and individual law, acknowledging no superior authority, because, in fact, none heretofore existed.

Sir Knight Schultz concludes, therefore, that Encampment No. 1 was organized in the same manner as those in New York were.

At the convention for the organization of the Grand Encampment in Pennsylvania, which met February 15, 1814, Sir Henry S. Keating was the delegate from Encampment No. 4, of Baltimore, Md.; who, on the election of Officers, which followed, was made G.St.B. Under the provision adopted therefor, a Charter of Recognition was granted to Encampment No. 1, of Baltimore, which has been referred to in this chapter.

After the organization of the General Grand Encampment of the United States, in New York City, June 20, 1816, Encampment No. 1, of Baltimore, came under its jurisdiction, but not until November 29, 1832, and an endorsement was made on the Charter of Recognition received from the Grand Encampment of Pennsylvania in 1814.

Sir Knight Schultz claims that Encampment No. 1 “is the oldest existing body of Knights Templar upon the American Continent”

After Baltimore Commandery, No. 2, was chartered, there was no other commandery formed until Monumental, No. 3, of Baltimore, was organized by virtue of a dispensation issued by the Grand Master of Templars May 16, 1866. At the next triennial conclave, September, 1868, at St. Louis, a Charter was granted, and on November 6, 1868, the commandery was duly constituted.

July 12, 1870, resolutions were adopted to organize a Grand Commandery of the State. This occurred January 23, 1871.

Jacques De Molay, No. 4, of Frederick City, was organized by virtue of a dispensation issued November 23, 1867, by Sir Henry L. Palmer, Grand Master of Templars, which occurred March 2, 1868. At the triennial conclave of the Grand Encampment of the United States, September, 1868, a Charter was ordered, and continued until the formation of the State Grand Commandery, when it came under its jurisdiction.

Grand Master William Sewall Gardner issued a dispensation March 2, 1869, to form Crusade Commandery, No. 5, of Baltimore, and April 26, 1869, the first meeting was held. The Officers were selected, all of whom were members of Maryland Commandery.

Three chartered commanderies met in convention by their representatives in Baltimore, Md., December 12, 1870, and elected Grand Officers. The Grand Master was duly notified and requested to grant his Warrant for the formation of the Grand Commandery of Maryland.

The three commanderies were: Maryland, No. 1, Baltimore; Baltimore, No. 2, Baltimore; Monumental, No. 3, Baltimore.

The Warrant of the Grand Master was dated January 3, 1871. January 23, 1871, the Cdand Commandery was then dedicated in ancient form to St John the Almoner. The first Grand Conclave of the New Grand Commandery was held January 23, 1871.

May 11, 1871, Crusade Commandery, No. 5, of Baltimore, was constituted, under Charter granted by the Grand Commandery May 10, 1871.

Antioch Commandery, No. 6, of Cumberland, by dispensation issued August 26, 1871, was organized August 27, 1871. A Charter was issued, and January 14, 1873, the commandery was duly constituted.

Palestine Commandery, No. 7, at Annapolis, was organized April 14, 1873, a dispensation having been issued by Grand Commander Mann. A Charter was granted May, 1873. June 2, 1873, this commandery was duly constituted.

Beauseant Commandery, No. 8, received a dispensation May 27, 1875, to form a commandery in Baltimore, and was organized June 15, 1875. A Charter was granted May 10, 1876, and the commandery was duly constituted May 11, 1876.

Massachusetts and Rhode Island.

The Grand Encampment of Massachusetts and Rhode Island was formed May 6 1805, which was the first Grand Encampment to be organized in the United States, according to the authorities in Massachusetts, which statement has been challenged by the Templars in Pennsylvania, who claim that the very first Grand Encampment was organized in Philadelphia May 12, 1797, as will be shown under that head. Sir William Sewall Gardner, M. E. Grand Master of the Grand Encampment of Massachusetts and Rhode Island, at the semi-annual meeting in Boston, May 5, 1865, in his address said: “This day completes the sixtieth year of our existence as a Grand Encampment and marks an epoch in our history. “On the 6th of May 1805, Sir Thomas Smith Webb, of Providence; Sir Henry Fowle, of Boston; Sir Jonathan Gage, of Newburyport, with other Templar Masons, assembled in the Masonic Hall at Providence and formed this Grand Encampment.” “There they assembled and laid the foundation of Templar Masonry, as we recognize it to-day.” “ This Grand Encampment was the germ of Templar Masonry as now organized in the United States, and the ritual as adopted here has been taken as the true Templar Work throughout the jurisdiction of the Grand Encampment of the United States. I am aware that in Pennsylvania there was a Grand Encampment in the early part of this century, and that it professed to confer the Order of the Temple. It is impossible to tell now what its ritual was, but there is evidence tending to show that it was entirely different from that taught by this Grand Body.”.......

Perhaps no person in the United States had more to do with the formation and renovation of this ritual than Sir Henry Fowle. His judgment, therefore, upon the ritual as exemplified by the Grand Encampment of Pennsylvania in 1816 in his presence, is of great weight, and leads to the conclusion that the work as used by that Grand Body, whereon it originated, was entirely different from that in use in this jurisdiction.

“We have then for our gratification, not only the fact, which is now universally conceded, that this Grand Encampment is the oldest Grand Body of Masonic Knighthood upon this continent, but also that it has furnished the ritual which is now used in all the bodies, both Grand and Subordinate, within the United States.

“The English Order, from which our fathers in this Grand Encampment derived the elements of our ritual, is termed the ‘Masonic Knights Templar’s Conclave’ in open and avowed confession of the dependence of the Order upon the Masonic institution. I need but allude to the ritual to convince you that it was built upon Masonry, and that the form and manner of our work are eminently Masonic. In its teachings and its ceremonials, this Order of the Temple which we confer is but Masonry Christianized; a complete acknowledgment of and a full belief in the divine Mission of the risen Messiah, engrafted upon the Masonic forms, precepts, and ritual.”

“It is worthy of notice, from the establishment of this Grand Encampment to the present time, it has been one of the most conservative bodies of Knighthood in the United States.”

 

Mexcio.

 

A Warrant was issued to organize a commandery called “Popocatapetl,” No. 1, for the Federal Districts of Mexico, dated September 1893.

 

Michigan

The Grand Commandery of Michigan was instituted by the Grand Master of the General Grand Encampment, in person, who installed the Grand Officers January 11, 1858. The first Warrant was issued February 13, 1857. The first commandery organized was Detroit, No. 1, at Detroit; by dispensation November 1, 1850, and Charter September 19, 1853. Then followed Pontiac, No. 2, at Pontiac; by dispensation March 25, 1852, and Charter October 27, 1853. 

Eureka, No. 3, at Hillsdale; by dispensation February 13, 1854, and Charter September 10, 1856.

Peninsular, No. 4, at Kalamazoo; by dispensation March 3, 1856, and Charter September 10, 1856.

Monroe, No. 5, at Monroe; by dispensation March 29, 1856, and Charter September 12, 1856.

De Molay, No. 6, Grand Rapids; by dispensation May 9, 1856, and Charter September 12, 1856.

Peninsular, No. 4, it appears from the record, declined to place herself under the Grand Commandery of the State and regularly sent her returns and dues to the General Grand Recorder, acknowledging no other superior than the Grand Encampment from which she received her Charter on September 10, 1856. The controversy was referred to the Committee on Jurisprudence, which thoroughly examined the whole matter and the principles of State-Sovereignty in a report and offered the following:

“Resolved, That the Grand Commandery of Michigan, from the date of its formation has of right exercised sole and exclusive jurisdiction over all subordinates in that State.

“Resolved, That all dues paid by Peninsular Commandery, No. 4, to the Grand Recorder of this Grand Encampment, occurring since the formation of the Grand Commandery of Michigan, be paid to the Grand Recorder of that body.”

Which resolutions were adopted. The following was then adopted:

“Resolved, That at the formation of a State Grand Commandery, it is the right as well as the duty of every subordinate in the State, whether Chartered or under Dispensation, to enroll itself under such State Grand Commandery, and respect and obey its laws and regulations.” (3)

Minnesota.

The Grand Commandery of Minnesota was constituted October 23, 1865. The following were the subordinate commanderies :

Damascus, No. 1, at St. Paul by dispensation July 12, 1856, and Charter September 10, 1856.

Coeur de Leon, at Winona; dispensation issued May 13, 1864; chartered September 6, 1865.

Mankato, at Mankato; dispensation issued April 5, 1865 chartered September 6, 1865.

Zion, at Minneapolis; dispensation issued May 19, 1863 chartered September 6, 1865.

Mississippi

The Grand Commandery of the State of Mississippi was constituted January

21, 1857. The order to establish the Grand Commandery

(1) Proceedings of General Grand Encampment, 1859, p. 39.

(2) Ibid., p. 53.

(3) Ibid., p. 56.  was first issued December 5, 1856, and renewed December 22, 1856. The subordinate commanderies were :

Mississippi, No. 1, at Jackson; by dispensation July 5, 1844, and Charter September 12, 1844.

Magnolia, No. 2, at Vicksburg; by dispensation October 10, 1850, and Charter January 4, 1854.

Lexington, No. 3, at Lexington; by dispensation July 22, 1856, and Charter September 1, 1856.

Missouri.

The Grand Commandery for the State of Missouri was constituted May 2, 1860.

Approved September 16, 1859. (1)

St. Loius No. 1, at St Louis; no dispensation; chartered September 17, 1847.

Weston, No. 2; dispensation March 9, 1853, and chartered September 10, 1853.

Lexington, No. 3; dispensation September 30, 1853, and chartered September 10, 1856.

Montana.

The Grand Commandery of Montana was constituted May 14, 1888. Constituent commanderies:

Virginia City, No. 1, at Virginia City; dispensation August 27, 1860; chartered September 23, 1868.

Helena, No. 2, at Helena; dispensation January 21, 1869; chartered September 21, 1871.

Montana, No. 3, at Butte; by dispensation June 26, 1878, and chartered August 20, 1880; constituted June 24, 1881.

Damascus, No. 4, at Miles City; by dispensation March 8, 1886; formed March 16, 1886, and chartered September 23, 1886.

Nebraska.

The Grand Commandery of Nebraska was constituted December 27, 1871 (statement of 1895). (Statement of 1880 has 28th.)

The first commandery was Mount Calvary, No. 1; organized July 24, 1865; chartered September 6, 1865. The second was Mount Olivet, No. 2, at Nebraska City; organized January 25, 1867; (1) chartered September 18, 1868. (1) In the Proceedings of the nineteenth triennial of the General Grand Encampment for September 15, 1871, (2) it is recorded under “Proxies to constitute New Commanderies,” “ V.’. E.’. Sir George W.  Belt constituted and installed the officers of Mount Olivet Commandery, No.  2, Nebraska City, January 25, 1868.” In the Proceedings of 1868, September 18, (3) it is recorded that a Charter was ordered to be issued to Mount Olivet, No. 2, Nebraska City (September 18, 1868). Here appears to be a discrepancy, as a Charter was granted after the commandery was constituted (January 25, 1868). The third commandery was Mount Carmel, No. 3, at Brownsville; organized July 22, 1870; chartered September 21, 1871. The fourth was Mount Moriah, No. 4, at Lincoln; organized February 17, 1871; chartered September 21, 1871.

Nevada.

The first commandery organized in Nevada was De Witt Clinton, No. 1, at Virginia, February 4, 1867, and chartered September 18, 1868; constituted and officers installed, January 8, 1869. The second was Eureka, No. 2, at Eureka; dispensation granted June 6, 1880; chartered August 18, 1880, and constituted October 15, 1880.


New Hampshire

The Grand Commandery of New Hampshire was constituted September 28, 1897.

The first subordinate encampment which was warranted was Trinity, No. 2, located at first at Hanover, March 24, 1824. (5) It was dormant for some time, and was re-chartered September 19, 1853 and removed to Manchester.

De Witt Clinton, No. 1, Portsmouth; Charter January, 1826.

Mount Horeb, No. 4, Hopkinton; Charter May 21, 1826; became dormant in 1856.

North Star, No. 3, Lancaster; dispensation May 2, 1857; chartered September 16, 1859.

St. Paul, No. 4, at Dover; dispensation November 7, 1857 chartered September 16, 1859.

Mount Horeb, No. 5, at Concord; dipensation May 31, 1859. As above shown the original Charter was issued May 21, 1826, and was restored September 16, 1859. (1)

New Jersey.

The Grand Commandery of New Jersey was constituted February 14, 1860, by the approval of the General Grand Encampment dated September 16, 1859.

The first subordinate commandery was Hugh de Payens, No. 1, at Jersey City; by dispensation March 12, 1858, and Charter September 16, 1859; constituted November 25, 1859.

St. Bernard, No. 2, at Hightstown ; by dispensation March 27, 1859, and Charter September 16, 1859; constituted October 12, 1859.

Helena, No. 3, at Burlington; by dispensation September 16, 1859, and chartered September 16, 1859; (2) constituted October 12, 1859.

New Mexico.

The first commandery organized in New Mexico was Santa Fe, No. 1, at Santa Fe; dispensation granted May 31, 1869 organized Ma 31, 1869, and Charter September 21, 1871.

The next was Las Vegas, No. 2, at Las Vegas; dispensation April 10, 1882; chartered August 23, 1883.

Pilgrim, No. 3, at Albuquerque; dispensation April 4, 1883 chartered August 23, 1883.

McGorty, No. 4, at Deming; dispensation July 13, 1886; chartered September 23, 1886.

Aztec, No. 5, at Raton; dispensation November 16, 1892; chartered August 29, 1895, and constituted December 20, 1895.

Rio Hundo, No. 6, at Reswell; dispensation June 17, 1895 Charter August 29, 1895; constituted November 30, 1895.

New York.

The Grand Encampment of New York was formed ab origine, June 18, 1814.

There is no history of the regular formation of this Grand Encampment. In the history of the organization of the General Grand Encampment we have shown how the formation occurred. We are reminded of the remark of an old negro, who said: “Poor Marse Greely, he never had no father or mother, ‘kase he said hisself that he was a ‘self-made man.’” Nevertheless, he was the great editor of the great State of New York. Moreover, the Templars of that State can refer to another illustrious example, viz., “Melchizedek, King of Salem, the Priest of the Most High God, who met Abraham returning from the slaughter of the kings and blessed him. Without father, and without mother, without descent (pedigree), having neither beginning of days, nor end of life.”

The commencement of the Templar Order in New York is involved in great obscurity; yet there were several bodies, having no authority whatever, which were organized at an early date. Sir Knight Robert Macoy bestowed great labor in endeavoring to arrive at the very first history of the Order in New Vork.

In the volume of Proceedings of the Grand Commandery, there is a history of the Templar Order in New York State, prepared by the Grand Recorder. In a subsequent report he states that “Several of the Grand Recorders, committees, and reporters have embodied valuable historical hints in their several papers, which throw light upon the origin of Templary, . . . but none thus far have satisfactorily supplied the link that separates the Templars of the Crusades from the modern Templars or Templarism as it exists in the United States, England, and Canada.”

Sir Knight Macoy said that “Sir Knights anywhere in the United States could and probably did meet and increase their numbers or dignify their worthy companions by the authority of inherent rights, keeping few and probably no records. We are certain that those who lived and labored in the days referred to have passed to their final rest and have left few traces behind.”

Sir Knight Parvin, on commenting upon Sir Knight Macoy, says: “And yet the few traces they have left did not confirm the position assumed by Sir Knight Macoy, but rather go to prove that the Sir Knights made in those days were made in Lodges or Chapters working under Lodge Warrants, except possibly in a few instances, where the degree of Knight Templar was conferred by officers of some of the bodies of the Ancient and Accepted Scotch Rite.”

In this we agree with Sir Knight Parvin.

Sir Knight Macoy, in his efforts to prove priority for New York in Templary, supports his statement as to the existence of the Order prior to 1785, quotes from old newspapers published in New York City, verified by reference to the reprint of the Grand Lodge Proceedings from 1781 to 1815,

published in 1876, by authority of the Grand Lodge.

This is shown in the order of procession on St. John’s Day (December 27, 1785), providing that Knights Templars with drawn swords were to be in the procession. Also from the “Independent Journal,” December 28, 1785, is a notice of “the proceedings of the anniversary of St. John the Evangelist,” and that it gave the same programme or form of procession as was provided by the Grand Lodge; and then states, “that whilst the members of the fraternity celebrated the natal days of their patron saints, Sir Knights as a body seldom appeared in public.”

Sir Knight Macoy says further: “We refer to what was known as Old Encampment, Grand Encampment, and sometimes as Morton’s Encampment, of which General Jacob Morton was for many years Grand Master. The date and circumstances under which this Grand Encampment was established are not definitely known. The general belief is that it was the body of Knights

Templars that participated in the celebrations of St. John’s Day, December 27, 1785, June 24, 1789, and agan in 1795. The first published list of this Commandery appeared in 1796, when Jacob Morton was Grand Master. The body continued to hold stated meetings until 1810, when it disappeared. Gen’l Jacob Morton was admitted an honorary member of the Grand Encampment of the State in 1815.”

Reference is also made in these transactions of the Grand Lodge to the attendance of the “Knights Templars in the form as directed by their presiding officer,” etc., at the observance of “the solemn funeral rites in commemoration of our illustrious Brother, George Washington, with a procession,” etc.

At the first conclave after the formation of the Grand Encampment of the State, in June, 1814, the Grand Orator “delivered a discourse in which he gave a historical sketch of the foundation of the Order of Knights Templars, in a style calculated to excite the liveliest interest, which was manifested by reiterated applause; and in order, at the same time, to perpetuate the motives that led to the establishment of this Grand Encampment as the ground-work of our future operations. He concluded by giving the following concise account of the proceedings and the ceremonial that took place at its formation by the Sov.’. Grand Consistory of Chiefs of Exalted Masonry for the United States of America, its Territories and Dependencies, at their Asylum, held in the City of New Vork, on the 22d day of the month Shebath, of the Hebrew year, 7813, corresponding with the eleventh month, A.L. 5813; January A.D. 1814, and the foundation of our order the 694th year, and at which most, if not all, the members here present assisted.

“The numerous Encampments of Knights Templars now existing within this State, being self-created bodies, are consequently governed by their own private and individual laws, acknowledging no superior authority, because, in fact, none heretofore existed.”

The consistory itself which authorized this Grand Encampment was a self-constituted body of the Cerneau creation without any authority, and pirated degrees which never belonged to the Ancient and Accepted Rite, and thue is no evidence whatever that Cerneau or any of the members of that

consistory had ever received the Templar or Red Cross degree. At this conclave De Witt Clinton was chosen Thrice Illustrious Grand Master, who was not present; and by reference to all the Proceedings from 1814 to 1826 we do not find him as being present at a single conclave, although he was re-elected at every election until his death, which occurred in 1828.

At the conclave held May 22, 1815, Columbian Encampment, No. 5, was voted to have a Charter of Recognition, and it was also, voted “that the numerical characteristics 1, 2, 3, 4, be kept in reserve for the several encampments already established within this State, and in the order which they now respectively stands should they or any of them apply for a renewal of their Charters under the Grand Encampment.”

At the conclave held May 4, 1816, a Charter was granted upon the petition of “a collective body of Sir Knights Templars, Royal Arch Masons and Members of the Sov.’. Grand Council of Princes of the Royal Secret for the State of Louisiana, sitting at New Orleans, authorizing them to open and to hold, in a regular and authentic manner, an encampment of Sir Knights of the Red Cross, Most Holy and Illustrious Knights of Malta, Knights of the Mediterranean Pass and Invincible Knights Templars, to be under and subject to the jurisdiction of that Grand Encampment and who had formed themselves into a provisory association under the title of Louisiana Encampment, No.  ___, until the pleasure and sanction of the Supreme Body be known and obtained. This was known as No 6.

At the conclave held June 9, 1816, a delegate was chosen to represent the Grand Encampment in the convention of representatives from the Grand Encampments of the several States in the Union, to be held at Philadelphia on Tuesday next, and Thomas Lowndes was selected.

The history of that coovention has already been written in Chapter LIII.

At the annual conclave held June 29, 1816, Columbian Encampment, was the first encampment to be represented in any conclave. A Charter was also issued for an encampment of Knights Templars and Appendant Orders, sitting at New Orleans.

By a special conclave the Grand Recorder was instructed to correspond with Sir Thomas Smith Webb, Deputy General Grand Master, requesting copies of the Constitution of the General Grand Encampment of the United States, for the purpose of so modifying the Constitution of this Grand Encampment that it may conform thereto.”

At the annual conclave a committee reported and submitted a form of new constitution and it was adopted.

The preamble sets forth :

“The Grand Encampment of the State of New York having by its representatives assisted to form the General Grand Encampment of the United States of America, and having acknowledged the supreme authority of the same, did, on the 11th day of December, A.D. 1820, in full session, upon report of a committee appointed to revise the former constitution, adopt the former constitution for its future government.”

From the minutes of the special conclave held on Trinity Sunday, June 17, 1821, for the purpose of installing the Grand Officers, after which a resolution was adopted to transmit certain copies of the constitution to different parties, the only subordinate encampments mentioned are Columbian, No. 5, in New York, and Indivisible Friends, No. 6, in New Orleans, which No. 6 was originally chartered as Louisiana Encampment.  Copies were also sent to the encampments at Albany and Stillwater, in that State, which had not yet united with the Grand Encampment.

At the special conclave held February 8, 1823, upon application therefor, a Warrant was issued to Utica Encampment, No. 7, at Utica. At a special conclave February 18, 1823, a Warrant was ordered to be issued, upon application therefor. to Temple Encampment, No. 2, at Albany.

At the special conclave held August 16, 1823, upon application therefor, a Warrant was issued to form Morton Encampment, No. 4, in the city of New York. This encampment was regularly installed by the Grand Encampment August 18th following.

At the special conclave held September, 1824, upon application therefor, a Warrant was issued to LaFayette Encampment, No. 7, in the city of Hudson.

At the annual conclave there were present the representatives or proxies of Columbian, No. 1; Utica, No. 3; Morton, No. 4; and LaFayette, No. 7. At the annual conclave held December 16, 1825, warrants were issued to Plattsburg Encampment, No. 8, at Plattsburg; to Cherry Valley, No. 9, at Cherry Valley, and Genesee, No. 10, at Le Roy.

At the annual conclave held June 9, 1826, a Warrant was issued to Watertown Encampment, No. 11, at Watertown, to which a dispensation had been granted previously (no date mentioned). At the special conclave held September 18, 1826, an order was passed to authorize a dispensation to be issued to form an encampment in the village of Rochester. At the annual conclave field June 8, 1827, there were represented: Columbus, No. 1; Temple, No. 2; Utica, No. 3; Morton, No. 4; LaFayette, No. 7; Plattsburg, No. 8, Cherry Valley, No. 9; Genesee, No. 10; Watertown, No. 11.

A Warrant was issued to New Jerusalem Encampment, No. 13, in Ithaca.

A Warrant was also issued to Monroe Encampment, No. 12, a dispensation leaving been granted to this encampment in Rochester, ordered September 16, 1826.

Genesee Encampment was authorized to change its location from Le Roy to Batavia.

At a special conclave held February 20, 1808, resolutions were adopted on the death of their distinguished Chief, De Witt Clinton.

At the annual conclave held June 6, 1828, a Warrant was ordered to be issued to Clinton Encampment, No. 14, in Brooklyn, a dispensation having been previously issued.

We have now brought the history of this important Grand Encampment down from its doubtful origin to the death of the distinguished Chief, who was also the Head and Mainstay of the General Grand Encampment until his death, and our limits in this chapter will not permit us to proceed any further, and we close by observing that no single Grand Commandery has exerted greater influence for good and the prosperity of Templar Masonry than the Grand Commandery of the Empire State.

Esto perpetua.”

North Carolina.

The Grand Commandery of North Carolina was constituted May 10, 1881.

The first official notice of Templarism is found in the Proceedings of the Grand Encampment of the United States, September 19, 1826, where it is reported that a Charter had been granted, among many orbers, to Fayetteville Encampment, at Fayetteville, December 21, 1821.

In the report of the General Grand Recorder at the tenth meeting, held September 14, 1847, he stated that a dispensation had been issued to that Encampment, but whether a Charter was granted he is unable to say.  “Certain it is, the encampment is known to have ceased all operations many years ago, although it is said a Charter was known to have existed.”

The General Grand Recorder also stated:

“Some time in 1845 a Sir Kright from Richmond, Virginia, and another from another State, not now recollected, assisted by a most respectable Sir Knight of Wilmington, North Carolina, who, it is said, had seen the Charter which had there been consumed by fire, held a meeting and conferred the degrees of Knighthood upon so many Royal Arch Masons as seemed to them sufficient to form an Encampment; and, having done so, they proceeded to elect officers and to organize an encampment. This being done, the Recorder of that body so formed wrote to the undersigned, requesting that another Charter might be furnished them. Being informed that all their proceedings were irregular, it is believed they proceeded no further, but he can not assert with certainty that such is the fact” Fayetteville Encanmpment, at Fayetteville, was originally chartered

December 21, 1821; as before stated.

Wilmington Encampment, at Wilmington, was chartered originally at an early date, but there is no record in the Proceedings of the General Grand Encampment except in 1874, where it is said the dispensation was renewed March 18, 1872.

The following was adopted at the conclave of the General Grand Encampment September 16, 1850.

“Resolved, That the letter of P.W. Fanning, dated Wilmington, North Carolina, September 8, 1850, with its enclosure, being referred to the General Grand Recorder, to reply to the same, and with the view of authorizing the Sir Knights of Wilmington and

Fayetteville to resume their labors as Encampments subordinate to this General Grand Encampment; and that the Most Excellent General Grand Master is empowered, in his discretion and upon examination into the merits of the case, the authorizing of a charter in the place of the one lost, without other than the Recorder’s fee as to him may appear just and expedient.”

Charlotte, No. 2, at Charlotte; dispensation was issued June 14, 1875, and chartered August 30, 1877.

Durham, No. 3, at Durham; was constituted October 14, 1880.

North Dakota.

The Grand Commandery of North Dakota was constituted June 16, 1890.

Ohio

The Grand Encampment of the State of Ohio was constituted October 24, 1843.  The General Grand Encampment voted for the constitution of the Grand Encampment September 17, 1841.

The first subordinate encampment was established at Worthington by dispensation June * 1818, and chartered September 16, 1819.

The second was Miami, at Lebanon; by Charter May 14, 1826.

The third was Clinton, No. 1, at Mount Vernon; by dispensation 1826 and 1829, and was represented in the General Grand Encampment in 1829.

The fouth was Lancaster, No. 2, at Lancaster. There does not appear on record any dispensation, but a Charter was granted December 9, 1835.

The fifth was Cincinnati, No. 3; by dispensation December, 1839, and Charter September 17, 1841.

The sixth was Massillon, No. 4, at Massillon; by dispensation July 5, 1843, and Charter September 12, 1844.

The seventh was Mount Vernon, No. 5, at Mount Vernon; by dispensation July

22, 1843, and Charter September 12, 1844, which was originally Clinton, No. 1.

Oklahoma.

The Grand Commandery of Oklahoma was constituted by authority of the Grand General Encampment February 10, 1896. Warrant to form Grand Commandery dated November 8, 1895. (1) The subordinate commanderies were :

Guthrie, No. 1, at Guthrie; by dispensation November 17, 1892, and Charter December 22, 1892.

Oklahoma, No. 2, at Oklahoma; by dispensation October 7, 1892, and Charter November 12, 1892.

Ascension, No. 3, at El Remo; by dispensation May 8, 1893, and Charter August 29, 1895, and was instituted December 3, 1895.

Oregon.

The Grand Commandery of Oregon was constituted April 13, 1887.

Ivanhoe, No. 2, at Eugene City; by dispensation April 6, 1883, and chartered August 23, 1883.

Temple, No. 3, at Albany; by dispensation June 5, 1886, formed July 8, 1886, and chartered September 24, 1886.

Pennsylvania.

The commencement of the Templar Order in Pennsylvania was at an early day, and a contest was vigorously prosecuted between the Templars of Massachusetts and Rhode Island and Pennsylvania as to when a Grand Commandery was formed and in which jurisdiction. We shall quote from Sir Alfred Creigh’s work on Templarism in Pennsylvania to show what he has written on that point in his reply (2) to Sir Wm. S. Gardner, of Massachusetts, in his address at the semi-annual meeting in Boston, May 5, 1865. (3)

“The history of Templarism in Pennsylvania is one of peculiar interest to every Sir Knight of the Order, whether enrolled under our banner, or waging war in sister jurisdictions in defence of innocent maidens, helpless orphans, destitute widows, and the Christian religion. To Pennsylvania and Pennsylvania alone are we indebted for the first Grand Encampment which was ever constituted in the United States. She therefore has no competitor for the honor, the glory, and the immortality which is emblazoned upon her Templar history; and the 12th day of May, 1797, when the Convention met in Philadelphia, composed of delegates from Nos. 1 and 2 of Philadelphia, No. 3 of Harrisburg, and No. 4 of Carlisle (whose respective organizations took place from 1793 to 1797), should be held as sacred as the 4th of July, 1776 - the one having given birth to the Orders of Christian Knighthood, and the other to our political existence. It required sober thought, sound judgment, mature reflection, discriminating mind, and far-seeing perception in the Sir Knights composing that convention as they were about to inaugurate a system of Christian Ethics which would have an influence for weal or for woe upon the dissemination of the principles of Christian Knighthood. The idea was happily conceived, and the Sir Knights who risked their Masonic and Templar representation upon its success have rendered the name of Pennsylvania eternal in the annals of Templarism.”

Sir Knight Creigh then enters into a statement of some historical and other dates to show that the four subordinate encampments which organized the Grand Encampment were regularly constituted prior to the formation of the Grand Body. But, however, he finds that from the published By-Laws of Nos.  1 and 2, of Philadelphia, that on December 21 1812, these two united as No.  1, and from this encampment and also No. 2, of Pittsburg, was formed a second Grand Encampment, on February 16, 1814, with the addition of delegates from Rising Sun Encampment, No. 1, of New York; Washington Encampment, No. 1, of Wilmington, Del.; and Baltimore Encampment, No. 1, Baltimore, Md. The style of the second Grand Encampment was the “Pennsylvania Grand Encampment with Masonic jurisdiction thereunto belonging.” The second Grand Encampment existed until June 10, 1824, or at least its Grand Master, Sir Anthony Fannen, exercised his authority as such, for on that day he issued a dispensation to the officers of St. John’s Encampment, No. 4, which was instituted June 8, 1819, “to dub and make John E. Schwartz a Sir Knight of our most illustrious Order of Knights Templar.” The original of No. 1, of 1794, kept

It is very remarkable that in those ancient times the years never had any months or days.-EDITOR.  up a complete and unbroken organization until June 13, 1824, and No. 2 was merged into it December 27, 1812, as above noticed.

St John’s, No. 4, after the parent body had ceased in 1824, still existed and recognized as her superior the source of all Masonic authority within the State, the R.W. Grand Lodge of Pennsylvania. It was upon this Rock that the delegates of the Pennsylvania Grand Encampment of 1814, and the delegates of the New England States which assembled in convention on June 16, 1816, in Philadelphia, split, and the Pennsylvania Grand Encampment charged the other delegates with seceding from the convention, while the New England delegates (consisting of Sir Knights Webb, Fowle, and Snow) reported that the reason why Pennsylvania would not enter into the union for a General Grand Encampment were: 1st, “ That the Encampments in Pennsylvania avow themselves as being; in subordination to and under the Grand Lodge of Master Masons;” and 2d, “Their unwillingness to the arrangement or order of succession in conferring the degrees,” as practised by the New England States,” especially to the Mark and the Excellent Master, as unnecessary and not belonging to the system of Masonry.” The delegates of the New England States then adjourned to meet on June 25, 1816, in New York, and there formed the present General Grand Encampment of Knights Templars of the United States.

After 1824 all the subordinate encampments ceased to labor except St John’s No. 4, and she, with views as above expressed, continued to be loyal to the Grand Lodge until February 12, 1857.

In May, 1852, (1) St. John’s, No. 4; Philadelphia, No. 5; Union, No. 6; and De Molay, of Reading, established a Grand Encampment, under the authority of the Grand Lodge of Pennsylvania, but the Grand Lodge on February 16, 1857, resolved (very wisely, if very late) that they had no authority over the degrees of Knighthood, but that its legitimate sphere was the primitive degrees of Ancient Craft Masonry; a union was therefore effected, and both Grand Encampments of Pennsylvania since 1857 acknowledge as their legal head the Grand Encampment of Knights Templars of the United States.

Prior to April 12, 1854, the subordinate encampments had no

We suppose again, May had no days then!  governing head. Their charters were derived from the General Grand Encampment of the United States, or by the authority of the Grand Lodge of Pennsylvania.

Pittsburg Encampment, No. 1; Jacques De Molay (of Washington), No. 2; and St. Omer’s (of Uniontown, but afterward of Brownsville), No. 3, all were chartered by the General Grand Encampment. Hubbard Commandery, of Waynesburg, was under Dispensation from the same body. St. John’s Encampment, No. 4, derived her Charter from the Grand Encampment of 1814;

Philadelphia Encampment, No. 5; Union Encampment (of Philadelphia), No. 6; and De Molay (of Reading), No. 7, were under the Grand Lodge of Pennsylvania.

It was firmly believed and maintained by the Brethren of Pennsylvania that the R. W. Grand Lodge of Pennsylvania was the source of all Masonic authority within her geographical limits, and they were sustained by reference to the fact that Templar Encampments were held under Blue Lodge

Warrants; that in Ireland the Grand Encampment was formed as early as 1818, yet several encampments continued to work under their old lodge warrants, as was also the fact in Scotland and in Canada. All encampments thus constituted in Europe were considered legal.

A Warrant was issued by the General Grand Master of the General Grand Encampment, authorizing the formation of a Grand Encampment of Pennsylvania. A convention met at Brownsville April 12, 1854, and organized the present Grand Commandery of Pennsylvania, subordinate to the Grand Encampment of the United States.

The other encampments met in Philadelphia May 10, 1854, and organized a Grand Encampment, and after the adoption of a constitution and election and installation of officers, instructed the Grand Recorder to notify the Grand Lodge of their organization.

After some time, committees of conferences having been appointed by both bodies and duly considered the condition of Templary with two contending rival bodies, good counsel prevailed. The supremacy of the General Grand Encampment was acknowledged and the union was finally

accomplished, which was officially proclaimed by R. E. Sir W. W. Wilson, Grand Commander of the Grand Commandery, June 1, 1857, and subsequently by M. E. Sir William B. Hubbard, Grand Master of the Grand Encampment of the United States. (1)

South Carolina.

It is claimed for South Carolina that the Templar Order was first duly organized in that State as shown in the old patent which we have previously described in Chapter LI., pages 1377-78.

In the work by Theodore S. Gourdin, from which we have quoted, we derive the principal sources of our information, and also from the address of the Grand Master of Templars to the Grand Encampment August, 1883, as well as from Companion Albert G. Mackey’s History of Freemasonry in South Carolina, are we indebted for what is now considered a very near approach to the period of the introduction of the Order of the Temple, and we may, with some degree of exactness, say that an encampment did exist prior to the date of the patent referred to, which was issued August 1, 1783. As this document has been fully described, we need not here dwell upon it, and rest the case.

The following are the commanderies now in that State, which are subordinate to the General Grand Encampment :

South Carolina, No. 1, whose original Warrant was destroyed by fire in 1843, and a dispensation was issued May 17, 1843.

On September 29, 1823, a Charter of Recognition was issued, as the encampment had been working for many years prior to the organization of the General Grand Encampment.

Columbia No. 2, at Columbia; dispensation June 11, 1875; chartered August 30, 1877. A previous Charter of Recognition had been issued January 24, 1824.

Spartanburg, No. 3, at Spartanburg; dispensation granted October 1, 1891; chartered August 29, 1895.

Note. -There was an encampment named LaFayette at Gcorgetown chartered March, 1825, but there is no further notice of it in the Proceedings and it is not now in existence.

South Dakota.

The Grand Commandery of South Dakota was constituted May 14, 1884; being within the boundaries of the State of South Dakota, it continues under the name and style of the Grand Commandery of South Dakota.

Tennessee.

The Grand Commandery of Tennessee was constituted October 11 1859.

Approved September 16, 1859.

The subordinate commanderies were:

Dispensation.

Dispensation Chartered

Nashville, No. 1, at Nashville... Between 1844-47.

September 14, 1847

Yorkville, No. 2, at Yorkville.... July 10, 1857.

September 17, 1859

De Molay, No. 3, at Columbia.... December 20, 1859.

September 16, 1859

Cyrene, No. 4, at Memphis........ March 27, 1859.

September 16, 1859

 

Texas.

The Grand Commandery of Texas was constituted January 18, 1855. A Warrant had been issued by the General Grand Master to form and establish this Grand Encampment December 31, 1853.

The subordinate commanderies were San Filipe de Austin, No, 1, at Galveston, by Charter December 10, 1835.

Ruthven No. 2, Houston; by dispensation February 2, 1848, and Charter September 11, 1850.

Palestine, No. 3, at Palestine; by dispensation May 16, 1853, and Charter September 19, 1853.

Utah.

The following subordrate conmmanderies were organized in Utah under warrants from the General Grand Encampment:

Utah, No. 1, at Salt Lake City; dispensation granted December 20, 1873, chartered December 3, 1874.

El Monte, No. 2, at Ogden; had a dispensation granted October 22, 1885, which was opened November 11, 1885; chartered September 23, 1886.

Vermont.

The Grand Encampment of Vermont was constituted August 14, 1851.

December, 1850, consent was given to three encampments to form a Grand Commandery.

Vermont, at Windsor; chartered February 23, 1821.

Green Mountain, at Rutland; chartered March 12, 1823.

Mount Calvary, at Middlebury; chartered February 24, 1824.

Burlington, No. 2, at Burlington; dispensation June 28, 1849 chartered September 17, 1850.

LaFayette, No. 4, at Berkshire; dispensation November 9 1850; old Charter endorsed October 27, 1853.

Calvary, at Middlebury; old Charter of Mount Calvary renewed

Virginia.

The Grand Encampment of Virginia was constituted November 27, 1823.

The history of the old encampments is very interesting, but is too lengthy for our pages. (See Proceedings of General Grand Encampment.) The subordinate encampments in the State were:

Richmond, at Richmond; chartered May 5, 1823.

Warren, at Harper’s Ferry; chartered July 4, 1824.

Winchester, at Winchester; chartered July 4, 1824.

These three encampments were erased September 17, 1847.

Wheeling, No. 1, at Wheeling; dispensation issued August 31, 1838, and afterward extended six months.

It appears from all that can be learned in the Proceedings of the General Grand Encampment from 1823, that the Grand Encampment of Virginia, which in the Proceedings is only recorded as having been organized “prior to 1826,” did not continue very long. The encampments at Richmond, Harper’s Ferry, and Winchester, two of which held charters of recognition, and one of constitution from the General Grand Encampment, the report of a committee in 1847 says: “About 1826 these three Encampments formed a Grand Encampment for the State, which, in that year, was represented in the General Grand Encampment (Sir James Cushman).

“Nothing further is known of this Grand Encampment, but it is presumed to have ceased to exist soon after its organization; for it appears that in 1858 a dispensation, and subsequently a Charter, was granted by this General Grand Encampment to a commandery to be located at Wheeling in that State. Matters continued in this condition until this 11th of December, 1845, when delegates from sundry Encampments, including the three owing their allegiance to the General Grand Body, met at Richmond, and having resolved that it was impossible to revive the extinct Grand Encampment, proceeded to form a new one for the State.

“Such is a brief Statement of the facts. Your Committee are of the Opinion that when the original Grand Encampment of Virginia ceased to exist, jurisdiction over the State reverted to this body.

“And this seems to have been the view entertained in 1838, when this General Grand Encampment established an Encampment at Wheeling.

“They are also of the opinion that immediate jurisdiction over, at least, the three Subordinate Encampments, which derived their authority from this body, also reverted to its original source. This being true, there was no power vested in the Subordinate Encampments in Virginia to organize a Grand Encampment without the consent of the General Grand Encampment as provided by this Constitution. This consent or approval was never obtained or even asked for.

“It follows therefore, that the body now existing, and styling itself the Grand Encampment of Virginia, is irregular and unauthorized. It refuses alilegiatice to this General Grand Encampment, and denies its authority in the State of Virginia.”

In 1871, at the Tiennial Encampment, a memorial from the Grand Commandery of Virginia was presented by Sir Knights W. B, Isaacs and R. E. Withers “Asking leave to withdraw from the jurisdiction of the Grand Encampment of the United States.” The memorial is quite too lengthy for our pages. This was referred to a committee of three.

This committee made a lengthy report, in which they answered the reasons for a separation as set forth in the memorial, and presented the following:

 

“Resolved, That the Grand Encampment entertaining for the Grand Commandery of Virginia the most courteous and friendly feeling of fraternal brotherhood, and being anxious to preserve intact the knightly array of the constituent Grand Commanderies and to continue to preserve the good, well-being, and perpetuation of ‘Templar Masonry,’ does decline and refuse ‘to allow the Grand Commandery of Virginia, in peace, in honor, and in recognition, to withdraw from the jurisdiction of the Grand Encampment’ as prayed for in its memorial.

Respectfully submitted by the Committee,

“THEODORE S. PARVIN,

“CHARLES W. WOODRUFF,

“ RICHARD F. KNOTT.”

 

 

N.B. - Subsequently Sir Knight Isaacs was made the General Grand Recorder, and Sir Knight Withers the General Grand Master, of the General Grand Encampment.

Washington Territor

The Grand Commandery was organized June 2, 1887.

Washington Commandery, No. 1, at Walla Walla; dispensation issued April 19, 1882, and a Charter was granted August 23, 1883.

Seattle, No. 2, had a dispensation issued February 22, 1883, and was chartered August 23, 1883.

Cataract, No. 3, at Spokane, had a dispensation issued to it July 30, 1885, and was organized August 14, 1885; and chartered September 23, 1886.

Ivanhoe, No. 4, at Tacoma; a dispensation was issued March 23, 1886; formed April 27, 1886, and chartered September 23, 1886.

West Virginia.

West Virginia was a part of the State of Virginia until June 20, 1863. As we have shown under Virginia, the Grand Encampment was organized November 27, 1823, and from October, 1824, under various changes, and frequently being dormant for years, and having no communion with the majority of Templars of the General Grand Body, that Grand Encampment, now Commandery, has existed as under and by virtue of the constitution of the Grand Encampment of the United States. It has exercised exclusive jurisdiction over the territory now included in the State of West Virginia, with a single exception under the constitution of the Grand Encampment of the United States. The Grand Commandery of Virginia continued to exercise jurisdiction over it the same as theretofore. In the list of its subordinate commanderies, the Grand Commandery of Virginia classed Wheeling, No. 1; Palestine, No. 9, at Martinsburg; Star of the West, No.  12, at Morgantown, and in 1868 a dispensation was issued by the Grand Commander of Virginia for a new commandery at Monongahela, (1) all in West Virginia.

After the formation of West Virginia State the Grand Encampment did not claim the commanderies therein as its immediate subordinates, nor exercised any power in West Virginia hostile to the jurisdictional claim of the Grand Commandery of Virginia. (2) The Grand Commandery of West Virginia was organized by P.G.M. James H. Hopkins, February 25, 1874. In the history of the Grand Commandery of Virginia we have shown the subordinate commanderies which were located in the present State of West Virginia, viz., Warren, at Harper’s Ferry; Winchester, at Winchester; and Wheeling, No. 1, at Wheeling.

Wisconsin.

The Grand Commandery of Wisconsin was organized October 20, 1859.  Wisconsin, No. 1; dispensation, no date found, and Charter granted September 11, 1850.

Note. - We have been unable to find any reference in the Proceedings of the General Grand Encampment prior to 1859 of any other encampment in Wisconsin.

Wyoming

The Grand Commandery of Wyoming was organized by authority of the General Grand Encampment September 23, 1886, and constituted March 8, 1888.

The constituent commanderies were:

Place Dispensation. Charter

Wyoming, No. 1.....Cheyenne....March 5, 1873.

December 3, 1874

Ivanhoe, No. 2.....Rawlins.....February 9, 1885.

February 16, 1885

September 23, 1886

Immanuel No. 3....Laramie......May 1, 1886.

May 18, 1886.

September 23, 1886

 


 

CHAPTER LIX

Back to index

HISTORY OF COLOURED MASONRY IN THE UNITED STATES

The action taken by the Grand Lodge of the State of Washington, wherein the legality of the organization of Prince Hall Lodge was duly recognized, renders it proper that, in the history of Masonry in the United States, some notice should be taken of that lodge and its successors in the present work. In our examination of this matter we have found the subject so well treated by the Grand Master of the Grand Lodge of Massachusetts, Brother William Sewell Gardner, in an address delivered before that Grand Lodge, in 1870, that we shall use the same as a foundation, and largely as the structure of this article, for the reason that he has fully and thoroughly covered the entire ground and answered all the arguments employed by the fiends of that famous body of negro Masons, within the years 1898 and 1899 in almost every Grand Lodge in the United States, by the Grand Masters, and committees appointed, to respond to the action of the Grand Lodge of Washington in 1898, who have clearly set forth their views, in opposition to the recognition of negro Masonry in this country. The views set forth in this address have been referred to by most of those writers and there is nothing new for the present writer to urge in opposition to recognition.  In his own response in the report on correspondence in the “Annual Proceedings of the Grand Lodge of the District of Columbia,” for the year 1898, one point insisted upon by him was, that the charters of the Grand Lodge of England issued to Military Lodges did not authorize said lodges to make Masons of citizens in any country where there were already duly constituted lodges under Grand Lodge jurisdiction. The argument used was, that a lodge could not go beyond the letter and terms of the Charter by whose authority it worked. We laid this down as a necessary and fundamental principle, and we have been pkased to notice very many of our correspondents agree with us in that position; and finding that Grand Master Gardner uses the same point, we have thought it best to follow out his address as being more comprehensive and more strictly adhering to the true history of the first introduction of this foul blot upon the escutcheon of our Masonry, all through its succeeding ramifications, and subsequent discoloring of our fair fame and otherwise pure record in the United States.

It is due to our Brethren in Washington to say, that when it became known to the Craft at large in that State that the movement, on the part of their leading men, thus to drag in the dust the proud banner of Masonry had aroused the ire of every Grand Lodge in the country, at the succeeding Communication in June, 1899, the obnoxious resolutions were annulled and former harmonious and cordial relations have been restored.

We now proceed to use Brother Gardner’s admirable address to give a true history of Prince Hall Lodge:

Address.

BRETHREN: In the Grand Lodge of New Hampshire, at its session held at Manchester on the 18th of June, 1869, “the Committee on Foreign Correspondence offered their report, and, on motion, it was voted, That the reading of the report be dispensed with, and that it be published with the printed proceedings.”

In this report the following statements are made:

“In Massachusetts there was no legal Grand Lodge till the Union in 1792.”

“The American doctrine of Grand Lodge jurisdiction has grown up since” the establishment of the African Lodge at Boston, by authority of a Charter from the Grand Lodge of England, “and is not elsewhere fully received even now; besides, there was then no Grand Lodge of Massachusetts, or in that State, whose rights could be interfered with; for, notwithstanding the claim to antiquity of that Grand Lodge, it was not formed till 1792, and the two Provincial Grand Lodges, before existing in that Colony, both expired in 1775 by the death of their Provincial Grand Masters. The Massachusetts Grand Lodge did not pretend to meet after the death of Warren, and although St. John’s Grand Lodge did have some sort of meetings, probably no law that ever existed in Masonry anywhere would hold such meetings regular.”

If this report had been read to the Grand Lodge of New Hampshire, its venerable Past Grand Masters, Israel Hunt and Horace Chase, then present, could have informed the Committee on Foreign Correspondence that they were treading upon dangerous ground, and alluding to a delicate subject.

The Grand Lodge of New Hampshire was organized on the 8th of July, 1789, by four Deputies from St. John’s Lodge of Portsmouth, chartered by the Massachusetts “St. John’s Grand Lodge” June 24, 1734, and one Deputy from Rising Sun Lodge of Keene, chartered by the “Massachusetts Grand Lodge” March 5, 1784 - five Deputies from two Lodges. All Masonic authorities claim that, to organize a legitimate Grand Lodge, there must be present the representatives of “not less than three Lodges holding Charters or Warrants from some legal Grand Lodge.”

All the Lodges in New Hampshire existing prior to the year 1790, with the single exception of St. John’s of Portsmouth, received their Charters from the “Massachusetts Grand Lodge.”

 St. Patrick’s was chartered and established at Portsmouth, March 17, 1780.  It continued in existence until the latter part of the year 1790, when it ceased working, most of its members joining St. John’s Lodge, which was revived about that time. It never acknomledged the jurisdiction of the Grand Lodge of New Hampshire.

November 8, 1781, the “Massachusetts Grand Lodge” chartered a Lodge at Cornish, then claimed to be a part of Vermont, but now set off to New Hampshire. It met at Cornish a few times, and when Cornish was decided to be in New Hampshire, it moved to Windsor, Vt., on the opposite side of the Connecticut River, and took the name of Vermont Lodge, No. 1.

Rising Sun, of Keene, well known as the Lodge which gave Masonic light to Thomas Smith Webb, was chartered by the “Massachusetts Grand Lodge” March 5, 1784. It surrendered its Charter to the Grand Lodge of New Hampshire August 3, 1792, and received a new one with the same name, and rank No. 3.

The “Massachusetts Grand Lodge” granted a Charter for a Lodge at Charlestown by the name of “Faithful Lodge, No. 27,” February 22, 1788.  This Charter was surrendered to the Grand Lodge of New Hampshire April 30, 1800, and a new one given, by which it was styled “Faithful Lodge, No. 12.”

Dartmouth Lodge, of Hanover, received a Charter from “the Massachusetts Grand Lodge” December 18, 1788, and was the last Lodge chartered by this Grand Lodge in New Hampshire. Its dissolution took place before it acknowledged the jurisdiction of the Grand Lodge of that State.

The Grand Secretary, Horace Chase, says, that when the Grand Lodge of New Hampshire was formed, July 8, 1789, “as appears from the record there were but three Lodges in the State, viz., St. John’s and St. Patrick’s at Portsmouth, and Rising Sun at Keene.”

However irregularly organized the Grand Lodge of New Hampshire may have been the “Massachusetts Grand Lodge” disclaimed jurisdiction in that State thereafter. It is unnecessary to state that this Grand Lodge, since 1789 to the present time, has been on the most friendly and fraternal relations with our sister Grand Lodge of New Hampshire, and that it will require something more than unauthorized and unconfirmed statements of a Committee on Foreign Correspondence to unsettle these pleasant relations.

Nevertheless, when it is pretended before a body of such great respectability as the Grand Lodge of New Hampshire, that, in 1784, when it is said the “African Lodge” in Boston obtained its Charter in England, there was no existing Grand Lodge in Massachusetts, for the purpose of proving the then and present legitimacy of the African Lodge, and of adding the weight and influence of the Grand Lodge of New Hampshire to this pretense, it is due to ourselves, and to the Craft universal, that the truth should be fully known and fearlessly spoken.

The time is propitious to meet this false pretense, and I need but resume the history of the “Massachusetts Grand Lodge” where it was left at its Centennial on the recent Feast of St. John the Evangelist.

The system of Provincial Grand Lodges originated in the Grand Lodge of England in 1726, and arose from the necessity of having, in the distant colonies of Great Britain where Masonry has extended, some authority and power, not only to control and govern the Craft, but also to establish new Lodges in the Provinces. The Provincial Grand Master was appointed by commission of the Grand Master, wherein the extent of his powers was set forth, and by virtue of which he convened his Grand Body. In the language of early days, this commission was styled a Deputation, and this word conveys the true idea of the Provincials’ position. It was a Deputy Grand Lodge, with its various Deputy Grand Officers, convened by the power and authoity of the Provincial Grand Master as the Deputy of the Grand Master.  It possessed no sovereign power. The Lodges under the jurisdiction of the Provincial Grand Master were not necessarily registered in his Grand Lodge.  They were returned to England, registered in the Grand Lodge there, and classified as we do our Lodges at the present day, as belonging to a certain District or Province. The Provincial Grand Master had power to appoint a Deputy and commission him, who in the absence, sickness, and disability of his chief, assumed his functions. The Grand Wardens and other officers he also had the exclusive right to appoint, although sometimes he nominated brethren to these offices and permitted the Grand Lodge to elect them.

Each Lodge in the Province had the right of representation in the Provincial Grand Lodge, by its Master and Wardens or by a regularly appointed representative, and the expenses of the Grand Body were assessed upon the various subordinates. The right of appeal existed from every act and decision of the Provincial Grand Master or Grand Lodge, to the Grand Master of England, thus making the Provincial and his Grand Lodge subordinate to the power by which they were created.

The allegiance of the Lodges and of the Craft was to the Grand Lodge of England, and to the Provincial Grand Lodge and Grand Master, through the parent Body. There was no direct allegiance to the Provincial from the Craft. It was a temporary power which he held ex gratis, and of which he could be deprived at the pleasure of the Grand Master by whom he was appointed.

Thus it will be seen that the Provincial Grand Master was appointed for the convenience of the administration of the affairs of the Grand Lodge of England in distant parts, in the same manner that our District Deputies are appointed at the present time. The powers, however, in the one case, were more extended than they are in the other. The means of communication with London were not so easy and rapid as now, and the distance from the Grand East required that some officer should be stationed here, who should be invested with authority for sudden emergencies and instant action.

The Provincial Grand Master having been regularly commissioned and installed, could not resign his trust to his Provincial Grand Lodge. That Body had no power to accept it. His resignation must be made to the Grand Master from whom he received his commission. The Provincial Grand Lodge was the creation of the Provincial Grand Master, and was wholly under his direction and control. He appointed its officers, and summoned the representatives of the Lodges to assemble in Grand Lodge. In this Grand Lodge there was no inherent power, save what it derived from the Provincial Grand Master, by virtue of his delegated authority, thus making it the very reverse of a Sovereign Grand Lodge, the Grand Master of which derives his authority from the Sovereign Body by whose votes he is elected to office, and over which he presides.

The Grand Master appointing his Provincial, could annul the commission at his will and pleasure. The officer being created by the pleasure of the Grand Master of England, all the adjuncts, appointees, and creations of the office depended upon the same pleasure, and existed during the will of the appointing power. If a Provincial Grand Master was removed, and his commission recalled, and the Grand Master declined to appoint his successor, it is clear that the Provincial Grand Lodge established by virtue of such commission would cease to exist. Such a Grand Lodge never possessed any vitality which would survive the life of the commission appointing the Provincial Grand Master.

The death of the Provincial would also lead to the same result. The commission to him from the Grand Master would lose all its force upon his decease. Whatever act the Provincial performed, he did by virtue of the commission to him. His Deputy Grand Master and Grand Wardens, appointed by trim, and not by the Grand Master of England, nor by his confirmation, derived their power and character as Grand Officers from the Provincial, and when the Provincial expired, their tenure of office expired also.

To show that these conclusions are correct, I will refer to the authorities.

The office of Provincial Grand Master was established by the Grand Lodge of England, as has already been stated, in 1726, and the first Deputation was granted May 10, 1727. Preston says of the office, at this date: “A Provincial Grand Master in that district over which he is limited to

preside, and being invested with the power and honor of a Deputy Grand Master in his Province, may constitute Lodges therein, if the consent of the Masters and Wardens of three Lodges already constituted within his District have been obtained, and the Grand Lodge in London has not disapproved thereof. He wears the clothing of a Grand Officer, and ranks, in all public assemblies, immediately after Past Deputy Grand Master. He must, in person or by deputy, attend the quarterly meetings of the Masters and Wardens of the Lodges in his District, and transmit to the Grand Lodge, once in every year, the proceedings of those meetings, with a regular statement of the Lodges under his jurisdiction.”

Speaking of the year 1737, he says: “The authority granted by patent to a Provincial Grand Master was limited to one year from his first public appearance in that character within his Province; and if at the expiration of that period, a new election of the Lodges under his jurisdiction did not take place, subject to the approbation of the Grand Master, the patent was no longer valid. Hence we find, within the course of a few years, different appointments to the same station; but the office is now permanent, and the sole appointment of the Grand Master.”

In Entick’s Constitutions of 1756 there is a section entitled “Of Provincial Grand Masters,” which is as follows:

“Art. 1. The office of Provincial Grand Master was found particularly necessary in the year 1726; when the extraordinary increase of the Craftsmen, and their travelling into distant parts, and convening themselves into Lodges, required an immediate Head, to whom they might apply in all Cases, where it was not possible to wait the Decision or Opinion of the Grand Lodge.

“Art. 2. The appointment of this Grand Officer is a Prerogative of the Grand Master: who grants his Deputation to such Brother of Eminence and Ability in the Craft, as he shall think proper: not for life, but during his good Pleasure.

“Art. 3. The Provincial thus deputed, is invested with the Power and Honor of a Deputy Grand Master; and during the continuance of his Provincialship, is entitied to wear the Clothing, to take rank as the Grand Officers, in all publick Assemblies, immediately after the past Deputy Grand Masters: and to constitute Lodges within his own Province.

“Art. 4. He is enjoined to correspond with the Grand Lodge, and to transmit a circumstantial Account of his Proceedings, at least once in every Year.  At which Times, the Provincial is required to send a List of those Lodges he has constituted for the general Fund of Charity: and the usual demand, as specified in his Deputation, for every Lodge he has constituted by the Grand Master’s Authority.”

The Constitutions of the United Grand Lodge of England have been more particular in specifying the powers, duties, and prerogatives of the Provincial Grand Master and Grand Lodge. I will refer to a single Section of these Constitutions:

“The Provincial Grand Lodge emanates from the authority vested in the Provincial Grand Master, and possesses no other powers than those specified. It therefore follows that no Provincial Grand Lodge can meet but by the sanction of the Provincial Grand Master or his Deputy; and that it ceases to exist on the death, resignation, suspension, or removal of the Provincial Grand Master, until some Brother is duly appointed or empowered to perform the functions of Provincial Grand Master, by whose authority the Provincial Grand Lodge may be again established.”

In Scotland this office was created in 1738, and the first nomination made abroad in 1747. In November, 1757, R.W. Col. John Young was appointed Provincial Grand Master over all the Lodges in America holding of the Grand Lodge of Scotland, and in 1768 James Grant, Governor of the Province of East Florida, was appointed Provincial Grand Master of North America, Southern District.

The commissions were issued “to continue in force until re-called.” In 1800 a series of regulations for the government of thesc officers were sanctioned by the Grand Lodge, previous to which time it is presumed that they were governed by the same rules and regulations as in England.

More recently, the “Laws and Constitutions of the Grand Lodge” have provided that the “meeting of the Provincial Grand Lodges shall not be interrupted by the death or retirement of the Provincial Grand Master, unless the Grand Lodge shall not deem it expedient within the space of one year to appoint another. A Provincial Grand Lodge not assembling for the space of two years, also becomes dormant, and has no power again to call meetings, unless empowered by the Provincial Grand Master, or by the order of the Grand Lodge or Grand Committee” -“When a Provincial Grand Lodge becomes dormant the Lodges in the District come under the immediate supervision of the Grand Lodge and Grand Committee.”

These new rules and regulations were made to prevent the disruption of the Provincial Grand Lodges, which was inevitable upon the decease of the Provincial Grand Master.

In Ireland the same system has existed as in England and Scotland. The present Constitutions provided that, “if the Provincial Grand Master die, resign, or be removed, the authority of the Provincial Deputy Grand Master shall continue for six months after, or until a successor to the Provincial Grand Master be appointed, but such authority of the Provincial Deputy Grand Master shall not continue longer, unless he be re-appointed.”

If these authorities support the position taken, and if the conclusions arrived at are correct, it follows beyond all controversy that when Provincial Grand Master Joseph Warren expired on Bunker Hill, June 17, 1775, the Provincial Grand Lodge, of which he was the essence and life, expired also, and with it all the offices of which it was composed. The Lodges established by him, and by the Grand Lodge of Scotland, were not affected thereby, as has already appeared. They were, or should have been, registered in Edinburgh, and owed their allegiance to the Grand Lodge there.

The conclusion of the Eulogy pronounced by Br. Perez Morton at the re-interment of Joseph Warren, April 8, 1776, was devoted to the subject of independence, which was then agitating the Colonies. Some of the language made use of by him upon this occasion seems to foreshadow the Masonic independence of Massachusetts, which was soon to follow. “Now is the happy time,” said he, “to seize again those rights which, as men, we are by nature entitled to, and which by contract we never have, and never could have, surrendered.”

On the 4th of July following, “The Declaration of Independence” was, by order of Congress, engrossed and signed, by which the United Colonies declared themselves to be free and independent States. The effect of this declaration upon the Colonies I need not allude to; Massachusetts, by virtue of its claim, became a free, independent, sovereign State and the spirit of freedom and independence of Great Britain became infused into every organization and society which before this were bound and dependent.

It was an absolute revolution, by which a dependent colony became revolutionized into an independent State. The idea of a permanent union of the States had then hardly been broached. They had united for defence against a common foe, and had set themselves up as independent States, not only independent of Great Britain, but independent of each other. Isolated from all the world, they each stood forth free, independent, sovereign States.

The Institution of Freemasonry, which numbered among its firmest adherents such revolutionists as Webb, Revere, Morton, and a host of others who followed in the footsteps of Warren, could not long withstand the influence of freedom, and Massachusetts set the example of a revolution in Masonic government, which has been followed successfully by every State in the Union. It has become the American system, or, as the committee of New Hampshire call it, “The American Doctrine of Grand Lodge Jurisdiction,” respected and recognized by the Masonic Fraternity the world over. It had its birth on Bunker Hill, when the patriot Warren poured out his life’s blood :

“The Patriot Grand Master, who fell in his might-The second of three - in defence of the right!”

“The American Doctrine of Grand Lodge jurisdiction,” briefly stated, is this: “Three regularly-chartered Lodges existing in any State or Territory have the right to establish a Grand Lodge therein. Such Grand Lodge, when lawfully organized, has sole, absolute, and exclusive jurisdiction over the three degrees of Craft Masonry; over the Lodges and their Members; and over all Masons, unaffiliated as well as affiliated, in such State or Territory.  No other Grand Lodge whatever can lawfully interfere with this jurisdiction, and can neither establish Lodges in such State, nor continue any authority over Bodies which it might properly have exercised prior to the organization of such Grand Lodge therein.”

By the erection of a Grand Lodge in such State, all Masonic powers over what is popularly called Blue Masonry are merged in it, and henceforth it exists therein supreme and sovereign over a jurisdiction which it can neither divide nor share with any other Masonic Grand Body in the world.

The several States of the United States of America, the Territories, when legally organized as such by Congress, and the District of Columbia, are each recognized as separate and independent jurisdictions in which Grand Lodges may be established. This is the American doctrine, most religiously and masonically adhered to by the Craftsmen of the United States, and which our brethren upon the other side of the Atlantic must accede to, recognize, and support. After the Declaration hereinafter referred to, made by the Massachusetts Grand Lodge, December 6, 1782, treaty stipulations were entered into by the several Grand Lodges then in existence, in confirmation of the action of Massachusetts.

The following preamble and resolutions were adopted by the Grand Lodge of New York :

“Whereas, The Grand Lodge of the State of Massachusetts have by a communication, dated the 4th of January last, suggested to this Grand Lodge the propriety of adopting a resolution declaring that no Charter or Dispensation for holding a Lodge be issued by any Grand Lodge to any number of Masons residing out of the State wherein the Grand Lodge is established, be it therefore

“Resolved and declared by this Grand Lodge, that no Charter or Dispensation for holding a Lodge of Masons shall be granted to any person or persons whatever, residing out of this State and within the jurisdiction of any other Grand Lodge.”

The Grand Lodges of the United States have uniformly resisted every encroachment upon the jurisdiction of the several Grand Lodges.”

The Feast of St. John the Evangelist, in 1776, was celebrated, and the record shows that a Grand Lodge was held by thirty-three brethren, Joseph Webb presiding as Deputy Grand Master. A Grand Lodge was called by the Deputy of Warren, February 14, 1777, to hear the petition for a Charter at Stockbridge, of brethren in Berkshire County. This proposition aroused the brethren to a realizing sense of their status and condition as a Grand Lodge. They were doubtful of its power, as then organized, to grant the Charter prayed for. The petition was accordingly laid over to Friday evening, March the 7th next, and it was “ Voted, That the Deputy Grand Master should send a summons to all the Masters and Wardens under the jurisdiction to assemble on the 7th March, in order to consult upon, and to elect, a Grand Master for this State, in the room of our late worthy Grand Master Warren, deceased.”

On the 7th of March the brethren met, and adjourned until the following evening. March 8, 1777, the following brethren assembled, representing St.  Andrew’s Lodge, of Boston, Tyrian Lodge, of Gloucester, and St. Peter’s Lodge, of Newburyport:

R.W. Joseph Webb, D.G.M., of St. Andrew’s Lodge, Boston.  Paul Revere, S.G.W., of St. Andrew’s Lodge, Boston. Thomas Crafts, J.G.W., of St. Andrew’s Lodge, Boston. John Lowell, G. Treas., of St. Andrew’s Lodge, Boston.

Nat. Peirce, G. Sec. pro tem., of St. Andrew’s Lodge, Boston.  Thomas Urann, S.G.D., of St. Andrew’s Lodge, Boston. Edward Proctor, J.G.D., of St. Andrew’s Lodge, Boston. Moses Deshon, P.M., of Tydan Lodg, Gloucester.

Philip Marett, G. St’d, of Tyrian Lodge, Gloucester. S.W. of St Andrew’s Lodge Boston.

Wintrop Grey, G. St’d, of Tyrian Lodge, Gloucester. S.W. of St Andrew’s Lodge Boston.

Wm. Greenough, M., of St Peter’s Lodge Newburyport.  The brethren then unanimously elected a Grand Master, Grand Wardens, and other Grand Officers. Joseph Webb was chosen Grand Master.

The Grand Lodge then acted upon the petition for a new Lodge at Stockbridge, and granted the same; this being the first act of the Independent Grand Lodge.

Massachusetts Lodge, of Boston, was not represented at this meeting; but, on the 18th of December, 1778, it petitioned the Grand Lodge, “setting forth that the exigency of the times would not admit of their assembling sooner, and praying said Lodge may retain the rank they formerly held under the Grand Lodge,” which was granted. All the Lodges under the old Provincial Grand Lodge of Warren, with the exception of Massachusetts, united in forming the independent Grand Lodge, and they forthwith yielded allegiance to it. However, but few of the Lodges in Massachusetts at this time, were in a condition to hold meetings, by reason of “the exigency of the times.”

The record of the meeting setting up the Independent Grand Lodge contains no account of the motives and incentives which gave rise to this action.

Grand Master Joseph Webb sent the following letter to the Grand Lodge of Georgia, which has recently been discovered by R.W. Br. I.E. Blackshear, Grand Secretary of that State:

BOSTON, March 2, 1787.

“To the Right Worshipful, the Grand Master, Dep. G.M., G. Wardens, and Brethren of the Grand Lodge of Savannah in Georgia, greeting.

“GENTLEMEN AND BRETHREN: Having lately seen the Southern papers, that you had at last assumed to your selves the undoubted right of Forming a Grand Lodge in your State, I Congratulate you on so Important an acquisition, and wish you all the success imaginable: we, in this Common Wealth, assumed the same so early as 1777, since w’ch I find Pennsilvania and N. York have adopted; but how they have proceeded at Charleston or Virginia I have not as yet heard. I hold a correspondence with those 2 Lodges, and should be glad of the same with you, and all in the Union at least. Since our adopting, we have had 25 Lodges under the jurisdiction (tho’ some of them Charters of Dispensation, in Connecticut, Vermont, N. Hampshire), until they appoint a G. Lodge of their own. Inclosed, I have taken the freedom to send you the Regulations of our G. Lodge, w’ch you’l please to accept as a small token of my Respect. So, wishing the Grand Lodge in particular, and those under your jurisdiction in general, all that Universal Benevolence, Brotherly Love, and Truth : Adieu! I remain with sincerity, your unknown tho’ affectionate Brother and H’ble Serv.

“JOS. WEBB,

 

G.M. Com. Wealt Massachusetts.”

(Received 27th April.)

Josiah Bartlett, afterward Grand Master, in an address before the Grand Lodge, said:

“How to assemble the Grand Lodge with regularity, was now made a serious question, as the commission of the Grand Master had died with him, and the Deputy had no power independent of his nomination and appointment.

“Communications for the consideration of this subject were held at different times, till the 8th of March, 1777, when, experiencing the necessity of preserving the intercourse of the brethren, and the want of a proper establishment to soften the rigors of an active and distressing war, they proceeded to the formation of an Independent Grand Lodge, with ‘powers and preyogatives to be exercised on principles consistent with and subordinate to the regulations pointed out in the Constitutions of Ancient Masonry,’ and our late worthy and Most Worshipful Brother, Joseph Webb, Esquire, whose amiable deportment and fidelity in the duties of his important office now claim our grateful remembrance, was duly elected Grand Master, and pyoceeded to install his officers, and organize the Grand Lodge.”

Thaddeus M. Harris, who compiled the Constitutions in 1792, referring to this act of independence, quotes the above extract from Bartlett’s address, and, in a foot-note, says that “the general regulations from Entick’s Constitutions were adopted and practiced; except that the Grand Master and Wardens were elected by a ballot at large. The other officers were appointed by the Grand Master.”

The record itself, of December 6, 1782, recies the facts:

“Charters were not only granted for establishing Lodges in Massachusetts, but also in other States. But anticipating that the independent government organized in this State would be followed by the Craft elsewhere, it was determined that all Charters granted without the limits of Massachusetts

should be in force only until a Grand Lodge was formed in such State or Country where such Lodges were held. Upon these conditions Lodges were established in New Hampshire, Vermont, Connecticut, and New York, prior to December, 1782.”

“In October, 1778, it was voted that a Charter be granted to a traveling Lodge in the American army, to make Masons, pass, and raise, in this State, or any of the United States of America, where no other Grand Master presides. But in any other State where there is a Grand Master constituted by the brethren of these United States, they are to inform him, and receive his sanction.”

In September, 1780, the Grand Master “laid before the Grand Lodge a letter dated Philadelphia, August 19, 1780, signed William Smith, Grand Secretary, inclosing a printed list of the several Lodges in Pennsylvania under that jurisdiction, and advising that they had, in that Grand Lodge, thought it expedient to make choice of a Grand Master General, for the thirteen United American States; that they had nominated His Excellency General George Washington, and requesting the opinion and approbation of this Grand Lodge thereon.”

“Circular letters were sent to the several Lodges under the jurisdiction requesting the attendance of the Masters and Wardens at the Grand Lodge, for the purpose of considering this proposition. Brother Perez Morton was strongly in favor of the project, but the Grand Lodge Voted, That any determination upon the subject cannot, with the propriety and justice due to the Craft at large, be made by this Grand Lodge, until a general peace shall happily take place through the continent, inasmuch as the sentiments of the various Grand Lodges in the United States upon this question could not be made known under the peculiar circumstances of public affairs.”

On the 10th of July, 1782, it was “Voted, That a committee be appointed to draw resolutions explanatory of the powers and authority of this Grand Lodge, respecting the extent and meaning of its jurisdiction, and of the exercise of any other masonic authorities within its jurisdiction.” Brothers Perez Morton, Paul Revere, John Warren, James Avery, and John Juteau were appointed upon the committee.

A special meeting of the Grand Lodge was called to receive the report, September 30, 1782, when it was read and referred to the next meeting.  December 6, 1782, in a full Grand Lodge, it was considered.

This interesting report, omitting the formal introduction, is as follows:

“The Commission from the Grand Lodge of Scotland granted to our late Grand Master, Joseph Warren, Esquire, having died with him, and of course his deputy, whose appointment was derived from his nomination, being no longer in existence, they saw themselves without a head, and without a single Grand Officer, and of course it was evident that not only the Grand Lodge, but all the particular Lodges under its jurisdiction, must cease to assemble, the brethren be dispersed, the penniless go unassisted, the Craft languish, and ancient Masonry be extinct in this part of the world.

“That in consequence of a summons from the former Grand Wardens to the Masters and Wardens of all the regular constituted Lodges, a Grand Communication was held to consult and advise on some means to preserve the intercourse of the brethren.

“That the Political Head of this country, having destroyed all connection and correspondence between the subjects of these States and the country from which the Grand Lodge originally derived its commissioned authority, and the principles of the Craft, inculcating on its professors submission to the commands of the civil authority of the country they reside in, the brethren did assume an elective supremacy, and under it chose a Grand Master and Grand Officers, and erected a Grand Lodge with independent powers and prerogatives, to be exercised, however, on principles consistent with and subordinate to the regulations pointed out in the Constitution of Ancient Masonry.

“That the reputation and utility of the Craft, under their jurisdiction, has been most extensively diffused, by the flourishing state of fourteen Lodges constituted by their authority within a shorter period than that in which three only received Dispensations under the former Grand Lodge.

“That in the history of our Craft we find that in England there are two Grand Lodges, independent of each other; in Scotland the same, and in Ireland their Grand Lodge and Grand Master are independent either of England or Scotland. It is clear that the authority of some of their Grand Lodges originated in assumption, or otherwise they would acknowledge the head from whence they derived.

“Your committee are therefore of opinion that the doings of the present Grand Lodge were dictated by principles of the clearest necessity, founded in the highest reason, and warranted by precedents of the most approved authority.

“And they beg leave to recommend the following resolutions, to be adopted by the Grand Lodge and engrafted into its Constitutions:

“I. That the brethren of the Grand Lodge, in assuming the powers and prerogatives of an independent Grand Lodge, acted from the most laudable motives and consistently with the principles which ought forever to govern Masons, viz., the benefit of the Craft and the good of mankind, and are warranted in their proceedings by the practice of Ancient Masons in all parts of the world. (1)

II. That this Grand Lodge be hereafter known and called by the name of ‘The Massachusetts Grand Lodge of Ancient Masons,’ and that it is free and independent in its government and official authority of any other Grand Lodge or Grand Master in the universe.

III. That the power and authority of the said Grand Lodge be construed to extend throughout the Commonwealth of Massachuseas and to any of the United States, where none other is erected, over such Lodges only as this Grand Lodge has constituted or shall constitute.

“IV. That the Grand Master for the time being be desired to call in all Charters which were held under the jurisdiction of the late Grand Master, Joseph Warren, Esquire, and return the same with an endorsement thereon, expressive of their recognition of the power and authority of this Grand Lodge.

“V. That no person ought or can, consistently with the rules of Ancient Masonry, use or exercise the powers or prerogatives of an Ancient Grand Master or Grand Lodge, to wit: To give power to erect Lodges of ancient

Masonry, make Masons, appoint superior or Grand Officers, receive dues, or do anything which belongs to the powers or prerogatives of an ancient Grand Lodge within any part of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, the rightful and appropriated limits to which the authority of this Grand Lodge forever hereafter extends.”

The foregoing report was signed by Perez Morton, Paul Revere, John Warren, and James Avery. It “was read paragraph by paragraph, and, after mature deliberation thereon, the same was accepted and ordered to be recorded in the proceedings of the Grand Lodge,” where it now appears, signed by “Jos.  Webb, Grand Master.” A majority of the members of St. Andrew’s Lodge objected to this report, although, at a Grand Lodge held March 1, 1782, a petition from its Master, Wardens, and members was presented, “praying that the Grand Lodge would grant them a Charter by the ‘name of Saint Andrew,’ they retaining their rank and precedency as heretofore in said Grand Lodge,” which was unanimously granted.

“In 1768 John Rowe was appointed Provincial Grand Master of the St. John’s Grand Lodge.” He held the office until August 4, 1787, when he died. After 1775 this Grand Lodge held no meeting until called together to attend the funeral of Grand Master Rowe. In July, 1790, the Grand Officers assembled and voted to elect new officers, but no higher officer than a Senior Grand Warden was chosen. The Massachusetts Grand Lodge, as early as 1787, had taken action upon the question of a union, and had appointed a committee to consider it. “It is evident that the St. John’s Lodge preserved its organization as such for the purpose of completing the contemplated union.  It granted no Charters, nor did it assume any of the powers of a Charter to St. John’s Lodge, Boston, for the purpose of uniting the first and second Lodges into one. The Grand Lodge record contains no reference to it, nor was there any record kept of the Grand Lodge doings for that year.”

“Thus by the record, and by contemporaneous history, it is fixed beyond all question and doubt that the ‘Massachusetts Grand Lodge’ on the 8th of March, 1777, by a revolution and by assumption of the powers, duties, and responsibilities of a Grand Lodge, became a free, independent, sovereign Grand Lodge, with a jurisdiction absolute, exclusive, and entire throughout the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, and a provisional jurisdiction in other States and countries. By this revolution and assumption, from that day to this, the Grand Lodge of Massachusetts, without interruption, has exercised all the plenary powers of a Grand Lodge. It has held Regular and Special Meetings, elected and installed its Grand Masters and other Grand Officers, kept full and complete records of its doings, granted Warrants for new Lodges, erected and erased Lodges, compelled and received the allegiance of its subordinates and their members, and has been in correspondence with and recognized by the other Grand Lodges of the world. From the 8th of March, 1777, to the day of this Quarterly mecting, the full and just - complete term of ninety-three years, there has never been any successful opposition to its claim of sovereignty. From time to time it has gathered into self every opposing element possessing even a colorable title to legitimacy which it found within the borders of its jurisdiction.”

“In the State of Massachusetts there have been three Lodges chartered by Grand Lodges of foreign jurisdictions, and but three - St. Andrew’s, chartered in 1756, by the Grand Lodge of Scotland, and now one of our subordinates; Ancient York Lodge, No. 169, of Boston, chartered prior to 1772, by the Atholl Grand Lodge of England, and had but a brief existence; and the African Lodge, of Boston.

“It is claimed that in 1775 the persons named in the Charter of the African Lodge were made Masons in a traveling Lodge attached to one of the British regiments then stationed at Boston, and that they ‘were soon after organized as, and dispensated into a Lodge,’ before the death of Warren, to whom they applied for a Charter. That they were made Masons may be true.  That they received a Dispensation for a Lodge there is not the least proof of, nor the slightest shadow of pretence for. Dispensations for Lodges, as preliminary to granting a Charter, were not made use of in those days. But more than all, there was no authorized power here to grant such Dispensation save Provincial Grand Masters Rowe and Warren. A traveling Lodge, although attached to a British regiment, could not authorize these persons to assessable as a Lodge. Nor was it ever pretended that such Dispensation existed until recently. This claim is nowhere stated directly, and contains so little foundation that it is not worth considering.”

The Massachusetts Grand Lodge, at its Session October 1, 1773, after mature deliberation, decided that neither the Lodge at Castle william, nor any other traveling Lodge, “ has any right to make Masons of any citizen.”

There is no doubt that, on the 6th of March, 1775, the day after Warren delivered his celebrated oration in the Old South Church, where he was menaced by British troops, Prince Hall and thirteen others received the three degrees in a traveling Lodge attached to one of the British regiments in the army of General Gage, by whom Boston was then garrisoned; that Prince Hall and his associates met as a Lodge thereafter in Boston, without any warrant or authority, until May, 1787.

Application was sent to England for a Charter in 1784. The letter of Prince Hall, dated March 1, 1784, accompanying the petition to the Grand Lodge of England for the Charter of the African Lodge, says - “I would inform you that this Lodge hath been founded almost eight years.” “We have had no opportunity to apply for a Warrant before now, though we have been importuned to send to France for one, yet we thought it best to send to the fountain head, from whence we received the light, for a Warrant.”

A Charter was granted September 29, 1784. It did not arrive at Boston for nearly three years, and was received April 29, 1787, and, on the 6th of May following, Prince Hall organized the “African Lodge,” at Boston, ten years after the Massachusetts Grand Lodge had asserted its freedom and independence; ten years after the American doctrine of Grand Lodge jurisdiction had been established.

“Without any other authoity than that contained in the Warrant for said Lodge, Prince Hall, the Master thereof, it is said, on the 22d of March, 1797, granted a Dispensation, preliminary to a Warrant, to certain persons in Philadelphia. Soon afterwards Prince Hall established a Lodge at Providence, R.I. African Lodge, of Boston, continued to act as a subordinate Lodge until 1808, when, with the assistance of the Lodges at Philadelphia and Providence, established as above stated, it organized a Grand Lodge at Boston, which Body granted Charters to several subordinates, not only in Massachusetts, but in several other States.”

The African Lodge declared its independence in June, 1827, and published its Declaration in a newspaper printed at Boston.

“It is unnecessary to argue the masonic and legitimate effect of this Declaration. It was a surrender of their Charter, and a public declaration that from thenceforth they ceased to act under it, or to recognize its validity or the authority from whence it was derived. If the ‘African Lodge’ had any ‘existence at this time, by force of this Declaration its existence came to an end.”

A National Grand Lodge was formed in 1847; and, says the petition of Lewis Hayden and others to the Grand Lodge of Massachusetts, set out on page 132 of the Proceedings for 1869: “The African Lodge of Boston, becoming a part of that Body, surrendered its Charter, and received its present Charter, dated December 11, 1847, under the title of Prince Hall Grand Lodge of Free and Accepted Masons for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, and by which authority we this day exist as a Masonic Body.”

The Lodge prospered, but after the death of Prince Hall, December 4, 1807, aet. 72, it became dormant, and ceased. Upon the union of the Grand Lodges of England, in 1813, African Lodge, which had been registered as No. 459 and as 370, “was removed from the list,” and was never after recognized by the United Grand Lodge. The Declaration of 1827 complains “that the members of African Lodge could open no correspondence with the Grand Lodge of England, and that their communications and advances were treated with the most studied neglect.”

“Boyer Lodge, No. 1, was organized at New York City by the African Lodge or the Prince Hall Grand Lodge. The members of this Lodge applied to the Grand Lodge of New York for recognition in 1812, 1829, and again in 1845.  Grand Secretary James Herring made a report in 1846 which contains a letter from Brother Charles W. Moore, Grand Secretary of the Grand Lodge of Massachusetts, which throws some light upon the condition of the African Lodge in Boston at this time.

“Why this Charter was granted without the consent of the Lodges in Massachusetts, and without any correspondence concerning the propriety of the step, is a question which can be answered by every American who remembers the bitter hostility existing in England at that date towards the

successful rebels against the crown of Great Britain. This Charter, in common form, conferring no extraordinary powers upon the petitioners, authorizing them to hold a Lodge, enter, pass, and raise Masons, and no more, was undoubtedly granted by the Grand Master of England, and under it

the petitioners commenced Work. The successors of the persons named in that Charter have magnified the powers granted by it, have construed it to confer upon them Grand Lodge powers, have set up by virtue of it Grand Lodges, and finally a national Grand Lodge, with subordinate Staions and Lodges, and have established an ‘American doctrine of Grand Lodge jurisdiction’ peculiar to themselves, distinct and separate from any other Grand Lodge government known to man. Their National Grand Body ‘claims and exercises masonic authority over these United States, with full power and authority to settle all masonic difficulties that may arise among the Grand

Lodges of these States.’”

The original Charter, granted September 29, 1784, under which the successors of the persons named have claimed to act from April, 1787, to the year 1847, and which was the only plausible authority by which they hope to be justified in their proceedings, was not only surrendered by operation of masonic law, June 18, 1827, by reason of the Declaration then made, but on the 11th of December, 1847, was actually in set form of words, and with premeditation, abandoned and surrendered, and if they now possess the parchment upon which it was written, it is kept only as a curious relic of the past, emasculated of its virility.

The first difficulty has been complicated with a National Grand Lodge, State Grand Lodges, and subordinate Lodges, so that it wail not be easy to escape from the triple bonds with which they have been bound.

This is purely a question of Grand Lodge jurisdiction which was settled and determined, September 17, 1797, by Massachusetts Grand Lodge, when it incorporated into its Constitution this Section:

“The Grand Lodge will not hold communication with, or admit as visitors, any Masons, residing in this State, who hold authority under, and acknowledge the supremacy of, any foreign Grand Lodge.”

In some form of language the same feature has existed in their Constitutions from 1797 to this day, and is as follows:

“No Lodge of Ancient, Free and Accepted Masons can legally assemble in this Commonwealth under a Warrant granted by any foreign masonic power.” Which is a question of Grand Lodge jurisdiction.

“The Institution of Freemasonry is universal. It stretches from East to West, from North to South, and embraces within itself the representatives of every branch of the human family. Its carefully-tyled doors swing open, not at the knock of every man, but at the demand of every true and worthy man, duly accepted, whatever his religion, his race, or his country may be.  This Grand Lodge stands upon the high vantage ground of this catholic society, and recognizes the great principles which must necessarily underlie an Institution which has a home on the continents and on the islands of the seas.”

“When that celebrated play of Terence, styled the ‘Self-Tormentor,’ wasfirst introduced upon the Roman Stage, before the great amphitheatrecrowded with Senators, knights, citizens, and men of rank, some of whom hadbeen found worthy of a Roman triumph, and Chremes, in his reply to

Menedemus, repeated these words,

‘Homo sum; humani nihil a me alienum puto

(I am a man; nothing which relates to man is alien to me),

the vast assemblage rose up, impelled by a common sentiment, and rent the air with reiterated plaudits. The memory of that scene has not yet faded away. The words of Chremes have not yet ceased to reverberate. We bear upon the Masons’ arms of Massachusetts, and have inscibed upon our Grand Lodge banner, the motto,

 

Humani nihil alienum.’”

(Man everywhere our brother.)

 

True Copy of the Charter of the African Lodge.

“Effingham, A.G.M. To all and every Right Worshipful and loving Brethren, we, Thomas Howard, &c., &c., &c., Earl of Effingham, Lord Howard, Acting Grand Master under the authority of His Royal Highness Henry Frederick, Duke of Cumberland, &c., &c., &c., Grand Master of the Most Ancient and Honorable Society of Free and Accepted Masons, sends Greeting:

“Know ye, that we, at the humble petition of our right trusty and well beloved brethren, Prince Hall, Boston Smith, Thomas Sanderson, and several other brethren residing in Boston, New Zealand, in North America, do hereby constitute the said brethren into a regular Lodge of Free and accepted Masons, under the title or denomination of the African Lodge, to be opened

in Boston, aforesaid; and do further, at their said petition, hereby appoint the said Prince Hall to be Master, Boston Smith, Senior Warden, and Thomas Sanderson, Junior Warden, for opening the said Lodge, and for such further time only as shall be thought proper by the brethren thereof, it

being any future election of officers of the Lodge, but that such election shall be regulated agreeably to such By-Laws of the said Lodge as shall be consistent with the general laws of the society, contained in the Book of Constitutions; and we hereby will and require you, the said Prince Hall, to take special care that all and every the said brethren are, or have been, regularly made Masons, and that they do observe, perform, and keep all the rules and orders contained in the Books of Constitutions; and further, that you do, from time to time, cause to be entered in a book kept for that purpose an account of your proceedings in the Lodges, together with all such rules, orders, and regulations as shall be made for the good government of the same; that in no wise you omit once in every year to send to us, our successors Grand Masters or to Rowland Holt, Esq., our Deputy Grand Master, for the time being, an account in writing of your proceedings, and copies of all such rules, orders, and regulations as shall be made as aforesaid, together with a list of the members of the Lodge, and such a sum of money as may suit the circumstances of the Lodge and reasonably be expected towards the Grand Charity. Moreover, we hereby will and require you, the said Prince Hall, as soon as conveniently may be, to send an account in writing of what may be done by virtue of these presents.

 

“Given at London, under our hand and seal of Masonry, this 29th day September, A.L. 5784, A.D. 1784.

By the Grand Master’s Command.

“ROWLAND HOLT, D.G.M.,

Witness

WILLIAM WHITE,

“Grand Secretary.”

 

The “Massachusetts Centinal,” printed at Boston, in its issue of May 2, 1787, has the following document:

“AFRICAN LODGE, “BOSTON, May 2, 1787.

By Captain Scott, from London, came the Charter, &c., which his Royal Highness the Duke of Cumberland, and the Grand Lodge, have been graciously pleased to grant to the African Lodge, in Boston. As the brethren have a desire to acknowledge all favors shown them, they, in this public manner, return particular thanks to a certain member of the Fraternity who offered the so generous reward in this paper, some time since, for the Charter, supposed to be lost; and to assure him, though they doubt of his friendship, that he has made them many good friends.”

 

“Signed

PRINCE HALL.”

 

Extract from an Address of John V. De Grasse, before the “Prince Hall Grand Lodge” June 30, 1858: “Although, brethren, our Charter was granted in London, September 17, 1784, we did not receive it until April 29, 1787, through the neglect and almost culpable carelessness of Brother Gregory, who did not take it from the Office of the Grand Secretary, where it had remained over two years.” “On the 29th of April the Charter and a beautiful bound book of the Constitutions were delivered to Prince Hall.”

Declaration of Independence Published in a newspaper at Boston, June, 1827.

GREETING: “AFRICAN LODGE, NO. 459.

“GREETING:

 

“Be it known to all whom it may concern, That we, the Master, Wardens, Members of the African Lodge, No. 459, City Of Boston (Mass.), U.S. of America, hold in our possession a certain unlimited Charter, granted September 29, A.L. 5784, A.D. 1784, by Thomas Howard, Earl of Effingham, Acting Grand Master under the authority of his Royal Highness Henry Frederick, Duke of Cumberland, &c., &c., &c., Grand Master of the Most Ancient and Honorable society of Free and Accepted Masons. Be it further known, that the Charter alluded to bears the seal of the Most Worshipful Grand Lodge at London, England, and was presented to our much esteemed and worthy brethren and predecessors, Prince Hall, Boston Smith, Thomas Sanderson, and several others, agreeably to a humble petition of theirs, sent in form to the above Grand Lodge. Be it remembered that, according to correct information as regards this instrument and the manner in which it was given, it appears to have been confined exclusively to the Africans, and to certain conditions. Whether the conditions have been complied with by our ancestors, we are unable to say; but we can add that, in consequence of the decease of the above-named Brother, the institution was for years unable to proceed, for the want of one to conduct its affairs agreeably to what is required in every regular and well-educated Lodge of Masons. It is now, however, with great pleasure we state that the present age has arrived to that degree of proficiency in the art, that we can at any time select from among us many whose capacity to govern enables them to preside with as much good order, dignity, and propriety as any other Lodge within our knowledge. This fact can be proved by gentlemen of respectability, whose knowledge of Masonry would not be questioned by any one well acquainted with the art. Since the rise of the Lodge to this degree of proficiency, we concluded it was best and proper to make it known to the Most Worshipful Grand Lodge from whence we derive our charter, by sending written documents and monies, to fulfil the agreements of our ancestors, giving information of the low state to which it had fallen, its cause, &c., with its rise and progress; and also soliciting favors, whereby we might be placed on a different and better standing than we had heretofore. And notwithstanding this has long since been done, and more than sufficient time has elapsed for returns, yet we have never received a single line or reply from that Hon. Society. In consequence of that neglect, we have been at a stand what course to pursue. Our remote situation prevents us from making any verbal communication whatever. Taking all these things into consideration we have come to the conclusion that with what knowledge we possess of Masonry, and as people of color by ourselves, we are, and ought by rights, to be free and independent of other Lodges. We do, therefore, with this belief, publicly declare ourselves free and independent of any Lodge from this day, and that we will not be tributary, or be governed by any lodge than that of our own. We agree solemnly to abide by all proper rules and regulations which govern the like Fraternity, discountenancing all imposition to injure the Order, and to use all fair and honorable means to promote its prosperity, resting in full hope that this will enable us to transmit it in its purity to our posterity for their enjoyment.

 

“Done at the Lodge, this the 18th June, A.L. 5727, A.D. 1827.

“In full testimony of what has been written, we affix our names:

“JOHN T. HILTON, R.M.W.,

“THOMAS DALTON, Sen. Ward.,

“LEWIS YORK, Jun. Ward.,

“J.H. PURRON, Secretary.”

 

Letter from John Hervey, Grand Secretary of the United Grand Lodge of England.

 

FREEMASONS’ HALL, LONDON, W.C., 11th November, 1868.

 

DEAR SIR AND R. W. BROTHER: I am in receipt of your favor of the 20th ult., making enquiries respecting a Warrant granted in 1784 to a certain Prince Hall. I have caused a most diligent search to be made in our books here, and the only reference I can find is in the Calendar for 1785, when a Lodge appears to have been working under the English Constitution, at Boston, under the No. 459, and called the ‘African Lodge.’ It afterwards became 370, and, I presume, had ceased working, as at the Union, in 1813, it was removed from the list.

“To reply to your questions categorically

“1st. I can find no record in 1775 of any Dispensation; but as the G. L.  Books were not then kept, as they are now, with accuracy, such may, nevertheless, have existed.

“2d. It was struck off the list in 1813, but I can find no trace of any return having been made, and consequently imagine it must have ceased working long before, although retained on the list.

 

“3d. I should say most decidedly, that the said ‘Prince Hall’ was never appointed D.G.M., or had power to grant warrants for the establishment of Lodges in your country. Henry Price, of Boston, was P.G.M. for America from 1775 to 1804, after which year his name disappears from the lists.

“It is quite clear that the Lodge referred to is not working under the English Constitutions, and that the parties holding the Warrant can have no right to it, and are not a regular Lodge, unless empowered to meet under your Constitutions.

I am, dear Sir and Brother, yours, truly and fraternally,

“JOHN HERVEY,

Grand Secretary

 

CHARLES W. MOORE,

Deputy Grand Master, Grand Lodge of Massachusetts.

Extract from the Report of James Herring, Grand Secretary, to the Grand Lodge of New York, June 2, 1846.

The undersigned, having requested the R.W. Charles W. Moore, Grand Secretary of the Grand Lodge of Massachusetts, to endeavor to see the Charter of the so-called African Lodge, of Boston, and, if possible, obtain a copy thereof, begs leave to incorporate the following extract from Br.

Moore’s letter, dated JULY 26, 1845 :

“I called, agreeably to your request, on Mr. Hilton -who, I believe, is the Master of the African Lodge in this city - stated to him the object of my visit, and asked permission to see the Charter of his Lodge. He informed me that there was a difficulty between his and Boyer Lodge, of

long standing, that they had nothing to do with that Lodge, nor would they have, until the difference referred to was settled. He further stated, that they were entirely independent of the white Lodges; asked no favors of them; and would have nothing to do with them; nor would they admit a white Mason, if he should present himself as a visitor. In the course of his conversation he distinctly said that he had been ‘told by them people’ (meaning Boyer Lodge) to have no communication with anybody on the subject of their recognition by the Grand Lodge of New York. He also positively and repeatedly refused to allow me to see the Charter of his Lodge, or to give me any information in relation to its history or present existence.  It is proper for me to add, that my conversation with him was kind and gentle. I explicitly stated to him that I did not call officially, but as a friend, and at your request, with a view to ascertain whether Boyer Lodge was a regular constituted Lodge, such as the Grand Lodge of New York could recognize. . . .

“The African Lodge has never been recognized by the Grand Lodge of this Commonwealth. Applications have several times been made by its members for admission to our Lodges, but they have generally, if not always, been refused. Mr. Hilton stated to me that he had once, through the influence of a friend, gained admission into one of our out-of-town Lodges. If so, the Brother who introduced him laid himself open to censure, and would have been dealt with, had the circumstance come to the knowledge of the Grand Lodge. That the course of our Grand Lodge, in reference to the African Lodge, is not the result of prejudice, it is only necessary for me to say, that, within the last month, a colored Brother from England has visited, and been kindly received, in one of our city Lodges.

“Such is the state of the case, so far as I am able to communicate it. The argument does not belong to me; but you will permit me to inquire, whether your Grand Lodge is prepared to recognize any real or pretended Lodge, existing within another jurisdiction, before it had been recognized by the Grand Lodge of that jurisdiction? Again, does your Grand Lodge allow other Grand Lodges to establish Lodges within its jurisdiction? and is it ready to recognize Lodges so established ?

“These three questions have been, by repeated decisions of this Grand Lodge, answered in the negative; and, according to the treaty stipulations entered into by the Grand Lodges of this continent, soon after the revolution, and the uniform resistance of any encroachment upon the sole jurisdiction of the several Grand Lodges down to the present time, these questions can be answered only in the negative.

“The undersigned would further state, that the legality of the Body, called Boyer Lodge, No. 1, has been already twice reported on by Committees of this Grand Lodge on the 3d of March, 1812, and on the 4th of March, 1829.  In the latter report, the main facts were correctly stated and able arguments sustained, and the conclusion drawn that Boyer Lodge, No. 1, can be regarded only as a clandestine Lodge. The undersigned can arrive only at the same conclusion, it being established beyond doubt that the African Lodge, at Boston, was illegally established by the Grand Lodge of England within the jurisdiction of the Grand Lodge of Massachusetts; that its name has been long stricken from the roll of the Grand Lodge of England; that its assumed authority to grant Warrants was unmasonic and fraudulent; and further, that the statement contained in the memorial of said Boyer Lodge, that it had been ‘regularly and legally constituted and installed as a Master Mason’s Lodge, with a legal Warrant or Charter,’ is totally unfounded.

All of which is respectfully submitted,

“JAMES HERRING,

“Grand Secretary.”

NEW YORK, June 2, 1846.

In June, 1855, one Peter G. Smith, of Montpelier, Vt., visited Boston, and “joined a Lodge of Masons.” Upon returning to Montpelier, he attempted to visit a regular Lodge, but was refused admission. Mr. Smith then wrote to Boston, and received the following reply:

No. 60 SOUTHAC STREET, BOSTON,

September 6, 1855.

 

“PETER G. SMITH, ESQ.

MAY DEAR SIR AND BROTHER: Yours, bearing date August 14, came duly to hand. You say that the Grand Master of Vermont says that the colored Masons had their Charter taken from them, and that they are now working without a Charter. We reply that the charge is no doubt innocent, but it is nevertheless false from beginning to end. The original Charter is now in our possession, and always has been, and we worked under it until some time after the war between this country and Great Britain, when the colored Masons held a Convention and declared themselves independent, the same as the white had already done before. This was done on account of the difficulties of making the returns to the mother country. There has always been the best feelings, and our brethren all visit the Lodges, not only in England, but in all parts of the world.

“If the Grand Master of Vermont wishes any more light, we are prepared to give it to him; or if he has a curiosity, he can see the original Charter.

Yours fraternally,

“J. S. ROCK,

“Corresponding Grand Secretary of Prince Hall Grand Lodge.”

To this letter Philip C. Tucker, Grand Master of Vermont, replied in a communication to Peter G. Smith as follows:

“VERGENNES, September 22, 1855.

“MR PETER G. SMITH, Montpelier.

“SIR: I received yours of yesterday, enclosing a letter to you from Mr. J.S. Rock, of Boston, this morning.

“As to the Lodge of colored men existing in Boston, calling itself ‘Prince Hall Grand Lodge,’ and such Lodges as acknowledge its jurisdiction, I have to say that my understanding on the subject is this :

“I suppose it to be true that on the 20th day of September, 1784, a Charter for a Masters’ Lodge was granted to Prince Hall and others, under the authority of the Grand Lodge of England, and that the Lodge then chartered bore the name of ‘African Lodge, NO. 459,’ and was located at Boston. If any other Charter was ever granted, at any other time, by the Grand Lodge of England, or any other Grand Lodge, to the colored persons of that city, it has never come to my, knowledge.

“I suppose it to be also true that African Lodge, No. 459, did not continue its connection for many years with the Grand Lodge of England, and that its registration was stricken from the rolls of that Grand more than fifty years ago.

“I suppose it further to be true that this Lodge, NO. 459, and all others which have originated from it, have always held themselves aloof, and have always refused to acknowledge any allegiance to the Grand Lodge of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

“I also suppose it to be true that, on the 18th day of June, 1827, this same Lodge, No. 459, issued a Declaration, and had it published in some of the Boston papers, signed by John T. Hilton, Thomas Dalton, Lewis York, jr., and J.H. Purron (claiming to be Master Wardens, and Secretary thereof), which Declaration contained the following language: ‘We publicly declare ourselves free and independent of any Lodge from this day, and we will not be tributary, or governed by any Lodge than that of our own.’

“And I still further suppose it to be true that, in the month of July, 1845, R.W. Charles W. Moore; the Grand Secretary of the Grand Lodge of Massachusetts, had a personal interview with Mr. Hilton, then Master of this said Lodge, NO. 459, in which interview Mr. Hilton said, that they (the members of said Lodge) were ‘entirely independent of all white Bodies, asked no favors of them, and would have nothing to do with them; nor would they admit a white Mason, if he should present himself as a visitor.’

“All these things are of record, and cannot, I think, be denied in any quarter. From them I form the following opinions:

“First. Even if a Charter for a subordinate Lodge, to be located within the United States, could be lawfully granted by the Grand Lodge of England, after the close of the American Lodges, its vitality would necessarily expire when the grantor substantially revoked the grant by striking it from its records, and thus disavowing all connection with the grantee.

“Second. ‘That the mere retention of a Charter, after its legal revocation, cannot preserve or retain any right, power, or authority in the original grantees or their successors, where the right to revoke is reserved, as it always is in all Grand Lodges, in the grantor.

“Third. Even if African Lodge, NO. 459, had a lawful masonic existence June 18, 1827, the Declaration of that date was both unmasonic and revolutionary, and placed that Body as effectually beyond recognition by either the Grand Lodge of Massachusetts or any other Grand Lodge in the United States, as was the French Lodge of Virginia, or the German Lodges of New York.

“Fourth. Had African Lodge, NO. 459, been in all things a lawful Lodge, after the Declaration of its first officer, of July, 1845, that ‘it would not admit a white Mason if he should present himself as a visitor,’ it would have been both humiliating and degrading to have allowed the doors of the white Lodges to stand open for a reciprocity of courtesies which were thus gratuitously and roughly declared inadmissible, in advance of any request, offer, or wish to establish them.

“I have the highest masonic authority in Massachtiseas for denying ‘the brethren’ of the Lodge in question ‘all visit the Lodges,’ so far as the Lodges of Massachusetts are concerned. A Past Grand Master of the Lodge of the Commonwealth, writing at Boston, in 1848, says: ‘There are no Lodges of colored Masons in this city or any other part of the United States that are recognized and acknowledged by the Grand Lodge of Massachusetts, or to our knowledge, by any other regularly-constituted Grand Lodge in this country.  It (the African Lodge) was never recognized by the Grand Lodge of this State, nor has there been any masonic intercourse between the two Bodies.’

“The same Brother, writing at the same place, in 1846, says, in referring to that Lodge: ‘Applications have several times been made by its members for admission to our Lodges, but they have generally, if not always, been refused.’ Again he says, ‘That the course of our Grand Lodge in reference to African Lodge is not the result of prejudice, it is only necessary for me to say that, within the last month, a colored Brother from England has visited, and been kindly received in one of our city Lodges.’

“I believe I am correct in stating that the two following propositions are recognized as sound masonic law in this country:

“First. That no Grand Lodge of any State can regularly recognize a subordinate Lodge existing in another State, or its members, until such subordinate Lodge is recognized by the Grand lodge of the State in which it exists.

“Second. That no Grand Lodge, either in these United States, or any other country, can legally establish a subordinate Lodge in any other State where a regularly-constituted Grand Lodge exists.

“From these views you will readily perceive why the Masonry of the United States does not and cannot either recognize ‘Prince Hall Grand Lodge,’ or its subordinates, or their members, as regular. To our understanding, the whole of these organizations are irregular and unmasonic, and exist adverse to masonic regulations and law. If, as Mr. Rock asserts, members of these Bodies are admitted to ‘visit Lodges in England and all parts of the world,’ that admission probably arises from the fact that the history and masonic positions of these Bodies are not so well understood elsewhere as they are in the United States.

“Mr. Rock expresses an inclination to ‘give the Grand Master of Vermont more light’ on this subject. As he signed himself ‘Corresponding Secretary of Prince Hall Grand Lodge,’ I suppose him to possess all the light’ which the subject has in it; and whatever that light may be able to reflect upon me of the truth of the past or the present, will always receive the respectful attention it may deserve from

 

“Your Humble Serv’t,

“PHILIP C. TUCKER,

“Grand Master of the Grand Lodge of Vermont.”.

 

Communication from the Grand Secretary of the United Grand Lodge of England

FREEMASONS’ HALL, LONDON, W. C., “May 5, 1870.

“WILLIAM SEWALL GARDNER, ESQ., Most Worshipful Grand Master of Massachusetts.

“M.W. SIR AND BROTHER: I would have replied earlier to your esteemed letter of the 12th March, had not the information you required necessitated a longer search than could be prosecuted at the moment. I regret that I can afford so little information, as our records, excepting, as to the proceedings of our own Grand Lodge, were not kept in the accurate manner as is now the general practice.

As you are already aware, the Warrant for the African Lodge was granted in 1784, and was numbered 459; but the fee for the Warrant, 4 pounds 4s., does not appear in our Grand Lodge accounts until the 4th April, 1787. The following remittances were received for the Charity Fund from the African Lodge, viz. :

“November 25, 1789 2 pounds 2S. 11d.

“April 18, 1792 1 pound 1S 0d

“November 27, 1793 1 pound 5S 6d

“November 22, 1797 1 pound 5S 0d

 

 

“In 1793 its number was altered to 370, and continued so numbered in our Calendar until 1812, when, on the re-numbering consequent on the union of the two Grand Lodges, the African Lodge was omitted.

 

“I send you enclosed a verbatim copy of all the documents I can discover relating to the Lodge; but the petition for the Lodge is not forthcoming.

Should any other documents present themselves, which is somewhat unlikely, I will send you copies, and have the honor to remain, M.W. Sir and Brother,

“Yours fraternally,

“JOHN HERVEY,

“Grand Secretary.”

 

Copies referred to in the above letter:

“RIGHT WORSHIPFUL SIR: We now, send you an account of the Lodges proceeding since we sent our last, which was in August last, together with ten dollars for the Fund of the Grand Charity, by Captain Scot, which he saith he hath delivered to the Grand Secretary, but he hath no recept with him for the money. We have initiated into the Lodge this year Samovel Beean, a black man, and the Reverend Mr. John Merrand, a black Minister from home, but last from Beech Town in Nova Scotia. We shall make a colletchen on St.  John’s Day next, which we shall send by the first carefull hand; the Lodge in general behaves veriwell in there Station, so that there no just complantes made against them. I hope I may allways have the plesevr of sending a good account of the African Lodge. After whiching all Happyness to our Royal Grand Master, and all the Officers and Members of the Grand Lodge, I beg leve to subscribe myself your most obedient humble servent and Brother, PRINCE HALL.”

BOSTON, November 9, 1789.

“To the Most Worshipful WILLIAM WHITE, ESQ., G. S.

DEAR SIR: These comes to acquant you that we have sent sundrey, letters to our Right Worshipful Rowland Holt, Esq., and to your Worship according to my order in the Charter; and with those we sent you datted Augest 2, 1788, we sent Ten Dollars for the Grand Charity but have not had a anser wether you had receved them or not, and the Lodge is uneasey with me on that acount, as I paid the money to Mr. Bengmen Greene, Jun., one of Captain James Scotts Merchants, and receved his recepte for the money to be sent to him with the Letters for you, as I did not now were to derecte them to you, and if you receved them that must be the Reson; therefore, Sir, be so good when you send an ansear to this you would send me some word were to derect them, that you may have them, which we hope will be by the Berrer hearof.

I have sent you a sermon, preched on St. Johns Day by our Brother John Marrant, for our Grand Master, and another for you, which I hope you will recevn. Our Brother Sanderson is Dead. All the rest of our Br are in health. So no at pesent. But must beg leve to subscribe myself your vere

humble servent and Br.,

 

“PRINCE HALL.”

 

“To the Right Worshipful, the Grand Master, Wardens, and Members of the Grand Lodge of England.

“We your petitioners, Sampson H. Moody, Peter Howard, Abraham C.  Derendemed, John I. Hilton, James Jackson, Zadock Low, Samuel G. Gardner, Richard Potter, Lewis Walker, and other Companions Who have been regularly Exalted to the Sublime Degree of Royal Arch Masons.

 

“Our worthy and well beloved Brethren Prince Hall, Boston Smith, Thomas Sanderson, and several Brethren having obtained a Warrant from your Honourable Body, on September 29, 1784, A.D., A.L. 5784, when, under the Government of Thomas Howard, Earl of Effingham, Lord Howard, &c., &c., &c., acting Grand Master Under the authority of his Royal Highness Henry Frederick, Duke of Cumberland, Grand Master of the Most Ancient and Honourable Society of Free and Accepted Masons.

“This Warrant allowing us to confer but the three Degrees, and Finding it injurious for the benefit of our Body by having no legal authority to confer the other four degrees. And understanding that the seven degrees is given under the Warrants from the Grand Lodge, we, therefore, humbly

solicit the Renual of our Charter to ourtherise us Legally to confer the same, as we are now getting in a flourishing condition. It is with regret we communicated to you that, from the Decease of our Well Beloved Brethren who obtain’d the Warrant we have not been able for several years to

transmit Monies and hold a regular Communication; but, as we are now permanently established to work conformable to our Warrant and Book of Constitutions. We will send the Monies as far as circimstances will admit, together with the money, for a new Warrant. Should your Honourable Body think us worthy to receive the sarae. We remain, Right Worshipful and Most

Worshipful Brethren,

 

“With all Due Respect, Yours fraternally,

“(Signed)

SAMSON H. MOODY, W.M.,

 

“PETER HOWARD, S. W., “C. A. DERANDAMIE, J. W.

“Given under our hands at Boston, in the year of our Lord 1824, January 5th (5824).

“WILLIAM J. CHAMPNEY,

“Secretary”