GMSimpson

From MasonicGenealogy
Revision as of 03:05, 7 July 2014 by Hotc1733 (Talk | contribs)

Jump to: navigation, search

FRANK L. SIMPSON 1875-1954

FrankSimpson1926.jpg

Deputy Grand Master, 1924
Grand Master, 1926-1928.

TERM

1926 1927 1928

NOTES

SPEECHES

AT THE CONSTITUTION OF JOEL H. PROUTY LODGE, MARCH 1928

From Proceedings, Page 1928-68:

My Brethren:

I congratulate you upon the success that you have achieved in your undertaking to establish a new Lodge in this community and extend to you on behalf of your Brethren of this Grand Jurisdiction hearty felicitations and good wishes. I am happy to welcome you into the family of Masonic Lodges in Massachusetts.

On such an occasion as this one might with propriety discuss the privileges and responsibilities of those who have undertaken the administration of a new Masonic Lodge. It would be highly appropriate to point out what a high privilege has been conferred upon you by the sovereign Masonic authority of this Grand Jurisdiction and that great opportunities confront you for distinctive service to your fellow men. to your community, and to your State. I am disposed, however, on this occasion to discuss before you circumstances which will indicate the particular service that is rendered to our Craft by those who form new Lodges in this day; and especially am I impelled to this course by the conviction which I have long entertained that ideas and all it tides touching the size of Lodges have been developing within our Jurisdiction during recent years which are not only inconsistent with our traditions, and incompatible with the purposes of our Fraternity, but menacing to its future prosperity and effectiveness. A careful survey not only of recent conditions but of customs and ideas which prevailed among our ancestors, has satisfied me that we have experienced during the last few decades a condition of growth which is unhealthy and which, if not restrained, threatens not only to change the foundations of our Craft but. to divert it from its proper purposes and objectives. The condition to which I refer is that the number of our Lodges has not increased in the proper ratio to the increase in our membership, and that we have experienced a growth in size of some of our Lodges which has rendered it practically impossible for them properly to perform the true functions of a Masonic Lodge. Not only is this true, but it is also true, in my opinion, that this growth has been due to a certain shift in our objectives and to the development of an attitude quite inconsistent with the real purposes of our institution as these are set forth in the Preambles to our Grand Constitutions.

The fundamental purpose of our Institution is to train its members; its main objective is to teach — the recognition of an Almighty Creator; a perfect system of morality by a prescribed ritual; benevolence through precept and practice. Our ritual is designed to imprint on the memory wise and serious truths. Our law requires regular attendance upon our Stated Communications in order that through contact with our ceremonies the idealism of the Craft may become the habitual thinking of its adherents. It is not the function of Freemasonry to gather within its folds great numbers nor to accomplish objects of benevolence through institutional enterprise administering huge foundations.

Men do not become Freemasons merely by passing through the several stages of initiation into a Masonic Lodge and thereafter maintaining good standing by the regular payment of dues. "Initiation may entitle a Brother to the privileges of the Institution; hut it does not make the Mason. The possession of the telescope does not make the astronomer. He must study his science, or the instrument will be of little value to him. The Mason must study the principles, the laws, usages and purposes of his Craft, or he must be content to remain the possessor of the telescope, without the requisite knowledge to quality him to use it. The moral and intellectual improvement it affords to his more scientific Brother, he cannot realize." ([http://www.masonicgenealogy.com/MediaWiki/index.php?title=GSCWMoore Charles W. Moore, Freemasons' Monthly Magazine, Vol. V, Introduction.)

This process of study is largely to be accomplished in a Masonic Lodge, which all are required to attend. Obviously this cannot he done in Lodges whose membership is so large that only a fraction of the members can attend at Stated Communications.

The condition of growth to which I have referred is violative of many definite and significant pronouncements of the Grand Masters and of the Grand Lodge. As indicating the attitude which Masonry in this Commonwealth has taken officially, I beg to draw your attention of some of these pronouncements. In 1911 (See 1911-83) a Committee of the Grand Lodge composed of M. W. Bros. Charles T. Gallagher and Melvin M. Johnson and R. W. Bro. George H. Rhodes submitted a report containing the results of a study made by this Committee of the growth of the Fraternity within this jurisdiction. The Committee said:—

"We have only 12 more Lodges bow than we had in 1888, yet the number of Masons has more than doubled in our State, and the same proportion holds good in Boston.

"While the average membership is now about 250, in 1888 it was but 130.

"Over the State we have 132 Lodges with more than 200 
members; of these 71 have over 300, 31 over 400, 15 over
 500, 9 over 600, 2 over 700, and one over 800 members.

"In Boston 25 Lodges have over 200 members, of which 13 are over 300, 7 over 400, 3 over 500, 2 over 600, and 1 over 700 members.

"From these details we adduce the principle thai there are already too ninny large, overgrown bodies: their attendance being too great in many eases to meet in an ordinary Lodge room, as frequently the visitors out-number the members manyfold; the older members and those who should be the most interested and active are liable to lose their interest because of the crowded conditions, and the general tendency must be in many cases to make the work of the Lodge a dramatic spectacle accompanied with ah opportunity for refreshment, diverting the attention of the Brethren too much from the principles of Charity, Relief and other fundamentals which arc the basis of our existence."

The matter of size of Lodges was again referred to by the Grand Master (M. W. Bro. Melvin M. Johnson) in 1916 (1916-178). He said:

"I have long been of the opinion that many of our Lodges are altogether too large, and that better Masonic and equally good financial results would he obtained if there were more Lodges, with smaller membership. You may be interested to learn that the average membership of Lodges in Massachusetts is higher than in any other Jurisdiction in America with the single exception of the District of Columbia, which being compact and having no country Lodges is really not comparable."

"There are only five other jurisdictions having an average membership of over two hundred, namely, Rhode Island, 247, Pennsylvania, 244, Connecticut, 236, New York, 229, and New Jersey, 209. Twenty other jurisdictions in the United states average between one and two hundred, and twenty-two others less than one hundred. The average Lodge membership for the whole United states is 124. Our average, therefore, is more than twice the average membership of all Lodges in this country. This is unhealthy growth."

"It is hard to say that there is any fixed number of members which should not be exceeded, Conditions vary in different places. It is, however, always true that where the membership is so large that each member present cannot know all the others, and where only a very small percentage of the members can ever have the opportunity of serving the Lodge in official capacities, the interest of the members lessens and each individual member feels less responsibility for the welfare of the Lodge and for the exercise of the duties and responsibilities of Masonry as well. It is a practically universal rule that the smaller the membership the larger percentage of members attend the meetings. . . . What is even much more necessary is the creation of a sentiment in favor of more and smaller Lodges where the Brethren may be more united, may be thrown into closer fraternal intercourse, may have more opportunity to serve, and where the tenets of our institution can better he inculcated.

"If it he argued that for financial consideration large Lodges must he built up, the complete answer is that no other jurisdiction in the whole Masonic world (save only the District of Columbia) averages such large Lodges as does Massachusetts, and certainly other jurisdictions are prosperous and successful. The tendency of great Lodges is to lessen rather than to enhance the Masonic development of each individual member. The accomplishments of Masonry have never been gauged by financial eonsiderations. When these become the criteria, then it is time to halt and to recast our activities, for then the grand aims and purposes of our Fraternity are sure 10 he obscured."

From 1916 to 1919 we experienced the beginnings of the rush caused doubtless by war conditions and in that period the average size of our Lodges had grown from 260 in 1916 to 317 in 1919. In the latter year, the Grand Master (M.W. Bro. Leon M. Abbott at the December Communication, said (1919-350):

"I am very much impressed that many of our Lodges are much too large in membership. It seems to me self-evident that a Lodge that is obliged to hold meetings several times a month in order to confer the degrees upon large numbers of candidates cannot properly discharge its many important duties to the Craft and to its own members. The conferring of degrees is very far from being the sole object and purpose of a Masonic Lodge. It is the close personal touch. the mutual exchange of ideas, the warm comradeship that brings men constantly together with hearts and minds influenced by the beautiful lessons and teachings of our Institution, that makes our membership truly worth while. Over and over again 1 have heard members of some of our large Lodges say that they knew very few of their own membership and so did not fro to their Lodge meetings very often. In some cases Lodge-rooms will not accommodate a third of their members, to say nothing of visitors. This subject of the size of Lodge membership is so important that I earnestly recommend that a committee be appointed to consider the whole question deliberately and at length and to report at some future Communication of the Grand Lodge."

In consequence of the foregoing recommendation, the Grand Lodge voted that a Committee be appointed to consider the question of the size of Lodges. In accordance with this vote the Grand Master appointed the following Committee: M. W. Bros. Melvin M. Johnson and Dana J. Flanders, R. W. Bros. D. Edward Miller, Frank M. Weymouth and William N. McLane (1919-438). This Committee reported at the June Communication of 1920. The Committee said (1920-196):

"The average membership of Lodges in Massachusetts is larger than in any other jurisdiction in the world with which a proper comparison may be made. We beg to incorporate as a pari of ihis reporl what appears in the printed proceedings of the Grand Lodge lor June 14. 1!)16. pages ITS to 181 inclusive, wherein it is .said that 'elephantiasis is a disease equally injurious to an animal, a human, or a Lodge.' On this as well as finaneial aspects we beg also to incorporate herein pages 83 to 8fi inclusive, oi' our printed proceedings for June 14, 1911. See also 1913, Mass. 249." There follow quotations from the pajres above referred to. and the Committee proceeded:— •■Our Lodges were too large even befpre the present t remendous influx. Now we are adding to that membership by leaps and bounds. The present Masonic fiscal year will show lhat we have made more than twice as many Masons as in the preceding fiscal year, which itself was by far the largest in our history. It is not uncommon at the present time for a Lodjre already too large to have thirty, forty, or even fifty candidates under consideration or in process of receiving the degrees and to have ten or fifteen nieetitifrs Of the Lodge scheduled during a calendar month, at most oi' which more lhan one degree is worked. "In the opinion of your Committee the results of the presenl situation are injurious alike to the Craft at large, lo the particular Lodges, to their officers, to their members and to the candidates. The officers of the Lodges are overburdened with work. They have to give more time and attention to their Masonic duties merely to accomplish the conferring of degrees than pughl to be expected of men who are busy with tlie affairs of life. They are obliged to re- ' I'M'.' Mas*. A.1*. '■ 192(1 Mass. 196. peat the ritual over and over again, a practice which tend'* under the circumstances to become monotonous and to render the work less impressive. Moreover, the time consumed in degree work and preparation therefor makes ii almipsi Impossible for the officers to attend to those other Masonic duties which aid Brethren and candidates in 'the application of .Masonic principles to present day problems to the end that Freemasonry may hecome a more active agenl in behalf of civilization.' Tims overburdened, of-liens necessarily fall short of accomplishing all that they OUghl to he able to accomplish. In order to Imild Up a large Lodge they lose what is of greater value—the in- culcation of the spirit of Freemasonry. "There is a corresponding failure on the part of the candidates to receive the 1'nll inspiration which should come from their Masonic fellowship. 'The function of Masoury is not I he mere conferring of degrees. When a member I"' nes a M&Ster Mason, the Fraternity's duly toward him has just begun. He will realize his duties as a Freemason only when he knows what Freemasonry really is and what are its aims. Most initiates are hungry for such teaching. Our Lodge officers chosen from all walks of life do not under present conditions have the time to study ways and means other ihan by "work" to teach the fundamental principles of the Cral'l and supplement the ritual.* "It is thus impossible for overworked officers to accomplish our true aim of making; our Brethren heller Masons and enabling them by a broader understanding of Masonic principles to work more effectively for civic righteousness and the betterment of humanity. " As ihings are now, when the candidate has received Ids third degree he is almost invariably dropped from further attention. Whether he has any further Masonic life depends largely upon his own persistency. This ought not to be. When a candidate has received the third degree the Fraternity's duty toward him has just begun, but we cannot expect him to appreciate this unless the officers and members of his Lodge pay some attention to him and at least point out to him his opportunity for service. "The Brethren of the Lodge apart from ihc candidates are deprived of thai intimate fraternal association with their PelloWB which is obtained in .1 smaller Lodge. The larger the Lodge, the fewer close associations any member has with the others. In sonic of our smaller Lodtres almost everyone in attendance can greet nearly nil of the others by name. In our larger Lodges, however, a member is almost upon the same plane as a visitor: indeed, often receiv-ing less attention. The result is that the proportion of members who attend their Lodge is in inverse ratio to the size of the Lodge and those who do attend gel little out of it except 1 hat repetition of ritual which, if there he 110th-in- furtIter, becomes tiresome. Therefore the Lodge meetings lose the Strength of their invitation and their impulse. The comparatively few Brethren who are left to give active attention to Lodge affairs arc unable to devote the lime required to the investigation Of applicants and the introduction id' candidates. "Overburdening officers and loyal members with such duties has a marked tendency to make many men refuse active service and decline to become officers, especially such men as are perhaps the best material for officers—men whose business and professional activities will prevent their accepting Masonic duties which make so great demands upon time and strength. "More Lodges can be erected up to a number sufficient to take care of acceptable applications, in which case the average membership of each Lodge will be materially smaller. This seelns 1o your Committee to he a desirable result .More and smaller Lodges, therefore, is. we believe, the proper solution of present unsatisfactory conditions." I have quoted thus extensively from this Committee's Report, to indicate with what care the Committee had studied the question before it. and to show that an exhaustive and detailed statement of the evils which our practices were producing, was clearly and frankly made to the (I rand Lodge nine years airo. The Committee recommended amendments to the Grand Constitutions to limit the amount of work which conld be performed in any Lodge in any year, as follows: "A Lodge located within the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and having over 200 members shall from its own candidates make not more than thirty-five Masons in any fiscal year (September 1 to August :?1 inclusive). Such a Lodge haying over 600 members shall make not more than thirty Masons; having over 1000 members, not more than twenty-live." A study of the losses in membership from all sources, that is to say. from death, dimits, suspension, discharges, and expulsions, over a period of the last twenty-five years, indicates that the limitations suggested in the above amendments would not tend to diminish the size of Lodges, whether of 200 or of a thousand members. The average losses of a Lodge during the above-mentioned period from all causes is approximately two and one-half per cent of its membership of the preceding year: that is to say, a Lodge of a thousand members will average to lose twenty-live of its members in the succeeding year, a Lodge of 600 members will average to lose fifteen of its members, and so on. The effect of the suggested amendments therefore would be that Lodges up to a thousand members might continue to grow. Only those above a thousand members would tend to diminish in membership, A Lodge of a thousand members might remain stationary in its membership if it admitted the maximum number permitted by the proposed amendments. A Lodge of 200 members, initialing the maximum number permitted by the amendments, might; grow nearly 30 members a year; it would be possible for such a Lodge to become a Lodge of 500 members in ten to fifteen years. Certainly the amendments could hardly be considered drastic if the conditions reported by the Committee were well-founded. The amendments were referred to a Committee composed of M..W. BtO. Leon M. Abbott, and K.W. Bros. Kilwin A. Blodgett and Herbert \V. Fletcher, and this Committee reported at the March Communication of 1921.' 11 recommended non-adoption. This Committee did not dispute the facts recited by the Committee of 191!i; on the contrary, it r guized that the evils which the former Committee had found to exist were "serious" ones; it stated that it fully appreciated "the force of the facts and reasoning contained in the exhaustive and admirable report proposing the amendments." The only fact stated by the Committee and bearing upon the merit of the amendments was that "there are now sixteen new Lodges under dispensation, others in process of organizing, and still others in contemplation." This, the Committee stated, had caused "the Committee to feel that conditions are so changing that some, at least, of the serious evils which the proposed legislation is intended to remedy will not long continue to exist." The Committee concluded by saying: "While your Committee fully appreciate the force of the facts and reasoning contained in the exhaustive and admirable report proposing the amendment limiting the number of candidates to be admitted in any fiscal year, it is of 1 1921 Man. 51. the opinion thai at the present time and under existing circumstances it would be unwise to make any change in our Grand Constitutions as to the size of Dodges or the number of candidates, and we therefore recommend ihat the proposed amendment lie not adopted." This report was accepted witlioni discussion or debate and the proposed amendment was not adopted. In view of the statements contained in the report of the Committee on the Constitutional amendments, it seems apparent that the Committee was Largely affected by the circumstance that dispensations had been issued for a considerable number of Lodges during the year 1020. It is pertinent to observe, however, that, notwithstanding the prophecies of the Committee above referred to, the conditions immediately following 1!>22 settled back into the practices which had prevailed prior to 1920. While the average size of our Lodges in the Commonwealth in lilll) was 317, by 1!'2(> this average had increased to 412,— a growth in the average size of our Lodtres in seven years of ninety-five per Lodge! What is of eipial importance and significance is that, while in 11)20 there were 5N Lodges with a membership of more than 500, the number of Lodges with a membership of more than 500 had increased so that in 1926 there were It.'! of such Lodges. It seems clear that llie growth we have experienced during the last forty or fifty years and the increase in the size of our Lodges is contrary to the opinion of competent Masonic authority id' the earlier days of our Craft in this Common wealth. The opinions of the most learned Masons during the early pari of the second half of the hist century, so far as I can discover by a rather diligent search, and the experiences and practice of our Crat'l during the same period, indicate that our recent experiences :ire utterly contrary to the settled practice of our Fraternity during; the years when it was established as an insti- tuli< f significant influence in society. In 1855, K.W. Charles w. Moore declared:' "We may be assured that a small Lodge, composed of worthy and excellent members, honorable, high-minded, anil virtuous in their principles, faithful workmen, and desirous of carrying into the world the spirit of our institution is far preferable and much more honored by Hie public, than a Fraternity made up of a swarm, some of whom have no character in their community, and whose sole object was not to improve themselves in Masonry, but to promote their own interest or ambition. In 1866, a charter was granted to Lafayette Lodge of Roxbury.1 The Committee on Charters and By-laws, reporting to the Grand Lodge, said :' "Your Committee desire to call the attention of the Grand Lodge to the following clause in Art. IX of the By-laws: "'(inly fifteen applications shall be accepted during any one year.' "The conservative spirit existing among the petitioners is evinced by this provision of the By-laws. It has been apparent for many years that the immense amount of work done by many of the Lodges in this Jurisdiction i< tending to destroy the great object of Masonry. The 1 Kretriinisiniii' Monthly Mii«.izillc, Vol, Mil. intnuliictii.n- ■ Pr«ma«om' Monthly Marline, Vol. XXV. j>. 27H. beauty of our Ritual, and the good-fellowship among the members of our Lodges, cannot he conserved when the Chief aim is to make .Masons and money. Tlie inevitable result of overburdened work is to impair the effectiveness of our ceremonies; to weary the Mrethren by constant repetition, and thereby render the attendance small; to destroy the unity and ititnaey of the Brethren and to sap the very foundations of OUT Institution." This Committee was composed of M.W. Ilro. William S. Gardner, R.W. Bro. 0. W. Warren, and B.W. Bro. William W. Baker. I do not have at my command the statistics for 1866. I have, however, made a comparison between the work done in 1870 and the work done in 1925, with the follow-ing result: 1870 1025 07 91 43 (!l! 83 B7 5 31 3 55 2!) 58 10'4 16«4 175 202 1791 4804 Candidates Under 10 II) to 15 1(1 to 20 21 to 25 Over 25 Largest Average No. of Lodge* No, of Initiates It will be observed that the overburdened work of the earlier period had been increased (it) per cent in 1925, and the evidences are about us that the results prophesied by the Committee of which M.W. Urn. Gardner was chairman have been realized. The number of Lodges constituted, the total number of Lodges and of members, and the average size of Lodges in this Commonwealth from I860 to l!>l!7. inclusive, are as follows:

Year Constituted r,<ni^i"i Members Averages 18150

i M i 11,741 07 3870 80 L81 20,1111 116 1880 411 823 25;i47 lit 1800 5 228 30,880 187 1000 5 281 41,010 17*> linn 0 231 42,093 182 10112 0 231 43,415 188 1903 1 232 45,084 104 1004 0 u:tu 411.71.- 201 1005 0 232 48,415 2H0 1000 0 gag 5Q.80S 217 1007 0 232 62,200 226 1008 1 233 54,431 234 1000 0 233 56,657 243 1010 2 235 58,204 248 1911 1 288 00,844 2S8 1912 2 238 112,879 204 1918 5 243 B5,P26 268 1014 3 240 87,184 274 1915 3 240 70,147 882 1910 1 2.111 71,41.-1 286 L917 2 252 74,255 208 1018 1 258 70,042 304 1010 2 see 80,800 817 1020 g 257 OIl.TOii 858 1021 12 880 101,200 876 1022 12 281 108,812 888 1923 5 28(1 118,108 308 1924 4 290 117,047 406 L92fi a 298 110,847 |i".. 1028 3 296 121,884 412 1027 g 208 123,0ill 400 The following tabulation shows graphically the rapidity Of growth of ' Lodges, mid reveals the seriousness of the present situation : 100 200 300 4(10 500 ooo 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 To in to tn to tn to to to to to to to Vij;ir 100 21 HI 300 400 500 1870 118 77 10 7

1880 02 66 17 4

1 vim 82 mi 32 0 • t 1900 .If! mi 40 10 11 1005 44 HO .12 28 12 1910 32 72 01 4ll to 1035 is 69 68 4ii 20 1920 15 04 48 41 81 1925 34 04 49 44 20 1020 12 (18 47 45 to 11)27 13 70 44 43 37 1 700 §00 000 1000 1100 1200 1300 1 1 1



7 1 1


G 0 1 1


18 9 4 4 1

11 10 8 11 ■1 1 12 IS 10 10 8 4 18 17 8 12 o (i 0 13 21 34 82 31 From 1860 tn 1870 the membership grew from (5741 to 20,101.— a growth of 13,360. During those ten years, 80 Lodges were constituted. From 1890 to 1920. the membership grew from 30,880 to 90,760,— an increase of 59,880. During those thirty years, only 36 new Lodges were constituted. From 1860 to 1880 our membership increased from 6,741 to 25.147,— an increase of 18,406; 120 new Lodges were constituted during these twenty years. From 1880 to 1926, our membership increased from 25.147 to 121,884,— a growtli in membership of 96,737. Only 75 new Lodges were constituted during these forty-six years! In 1880, when Masonry in Massachusetts was 147 years old, the average membership in our Lodges was 114; in 1926, only 46 years later, that average had increased to 412. Every year of those 46 years had shown an increase in the average size over that oi' the preceding: year. In 1S80, there was only one Lodge with a membership of more than 400; in 19215, there were 124 Lodges with a membership of more than 400 each, and eleven Lodges with a membership of 1000 or more, each. It has been since 1880 that all, or nearly all, of the collateral groups or organizations, not recognized as Masonic, but which predicate their membership, in whole or in part, upon Masonic membership, have sprang up- It is a well-known fact that drives for membership are not infrequent in these organizations; and, I regret to say, thai they are not unknown in collateral .Masonic Bodies, recognized as such by our Grand Constitutions. During the same period, from 1880 to 1926, there has been an alarming falling off in the attendance of members at Lodge meetings — especially at those at which the Fii-st and Second Degrees are worked. A fairly accurate and complete survey has been made, and this shows thai the average attendance at Regular Communications of the Lodge is over 40 per cent less than that of fifty years ago, notwithstanding the fact that during the latter part of this period pretentions and sometimes extravagant programs of entertainment and refreshment have been adopted in some of our Lodges as inducements to members to attend. What connection there may be between these facts may be the subject of difference of opinion. It cannot, how- '■ver, lie disputed that there is a considerable body of very respectable opinion thai there is a definite connection — thai of cause and effect, between the conditions heretofore recited. My own observations and the consideration of data in my possession have Lead me to the conclusion that there is such connection and that the conditions of inordinate growth and tlw development Of practices and ideas, apparently unknown to out- Craft seventy-five years ajro, are of sncli a nature as to give cause for serious concern to those who are anxious that the ancient traditions of our liisiiiiiiion shall be preserved and that our Fraternity shall not be transformed into something that is not Freemasonry. I am aware—everybody is aware — thai there are those who clamor that Masonry should get "np-to-date." The cry is an old one, and I feel constrained to say that it is generally the cry of those who have given little thought and less study to what Freemasonry is and what its objects and purposes are. The cry really means that Freemasonry should cease to he Freemasonry and become something else. The ideals and philosophy of Freemasonry are np-to-date. The truths il seeks to inculcate are not and never can he out of date. It may be admitted that they are old; so is the law of gravitation:— so is the Bible. The purposes of Freemasonry-—to I rain and develop its adherents as men of character. (lod-iVariiifr men. charitable and benevolent men. men of moral fibre and moral courage, are not now and never will be out of date so long as Christian civilization shall last. The methods and practices by winch Freemasonry seeks to accomplish its purposes, while admittedly old, arc based upon a keen understanding of the human mind and its liahits of functioning. .Men do not form habits — of conduct or of thinking—any differently now than they ilid two thousand years ago, and it is as idle to expect, men to form liahits of thinking idealism without habitual con-tacl with idealism, as it is to expert men to 1'orm the habit of frugality and economy by a consistent practice of spending more than they earn. "'As a man thhiketh in his heart, so is he." When this truth becomes out of date. it. will be time to revise and recast the ancient and traditional customs and practices of our Fraternity — and not until that time. "Our steady aim for years," wrote R.W. Bro. Moore,1 "has been to arrest the disposition, apparent in Masonic documents, to improve the Institution. The Landmarks are the lines that distinguish Masonry from oilier institutions. Those Landmarks show that there is no other organization that at all resembles the .Masonic Fraternity. It is set off as a brotherhood by itself; and it is peculiar in itself. It. knows affiliation with no other body, and it is like no other body. Modern attempts at improvement are all innovations, and as far as they are successful they are destructive of the peculiar character of the Institution. Much of the damage of this modern innovation is done in
the Lodges by the invention of lectures, and the introduc-
•i f 111■ \\ features or formulas for the purpose of >"en- ' MiMnr's Freemasons' Magazine, Vul. XX, nunc 22.1. dering them more beautiful, and more conformable to modern notions of the Craft. "Masonry admits of no such advancement. . . . .Sectarianism is as intolerable in Masonry as it is in religion. And as with religion, so with Masonry; wherever men attempt improvement, they introduce sectarianism. ..." It is sometimes assumed that the conditions in our own Jurisdiction are common ones and are the normal results of the changed economic and social conditions of modern times. This assumption rests on no solid foundation. In only two Grand Jurisdictions in the world is the average size of Lodges as large as in Massachusetts. In many, the average is much smaller than ours; and in some it is little larger than the average in Massachusetts sixty years ago. In 1926, in the United Grand Lodge of England, there was a membership of approximately 274,000 in 3870 Lodges, — an average of 70 members per Lodge. In the Grand Lodge of Scotland, there were 02,000 Masons in 1158 Lodges, — an average of 7'J members per Lodge. In the Grand Lodge of Ireland, there were 65,000 Masons in 650 Lodges,—an average of 100 per Lodge. In the uine Grand Jurisdictions of the Dominion of Canada in the same year there were 180,295 Masons in 1274 Lodges-—an average of 142 per Lodge. In the forty-nine Grand Lodges of the United States in the same year, there were 3,125,171 Masons in 16.625 Lodges, — an average of 190 Masons per Lodge. In Massachusetts in that year, there was a membership of 121,884 in 296 Lodges, — an average ■of 412 per Lodge. Iii the seven Grand Lodges in Australia in 1926, there were 142,056 Masons iii 142* Lodges, — an average of approximately 100 members per Lodge. In that year the several Grand Lodges of Australia held a conference, which is reported in l!)2b' West Australia, page 12, as fol-lows: "Victoria broughl forward the question of Limitatioii of Membership and her representative pointed out that Lodges in thai Jurisdiction were becoming unduly hirtre. They had one Lodge containing over 300 members, five with a membership of over 2o(). twenty-nine with a membership of over 200, and sixty-two with a membership of over 150. "The figures of New South Wales were even larger,— one Lodge having a membership of 500, another over 400, with numerous others in the vicinity of '100. "The membership of the largesl Lodge in Western Australia, namely, 140, seems insignificant when compared with the numbers in the Eastern States, but the general idea of the Conference was that it came nearer to representing the ideal of maximum than the figures already quoted." The Conference voted: "That ill the judgment of this Conference it is not desirable that Lodges should become so large in numbers as to imperil the fraternal fellowship of their members." It tints appears that not only are the opinions of the most competent authorities in Freemasonry, contemporaneous and past, opposed to the congregating of large numbers in Masonic Lodges but thai such a policy is contrary to the uniform experience and practice of substantially the entire Masonic world. It has been urged that modern conditions required large numbers in Lodges to meet financial demands. This contention is not borne out by the plain facts of our own Jurisdiction. In lids Commonwealth ihere are Masonic Lodjres in ISO municipalities. In twenty-seven of these municipalities thex'e is one Lodge each of a membership of over 400 in only thirty others, in which their is more th; ne Lodge each, is there an average membership in the Lodges of over 400. In 123 cities and towns of this Commonwealth, there are Lodges with a total or average membership of less than 400 members. in many of the larger cities, in which generally are the Lodges of very large membership, there are also Lodges with a membership of less ilmn 200, which are not only able to bear the financial burdens incident to their situation, but which are flourishing Lodges in all respects. This is true in the cities of Boston, Worcester, Springfield. I'iiisiield. Lynn, New Bedford, and in other cities. It has also been urged that Lodges need a considerable number of candidates for the purposes of work. The fads do not hear out this content ion. An analysis of the work for the year 1D27 discloses that 144 Lodges of the Commonwealth initiated fewer than ten initiates per Lodge. The record is as follows: Under 111 11 to 15 i.; in 20 21 to 25 2il to 30 31 to 35 3H In 4(1 41 to 45 40


Xn. .if InitiaK'S lit 56 47 L't 7 5 3 3 1 It appears from the foregoing table that only forty Lodges out of 298 initiated more than twenty oandidates pet Lodge in 1927. A study id' these Lodges as to their membership is a very interesting one. It is as follows:

Ni.. of No. of

Candidates Lodges Membership 21 2 313, 839 22 4 404, 536,503, B68 28 5 587,816, 7:! 1.7H4. L199 24 5 24."i, ."iltll, lilts. S2d, S71 2.T 5 113,545,942,947,1008 20 2 472, 787 27 3 769,882,1120 28 2 77H, 771 81 2 !)77, 1144 84 o 406, 77.". 88 1 500 30 1 B57 37 1 917 40 1 17(1 41 1 1239 42 1 049 43 1 1148 4ii 1 096 11 appears from the foregoing table that of the forty Lodges initiating more than 20 members per Lodge, only four had ii membership of under 400. The average membership of the forty Lodges was 738. The total membership of the forty Lodges was 29,526. The number of candidates initiated into these Lodges was 1129 out of a total of :i(isi initiated in all of the Lodges of the Commonwealth. It thus appears thai 13.4 per eeni of the Lodges of the Commonwealth, with a membership of only 2:t.* per cenl of the total membership in the State, initiated 81.8 per cent of all the candidates. It cannot be asserted that the Other 2">4 Lodges, in none of which wen1 more than twenty candidates initiated, did not experience a healthful Masonic growth; nor did they fail to perforin adequately the duties of Masonry because of an insufficiency of candidates. The plain truth ol' the matter seems to be that a small percentage of the Lodges, almost all of which are overgrown Lodges, are the ones which are engaged in overburdened work, and thus that overgrown Lodges are tending to increase in size. Tt is also apparent that the large average membership in the commonwealth is not due to an equal distribution of membership among all the Lodges, but is due to the rapid increase in membership of large Lodges which have tended to grow larger because of the number of candidates which are being initiated in them. It appears from the tables given above that out of the 208 Lodges in the Commonwealth in H>27. 170 of them had a membership of 400 or less; 127 had a membership of less than 300; 144 initiated fewer than ten initiates; 200 of them, — slightly more than two-thirds of all of the Lodges in the Commonwealth, initiated not over fifteen candidates per Lodge. In llie light of these facts and ol" the further facts that there are Lodges with a membership of less than 200 in some of the largest cities of the Commonwealth, that there are Lodges of such membership in large cities which did not in 1927 initiate six candidates, and that these Lodges are apparently flourishing both Masonically and finan- cially, there appears to be no basis for the contention that a Lodge needs to have a large number of members or a large number of candidates in order to be a successful Masonic Lodge. Indeed, the reverse is the truth. To be a Masonic Lodge and properly to perform the duties of Masonry and to train its members to Masonic character with an understanding of the idealisms of our Craft, it seems to be quite obvious that Lodges ought not to be so large that their members cannot congregate in their Lodge-rooms. Perhaps a more serious aspect of the whole problem is the tendency on the part of some of our officers and members to emphasize the importance of the initiation of new candidates. It is uot the primary function of Masonry to initiate candidates or to enlarge its membership. Were it so there would be no basis for our law against proselyting. The primary function of a .Masonic' Lodge — indeed, the primary function of our Craft, is to train its members to an understanding of the truths which its ritual and its ceremonies are calculated to inculcate, to develop its members as benevolent men. to cultivate the social virtues among men, and to propagate the knowledge of the art. The chief concern of a Lodge is with the welfare, the happiness, and the Masonic development of its members, not with the admission of those who seek entrance at its doors. Tts success as a Masonic Lodge cannot be gauged by the length of its membership roll nor by the size of its accumulated funds. "The beauty of our ritual, and the good fellowship among the members of our Lodges, can- not be conserved when the chief aim is to make Masons ami money; (or a man's life eorMsteth not in the abundance of things which he possesseth" and a Lodge's life docs not consist in its Requisitions hut in the contribution which it makes to civilization and society through the influence of those whom it has helped to train to what we call -Masonic character. I am confidently of the opinion that there is no greater service which members of our Fraternity can render to the Craft in this Grand Jurisdiction in this day than to form new Lodges and to stimulate a sentiment for more Lodges and smaller Lodges. For this reason I have felt at liberty thus to address you at such length. It is upon this conviction that I have expressed to you sincere congratulations for what you have done and assure yon of the gratitude of the Fraternity for your achievement. May the Supreme Architect of the Universe bless and prosper you in all your doings.

MEMORIAL

From Proceedings, Page 1954-180:

Most Worshipful Frank Leslie Simpson was born at North Barnstead, New Hampshire, on March 19, 1875, the son of Charles Edward and Sarah Abbie Clark Simpson. On September 20, 1905, he married Mabel Elizabeth White, by whom he had one son, Donald Robert, who survives him. He passed away suddenly on September 2, 1954.

He was graduated from Boston University, College of Liberal Arts, in 1898, and received his LL.B., cum laude, from its Law School in 1903. A Fellow in the Law School in 1903-4, he was further honored with the degree of LL.M. in 1910. In 1943 he received the honorary degree of J.D. from Suffolk University.

He was an outstanding member of the Massachusetts Bar, to which he was admitted in 1903. In addition to the general practice of law, he was Librarian and Instructor in Boston University Law School, 1904-07; Assistant Professor of Law, 1907-10; and Professor of Law, 1910-1943. From 1943, he was Dean of Suffolk University Law School.

He was a member of many professional associations including The American, Massachusetts and Boston Bar Associations, The American Law Institute and the Massachusetts Law Society. He was a member of Phi Beta Kappa, Gamma Eta Gamma, and Theta Delta Chi.

He was an author of note, his works including "Bigelow's Cases on Bills and Notes" (1905), "Simpson's Cases on Torts" (1908), and "Massachusetts Law" in six editions between 1915 and 1944. In 1933 he was Chairman of the Special Crime Commission, and gave generously of his time in many fields of public service.

He received his degrees in Damascus Lodge, Lynn, in 1911 and was its Worshipful Master in 1919. He was a charter member of Bethlehem Lodge, Lynn, in 1919. He became a member of the York Rite bodies in Lynn in 1912-3, and of the Scottish Rite bodies in Boston in 1920. In t927 he was made an Honorary Member of the Supreme Council, 33°.

In Grand Lodge he served as Junior Grand Deacon in 1921, Deputy Grand Master in 1924, and Grand Master in 1926-1928. From 1929 to 1954 he was Grand Representative of the Grand Lodge of Maine.

As Grand Master, Most Worshipful Brother Simpson was one of the hardest working men who have occupied that office. Even before becoming Grand Master he was largely responsible for the system of Grand Lodge dues which, alone, have made possible a great deal of the most vital work of Grand Lodge. In his first year he initiated a far-reaching reorganization of the business and operational functions of the Grand Lodge. The Relief Department, the Education Department, the Service Department were either created or reorganized under his leadership and he inaugurated the Budget System now in effect and, also, the uniform receipt for dues and a careful revision of the system of districts throughout the state. He also appointed a committee to consider the elimination from the ritual of "some portions which are not to be taken literally." Under his leadership the Veteran's Medal was established and conditions were prescribed under which the Henry Price Medal may be worn.

It was a source of satisfaction to him to charter Boston University Lodge, on September 8, 1926, thus completing the triad of the only three University Lodges known to exist in the Craft even up to the present time. He became a charter member of the Lodge in his Alma Mater and delivered an address when it was constituted September 29, 1926, and in the following December, had as the Speaker at the Stated Communication, Bro. Daniel L. Marsh, who, only a few months before, had become President of the University on whose Faculty the Grand Master was a Professor.

The system of Lodges of Instruction was inaugurated by Most Worshipful Brother Simpson and the first charter was issued by him on May 27, 1927. Largely through his efforts, the Masonic Hospital at Shrewsbury, known as Juniper Hall, the gift of Mrs. Gertrude Clarke Whittall, was established in 1927. The Representative System for the exchange of representatives between Grand Lodges was established in 1928 on his recommendation.

Thus Most Worshipful Brother Simpson gave unsparingly of his talents and left his imprint on some of the most constructive advances taken by the Craft in recent times.

F'raternally submitted,
Joseph Earl Perry
Claude L. Allen
Frank H. Hilton
Committee

CHARTERS GRANTED

RULINGS



Grand Masters
Retrieved from "http://masonicgenealogy.com/MediaWiki/index.php?title=GMSimpson&oldid=50683"