MassachusettsHamiltonHistoryCh27
CHAPTER 27: NEW HORIZONS (PART 1)
At the Annual Communication of 1871 Sereno Dwight Nickerson was unanimously elected Grand Master.
M. W. Bro. Nickerson was born in Boston, October 16, 1823, and died in Cambridge November 6, 1909. He was descended in the direct line from William Nickerson who came to Massachusetts in 1637. Among his ancestors he numbered Elder William Brewster and Stephen Hopkins, both of the "May Flower" group, Governor Thomas Prence of the Old Colony and Rev. John Mayo, first minister of the Second Church in Boston. He received a liberal education in the famous Chauncey Hall School, Philips Academy at Andover, Yale College and the Harvard Law School. He was admitted to the bar in I84.8, but gave up professional life almost immediately to enter mercantile business with his father under the firm name of E. Nickerson & Co.
The business was prosperous and he retired with a competence about the time he became Grand Master. Later he met with serious financial reverses through the act of persons in whom he trusted. The sterling uprightness of his character is shown in the fact that he paid thousands of dollars for which he was in no way personally responsible to persons who had suffered by the acts of his associates.
He became a Mason in Winslow Lewis Lodge in 1856, while it was under Dispensation and became its Master in 1860. In 1865 M. W. William Parkman appointed him District Deputy Grand Master for the First Masonic District and in 1866 M. W. Charles C. Dame appointed him Deputy Grand Master. He was a member of the Board of Directors from 1864 to 1881, Chairman of the Grand Lodge Committee of Finance from 1867 to 1875. a member of the Committee on Library from 1875 to 1909, one of the Trial Commissioners from 1877 to 1881, and a member of the Committee on Charity from 1898 to 1909. At the Annual Communication of 1881 he was elected Recording Grand Secretary and held that office until the end of 1908. He was a member of all the Bodies of both the York and Scottish Rites, and became an Honorary Member, 33°, of the Supreme Council in 1871.
M. W. Bro. Nickerson gave diligent study to the history, law and practice of Freemasonry, and came to be internationally known as one of the greatest living authorities on all these matters. One of the most diligent of men, during all his long service as Grand Secretary he was to be found at his desk every day and all day. With his old fashioned business training and his high conception of Masonic dignity, he scorned modern office methods, never would have a stenographer or a type writing machine in his office, and personally and in long hand labored through the increasing details of his office work. He was kindly, approachable and affable to all who were sincere and earnest, even though comparatively ignorant. Many a puzzled Master or bewildered Secretary found relief in his ready and fatherly advice. Sham and pretense he despised. For these he reserved a sharpness of manner and a speech which were thoroughly effective. His opinions were stern and his expression of them at times dogmatic, but his associates in office honored and loved him to a man.
By the change in administration a great Masonic statesman was succeeded by an able and competent administrator. In the following three years several Constitutional amendments were adopted which were clearly called for by changing conditions. Up to this time a majority of votes cast in Grand Lodge was the requirement for the choice of Grand Treasurer and Recording Grand Secretary. At the March quarterly of 1872 this was changed to the present requirement of two thirds of the vote cast.
The matter of the jurisdiction of Lodges had fallen into great confusion. Boston had annexed outlying districts in every direction. By Grand Lodge action the Lodges in Roxbury and Dorchester had been included in the Boston jurisdiction. Lodges had been chartered in South Boston, East Boston, and other parts of Boston having local names. When the Lodges were chartered these were really separate communities but the expanding city had absorbed them. If regarded as separate communities it was not easy to define their limits. New towns had been carved out of old ones in many parts of the state. What became of the jurisdiction of the Lodges in the old town, and what was the jurisdiction of the Lodges in the new town? Several of these situation had been met by special legislation, not always consistent and not always in accordance with the general provisions of the Grand Constitutions.
The status of the Boston Lodges was not finally decided until 1887 when an amendment provided that the several Lodges located in Boston should have equal and concurrent jurisdiction over the territorial limits of that city. In 1873 it was decided that thereafter no change by the Legislature of the Commonwealth of -Municipal Corporations or the boundaries of the territories thereof shall be held to affect in any way the jurisdiction of Lodges. lodges located by their Charters in particular-sections of the Municipalities shall have the same jurisdiction therein as if said sections were entire municipalities, and when the boundaries of such sections are uncertain they may be determined by the Grand Master. This was good as far as it went. As already noted it did not solve the Boston problem, but left it pending for the next fourteen years. The action of 188? left very little substance in the provision regarding Lodges chartered in sections of Municipalities,but the provision still in the Grand Constitutions has been used, though very rarely, in later years.
Another side of the same question had to do with applicants living in towns where there were no Lodges. The existing provision was that such persons must apply to the "most convenient Lodge." Changes in methods travel made this expression ambiguous, and it was changed to the "nearest Lodge." The matter remained thus until 1911, when the present law was adopted as follows; "Applications shall be made to a Lodge in the town or city in which the petitioner has resided for at least six months continuously next preceding the date of his application, if there be a lodge therein: but if there be none, the petitioner shall apply to a Lodge in an adjoining city or town, and if there be none such, he shall apply to the Lodge whose usual place of meeting is nearest to his dwelling. Distance, for the purposes of this section shall be measured in a straight line." Jurisdiction might be waived by the Lodges possessing it in case an application was made elsewhere.
Coupled with the above quoted statute was one which read."The territorial jurisdiction of a Lodge shall be as stated in its Charter. It shall also include all adjoining cities and towns where no Lodge is located and all other unoccupied territory which is nearer to its place of meeting than that of any other Lodge," These regulations definitely and finally placed the jurisdiction of Lodges on a clear basis. A few attempts have been made to divide towns for jurisdictional purposes, but always without success. At the March Communication of 1872 a petition was sent in by four Lodges setting forth the fact that "the Order has no regular or definite system of charities for the benefit of the families of deceased members." They therefore prayed for the establishment of "some system by which the family of a deceased Brother belonging within the jurisdiction of the Grand Lodge shall receive either a fixed sum of money, or an equal sum from every member of the Order within the jurisdiction of this Grand Lodge or within certain districts to be defined by the Grand Lodge." The petition was referred to a Committee of which William Parkman was Chairman. The petition was carefully considered and some of the petitioners were personally seen. None of them was prepared to suggest any practical method of procedure in the levying or collection of the frequent assessments which would be called for, nor could the Committee suggest any. For this reason and on account of the great differences in the financial condition of the Lodges the Committee recommended leave to withdraw, and the recommendation was adopted.
The episode is interesting as a groping effort toward what many years later was to become the admirably efficient Board of Masonic Relief, The proposal itself was crude and ill-digested. It is, however, possible that it had no intention beyond that of starting something which might be shaped under discussion. The fundamental objection was not touched upon by the Committee, perhaps not even perceived by them. The petitioners apparently contemplated a death benefit to be paid to the family of every member, regardless of his circumstances, to be paid by every member, regardless of his circumstances. That would have converted Freemasonry into a mutual benefit insurance organization, which it most decidedly is not. Fortunately this line of approach to the problem of Masonic relief was never resumed.
On October 10, 1872, a Special Communication of the Grand Lodge was held for the purpose of participating with St. Andrew's Lodge in the fiftieth anniversary of the membership of Charles W. Moore in that Lodge. It was a notable occasion. The most important part of it was an autobiographic address by R. W. Bro. Moore. The address was full of interesting reminiscences of the half century, and modestly recounted the speaker*s services to the Craft, The address is fortunately preserved in full in the Proceedings of the Grand Lodge. It is by no means the speech of an old man, but unfortunately the speaker was nearing the end of his long and useful life.
At the Annual Communication on December 10, 1873, Grand Master Nickerson informed the Grand Lodge that R. W. Bro. Moore was very ill, probably hopelessly so. High tributes were paid to his character and it was unanimously voted to confer upon him the title, rank, and dignity of Honorary Past Grand Master. Past Grand Master Lewis was deputed to carry the information to Bro. Moore. He immediately went to Bro. Moore's home and returned to the Grand Lodge to report that Bro. Moore was fully conscious and greatly moved by the honor done him, saying "this tribute was worth living for and worth dying for." Two days later, December 12, Bro. Moore peacefully died.
November 9th and 10th, 1872, Boston was visited by a disastrous conflagration. A very large part of the business section was destroyed with loss, enormous for the value of those days, of $75,000,000. While many of the Brethren suffered heavy financial losses, few if any lost their homes or became objects for Masonic relief. Messages of sympathy, in some cases accompanied by money, poured in from all sides. These were gratefully received and acknowledged, but the money was returned and all inquirers were assured that the Grand Lodge had the situation well in hand and needed no assistance.
At the June Quarterly of 1874 an appeal for help was received from the Grand Lodge of Louisiana. A disastrous flood in the Mississippi valley had laid fully a quarter of the State under water, with great loss of life and property and prospect that there could be no crops for the coming season. The Grand Lodge voted a gift of $1,000. It happened, however, that the Grand Treasurer did not have the cash in hand to meet the appropriation, and before he gathered enough word came that Louisiana needed no more money, as much aid had been received and the unexpectedly quick recession of the flood water had restored the prospect for crops.
At the same June Quarterly R. W. William J. Sawin, District Deputy for the Tenth Masonic District, reported that the town of Haydenville, the seat of Hampshire Lodge, had been destroyed by a flood caused by the bursting of a reservoir. The flood had cost 142 lives and $2,000,000. The hall of Hampshire Lodge had been destroyed. No member had lost his life but one had lost his wife and another his wife and two children. The Grand Lodge voted a gift of $500.00 and later remitted the sums due from Hampshire Lodge. Town and Lodge recovered from the disaster and are now in prosperous existence.
At the June Quarterly of 1873 a measure was passed which proved exceedingly helpful. At this time, and indeed up to 1890, the method of dealing with Lodge by-laws was somewhat cumbersome. When a Lodge under Dispensation petitioned for a Charter the petition was referred to a Committee appointed for that special purpose, which examined the work of the Lodge, including its by-laws, and reported back to the Grand Lodge. In many cases it was necessary for Grand Lodge to order changes in the by-laws. Amendments to the by-laws of old Lodges were sent to the Recording Grand Secretary for the necessary Grand Lodge approval. At each Quarterly all the amendments in hand were submitted to the Grand Lodge and referred to a Committee, A different Committee was appointed at each Quarterly. The Committee recommended action, in many cases involving alterations in the by-laws submitted. As has already been noted, many of the by-laws submitted contained extremely eccentric provisions. While that particular phase had passed, it was observed that certain errors were of frequent occurrence. These errors clearly and also waived the required recommendation he would be liable to expulsion. These regulations were later somewhat modified, especially in so far as they concerned rejected applicants living within the jurisdiction of foreign Grand Lodges. The difficulty has never been entirely eliminated and perhaps cannot be, but improved recording and better facilities for communication have reduced it to a practically negligible minimum.
The amendment was an outcome of a very bad case. About 1868 one Seth Winslow, a resident of Somerville applied to John Abbot Lodge for the degrees and was twice rejected. He then moved to Charlestown and applied to Henry Price Lodge. The statutory recommendation from John Abbot Lodge did not accompany the petition. Henry Price Lodge nevertheless entertained the application and put it to ballot. Winslow was again rejected. Winslow, evidently a very persistent fellow, although remaining a resident of Charlestown applied to Carroll Lodge, of Freedom, N. H., for the degrees. He filed two papers in Carroll Lodge, One read "Permission is hereby granted to Carroll Lodge, of Freedom, N. H. to confer the first three degrees in Freemasonry on Seth Winslow, he being found worthy," This purported to be signed by the Master, Senior Warden, Secretary, and two members of Henry Price Lodge. It did not even purport to be a 'recommendation'. It did not bear the signature of the Junior Warden, as required by the Grand Constitutions. It later appeared that one of the members whose name appeared never saw the paper. He was the proposer of Winslow in Henry Price Lodge and the Secretary assumed that he would be glad to sign and wrote in his name. One or two other signatures were obtained under very questionable circumstances.
The other paper was if anything worse. It read: "We hereby certify on our honor as Masons that S. C. (sic) Gardner, of Newton, Massachusetts, Grand Master of Masons in that jurisdiction gave his consent for Seth Winslow, of Charlestown, to take the three first degrees of Masonry in Carroll Lodge, of Freedom, N. H. (Signed) John Carlisle; Cyrus Fowler." Fowler was a Past Master of Carroll Lodge, Carlisle appears never to have been identified. Grand Master Gardner never gave any such permission. If he had issued a waiver of jurisdiction in favor of New Hampshire he certainly would not have issued it in any such carefree manner as the paper indicated. Carroll Lodge, however, swallowed the bait and accepted Winslow's application. As his residence was distant the New Hampshire District Deputy Grand Master obligingly issued a dispensation permitting the conferring of all three degrees at one meeting.
Winslow now supposed himself safe and began visiting Massachusetts Lodges. The Master of Faith Lodge refused to admit him and reported the matter to the Grand Master. Grand Master Gardner in turn laid the matter before the Grand Lodge in his next Quarterly Address. The Committee on the Address treated the matter rather superficially and recommended that Winslow be healed. The Grand Lodge did not accept the recommendation, but voted to refer the matter to the Grand Master. The Grand Master formally complained to the Grand Lodge of New Hampshire of invasion of jurisdiction. That Grand Lodge referred the matter to a Committee headed by one of its most distinguished members, and accepted an extraordinarily loose report by that Committee. The report admitted that both Carroll Lodge and the District Deputy Grand Master had erred but went on to say that the Lodge supposed that it had consent "and as we have authentic information that that Grand Lodge (Massachusetts) had voted to heal the individual thus irregularly-made a Mason . . . with full knowledge of the circumstances, we deem no further action necessary."
This was by no means satisfactory to Grand Master Gardner. A long correspondence with New Hampshire resulted in explanations which were certainly open to some exceptions and a set of resolutions which were accepted by our Grand Lodge, which had no wish to quarrel with New Hampshire, as closing the incident so far as the two Grand Lodges were concerned. A full investigation of the Winslow end of the case resulted in an edict forbidding Massachusetts Masons to have any Masonic intercourse with him. So Winslow disappears for a time from the picture. He was, however, healed by authority of the Grand Lodge on April 2, 1878.
In the course of the correspondence with New Hampshire a demand was made as the source of the "authentic information" that the Grand Lodge had voted to heal Winslow. It then appeared that Solon Thornton had accompanied Winslow to Concord on the day of the Grand Lodge meeting, and had told the Chairman of the Committee which was about to report that the Grand Lodge had voted to heal Winslow, Winslow paid the expenses of the trip, and from what afterward developed there is ground for a suspicion that that was not all he paid. The Grand Lodge had not voted as Thornton reported, but it is not surprising that his information was considered authentic. Thornton*s resignation as Recording Grand Secretary had been accepted and his successor appointed about a month previously, but this fact was not yet known in New Hampshire. Thornton did not say in so many words that he was Grand Secretary, but he was introduced as such, knew that he was received as such, and said no word to correct the misunderstanding.
A Committee, of which Past Grand Master Dame was Chairman, was appointed to go into the Thornton end of the case. A hearing was held at which J. J. Bell, the Chairman of the New Hampshire Committee, Winslow, and Thornton were present. The explanations of Winslow and Thornton were not convincing and the Committee reported recommending that Thornton be expelled from membership of the Grand Lodge, of which he was a permanent member by virtue of his Grand Wardenship in 1865. The recommendation was adopted and by unanimous vote, after hearing Thornton in his own defense, the Grand Lodge voted to strike his name from the list of permanent members. This was June 11, 1873.
But this was not the end of Solon Thornton. On March 27, 1874, he was tried in St. John's Lodge on three charges. (1) embezzlement of funds belonging to the Grand Council of Royal and Select Masters, (2) willful misrepresentation to the Grand Lodge of New Hampshire, and (3) embezzlement of funds belonging to St. John's Lodge of which he was Secretary. The curious trail of errors which followed this case from the beginning was not yet ended. Thornton had his friends in St. John's Lodge. The verdict of guilty in all three events was reached by a majority of votes cast. The Master declared him acquitted, ruling that two thirds of the votes past were needed for conviction.
The Grand Lodge Committee on Trials, after a long exposition of the law in the case, declared the Master's ruling in error. While there was no specific law or ruling covering the case, the uniform precedent in Massachusetts was that of conviction by majority. The case was, therefore, remanded to St. John's Lodge for retrial. Thornton was found guilty on all accounts and sentenced to expulsion from all the rights and privileges of Freemasonry and the sentence was confirmed by the Grand Lodge September 9, 1874.
This was the Masonic end of Solon Thornton. It was a tragic and pitiful fall of a man who had many good qualities and real ability, but had not the principle to back them up. It only remains to be said that years later in 1910, Thornton being long dead, his name was restored to the list of Past Officers. This was in no sense a rehabilitation. The list of Past Officers is a historical record and the replacement of Thornton's name simply recorded the fact that he was Junior Grand Warden in 1865.
In his farewell address, December 9, 1874, Grand Master Nickerson showed that steady, though not rapid,progress was being made in the reduction of the debt. In his three years the reduction had been $127,981.42, and the total reduction since December 1867 had been $101,158.78.
Grand Master Nickerson made a long plea for the printing of the early records of the Grand Lodge, but it fell on deaf ears.
Commenting upon the excellent results obtained by one of the District Deputy Grand Masters by holding annual exemplifications in his District, Grand Master Nickerson recommended that the annual exemplifications before Grand Lodge be discontinued and annual exemplifications in each District be substituted therefor. This recommendation was taken up by the Grand Lodge and at the September Quarterly of 1875 the necessary amendment was accepted. The annual exemplifications in the Districts have since been a regular and very useful features of our work.
Percival L. Everett was elected Grand Master.
Our personal information about Grand Master Everett is rather meager. He was born in Boston June 28, 1833, and died in Lynn February 21, 1908. After being educated in the private schools in Boston he went to Shanghai when twenty years of age in the employment of one of the leading American Houses in China trade. After eight years service in Shanghai he returned home to become the Boston agent of his employers. In 1865 he and Sereno D. Nickerson organized the Third National Bank of Boston and he was its President for twenty-three years. In the meantime he served as a Trustee of the Provident Institution for Savings and as a Director of the Waltham Watch Co. He was very helpful in securing the $300,000. loan on the Temple property and in maintaining a perpetual loan of $30,000 at the Third National Bank. During the later years of his life failing health and residence at some distance made him a very infrequent attendant at Grand Lodge.
He became a member of Winslow Lewis Lodge in 1861 and was its Master in 1870. Grand Master Nickerson appointed him Deputy Grand Master and he served in that capacity through the whole Nickerson administration.
He was a member of St. Andrew's Royal Arch Chapter, Roxbury Council, Royal and Select Masters, St. Bernard Commandery, and the Boston Scottish Rite Bodies. He received Honorary Membership in the Supreme Council in 1871. He appears to have been personally popular, and in many ways was of service to the Grand Lodge.
As Grand Master M. W. Bro. Everett appears to have been a competent, but in no way an outstanding figure.
Grand Master Everett's greatest contribution was the standardization and fixing of the ritual. During his service as Deputy Grand Master he became impressed with the bad condition of the ritual. Changes had been made locally until, as he said, scarcely two Lodges were alike. His first act after installation was to appoint a large and competent Committee on Ritual. This Committee did an enormous amount of thorough and painstaking work. They produced a standard ritual and reduced it to writing. This has ever since been the official ritual of the Grand Lodge. The Committee also provided a "Trestle Board," containing the monitorial parts of the work, the ceremonies for the Installation of officers, the Dedication of Apartments, the Constitution of Lodges, and Masonic burials. With the exception of a revision of the burial service, the Trestle Board is still in use. The publication of this volume in 1876 closed the labors of the Committee.
At the March Quarterly of 1875 Bro. Edwin Wright set in motion one of the most important measures ever adopted by Grand Lodge. He introduced a motion "That a Committee of five be appointed to consider and report upon the expediency of adopting some plan whereby all Masonic trials shall be had before some Board of Commissioners of the Grand Lodge." The motion was adopted and a Committee was appointed, with Tracy B. Cheever as Chairman. Wright was a very capable, clear headed lawyer, who had served for some years as a Justice of the Police Court. He was a newcomer in the Grand Lodge, serving his first year as Junior Warden of the Massachusetts Lodge. He later served as Deputy Grand Master under M. W. Samuel C. Lawrence for three years.
In June the Committee presented an elaborate report, which bears all the ear-marks of Cheever's style.
The report was a very adroit one. Of course the immediate reaction was unfavorable. The proposition was startlingly new. Masonic trials had always and everywhere been held in Lodges. To take the initiative out of the hands of the Lodges and vest it in a Grand Lodge Committee looked like a high-handed invasion of immemorial rights. The objections were skillfully counterd by an argument which was constructive throughout and nowhere controversial.
The foundation for the discussion is laid in the statement that the object of a Masonic trial is to secure Masonic justice. The verdict is not such as might be sought under civil, military, or even ecclesiastical law, but and as would be consistent with Masonic principles and Masonic Philosophy. The question to be determined is not whether the respondent shall continue to be a member of his particular Lodge, that may be safely left entirely in the hands of the Lodge itself, but whether he shall continue in the fellowship of the great Masonic Fraternity as a whole. That question must be, and in fact is, decided by the Grand Lodge itself.
As at present done, the Lodge hears the evidence, the Secretary records the proceedings, the Lodge renders a verdict by a majority vote of those present and the record goes to the Grand Lodge for review. The responsibilities involved are serious. The Master must be competent to preside wisely, passing upon the admissibility of evidence and deciding questions raised by counsel on either side. The Secretary must be competent to make a full, fair, and accurate report. The Brethren must be able to render an unbiassed verdict, regardless of personal friendship or dislike.
An examination of the cases sent up for review showed that they were rarely free from error. In a few cases there was so manifest a miscarriage of justice that the action of the Lodge was reversed. In more cases there was a remand for retrial or for amendment of the record. In a majority of cases, where substantial justice appeared to have been done, while the findings were confirmed it was necessary to call attention to errors in procedure which would have been fatal in court of law. It often happened that a Lodge trial engendered bitterness of feeling and discord in the Lodge which lasted for years.
The Committee recommended that these difficulties be obviated by removing these proceedings to the calm atmosphere of a Committee whose members should be carefully chosen for their competence for the responsible tasks before them and who should have no personal interest whatever in the cases before them. The Commission would then lay the case before the Grand Lodge with a summary of the evidence and its findings and recommendation. The Grand Lodge would then, as now, make the final decision, approving, or modifying the findings of the Commission.
The Committee pointed out that the proposed procedure "violated no Landmark, was not an innovation in the body of Masonry." It was only a modification of the preliminary procedure by which the cases were brought to the court of final appeal. The Committee closed its report by proposing an amendment to the Grand Constitutions providing for trial by commission and setting up the machinery therefor.
The report was accepted and the proposed amendment referred to William Sewall Gardner, Sereno D. Nickerson, and Edward Avery. Avery was later to serve as Junior Grand Warden. The Committer reported in September with the amendment re-drafted.
Then fireworks began. There was a long discussion and the Amendment was re-committed. A re-draft was submitted in December. Meanwhile Grand Master Everett, in his annual address, very strongly recommended it. Again there was much discussion and the Amendment was once more re-committed. At the March Quarterly of 1876, at the last moment, the Committee offered an amendment to the draft which provided that a trial might be held in the Lodge if the Lodge so voted by a majority vote at the next Stated Communication after the filing of the charge. This amendment to the draft was unanimously adopted by the Grand Lodge. It undoubtedly saved the day. After more discussion the amendment was put to vote and carried by a vote of 263 to 59.
The Grand Master appointed as the first Commission, Tracy B. Cheever, Sereno D. Nickerson, Benjamin Dean, Edward Avery, and Frederick D. Ely. Trial by Commission has worked well from that day to this.
Probably no one could be found who would now advocate a return to the old system. The clause providing an option by the Lodge soon became a dead letter. In the revision of the Grand Constitutions in 1930 it was dropped out without a word of protest. So, after just a year of discussion, was accomplished one of the most important reforms ever made by the Grand Lodge of Massachusetts.
At the March Quarterly of 1875 a petition signed by the President of one of the organizations referred to was presented, praying that the "M. W. Grand Lodge consider the expediency of recognizing and regulating, or exercising a suitable supervision over such co-operative Life Insurance Associations as have been, or may be, established within the body of Freemasonry and the jurisdiction of this Grand Lodge, for the purpose of ensuring a better protection of the rights of individual Brethren, who may unite therewith." The petition was referred to a Committee which reported in June.
The proposition was loaded with high explosives. By such legislation the Grand Lodge would have assumed responsibilities whose consequences, though undoubtedly most serious, could not possibly be foreseen. The Committee reported advising no action on the ground that the State Legislature had provided legal security for such organizations, that there was no reason why Masonic Mutual Relief Associations should not avail themselves of that security, and the Grand Constitutions provided ample security for Masons in their relation to the Craft in general, to particular Lodges, or to individual Brothers. The report was accepted and the relation of the Grand Lodge to all such organizations was definitely and wisely settled.
The ears of this Grand Lodge have never been closed to the call for fraternal assistance. In March a letter was laid before the Grand Lodge from the Grand Master of Kansas. Crop failure in the western and southwestern part of that state had caused distress among the Brethren quite beyond the ability of the local Masonic agencies to relieve. The Grand Lodge at once appropriated $500.00. Only the year before Kansas had herself contributed to the relief of the Brethren of Louisiana.
At the December 28 Communication a letter was received from a Lodge in Palermo, Italy, asking that it might be accepted as a subordinate of the Grand Lodge of Massachusetts. This was referred to Charles Levi Woodbury, William S. Gardner, and Sereno D. Nickerson. The same Committee was asked to consider also the question of the recognition by foreign Grand Lodges of a so called Grand Lodge in any of the United States where regular Grand Lodges already existed. The Committee took time for a careful study of the question before it and made an elaborate report to the September Quarterly of 1876.
The Committee recommended that the petition from Palermo be denied. This Grand Lodge was firmly committed to t he principle of the territorial sovereignty of Grand Lodges, and was in fraternal relations with the Grand Lodge of Italy. The Lodge in Palermo stated that it had seceded from the Grand Lodge of Italy. We knew nothing of tie merits of the controversy, but to interfere in it would be an unjustifiable invasion of the sovereignty of the Grand Lodge of Italy and Would constitute a precedent destructive of the unity and harmony of the Craft.
The question which had been coupled with this by Gardner in his motion to commit was of much more vital interest to us. Though purposely couched in very general terms, it had a very specific reference. It was a variant of the old question of colored Masonry. It will be remembered that in 1869 Lewis Hayden and other colored Masons professing to derive from Prince Hall "AFRICAN Lodge" petitioned for "equal Masonic manhood." This was discussed in its proper place in this narrative and the position of the Grand Lodge of Massachusetts clearly set forth. There was a colored Grand Lodge in Ohio claiming to derive from Hall's group which was out seeking recognition. It was recognized by a few European Grand Lodges, just as the Grand Orient of France had under the influence of Napoleon III recognized the colored body in Louisiana. They were seeking to be recognized as an independent and regular Grand Lodge by the white Grand Lodge of Ohio, and as it appeared with a remarkable prospect of success.
All this was the outgrowth of existing social and political conditions. The Civil War had freed the slave. Reconstruction legislation had given him the suffrage, had. done its best to give him civil equality, and had even attempted to give him social equality. The same political group which had enacted this legislation was still in control of Congress and very powerful in the Northern states. The colored men themselves, having acquired so much equality, sought for Masonic equality as well. A good many whites were inclined to be sympathetic. The Masonic legitimacy of the colored Grand Lodge was so doubtful that their friends hardly dared suggest taking over the colored Lodges and Grand Lodge into the body of white Masonry, but there was in some quarters considerable disposition to recognize them as regular, but independent end co-ordinate Masonic bodies. This sympathy was stimulated by the wave of patriotic enthusiasm which swept the country in connection with the Exposition which was held in Philadelphia to commemorate the Centennial of the Declaration of Independence.
Gardner through it was time for Massachusetts to speak, and speak she did in no uncertain tones. The report questioned the right of any Grand Lodge to divide its sovereignty with another body. Could such a division be based on color? Could white men be excluded from the colored Grand Lodge, or colored men from the white Grand Lodge? The Committee said "Our opinion is that a distinction founded on color as "black", or race as "African" is in contravention of the Ancient Landmarks, is not Masonic, and would be void." Masonry knows no distinction of race or color. Black men may with perfect propriety be admitted to Masonic Lodges, and in many cases are so admitted.
The Committee goes on to speak of the difficulty and confusion in both domestic and foreign relations which would arise from setting up two Grand Lodges in the same state. "Masonic experience has settled that the only safe and prudent line of division for jurisdiction is territorial in accordance with this Masonry is organized. A personal test, to divide jurisdiction, is exactly against the equality of Freemasonry."
The Committee proceeded with unsparing clarity to demolish the claims of negro Masonry to Masonic legitimacy. The report closes: "The Committee has no doubt that the intelligent and worthy members of the Grand Lodge of Ohio will take every precaution to consider the bearings of the proposition before them on the Royal Art of which it has long been one of the brilliant and cherished ornaments; and that whatever step it takes in the matter will be founded on reasons acceptable to the Masonic world, consistent with its traditions, and which it will not hesitate to spread before the other Grand Lodges iBf the Masonic community."
The signers of this report were three of the ablest men who ever sat in the Grand Lodge of Massachusetts. They knew exactly what they wanted to do, and they did it with great skill. They realized that the Ohio attempt was an entering wedge. If Ohio did what was proposed, other Grand Lodges would be faced with a similar problem, with a prospect of endless trouble and confusion. The report is in the best tradition of Masonic diplomacy. It is very courteous and, so far as possible,avoids any cause of offense. Between the lines, however, there are unmistakable warnings. If Ohio accepted the proposed measure, Massachusetts would lead a movement to withdraw recognition from the Grand Lodge of Ohio. If such a movement was to be started, Massachusetts was emphatically the Grand Lodge to do it. The unquestioned Masonic prestige of the Grand Lodge and the political record of the state would fully warrant it.
This report was accepted September 13, 1876. The Grand Lodge of Ohio met October 17, 18, and 19.
At this meeting a Committee introduced a resolution that the Grand Lodge of Ohio would recognize the "so-called Grand Lodge of Colored Freemasons" as a legitimate and independent Grand Lodge if it would change its title to "The African Grand Lodge of Free and Accepted Masons of the State of Ohio. The situation was saved, and incidentally the face of the Grand Lodge of Ohio was also saved, by a skillful parliamentary move, but it was touch and go. The Deputy Grand Master raised the point of order that the resolution was unconstitutional, in that the Grand Constitutions asserted the absolute individuality and authority of the Grand Lodge within its jurisdiction, and as the resolution would conflict with that, the object aimed at could be attained only by amending the Grand Constitutions.
The Grand Master, favoring, the resolution, declared the point of order not well taken, apparently basing his ruling on bis sympathies rather than on sound Masonic law. The deputy Grand Master appealed from the ruling and on a roll-call vote the appeal was sustained by a vote of 389 to 329. The narrowness of the margin shows the great influence of political and other outside considerations had on the votes cast. This, however, ended the matter so far as the Grand Lodge of Ohio was concerned.
At the December Quarterly of 1876 Sereno D. Nickerson called attention to the frequent petitions for healing received from persons who were irregularly made in regular Lodges, but who were not personally responsible for the irregularity. As the law stood only the Grand Lodge could heal those persons. They petitioned the Grand Lodge, these petitions were presented to Grand Lodge at the next Quarterly and referred to Committees (one for each petition). The Committees reported, often at considerable length, at a later Quarterly, and action was then had. This involved considerable delay, the labor of a Committee in investigating the case and preparing a report, and the time of the Grand Lodge in listening to the report. He asked for a Committee to look into the matter and such constitutional amendment, if any, as they thought desirable. The result was an amendment passed at the December Quarterly in 1877 which provided that if the candidate was in no way responsible for the irregularity, the Grand Master might heal him. This law, still in force, was a great improvement in procedure. The cases in which the candidate is responsible in any way for the irregularity are very few. The facts in these cases are almost always capable of quick and easy determination and there is no reason for long and cumbrous procedure.
Curiously enough, although the general law of the ballot was clear, the Grand Constitutions left the details of procedure vague and it was found that the usages in the several Lodges were far from uniform. At the June Communication in 1877 the Committee on By-Laws reported this fact and recommended a Standing Regulation, as follows: "In balloting for the degrees of membership, the Worshipful Master may allow three ballotings, at his discretion; but when a balloting has been commenced it must be concluded, and the candidate declared accepted or rejected, without the intervention of any other business whatever." The recommendation was accepted and the law is still in force. It would appear that the words "the Worshipful Master may allow three ballotings" could not possibly be misunderstood, but so many claims of misunderstanding were made that it later became necessary to add "and no more" after the words "three ballotings."
At the September Communication of 1877 an important precedent was definitely established, A candidate had been proposed in a certain Lodge and accepted. A constitutional objection had been made and referred to a committee. The Committee reported a recommendation that the objection be overruled and the Lodge so voted. The objector appealed to the Grand Lodge against the decision and prayed for an order re-opening the case. The matter was deemed of sufficient importance for reference to an especially strong Committee, Tracy P. Cheever, Edward Avery, and Sereno D. Nickerson. The Committee reported, and the report was accepted, that in all cases of this sort the Lodge "Is the proper forum for the trial of such objection, and that its determination thereof, at least in the absence of extraordinary circumstances, if to be considered as final." The principle involved is that the Lodge is the ultimate judge of its own membership end in cases involving election to membership the Grand Lodge can intervene only when there has been irregularity in procedure. It can sustain appeals only on law points, and cannot go into the question of the wisdom of decisions legally reached.
On September 17, 1877, the Grand Lodge held a Special Communication for the purpose of dedicating the monument erected by the City of Boston on Boston Common to the memory of the soldiers and sailors of the Civil War. This was done by request of the City as a fitting sequel to the laying of the corner-stone by the Grand Lodge in 1871. The ceremony was an imposing one part of it being a procession of over 25,000 men marching over a route of six miles long. Grand Master Everett delivered an admirable address which is incorporated in full in the Grand Lodge Proceedings.
The Grand Master's annual report recounted briefly the accomplishments of his administration, all of which have been hereinbefore recounted. The reduction of the debt was steadily proceeding and interest had been promptly met. The Grand Treasurer's report showed a cash balance in hand of $16,169.37.
