MassachusettsHamiltonHistoryCh26

From MasonicGenealogy
Jump to: navigation, search

CHAPTER 26: ERA OF EXPANSION

At the Annual Communication of 1865 Charles C. Dame was elected Grand Master.

Bro. Dame was born in Kittery Point, then Massachusetts, now Maine, June 5, 1819,and died in Newburyport January 19, 1901. He was descended from John Dame who came from England in 1633. His father was a school teacher, and his early environment was one of culture, but of limited means. He was educated in the public schools of Portsmouth, N. H. and at South Newmarket Academy. On leaving the Academy he took up his father's profession and taught school until 1860, the last nine years as head of the English Department in the Chauncey Hall School of Boston, still one of the leading private schools of New England.

While teaching he studied law, was admitted to the bar in 1859 and began practice in 1860. President Andrew Johnson appointed him Collector of Internal Revenue and he held that office until 1883, when he resumed the practice of law. He was deeply interested in the civic affairs of Boston, his-adopted city, serving as a member of the School Committee, of the Common Council, and of the Board of Aldermen. He was Mayor in 1886. He had already served a term in the state Senate in 1868. He was a Director of the Merchants National Bank, of Boston, and a Trustee of the Institution for Savings in Newburyport.

He was raised in Revere Lodge, December 1, 1857 and was its Master in 1860 and 1861. In Grand Lodge he was Junior Grand Deacon in 1862 and Deputy Grand Master in 1863, 1864, and 1865, the whole of Grand Master Parkman's administration. He was later a member of the Board of Directors of the Grand Lodge from 1882 until his death. When the Masonic Education and Charity Trust was incorporated in 1884 he was one of the original members and Secretary, holding that post until his death. He was High Priest of St. Andrew's Royal Arch Chapter and GrandKing of the Grand Chapter. He was a member of Boston Council, Royal and Select Masters, and Commander of Boston Commandery, Knights Templar. He was a member of the several Scottish Rite Bodies, and became an Active Member of the Supreme Council in 1897.

In Masonry and in business he won confidence, respect, and affection by his sincerity, his upright impartiality, his zeal, and his competence. It was said of him, "His sense of justice was his safe and constant guide, and true to this he was fearless of opposition, calm amid perplexities, generous and kind." His portrait shows a man of rather large proportions, solid, calm, poised, judicial. His appearance suits well the description of hit character.

Grand Master Dame's first year in office was a busy one, but presented nothing of historical importance.

At the December quarterly of 1866 a report was accepted and adopted fixing the stations of the Grand Officers as they have been ever since. This period was prolific in new Lodges, apparently in many cases organized by Brethren whose zeal was commendable, but whose knowledge of the fundamental of Masonry left much to be desired. A very strong Committee consisting of William Sewall Gardner, a Past Grand Warden, and Past Grand Masters Lewis and Coolidge reported on the By-Laws of several of the new Lodges and caused the correction of many errors.

55£. In one case the Committee says "the by-laws show in many respects a great lack of Masonic knowledge, and a misapprehension of the object of a Masonic Lodge." There are frequent attempts to curtail the power of the Master in his appointments, sometimes by associating the Wardens with appointments and in one case by making the appointments subject to the approval of the Lodge, The Committee point out that the Lodge may by by-law provide for the election of all officers, but if it leaves any to be appointed the Master's power of appointment is absolute. Another by-law made it obligatory on the Master to call a special meeting "on the written application of seven members." In the Master alone lies the right to call special meetings and this right cannot be invaded or controlled by the Lodge.

Another undertook to provide the application might be accepted by a two thirds vote. The Committee stresses the importance of unanimous consent.

There were submitted by-laws providing that the Lodge might by unanimous consent dispense with the constitutional provision that a month must elapse between receiving an application and balloting thereon; that if an black ball appeared in the ballot box the balloting might be postponed a month; that if any Brother be known to speak or act disrespectfully of Masonry in general or of their Lodge in particular "he shall not be allowed to sit in the Lodge as member or visit until the matter has been adjusted; that a Committee might be appointed to investigate any private quarrel or animosity between two Brothers and if possible to reconcile them", but "if either shall continue to harbor unkind feelings after the other shall have made due and proper concessions, he shall be dealt with as the majority of the Lodge think proper." The Committee very justly points out that a Lodge is not an inquisitional court and has no right, ability, or power to judge, much less punish, the private feelings of its members. Another provided that "no member or visiting Brother shall be admitted into this Lodge, if he is in the slightest degree intoxicated, or who is in the common practice of using intoxicating drink as a beverage, or who is engaged in any illegal traffic (if within our knowledge) or who does not sustain a good moral character." At this time the liquor question was a very live political issue. This proposed by-law, therefore, not only went far to prejudice a question of personal morals, but invaded the political field in which Masonry has no business. England has Lodges of total abstainers, but the matter is handled very wisely and with great breadth of mind. It is understood that these Lodges do not entertain applications from any but abstainers. At the same time it is made perfectly clear that the Lodge does not attempt to control the habits of members. If they cease to be abstainers, they are not subjected to any discipline or even disapproval, but as honorable men they are expected to dimit. The discussion of this proposal is full and illuminating.

The Committee says, "The petitioners should remember that there is a world wide difference between the moral reform societies existing in the community and a'Masonic Lodge." Masonry does not engage in the moral, political, and religious dissensions which embroil mankind and embitter their lives. As individuals Brethren may engage in any political, reformatory, or religious endeavor they may please, but all this must be kept outside the Lodge-room. There is ample resource in Masonic law for dealing with violation of the civil law or serious moral delinquency, beyond this there is no need to go.

It may be noted in this connection that the Grand Lodge of Massachusetts has never legislated on any phase of the liquor question. By this wise reticence she has saved herself much embarrassment, confusion, and inconsistency without detriment to the manners or morals of her members.

Another Lodge provided that vacancies in the line of officers should be filled at the first regular meeting after they occur, by ballot or appointment, as they were originally filled (quite unconstitutional), and that in business and discussions the Lodge should be governed by Parliamentary law. Masonry knows nothing of Parliamentary law and cannot be governed by it.

All of these provisions, some clearly unconstitutional and some merely fantastic, were disallowed. The Committee reports deal thoroughly and very interestingly with various aspects of the Common Law of Masonry. They were probably drafted by Gardner, a very able lawyer who was afterward a Justice of the Supreme Court. It was of the greatest value to the Fraternity in this period of rapid expansion to have such wise counsellors to direct and restrain its activities.

After a few years we cease to find these curious sets of by-laws presented by new Lodges. They were the natural result of war time conditions already noted. Great numbers of candidates were hastily given the degrees. They were uninstructed even in the ritual. They wanted to be, and were Master Masons, but they had very little idea what it was all about. Many of them rushed off to war without becoming Lodge members. A good many were made in the Army Lodges which surrendered their warrants when the forces were demobilized. Great Numbers of these unaffiliated Masons sought Masonic homes in the new Lodges which were formed in numbers. Quite ignorant of Masonic law, practice, or precedent, they quite naturally supposed that they could adopt any by-laws they pleased. Incidentally the Committee reports on these cases furnished a very important body of precedent, discussion, and information for succeeding years.

The question of financing the new Temple now seriously engaged the attention of the Grand Lodge. The Grand Master in his annual report at the close of 1866 called attention to the fact that the Grand Lodge had, by authorizing the building of a Temple to replace the Winthrop House, committed itself to a very large expenditure which must somehow be provided for, and suggested a plan for a sinking fund for that purpose. The Committee to whom the report was referred presented at the March Quarterly of 1867 a very elaborate and thorough report, undoubtedly drawn by William Sewall Gardner, the Chairman. Gardner had been Senior Grand Warden in 1864 and his great ability and power of clear and forceful presentation of his views had made him a leading figure in Grand Lodge.

After the insurance on the Winthrop House had been collected and outstanding indebtedness on the property paid, the Grand Lodge owned the land clear and had about $20,000 with which to begin the construction of the new Temple. The $20,000 barely paid for the foundations. The Grand Lodge had borrowed on a first and second mortgage $300,000. Rentals derived from the building would hardly more than pay the carrying charges. The balance of ordinary Grand Lodge income after paying ordinary expenses would not be large enough to provide a sinking fund of any appreciable amount.

The Committee showed conclusively that resources under Grand Master Dame's plan would not be sufficient to meet the need. After pointing out that the Temple had been authorized by the Fraternity as a whole through the vote of the Grand Lodge,was the property of the whole Fraternity, and was for the benefit of the whole Fraternity, the Committee declared that it was the duty of the whole Fraternity to pay for it.

The Committee then introduced an order, which was unanimously adopted, that one dollar a year should be paid as Grand. Lodge dues by every member of the Fraternity for thirteen years, but the thirteen years annual dues might be commuted by one lump payment of ten dollars. As there was then no limit upon the right of unaffiliated Masons to visit, it was furthered ordered that no unaffiliated Mason residing in Massachusetts should be allowed to visit without first paying twenty-five cents at each visit. All such fees and all moneys received from the Grand Lodge dues, commonly known as the "capitation tax" should be collected by the District Deputy Grand Master at his annual visitation and should be paid into the sinking fund.

This order brought forth a vigorous protest from King Solomon's Lodge. The protest set forth that the order "was hastily adopted without the opportunity for discussion by the Lodges which its importance required," and that it was unconstitutional in that it was virtually an amendment to the Grand Constitutions and should have taken the course required for amendments. The protest expressed a fear that a dangerous precedent had been established which might disturb the harmony of the Fraternity and seriously weaken that respect for the Grand Lodge which is so vitally Important.

The protest was referred after long discussion to a Committee of sixteen, one person from each Masonic District. Light of the Committee were District Deputy Grand Masters, one was a Past Deputy Grand Master, five were Past Senior Grand Wardens, one was a Past Junior Grand Warden, and one was the Corresponding Grand Secretary. This Committee was appointed subsequent to the meeting by the Grand Master, It was a very strong Committee, but obviously not one which could be expected to do anything to upset the action of the Grand Lodge.

The protest considerably disturbed the Grand Lodge. It raised apprehension that it might be representative of an extensive opposition. One member moved that the enforcement of the order regarding the capitation tax be postponed until the next Communication of the Grand Lodge. The Grand Lodge showed ita confusion by passing the motion and later In the same session reconsidering the vote and reversing it.

Two resolutions were proposed and adopted, as follows:

  • "Resolved: That this Grand Lodge hereby pledges the faith of the Fraternity of the Commonwealth to sustain the Most Worshipful Grand Master and the Board of Directors in completing and paying for the new Masonic Temple now being erected in this city."
  • "Resolved: That it is the sense of the Grand Lodge that its action this day taken upon the reference of the papers purporting to be a protest from King Solomon's Lodge, was not intended and is not to be deemed, as in any way rescinding its Order passed at the last Communication (imposing a capitation tax ) but rather with the view of causing the subordinate Lodges more fully to understand the necessity of its passage."

The first resolution, which was passed unanimously, was offered by Charles Levi Woodbury, the Corresponding Grand Secretary. The second which was passed, but not unanimously, was offered by George Washington Warren, who was himself a member of King Solomon's Lodge. Both Woodbury and Warren were put on the Committee of Sixteen when the Grand Master later appointed it.

The Committee of Sixteen reported at the September Quarterly. Unfortunately the report has not survived. It was considered and accepted and it was "Voted, that so much of the report as relates to the financial condition of the Grand Lodge be printed and sent to the Lodges, with such explanations and additions as the Grand Master may judge to be necessary for their information.

There were no more protests, but the collection of the tax involved a good deal of difficulty for some years and caused not a little friction. A few Lodges flatly refused to pay. They were all finally brought into a more submissive frame of mind but one Lodge carried its rebellion so far that it was necessary to lift its Charter, The suspension, however, only lasted for a few months.

On June 24, 1867, the new Temple was dedicated with much pomp and ceremony. There was a procession of some sixteen thousand Masons, including delegations from many foreign jurisdictions both in and out of the United States, which marched over a four mile route. There was a formal dedication of the Temple, with full form and ceremony. There was a great meeting in Music Hall, the largest auditorium in the city, with an admirable oration by Rev. William S. Studley, a Past Grand Chaplain who had been summoned from his then home in Cincinnati for the purpose. To crown the day there was a banquet In the Temple, with the usual array of distinguished speakers. It is worth recording that the speeches,which are on record, were all short and all good.

The chief guest of the day was President Andrew Johnson. President Johnson very graciously accepted the invitation to be present and spoke twice, once during the dedication ceremony and once at the banquet. The President was received with great enthusiasm. In his remarks he expressed very great pleasure in coming to Massachusetts and at the evidences of sincerely fraternal spirit which he had seen displayed. He said that he had attended many Masonic celebrations but had almost always heard "taunts and jeers." On this occasion every Brother appeared to feel that he was a man and was inspired by the spirit of Masonic fraternity. He had not heard the first expression of acrimony. He said that in coming here he had followed the rule of his life - to satisfy his conscience that a thing was right, and then left the consequences to take care of themselves. He praised the great principles of Freemasonry and said that through them he had learned one thing, "I care not whether it be in religion, in politics, or elsewhere, in the pursuit and in the support of a correct principle I could never reach a wrong conclusion. I love principle: I am devoted to principle.* Other speakers spoke of Freemasonry and its underlying principles as a valuable aid toward abolishing the rancor and healing the divisions caused by the Civil War. All such references were Masonically discreet and there was an entire absence of any direct political allusions, but reading the speeches against the background of current conditions one sees much between the lines.

The presence and words of President Johnson gain greatly in interest and significance when projected against this background. Johnson was in the midst of this courageous but helpless struggle with a Congress overwhelmingly opposed to him. Two of the most conspicuous leaders of the opposition were Massachusetts men, Charles Sumner and Benjamin F. Butler. Johnson was fighting for the restoration of the spiritual unity of the nation, generosity toward the fallen foe, government in the hands of the people, where it belonged, the known principles and policy of Abraham Lincoln. The dominant party in Congress wished to treat the southern states as conquered provinces, crush them, body and soul, and subject them to a regime of vengeance. To this end they passed the legislation which brought about the shameful "reconstruction era." Johnson vetoed their acts, but they overrode his veto again and again. A year after he came to Boston they tried, to their everlasting disgrace, to impeach him and failed only by the margin of a single vote, cast by a brave Senator who took his political life in his hands to do it. Viewed in the light of all this Johnson's visit to Massachusetts became much more than a pleasant fraternal gesture.

The rapid growth of the years just preceding revealed some weaknesses in the constitutional structure. Amendments were adopted providing that the Grand Secretary should officially notify all the Lodges of proposed amendments to the Grand Constitutions within thirty days of their proposal and should put them on the notice of the meeting at which action was expected.

The machinery for the investigating of applicants for the degrees was not working efficiently. Two amendments were adopted, one declaring that rejected applicants who might receive the degrees without a recommendation from the rejecting Lodge should be declared clandestine Masons; the other that "any person leaving his place of residence within this state, who shall be initiated in any Lodge in any other state or territory without having first obtained the consent of the Lodge having jurisdiction, should likewise be deemed clandestine."

A very important amendment forbade the incorporation of Particular Lodges. The same matter came up at the June Quarterly of 1826, when the Grand Lodge, on recommendation of a Committee of which John Abbot, who probably drew the report, was Chairman, adopted a resolution "That no subordinate Lodge, or any member thereof for such Lodge, shall hereafter present to the Legislature any petition for an act of Incorporation, and that all Lodges or members thereof which have such petitions now pending cause the same to be withdrawn; and that the Recording Grand Secretary notify all Lodges under the jurisdiction of this report and resolution."

At that time there was a wave of incorporation, all sorts of groups applying for such Acts, and there was a disposition on the part of some Lodges to go along with the crowd. The resolution accomplished its purpose, the craze for incorporation subsided, and no further action seemed called for. The matter was not mentioned in the Constitution of 1843. Now the growing size and wealth of the Fraternity and especially the acquisition of real estate, brought the matter up again. An amendment was prepared dealing with it and submitted to a Committee of which William Sewall Gardner was Chairman. Gardner presented another of his masterly reports. He laid down at the outset the principle that "the supreme authority over the subordinate Lodges exists exclusively and absolutely in the Grand Lodge." They are answerable to the Grand Lodge, and cannot be made answerable to any other tribunal or government." If they were incorporated they would become subordinate not only to the Grand Lodge, but also to the civil courts and to the Legislature. Their most private concerns would become open. Their proceedings might be reviewed, their discharged members ordered restored, their elections declared void even the investment and expenditure of their funds be ordered and directed by a Court of Equity. Our own Grand Lodge only escaped such interference by the surrender of its Charter of Incorporation in 1834. Incorporation would sweep away the appellate jurisdiction of the Grand Master and Grand Lodge and substitute a jurisdiction which knew nothing of Masonic obligation or of Masonic law. Cases were cited to show that these considerations were not theoretical but very practical.

As a result the Grand Lodge at the December Quarterly adopted an amendment to the Grand Constitutions as follows: "No Lodge shall apply for, receive, or act under any corporate charter granted by any legislature or political government, and the receiving such charter of incorporation or acting thereunder by any Lodge under this jurisdiction shall operate as a surrender and revocation of its Masonic Charter or Warrant from the Grand Lodge." This is still the law of this jurisdiction.

In 1867 we find recorded the first case of the impeachment of a Master of a Lodge. In the course of the proceedings Gardner, as Chairman of a Committee appointed to report on the suspension of the Master by the Grand Master, presented a long and very valuable report. As this case was the first to occur in this jurisdiction, the Committee went very thoroughly into the whole matter of procedure. The report does not appear in the published reprints, but may be found in full in the Proceedings of the Grand Lodge for 1867, beginning on page 91.

The conclusion of the matter was the trial of the respondent by Grand Lodge, his conviction and expulsion from all the rights and privileges of Freemasonry,

The Grand Lodge refused to recognize a body calling itself the Grand Lodge of Nova Scotia. Nova Scotia and New Brunswick contained two Provincial Grand Lodges, one under Scotland and one under England, but the same person was Provincial Grand Master for both groups. Seven or eight of the Scotch Lodges seceded and set up a Grand Lodge of Nova Scotia. Some forty-eight of the Lodges in the two provinces remained loyal to their Mother Grand Lodges. Massachusetts was, of course, in friendly relations with the two Provincial Grand Lodges. She held that in order to establish a just claim for recognition the new Grand Lodge must consist of a practically complete union of the Lodges in the territory where it was proposed to establish it and must be agreed to by the Mother Grand Lodge. This was a reaffirmation of the principles laid down previously when Massachusetts refused to recognize the Grand Lodge of Canada, so-called. Local differences were, however, soon adjusted and Grand Lodges were established in New Brunswick and in Nova Scotia.

At the Annual Communication in December 1867, Grand Master Dame was re-elected, but the long incumbency of Charles W. Moore was terminated by the election of Solon W. Thornton as Recording Grand Secretary. Moore had served for thirty-four years. As a Masonic statesman and jurist he has never been equalled in Massachusetts, if anywhere. He, more then anyone else, guided the Grand Lodge through the critical and dangerous years from 1826 to 1843. His Freemason's Monthly Magazine, begun in 1841 and continued until his death, is an inexhaustable storehouse of information which has not yet lost its value. His service to Masonry cannot be estimated too highly. On going out of office he was immediately appointed Deputy Grand Master and the year following he was appointed Corresponding Grand Secretary and was continued in that until his death in December, 1873.

Solon Thornton had been a member of St. John's Lodge, of Boston, since 1851. He had served it as Master in 1856 and again in 1861. He was Junior Grand Steward in 1863, District Deputy Grand Master for the First District in 1864 and Junior Grand Warden in 1865.

The annexation of the city of Roxbury to Boston raised the question of the status of the Roxbury Lodges. On report and recommendation of a Committee the Grand Lodge voted that the Roxbury Lodges had now become Boston Lodges and "entitled to all the immunities and privileges incident to that relation." This question of effect of changing boundaries and erection of new towns had long been a somewhat troublesome one and in 1873 the present regulation was adopted that "no changes by the Legislature of the Commonwealth of Municipal corporation or boundaries of the territories thereof, shall be held to affect in any way the jurisdiction of Lodges." In 1888, owing to the confusion of jurisdiction arising from the numerous annexations to Boston, it was enacted that "the several Lodges located in Boston shall have equal and concurrent jurisdiction over the territorial limits of the city."

In 1912 the next annexation, that of Hyde Park, took place and the Grand Lodge voted that the regulation regarding legislative changes applied and Hyde Park Lodge retained its original jurisdiction and only that. Some years later, however, the inconsistency of this position was realized when the revised Constitutions of 1918 were adopted it was held that the re-enactment of the provision regarding the concurrent jurisdiction of the Boston Lodges would include Hyde Park, and it has since been so held.

At the Annual meeting on December 9, 1868, William Sewall Gardner was elected Grand Master.

Gardner was born in Hallowell, Maine, October 1, 1827, and died in Newton, Massachusetts April 4, 1888. He was of Puritan ancestry and on his mother's side was a member of the Sewall family- which was so distinguished in the legal annals of Massachusetts. Graduating from Bowdoin College in the class of 1850, he took up the study of law in Lowell and was admitted to the bar in 1852. He soon became associated with Mr. Theodore H. Sweetser, a well known attorney. In 1861 the firm moved to Boston, where a large and successful practice was soon built up. On December 31, 1875,he was appointed a Justice of the Superior Court from which he was promoted to the Supreme Judicial Court of the Commonwealth in 1885. Failing health compelled him to resign after about two years. Leisure and travel failed to restore his health and he died on April 4, 1888, at a comparatively early age of sixty years.

Gardner was made a Mason in Ancient York Lodge, of Lowell, in 1852 and became its Master in 1856. He became a Charter member of Kilwinning Lodge, of Lowell, and was its first Master in 1866 and 1867. In the Grand Lodge he was Grand Marshal in 1857, 1858, and 1859, under Grand Master Heard, in 1860, 1861, 1862, and 1865, and Senior Grand Warden in 1864. Although young, only forty-one at the time of his election as Grand Master, he had had eight years' experience as an officer and Permanent Member of Grand Lodge. As we have already seen, he had become one of the leaders of the Craft. As a Committee Chairman he was in great demand and his clear thinking and power of convincing expression are deeply stamped upon all his work.

He was a member of all the collateral bodies of Freemasonry, and very prominent in some of them. He was Grand Master of the Grand Encampment of Knights Templar in 1868-1869, and 1870. In the Scottish Rite he was an Active Member of the Supreme Council and Deputy for Massachusetts from 1861 to 1867.

His service to the Craft was always of the highest and most valuable character. M.W. Samuel Crocker Lawrence says in his memorial sketch of him: "His interpretation of Masonry doubtless borrowed something from the natural seriousness of his character; but it was beautifully enforced by the kindliness of his manner, the gentle dignity of his bearing, the purity of his life, and the unquestioned integrity of his heart."

The situation into which Grand Master Gardner entered was one which emphatically demanded all his unusual characteristics and called for the exercise of all his great powers. The years of the Civil War and those immediately following were years of hectic activity and abnormal growth. In many ways the resembled those of the World War a half century later. In some ways they were more difficult, because the Fraternity was much less provided with the experience and efficient organization needed to cope with the situation. The number of Lodges in Massachusetts had grown from 113 in 1860 to 173 in 1869. We have already seen, from the evidence of the by-laws submitted by new Lodges, that many of them were led by men sadly lacking in comprehension of Masonic law and Masonic principles. That their intentions were good is unquestionable but they lacked the balance of knowledge and experience. Often their acquaintance with the ritual left much to be desired.

The membership was reported at the end of 1868 as 18,364. During the early part of the period we are considering membership statistics are not available. From the best information we have the membership at the end of 1859 did not exceed 9,000. At this time conferring the degrees did not carry membership with it and unaffiliated Masons were not under any constitutional disabilities. Unaffiliated Masons were numerous enough to constitute a real problem. It will be remembered that when the capitation tax was ordered a visitor charge of twenty-five cents was also ordered. Probably as already pointed out, many of the vagaries of the new Lodges at this period were caused by the fact that a considerable number of the petitioners were men who had received the degrees hastily in war time, had never affiliated, and had never attended Lodges to any extent. The Grand Lodge was deeply in debt and the sinking fund was not coming in very satisfactorily. As is so commonly the case, the Brethren were ready to incur indebtedness for somebody to pay, but not anxious to go into their own pockets to pay it. As is so often the case, the Grand Lodge was only too often regarded as something almost mysterious, existing apart from the general membership of the Fraternity and coming into contact with it only to impose discipline or collect money. The Grand Lodge machinery itself was not running any too smoothly. The Directors were assuming powers not constitutionally granted to them. The Trustees of the funds, though never suspected of the slightest dishonesty, were lax in their accounts. It was not easy for the Grand Master himself to get exact and up to date information as to the finances of either the Directors or the Trustees.

It is not to be understood from all this that Massachusetts Masonry was going to pieces, or in any immediate danger of doing so. All this condition left the heart of Masonry sound. But these were surface things which were in much need of betterment. Grand Master Gardner delivered a long and very able inaugural address on the day of his installation. He showed a complete and thorough knowledge of the situation, and at once took command of it. He began by reminding his hearers of the leading position of Massachusetts in American Freemasonry. This laid an obligation upon .the Massachusetts Masons to live up to their position and traditions. The Grand Lodge had authorized the construction of a Temple. The Temple had been built and the Grand Lodge was facing a debt of $377,460, The honor of the Fraternity rendered the payment of that debt a paramount duty. Gardner clearly implies that there was a disposition on the part of many to disclaim any personal responsibility. He said "The impression exists that the Grand Lodge is exclusive, and that the Fraternity at large has no interest in it. [Unfortunately that impression still exists^ Nothing could be more erroneous," Following an elaborate discussion of the origin, nature, and constitution of the Grand Lodge as being in reality the "General Assembly" of the Craft he says:

The argument is irresistible.-

  • First.- That the representatives of the Fraternity at large directed the building of this Temple.
  • Second.- That the Fraternity at large by their silence, by taking no steps to prevent it, encouraged their Board of Directors to proceed in the way and manner that they have in its erection.
  • Third.- That the Fraternity at large are responsible for the debt incurred.

Whether these conclusions are correct or not, the/debt incurred is an indebtedness of the Grand Lodge of which every subordinate Lodge is a constituent part, while every affiliated Mason is a constituent part of his Lodge.

This is far from being an adroit bit of special pleading. It is a thoroughgoing discussion of the fundamental principles governing the relation of the individual member to his Lodge and through the Lodge to the Grand Lodge and of the powers, duties, and responsibilities of the Grand Lodge itself.

Turning from this subject Grand Master Gardner made it clear that he intended to magnify the office of District Deputy Grand Master and to look to the incumbents for support and assistance in securing the better functioning of the organization. He also called attention to the requirement that every Lodge conform strictly to the authorized ritual, but that everything possible should be done including the introduction of music, to make the ritual impressive and their degree work attractive.

The Grand Master called attention to laxity in handling Master Mason diplomas. These diplomas were being issued to Lodges in blank and no accounts were kept. This resulted in waste and even the passing of these diplomas into the hands of non Masons, He ordered that all diplomas issued should be recorded and strictly accounted for so that there should be no waste and no possibility of the diplomas getting into improper hands. This system, with some modification in details, is still in use.

At the March Quarterly of 1869 Grand Master Gardner delivered another very important address. Hitherto the Grand Master had made formal communications to the Grand Lodge only at the close of each year. By this address Grand Master Gardner inaugurated the custom which has since prevailed of a Grand Master's address at each Quarterly.

This report showed that the Grand Master had applied all the resources of a singularly acute and powerful legal mind to a thorough and constructive survey and criticism of the Grand Lodge operations and their functioning. Without any personal condemnation or reflection, he did not hesitate to point out the weak spots and present recommendations for their amendment.

The Grand Constitutions required that the records of the Grand Lodge should be kept in two copies, an original and a transcript, and that these copies should be kept in separate places. Undoubtedly that had been done, but no one was prepared to vouch for it. There should be a Committee on Records which should annually report: (1) the condition in which the originals are kept, (2) the condition of the transcripts, (3) where the originals and transcripts are kept, together with the number of volumes of each.

The Grand Constitutions provided for a Grand Charity Fund to be held by a Board of Trustees. No report had been made concerning their fund for many years. The Grand Master did not know who the Trustees were, or even whether there were any. He knew nothing whatever about the condition of the fund. He recommended the appointment of a Committee to make a thorough investigation and report.

The Grand Lodge had voted to establish a sinking fund to meet the Temple debt and ordered that at each Annual Communication the Grand Treasurer should make a full report on this fund showing the amount received from each Lodge, the amount invested, and the nature of the investment. Verbal statements had been made that the debt had been reduced $28,000 and $23,000 of floating debt had been funded in bonds having eight years to run. No such report as that required by the Grand Lodge order had been made. He recommended the appointment of a Committee to investigate the condition and investment of the fund and report thereon.

The Temple had been occupied nearly two years. The aggregate cost had been reported. No detailed account of the expenditure had ever been submitted. There was no inventory of the personal property nor of the building. He recommended the appointment of a Committee to examine into and report in detail upon the contracts and expenses of the Temple and to report an inventory of the personal property, with the cost thereof. This Committee should have access to all the books and papers of the Directors and of the Grand Treasurer.

The Grand Lodge had no copies of Charters which had been issued to subordinate Lodges. Arrangements should be made to have copies of all these Charters procured and filed in the archives of the Grand Lodge.

The capitation tax was not coming in as it should. Every effort must be made to spur these collections.

The financial accounting of the Grand Lodge ha& been entirely honest and in gross correct, but sketchy in the extreme. The Grand Treasurer's accounts had shown only the sums received and expended by him. Ten years before the Grand Lodge had accepted a Committee's report recommending an inventory and valuation of all the property of the Grand Lodge and the opening of a set of classified accounts which should set forth in detail the receipts and expenditures in each class. Nothing effective had been done about it. In February of 1969 the Directors had ordered a new system of bookkeeping which it was hoped would result in orderly and intelligible accounts and enable the Grand Lodge to keep track of expenses by departments. The Grand Master severely criticized "what may justly be considered a growing evil, viz. - the concentration of the power of the Grand Lodge in the Board of Directors." He cited two instances. When the Temple was dedicated in 1867 the Directors took the whole matter into their own hands. The Grand Lodge passed no vote, appointed no committee, took no action whatever about it. In the erection of the building, while the Grand Lodge had placed the enterprise in the hands of the Directors for execution the Grand Lodge had been kept entirely in the dark in relation to details. "The Grand Lodge should have no close corporation within itself."

Grand Master Gardner went on to say: "I am touching on delicate ground because it amy be said that I am complaining of previous administrations. It is not my intention to do so. I am complaining of a system which is growing up here, of ignoring this Grand Lodge, composed of the Representatives of the great Body of Masonry in Massachusetts . . . With such power as legitimately belongs to the Board of Directors, its influence is great and extensive enough, without absorbing those rights and prerogatives which appertain exclusively to this Grand Body, They have labor sufficient in taking care of the finances and should not be burdened with other duties?"

This courteous, but firm, reminder that the Directors would do well to confine themselves to their proper duties was entirely effective.

On the face of it, the Grand Master's address looks like a very severe arraignment. It was neither so intended nor so taken. For fifty years and more the conditions in the Grand Lodge had been trying in the extreme, though not always for the same reason. From 1826 to 1843 the wise and brave men who guided the Grand Lodge labored whole heartedly to keep the Fraternity alive. How wisely they labored and how splendidly they succeeded have already been recorded. From 1846 to 1860 was a period of prolonged and somewhat difficult convalesence. The storm of persecution had shaken Masonry to the core. Organization was relaxed, ritual forgotten, grievances cherished. A practically thorough reconstruction had to be made. During the latter part of this period the political and social rumblings which preceded the Civil War were growing in intensity and Masonry, like everything else, was more or less affected. In 1861 came the explosion. The war years and those immediately following were a period of feverish activity. The number of members more than doubled. In 1860 there were 101 Lodges in Massachusetts. In 1870 there were 180. Much of this new material was very imperfectly assimilated.

The Grand Lodge itself had undergone trying experiences. It had sold its Temple and bought and renovated a building to replace it. After a very short occupancy the building had been burned with disastrous loss of property and archives. With a courage which seems almost foolhardiness a new Temple was built. The Grand Lodge started the enterprise with a lot of land with a cellar hole in it. The building cost more than $450,000, practically all debt. It is no wonder that many details had been neglected and many conditions had risen which needed attention.

Grand Master Gardner, wise, cool and competent saw that the time had come to face the facts and deal with them constructively. Fortunately he was eminently the man to do it. With him began a new era in the history of the Grand Lodge.

The Grand Lodge rose significantly to the situation. All the Grand Master's recommendations were adopted. The address was ordered printed and sent to all Lodges. The recommended Committees were soon appointed and did their work well. There is no evidence of any opposition or antagonism except continued difficulty in collecting the capitation tax. It is pleasant to record that when Grand Master Gardner's first year was up he was unanimously re-elected.

At the March Quarterly a very interesting and important report was submitted by a Committee appointed to review the action of North Star Lodge in suspending one of its members from all the rights and privileges of Freemasonry; Many things are clearly stated here, perhaps for the first time, and the acceptance of the report established very important precedents.

The report begins by a discussion of what exactly, are Masonic offenses. There is, and can be, no strict definition. Infractions of the civil law are not necessarily Masonic offenses, while a very serious Masonic offense may not in any way violate the civil statutes. The conclusion of the discussion is a statement which has probably never been improved upon. "Whenever it shall be found that the acts of a Brother are clearly adverse to the principles or regulations of the Craft, or the rights or happiness of any of its members, it will be the duty of his Lodge to try him for those acts, although the offense involved was never described or known before on sea or land."

The respondent should be formally summoned. The offense, or offenses, should be clearly and accurately defined. The evidence should be strictly confined to the issue on trial and hearsay evidence should not be permitted. What immediately follows in the report applies to the then prevailing system of trial in and by the Lodge, and points out certain faults of the system. The examinations of witnesses should be conducted by managers or counsel appointed for that purpose. The members present should observe the proceeding with dignified silence and the course of the proceedings should never be interrupted by commentary. All present should vote on the question of guilt and the majority should decide the verdict.

In this case the respondent was duly served with a summons, and apparently that was the only regular thing in the whole course of the proceedings. The charge was "wronging and defrauding brother Master Masons." There were no specifications whatever. The trial itself appears to have been a free for all discussion of the respondent obviously colored by personal feeling. Fact, hearsay, and inference were hopelessly mixed in the admitted testimony. Anybody present was apparently permitted to say anything he wanted to say, relevant or irrelevant.

The mass of evidence boiled down to these charges (1) hiring and boarding a horse and not paying therefor, (2) not paying for the painting of a buggy, (3) not paying hired help after the accused had gone into bankruptcy. As to (1) the man from whom the teams were hired could not state positively that he had rendered a bill. The respondent denied that he had ever received one. As for (2) the painter said that he had twice asked for his money, but had not received it. As for (3) "the accused made an exculpatory explanation, stating matters as facts which were not contradicted." A verdict of guilty was brought in by a vote of 14 to 4. It was clear that not all present voted, and the Committee had serious doubts whether the fourteen who voted for conviction were an actual majority of those present. The sentence was suspension from the rights and privileges of Masonry.

Waiving all technicalities regarding the conduct of the trial, the Committee could not see that any Masonic offense had been committed. Failure to pay bills, and undergoing bankruptcy are not in themselves Masonic offenses, although there may be attendant circumstances which would make them such. The Committee found that the proceedings could not be sustained and that the respondent should be restored to the rights and privileges of Freemasonry. As the law then stood, this did not replace him in membership in North Star Lodge, but left him in the status of an unaffiliated Mason. It was such miscarriages of justice as this that caused the Grand Lodge a few years later to substitute trial by a Commission for trial in and by Lodges. It is interesting to note that North Star Lodge was one of the new Lodges, dating from 1864.

In 1869 the Grand Lodge of Louisiana sent to the other American Grand Lodges a protest against certain action of the Grand Orient of France. Louisiana Freemasonry was like of the rest of the United States. The Grand Lodge had entire and undivided authority over the Symbolic degrees. The Southern Southern Supreme Council had control of all the Scottish Rite Masonry in the state and entire harmony prevailed under its jurisdiction. In 1858 one James Foulhouze, who had received the thirty-third degree from the Grand Orient of France,undertook by his own authority to set up an independent Supreme Council for Louisiana. The Grand Lodge of Louisiana and the Southern Supreme Council promptly denounced the new body as spurious and expelled everybody who took part in it. The Grand Orient denounced the proceedings as illegal and commanded Foulhouze to desist. On his refusal the Grand Orient.expelled him from Freemasonry, stating In the bulletin announcing his expulsion that "the condemnation was complete."

This spurious body remained in oblivion until a bulletin issued by the Grand Orient of France in 1868 announced that it had reversed its action of 1858, recognized the Supreme Council of Louisiana, and decreed the establishment of relations with it. To make matters worse the Supreme Council of Louisiana claimed the right to erect Symbolic Lodges and actually did charter some. The membership of these Lodges, certainly of one of them, appears to have consisted largely of colored men.

Such proceedings could not be tolerated. Any attempt to compromise or condone the establishment of such a body not in the obedience of the Grand Lodge or of the Supreme Council would have been the entering of a wedge which would have disrupted the whole system of American Freemasonry by overthrowing the well established system of territorial Masonic soveriegnty and of the harmonious severance of the York and Scottish Rites, whereby the Grand Lodge claimed no authority beyond the Symbolic degrees and the Scottish Rite exercised no authority below its own fourth degree.

Why did the Grand Orient take such an extraordinary course? The answer is to be found in French politics. Governmental interference in Masonic affairs caused Prince Murat, Grand Master of the Grand Orient, to lay down his office. The Emperor Napoleon III, who was not a Mason, then put one of his generals, Marshal Magnan, in charge of the Grand Orient. The Marshal was not a Mason, but in order to obey the Emperor, who was quite ready to issue an edict dissolving the Grand Orient if he was not obeyed, and at the same time give Magnan some color of legitimacy, all thirty-three degrees were communicated to him in one day. Magnan died in 1865 and was succeeded, through a form of election, by General Mellinet, who was as much the Emperor's puppet as Magnan had been. Undoubtedly the action of the Grand Orient was dictated by that prince of international meddlers, the Emperor. In the first place by taking under his protection a body which by initiating ex-slaves violated the Ancient Landmarks that a Mason must be "free born," he posed as the champion of liberty and philanthropy. Indeed in his 1868 decree Grand Master Millinet asserts that the Grand Orient "was among the first Masonic powers to become propagandist" and that he "is desirous of encouraging the said Supreme Council in the philanthropical course on which it has entered." All of which shows conclusively that the soldier-courtier Grand Master did not know what it was all about anyway.

Napoleon would have particularly liked to make trouble for the United States. He had no love for us anyway. He would have been glad to intervene in the Civil "Tar if he had dared to without the co-operation of England and against the opposition of Russia. From 1863 to 1867 he had striven to get control of Mexico through his puppet Emperor Maximilian. His disastrous failure was due largely to the attitude of the United States. We were at" all times hostile to his enterprise and as soon as the Civil War was over we moved troops to the Mexican border and stood ready to enforce the Monroe Doctrine. All this makes clear the sudden interest of the Grand Orient in Foulhouze and his Masonic bastard.

The Louisiana protest was referred to a Committee consisting of Charles Levi Woodbury, Charles W. Moore, and Lucius R. Paige, all leaders in the Grand Lodge and all Active Members of the Northern Supreme Council. The Committee presented a long and elaborate report, covering pages in the proceedings. Upon their recommendation the Grand Lodge voted that the Supreme Council of Louisiana was absolutely spurious and no member of it could claim any Masonic rights or privileges. Grand Lodge declared that the Grand Lodge of Louisiana had been "wounded and ignored in her just and lawful prerogatives and relation?by the decree of the Grand Orient of France. With characteristic Massachusetts conservatism the Committee forbore to "recommend at this time the absolute discontinuance of intercourse with the Grand Orient because perceiving that the body to have been misled in some important particulars" (which the Committee had pointed out) "they cherish the hope that she will magnanimously disclaim the hostility towards Blue Masonry in the United States which her attitude evinces, and reconsider the step which has provoked the just embrage of the Masonic powers of the United States." The Grand Lodge did vote that no Massachusetts Mason could sit in a Lodge when any person claiming from the Supreme Council of Louisiana was present. The report was ordered communicated to all the Grand Lodges with which we were in relations. Most of the American Grand Lodges severed relations for the time being with the Grand Orient. The collapse of the Empire in 1870 brought a change in the control of French Masonry. The Supreme Council of Louisiana, left to itself In its own state continued a somewhat harmless existence working among the colored people.

As originally constituted the members of the Board of Directors were elected annually. This did not work well, as it did not provide any continuity of policy. Out of this state of affairs arose, in part,, the financial difficulties of the Grand Lodge. In June, 1864, the Directors were authorized and directed to erect a new Temple. At first the work advanced slowly, but substantial progress had been made in the second half of 1865. At the Annual Communication of 1865 the Board was materially changed and the new Board altered the plan of the old one in a way to add considerably to the expense of the building. These changes may have been, and probably were, desirable, but the fact that they were made showed the weakness of the system. At the September Quarterly of 1869 the Grand Constitutions were amended providing for the reorganization of the Board. The Grand Master was to be the Chairman ex officio. There were to be eight Directors chosen for two year terms, four to be elected each year. While this provided for removal of the membership from time to time, not more than half could be changed at any election and some continuity of policy was thus provided for. The arrangement then made is still in use.

A very unusual and interesting case came up at the December Quarterly of 1869. A petition was received from Blackstone River Lodge asking sympathy and any possible assistance for Benjamin Booth, one of their members who was lying in jail on Londonderry Island, under charge of murder. The petition warmly praised Booth for his excellent character, discretion, and self-control. The Committee to whom the petition was referred found the statements of the Lodge to be well founded and recommended "that the Grand Master be requested to transmit to the Grand Lodge of Ireland official copies of these evidences and request that body to make such use of them as shall best aid our Brother now in affliction in that country" and it was so voted. Booth was a native of Ireland. We know nothing about the circumstances of the alleged homicide. It is probable that he had gone to visit his native country and became involved in some of the more or less revolutionary disturbances which were then rife in that troubled land. The Grand Lodge of Ireland acknowledged the papers and replied that^under the peculiar circumstances of the case they could not interfere." It is pleasant to record that Booth came back to Massachusetts and died peacefully in 1897.

Grand Master Gardner's annual message for 1869 dealt largely with the financial situation. It included a copy of a circular of instructions which he had sent to all the District Deputy Grand Masters earlier in the year. These instructions were very detailed and show that the Grand Master had a thorough and detailed understanding of the situation in the Lodges and a well thought out constructive plan for dealing with every condition and every weakness, actual or prospective.

At the December Quarterly of 1868 a petition was presented to Grand Lodge signed by Lewis Hayden and others, all colored men asking that they "Be permitted to establish our claim to Masonic ritual (sic) by whatever means the Most Worshipful Grand Lodge may suggest." They based their claim on the old English Charter of African Lodge and the descent from that Lodge of the Prince Hall Grand Lodge and other colored Grand Lodges. All this has been fully discusses in an earlier chapter. It is to be noted that the petitioners did not ask that their Lodge be received into the Grand Lodge of Massachusetts. They asked for "equal Masonic manhood," that is to say, that their Lodges and Grand Lodges be recognized as regular, but independent, Masonic bodies. This, of course, would have involved the right of visiting and would have set aside the system of the territorial sovereignty of Grand Lodge. This petition was the direct and immediate result of the reconstruct«in legislation of President Johnson's administration. Slavery had been abolished. Citizenship and the franchise la I'd made the black man and white equal, at least in theory. The government had set up the Freedman's Bureau in the south to make this equality a fact as well as a theory. The black man naturally thought that it was a good time to get Masonic as well as political equality.

The petition was submitted to a Committee consisting of John T. Heard, G. Washington Warren, Bradford L. Wales, Isaac H. Wright, Charles W. Moore, Tracy P. Cheever, and Charles Levi Woodbury.

The Committee reported at the December Quarterly of 1869. After setting forth the petition in full the Committee found (1) the petitioners were colored men who were not members of Lodges under the jurisdiction of the Grand Lodge of Massachusetts nor of regular Lodges within the jurisdiction of any Grand Lodge recognized by it, but nevertheless claimed to be Masons, (2) the seventy-two signers claimed membership in three Lodges, but signed as individuals and not as authorized representatives of their Lodges, (5) the Charter of African Lodge appears to be authentic but the Committee has not inquired further concerning acts claimed to have been done under it, (4) that the petitioners include only a portion of those professing to act under authority derived from it; (5) "Lodges in this Commonwealth without sanction of this Grand Lodge are irregular and spurious and the members of them are of course denied Masonic intercourse with members of regular Lodges, and they and their members, Including the petitioners, are not recognized by the Craft", and (6) there are no rules and regulations, constitutional or other, which debar colored men from becoming members of Massachusetts Lodges by the usual process. The petitioners were given leave to withdraw.

The last point made by the Committee is certainly true. As a matter of fact, however, a colored man would hardly pass the ballot in any Massachusetts Lodge. There have been a few cases where it has happened, however. No further attempts were ever made to secure Masonic recognition by the colored Lodges in this jurisdiction. The Prince Hall Grand Lodge has gone on doing its own work in its own field and doing it very well. White Masonry cherishes no antagonism to it whatever. It cannot, however, be recognized as a regular Grand Lodge, for the reasons fully set forth elsewhere.

Up to this time it had been a somewhat common practice to give Lodges the names of living members of the Craft. A number of Brethren in Lawrence petitioned for "William Sewall Gardner" Lodge. Grand Master Gardner, believing that it was not good practice to name a Lodge for living persons, refused the Dispensation. It was later issued in blank and the name "Phoenician" adopted. This ended the practice referred to and has since been the unwritten law of this jurisdiction, never once violated, that no Lodge may be named for any living person.

The Committee appointed in accordance with the Grand Master's recommendation to examine into the state and disposition of the Grand Charity fund, made a long report on December 27, 1869. The gist of it was that when the last report on the fund was rendered in 1856 it amounted, at least on paper, to $75,497.68, but that at present the Committee did not know where it, or any part of it, was, unless it was in the Temple. The Committee expressed a pious hope that in time the Temple would be relieved of all liabilities and the net revenue thereof devoted to charitable purposes. The Charity Fund was indeed reestablished with all that belonged to it replaced, but not in quite the way contemplated by the Committee.

At the December Quarterly of 1869 an amendment to the Grand Constitutions was proposed which would discontinue the Quarterly Communications of the Grand Lodge and substitute therefor one Annual Communication. The Committee on the proposal reported rejection, on the ground that the limited area of the jurisdiction permitted easy attendance at the Quarterlies and with probably less inconvenience and expense than would be involved in an Annual Communication lasting several days. This consideration has gained in force with the improvement in the facilities for travel. The Committee also pointed out that the existing system provided for the frequent dissemination of information to the Craft and a better co-operation between the Grand Lodge and the Particular Lodges. The proposed amendment was rejected and has never been renewed. No one would now care to renew it.

The Masonic organization of Canada was still in process of formation, a process accompanied by considerable friction. In 1867 the Dominion of Canada came into existence. It then included Ontario (Upper Canada), Quebec, {Lower Canada),Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick. Previous to this action Ontario and Quebec had formed a single Masonic entity. The political division into two Provinces furnished the ground for the erection of two Grand Lodges. In 1868 some, a disputed proposition, of the Lodges in Quebec, undertook to set up a Grand Lodge independent of the old Grand Lodge of Canada, and asked recognition, the Grand Lodge of Canada protesting. There had been two similar previous attempts by minority parties, one to set up a Grand Lodge of Canada, and one to set up a Grand Lodge of Nova Scotia independent of the joint Masonic jurisdiction of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick. In both cases Massachusetts had refused recognition, holding that the action of the new Grand Lodges was premature. A substantial Masonic unity should first be secured by agreement of all parties concerned before a new sovereign Grand Lodge was set up. Any other course would result in divided allegiance with consequent Masonic confusion and discord. Massachusetts had so advised Nova Scotia and the result was the settlement of all difficulties and the recognition of the Grand Lodges of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick. Massachusetts took the same attitude with regard to the Quebec situation. She refused to intervene in any way until local difficulties had been adjusted and Masonic harmony achieved. This was done after no great time and Massachusetts has ever since been in the closest fraternal relations with the Grand Lodge of Canada in the Province, of Ontario and with the Grand Lodge of Quebec. It may be interesting to note in passing that two Lodges in Montreal and one in Halifax retained their allegiance to their Mother Grand Lodge of England and are still in her obedience.

At the June Quarterly, of 1870 the Grand Master reported that he had received certain questions from the Grand Master of the District of Columbia regarding the right of visiting and asking not only for answers to the questions as covered by the law of this jurisdiction,but for his present views on the matter.

This raised some interesting points. The right of a Master Mason to visit Lodges other than his own had been recognized from time immemorial. It is to be found in the Old Charges. Mackey calls it a Landmark. Pound, however, in his Masonic Jurisprudence, discusses the matter elaborately and concludes that it is not a Landmark, but a part of the Common Law of Masonry. Under what restriction, if any, this privilege might be exercised, had never been decided. An especial difficulty came in connection with the objection of a member of the Lodge visited to the admission of a visitor. Practice varied in different jurisdictions. The Grand Constitutions of Massachusetts were silent on the whole matter. There had been several decisions, but they were not entirely consistent.

Grand Master Gardner treated the matter in his address with his usual thoroughness end clarity. The matter was referred to a Committee consisting of Charles W. Moore, Charles C. Dame, and Charles Levi Woodbury. A more competent Committee could not have been selected. The Committee agreed in general with the Grand Master's conclusions, and summarized the matter in the following resolution, which was adopted by the Grand Lodge.

"Resolved: That it is the privilege of every affiliated Mason, in good and regular standing, to visit any Lodge, when not engaged in the transaction of private business; but it is also the right of a sitting member of the Lodge to object to the admission of a visitor, giving his reasons therefor*, if required by a majority vote of the members to do so; or, as the alternative, declaring upon his honor as a Mason, that his reasons are such that he cannot with propriety disclose them to the Lodge."

This resolution contained four important points, (1} the visitor must be an affiliated Master Mason, (2) he must present evidence of good standing, (3) he may not be admitted during the transaction of private business, and (4)the right of objection is recognized, but limited.

The Grand Lodge acted under this resolution until the general revision of the Grand Constitutions of 1918, when it was inserted as Section 501. It was modified in the revision of 1930, and now reads: "It is the privilege of every affiliated Mason, in good and regular standing, to visit any Lodge when not engaged in the transaction of private business unless objection is made by a sitting member of the Lodge to the admission of such visitor, in which event such visitor shall not be admitted during that meeting," The important change is a further-definition of the right cf objection. The old regulation submitting the reason for the objection to a vote of the Lodge or to a declaration upon honor that the reason could not be properly disclosed is abandoned as unworkable but the right of objection, which is unqualified, is made to apply to a single meeting only.

At the March Quarterly of 1870, Samuel Evans, then Junior Warden of Gate of the Temple Lodge, appealed from a ruling of the Master. It appeared that the Lodge had voted to issue dimits to several Brethren "when they were clear upon the books of the Lodge." (Lodges no longer vote dimits). It was also voted that the Secretary issue written dimits to the Brethren who had asked dimission. Evans in order to clarify the expression "clear upon the books" moved that it should be held to mean that they had paid their commutation of the capitulation tax ($9.00) as well as their Lodge dues. The Master ruled the motion out of order. Evans then moved that the vote as to dimits be reconsidered. The Master again ruled the motion out of order on the ground that another vote (that instructing the Secretary to issue written dimits) had intervened between the vote to issue the dimits and the vote to reconsider. The Committee to whom the appeal was referred sustained Evans, and found the Master in error.

Whether or not encouraged by bis success in this matter we do not know, but Evans soon flew for higher game. At the 18?0 Annual Communication he, being then Master of his Lodge, sent in the petition which follows:

To the M. W. Grand Lodge of the Most Ancient and Honorable Fraternity of Free and accepted Masons of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts:-

The undersigned, members of the Masonic Fraternity, in regular standing under the jurisdiction of the M. W. Grand Lodge of Massachusetts, respectfully represent to your honorable Body, that, in the opinion of many, there exist in the ritual and work of the Order, as at present recognized and sanctioned by this Grand Lodge, certain portions or features of a theological or sectarian character, contrary to the letter as well as to the spirit of Masonry, which tend to pervert the grand design of the Institution itself, by limiting its legitimate extension, and by circumscribing its usefulness.

They, therefore, petition the M. W. Grand Lodge to institute a thorough examination and investigation into the present ritual and work, and, also, into the usages and practices of Lodges, for the purpose of ascertaining whether that most important ancient landmark,- the universality of Freemasonry,- has been overthrown or disregarded; and if so, to order such corrections and alterations in the ritual and work as may be needed to restore them into accord with that landmark; to condemn and forbid whatever usages and practices may be found in conflict therewith; and to do whatever.else may be thought requisite to reestablish masonic universality in this jurisdiction, and to harmonize our Freemasonry with its professions.

Samuel Evans, and two hundred and twenty-nine others. Boston, November 14, A.L. 5870.

The petition was referred to a Committee of which Charles Levi Woodbury was Chairman. At the September Quarterly of 1871 the Committee submitted a report running to twenty-six pages of the printed proceedings. The report bears the ear-marks of Woodbury's style.

The petitioners were ably represented before the Committee. The allegation of violation of the Landmarks rested upon certain usages of the Craft and certain parts of the ritual, specifically, the use of the Bible in Lodges; the dedication of Lodges to St. John; the special invocation of Christ by Chaplains in their prayers; the presence of the upon certificates and in the Lodge: and that a sectarian explanation is given to the parallel lines.

The Committee calls attention to the fact that there are two schools of Masonic thought, one holding that Masonry drives its roots into a far distant past, the other refusing to go back of 1717.

"As a consequence of this theory of modern origin, some of its supporters draw, from the London Constitutions of 1721, a theory that true Masonry should banish not merely religious disputes from the Lodge, but all trace of religion in which by possibility men of all creeds of the world may not actually agree. In this light it has been represented to your Committee that usages, allusions, and symbols which can be connected in interpretation with any of the creeds of Christianity are sectarian, and ought to be extirpated from the Craft; but it has not been claimed that those which may be so connected with Jewish or Pagan creeds should also be extirpated; and no reason has been offered your Committee why Christianity alone should be discriminated against in the proposed reform."

Taking up in details the particular points specified, the Committee showed that no one of them was an innovation introduced by this Grand Lodge. They, with the possible exception of the Christian formula sometimes used by Chaplains in concluding their prayers, were integral parts of Masonry as it came to us. The most important point made by the Committee is the wide toleration of Masonry. If everything were removed from our ritual and symbolism which did not agree with the ideas, forms, and usages of some religious body there would be very little left, certainly nothing of a religious or spiritual nature. Masonry is essentially religious, but not dogmatically religious. In religion as in politics, a Masonic Lodge is a place where men of different opinions may unite on common principles. The ritual, symbols, and forms are not exclusive. There is no discrimination against any type of belief. Any elimination to meet individual views would be a discrimination against others whose beliefs were not the same. Toleration, brotherly love, is the heart of Masonry. The Committee recommended that the petitioners be given leave to withdraw and it was so voted.

It may be noted in passing that Evans appears to have soon lost his interest in Masonry and was suspended for non-payment of dues in 1877.

Two jurisdictional cases came up in 1870 which involved interesting precedents. In the first case King Solomon's Lodge, of Charlestown complained that St. Bernard's Lodge, of Southboro, had wrongfully accepted the application of an officer in the navy who resided in Charlestown, thereby violating its jurisdiction. The Committee to which the complaint was referred found that the practice prevailed to a considerable extent of conferring the degrees upon seafaring men without regard to residence and that the precedents were sufficiently numerous to justify St. Bernard's Lodge in its action, and therefore dismissed the complaint. The Committee thought that the same rules should apply to seafaring men as to others and that the Grand Lodge should adopt regulations which should prevent distinctions in the matter of jurisdiction based upon occupation, and that cases where the applicant could not claim Masonic residence should be referred to the District Deputy Grand Master. No definite action appears to have been taken, but the acceptance of the report terminated the loose practice with regard to seafaring men. In 1914 the present regulation was adopted which permits soldiers, sailors, or government employees to apply at Lodge located at their ports of call or stations without the necessary six months' previous residence.

The other case was even more important. Some years previously a certain man applied to Morning Star Lodge and was rejected. Early in the war he enlisted, was commissioned Captain and stationed at Harper's Ferry. In August, 1864, he received the degrees In a Virginian Lodge. He remained in Virginia in business for some time and then returned to Worcester and desired to affiliate with Montacute Lodge. That Lodge raised the question whether he was not a clandestine Mason, as he had been rejected by Morning Star Lodge and had received the degrees without its knowledge or consent. After an examination of the Grand Constitutions of Virginia as applicable to such cases the Committee found that the Virginia Lodge "in conferring the degrees upon Mr. ___ violated no Masonic law of the jurisdiction under which it is established, and it is clearly not amenable to any other." The Committee therefore found that ___ was fully entitled to be considered a regular Mason. In accepting this report the Grand Lodge of Massachusetts took a definite stand on the principle which seems quite unassailable that whatever is Masonically lawful where it is done should be recognized as lawful and regular everywhere else.

A large part of the Grand Master's address at the Annual Communication of 1870 was devoted to a consideration of the finances. The two mortgages of $150,000 had been consolidated by obtaining a loan of $300,000 on a new mortgage to the Provident Institute for Savings and discharging the old mortgages. The mortgage note bore interest at seven percent. Ten thousand dollars a year for five years was to be paid on the principal and the Grand Lodge might pay twenty thousand dollars in any one year if it so desired. In the preceding four years the debt had been reduced by nearly $60,000. There was a floating debt of $40,000 and it was proposed to consolidate this by borrowing that amount and taking up the outstanding obligations. This was done during the following year, so that the entire debt was in friendly hands where it could be dealt with without annoyance from possibly unfriendly creditors.

It will be remembered that when the capitation tax was levied in 1867 it was fixed at one dollar per member for thirteen years, chargeable upon the Lodges. The tax might be commuted by any member for a lump sum of ten dollars. It was voted in I869 that the commutation should be eight dollars for those initiated after the close of the fiscal year 1868 and this was later reduced to seven dollars. The privilege of commutation ended July 1, 1870 and was not extended.

In connection with the capitation tax a very unfortunate incident occurred, which might well have had serious consequences. R. W. John A. Lee, District Deputy for the Fourteenth Masonic District, reported that when he visited Star in the East Lodge in October 31, 1870, the returns showed that $513.00 was due the Grand Lodge. The money was not paid on the ground that the Lodge had made no appropriation to cover it. The Master answered R. W. Bro. Lee that the matter would be taken care of at the regular Lodge meeting on November 7. Lee, being a resident of New Bedford, decided to wait until after the meeting before taking any action. At the meeting the Lodge voted "that an amount equal to the amount of capitation tax, together with the usual dues for initiates and the annual fee, be appropriated for payment to the Grand Lodge." In transmitting an attested copy of this rote to the District Deputy, the Master expressed his deep regret at what had been done and at his inability to help it. The revolt had been led by the Senior Warden who was bitterly opposed to the tax and had succeeded in persuading a large number of the members that it was unlawful.

The District Deputy feared that unless promptly dealt with the rebellion of Star in the East Lodge would have serious consequences by spreading to other Lodges and seriously impeding the collecting of the tax. The District Deputy's report was laid before the Grand Lodge by Grand Master Gardner with the statement that in addition to the delinquency reported there were back dues for four years amounting to about $300.00 which the Lodge refused to pay. The Grand Master had been urged to exercise his prerogative and suspend the Charter of the Lodge but held his hand in the hope that the Lodge would see the error of its ways, but it had not clone so. He had thought it best to lay the whole matter before the Grand Lodge for its decision. He recommended, however, that the Charter of the Lodge be recalled.

The response of the Grand Lodge was immediate and emphatic. It voted unanimously: "That the Most Worshipful Grand Master be clothed with full power to deal with Star in the East Lodge, of New Bedford, in the most summary manner."

He did. Immediately on the passage of the vote the Grand Master called up the Grand Lodge and said: "By virtue of the power vested in me, and in the name and behalf of the Most Worshipful Grand Lodge of Massachusetts, I do now revoke and cancel the Charter of Star in the East Lodge, of New Bedford." The Grand Marshal then solemnly proclaimed the cancellation. The District Deputy was directed to take possession of the Charter, records, regalia, and all other property of the Lodge and immediately did so,. The Grand Secretary notified all the Lodges that the Charter had been canceled and that no Masonic intercourse could be held with the members of the dissolved Lodge.

This was a stunning blow to the New Bedford men. The cancellation took place at the Annual Communication, December 14. At the Stated Communication, December 28, the Grand Lodge received a petition from the Master and some of the members praying for the restoration of the Charter, which was referred to the Grand Master with full power. The petition, being very hastily prepared was not signed as generally as it should have been, and many of the former members were seriously disturbed by the fear that if the Charter were re-issued to the petitioners those who had not signed might find difficulty in getting back into the Lodge. By advice of the Grand Master the following clause was inserted in the petition: "The prayer of this petition being granted, we promise strict obedience to the commands of the Grand Master, the laws, regulations and enactments of the Grand Lodge, and to use our best endeavors for the harmony, peace and welfare of our Lodge." Only three of the members refused to rolls of the Lodge on December 14 except the three recalcitrants, who were excepted by name. The Senior Warden who so valiantly led the revolt was not one of these. So ended the first and last attempt of any Lodge to defy the Grand Lodge of Massachusetts.

At the Annual Meeting of December 14, 1870, an amendment was proposed by our acquaintance Samuel Evans, to provide that the acceptance of an application for the degrees should carry with it the right to sign the by-laws and become a member without further charge or ballot. The proposal failed, perhaps another reason for Evans' loss of interest. Such a provision was, however, included in the Grand Constitutions in 1894, and is now the law of this jurisdiction.

Grand Master Gardner was unanimously re-elected.

At the March Quarterly of 1871 a petition for a Charter was received from Aconcagua Lodge, of Valparaiso, Chile, which was acting under a Dispensation issued in 1869. In the meantime the Grand Master of Chile had lodged a protest with the Grand Lodge of Massachusetts, claiming invasion of territory and declaring that Chile could not recognize the new Lodge if it was chartered. Petition and protest were referred to Charles W. Moore, Charles Levi Woodbury, and Lucius R. Paige. The Committee had evidently been forewarned and had given the matter careful consideration, as they submitted before the close of the Communication a full and comprehensive report which was accepted. They recommended that a Charter be issued. They disposed of the protest by recalling the circumstances under which recognition had been extended to the Grand Lodge of Chile on the mutual understanding that the Scottish Rite and the York Rite were equal but independent. Each in its own fashion conferred the Symbolic Degrees. Neither claimed territorial sovereignty over, or against the other. The Grand Lodge of Massachusetts recognized the authority of the Chilean Grand Master as supreme in the Scottish Rite, but could neither acknowledge his authority over York Rite Lodges nor admit that they invaded his sovereignty. There is no record of any reply from Chile, although she was informed of the action of this Grand Lodge and was sent a copy of the report. Chile did not pursue the matter further. Aconcagua Lodge was duly constituted, associated fraternally with its Chilean Brethren and the harmony between the two Grand Lodges was not disturbed. Aconcagua Lodge was not very long lived, but Massachusetts later chartered other Lodges in Chile, two dating respectively 1876 and 1884, are now in existence. In 1889, by treaty with the newly erected Supreme Council of Chile the Grand Lodge of Chile obtained entire independence and absolute control over Symbolic Masonry. Since that time Massachusetts has chartered no new Lodges in Chile, but has retained then existing ones on her roster.

In his address at the March Quarterly of 18?1 Grand Master Gardner said that an attempt had been made to organize in Massachusetts an order of what is termed "Female Masonry" under the designation of the 'Eastern Star'. He goes on to say, very properly, that it is not a branch of Masonry and has no connection with it in form, symbol, dogma, or doctrine. He denounced it unsparingly and forbade the use of Lodge-rooms for its meetings. In spite of this opposition the Order established itself in Massachusetts and a Grand Chapter was formed in 1876. Time brought about a better understanding of its nature, aims, and work, and a recognition of the fact that while certain Masonic connections are requisite for membership it lays no claims whatever to any Masonic character. Its possibilities of usefulness are now fully recognized and in many places realized. There are unquestionable possibilities of mischief in it, but thanks to wise leadership and the general good sense of the members these possibilities have not been realized to any appreciable extent in this state.

At the June Quarterly of 1871 Grand Master Gardner reported some correspondence with the Grand Lodge of South Carolina which had circularized the Grand Lodge of the United States with regard to the question of the physical disability of candidates. In it he gave his personal views, which were later endorsed by the Grand Lodge. After quoting the Grand Constitutions: "If the physical deformity of any applicant for the degrees does not amount to an inability to meet the requirements of the ritual and honestly acquire the means of subsistence, it shall constitute no hindrance to his initiation," he goes on to say:

"I have never received application for a dispensation to confer the degrees upon a candidate, notwithstanding the above provision, and I know of no such precedence in the history of our Grand Lodge. . . I have had several cases of maimed candidates brought to my attention during my administration. In each case I have referred the Brethren to the provision in our Constitutions, and stated to them that I could not officially pass upon the question whether the deformity amounted to an inability to meet the requirements of the ritual, and honestly to acquire the means of subsistence and that the W. Master and his Lodge must determine this question. But I have invariably instructed them that the Constitution should be construed in the most liberal and broadest manner; that the phrase, does not amount to inability was not answered by anything short of an absolute inability, and that it did not comprehend a compliance with the ritual in an awkward and difficult manner; that, in cases where the deformity was overcome by artificial means, so that by such artificial means the deformity does not amount to an inability, then it constitutes no hindrance to initiation. Our Constitution has relaxed the ancient regulation to such an extent that I have felt it to be my duty to construe it in the manner Indicated in order to carry out its true meaning and intent."

The regulation as quoted is still the law of this Jurisdiction. Grand Master Gardner's practice in requiring the Masters and their Lodges to pass upon the actual question of disability is still followed, and his construction of the law has never been modified. No Grand Master has ever issued a dispensation on this point.

Another section of the same report definitely fixed the attitude of the Grand Lodge on the matter of "making Masons at sight," upon which as has been noted, there had been some vacillation of opinion. The matter had come up on a question from the Grand Lodge of Nevada, and Grand Master Gardner had laid the correspondence before the Grand Lodge. The conclusion formed is thus stated:

"It (making at sight) calls into exercise the extreme power of the Grand Master, who undoubtedly may, by virtue of the ancient prerogatives of his office, make or order to be made in his presence and in a regular Lodge, regularly summoned, and for a specific and emergent purpose, a Mason at sight, dispensing with the previous proposition and due inquiry; he assuming the entire responsibility of the act."

The Mason so made remains unaffiliated until some Lodge accepts his petition for affiliation. There are only two cases on record in Massachusetts, one in the First Lodge in Boston in 1757, and one in Columbian Lodge in 1823. The second is not recorded in the Grand Lodge proceedings but is fully described in the History of Columbian Lodge. The Grand Master*s right in the matter is clearly affirmed: any exercise of it is of very doubtful probability.

On April 8, 1871, Solon Thornton resigned as Recording Grand Secretary. Grand Master Gardner made an interim appointment of Charles H. Titus and at the June Quarterly R. W. Bro. Titus was elected to the office which he held until his death in I878.

Bro. Titus was born in Monmouth, then Massachusetts, now Maine, April 11, 1819. After a youth passed in comparatively narrow circumstances but in an intellectual atmosphere and largely occupied with a struggle for education, he entered the Methodist ministry, and was engaged in ministerial work at Taunton when appointed. He was early interested in Masonry, but the conditions of his life as an itinerant Methodist preacher prevented his joining the Fraternity until 1858, when he became a member of King David*s Lodge, which he served as Master in 1867. He was appointed Grand Chaplain in 1869 and served until he became Recording Grand Secretary, His devotion to Masonry was deep and strong and he held many high offices, including that of Grand Commander of the Grand Encampment (as it was then called) of Massachusetts and Rhode Island.

A Committee report submitted at the June Quarterly of 1871 throws an interesting light on one of the many loose joints in the Grand Lodge machinery which the Gardner administration was busily engaged in tightening up. The Grand Master had called attention to the apparent improprieties which existed in the representation of Lodges in the Grand Lodge. The Committee found that persons had been signing the register who could not be identified as officers or even members of the Lodges they claimed to represent. Although the law of Proxies was perfectly clear it was being ignored in the most care-free manner imaginable. Proxies were not furnished with commissions and officers of Lodges were freely issuing individual proxies to Brethren to sit and act for them in Grand Lodge. Effective measures were promptly taken to amend conditions in this regard.

In 1871 Earl de Grey and Ripon (afterward Marquis of Ripon, by which name he Is better known), Grand Master of England, visited the United States on a diplomatic mission. An invitation was extended to him to visit Boston and accept Masonic hospitality. This he was unable to do, but a Masonic reception and banquet was given him in Washington by the Grand Lodge of the District of Columbia. Grand Master Gardner was unable to accept an invitation to attend, but he especially deputed John T. Heard to represent him. The affair itself was a very brilliant and successful one. Ripon was Grand Master from 1870 to 1874. In the latter year he joined the Catholic Church and resigned the Grand Mastership. He was succeeded by Albert Edward, Prince of Wales, who held the office until he ascended the throne as Edward VII in 1901.

The fall of 1871 saw two memorable corner stone layings. On September 18 the Grand Lodge laid the corner-stone of the Soldiers and Sailors monument on Boston Common. The Grand Lodge was escorted by a procession, mainly military, of about five thousand.

On October 16, the Grand Lodge laid the corner-stone of the Post Office in Boston, in the presence of President Grant and a large number of Federal and State officers. There was a long and imposing procession in which various military and civic bodies acted as escort to the Masonic Lodges, who were especially escorted by the Knights Templar of the jurisdiction. In the evening the members of the Grand Lodge were received very graciously by President Grant at his hotel. The President, by the way, was not a Mason.

At the Annual Communication Grand Master Gardner read a part of a letter which he had received from the eminent Masonic historian J. G. Findel, of Leipzig, Saxony. In this astonishing letter Findel took the position that the doctrine of the territorial sovereignty of Grand Lodges was untenable, that the Prince Hall Grand Lodge was as regular as the Grand Lodge of Massachusetts, and that in the very near future it was likely to be generally recognized by European Grand Lodges. He thought each state ought to have two or three Grand Lodges. The most that can be said for Findel is that he was a German, and the German Masons never did accept the principle of the territorial sovereignty of Grand Lodges. Grand Master Gardner's comment was sharp and unmistakeable. The American Grand Lodges were a unit on the point in question. They had no desire whatever to force their views and practice upon other people, but they fully intended to make tgteir own laws and live by them and would not tolerate the invasion of their rights by foreign Masonic powers. The unity of Freemasonry was devoutly to tee wished, but there might be a price too high to pay for it. Freemasonry had a "Monroe Doctrine" of its own. American Freemasonry was quite capable of successful existence without European recognition. His closing sentence has the crack of a whiplash. "Let us hope that our German Brethren will carefully consider the results before they take the contemplated step." Doubtless Grand Master Gardner was giving a summary of what he had already written to Findel. The Germans did "carefully consider" and the step was never taken.

The reports showed that the financial condition of the Grand Lodge was sound. The year closed with a balance of $15,000 on current account. There was still a heavy debt, $326,535, but it was so arranged that it was being easily carried. The three years of Grand Master Gardner's administration had seen a reduction of a little more than $50,000, over $14,000 of the reduction coming in the last year.

The Recording Grand Secretaryship had been made a full time position with a living salary of $2,500.00 (comfortable for that time) attached to it. Previously the Recording Grand Secretary had given but a part of his time. The salary was nominally $500.00, but there were certain fees attached to the office, and certain office work was paid for separately. Both fees and outside payments were abolished so that the actual increase in the cost of the office to the Grand Lodge was comparatively slight. These arrangements were entirely satisfactory to the new Recording Grand Secretary.

Disaster had befallen the Brethren in other states, and the Massachusetts Brethren willingly contributed to their assistance. The greet fire of Chicago had caused distress to many Masons and there had been minor calamities in Michigan and Wisconsin. Massachusetts sent $4,600 to Chicago, $400.00 to Michigan and $200.00 to Wisconsin. Of these sums $1,000.00 was a Grand Lodge appropriation while the rest was raised by contributions.

In retiring from the Chair Grand Master Gardner summarized the achievements of a truly great administration. He said:

"When, in 1868, I was called upon to assume this place, the affairs of the Grand Lodge were in an uncertain state. A large and unwieldy debt dispirited the Craft, a taxation imposed by stern necessity irritated many of the Brethren. The Grand Lodge was looked upon as a distant, powerful monopoly by the Lodges and their members, with the transaction/of which they were ignorant, and in the conduct of whose affairs they believed themselves to have no part. A feeling of uneasy discontent, of actual antagonism toward the Grand Lodge prevailed to a greater extent than many are now aware."

He then referred to the District Deputy Grand Masters and their co-operation. He had laid all the work and all the responsibility upon them which the Grand Constitutions permitted. They had been enjoined to enforce upon the Masters and Wardens the duty of attending the Grand Lodge and always, at all times and in all places, to endeavor by kind and conciliatory manner to bring about pleasant relations between the Grand Officers and all the Brethren. In all this they had been eminently successful.

He paid a warm tribute to the members of the Board of Directors, which we have seen reorganized in 1869. The difficult financial affairs of the Grand Lodge had been handled by them with skill and personal devotion. The Finance Committee of the Board consisted of Sereno D. Nickerson, Percival F. Everett, and Samuel C. Lawrence, all future Grand Masters. The troublesome element was a floating debt, money borrowed on short time notes which were frequently falling due and for meeting which there was no provision. The members of the Finance Committee used their personal fortunes to such effect that although at times financial conditions were such that money could not be had in the market at any price, payments were always made when due. At times the Grand Lodge owed Sereno D. Nickerson over $60,000, for which only a simple memorandum of the Grand Treasurer was given. Other members had freely complied when asked for $10,000 or $15,000. William Sutton, Senior Grand Warden in 1866, had personally guaranteed certain payments called for by the mortgage note, and at times the Grand Lodge indebtedness to him amounted to $40,000. The state in which Grand Master Gardner*s administration left the finances has already "been shown.

In his valedictory Grand Master Gardner might well have repeated the saying of Augustus "I found Rome brick and left it marble." It is not too much to say that William Sewell Gardner rebuilt the Grand Lodge. He not only stated the results, but he admirably summarized the process.

"Notwithstanding the discouragements under which this administration was inaugurated in 1869, no administration of the Grand Lodge within my memory has received more encouragement from the Craft at large, or been in closer sympathy with the Brethren than this, the reason for it is obvious; You, the Masters and Wardens of the Lodges, have been confided in. All the affairs of the Grand Lodge, every department, every transaction, have been laid before you for your inspection and examination; not a step has been taken without consulting you, and giving you every opportunity to object and oppose. Your advice has been taken and followed. You, Masters and Wardens, have been recognized as the Grand Lodge of Massachusetts. Nothing has been done by the Grand Officers secretly or in the dark. No rights have been disregarded intentionally; no Brother has gone away from our doors unheard; not a dollar has been expended which has not been placed upon the record, so that you could examine it. This confidence has begotten confidence, and thus the Grand Lodge and its officers have been brought into close sympathy with all the Craft."

The work which Grand Master Gardner did has endured. Grand Master Gardner was particularly fortunate in his colleagues. To name only a few here were Winslow Lewis, John T. Heard, Charles W.Moore, Tracy P. Cheever, Charles Levi Woodbury, John McClellan, Samuel C. and Daniel W. Lawrence, Henry Endicott, Percival L. Everett, William Sutton, and Lucius R. Paige. There were many others almost equally outstanding. Truly "there were giants in those days."


Main Page