Difference between revisions of "BethesdaV"

Revision as of 17:44, 23 November 2012

BETHESDA LODGE (VALPARAISO)

Location: Valparaiso, Chile

Chartered By: George M. Randall

Charter Date: 12/14/1854 V-534

Precedence Date: 08/27/1853

Current Status: unknown

NOTES

In the committee report on Grand Master William Sewall Gardner's address, presented in September 1869, a description of this lodge's activities is described (Page VII-376). The lodge is "well ordered and prosperous" as of this date, with "nominally about one hundred members." By direction of the Grand Master, the lodge is excused from the capitation tax, since "the maintenance of Lodges in foreign countries . . . is necessarily attended with expenses which are not demanded of Lodges in the immediate vicinity."

REPORT ON AMERICAN LODGES IN VALPARAISO

From Moore's Freemason's Monthly, Vol. XIII, No. 11, September 1854, Page 321:

In the report of the Grand Secretary of the Grand Lodge of California, submitted at the' annual communication of that body in May last, we find the following statement:—

Pacific Lodge, at Valparaiso, returned her Dispensation, with a statement that they have dissolved the Lodge, not being able to work to their satisfaction, or the satisfaction of others, and preferred to give up their Dispensation rather than do wrong. This, if so, would be commendable ; but the Grand Secretary has been informed by a Brother, who was in the Lodge at the time of its agreement to dissolve, that the reasons they set forth are not true; but on the contrary the Lodge has not dissolved, but received a Dispensation from Massachusetts, and under which they are now working, and that he remonstrated with the Lodge against such ac¬ tion, for which they had no good reason, and no reason at all, except their dues to the Grand Lodge would be less, and they could give the degrees for a less sum than thirtyfive dollars, as required by our Constitution. If the above statement be correct, the Lodge has acted in bad faith towards this Grand Lodge, and deserves to be deprived of any authority under which to hold a Lodge, until such time as she makes full reparation to this Grand Lodge ; and we trust the Grand Lodge of Massachusetts will revoke their Dispensation. If the Lodge be dissolved, all her jewels, furniture, books, clothing, and property whatsoever, revert to this Grand Lodge, which she of right should claim. Much pains was taken to forward to this Lodge every thing requisite for her guidance, and duplicate copies of papers and books were sent, with all the instructions necessary, and all asked for. They have not sent up their books, (nor a transcript) and no report sufficiently explicit to ascertain what amount is due the Grand Lodge up to the day of her dissolution. Though if she persist in dissolving, all she may have, as above stated, belongs to this Grand Lodge.

On this statement the Grand Lodge adopted the following resolution :—

Resolved, That this Grand Lodge solicit the Grand Lodge of Massachusetts to instruct Pacific Lodge, at Valparaiso, to comply with onr Constitution, touching its dissolving its allegiance to this Grand Lodge.

It is to be regretted that this matter, in its present crude and indefinite form, should hare been brought so prominently into the proceedings of the Grand Lodge of California. It is possible, in view of the above statement, that there has been something, if not positively wrong, not altogether strictly regular, in the proceedings of some of our Brethren at Valparaiso, in their efforts to establish an American Lodge in that city. But it is also possible that the Brother, from whom the information given by the Grand Secretary is derived, may have been mistaken, or not precisely informed, as to the ac-tual reasons and considerations which led to the dissolution of Pacific Lodge and the surrender of its Dispensation. The informant is quite po¬ sitive in his statements, and there can be no doubt that he has represented the facts fairly and impartially, according to his understanding of them. But, as suggested, it is possible that he may have been mistaken; and the benefit of this doubt, we think, should have been given to the Brethren at Valparaiso.

The statement of our Brother the Grand Secretary, was designed for the information of his Grand Lodge; and it furnished a sufficient basis for the appointment of a committee of inquiry. But, we respectfully submit, that it was hardly sufficient to authorize any further or more decisive action on the part of his Grand Lodge. We think that body had not before it the necessary information to enable it to act with a full and clear appreciation of the true condition of the case. And we are more fully impressed with the opinion, that the facts disclosed, are not such as to authorize the G. Lodge of Massachusetts to comply with the request contained in the resolution subsequently adopted. The resolution is predica¬ ted on an ex parte and verbal statement, the whole character of which is liable to be changed or materially modified by the explanations of the parties implicated. These explanations should have been sought through a committee of inquiry, and presented to the Grand Lodge in a definite and reliable form. A proper basis of action would then have been established ; a resolution to meet the precise character of the case could have been framed ; and whatever might have been its import, it would have carried with it the authority which ascertained facts always give to opinions. Any proper request, predicated on such a basis, emanating from the Grand Lodge of California, or from any other of its sister Grand Lodges, we are certain will ever receive from the Grand Lodge of Massachusetts, the respectful consideration to which it is entitled. But with no other information than that afforded by the report of the Grand Secre¬ tary of California, it is difficult to conceive how the Grand Lodge of this Commonwealth, is to comply with the terms of the resolution.

And this embarrassment is greatly increased by the fact, that it has never, nor has its Grand Master, issued any Dispensation for the organization of a Lodge at Valparaiso, under the name of Pacific Lodge. If there be such a Lodge at Valparaiso, it is as wholly independent of the Grand Lodge of Massachusetts, as any subordinate Lodge in the State of California; and there would be the same impropriety in its assuming to instruct that Lodge in its duties, as there would be in its assuming to control the action of California Lodge, No. 1, at San Francisco. Our Brethren of the Grand Lodge of California will perceive from this, that their proceedings were premature, and that they have made a request of the Grand Lodge of Massachusetts with which that body cannot comply, as the case now stands. They evidently had not the requisite information in possession to enable them to act intelligently, and to arrive at just conclusions. This has naturally led to embarrassment; and, it may be, caused them, though unintentionally, to do injustice to the motives of the parties implicated. It may appear in the end, that the true reasons for the dissolution of the Lodge in question, are those assigned by the Brethren surrendering the Dispensation. We are the more inclined to entertain this opinion, because we cannot think that the mere matter of difference in the fees, would be such a consideration, with the respectable Brethren constituting the Lodge, as to induce them to do an act which, by any possibility, could be construed as dishonorable to themselves as Masons, or disrespectful to their Grand Lodge. And this opinion is strengthened by the fact, that the American Lodge, now in operation there, has fixed the fee for the three degrees conferred, at about fiftytwo dollars. It would seem there¬ fore to have been wholly immaterial, so far as Pacific Lodge was inter¬ ested in the matter, whether the minimum fee of its parent Grand Lodge, was twenty or thirtyfive dollars. This reason then, we think, falls to the ground. (Fifiy dollars is probably as low as the degrees can there be given.) The only other reason assigned, is of hardly more force.

It is proper to state, that there is a Lodge at Valparaiso, working under a Dispensation from Massachusetts. It was granted on a petition bearing date May 1st, 1853, to nine Brethren residing in that city. One of the petitioners hails from California. The other eight are from the Atlantic States. The Dispensation bears date August 27th, 1853, and authorizes the petitioners to organize under the name of Bethesda Lodge. They did so organize and made their report to the proper authority. At the date of the petition, it was understood that there was no American Lodge in the place; and this was doubtless true; though we have reason to believe that a petition had previously been forwarded, by other parties, for the Dispensation from California, under which Pacific Lodge was subsequently organized. But however this may be, Bethesda Lodge was immediately organized on the receipt of its Dispensation, and has continued in an active and highly prosperous condition to the present time. If it has ever had any other connection with Pacific Lodge, than that of fraternal intercourse, or if there has been anything like a fusion of the two bodies, the fact has not come to the knowledge of the Masonic authorities of Massachusetts. Indeed, no such fusion could lawfully take place. The Grand Lodge of this Commonwealth does not recognize the right of a Lodge, working under Dispensation, to admit members, or to change its appointed officers. It holds the petitioners alone responsible for the acts done under the authority of the Dispensation. When the Charter has been granted, and the Lodge constituted and registered, as such, in Grand Lodge, the petitioners are authorized to admit members, elect and instal their officers, and do all such other matters and things as pertain to complete and perfect Lodges; not before. The members of Pacific Lodge could not therefore affiliate with Bethesda Lodge, or hold any other relation to it than that of visiting Brethren. This would hardly seem to be a sufficient motive to induce them to dissolve their own existing organization, if they were in a condition to sustain it, and " to work to their own satisfaction, or the sat¬ isfaction of others." This they say they were not able to do ; and being unwilling to " do wrong," voted to "give up their Dispensation."

It is probably true that a discussion took place in Pacific Lodge on the evening of its dissolution, in which the Massachusetts Dispensation was referred to. It would be singular if the fact were otherwise. But it can hardly be true, as stated on the authority of the Brother " who was in the Lodge at the time," that the reason for the dissolution was, that the Brethren composing the Lodge, had "received a Dispensation from Massachusetts"; unless, indeed, it be assumed that the petitioners for Pacific Lodge were identical with the petitioners for Bethesda Lodge. Of this we have no evidence ; and in the absence of such evidence it is difficult to conceive of any satisfactory motive for such a proceeding. We have the fact, that when the petition for Bethesda Lodge was sent forward, Pacific Lodge had not been organized, nor was there an American Lodge at Valparaiso. We are also credibly assured, that a petition had previously been forwarded to California for the establishment of Pacific Lodge. But that the petitioners in both cases were the same Brethren, nowhere appears. On the contrary, we have before us the names of seven of the most prominent and active Brethren of Pacific Lodge, neither of whom signed the petition for Bethesda Lodge. This could hardly be so, if the petitioners for both were identical. We think therefore, (in the absence of all positive information on this point,) the most probable theory is, that the petitioners were distinct classes of Brethren ; and that, acting without consultation, and independently of each other, they bad incau" tiously been led to apply to different sources for authority to establish two Lodges where but one was required. This error, as might have been expected, probably soon manifested itself ; and the Master of Pacific Lodge, on whom, we are informed, the ritual-duties of the Lodge mainly devolved, having left for California, the Brethren found themselves unable to do the work of the Lodge to their own satisfaction, or that of their visiting Brethren. Under these circumstances, and being unwilling, as they say, "to do wrong,"—that is, to do the work in an ineffective and improper manner,—they at once resolved to surrender their Dispensation and unite with Bethesda Lodge. This we think the most probable theory, if not the exact state of the case.

Such are the facts as they have come to our knowledge. We give them for the information of our Brethren of the Grand Lodge of California, and in the hope that they may aid them in their future inquiries. We can entertain no doubt that the Grand Lodge of Massachusetts will be most happy to comply with the request of her sister, whenever it shall become manifest that it is her duty, and that she can do so with a proper regard for the just rights of those who have a parental claim upon her. She will countenance no deception or irregularity in any Lodge or Brethren under her authority.

HISTORICAL ACCOUNT FROM CALIFORNIA

Reported in the http://www.calodges.org/no442/AmityLodge/TB/tb2011/tb2011-09.pdf Trestleboard of Amity Lodge #442], California jurisdiction, September 2011:

In 1853, Grand Lodge of California had its first experience in authorizing the establishment of a Lodge in a foreign country that did not subsequently become United States territory. The result of this experience can best be told in the words of the late Grand Secretary John Whicher who gathered the facts on it from the Grand Lodge Proceedings of the day:

On May 5, 1853, a dispensation was issued for the formation of Pacific Lodge at Valparaiso, Chile. The history of this dispensation is interesting. At the annual communication in May, 1854, the Grand Secretary reported that Pacific Lodge, at Valparaiso, has returned its dispensation, with a statement that they have dissolved the Lodge, not being able to work to their satisfaction or the satisfaction of others, and preferring to give up their dispensation rather than do wrong. This, if so, would be commendable; but the Grand Secretary has been informed by a brother who was in the Lodge at the time of its agreement to dissolve, that the reason they set forth are not true; that the Lodge has not dissolved, but has received a dispensation from Massachusetts, under which they are now working; and that he remonstrated with the Lodge against such action, for which they had no good reason, indeed no reason at all except that their dues to the Grand Lodge would be less, and they could give the degrees for a less sum than thirty-fi ve dollars, as required by our Constitution. If the above statement be correct, the Lodge has acted in bad faith towards this Grand Lodge and deserves to be deprived of any authority under which to hold a Lodge until such time as it makes full reparation to this Grand Lodge, and we trust the Grand Lodge of Massachusetts will revoke its dispensation.

Thereupon the Grand Lodge of California adopted the following resolution:

Resolved, That this Grand Lodge solicit the Grand Lodge of Massachusetts to instruct Pacific Lodge at Valparaiso to comply with our Constitution touching the dissolution to its allegiance to this Grand Lodge.

The situation seems to have been explained by Massachusetts, for we find in the Proceedings of that jurisdiction for Wednesday evening, December 13, 1853, the following:

A transcript of the proceedings of Bethesda Lodge, working under dispensation at Valparaiso, South America, together with a copy of its bylaws and a petition for a charter, were received and referred to a committee, which reported that "the committee on the application of Edward W. Sartori and others for a Lodge to be called Bethesda Lodge in Valparaiso, Chile, have attended to the duty assigned them, and ask leave to report:

That in consequence of the somewhat peculiar circumstances of this case, it becomes necessary to make a short statement thereof, that the Grand Lodge may fully understand it in all its bearings.

In July or August of 1852, a number of brethren at Valparaiso, some of whom received the degrees in this vicinity and are well known here, transmitted a petition to the Grand Lodge of California, praying for a dispensation to constitute a Lodge under the name of Pacific Lodge.

They waited until May, 1853, when receiving no answer to their petition, they lost all hope of any, and accordingly petitioned this Grand Lodge for a charter under the name of Bethesda Lodge. The petition was duly received, and the Grand Master, fi nding that some of the applicants were well known to be men of standing and character, issued a dispensation, dated August 27, 1853, to Edward W. Sartori and others for a Lodge as prayed for. In June of that year the steamer Quito was wrecked on her passage from St. Francisco to Valparaiso, and in July the brethren there received their dispensation, found floating near the beach where the Quito was wrecked, giving them authority from the Grand Lodge of California to constitute Pacific Lodge, which was accordingly done on the 26th of July, a few days after receiving the dispensation.

They worked under that authority till December of that year, when on making up their accounts, they found it impossible to proceed any longer under that authority, as they were getting deeper and deeper in debt every day. They then decided to give up their dispensation from California, and wrote to the Grand Master of that Grand Lodge, informing him thereof, returning the dispensation and sending sufficient money to pay all dues.

The dispensation from this Grand Lodge for Bethesda Lodge was received December 14, 1853, when the brethren held a meeting and voted unanimously to accept the same. . . . The unfortunate complication of affairs arising from their double application to the Grand Lodge of California and to us, is the only feature of the case requiring explanation, and its aspects appear to your committee as follows:

They made application to the Grand Lodge of California for a Lodge under the name of Pacific Lodge; waiting some months in vain for an answer they then made application to us for a Lodge under the name of Bethesda Lodge. The dispensation from California having been accidentally delayed, arrived before ours, and they organized under it, but found they could not sustain their Lodge, and returned it, paying all dues, and then reorganized with a different name under ours. The only question is, had they a right under the circumstances to dissolve their Lodge, and then to reorganize under a different authority, and with another name? Your committee, after consulting competent Masonic authority, have concluded that they had that right; since there being no Grand Lodge in Chile, they necessarily worked under a foreign authority, and we see no reason to doubt that it was competent for them, fi nding it impossible to succeed under the regulations of one foreign authority, viz.: the Grand Lodge of California, and having decided to relinquish their organization under the same, then to accept and work under a dispensation from another foreign authority, viz., the Grand Lodge of Massachusetts, first paying all dues and regularly returning then dispensation to the Grand Lodge of California. Under these circumstances, your committee recommend that a charter be issued as prayed for.

The recommendation was adopted.

At the annual communication of the Grand Lodge of California, May 6, 1856, Alex. G. Abell, who had succeeded Levi Stowell as Grand Secretary, reported that:Upon entering on the duties of this office, the present incumbent found several communications from Bro. C. T. Ward, Jr., the former Secretary of the late Pacific Lodge U. D. at Valparaiso, Chile, in which he complained of the harsh proceedings of this body, at its session of 1854, in reference to that Lodge. Believing from the representations made in those letters, that injustice might possibly have been done under a wrong impression relative to the conduct of Pacifi c Lodge, the undersigned wrote to Brother Ward that if he would send a full statement of those matters wherein he thought the brethren at Valparaiso had been aggrieved, it would afford him much pleasure to lay the subject before the Grand Lodge, and to lend his assistance for the redress of any injury which might have been committed. Several papers were transmitted in reply to this communication, and they are now all presented for the consideration of the Grand Lodge.

At the same communication the Committee on Grievances, to whom the correspondence had been referred, made a full report, which was adopted, as follows:

We find that at the session of the Grand Lodge in 1853, a dispensation was granted to certain brethren at Valparaiso, Chile, to open a Lodge to be called Pacific Lodge. No further mention of this Lodge appears upon the proceedings of the Grand Lodge, until the session of 1854, when we find a report from the then Grand Secretary, our lamented brother, Levi Stowell, commenting in rather severe and harsh terms upon the action of said Lodge, in having returned her dispensation, dissolved the Lodge, and taken a new dispensation from the Grand Lodge of Massachusetts, alleging, also, that said Lodge had acted in bad faith towards this Grand Lodge, and hoping that the Grand Lodge of Massachusetts would revoke their dispensation; and requiring that the jewels, furniture, etc., etc., of that Lodge should be forwarded to this Grand Lodge.

On the presentation of this report, the Grand Lodge adopted a resolution soliciting the Grand Lodge of Massachusetts for a similar instrument. The dispensation from this Grand Lodge, however, reached them first, and a Lodge was instituted under it; subsequently difficulties having arisen in the Lodge, and another dispensation having reached the applicants from the Grand Lodge of Massachusetts, more liberal in its terms and giving greater facilities to the members of the Lodge, the brethren, several of whom hailed previously from that jurisdiction, and who were familiar with its work and ritual, decided to relinquish the dispensation held by them from this Grand Lodge; which they accordingly did, and a portion of the members of the old Lodge coalesced with other Masons and established a new Lodge under the dispensation from Massachusetts. This course we do not think was improper or in violation of Masonic usage or duty, as we have every reason to believe that Pacific Lodge, while under dispensation from this Grand Lodge, paid all the dues and charges owing to this Grand Lodge, and probably more than was actually due. The entire correspondence of the late Secretary of that Lodge, Bro. C. T. Ward, Jr., is fraternal and courteous, and in behalf of the Lodge exhibits towards this Grand Lodge the proper Masonic spirit. It seems to assign principally as the cause of the dissolution of the connection between that Lodge and this Grand Body, the difficulty of obtaining information from it, the want of knowledge of its work and ritual, and the superior privileges afforded to them by the dispensation from the Grand Lodge of Massachusetts.

These reasons your committee consider to be cogent and deserving of consideration, and to be a justifi cation of the course taken by said Lodge. Your committee are further of the opinion that it is unnecessary to require the late Pacific Lodge to forward to this Grand Lodge its furniture, jewels, etc., as it appears that what remains of them is entirely useless and of no value, and has been for the most part preserved as relics by the new Lodge.

Upon a careful review of all the facts of the case, your committee have come to the conclusion that the action of this Grand Lodge, at its annual communication in May, 1854, upon this subject was taken without full information and explanation from Pacific Lodge; and that that Lodge was not justly deserving the censure then passed upon it. The committee therefore submit the subjoined resolutions as expressive of the sense of this Grand Lodge on the subject.

Resolved, That on further and careful examination of all the acts of Pacific Lodge, lately under dispensation from this Grand Lodge, it is the opinion of this Grand Lodge that the action had at the annual communication of 1854, relative to that Lodge, was based upon a want of knowledge of the entire facts of the case; and that said Lodge should be and is exonerated from any intentional discourtesy of want of respect to the Grand Lodge, from whom its first dispensation emanated.

Resolved, That this Grand Lodge will not require said Lodge to forward its jewels, furniture, etc., and hereby releases it from all claims.

Resolved, That a copy of the foregoing resolutions be forthwith transmitted to the Grand Lodge of Massachusetts and to the Secretary of the late Pacific Lodge U. D.

At the quarterly communication of the Grand Lodge of Massachusetts for September, 1856, the above resolutions were received and entered of record. Thus ended the mix-up, in perfect harmony.

YEARS

1853 1854 1856 1865 1869 1895 1910 1913 1921 1922 1923 1925 1929 1939 1941 1945 1949 1951 1952 1953 1954 1958 1960 1968 1976 2004

DISTRICTS

1856: Chile District

1867: Chile District

1883: Chile District

1911: Chile District

1927: Chile District

2003: Chile District

2010: Panama District

LINKS

Massachusetts Lodges