ILLINOIS LIBRARY AT URBANA-CHAMPAIGM 800KSTACKS CENTRAL CIRCULATION AND BOOKSTACKS The person borrowing this material is re- sponsible for its renewal or return before the Latest Date stamped below. You may be charged a minimum fee of $75.00 for each non-returned or lost item. Theft, mutilation, or defacement of library materials can be causes for student disciplinary action. All materials owned by the University of Illinois Library are the property of the State of Illinois and are protected by Article 16B of llUnois Cfiminal Law and Procedure. TO RENEW, CALL (217) 333-8400. University of Illinois Library at Urbana-Champaign When renewing by phone, write new due date jUL. 1 0 2C00 OCT 1 -i 2001 below previous due date. L162 I Prince Hall Grand Master Prince Hall and His Followers Being a Monograph on the Legitimacy of Negro Masonry By GEORGE W. CRAWFORD, 32° Chairman on Jurisprudence Grand Lodge of Connecticut Behold, I have set before thee a door opened, which no one can shut.— The Scripture*. The Crisis 70 Fifth Avenue NEW YORK Copyright, 1914 by THE CRISIS To The Most Worshipful Grand Lodge of Free and Accepted Masons of Connecticut this Volume is dedicated by the Author. CONTENTS chapter page Foreword 9 I. Prince Hall 13 11. The Masonic Colonization of America . 21 III. Right and Title 29 IV. The Territorial Argument 51 V. The Erasure of African Lodge from the English Roll 67 VI. Argument of the "Free-Born" Qualifi- cation 73 VII. As TO Recognition 81 VIII. How Shall Negro Masons Treat White American Masons? .91 Bibliography 96 Foreword A STATEMENT of the case for the legit- imacy of Negro Masonry, from the viewpoint of the Negro Mason himself, is the principal object of this little book. The right of the followers of Prince Hall to practice "The Royal Art" has been thrashed out in printed volumes before. William H. Upton, sometime Grand Master of Washington, and the truest white friend who ever espoused the cause of Negro Masonry, has written a very important book on the subject. The object of that book, however, was to vindicate the action of a white Grand Lodge in declaring Negro Masons descended from Prince Hall Grand Lodge to be regular, and, inferentially, to prove that such Negro Masons are entitled to ultimate recognition from their white brethren. It is not surprising that a white Mason is not able to con- ceive of the vindication of Negro Masonry with- out coupling it with "recognition" by white members of the Fraternity. Reward as the justly earned approbation of the superior white race is the unconscious mental attitude from which scarcely any white man can escape. That is the offence which our sincerest white friends sometimes quite inno- cently commit against us and to whom our intol- erance of the same is understandable only as self- consciousness. The Negro Mason is not interested in the vin- dication of his legitimacy merely as a means of justifying a claim to recognition by the white Masons of America. A man would be interested in removing the stigma of bastardy, not so much because it might bar his reception into polite society, but to vindicate himself in the eyes of his own self respect. To demonstrate the groundlessness of the claims of the white op- ponents of Negro Masonry, with a view of in- fluencing a renunciation of their untenable po- sition, is a peculiarly appropriate task for a white man of the ability and high mindedness of Grand Master Upton. For such a purpose his book is admirably conceived and done. A book stressed to such an end, however, can not be appropriated by Negro Masons as the official statement of their case without a resulting mis- interpretation of the true inwardness of Negro Masonry. There are both place and occasion for such a book as the one in question, but it can never obviate the demand for a book w^hich, w^hile stating strongly the case for Prince Hall Masonry, shall be free from any assumption, conscious or unconscious, of the inevitableness of white patronage. In addition to serving the purpose outlined, the author cherishes the ambition that this little volume will help to remove the handicap under which the average Negro Mason labors when called upon to defend the regularity of his stand- ing — the handicap of unfamiliarity with his own case. A book designed for this purpose should present, succinctly, the salient points only, with emphasis properly placed, and should not bulk beyond the interest of the general run of Ma- sonic laymen: a brief on the law and the facts. Such a book I have striven to produce. The character of the subject has made it dif- ficult to hold this volume to a few pages except through the somewhat free use of technical language. To offset this, however, frequent resort has been made to phraseology cur- rent and generally understood among mem- bers of the Fraternity. At the same time, I have not lost sight of a large number of readers other than Masons to whom a subject of such pro- found interest should appeal. I have not attempted a history of Negro Ma- sonry. That has already been done satisfac- torily. Only so much of uncontrovertible his- torical data as is necessary to a clear presen- tation of the case has been used; and for such data the author has frankly drawn on the standard sources, as will appear from the ample bibliography appended. Again, no attempt has been made to elaborate upon every possible question of Masonic Jurisprudence which may be involved. A treatise could hardly serve the purpose intended. I take this occasion to acknowledge my grati- tude to those certain close Masonic friends and colleagues whose constant encouragement, more than anything else, is responsible for this little book. George Williamson Crawford. New Haven, Conn. July 15, 1914. I. PRINCE HALL On an uncertain day of March in the year 1765, an immigrant boy, seventeen years of age, landed at Boston from a British trading vessel on which he had worked a passage from Bridgetown, the capital of the Island of Barbadoes. His name was Prince Hall and he was the son of an Eng- lish white man and a mulatto woman. His mixed lineage assured to him sufficient Negro blood to identify him with that race. Not that our subject would have had it otherwise; for his unceasing demurrer to the treatment he received was always based on the unrighteousness of such treatment as applied to the Negro people, and never because it arbitrarily thrust upon him the disabilities of a class to which he did not properly belong. Young Hall at once attached himself to the little group of free blacks who lived in and about Boston but who were utterly detached from the life of their community. In matters of public concern these people received little or no recog- nition and for the most part were left to their own devices. Such employment as no one else cared for was open to them at the scantiest of 13 wages. No adequate provision was made for their education and not even a missionary inter- est was taken in their rehgious welfare. Colored people were not even welcome in places of public worship. In no less place than Boston, in the colony of Massachusetts, originated the famous phrase "Nigger Heaven." It was the popular designation of that part of the high rear galleries to which Negro worshippers were invariably consigned. The same attitude which denied to colored folk spiritual edification on a level with white followers of Jesus, within the church houses, was manifested without in the form of utter indifference to the religious needs of these peo- ple. The pitiable neglect of the spiritual welfare of free Negroes made so profound an impression upon our young West Indian immigrant that early in his American career he determined to prepare himself to become a religious teacher and leader among them. Applying himself with characteristic assiduity, he soon acquired an astounding grasp of the English Bible. He began anew the rudimentary studies which had been put aside for a skilled trade in his island home. Such was his progress that five years after his decision young Hall was ordained as a Methodist minister. The church has always been a center of Negro life and the Negro minister has always been an 14 influential factor in the leadership of his race. It is an interesting coincidence that the first two Negro Grand Masters in this country, Prince Hall in Massachusetts and Absalom Jones in Pennsylvania, were both ministers of the Gospel. Besides affording him the chance to display his unusual gifts as a priest, the ministry gave Prince Hall an opportunity for the larger public activities which made him the recognized leader and spokesman for his people. Physically he had few of the characteristics which are popu- larly associated with leadership. He was small of stature and his features, excepting his steel- gray eyes, were almost effeminate. His physical insignificance, made his achievements all the more remarkable as a testimony to the personal force of the man. In those days, even more than in these, it took extraordinary ability to get an ordinary hearing for a Negro. For although it was about this time that Thomas Jefiferson wrote his nice piece to justify the American re- bellion in the eyes of the world, yet the lot of the ordinary man of color was not that which accorded with his merits — **self evident truths" to the contrary notwithstanding. The position of Prince Hall on most of the questions vitally affecting the Negro people placed him far ahead of his times; so far, in fact, that he would be classed with the radicals even in this day. The abolition of slavery; partici- 15 pation in the government by black men upon terms and under conditions applicable alike to every other class of citizens; equality before the law; resistance to every form of encroachment upon the rights of black men; the education of Negro children; the right to be let alone; the iniquity of public insult: such was the platform of this Negro prophet who was born a whole century before Appomattox. And yet there are Negro leaders who, a half century after "the sur- render," are not ashamed to preach contentment with less. To be a Freemason in the latter part of the i8th century was accounted a rare distinction. The order was universally patronized by men of high degree. The most powerful princes in Europe considered it no derogation to their dignity to "level themselves with the fraternity." It is not surprising therefore that any effort to obtain for the humble freed blacks of Boston admission to an order of such standing should have seemed to the white craftsmen of Massa- chusetts to be the veriest presumption. One can almost imagine the popularity of the phrase "a white man's order" as epitomizing the attitude of the outraged Colonial Masons towards the petition of Prince Hall and his fellow blacks. Yet our little champion steadfastly refused to read into the sublime principles of Masonry any implication of race proscription. With charac- 16 teristic persistence he took his case to the broad minded British who administered the affairs of the Mother Grand Lodge. These same British whose villainies Jefferson immortalized in the "Declaration" showed themselves to be freer from pettiness and race contempt than the lib- erty-loving colonists. After unsuccessful efforts to obtain recog- nition from any of the American Masonic bodies then existing in and about Boston, Prince Hall and his fourteen black brothers who had been duly made in a British Army lodge stationed near Bunker Hill, and given a dispensation after the manner of the day, petitioned the Mother Grand Lodge of England for a warrant. The petition was granted and a warrant issued September 29th, 1784. A few years following the reception of this warrant were enough to show that this African Lodge as a subordi- nate body would sooner or later find itself in a precarious situation, and that the very door of Masonry might be closed to Negro Americans. The general movement towards independent Masonic government for America was fast gain- ing ground; and always the Negro Masons were ignored in any plans projected. Therefore, to perpetuate the high privileges which had come to his people with the Constitution of African Lodge No. 459, Prince Hall, taking the needful steps, duly erected the Mother Lodge in a Grand 17 Body, having the sanction and recognition of England in so doing. The granting of the Charter to African Lodge No. 459, Free and Accepted Masons, in 1784, is one of the great events in the history of the col- ered American. Freemasonry gave the Negro in this country his first opportunity to find himself; it discovered to his enfeebled race consciousness the power of a common cause; it started him on the road to self-hood. Any estimate of the marvelous influence for good which the fraternal organization has exercised upon the life of the Negro people must necessarily be a tribute to the handiwork of Father Prince Hall, who opened for them the door to the greatest and most ancient of all secret societies. After a period of labor all too brief, the first Grand Master of Negro Masons passed out at the South Gate, December 7th, 1807. Like the illustrious Temple Builder of old, he left us the legacy of unsullied integrity. The things for which the early Negro leaders fought and strove may sometimes seem ordi- nary when measured by present day ideas of what a man ought to have. The sheer capacity not alone to enjoy, but to demand more, in our day, is proof positive that the world moves on. But with all of our enhanced capacity to enjoy and to demand, the example of this upstanding man of color comes across one hundred changing 18 years to the Negro Mason of this day as a chal- lenge, seeming to say: "Crave to be called of no man 'brother' if his life and attitude belie his faith in the significance of that sacred appel- lation — even though he proclaim himself a Mason." Next after a vow of fidelity to our high calling, may v^e Negro Masons vow a loyalty to our self respect — "so help us God and haHdom." 19 II. THE MASONIC COLONIZATION OF AMERICA The beginnings of Masonry in America bear a strikingly close resemblance to the early politi- cal history of the country. Masonically speak- ing, America was as truly colonized by the Eng- lish as it was politically. Just as here and there English settlers planted isolated communities which gradually grew and expanded into a na- tionality compounded of various adaptations of English institutions and ideals, so also did the early pioneers of the craft erect in the widely scattered colonies Masonic bodies in one form or another which eventuated into the standard- ized American institution with which we are familiar. The first Masonic bodies set up, whether they were private lodges or whether they were that Masonic anomaly known as Provincial Grand Lodges, were all instituted as subordinates of the Grand Lodge of England, from whom they derived their authority and to whom they yielded unquestioning obedience until England and her American colonies became politically separate. The early American Freemason did 21 his work with as Httle thought of ultimate Ma- sonic independence of the mother country as the early colonist had of ultimate political inde- pendence. At the same time he evinced the same readiness to adapt his Masonry to the new land as he did his pohtics.* The result is that early Masonic usages in our country were accommo- dated to the exigencies which the early brethren confronted, and beyond bare essentials they did not concern themselves over much about what we choose to call regularity. This they could do with small chance of offence because most of what now constitutes the body of accepted Ma- sonic dogma had not been settled in those days. The first Masonic establishment in this coun- try based upon legal authority was probably St. John's Lodge of Boston, which was organized July 30th, 1733, under the direction of Henry Price whom, it is claimed, Grand Master Lord Viscount Montague had made a Provincial Grand Master in April of the same year. * "When men undertake to establish a frame of govern- ment for an association as well as for a nation, they are inevitably controlled by the views of governments which they have acquired by the circumstances in which they are placed ; and, except in cases of revolution, their ideas are generally in accord with the civil government under which they live. This has been often illustrated in the organiza- tion of governing bodies in the Masonic Fraternity." — Josiah H. Drummond, Monograph on Masonic Jurispru- dence. 22 Freemasonry, however, had preceded any deputation to Henry Price, to this country, if one was really issued to him at the time men- tioned. Undoubtedly many of the earliest of the colonists were members of the craft. There is credible historical evidence that there were Masons in the American colonies who held Ma- sonic intercourse, more or less informally to be sure, even before the establishment of the Grand Lodge of England in 171 7. Commentators and historians are accustomed, nevertheless, to ignore the sporadic efforts before the revival of 1717 and to view the American Rite as beginning with the Deputation to Daniel Coxe of New Jersey and Henry Price of Boston. The former was appointed Provincial Grand Master by the Duke of Norfolk on June 5th, 1730; the latter was probably appointed to a like office by Lord Viscount Montague on April 30th, 1733. The jurisdiction of Daniel Coxe comprised the Prov- inces of New York, New Jersey and Pennsyl- vania, while Henry Price was deputized for New England. A third deputation was issued about the same time to James Graeme over a jurisdiction com- prised of the southern colonies. It is generally supposed that these deputations were issued in an effort to make the division of Masonic author- ity in America accord with the scheme of King James and Queen Anne to organize the colonies 23 into three vice-royalties, with territorial juris- diction as above outlined. The partiality of the several colonies each to its ov^n local institutions and the hostility to any outside interference with their own local self government as they had worked it out for themselves, especially by other colonies, resulted early in a tendency towards in- dividuality which made coalescence into any such larger units as mentioned an impossibiHty. The same tendency towards political separate- ness was naturally reflected in Masonic matters. The efforts at the establishment of these Ma- sonic vice-royalties contemplated in the appoint- ment of Coxe, Price and Graeme utterly failed. The provincial Grand Masters commanded no great influence with the colonist who would be amenable to no high Masonic authority except in England. The offices soon lost any well defined purpose with the English Grand Masters, who began to issue deputations promiscuously, and without regard to territorial apportionment. The following is the complete list of Provin- cial Grand Masters whose appointments can be substantiated : Date. Name. Jurisdiction. 1730 Daniel Coxe New York, New Jersey, 1736 John Hamilton 1737 Richard Riggs 1732 James Graeme 1736 Robert Tomlinson Pennsylvania. South Carolina. New England. South Carolina. New York. 1742 Thomas Oxnard North America. 24 Date. Name. 1747 Francis Goelet 1752 George Harrison 1754 Edgerton Leigh 1755 Jeremiah Gridley 1757 Grey Ellicott ♦1770 Henry Price 1770 Noble Jones 1771 Peyton Randolph 1791 Prince Hall New York. New York. South Carolina. North America. Georgia. North America. Georgia. Virginia. North America. Jurisdiction. * It is claimed that Henry Price was deputized in 1733 but there is no record of this. The separation from the mother country brought home to the craft the necessity for a *'more perfect union," Masonically quite as forc- ibly as politically. Appropriating the lessons of our early attempts at forming a nation politically, the colonial Masons began to set their house in order. The state of mind of the colonists towards England after the Revolution made Masonic separation from the mother country inevitable. The efforts to erect the several states into one nation politically naturally suggested a basis of American Masonic organization. It v^as proposed immediately after the close of the war to form a National Grand Lodge by uniting all the Provincial Grand bodies, with George Washington, the most distinguished Mason in America, as Grand Master. Many of the same obstacles which beset the makers of the Con- stitution stood in the way of this plan; and in addition was the fact of the existence of many 25 bodies owing fealty to as many as four different mother lodges in the old world. The plan fell through and a chaotic condition of things pre- vailed for some years. Just as the "grinding necessity" of some vital compact which should save the liberated colonies from anarchy and political chaos alone made the ratification of the Constitution possible, so the utter confusion re- sulting from clashing jurisdictions and bitter rivalries finally forced the various Masonic ele- ments to compose their differences and adopt a uniform plan of Masonic government. The union of the ''Ancients" and "Moderns" which followed soon after the Revolution removed the last obstacle in the way of complete harmonious action by the American bodies. Again profiting by their political experience in forming the new American nation, the Masons evolved the unique but obviously practical plan of making Masonic jurisdiction co-extensive with political jurisdic- tion, and thenceforward began the development of the American doctrine that the jurisdiction of a Grand Lodge located in a state is defined by the boundaries of that state and immune to invasion by all other Masonic sovereigns. This doctrine, hit upon as a happy expedient in the effort to consolidate various Masonic bodies di- rectly after the War of Independence, was re- ceived with instant favor because it afforded a sound working basis for intercourse between the 26 Grand bodies; and also a satisfactory basis for the Masonic conquest of the unsettled portions of the new country. The doctrine of exclusive territorial jurisdiction was widely observed in the development of the American Rite, particu- larly after the complete separation from Eng- land, and is today uniformly observed in this country. Just when the Provincial Grand bodies of America became absolutely independent of the authority of the Mother Grand Lodge is open to controversy. Many such bodies declared their independence directly after the end of the Revo- lutionary War. Still others took their inde- pendence as a matter of course and as a logical consequence of the political separation of the colonies from England. Such independence, however, could not have been legally acquired by the ex parte action of the colonial bodies themselves. Concurrence on the part of the parent organization was absolutely indispens- able. It may be confidently asserted that most of these quasi Grand Lodges, or, if you prefer, Provincial Grand Lodges, did not actually and legally become sovereign bodies until they, or in many instances the subordinate lodges on which they were originally predicated, were stricken from the English roll at the time of the Masonic union in 1813. Prior to legal separation the American Grand bodies, so-called, were really in 27 the nature of vice-royalties, with the largest pos- sible autonomy. Nevertheless, they were en- tirely amenable to the laws promulgated and bound by the decisions made by the Grand Lodges of England, and of course subject to the Common Law of Masonry as declared and ex- pounded by the sovereign bodies in the mother country. 28 III. RIGHT AND TITLE The test of the legitimacy of a Masonic body is this: Is the authority by which it assumes to practice and exempHfy Masonic principles de- rived from the proper source and did the man- ner of the derivation of such authority conform to the accepted Masonic usage for the time being? Tried by this test, the Negro Masonry of the United States, which is in direct line of succession from Prince Hall Grand Lodge, can make out as good a case for the legitimacy of its existence as any Masonry in the western hemisphere. In fact an impartial examination of creditable historical data will show that the organization of the parent body of Negro Masonry in this country was, in many respects, freer from technical irregularities than those early bodies upon which the Masonry of our white brothers is founded. For it is certain that if our white brethren were compelled to rely upon the regularity of the early work of Daniel Coxe and Henry Price, through whom they largely derived their Masonic being, they would certainly find themselves in a precarious situa- tion. 29 From no authentic Masonic records (e. g., The Records of the Grand Lodge of England) can it be proven that Daniel Coxe ever acted specific- ally upon his deputation as Provincial Grand Master. No more can it be shown from any authentic source just what Henry Price did under his deputation. Indeed there is no record in the annals of the Mother Grand Lodge that any deputation as Provincial Grand Master was ever issued to Henry Price until Lord Petre be- came Grand Master, which was quite some time after the "formation" of St. John's Grand Lodge.* By the year when it appears from the English records that Henry Price was really deputized (1770), St. John's Grand Lodge, so-called, had warranted over thirty subordinate lodges throughout the several colonies. Neither did Price comply with the terms of the deputation ascribed to him, which strictly enjoined that he should make annual returns to the Grand Lodge of England of lodges constituted, names of mem- * "Nowhere can it be found on the English records that a deputation was granted to Henry Price until Lord Petre became Grand Master. We believe, however, that such a deputation as heretofore recited was granted by Lord Montague ; but it will require authentic documents to satisfy an impartial reader that any further and different deputa- tion was subsequently granted, increasing his territorial jurisdiction." — Meyer's Monograph on "The American Rite," "History of Freemasonry and Concordant Orders" Stillson, et al, p. 225. 30 bers, etc.* The early history of parent Masonry among our white brethren is involved in such uncertainties that even so eminent an historian as Gould avers in his ''History of Freemasonry" that the ''foundation of authority on which the early Masonic history of Massachusetts reposes" is "very precarious."** For any semblance of his- "He, the said Mr. Henry Price, taking especial care that all and every Member of any Lodge or Lodges so to be Constituted have been or shall be made Regular Masons, and that they do cause all and every the Regulations Con- tain'd in the Printed Book of Constitutions (except so far as they have been altere. 630. ** Our opponents have sought to make capital out of the fact that the office of Provincial Grand Master continued 47 conclusively show his deputation, the record of the official correspondence with him, both by content and style of address, proves conclusively that Prince Hall was recognized and honored as a Provincial Grand Master by the mother Grand Lodge.* only during the pleasure of the Grand Master who created it. From the temporary character and uncertainty of the tenure of a Provincial Grand Mastership, it argued that the "Grand Bodies" which they created died with the office of their creators. Hence they claim, feebly enough, that if African Grand Lodge was created by Prince Hall under a deputation as Provincial Grand Master it was not a per- manent body, and so had no further right to exist after the death of Prince Hall. This is predicated on the theory that African Grand Lodge was a "Provincial" body, in the ordinary sense, which is not the fact. It is true that one theory is that the assembly which organized the parent Negro body was convoked by Prince Hall as Provincial Grand Master. Nevertheless, there is sufficient evidence to satisfy any fair and open mind, that African Grand Lodge did not rest alone upon the color of authority of Prince Hall's deputation. A body permanent in character and possessed of Grand Lodge authority was organized with both the sanction and recognition of the Mother Grand Lodge of England. How will they who challenge the regularity of African Grand Lodge on the grounds stated ever be able to con- sistently defend the legitimacy of "St. John's Grand Lodge," the handiwork of Henry Price, the Patron and Patriarch of White Masonry in America ? * The following correspondence, invariably referred to by writers on this subject, is a brief in itself. Certain things about these letters are at once plain even to the casual Masonic student. First the style of address employed by the Grand Secretary shows that the addressee. Prince Hall, was a Masonic dignitary higher than a Past 48 Master; for even in those early days of loose Masonic usage, the title "Right Worshipful" was scarcely ever given to any but Grand Officers. Again, the mission outlined was one that would not have been entrusted to an ordinary Master Mason, or even a Past Master, and the fact that Prince Hall was a colored man makes such a mission to any one less than a high Masonic officer an additional im- probability. Incidentally, the Lodge referred to in New Haven, Con- necticut, is said to be the present Hiram Lodge No. 1 of the White Grand Lodge of Connecticut. Letter from the Secretary of the Grand Lodge of England to Prince Hall: ''London, August 20th, 1792. ''Right Worshipful Brother: I have the pleasure of send- ing inclosed the printed proceedings of the Grand Lodge by which you will perceive the flourishing state of our society ; and in the account of the 24th of November, 1787, you will find accredited your donation to the charity fund, ten dollars sent by Captain Scott; and that of the 18th of April last, your donation of one guinea. I am much obliged to you for the sermon you sent me, which I think very well written, and very appropriate for the occasion. "When next you write to me, I should be obliged to you if you would let me know if the lodges in the inclosed list, which were constituted by the Grand Lodge of England, are yet in being, as we have never heard from them since the commencement of the late war in America, or indeed, long before; and in case they have ceased to meet, which I rather apprehend, they ought to be erased from our list of lodges. "I am much obliged to you for the account you give re- specting your own Lodge, to which I sincerely wish success, as I should be happy to have it in my power to contribute thereto. "Inclosed I send you one of the calendars for the present year, of which I beg your acceptance. I remain, with fraternal regard. Right Worshipful Brother, Your obedient servant and brother, (Signed.) William White." 49 "To the Grand Secretary, London, Freemasons St. "Worshipful Brother : — I received yours of the 20th of August last, together with the printed accounts of the state of the Grand Lodge ; and am happy to see the flourishing state of the Society, and I am very sorry to see so many Lodges whose behaviour hath been such as to put the Grand Lodge to so disagreeable a task as to erase them from so honorable a society. I have made inquiry about the Lodges you wrote to me about, the Lodge No. 42, which used to meet at the Royal Exchange, and kept at the Assembly House, at the head of Orange Tree Lane, has kept a regular Lodge, and was joined last year by one or two more Lodges. Their present Grand Master is John Cutler, chosen last year, and walked to Trinity Church, where a sermon was delivered by Rev. Walter, D.D., June 25th. The Lodge No. 88 hath joined the above Lodge ever since the death of their Grand Master, Henry Price, Esq., for he is long since dead — a worthy Mason. As for the Marblehead Lodge No. 91, I cannot give any information of it, whether it keeps or not ; but I believe, they don't, for if they did, I should have heard from her. As for the Lodge No. 93, in New Haven, Connecticut, I hear they keep a regular Lodge, and I have reason to believe it. The Lodge No. 142 do keep the same, as some of them hath visited our Lodge, and heard it from their own mouths. *T am happy that you approve of the sermon. I have sent you a charge I delivered at Charlestown, on the 25th of June last. I have sent one to your Royal Grand Master, his Royal Highness, the Prince of Wales, and another to his Deputy, and three for the Grand Lodge, which I hope will meet your approval. (Signed.) Prince Hall."' 50 IV. THE TERRITORIAL ARGUMENT In what is generally accepted among white Masons as the most authoritative and compre- hensive history of Freemasonry in America, there is appended to a page giving a list of Mas- sachusetts lodges to be found on the early Eng- lish Registry, the following gratuitous foot- note: "African Lodge had no inherent rights, had no authority to grant dispensations or warrants to others, and its erasure wiped it and all its so-called offspring out of existence ; and from the time of the union of the two Grand Lodges of Massachusetts, if it was then in existence, it became clan- destine." This petty squib, apart from the historical ignorance implied in its assumptions, is remark- able as a summary of the time worn arguments against Negro Masonry. Otherwise stated, this is the argument: If no flaws can be picked in the early practices of African Lodge, and if its. erasure from the English Registry (at the same time with all other subordinate lodges in the United States) did not afford grounds for objec- tion, then surely the fact that it was not a party to the compact uniting "the two Grand Lodges to form the Grand Lodge of Massachusetts*' 51 rendered it thenceforward a clandestine body; because, it is argued, the formation of the Mas- sachusetts Grand Lodge, ipso facto, conferred upon that body exclusive Masonic jurisdiction throughout the whole state of Massachusetts. Here is the ancient ruse of making a straw man to knock down. Of course African Lodge, by virtue of its incontestable warrant from Eng- land, had all the rights which under the ancient landmarks and old constitutions inhere in any regular lodge of Masons. The authority to grant warrants and dispensations, while it was a sub- ordinate lodge, has never been claimed for Afri- can Lodge, although there were strong American precedents even for that; nor can it be shown that any such were ever granted until it had been duly erected into a Grand body. Concerning the erasure of African Lodge from the English Registry, more will be said hereafter in these pages. However, it may be well to note here one very interesting fact in that connection. The same work above referred to is authority for the statement that African Lodge was not erased from the English Registry until 1813; and that the Massachusetts Grand Lodge, as a result of the union, was formed March 5th, 1792. Con- sequently if our facetious historian is correct in his premises, the Mother Grand Lodge of Eng- land was guilty of the highly reprehensible of- fence of keeping upon its roll and affiliating with 52 a clandestine lodge of Negro Masons for twenty- one years. The insecurity of his position must have begun to dawn upon our writer, for he did not dare to rest his case without tacking on the inevitable Territorial argument. This is the common experience of all detractors of Negro Masonry. The more they go into the early his- tory of Masonry in America, critically, the more they come to realize that the only alleged objec- tion to the legitimacy of Prince Hall Masons which they can state with a straight face is the one based on the argument of exclusive terri- torial jurisdiction. And even that has barely the semblance of plausibility. What is this doctrine of exclusive territorial jurisdiction? There is perhaps no better state- ment of it than is contained in the famous "Twelve Tables" issued by the Grand Master of Quebec (1883) in relation to the now celebrated controversy with the Grand Lodge of England.* * Two years after the proclamation of the "British North America Act, 1867," by which Canada was divided into the two provinces of Ontario and Quebec, twenty-one lodges of varying allegiance, located in the latter province, met in a representative body and formed the "Grand Lodge of Que- bec." At once ensued a bitter controversy between the new Grand Lodge and the "Grand Lodge of Canada," who challenged the right of the craft to form the new body. This controversy was soon overshadowed, however, by the more serious dispute which soon arose between the "Grand Lodge of Quebec" and the Grand Lodge of England because 53 The following three of the twelve give the sub- stance of the doctrine: Table V. From its formation, every regularly consti- tuted Grand Lodge, as to its privileges, prerogatives, and duties, and as to whatever else of right appertains to a Grand Lodge of Free Masons, is the peer of every other regular Grand Lodge, and no other Grand body can lawfully of the efforts of the former to impose its authority upon three Lodges in the City of Montreal which held warrants directly from England. The claims of the Grand Lodge of Quebec were set forth as follows: "The principle of coincidence or coterminousness, of political and Masonic boundaries, is an acknowledged law of the constitutions of the Grand Lodges of England, Ire- land and Scotland. "The jurisdiction of each of these Grand Lodges is ex- clusive within its geographical limits. "Each of these Grand Lodges claims to be, and is, abso- lutely sovereign, and may and does enforce its territorial, exclusive, sovereign authority, by the most extreme Masonic penalties, against all lodges not of its registry, existing within its boundaries, in contravention thereto or in viola- tion thereof, even if said lodge (or lodges) were of 'institu- tion' anterior to that of said Grand Lodge. "The doctrine of exclusive Grand Lodge jurisdiction cannot, therefore, with propriety, be called an American doctrine only; but it is a doctrine of the Ancient Constitu- tions of Freemasonry, as expressed in the constitutions of the premier of modem Grand Lodges. "Moreover, the Province of Quebec is a federal Province of the Dominion of Canada, and has a political autonomy with legislative, judicial, and executive powers, which are not possessed by England, Scotland, or Ireland, as parts of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland; and hence the Grand Lodge of Quebec is as much (and, a fortiori, more), entitled to have and to exercise exclusive Masonic authority within her territorial limits, as is either 54 exercise Masonic Craft authority within its territorial juris- diction. Table VII. Any Grand Lodge may charter private lodges in any territory unoccupied by a local sovereign Grand Lodge; but the exercise of this right is v^^ith pro- priety restricted to unoccupied territories belonging to the country within whose domain the chartering Grand Lodge of the Grand Lodges of the United Kingdom within its geographical boundaries." These claims were repudiated in toto by the Grand Lodge of England who refused, unequivocally, to subscribe to the same as sound Masonic law. In furtherance of his argu- ments on the subject, the Grand Master of Quebec, at the annual communication of his Grand Lodge in 1883, pro- mulgated his famous "Twelve Tables" which in turn, were also repudiated in so far as they involved the doctrine of exclusive territorial jurisdiction. To show how sharply the English authorities took issue on this doctrine we subjoin in full these so-called "Tables," to which they refused assent : "The Twelve Tables. — 1. At least three duly represented private lodges must unite in the establishment of a Grand Lodge, and the number of lodges thus co-operating should constitute a majority of all the regular private lodges ex- isting within the territory for which the sovereign Grand body is formed. The union and co-operation of all the lodges so situated is supremely desirable, when practicable. II. It is the duty of every private lodge situated within the territorial jurisdiction of a regularly formed Grand Lodge, but which, through any cause, was not represented at its organization, to become, at an early day thereafter, of allegiance to the new Grand body, and be enrolled on its Registry ; or, upon its refusal it may be deemed and declared to be an irregular lodge in not submitting to the lawfully constituted Masonic sovereignty of the country. III. At the formation of a Grand Lodge, it is not re- quired to issue new warrants to the lodges which united in its establishment, or to those which subsequently become 55 is situated, or to exterior countries within whose limits a Grand Lodge does not exist. Table VIII. A Grand Lodge can not rightfully con- stitute a new lodge, or continue to exercise jurisdiction over any lodge formerly chartered by it, after the regular formation of a Grand Lodge within the territory in which said private lodge is situated. of its allegiance ; but an endorsement of the transference of allegiance may be made on the margin of the charter of the adhering lodge or lodges. IV. At the formation of a Grand Lodge, in the absence of a Grand Master, or Past Grand Master of another Grand Lodge, the oldest Past Master of a private lodge present may install the Grand Master-elect. V. From its formation, every regularly constituted Grand Lodge, as to its privileges, prerogatives, and duties, and as to whatever else of right appertains to a Grand Lodge of Freemasons, is the peer of every other regular Grand Lodge, and no other Grand body can lawfully exer- cise Masonic Craft authority within its territorial juris- diction. VL Upon the consensus of a majority of sister Grand Lodges as to the right of existence, and the regularity of the formation of a new Grand Lodge, the remaining regular Grand Lodges should deem themselves to be bound by the award, duly pronounced, of their sister Masonic sovereign- ties, and seek the establishment of interjurisdictional rela- tions with the new territorially supreme Grand body. Vn. Any Grand Lodge may charter private lodges in any territory unoccupied by a local sovereign Grand Lodge ; but the exercise of this right is with propriety restricted to unoccupied territories belonging to the country within whose domain the chartering Grand Lodge is situated, or to exterior countries within whose limits a Grand Lodge does not exist. VIIL A Grand Lodge cannot rightfully constitute a new lodge, or continue to exercise jurisdiction over any lodge formerly chartered by it, after the regular formation of a Grand Lodge within the territory in which said private lodge is situated. 56 The idea of Masonic jurisdiction being co- terminous with political boundaries grew up with the peculiar development of colonial Am- erica. It is an American doctrine pure and sim- ple and was so characterized by the English IX. A Grand Lodge cannot rightfully extend to, or receive from, another Grand Lodge qualified or conditional recognition, or lawfully establish interjurisdictional rela- tions based thereon. X. A Grand Lodge violating any of the essential Land- marks of the Order should be deemed and declared to be an irregular body as long as such violation of the Constitu- tions of the Fraternity is persisted in. XL Any order or organization allied to Ancient Craft Masonry, by requiring candidates for admission thereto to be Freemasons, should be deemed and declared to have forfeited said alliance, should they wilfully violate or en- deavor to annul, the Landmarks, Laws, and Constitutions of Ancient Freemasonry. XII. The several federal Provinces constituting the Dominion of Canada, and the Colonies throughout the British Empire, having local constitutional governments, are severally as much entitled to form and to have Grand Lodges, possessing and exercising exclusive sovereign juris- diction within their respective geographical and legislative boundaries, as are England, Scotland, and Ireland, as com- ponent parts of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland; or as are the several federal States and organized Territories of the United States of America ; or as are any separate and distinct kingdoms, or the like." With an air of finality the Quebec Grand Master cited as ''precedents" a long list of Grand Lodges which had accepted the territorial principle. It is interesting that every Grand Lodge in the list is an American body; thus affirm- ing the contention of the English leaders that the territorial doctrine is an "American doctrine," purely local in its origin and application, and dependent upon voluntary assent for whatever authority it possesses. 57 authorities in the Quebec controversy already referred to. In the final compromise effected between the disputants in that case, the EngHsh were at pains to assert that the concessions granted by them in the interest of peace and harmony by no means implied their acceptance of the doctrine in question. All of this occurred, be it understood, as late as 1883. In many of the countries and principalities of Europe, there were, for the larger part of the last century, oftentimes several Grand Lodges exist- ing at the same time and exercising co-extensive jurisdiction.* Indeed in some parts of Europe * The examples of the three leading Masonic countries of Europe in the Eighteenth Century will bear out this state- ment: In England. For years the "Grand Lodge of England" and the "Grand Lodge of All England" existed side by side. There were controversies between these two bodies; but conflict of territorial jurisdiction was never the subject of any of them. Indeed the long and bitter fight between the Grand Lodge of England ("Moderns") and Athol Grand Lodge ("Ancients") had to do with other questions of regularity; and territorial encroachment is a point never seriously raised by the Grand Lodge of England against Dermott and his followers. In Germany. In this country where the fraternity has been patronized by the elite of the land even to a greater extent than in England, it is notoriously true that at various times throughout the history of the Order there have been numerous Grand Masonic Bodies with coterminous juris- diction. Besides the "Three Globes" above cited, there were at one time during the latter part of the Eighteenth Century 58 that condition obtains even to this day. It is noteworthy, moreover that the most notable consolidations have been effected for reasons of governmental and administrative convenience, with never any thought of clashing jurisdiction. The impression is abroad in this country that in a given territory it is indispensable that there be one, and only one, Masonic sovereign. But this is not so. To have one sovereign in a given political division undoubtedly simplifies Masonic administration, and hence leaves less chance for confusion and is therefore a desirable consum- mation; but reasons more potent than that are necessary to make a ruling Masonic precedent. Masonry is universal, is adaptable to all peoples of all lands, for all times. Because, under our peculiar republican "states rights" states, it is convenient to have one Grand Lodge for each state of the Union, it does not follow that our German brethren, for instance, must similarly organize. That is why the Grand Lodge of Ham- burg considered it no invasion of pre-empted ter- ritory when it began in 185 1 to warrant lodges co-existing in Germany: "The National Grand Lodge of Germany," "The Grand Lodge York of Friendship/' "The Grand Lodge of Hamburg" and "The Grand Lodge of The Sun." In Scotland. In this country "Mother Kilwinning" and "The Grand Lodge of Scotland" worked side by side for many years. 59 of its own in the state of New York, in spite of the vehement protests of the Grand Lodge of that state. There is no disposition here to question the general acceptation of the territorial doctrine and the recognition of its binding force by prac- tically all Grand Lodges of the United States. That must be conceded. But how can that fact be invoked to impeach the regularity of Masonic acts which are older than the doctrine itself? It is much like invoking the terms of some new- fangled eugenic marriage statute to impeach the legitimacy of the offspring of parents regularly joined in wedlock under the old fashioned matri- monial dispensation of a half century ago. Not alone that. Suppose a group of Grand Lodges, politically and geographically affiliated, have reached a binding understanding to each refrain from exercising jurisdiction in the territory where the other is located, by what process of reasoning, and upon what recognized principle of Masonic Jurisprudence, can it be claimed that any precedent binding upon Masonic bodies not parties to such agreement results therefrom? In their intercourse with one another. Grand Lodges are bound only by the old constitutions,* * The Ancient Constitutions binding in their force upon all Masonic bodies, are held by Masonic Jurists to include the various general enactments from the "Old York Con- 60 so-called; by the ancient and well recognized landmarks;* and by those rules of conduct neces- sarily deducible from the nature of the institu- tion of Freemasonry. Obedience to any other rules or regulations is purely voluntary. It could not be otherwise; for all Grand Lodges be- ing equal in dignity and authority, there is no external power by which other rules and regula- tions can be superimposed. That any doctrine stitutions" (926) to and including "The General Regula- tions of 1721." No one will contend, however, that Masonic bodies of our day are held to a literal observance of these early enactments. The best canon for construing our obligations to obey these ancient decrees, we take it, is to make a rational application of them to Masonic conditions as they exist this day, having in mind the changed civiliza- *tion of the twentieth century, but never doing violence to the true spirit. Of course, what is said here has no applica- tion to the Ancient Landmarks, for they are to be literally followed. * *'Of the nature of the landmarks of Masonry there has been some diversity of opinion ; yet the conviction has be- come settled that the true principles constituting landmarks are those universal customs of the order which have gradu- ally grown into permanent rules of action, and originally established by competent authority, at a period so remote that no account of their origin is to be found in the records of Masonic history, and which were considered essential to the preservation and integrity of the institution, to pre- serve its purity and prevent innovation.'' — Macoy's ''History and Encyclopedia of Freemasonry/' p. 216. Readers not members of the Fraternity might be inter- ested in a statement of the Ancient Landmarks. We give here the list as made by Lockwood in his "Masonic Law and Practice," which commends itself by its simplicity and 61 could be asserted contrary to so self-evident a proposition simply illustrates how much con- fusion may result from an attempt to invest a Masonic Grand Lodge with all the attributes of sovereignty which belong to a political state. The analogy between the two breaks down long before we reach any such point. In America where conflicting sovereignty has always been a vital question in our political his- brevity of statement — although we challenge the accuracy of No. "10." It is true that some of the ancient legal manuscripts contained the requirement that a candidate for inititation must be "free-bom." Nevertheless, there is no authority for a claim that the "free-born" qualification is a Landmark. The Landmarks, according to Lockwood, are as follows : "1. Belief in the existence of a Supreme Being, in some revelation of his will, in the resurrection of the body and in the immortality of the soul. 2. The obligations and modes of recognition, and the legend of the third degree. 3. The inculcation of the moral virtues, of benevolence and of the doctrines of natural religion, by means of sym- bols derived from the Temple of King Solomon and its tradition, and from the usages and customs observed, and from the implements and materials used in its construction. 4. That Masons must obey the moral law and the gov- ernment of the country in which they live. 5. That the Grand Master is the head of the Craft. 6. That the Master is head of the Lodge. 7. That the Grand Lodge is the supreme governing body within its territorial jurisdiction. 8. That every Lodge has an inherent right to be repre- 62 tory as a result of our dual government, it is not surprising that we find it hard to understand the feasibility and Masonic propriety of two or more sovereign Grand bodies having co-extensive jurisdiction in the same territory. And yet it has been and is being amply demonstrated that the thing can be done, and that too without unto- ward consequences. And so it is that the doctrine of territorial exclusiveness, asserted on this con- sented in Grand Lodge by its first three officers, or their proxies. 9. That every Lodge has power to make Masons, and to administer its own private affairs. 10. That every candidate must be a man, of lawful age, born of free parents, under no restraint of liberty, and hale and sound, as a man ought to be. IL That no candidate can be received except by unani- mous ballot, after due notice of his application, and due inquiry as to his qualifications. 12. That the ballot is inviolably secret. 13. That all Masons, as such, are peers. 14. That all Lodges are peers. 15. That all Grand Lodges are peers. 16. That no person can be installed Master of a Lodge unless he be a Past Warden, except by Dispensation of the Grand Master. 17. That the obligations, means of recognition, and the forms and ceremonies observed in conferring degrees are secret. 18. That no innovation can be made upon the body of Masonry. 19. That the Ancient Landmarks are the Supreme Law, and cannot be changed or abrogated." 63 tinent with so much assurance, is justly char- acterized as an American doctrine. That charac- terization could only mean a lack of universal acceptation. To impeach the regularity of Afri- can Grand Lodge, it is manifest that there must be shown a violation of some vital principle of Freemasonry universally recognized. A defini- tion of interjurisdictional relationship of a par- ticular number of Grand Lodges, dictated by local convenience, can be invoked to the discredit of no Masonic body which is not voluntarily a party to the compact. Masonic principles are not a matter of geography. Besides being merely local in its origin and acceptation, this doctrine owes whatever author- ity it possesses to Masonic comity, and clearly to that alone. It is observed by American Grand Lodges as a sort of entente. But if it was as universally accepted and as binding as one of the ancient landmarks, there is still a fatal obstacle in the way of its being used as a means of out- lawing Negro Masonry. To the American prin- ciple that a Grand Lodge once formed in a given territory by the united action of the majority and at least three of the lodges therein acquires exclusive jurisdiction in each territory, there is this corollary: all lodges in that territory which refuse to come under the Grand Lodge thus formed thereafter become clandestine. Notice that to become outlawed under the circum- 64 stances stated, a lodge must refuse subordination to the newly formed Grand body. A refusal im- plies, of course, the opportunity to affiliate. There is no record, nor has it ever been claimed, that African Lodge No. 459 was ever afforded an opportunity to attach itself to any of the several supposed Grand bodies existing or organ- ized in Massachusetts while it was a subordinate lodge — although the regularity of its existence as such was not questioned in those times. On their own theory, therefore, the descendents of these very consoHdating bodies which formed the so-called Grand Lodge of Massachusetts are estopped from denying the continued regularity of any subordinate lodge which their forebears ignored in their plan of organization; for that in itself was a gross irregularity. It is as though the maker of a feast should purposely exclude one from his list of invited guests and then afterward castigate him for non-attendance. The final answer to the territorial argument is the action of the Mother Grand Lodge in war- ranting African Lodge in the first place. When on the 29th day of September, 1784, the English Grand Lodge granted a warrant in due Masonic form to African Lodge No. 459, located in Bos- ton, St. John's Grand Lodge was over sixty-one years old, and St. Andrew's Grand Lodge, which later united with St. John's to form the "Grand Lodge of Massachusetts," had been in existence 65 nearly a quarter of a century. So that a territory wherein there were already two co-existing Grand Lodges was thus invaded. Yet, if the right of the English Grand Lodge to warrant African Lodge No. 459 was ever challenged in the day and time of this action, there is no record of the same. This action of the mother Grand Lodge could only mean one of two things — either that there was existing in Massachusetts, at the time in question, no Masonic body of sufficient dignity to entitle it to the right of exclusive ter- ritorial jurisdiction; or else that this right did not inure to such a Grand body if one was in existence. Nineteenth century controversies have shown that the latter was the real English position, although it may be seriously questioned whether in 1792, after the "union" in Massachu- setts, there was legally any independent and sovereign Grand body in that state. To have their latter day doctrine of territorial jurisdiction reach back and accomplish what is desired, our white American brethren are re- duced to the necessity of repudiating the source of their own authority and of ignoring pre- cedents established by their own creator. How can they legally do this? 66 V. THE ERASURE OF AFRICAN LODGE FROM THE ENGLISH ROLL Passing the question of the right of African Lodge to be, the next contention of the opposi- tion is that from the date of the erasure of Afri- can Lodge from the EngHsh roll it had no right to continue. For, it is argued, being considered as a dependent and subordinate body, which is evidenced by its being carried on the roll at all, it follows that cutting it off the roll set it adrift and thereby revoked its right to further exist- ence, as there can not any longer be such a thing in Masonry as a subordinate lodge accountable and attached to no Grand body. This argument like the others is faulty in its premise and over- looks essential historical facts. First of all it absolutely ignores the circum- stances of the erasure and the reason for it. African Lodge was not singled out and made the subject of special action in this regard, but was treated precisely like all American lodges then remaining upon the rolls either of the English Grand Lodge or of the Athol Grand Lodge. As an incident to the union of these two bodies in 67 i8i3 there was a revision of their respective rolls, as a result of which all American lodges, whether alive or defunct, were striken from the rolls. Careful students of Masonic history are agreed that this action was largely influenced by the fact of the political separateness of the two countries which came as a result of the Revolution. The strained relations which naturally followed the independence of the colonies made subordina- tion to English authority in any form irksome to Americans. The action taken by the two Grand Lodges was a happy solution of the matter so far as the fraternity was concerned. Those lodges which were already defunct of course deserved such a fate; those which were alive were thus re- leased from their English bonds and freed to affiliation with the appropriate American branches of the order, which privilege practically all such lodges availed themselves of. The ex- istence of prosperous and numerous American Grand bodies to which these lodges might attach themselves made it easy for the English mother lodges to cut off their American offspring. The interesting fact is that African Lodge alone be- came a foundling. The erasure of African Lodge in 1813 in no way affected its status; for long before that time it had already become a Grand Body and owed no especial consideration to its English Grand Lodge, save only that deference which the full 68 grown child owes to the parent to whose author- ity he as a minor was subjected. At the time of erasure African Lodge had been superceded by African Grand Lodge and in turn by Prince Hall Grand Lodge, and of course being a Grand Lodge, it did not need to attach itself to any other Grand body, as would have been the case if it had at that time still been a private or sub- ordinate lodge. One really wonders how an argument so easily refutable could be urged with any serious- ness. To say that to strike one Grand Lodge from the list of those owing allegiance to an- other Grand Lodge in no way affects the inde- pendent status of the former is to state a prin- ciple so elementary as to make ridiculous any argument which depends for its force upon a con- trary proposition. And yet that is precisely the position of the man who would seek to make capital out of the fact that African Lodge was dropped from the English Registry in 1813, un- less he has first conclusively proven that African Lodge had not previously been duly erected into a Grand Masonic body. That the attempt to do such a thing should be made demonstrates to what extent the opposition relies upon popular ignorance of the history of early Masonry in America. Much has been made out of the fact that in 1824 African Lodge applied to the English Grand 69 Lodge for authority to work the higher degrees. It is argued that the mere fact of the petition shows that African lodge did not itself consider that it was an independent, sovereign Grand body. Of all conclusions which might be drawn from the act, that, in the Hght of the circum- stances, is the least justifiable. Upton says that the probabilities are that when the petition was made African Lodge was still unaware of its erasure from the English Registry. In the light of the experience of other lodges erased at the same time, that is an entirely reasonable sup- position. However, there are good reasons to suppose that the petition was traceable to other causes. It will be recalled that one of the serious con- tentions between the ''Ancients" and "Moderns" during the long and bitter fight covering nearly one whole century related to the right to confer the Royal Arch degrees. The "Moderns" in the early part of the conflict were firm in their op- position to the higher degrees which were stig- matized as an innovation. But the "Ancients," under the inspiration of the resourceful and in- trepid Dermott, were quick to see in the capi- tular degrees an effective weapon in their war- fare for prestige; and so well was it used as such, that the "Moderns" or regulars were forced to abandon their former attitude of implacability toward these degrees. This they did gracefully, 70 however, for though a Royal Arch Chapter was formed in 1765, as a defensive measure to arrest the defections of "Moderns" to the "Ancients," for exaltation, yet the Grand Lodge of England took no official notice of its existence. Never- theless, when the union was affected in 1813, while it was declared that masonry consisted of the three symbolic degrees, the "Holy Royal Arch" was specifically and legally recognized.* Remembering the controversy that had been waged concerning the Royal Arch degrees, and * ''The Royul Arch Degree. — The Moderns, or as mor^e justly styled, the Constitutional Grand Lodge, did not recog- nize the Royal Arch Degree, nor introduce it into their system, until some thirty years later than did the Ancients. In 1758 the Grand Secretary declared, 'Our Society is neither Arch, Royal Arch, nor Ancient.' About the year 1770 this Grand Lodge authorized Thomas Dunckerley to inaugurate a new system of lectures, in doing which he 'fabricated the Royal Arch for the Modern Masons.' This met with much opposition, but his popularity and the in- fluence of the Grand Master prevailed to introduce the Royal Arch Degree into the system of the Moderns, at a period, as Dr. Oliver thinks, not earlier than the dedication of Freemasons' Hall in 1776. "From what has been heretofore said, it appears that during 1738-40 the Royal Arch Degree was adopted into the system of the 'Grand Lodge of England according to the Old Constitutions,' otherwise called the 'Ancients,' and later, the 'Athol Grand Lodge.' In 1776 a similar degree was adopted by the 'Constitutional Grand Lodge,' or the 'Moderns'; and in 1813 it was formally recognized as a part of the York Rite by the United Grand Lodge of England." — Chapman, The Capitular Degrees. 71 that their regularity as a constituent part of Masonry had been persistently challenged by the very Grand body from which it sprang, it is but natural that Prince Hall Grand Lodge should have had misgivings about the matter. It is true that this controversy had terminated eleven years before, but in those days of slow communi- cation there is evidence that some Masonic bodies in closer touch with England than Prince Hall could ever have been were at the time in question still ignorant even of the articles of the union effected in 1813. Moreover, what is more reasonable than that a supposed enlarge- ment of powers should have been sought from the same source whence came the powers orig- inally? It is also to be remembered that the au- thority of Royal Arch bodies, as such, was not at that time recognized as distinct and separate and independent of the blue lodge to the extent that it is today. Finally, it must be pointed out that in 1824 the American Grand Lodges had not entirely shaken off the parental authority of the English Grand Lodge. While not submit- ting directly to its authority they were still under its influence. With these circumstances in mind it is appar- ent to what extent the language of the petition of 1824 must be tortured to obtain any such meaning or significance as our opponents would give it. 72 VI. ARGUMENT OF THE "FREE-BORN" QUALIFICATION Among the points brought to the surface by the fine-tooth comb of the opposition is an al- leged ritualistic defect involving the qualifica- tion of candidates. It is contended that early- Negro lodges struck from the Masonic Ritual the words "free-born" and substituted therefor the word "free" in describing the requisites for initiation. They who unearthed this objection must have had access to historical data not usu- ally available; for a most exhaustive biblio- graphy has failed to yield to the writer any in- formation on which it may be stated as a cer- tainty that early Negro lodges made any such substitution. The author can furthermore tes- tify out of extensive and intimate knowledge that Negro lodges today universally use the word "free-born." The contrary statement is unquestionably the outgrowth of the assumption that owing to the existence of slavery such a qualification must have been required, because very few Negroes in the United States had been born free. But an assumption, however reason- able, is after all only an assumption and not a proven fact. 73 But suppose the first Negro lodges in this country did change the Ritual to the extent in question. What then? Does it follow that such action vitiates the entire Masonic regularity of those making such a change? By no means. How far are Masonic Grand bodies bound in the matter of particular ritualistic formula and statement? This far: No Grand Lodge may change in any respect the ancient modes of rec- ognition. This is a landmark. No Grand Lodge may so tamper with the Ritual as to destroy in any essential particular the ancient legend of the Temple Builder — this is likewise a land- mark.* The division of symbolic Masonry into * "The Temple leg^end, however, must be retained as a part of the ritual as long as the present system of Specula- tive Freemasonry exists, and the legendary and allegorical narrative must be repeated by the Master of the Lodge on the occasion of every initiation into the mysteries of the Third Degree, because, though it is no longer to be accepted as an historical statement, yet the events which it records are still recognized as a myth containing within itself, and independent of all questions of probability, a symbolical significance of the highest importance. "This mythical legend of the Temple, and of the Temple Builder, must ever remain an inseparable part of the Ma- sonic ritual, and the narrative must be repeated on all ap- propriate occasions, because, without this legend, Specu- lative Masonry would lose its identity and would abandon the very object of its original institution. On this legend, whether true or false, whether a history or a myth, is the most vital portion of the symbolism of Freemasonry founded." — Mackey-Singleton, "History of Freemasonry p, 965. 74 three degrees must be observed, and the object of all ritualistic practice must be to lead the neophyte to the true "word" by means of the well recognized symbolism, and more particularly by use of the ancient legend already mentioned. Any Masonic ritual which substantially con- forms to these requirements is above just reproach. The Masonic Ritual is claimed to have been handed down from one generation to another, by word of mouth. The commitment of the Ritual to any sort of written form, even in char- acters not generally intelligible to the profane, is not in strict accord with the Masonic vows. Indeed, many white Grand Lodges, in order to preserve the fiction of oral transmission, shut their eyes to the prevalent practice of using "cipher work," and disavow in their Ordi- nances their recognition of any written Masonic Ritual. Now if it is true that recognition is to be accorded alone to what has been received into the "listening ear," how absurd at once becomes the claim of any Ritual to verbal infallibility. Moreover, what credible white witness is there to testify that the ancient questions orally pro- pounded to candidates, within Negro lodges, contained the alteration claimed? We advert to our original position. A mere change of ritualistic detail, unless it involves a violation of the fundamental laws of Masonry, 75 as before declared in these pages, can not im- peach the regularity of the Grand body making such a change. Here is a case in point. Many Grand Lodges of today prohibit from member- ship in the order any man engaged in the sale of spirituous and intoxicating liquors, yet there was no ancient rule to that effect. Must we say, therefore, that because the ancient Halliwell Poem contained no bar against tavern keepers modern Grand Lodges have no right to make the prohibition referred to? There are as an- cient and as strong Masonic precedents for re- quiring that candidates for the mysteries of Ma- sonry shall be "free" as there are that they shall be '*free-born." And Grand bodies making such requirement are better within their rights than are those American Grand Lodges who add "white*' to their list of qualifications for initia- tion. If Negro lodges ever used the word "free'* instead of "free-born" they can point to the au- thority of the Ancient Regius manuscript, and to the action of the English Grand Lodge in the early part of the last century; but our white friends will find neither landmark, nor sound usage, nor ancient precedent to sustain them in basing Masonic eligibility upon race.* Surely * "2. Behaviour After The Lodge is Over and the Brethren Not Gone. "You may enjoy yourselves with innocent Mirth, treating one another according to Ability, but avoiding all Excess, 76 that were a ritualistic innovation odious enough to impugn the Masonry of its sponsors — if such be possible. The reason behind the ancient rule requiring that initiates should be free was that if a slave, an apprentice, a minor, or any other person not sui juris, were made a Mason, his master would have a right under the civil law to invade the privacy of a lodge in pursuit of his slave or ward, and to prevent such an invasion all Masons were solemnly bound. To obviate the possibility of any clash between Masonic and civil authority, therefore, the rule was made. For in spite of the claim of ignorant persons to the contrary, it has always been the design of the Masonic institu- tion to teach its votaries to yield ready and loyal or forcing any Brother to eat or drink beyond his Inclina- tion, or hindering him from going when his Occasions call him, or doing or saying any thing offensive, or that may forbid an easy and free Conversation ; for that would blast our Harmony, and defeat our laudable Purposes. There- fore no private Piques or Quarrels must be brought within the Door of the Lodge far less any Quarrels about Religion, or Nations, or State Policy, we being only, as Masons, of the Catholick Religion above-mention'd ; we are also of all Nations, Tongues, Kindreds, and Languages, and are re- solv'd against all Politicks, as what never yet conduced to the Welfare of the Lodge, nor ever will. This Charge has been always strictly enjoin'd and observed; but especially ever since the Reformation in Britain, or the Dissent and Secession of these Nations from the Communion of Rome." — Charges of A Freemason, Edition of 1723. (The italics are mine.) 77 obedience to the civil authority.* If the fore- going is the true reason behind the rule, it is at once apparent that it matters little whether a candidate for the mysteries was born free, or not, so long as he is free when he presents him- self for initiation. Masonry is interested pri- marily in the qualifications of a man at the time when he seeks admission into the order. If he had previous and involuntary disabilities from which he had been manumitted, he is Masonic- ally acceptable if possessed of the other neces- sary qualifications. Any contrary principle is utterly at variance with the very genius of the institution. * "II. Of the Civil Magistrate supreme and sub- ordinate. "A Mason is a peaceable Subject to the Civil Powers, wherever he resides or works, and is never to be concern'd in Plots and Conspiracies against the Peace and Welfare of the Nation, nor to behave himself undutifully to inferior Magistrates; for as Masonry hath been always injured by War, Bloodshed, and Confusion, so ancient Kings and Princes have been much dispos'd to encourage the Crafts- men, because of their Peaceableness and Loyalty, whereby they practically answer'd the Cavils of their Adversaries, and promoted the Honour of the Fraternity, who ever flourished in Times of Peace. So that if a Brother should be a Rebel against the State, he is not to be countenanc'd in his Rebellion, however he may be pitied as an unhappy Man ; and, if convicted of no other Crime, though the loyal Brotherhood must and ought to disown his Rebellion, and give no Umbrage or Ground of political Jealousy to the Government for the time being ; they cannot expel him from 78 the Lodge, and his Relation to it remains indefeasible." — Charges of a Freemason, Ed. 1723. This point is well made by Grand Master Upton in his book, in which connection he quotes from the Ancient Regius Poem as follows: "Gef yn logge he were y-take, Muche desese hyt mygth ther make. * * * ♦ For alle the masonus that ben there Wol stonde togedur hoi y-fere." Besides the reasons here suggested, this qualification is undoubtedly a relic of the era of Operative Masonry, and is among the few useless requirements which escaped the discard after the Institution became purely speculative in character. While we owe nearly all that is vital in our symbolism to our inheritance from Operative Masonry, still we are not obliged to a blind adherence to points which our changed society renders no longer material, however much they have been insisted upon by our ancient brothers who made up the guilds of architects and builders. 79 VII. AS TO RECOGNITION *7 do not love thee, Doctor Fell, The reason why I can not tell; But this alone I know full well, I do not love thee, Doctor Fell/' How well do these famous old lines epitomize the unreasonableness of prejudice. That same unreasonable and unreasoning prejudice is alone responsible for the invention of the alleged rea- sons against the legitimacy of Negro Masonry. To the uninitiated it is not readily apparent as to why white American Masons should trouble themselves to invent such reasons. Powerful motives are usually behind persistent distortion of facts and persistent misinterpretation of his- tory. To those who are familiar with the true inwardness of the Masonic institution, it is all plain enough. Masonry is entirely different from all other fraternal organizations. In other fraternal bodies if one element in its member- ship is offended because of the presence of an- other element, the disgruntled ones usually settle the difficulty by withdrawing and setting up for themselves an "Independent" or "Improved" 81 branch of the same order. In Masonry such things can not be done. Secession is impossible, and any designation intended to indicate sepa- ration or distinction carries upon its face its own impeachment. The same thing under another title is the ruse which has been successfully em- ployed by white Americans in other "ancient" orders to escape affiliation with Negroes. But no such things can avail them in Masonry. For every regular Mason is possessed of certain in- alienable rights which must be recognized and respected by every other Mason everywhere. One could not deliberately make a catalog which would be more offensive to your white Americans than are the inherent rights and cor- responding obligations of an individual Mason, as a basis of fraternal contact with a Negro, whatever might be the merits of the latter. Here is the source of all the trouble. To adapt a famous figure, if in all things Masonic the white and black Americans could be one, and yet in matters social be as separate as the fingers of the hand, then no one would ever hear impugned the Masonry of Prince Hall and his followers. Unfortunately, Masonry knows no caste. The badge of a Mason to its worthy possessor is an honor which is equal to any which he could ever receive from kings or potentates. To a true Mason an admission of his inferiority to any man is a disavowal of his Masonry. 82 It is clear therefore that the only consistent course open to the white Mason in this country who desires to avoid his obligations to his Negro > brethren is to refuse them recognition. That he can justify only by challenging the legitimacy of Negro Masonry. The interesting thing about it is that the sufficiency of the grounds of the chal- lenge is not apt to affect their attitude. If these pages had been written to demonstrate the in- tellectual and moral obliquity of the average white American wherever the race question is involved, and especially to shame him out of his untenable position on Negro Masonry, the writer would have had his efforts for his pains. Logic and ethical consistency are no obstacles in the way of American prejudice. One black face is moral pandemonium. White Masons of Amer- ica would invent m^ny more absurdities than these with which they now charge Prince Hall before they would admit the truth as to why they deny recognition to Negro Masons. Moreover, there are very few among them who have the courage of their illustrious General Albert Pike, who said, "Prince Hall Lodge was as regular a lodge as any lodge created by competent author- ty, and had a perfect right (as other lodges in Europe did) to establish other lodges, making itself a mother lodge." And yet this also: ''I took my obligation to white men, not to Negroes. When I have to accept Negroes as brothers or 83 leave Masonry, I shall leave it." * Point out, if you will, the faulty reasoning of this man in that he considers the binding force of a vow to de- pend upon the person who happens to administer it, rather than upon its content. Still the manly frankness of his attitude is in conspicuous con- trast with that of the average of his fellows. The completest possible vindication of Negro Masonry would not bring to it the recognition of the white Masons of the United States. This * The letter of General Albert Pike, Sovereig^n Grand Commander, A. & A. Scottish Rite, containing: these re- markable sentiments — remarkable for a Mason — has become so famous a part of the documentary history of Negro Masonry, that we hardly dare omit it. "Alexandria, Va., 13th September, 1875. "My Dear Friend and Brother. — I can see as plainly as you that the Negro question is going to make trouble. There are plenty of regular Negro Masons and Negro lodges in South America and the West Indies, and our folks only stave off the question by saying that Negro Masons here are clandestine. Prince Hall Lodge was as regular a Lodge as any lodge created by competent authority, and had a perfect right (as other lodges in Europe did) to establish other lodges, making itself a Mother Lodge. That's the way the Berlin lodges, Three Globes and Royal York, became Grand Lodges. "The Grand Orient of Hayti is as regular as any other. So is the Grand Orient of the Dominican Republic, which, I dare say, has Negroes in it and Negro lodges under it. "Again, if the Negro lodges are not regular they can eas- ily get regularized. If our Grand Lodges won't recognize Negro lodges, they have the right to go elsewhere. The Grand Lodge can't say to eight or more Masons, black or 84 is no calamity. Quite the contrary. So far from considering ultimate white recognition as an in- dispensable end to be sought, the writer believes that it is not even an end to be desired, unless it is preceded by a complete reversal of the attitude of white folk on many points in the race question usually deemed by them to be most vital — a con- summation which will scarcely be witnessed by any person living at the time of the publication of this book. But after all what does it matter white, we will not give you a charter because you are Negroes, or because you wish to work the Scottish Rite, and you shall not go elsewhere to get one. That latter part is bosh. ''Hamburg recognizes the Grand Lodges. Yes, and so the German Grand Lodge Confederation is going to do, and so will the Grand Orient of France before long. "Of course, if negrophily continues to be the religion es- tablished by law of your States, there will be before long somewhere a beginning of recognition of Negro bodies. Then the Royal Arch and Templar bodies of Negroes must be taken in, and Masonry go down to their level. Will your plan work ? I think not. I think there is no middle ground between rigid exclusion of Negroes or recognition, and af- filiation with the whole mass. • *Tf they are not Masons, how protect them as such or at all? If they are Masons, how deny them affiliation or have two supreme powers in one jurisdiction. *T am not inclined to meddle in the matter. I took my obligations to white men, not to Negroes. When I have to accept Negroes as brothers or leave Masonry, I shall leave it. "I am interested to keep the Ancient and Accepted Rite uncontaminated, in our country at least, by the leprosy of 85 to Negro Masonry whether it is "recognized" by the white Masons of the United States? Con- sider what non-"recognition" really means. It means first that the white Masons consider themselves bound to Negro Masons by none of those engagements which every regular Mason must undertake toward his brothers and fellows. In the second place, non-"recognition" means a refusal to observe the customary amenities of Negro association. Our Supreme Council can defend its jurisdiction, and it is the law-maker. There can not be a lawful body of that Rite in our jurisdiction unless it is created by us. **I am not so sure but that, what with immensity of num- bers, want of a purpose worth laboring for, general indif- ference to obligations, pitiful charity and large expenses, fuss, feathers and fandango, big temples and large debts, Masonry is become a great helpless, inert mass that will some day, before long, topple over, and go under. If you wish it should, I think you can hasten the catastrophe by urging a protectorate of the Negroes. Better let the thing drift. Apres nous le deluge. "Truly yours, Albert Pike." (111. Comp. John D. Caldwell.) Shamelessly has this bold man unmasked the whole miserable pretence. It is not from the spectre of Irregu- larity that they shrink. It is not their abhorrence of a clan- destine body having no right to practice Masonry, that draws them apart from Prince Hall and his followers. It is their own inability to grasp the true essence of the Fra- ternity. They can not be converted to the "established religion" of "negrophily." They can not be converted to the religion of universal Brotherhood, which is Masonry. 86 Masonic intercourse. Thus defined we again ask, how can it matter to Negro Masonry that men who take their Masonic vows with mental reservations refuse to ''recognize" other men who subscribe unequivocally to the sacred en- gagements of the fraternity? * So far from lamenting the absolute disassocia- tion of Negro Masonry from the white Masonry of this country, our attitude towards that fact should be that of serene indifference. Because of what it is meant to imply, and because of its usual accompaniment of degradation, the Negro * Let it be remembered that Masonic regularity is not dependent upon ''Recognition." The whole list of human frailties may stand behind a refusal of one set of Masons to "recognize" another. One could safely wager, I believe, that far more than half of the white Masons of the United States who would refuse to accord to their Negro brothers Masonic fellowship, have never heard of African Lodge, or of Prince Hall, and a still larger number know little or nothing of the merits of the case for Negro Masonry. In their bigoted ignorance they cannot conceive of a Negro Masonry on their own level. I recall an appropriate par- able: A Scotch sea captain was nearing a trading port ^ where favorable wharfage was of very great value. Sud- denly there hove in sight the vessel of his dearest rival. There at once ensued a bitter race to make the place of best advantage. Seeing himself completely out-distanced, our Scotch friend in utter desperation, fell upon his knees and lifting his eyes heavenward, thus prayed, with emphasis as indicated: "Oh my Father! sittest Thou in peace on Thy throne and beholdest yon out-lander about to make port ahead of one of Thine own children?" The application is obvious. 87 people frequently find themselves compelled to oppose the separation of the races. This fact is often seized upon by detractors, both within and without the ranks, as evidence of our lack of proper racial self-esteem. More is the reason, therefore, that on those occasions when it does no hurt to be by ourselves, we ought to be con- spicuous in our contentment to have it so. The followers of Prince Hall are regular Masons. Why should they crave "recognition" from those whose Masonic divestment has left them still clothed in all the pettiness and preju- dice of the profane; and to whom the word brother is a designation of a social status rather than of the universal kinship of men? The followers of Prince Hall believe in the universality of Masonry. Shall they feel ag- grieved at being denied affiliation with those whose Masonry is of such sort that they halt the worthy candidate at the porch of the Temple to inquire if he be Aryan, or Finn, or Hottentot? The followers of Prince Hall are proud of their Masonry. Shall they therefore aspire to assume Masonic offices for those who would deem it a condescension to accept the same? Or shall they desire to take their distress to those who would consider any proffered relief not the charity of a Mason but the alms of a profane? The only recognition which Negro Masons could ever accept without self-stultification would 88 be recognition coupled with union with them under the wide baldachin of universal Masonry, from which the white brethren have drawn themselves apart. As to recognition on any- other basis — a fig! 89 VIII. HOW SHALL NEGRO MASONS TREAT WHITE AMERICAN MASONS? Two very troublesome questions have been a constant source of perplexity to Negro Masons: the first is, v^^hat should be the official attitude of Negro Masonry towards white American Ma- sonry? The difficulty in answering this question is the difficulty of deciding how to treat these regular Masons in the manner which their own un-Ma- sonic attitude deserves, and yet be consistent and true to Masonic vows. Some few Negro Ma- sonic bodies have adopted the easy course of paying the white Masons back in kind, i. e., chal- lenging the legitimacy of their Masonry. These bodies, in the language of Grand Master Prince Hall, are "chargeable with the inconsistency of acting, themselves, the part which they condemn and oppose in others." Of all courses it ill be- comes us most to emulate that in our opponents which we ourselves most severely criticize. We are driven to no such extremes. We need not follow the white Masons into any hair-splitting subtleties to get them off our Masonic con- science. They have themselves made the task 91 much more simple. When a man says to you that you are not a Mason, he at once absolves you from all Masonic obligations towards him. And to justify your conduct in treating him ac- cordingly it is not necessary for you to show t^at he himself is not a regular Mason. When one Mason stigmatizes another as clandestine, he thereby severs the fraternal cord which binds him to that other. Every rule of self respect requires that Negro Masonry should officially hold itself aloof from white Masonry wherever it is the policy of the latter to deny the regularity of Prince Hall Masons. The second question presents a more difficult problem. The attitude of one organization to- wards another organization can be easily deter- mined. An organization is impersonal. Man to man contact is altogether another matter. How shall the individual Negro Mason treat the indi- vidual white Mason who is inclined to disregard the inhibitions of his own Grand Lodges and to hold Masonic intercourse with Negro Masons? Let us say at once that whenever such men evince a willingness to meet their black brethren on the level of Masonic equality, we can afford to be as generous as they. So long as the con- duct of the individual white Mason whom we meet in no way offends the strict proprieties of Masonic intercourse, we are entirely justified in 92 fraternizing with him; for if in the high Masonic sense he treats us as a brother, we need not con- cefn ourselves overmuch about the fact that he disregards the local ordinances of his own Grand Lodge. That is his matter. Of course by fra- ternizing under the circumstances here recited is not meant official participation in Masonic labors; but rather the ordinary amenities of in- formal personal contact. In meeting white men who are inclined to be Masonically cordial, however, the Negro Mason should always be punctiliously insistent that he be treated absolutely as a Masonic equal. It would seem that that would go without saying. But the simple truth is, the Negro has been so much mistreated by the other race, that he is all but inclined to put a premium upon ordinary decent behaviour towards him. The writer re- calls the enthusiasm of a recital by one of the oldest Past Masters of his own lodge, how dur- ing his incumbency in the chair certain promi- nent white Masons had been admitted to his lodge to witness the conferring of the Master's degree; and how his visitors gave vent to their utter astonishment at the proficiency of their Negro brethren in the Masonic Ritual, avowing that the "work" could not have been better done by white Masons themselves. This questionable compliment is cherished with pride by the brother in question to this day, although he was 93 denied the return of the courtesy of visitation by these same white Masons. The writer has actually witnessed the spec- tacle of a white Mason in distress soliciting re- lief from a Negro Mason, and then receiving the same with a patronizing air like the beggar Prince who exacted that his peasant benefactor do obeisance while bestowing upon him a much required charity. Your average white American is so subtle and insidious in his condescension that most of the time the Negro finds himself dealing with him on a basis of implied inferiority without knowing how it all came about. Indeed, if by the time the Negro American reaches his majority, he has not acquired a consciousness of race inferiority it certainly is not because his education to that end has been neglected. For from the time when he first begins to read about the white face children in the picture books, until he is finally laid away in a segregated corner of the burying ground, his whole training and experience have been well calculated to impress upon him that he is not supposed to belong on the same level with his fellow humans about him. We venture to picture the appropriate per- sonal attitude of a Negro Mason towards Masons of the white race whom he may meet: Those who approach him with a morbid curiosity simply to learn what a Negro may make out of the Insti- 94 tution of Freemasonry, he will treat with de- served contempt. Those who bear themselves towards him with supercilious condescension, he will Masonically ignore. Such as treat him pre- cisely as though the differences of race do not stand before the claims of brotherhood, he will accord unreserved communication. He will evince no anxiety to "talk Masonry'' with every white man who may happen to wear the square and compasses in the lapel of his coat. Toward the rare exception, the member of the other race who is sincere in his Masonic advances, he will be quiet-mannered and modest, receiving any proffered Masonic attention as a matter of course, and not as a rare distinction conferred. Should he be hailed by one of the votaries of the perverted Masonry described in this book, in dis- tress, in spite of the absence of any claim upon his charity, the true son of Prince Hall will prob- ably emulate the example of the neighborly man on the Jericho road — even though the Jews and the Samaritans have no dealings one with the other. 95 BIBLIOGRAPHY Ancient Constitutions Anderson. Antiquities of Freemasonry Oliver. Encyclopedia of Masonry Macoy-Oliver. Five Periods of Masonry Oliver. General Ahiman Rezon Sickels-Macoy. History of Colored Freemasonry .... Grimshaw. History of Freemasonry and Concordant Orders Stillson, et al. History of Freemasonry Gould. History of Freemasonry Mackey-Singleton. Illustrations of Masonry Preston. Masonic Jurisprudence Mackey. Masonic Jurisprudence Simons. Masonic Jurisprudence and Symbolism . . Lawrence. Masonic Law and Practice Lockwood. Masonic Digest Chase. Negro Masonry Upton. Sundry Proceedings of the Grand Lodges of Massachusetts, New York, Quebec, Pennsylvania, District of Columbia, South Caro- lina (all white bodies), etc. THE END