THE BUILDER MARCH 1918

ON THE RECOGNITION OF THE GRAND LODGE OF PANAMA

BY BROS. M. M. JOHNSON, P.G.M., AND W.H.L. ODELL, P.D.G.M., MASS.

In connection with this article the attention of our readers is
called to Brother Johnson's article "Masonry in Panama," in the
November, 1917, issue of THE BUILDER and the report of the
Committee on Foreign Correspondence of the Grand Lodge of
Illinois concerning the recognition of the Grand Lodge of Panama,
which will be found on page 31 of the January, 1918, issue of THE
BUILDER.

IT is unfortunate that the Grand Lodge of Illinois has been
misled by the report of the Brother who in 1917 was (but no
longer is) its Committee on Correspondence, into declining to
recognize the Grand Lodge of Panama. The publicity given to this
report in your issue for January calls for an immediate reply
lest other Grand Lodges adopt the mistakes of this Committee.

The Committee recommends that the Grand Lodge of Panama be not
recognized for two reasons:

First, because its constituent Lodges were originally founded by
Supreme Councils;

Second, because its constituent Lodges had charters from the
Grand Lodge of Venezuela.

The second reason may be easily disposed of by the statement that
it is incorrect. None of the constituent bodies of the Grand
Lodge of Panama have ever "resorted to the expedient .... of
procuring charters from the Grand Lodge of Venezuela." The
Brother has drawn an inference from the inmost recesses of his
mind which does not exist in fact. A number of the constituent
Lodges of the Grand Lodge of Panama originally received their
charters from Venezuela but not from the body to which he refers.
On the contrary, they w-ere received from the Supreme Council
which is recognized by the Supreme Councils of the Northern and
Southern Jurisdictions of the United States as well as by others.

The first reason requires more extended discussion. Is it true
that the Grand Lodges of this country are to regard as outlaws
Lodges of Symbolic Masonry which are founded by legitimate
Supreme Councils in countries where no recognized Symbolic Grand
Lodge exists? If it is, then the growth and development of
Masonry in many of those parts of the world where there are no
legitimate Grand Lodges is forever stopped and our claims to
universality are a delusion and a snare. As we have understood
the rule, it is in brief to the effect that in countries where
there is no Symbolic Grand Lodge but where there is a legitimate
and recognized Supreme Council, the members of their Symbolic
Lodges are accorded by us a welcome and the right hand of
fellowship. Though we have not recognized a Grand Lodge to which
they are subordinate, yet, nevertheless, we hold fraternal
intercourse with them, admit them to our Lodges, visit theirs,
extend charity to their Brethren when necessary and our Brethren
receive the same from them. This is true entirely apart from the
question whether Sovereign Grand Lodges may regard such territory
as open to them for the purpose of establishing Lodges.

It should be borne in mind that the Brother who composed the
Committee on Correspondence of the Grand Lodge of Illinois for
1917 has very strong views with regard to all but the first three
Degrees and if we may judge from his writings claims that we have
no business to recognize any such as Masonic.

If we are not to regard the Royal Arch Chapters, the Councils of
R.&S.M., the Commanderies of K.T. and the Scottish Rite from the
Fourth to the Thirty third inclusive as Masonic, then, of course,
the position which he takes is correct, but we supposed that this
question had been forever settled during the decade of the 80's
when, after most elaborate consideration by the ablest Masons of
the world, there were written into very many of the Constitutions
of the various Grand Lodges provisions expressly recognizing the
bodies mentioned as Masonic. This was done in Massachusetts, for
instance, after most exhaustive examination and report by a
Committee which was composed of Brethren, no one of whom had ever
received any of the Degrees of the Scottish Rite. If there be any
serious question that this whole matter has not been settled once
and for all, then it should be again discussed and disposed of.

Certain consequences, however, should be pointed out which will
follow if the views of this Committee on Correspondence for the
Grand Lodge of Illinois are to govern the Masonic world.

1. The inconsistence thereof is shown, to begin with, by the fact
that the Grand Lodge of Illinois recognizes the Grand Lodge of
Cuba. This Grand Lodge was organized under the Grand Orient
system. The charters of the Lodges which composed it upon the
adoption of its new Constitution in 1865 and of those who joined
it for many years thereafter had to be confirmed and vised by the
Supreme Council. In its organization it was not independent as
our Grand Lodges are today. It was even less independent of the
Supreme Council than are the Lodges which compose the Grand Lodge
of Panama today, for at the organization of the Grand Lodge of
Panama its constituent Lodges became absolutely independent of
any Supreme Council or Grand Orient in the world.

2. If we are not to accept the legitimacy of Lodges originally
founded under the Supreme Council or Grand Orient system, then
the larger part of the territory of the world will be without
recognized Masonry from now on for there are in many countries
but a very few and in some countries no Lodges of Symbolic
Masonry constituted by Sovereign Grand Lodges, although there are
many Symbolic Lodges constituted by Supreme Councils.

In the following countries, for instance, substantially all the
Masonry there is in the first three Degrees is that established
under Supreme Council or Grand Orient system, namely: Central
America (except Panama and Costa Rica), Argentine Republic,
Belgium, Brazil, Chile, Columbia, Dominican Republic, Egypt,
Ecuador, France, Greece, Guatemala, Haiti, Italy, Luxemburg,
Paraguay, Servia, Spain, Turkey, Uruguay and Venezuela. In all of
these countries except Guatemala, Haiti and Luxemburg there exist
Supreme Councils recognized by the Supreme Councils of the
Northern and Southern Jurisdictions of the United States.

In South America, for instance, there are twentyfour Lodges under
the obedience of the Grand Lodge of England; seven under that of
Scotland; three under that of Massachusetts; and seven under that
of the Grand Lodge of Hamburg. There are, however, known to be at
least seven hundred and sixteen Lodges organized under the Grand
Orient or Supreme Council system. The Grand Lodge of Brazil is
believed to have three hundred and ninety Lodges; of Venezuela,
twenty-four; of Uruguay, eighteen; of Paraguay, nine; of Parana,
twelve; of Rio Grande do Sul, forty; of the Argentine Republic,
one hundred and thirty-five; of Chile, twenty-seven. We have
found these officially reported but we personally know of many
more which are not included in this computation. An extensive
list would require a tremendous amount of time in preparation and
a large amount of space to print. We, therefore, ask those who
read this article to accept our word for this statement. As to
those listed, we suggest examination of the Jubilee number of the
Bulletin issued by the International Bureau for Masonic Affairs
and of the various Supreme Council reports which may be found on
file in the libraries of most Grand Lodges.

Although here and there in these countries there are, as we have
stated, a very few Lodges established by foreign recognized Grand
Lodges, yet the substantial Masonic unity of the countries is
under the Supreme Council or Grand Orient system and is
sufficiently important officially to be recognized as such by all
the Supreme Councils of the world. Where there is such strength,
it is impossible to enter the territory successfully with
sufficient number of other Lodges founded by Sovereign Grand
Lodges to take possession of the Masonic field. Moreover, they
cannot oust the existing Symbolic Lodges whether they have
charters from a Supreme Council or a Grand Lodge. They would
enter only as disturbers and would accomplish nothing.

We recognize fully that in all countries the Symbolic Lodges
should be, and we believe ultimately will be, self-governing but
when the Grand Lodges in such countries are established, if they
are to be successful, they must have in each case as constituent
Lodges the substantial Masonic unity of the country including
those theretofore established by the Supreme Councils.

For brevity's sake, we do no more than suggest the fundamental
principle believing that the reasons therefor and the proper
development thereof will be apparent to every thoughtful mind
conversant with the situation.


3. If the Illinois policy be adopted, then we are doing
everything humanly possible to crush out Masonry in many
countries of the world instead of encouraging it. There are Blue
Lodge Masons holding allegiance to Supreme Councils who are as
loyal to the principles of our institution as are we ourselves.
In most of the countries named they are still struggling against
intolerance, bigotry and persecution. Individually (and in some
places collectively) they are struggling for freedom of
conscience and the right which our fathers in the United States
have guaranteed to us through our Constitutions, to worship God
as each conscience chooses for itself. Masonry would be derelict
in its duty and false to its principles if it did not give moral
encouragement to these great aims. Masonry should be ashamed of
itself if it is going to hunt for technicalities which shall
prevent the development of its principles in those parts of the
world where much is yet to be done. We should seek the substance
and not the form where we find men who claim to be Masons, who
adhere to the landmarks, who are the right type and who have
received their Degrees in bodies which are regarded by the
substantial unity of the Masonic world as Masonic. We should
offer encouragement instead of proscription. Shall we be false to
our teachings and traitorous to our principles by splitting hairs
? If so, we misunderstand the spirit of the Masons in this
country.

4. The Illinois rule, if generally followed, will only strengthen
and perpetuate the Grand Orient system. Where there has been the
Supreme Council or Grand Orient system governing Symbolic Lodges,
there has almost inevitably resulted political chaos. Brother
Albert Pike's remedy for that was the establishment of the three
first degrees under an independent sovereign Grand Lodge composed
of the existing subordinate Lodges. And Brother Pike was right.
We ought to encourage this in Panama and elsewhere instead of 
forcing them to remain under a system which we do not believe in.
But if they are to be proscribed and outlawed when they adopt our
system of Masonic organization, then they will stay as they are.

