THE BUILDER JUNE 1927

The Anti-Cerneau Movement in the American Grand Bodies

By BRO. CHARLES SUMNER LOBINGIER, Washington, D. C.

(Concluded)

CERNEAUISM became a live issue in the Masonic circles of Nebraska as early as
1889. On May 1 of that year the Grand Commandery meeting at York adopted a
resolution (75) specifying the Grand
bodies recognized by it and mentioning by name and commander, the
Northern and Southern Supreme Councils. An attempt was made by a
Past Commander to have consideration postponed, and after its
adoption he announced an appeal (76) which, apparently, was never
carried out. The Grand Lodge met on the 19th of the following
month and Grand Master France declared in his address:

Two laws of jurisdiction are universally recognized and adhered to
by loyal Masons of all rites:

1. That two Grand bodies of the same grade cannot lawfully exist
in the same state at the same time.

2. That the first lawfully constituted body established in a state
and duly recognized by corresponding bodies, thereby obtains
exclusive jurisdiction in such territory, and that any other body
of the same grade or rite entering later within such territory, is
in itself unlawful.

These axiomatic propositions have never, to my knowledge, been
denied by any intelligent jurist. It may be claimed that this
Grand Lodge has no right to take any action with reference to the
higher degrees and higher orders of Masonry. However this may be,
many grand jurisdictions have established a precedent by which it
seems to me we can be safely guided (77).

The Committee on Jurisprudence approved the two propositions
quoted above but

expressly declines to enter upon any discussion of the history,
use or legitimacy of any bodies claiming to confer what is known
as the Scottish Rite degrees, or to be committed to the
recognition of any such body, or to the recognition of any body
conferring any degrees over which this Grand Lodge has no control
(78)

That report was adopted on June 20, 1889. Exactly one month later
a new and more aggressive Grand Master, who had meanwhile taken
office, issued an edict declaring

that the only legitimate and lawfully constituted Masonic
authority of the Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite within the
State of Nebraska is that of the Southern Jurisdiction for the
United States, presided over by Bro. Albert Pike; that all others
not acknowledging allegiance to the said eouthern Jurisdiction are
UNLAWFUL AND CLANDESTINE, and their creation and maintenance is a
menace to the peace, tranquility and harmony of the Craft (79),

and enjoining

all brethren within our Jurisdiction to refrain from joining any
bodies of the so-called "Cerneau Rite"; and if any have already
become members thereof, to withdraw from such membership and
association (80).

On Aug. 6, following, the members of Nebraska Lodge, No. 1, "the
oldest landmark of Freemasonry in the state," adopted a manifesto
(81), in the form of resolutions, to the other lodges, protesting
against the edict and in effect declaring it ultra vires. Two
weeks later the Grand Master, to use his own language,

suspended the Master and Wardens thereof from the exercise of
their official functions, took possession of the charter, records
and seal of said lodge, and directed the Treasurer of said lodge
to retain all moneys belonging thereto in his possession,
informing him that I would hold him personally and officially
responsible for the same until called for by proper authority
(82).

Here truly was a challenge to the followers of Cerneau

who had, some of them, been highly honored by the Craft of
Nebraska by the election to some of the highest offices and
positions of honor in their gift, and who justly prided themselves
that they were prominent in Masonic circles among us (83).

Such an issue could be settled only in the Grand Lodge itself, and
it was there settled at the ensuing session. The Grand Master
devoted nearly twentythree pages of his address to the subject,
reviewing exhaustively the action thereon of the various Grand
Lodges. He also recommended

that Alexander Atkinson, Master; Augustus C. Osterman, Senior
Warden; and William D. McHugL, Junior Warden, be proceeded against
and disciplined in the manner and to the extent that in your
judgment the gravity of their offence merits, all the
circumstances of the case considered. (84)

The address and the action preceding it evoked a long and
acrimonious discussion, as the following excerpt from the
proceedings, relative to a resolution to "unequivocally approve,
sustain and endorse the Grand Master," will indicate:

Bro. Lininger, 3, moved that the resolution be referred to the
committee on jurisprudence. Bros. Chapman, 6, and Holmes, 55
addressed the brethren. Bro. Holmes, 55, moved, as a substitute,
that the resolution be referred to a special committee whose
members shall not be Scottish Rite Masons--ruled out of order, the
motion to refer to a standing committee having precedence. Bros.
Hastings 19, Warren, 2, Chapman, 6. Dunham, 3, Rayner, 75, Crites,
i58, Furnas, 4, Coutant, 11, France, 56, Lowe, 95, Dinsmore, 49,
Ehrhardt, 41, Davis, 21, and Phelps 34, addressed the brethren.
Bro. Lininger, 3, withdrew his motion. Bro. Wooley, 97, moved
reference of the resolution to a special committee of five, none
of whom should be Scottish Rite Masons, which motion was lost.
Bros. Owen, 19, Coutant, 11 Lininger, 3, Wheeler, 1, Lininger, 3,
France, 56, Martin, 46. Chapman, 6, Cleburne, 3, and Warren, 2.
addressed the brethren. Bro. Rayner. 75, offered an amendment to
the pending resolution; Bro. Warren, 2, moved that all new matter
therein be stricken out, and Bro. Rayner erased it; Bro. Wheeler,
1, moved strike out the first preamble, which motion prevailed.
(85)

An amendment recalling the edict, censuring the lodge but
restoring its charter, was defeated by a vote of 336 to 151, and
the original resolution of unequivocal approval was thereupon
adopted

by three hundred and forty-five (345) yeas to one hundred and
thirty-nine (139) nays. (86)

Thus ended what was probably the most strenuous contest over
Cerneauism of the many which raged in the American Grand Lodges.

The Indian Territory Grand Master closed that portion of his
address devoted to the subject before the Grand Lodge which held
its sixteenth annual communication at Muskogee on Nov. 4, 1890,
with these words:

Cerneauism has thrown some of our sister Grand Lodges and the
Craft within their jurisdiction into a state of confusion which
for a time seemed to threaten their very existence. Let us profit
by their experience, and so legislate in advance that our Grand
Lodge may never feel disturbance from this clandestine enemy (87)

The special committee to which this portion of the address was
referred, and whose report was unanimously adopted, recommended

That the Grand Lodge of Indian Territory, A. F. and A. M.,
reaffirm the declaration of Masonic principles set forth in the
address of Grand Master Bennett, touching Masonic occupancy of the
territory controlled by it--Indian Territory and Oklahoma --and
hereby instructs its subordinates that it recognizes as legal
occupants of the Indian Territory * * * the A. and A. Scottish
Rite Supreme Council for the Southern Jurisdiction of the United
States of which Albert Pike is the present Sovereign Grand
Commander (88).

The last Grand Master of the Indian Territory Grand Lodge, before
its union with that of Oklahoma, issued a circular (89), on Oct.
27, 1908, apropos of the Bayliss pamphlet in reply to the
Louisiana edicts, and characterized as clandestine all bodies in
the state claiming to be Scottish Rite and not owing allegiance to
the Mother Supreme Council. The Grand Lodge laws on the subject
were directed to be enforced against all Masons connected with
such bodies.

Grand Master Conklin, of California, in 1891, called the attention
of the Grand Lodge, in his address before it at San Francisco on
Oct. 13, "to a spirit of rebellion which has sprung up in the
state of Ohio," and was, he said,

the legitimate result of a clandestine and spurious organization
of a so-called branch of Scottish Rite Masonry known as
"Cerneauism " Wherever these people have acquired a foothold they
have shown the seed of discord, and the harvest of discontent and
rebellion have not been reaped. Our expression of condemnation
cannot be too emphatic (90).

This portion of the address was referred to the Committee on
Jurisprudence which expressed itself in agreement with the Grand
Master's position but considered it sufficiently covered by
existing legislation (91). The report, however, added the
following:

Relative to a Lodge of the Scottish Rite reported to have been
established in Los Angeles under the jurisdiction of a so-called
Supreme Council of New Orleans, Louisiana.

Upon being advised that such a lodge had been established in that
city, the Grand Master issued a circular cautioning our brethren
against recognizing or holding intercourse with any person
connected with that clandestine and spurious body. We approve the
action of the Grand Master, and are of opinion that no further
action need be taken at this time (92).

On Oct. 17, 1891, the Washington Grand Master issued a warning to
"all Masons who love, cherish and wish to preserve, our ancient
landmarks and the purity of our Institution" to the effect

that one Oliver F. Briggs, and seven others, are within our Grand
Jurisdiction organizing Lodges, purporting to be of Masonic
origin, of the so-called "Cerneau Rite," a rite which has not been
recognized by the laws of our Grand Jurisdiction, nor as I am
reliably informed, is it recognized by the laws of any regularly
contituted Grand Lodge of Ancient Craft Masonry in the United
States, but, on the contrary, I find that it is alleged to be
clandestine (93).

At the ensuing session of the Grand Lodge, on June 14, 1892, the
Grand Master quoted this letter in his address and added:

Believing that this matter has nothing to do with Ancient Craft
Masonrv, I do not deem it expedient that any action be taken by
the Grand Lodge (94).

The committee to which the address was referred recommended
however

that the position taken by the Grand Master on the Cerneau Rite be
concurred in,

and this was adopted (95). It was in the same year (1892) that the
North Carolina Grand Master was able to say

Cerneauism has not yet made its appearance in this Grand
jurisdiction, though I have reason to suspect that efforts will be
made to introduce it.

In the absence of Grand Lodge action, have determined to interdict
it. Now that the Grand Lodge is in session, I present the question
to you for consideration. In my judgment this Grand Lodge should
emphatically condemn it (96).

The special committee to which this was referred reported a
resolution which was adopted, that

no lodge in this Grand Jurisdiction shall recognize or hold
communication with the Cerneau bodv or its members, and shall
discountenance the establishment of any of its branches in this
jurisdiction (97).

At the thirty-fourth annual communication of the Idaho Grand
Lodge, opened at Boise on Sept. 10, 1901, a resolution was adopted
after being reported favorably, with one member dissenting, by the
Committee on Jurisprudence, specifying what bodies were
recognized, including

the Supreme Councils of the Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite for
the Northern and Southern Jurisdictions of the United States, and
the various bodies under their jurisdiction,

and declaring

that any Mason who is hereafter admitted in this Jurisdiction into
any other orders, as Masonic, whether called the Rite of Memphis,
or by any other name, is acting un-Masonically, and against the
advice and consent of this Grand Lodge (98).

About a year later the Wyoming Grand Lodge adopted resolutions
(99) recognizing the same Scottish Rite bodies and providing

That any Master Mason of this jurisdiction who has joined or who
shall hereafter join or in any way affiliate with or recognize any
so-called or pretended Masonic body of the Ancient and Accepted
Scottish Rite, or any other body, commonly known as spurious,
other than those specified in this resolution, shall be expelled
from the lodge of which he may be a member; that any Master Mason
belonging to a lodge of any other jurisdiction who has joined, or
hereafter shall join, or in any way affiliate with or recognize
any of said so-called pretended and spurious Masonic bodies, shall
not be entitled to receive Masonic courtesies from or be allowed
to visit any lodge in this jurisdiction nor to receive a Masonic
burial.

In 1903, at the twenty-ninth session of the Imperial Council,
Nobles of the Mystic Shrine, a committee was appointed, consisting
of William B. Melish, Harrison Dingman and Philip C. Shaffer, to
codify the lawsl (100). Their work, which was completed and
adopted two years later (101), provided for the first time that
Scottish Rite applicants for membership therein must show

good standing in a Consistory * * * of the obedience of either of
the Supreme Councils for the Northern or for the Southern Masonic
Jurisdiction of such Rite in the United States and those Councils
which are in amity with, and recognized by, them (102).

On Jan. 18, 1905, at the annual communication of the Grand Lodge
of Connecticut, the Grand Master, in an address, called for ampler
protection against "Clandestine Masonry," which, he said,

is rearing its serpent head in our midst as never before, and
clandestine lodges are springing up in almost every Grand
Jurisdiction (103).

Thus by the opening years of the twentieth century, nearly
one-half of the American Grand Lodges, not to mention a number of
other Grand bodies, had passed upon and rejected Cerneauism. On
the other hand, as the Iowa Grand Lodge committee reported,

We do not find that any Grand Lodge of the United States or
elsewhere, or any Grand Master, has ever recognized the Cerneau
body of the Scottish Rite as legitimate or duly constituted nor do
we find that any such Grand Lodge or Grand Master has taken any
action to prohibit or prevent the conferring of the Scottish Rite
degrees by the Supreme Councils of either the Southern or Northern
Jurisdictions of the United States (104).

Cerneauism seemed, therefore, at the end of its trail. But there
were still sufficient adherents to make trouble and they were
rallied for a desperate and final struggle by one, M. W. Bayliss,
a Canadian by origin, having been born Nov. 8, 1848, at Picton,
Nova Scotia (105). He removed to Providence, R. I., where, in
1869, he claimed (106) to have obtained the symbolic degrees in
Mount Vernon Lodge, No. 4, and whence, in 1881, he was appointed a
clerk in the Surgeon-General's office at Washington with a salary
of $900 per annum. His name appears first on the roster of the
Peckham Cerneau Council's Washington Consistory in the list (107)
of spurious bodies within the southern jurisdiction issued by Pike
in 1884. In the following year we find Bayliss writing letters
(108) to parties in the south, signing himself "33d Deputy
Inspector General at Large," assailing the Mother Supreme Council
and its officers and seeking to advance the interests of the
Cerneau body presided over by Dr. J. F. S. Gorgas, of Baltimorel
(109). But he soon fell out with it and a bulletin which it issued
about 1889, recites:

In December, 1888, charges were preferred against M. W. Bayliss,
33d, for a violation of his several oaths taken in his official
position and as a Thirty-second and Thirty-third in the Cerneau
Rite, and for Masonic treason. He was at once suspended and a copy
of the charges with specifications was served upon him. He was
duly summoned before impartial judges duly appointed to try him,
but he did not appear, or make defense. And upon these, his own
written letters to the enemy (which were allowed inspection), he
was, on June 15th, properly found guilty and expelled from all
offices, rights and privileges in the Rite. A copy of the facts
found, and the judgment of expulsion was personally served upon
him on June 18th, 1889.

The expelled was for a short time a member of the Council. In
June, '87, he failed of a re-election and it is now apparent that
hatred and treason toward the Rite (he has so often sworn to
cherish and support) has ever since lurked in his heart (110).

Bayliss appears to have signalized his break with the Gorgas body
by issuing a circularlll in which he sets forth its connection
with the repudiated Grand Orient of France; as a result of which,
he declares, "this Sov. Gd. Consistory died Masonically," for

We cannot confer Scottish Rite degrees upon any except Master
Masons in good and regular standing, and it follows that we cannot
recognize as Scottish Rite Masons any whom we know to be
clandestine Master Masons.

The Grand Lodges to which we severally owe allegiance have
determined whom we shall or shall not recognize as Master Masons,
and no one who is not a legitimate Master Mason can be a
legitimate Scottish Rite Mason (112).

This was precisely the position he found himself combatting
subsequently in the time of his greatest activity; for the burden
of his and his followers' contentions was that the Grand Lodges
had nothing to do with the Scottish Rite and that there was no
propriety in their attempting to decide between its rival
claimants.

Bayliss closed his manifesto with an appeal for

such action as would be necessary to place us before the Masonic
World as Masons loyal and true to Ancient Craft Masonry, the
foundation and mother of all Masonic Rites. Should such action not
be taken, no alternative will be left me. I must remain loyal and
true to Ancient Craft Masonry and sever my connection with the
Rite (113).

No "such action" was ever taken but Bayliss did not sever his
connection with Cerneauism; he merely changed from one clandestine
body to another. For he tells us (114) that in 1896 (while still a
clerk in the Surgeon-General's office, now receiving $1,800 a
year) he became the head of a body styling itself "the Supreme
Council of the United States and its territories and dependencies
(115), succeeding in that capacity William H. Hershiser, who had
taken the controversy into the courts of Ohio and had been
expelled from symbolic Masonry there. For that body, Bayliss not
only asserted (116) direct descent from Cerneau but put forth the
modest claim that "all Scottish Rite Masons in this country are
wrong except the body I have the honor of representing (117). He
continued to find his favorite hunting ground in the south, for he
testified at the trial of his action against the Grand Lodge of
Louisiana:

I have been doing business in Arkansas; I have been doing business
in Mississippi; I have done business in Maryland; I have done
business in the District of Columbia. * * * I have done business
in New York; I have done business in Rhode Island, and in numerous
other places (118).

His reference to Arkansas recalls the anomalous fact that the
Grand Lodge in which Albert Pike was once an active worker was
among the last and least positive to declare itself upon this
important question. As early as 1889, indeed, the Arkansas Grand
Master, discussing Cerneauism in his annual address, held

that this Grand Lodge, in its legislative and executive power, is
supreme over the symbolic degrees of Masonry in this State, and
therefore has exclusive right, not only to warn its members
against dangerous association, but full power to promptly and
forcibly discipline her disobedient children.

A careful review of Masonic history will unmistakably disclose the
clandestine character of this pernicious growth. They have not
only sought to occupy territory already in the peaceful possession
of others, but they did once, if indeed they do not secretly now,
claim authority to charter Blue Lodges (119).

This portion of the address was referred to a special committee of
Past Grand Masters (120), but no action seems to have been taken
at that session.

At the sixty-fifth annual communication of the Grand Lodge, held
at Little Rock on Nov. 19, 1907, Grand Master Trieber reported the
existence of a Cerneau body at Pine Bluff in that state claiming
to be a Scottish Rite Consistory and asked that the matter,
together with a letter from Bayliss, be referred to the Committee
on Masonic Law and Usage (121). Such reference was made (122) but
the committee pleaded insufficient time and asked leave to sit
during the recess, which was granted (123). It met again at Little
Rock on Feb. 25, 1908, and heard Mr. Bayliss as the Cerneau
representative and George F. Moore and John Brodie in behalf of
the Mother Supreme Council; after which it went into executive
session (124). The results of its deliberations were the following
resolutions which were reported to the Grand Lodge at its ensuing
session and adopted:

Resolved, That it is not expedient for this Committee or for the
Grand Lodge of Arkansas, to take any action affecting the status,
or attempting to determine the authenticity of any organization of
which Masons may become members, unless it should appear in point
of fact that such other organization is immoral in its tendencies
or subsersive of the principles of Masonry. * * *

Resolved, Further, that inasmuch as the southern jurisdiction of
the Scottish Rite Masons has been in active operation in Arkansas
for fifty years to the exclusion of all other branches of the
Scottish Rite, it is the sense of this Committee that it will be
conducive to harmony if those Masons under the jurisdiction of the
Grand Lodge of Arkansas desiring the Scottish Rite degree should
affiliate with the southern jurisdiction. (125) 

Bayliss appears (125) to have claimed this as a victory; but he
was then making his last stand and anything short of complete rout
was welcome. Moreover in the same year, 1908, the Bayliss body
suffered the loss, by renunciation, of two of its most prominent
members --James H. Curtin, who had been Secretary-General (127),
and Joseph Cristosi, Grand Seneschal and member of the Committee
on Foreign Relations (128). To offset such defections, heroic
measures were necessary, and they were not, of course, confined to
Arkansas. About the same time he was offering to confer degrees in
North Carolina, and there he seems to have changed front; for the
Grand Master who was appealed to by prospective candidates and
referred the matter to the Grand Lodge, announced:

I understand the claim of the Supreme Council of the United States
of America, its territories and dependencies, to be that it is not
a Cerneau body (129).

The special committee of the Grand Lodge which considered the
matter reported adversely to the claims of the Bayliss Council
(130), and certain passages in the report were made the basis of a
libel action by the Bayliss Council against the North Carolina
Grand Lodge in 1914 in the Forsyth County Superior Court (131).
Evidence and argument were heard for several days before Judge C.
C. Lyon and a jury and the former then dismissed the proceeding on
the ground that the matter complained of was of qualified
privilege and that no malice had been shown (132).

About the same time Bayliss commenced another action for libel in
the District of Columbia Supreme Court, this time against the
Mother Supreme Council, on account of an article on "Recent
Cerneauism" (133), which its official organ had published. To its
plea of justification, plaintiff presented a demurrer thus
challenging its legal sufficiency. The demurrer was overruled, and
after being set for hearing upon the merits the cause was finally
dismissed in 1915 on motion of plaintiff's counsel.


The Texas Grand Master devoted something less than a page to
"Clandestine and Spurious Organizations" in his address at the
seventy-fourth annual Grand Lodge communication in that state, on
Dec. 7, 1909, at Waco, observing that, while as yet no effort had
been made by such organizations to establish bodies there, he was
led to believe that one would be, and believed "that this Grand
Lodge should go on record in the most emphatic manner as to what
Masonic organizations and bodies are legitimate (134). The
Committee on Jurisprudence, to which this portion of the address
was referred, presented a report which was adopted,

that as Blue Lodge Masons we have no knowledge of Scottish Rite
Masonry beyond the Master's degree, and as a Grand Lodge we are
not called upon at this time to decide upon questions of
regularity arising between different bodies of another rite, nor
claiming jurisdiction over the Craft degrees. Like the Grand
Master, we, as individuals, have a decided opinion upon the
question, and regard so-called Cerneauism as spurious and
clandestine, but we advise the Grand Lodge to keep out of this
controversy until the concrete question is forced upon us by an
attempt to establish this rite within our jurisdiction. We do not
apprehend that any member of our Fraternity in Texas will be
imposed upon by this illegitimate scheme, masquerading under the
name of Freemasonry (135).

Meanwhile, Bayliss emissaries had been active in Mississippi (136)
and the Grand Master there caused the issuance of a circular
warning the lodges that the branch of Masonry represented by the
former was clandestine (137). That action was approved by the
Grand Lodge (138) but it proved unready to follow the ruling to
its logical consequences. For when a member who defied it, by not
only retaining membership in that branch but attempting to
organize bodies, was tried and expelled by his lodge, the Grand
Lodge, adopting the report (139) of its Committee on Complaints
and Appeals, set aside the action and assumed to restore the
offender. The succeeding Grand Master, hovvever, issued an
emphatic and elaborate edict (140) reiterating even more strongly
the pronouncement of clandestinism and declaring that the Grand
Lodge had acted "very unwisely" and that the purported restoration
gave the offender no other status than "that of a non-affiliate."
This time the Grand Lodge reversed itself and approved the edict
(141). More than that it adopted an illuminating report (142) of
its Committee on Law and Jurisprudence to which the whole question
had been referred at the preceding session (143), and which
included a series of resolutions which in effect proscribed
Cerneauism and provided the ceremony of expulsion for those who
should hold any connection therewith (144).

At the annual communication of the Grand Lodge of Tennessee,
opened at Nashville on Jan. 28, 1914, Grand Master Comstock in his
address (145) called attention to the invasion of Bayliss
representatives, reviewed the action of other Grand Lodges, and
recommended specific recognition of legitimate higher bodies and
legislation against all others. The report (146) of the Committee
on Jurisprudence, to which the subject had been referred, embodied
resolutions defining the bodies entitled to recognition, among
which was "the Supreme Council * * for the Southern Jurisdiction,"
declaring all others to be "mischievous intruders, menacing
Masonic peace and harmony" and announcing that "any member * *
aiding or abetting" them "thereby subjects himself to Masonic
condemnation."

This appears to have been the last effort of Bayliss. He died on
Feb. 15, 1919, and with him the organization which he represented
and in fact largely constituted. Cerneauism in the United States
had run its course. On few controverted subjects have the American
Grand bodies gone on record so generally and so positively. The
case was well summed up by Grand Commander Richardson when he
declared:

There is nothing plainer than that the verdict of Masonic mankind
is against Cerneauism, and no human power can alter or change that
verdict (147).

NOTES

(75) Neb. Grand Com. Proc., 1889, pp. 1052, 1053.
(76) Neb. Grand Lodge Proc., 1889, p. 13.  
(77) Ibid. p. 57 
(78) Ibid. 1890, p. 163.  
(79) Ibid.  
(80) Ibid. pp. 164-166 
(81) Ibid. p. 167.  
(82) Grand Master's Address, Ibid., 1890, p. 161. 
(83) Ibid. p. 167.  
(84) Ibid. 213.  
(85) Ibid. 215.
(86) Proc. Ind. Ter. Grand Lodge, 1890, p. 15.  
(87) Ibid. 46 
(88) Peprinted, New Age, Ix, 549.
(89) Cal. Grand Lodge Proc., 1891, p. 11.  
(90) Ibid. p. 219. 
(91) Ibid.
(92) Wash. Grand Lodge Proc., 1892, p. 32. See this warning quoted
in the Manifesto of the Washington Bodies, Oct. 22, 1891. Off.
Bull. Sup. Coun. X, 563-566; also in N. Y. Council of Deliberation
Proc., 1908, pp. 73, 74.
(93) Wash. Grand Lodge Proc., 1892, p. 33.
(94) Ibid. 46
(95) N. C. Grand Lodge Proc., 1892, p. 13.  
(96) Ibid. p. 47.
(97) Idaho Grand Lodge Proc., 1901, pp. 50, 54, 55.
(98) Wyoming Grand Lodge Proc., 1902, pp. 66, 67.
(99) Proceedings, 1903, p. 90.  
(100) Ibid. 1905, p. 115
(101) Shrine Code, July 1, 1905, Const. Art. X. 
(102) Conn. Grand Lodge Proc., 1905, p. 37. 
(103) Ia. Grand Lodge Proc., 1889 pp. 327, 328.
(104) These and other biographicai data are taken from the War
Department records through the courtesy of Surgeon General
Ireland.
(105) New Age, XVI, 93.  
(106) Off. Bull. Sup. Coun., VI, 588.
(107) Reprinted, Ibid. VII 601-607.  
(108) New Age, XI, 280.
(109) Ibid 285, 286.  
(110) Ibid. 282-284. 
(111) Ibid 283.  
(112) Ibid. 284.
(113) Testimony in Bayliss v. La. Grand Lodge, New Age, XVI, 609. 
(114) Ibid. 89.  
(115) Ibid. XVII, 103. 
(116) Ibid XVI, 411.  
(117) New Age, XVI 89
(118) Ark Grand Lodge Proc., 1889, p. li. 
(119) Ibid 22
(120) Ibid. 1907, pp. 19-21. 
(121) Ibid. 22.
(122) Ibid 77
(123) Ibid. 1908, p. 48. 
(124) Ibid. 48 49.
(125) Testimony. New Age, XVI, 61d.  
(126) New Age, IX, 76. 
(127) Ibid. 83.  
(128) N. C. Grand Lodge Proc., 1909, p. 41. 
(129) Ibid. pp. 148-150.  
(130) New Age, XXI, 225.
(131) See Letter of A. B. Andrews representing defendant, Ibid.
218, A transcript of the proceediings is in the Library of the
Supreme Council. 
(132) New Age, VIII, 464.
(133) Texas Grand Lodge Proc., 1909, pp. 41 42. 
(134) Ibid. 152, 153.  
(135) New Age, XVI, 486
(136) Miss. Grand Lodge Proc., 1911, p. 15.  
(137) Ibid. 105 
(138) Ibid. 123-125.  
(139) Ibid. 1912, pp. 33, 34. 
(140) Ibid. pp. 160, 161.  
(141) Ibid. 138-142. 
(142) Ibid. 1911, pp. 126, 127.
(143) The outcome was materially aided by addresses (New Age XVI,
492, 598) in behalf of the report by Melville R. Grant, 33d then
recently elected Sovereign Grand Commander in Mississippi, and
Charles F. Buck, 33d, Sovereign Grand Inspector General in
Louisiana Tenn. 
(144) Grand Lodge Proc., 1914, pp. 84-87. 
(145) Ibid. 126-129. 
(146) Allocution, Trans., Sup. Coun., 1909, p. 66.

