THE BUILDER, MAY 1927

The Anti-Cerneau Movement in the American Grand Bodies
BY BRO. CHARLES SUMNER LOBINGIER, Washington, D. C.

This article will form a chapter in the projected Official History
of the Supreme Council, A. & A. S. R. for the Southern Jurisdiction
of the U.S.A., upon which Bro. Lobingier is now at work. In this
article he has recorded every instance that he has been able to
discover where a Grand Body has officially acted upon the question.
Should any readers of THE BUILDER know of any that are not
mentioned here, Bro. Lobingier would be very glad to obtain the
references needed to supply the omission.

THE Cerneau question came into the American Grand bodies against
the wishes of both parties. Albert Pike opposed it because he was
not prepared to concede that the Grand Lodges were the proper
tribunals to decide the question of legitimacy (1). The Cerneau
followers opposed it because they were afraid to submit the merits
of their claims to any impartial body. But the Grand Lodges were
forced, in sheer self-preservation, to grapple with and dispose of
the question. The Cerneau adherents might speciously argue that a
Grand Lodge could no more fix the Scottish Rite affiliation of a
Mason than it could prescribe his church membership. But the Grand
Lodges very soon found themselves facing, not mere theories, but
these conditions:

1. The Cerneau bodies claimed, and in some instances actually
exercised, the power to confer the symbolic degrees, which was in
open defiance of the Grand Lodge doctrine of exclusive
jurisdiction.
2. The legitimate Supreme Council had established bodies in most,
if not all, of the states, and these had been recognized by the
Grand bodies. The latter could not consistently recognize a rival
nor withdraw recognition without reason.
3. Cerneauism everywhere proved a potent cause of dissension in the
symbolic lodges.

And so the Cerneau question entered the Grand Lodges, to remain
until in one way or another it should be effectually disposed of.
Naturally the first clash came in Louisiana, for there the Cerneau
Supreme Council

in 1850 . . . by formal decree, assumed control of the Blue degrees
and soon had some Blue Lodges under it which conferred the Blue
degrees . . . in defiance and contempt of the Grand Lodge of
Louisiana (2).

Foulhouze continued to assert this claim long after the original
body had come under the aegis of the Mother Superior Council.

In 1856 certain members of a subordinate lodge (Foyer Maconnique)
defied the Master's authority and refused to deliver its charter
when demanded by the Grand Master. The latter thereupon suspended
the charter, notwithstanding which the rebellious members met and
went through the form of electing officers. Failing to obtain
recognition they withdrew from the Grand Lodge and proceeded to
organize

as a Lodge, under the auspices of some individuals who are
attempting to revive the Supreme Council for Louisiana 33d Degree,
Scotch Rite; a body which has already been declared extinct by the
governing authorities of that Rite in the United states, and by all
the subordinate bodies in the Scotch Rite in this state (3).

The Grand Lodge voted unanimously that the erring members be tried
for un-Masonic conduct. (4)

In a resolution (5) adopted Jan 3, 1868, at its ninth annual
conclave the Wisconsin Grand Command of Knights Templar declared
that it acknowledged and recognized

no degrees of Masonry or orders of Knighthood to be regular, except
those conferred by and under the authority of the following
constituted authorities in the United States of America, and those
of corresponding rank in Foreign Countries, to-wit:

The Grand Encampment of the United States; the Grand Consistory;
and the General Grand Royal Arch Chapter of the United States,
Grand Councils of the R. and S. Masters; and the Grand Lodges of
the several States. And any Knight holding to or receiving, or
having received any irregular degrees, under the assumed name of
Masonry or Knighthood, particularly those known by the name of the
"Egyptian Masonry Rite of Memphis," or the "Ancient Primitive Rite
of Memphis of thirty-three degrees," shall be required to withdraw
therefrom under pain of being expelled.

While this was not directed specifically against Cerneauism, it
afforded a valuable precedent for a Grand body determining the
legitimacy of a Rite outside its own--something the Cerneau
adherents were claiming should not be done.

From Louisiana the question came into Kentucky, being forced upon
the Grand Lodge there by the Foulhouze Council's invasion of that
state. In his address at the communication of 1869 the Grand Master
commented at length upon the latter's illegitimacy and special
committee to which the matter was referred, and whose report was
unanimously adopted, declared:

there are in the United States, which is divided between the two
legitimate Grand Bodies of the Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite,
having under their jurisdiction subordinate Masonic bodies working
in that Rite, viz: The Supreme Council of the Northern
Jurisdiction, having its seat at Boston, in Massachusetts, and the
Supreme Council for the Southern Jurisdiction having its seat at
Charleston, in South Carolina (6).

At a special communication of the Grand Lodge of Massachusetts, on
Jan. 4, 1882, the Grand Master (S.C. Lawrence) uttered a "Caution
against spurious Rites and Degrees," and an amendment to the Grand
Constitutions was proposed prohibiting membership therein (7). This
came on for consideration at the June communication and, after a
prolonged discussion, in the course of which letters were read from
various Masonic authorities--including Gould, Hughan and Findel --
the amendment was adopted by the decisive vote of 319 to 28 (8). It
enumerated the recognized bodies conferring degrees other than
symbolic; specified "the Supreme Councils of the Ancient and
Accepted Scottish Rite for the Northern and Southern Jurisdictions
of the United States, of which Henry L. Palmer and Albert Pike,
M.P.Sov. Grand Commanders, respectively,"
and imposed the penalty of expulsion upon all who should join
bodies under any others (9). Pike was disposed to discount the
results of this. In his Allocution for 1886 he said:

The action of the Grand Lodge of Massachusetts does, in fact, treat
as not Masonic the Royal Order of Scotland, which is older than
itself and the Order of the Red Cross of Constantine, which is
accepted as legitimate in England, and firmly established in the
United States. I pointed out this difficulty, of excepting so many
Orders as it would be necessary to except from the ban, when I was
consulted in regard to invoking the intervention of the Grand Lodge
of Massachusetts, and have thought much about the matter in all its
aspects since; and I think it due to our own self-respect that we
should advise the Brethren of our Obedience not to seek, anywhere
in our Jurisdiction, to have action taken by the Grand Lodges, in
regard to spurious Organizations claiming to be of our Rite (10).

But the effect elsewhere was prompt and wide spread. In the very
next year a resolution of the same import was adopted by the
Knights Templar Grand Commandery (11) of Ohio, at its annual
conclave in Sandusky, and in the following year a similar one by
the Connecticut Grand Commandery meeting at Norwich (12). In that
year also, the Grand Chapter, R.A.M., of California, adopted such
a resolution (13). Two years later an attempt to repeal it was met
by an elaborate and adverse report (14) from the same committee
which was "adopted with almost entire unanimity (15)." A decade
afterward the original resolution was upheld by a decision (16) of
the state Supreme Court which affirmed a judgment sustaining a
demurrer to a complaint seeking to restrain defendants, as a Royal
Arch Chapter, from proceeding to try plaintiff for soliciting
material for the Cerneau degrees.

Meanwhile the Grand Lodge of Louisiana, following the precedent of
a generation earlier (17), adopted (18), on Feb. 11, 1885, a
resolution declaring that it

has exercised the right, and claims that it is her duty, as well as
that of every other Grand Lodge, as the foundation and basis of all
Freemasonry, to ascertain and declare what institutions or bodies
claiming to be Masonic or calling themselves Masonic, are really
Masonic, and of the true body of Masonry, or fraudulent, spurious
or clandestine, and warn the Craft of Louisiana against such as are
not legitimate and true, even by prohibitive edicts, if necessary.

On May 20 of the same year an extremely interesting report (19) was
presented to the Grand Lodge of New Hampshire by its Committee on
Jurisprudence, containing much valuable historical matter and
recommending resolutions, which were adopted, to the effect

That this Grand Lodge declares its understanding of the law in
relation to its powers and authority over the craft within its
jurisdiction to be--

First, That it is the supreme authority in Masonry.
Second, That it has the power to determine what Masonry is. 
Third, That it has the power to decide what Masonic bodies are
regular, wherein symbolic Masonry is used, shown, or made a part of
the ceremonies.
Fourth, That it has the power and authority to prohibit the Masons
of its obedience from practicing as masonic any other rites than
those which it declares to be masonic; and from using any of its
esoteric ceremonies as masonic ceremonies in any other body than
those it shall hold to be masonic (20).

At the twenty-second annual communication of the Montana Grand
Lodge at Helena, on Oct. 7 of the following year (21), a report,
"modified from the Louisiana Resolutions," recommended by the
Foreign Correspondence Committee and approved by the Jurisprudence
Committee, was adopted to the effect that the Grand Lodge would

not assume to pass upon the claims of any other organizations
whether claiming to be Masonic or otherwise, or dictate to the
members of its lodges, what other associations or organizations
they may connect themselves with, so long as its rightful and
exclusive control of Blue Lodge Masonry is not infringed or
interfered with, or the allegiance of its members perverted.

But within three years, the experiences of other jurisdictions
convinced the Foreign Correspondence Committee that something more
was needed. Its report for 1889 contained the following:

A single bucket of water at the right time is enough to have
extinguished the largest conflagration. Prevention is better than
cure. Masonry, no more than the Turk, allows "a rival near the
throne." Profiting by the experience of others and to avoid
demoralizing controversies in which they have been involved, we
would advise such action that Cerneau Masonry may never get a
foothold in our jurisdiction. If it comes, let it be as an open and
mortal enemy.

With the unanimous concurrence of the Jurisprudence Committee, it
was accordingly resolved

that all members of lodges under its obedience be warned to have
nothing whatever to do with said Cerneau Rite in any way, shape or
form whatever, to the end that Montana may hereafter and forever be
free from the bitter strife and deplorable divisions that have rent
other Masonic Jurisdictions (22).

In 1887 the Ohio Grand Master declared, in replying to inquiries
from Cerneau members as to their standing in symbolic lodges, that
such members were "irregular, illegal and un-Masonic and ought not
to be countenanced or recognized in any manner (23). A motion to
recommit this decision to the Committee on Jurisprudence "with
instructions to report adversely," was lost by a vote of 544 to 230
(24).

The contest was now transferred from the Grand Lodge to certain
subordinate lodges, two of which issued "obnoxious circulars"
protesting against the Grand Lodge action. The charters of others
were arrested but two of them refused to surrender theirs to the
representative of the Grand Master, who thereupon issued an edict
(25) forbidding all Masonic intercourse with the members of said
lodges and an instruction (26); that it would constitute a Masonic
offence to visit, or hold membership in, a Cerneau body. Charges of
Cerneau activities having been preferred against certain members of
Goodale Lodge, No. 372, at Columbus, they instituted an action in
the Court of Common Pleas of Franklin county to enjoin the lodge
officers from proceeding with the trial. A demurrer to their
petition was sustained (27). The same ruling was made in the
circuit Court to which the cause was thence taken (28), and it was
affirmed by the Supreme Court (29). Meanwhile, in 1891,
representatives of the seceders met at Worthington and formed what
they styled the Grand Lodge of Free and Accepted Masons, which for
some years was fairly active, organizing thirty-four lodges in the
state and more outside through Grand Master's proxies, but
collapsing after the courts decided that the seceders were not
entitled to the original lodge property (30).

In 1887, the Grand Master of Pennsylvania revoked the commission of
a District Deputy who persisted in retaining his connection with
Cerneau bodies at Scranton (31). This action was referred to a
committee of Past Grand Masters whose report the next year,
unanimously adopted, was to the following effect:

That if, as alleged, the organization known as the Consistory of
the Cerneau Rite claims the power, or authority, or right to confer
the three degrees of Ancient Freemasonry, it is not consistent with
the duty of members of Lodges subordinate to this Grand Lodge to
seek or retain membership in that organization.

That this Grand Lodge expressly declines to enter upon any
discussion of the history, use, or legitimacy of any body claiming
to confer what is known as the high degrees in Freemasonry, or to
be committed to the recognition of any such body as being Masonic,
or as identified with or a part of Ancient Craft Masonry (32).

The succeeding Grand Master, on Jan. 21, 1889, issued an edict
reciting:

Whereas, all bodies in the Masonic Jurisdiction of the Right
Worshipful Grand Lodge of Free and Accepted Masons of Pennsylvania,
and Masonic Jurisdiction thereunto belonging, appertaining to, or
constituting, or derived from, the so-called "Cerneau Rite," have
been authoritatively ascertained and officially declared to be
clandestine, and we do hereby notify all Brethren, Free and
Accepted Masons, in our jurisdiction, who are connected with any
body appertaining to, or constituting, or derived from, the said
so-called "Cerneau Rite," to sever their connections therewith
within ninety days from the 26th day of January, A. D. 1889 (33).

Certain parties affected thereby, petitioned the Grand Master to
"investigate . . . whether or not the Rite to which we belonged
does claim or has ever claimed authority over the first three
degrees (34). But that dignitary on May 11, 1889,

issued a second Edict, directing the Worshipful Master of each of
the subordinate Lodges in this jurisdiction to transmit to the
Right Worshipful Grand Secretary, under the seal of the Lodge, the
names of the members of the Lodge (if any there should be) who had
not conformed to the requirements of the previous Edict, and also
the names of those who had conformed (36).

Results of this action were announced by the Grand Master as
follows:

Returns have already been received from the Worshipful Masters, and
the action of the Brethren who had been misled in connecting
themselves with the so-called Cerneau rite has been in the highest
degree creditable to their Masonic manhood and their loyalty to
this Right Worshipful Grand Lodge. With only four or five
exceptions, they have all abandoned their allegiance to the said
rite; and as to the few who still adhere, proper Masonic action is
being taken. I may add, that nearly all the Grand Lodges in the
United states, within whose jurisdiction the so-called Cerneau rite
had organized bodies, have taken analogous action, with similar
result. Thus has this cloud on the Masonic horizon been dispelled
(36).

Meanwhile, on Sept. 18, 1888, the Colorado Grand Lodge adopted,
seemingly with little opposition, a resolution (37) similar in
import to that of Massachusetts.

The action of the Grand Lodge of Ohio was discussed and indorsed
(38) by the Utah Grand Master at the annual communication of his
Grand Lodge on Jan. 15, 1889. The Committee on Jurisprudence, in a
report (39) which was adopted, expressed "hearty sympathy with the
action. A letter (40) from the Grand Master of Alabama dated Feb.
2, 1889, contained the following:

I am informed that there are regular Bodies of Scottish Rite Masons
in Alabama, owing allegiance to the Supreme Council of the Southern
Jurisdiction presided over by Gen'l Albert Pike. This Supreme
Council is recognized as the only legitimate Power of that Rite in
Alabama, and I concur with the ruling of the Grand Lodge (of Ky.)
mentioned above in holding the Cerneau Bodies to be illegal and
unmasonic, and no brother under the obedience of the Grand Lodge of
Alabama should join them, or countenance them, or recognize them in
any way.

In his address to the Grand Lodge of Iowa on June 4, 1889, Grand
Master Blackmar touched at some length on the "Cerneau question"
and recommended action (41). The committee to which this portion of
the address was referred, reported a series of resolutions (42)
declaring the Mother Supreme Council "entitled to exclusive
jurisdiction in this state," refusing to recognize the Cerneau
Council, prohibiting it from working within the state, and
requiring the severance therefrom of all Grand Lodge members. A
substitute resolution for a neutral position was defeated (43) by
a vote of 633 to 334 and the original resolutions were thereupon
adopted (44) by a vote of 587 to 343.

At the fifteenth and final communication of the Grand Lodge of
Dakota (45) on June 11, 1889, a special committee on Cerneau
Masonry reported (46) that the latter "has and can have no legal
status or standing in this jurisdiction." The report was adopted a
also a resolution excluding Cerneau bodies from the jurisdiction
and prohibiting Masons from receiving their degrees (47).

On the following day the Grand Lodge of Oregon opened its
thirty-ninth annual communication and the Grand Master devoted a
portion of his address to "Cerneau Masonry" closing with the
"request that this matter be referred to the Committee on
Jurisprudence. (48) Instead, a special committee (49) was appointed
and presented a report (50), which was adopted, declaring that
"this Cerneau (so-called) Masonry is clandestine and they (the
brethren) are hereby warned not to embrace it under the penalties
that must follow a violation of the edicts touching clandestine
Masons."

On the same day (June 12) the Vermont Grant Master, in his address
before the ninety-sixth annual communication of his Grand Lodge at
Burlington, gave a half page to the "Cerneau Rite" and, while
deprecating a definition of "the simon pure higher degrees"
declared

if it is true as charged upon seemingly good authority, that the
Cerneau Rite claims to have and has exercised authority over the
degrees of ancient craft masonry, then it is not a question of
whether it is a legitimate body so far as the higher degrees are
concerned, but a question of self-protection. It is a recognized
law throughout this country and in many others that the degrees of
ancient craft masonry can only be conferred under authority granted
by a sovereign Grand Lodge. Any claim of right over said degrees,
by any other body, is an unwarranted usurpation, and an offense
against well established law and Masonic usage. While the Grand
Lodge of Vermont will be slow to determine which of the higher
bodies is legitimate, it will not permit an infringement of its
inherent rights or those of any other grand jurisdiction, and, if
the charge is fully sustained, will take decided action. (51)

Under date of July 25, 1889, the Grand Master of Masons in the
District of Columbia issued a drastic edict declaring

that it is not consistent with the duty of any brother under the
Grand Lodge of the District of Columbia, to seek or retain
membership in the said Gorgas-Cerneau organization, and any brother
of this jurisdiction continuing his membership in any said
Gorgas-Cerneau body after the reading of this Edict in the Masonic
lodge of which he may be a member, renders himself liable to
suspension from all the rights and privileges of Masonry...

And we do also prohibit any of the lodges of this jurisdiction 
granting the use of their place of meeting for the practice of the
said Gorgas-Cerneau Rite, or for holding any communication in any
room or rooms occupied by any body known as the Gorgas Cerneau Rite
of Scottish Masonry. (See decision in the case of Hiram Lodge, No.
10, herewith.)

And we do further direct all Masters of lodges under our authority
not to admit as a visitor to their lodges any person claiming to be
a Free and Accepted Mason who is a member of any body of the said
Gorgas-Cerneau Rite, either in this or any other Masonic
jurisdiction. (52)

This edict was formally brought to the attention of the Grand Lodge
at its annual communication in November following but no action was
taken to disturb it.

On Oct. 19, 1889, the Florida Grand Master, following a report of
his Committee on Foreign Correspondence, which in turn was based on
the Pennsylvania precedent, issued an edict (53) forbidding all
connection with "Cerneauism." His action was reviewed at the
ensuing Grand Lodge session by the Committee on Jurisprudence which
presented a majority report recommending "no further action (54)."
This was rejected and a minority report approving and confirming
the edict adopted. (55)

The Georgia Grand Master discussed (56) "Cerneau Masonry" in his
address before the Grand Lodge on Oct. 29, 1889, and recommended a
reference to the Committee on Jurisprudence. Instead, the matter
was referred to a special committee which filed an elaborate report
(57), unanimously adopted, similar to that of Massachusetts,
recognizing only the regular Supreme Councils.

Of the Grand Lodges meeting in the year 1889 which took no action
regarding Cerneauism, that of Illinois, which met Oct. 1, was the
most notable. Its Grand Master (John Corson Smith) did "not care to
enter into a discussion of this subject" and criticised the
Committee on Correspondence for expressing views thereon (58). At
the eighth annual communication of the Grand Lodge of Arizona,
which opened on Nov. 12 at Tucson, the Grand Master recommended
"that a special committee be appointed to consider the subject and
report at the next session (59)," but no action appears to have
been taken.

As early as 1886, the Minnesota Grand Master had sought Pike's
advice as to presenting the Cerneau question to his Grand Lodge and
had been dissuaded therefrom (60). Nevertheless the question would
not down there, for Cerneau followers were at work in the state. By
1890, the situation had become acute and when the, Grand Lodge met
on Jan. 15 of that year, for its thirty-seventh annual
communication, the Grand Master devoted nearly six printed pages of
his address to "Cerneauism (61)." A special committee appointed to
consider the subject made a lengthy report (62) recommending a
sweeping prohibitory resolution which was adopted by a vote of 262
to 110, after a substitute, limiting recognition to the symbolic
degrees had been rejected (63).

On the 27th of the same month, the Grand Lodge of New Mexico opened
its twelfth annual communication at Las Cruces. The Grand Master
devoted nearly two pages of his address (64) to the "Cerneau Rite",
stating that he had advised a brother who had inquired if it be
proper to organize a lodge thereunder, "to let it alone." The
committee to which the address was referred, commended that passage
and recommended a resolution (65) similar to that of Massachusetts.
But "after much discussion" that portion of the report "was
referred to the Committee on Foreign Correspondence for full report
at the next annual communication. (66)" That committee at that
communication made an elaborate report on foreign correspondence
but no attempt seems to have been made to dispose of the Cerneau
question.

The one hundred and third annual communication of the New Jersey
Grand Lodge opened at Trenton, Jan. 29, 1890. The Grand Master
discussed the "Cerneau Rite" at some length in his address (67),
pointing out

that bodies of this "Rite" have been established in Jersey city and
Newark, and that an unsuccessful effort had been made to institute
a "Consistory" in Camden.

Notwithstanding such invasions the Committee on Jurisprudence, to
which the matter was referred, failed to make a precise disposition
thereof. Its report (68), which was adopted, recited:

The Grand Lodge of New Jersey, having never formally recognized as
Masonic what is commonly known as "Scottish Rite Masonry", cannot,
therefore, enter into a discussion relative to the regularity or
irregularity of the said Cerneau Rite, or take any part in the
determining of the questions in controversy between what is known
as the Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite and that known as the
Cerneau Rite; but, in justice to this Grand Lodge, and those of the
members of its obedience who hold membership in and who are in
allegiance to any body claiming to be Masonic, which has entered
into and continues in fraternal relations with the Grand Orient of
France, such members are thereby in violation of their obligation
to this Grand Lodge, and are thus making themselves liable to
Masonic discipline.

On Feb. 10, 1890, the seventy-eighth annual communication of the
Louisiana Grand Lodge began at New Orleans. The Grand Master was
Charles F. Buck, afterward an active member of the Supreme Council,
who in his address, condemned "Cereneauism" and recommended a
report on that subject from the Committee on Masonic Law and
Jurisprudence. Such a report (69) was presented and adopted,
reaffirming the historic position (70) of the Louisiana Grand
Lodge, asserting its right to "determine the legitimacy of any body
pretending to be Masonic and claiming recognition" and declaring
the Cerneau bodies illegitimate. Notwithstanding this action,
Bayliss emissaries entered the state and about 1908 attempted to
establish bodies in New Orleans. During that year the Grand Master
of Masons issued several edicts (71) warning members of the Craft
against any connection with such bodies under penalty of expulsion.
Bayliss thereupon brought an action for libel against the Louisiana
Grand Lodge basing his petition (72) mainly upon statements in the
edicts to the effect that Cerneau Masonry was "bogus, spurious and
clandestine" and characterizing plaintiff as a "peddler of
degrees", "a clandestine Mason", "pretender" and "interloper". The
trial court found for defendant and its judgment was affirmed by
the Supreme Court, which held that the Grand Master was justified
in issuing the edicts and that the language complained of was not
libellous (73).

NOTES

(1) Trans., Sup. Coun., 1884, App. 25; 1886, App. 12;
Correspondence with Minnesota Grand Master of Masons, Off. Bull.
Sup. Coun., VIII, 61-63.
(2) Pike, Beauties of Cerneauism, No. 6, p. 37.
(3) Grand Master's Address, La. Grand Lodge Proc., 1857, p. 13. 
(4) Ibid. pp. 87-89.
(5) Proceedings (Milwaukee, 1868), pp. 23, 24, 28.
(6) Ky. Grand Lodge Proc., 1869, p. 81. This position was
reaffirmed nineteen years later when the real Cerneau question
arose. See Proc., 1888, pp. 11, 12, 65.
(7) Mass. Grand Lodge Proc. (1882), pp. 16 et seq.
(8) Ibid. p. 127. 
(9) Mass. Grand Constitutions, Part V, Sec. 24
(10) Trans., Sup. Coun., 1886, App. 26.
(11) Proceedings (Dayton, 1883), 101, 106.
(12) Proceedings (Hartford, 1884), 142.
(13) Proceedings (San Francisco, 1884), pp. 396, 490, the Committee
on Jurisprudence reporting "that we desire this Grand Chapter to
speak in no uncertain terms "
(14) Ibid. (1886), p. 526.  
(15) Ibid. p. 531
(16) Lawson v. Hewell, 118 Cal. 613, 50 Pac. 763 (1897).
(17) Ante note 35   
(18) La. Grand Lodge Proc., 1885, pp. 66, 88.
(19) N. H. Grand Lodge Proc., 1885, pp. 118-139.
(20) Ibid. p. 138. The same volume contained (pp. 139-174) an
"Historical Sketch of the Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite." In
1895 the same Grand Lodge supplemented the resolutions reproduced
in the text by recognizing the Northern Supreme Council's
jurisdiction of the Scottish Rite degrees as exclusive within the
state. See Grand Lodge Proc., 1895, pp. 261-269.
(21) Montana Grand Lodge Proc., 1886, p. 33.
(22) Ibid. 1889, p. 49. This became one of the Standing Resolutions
included in the Masonic Code, adopted Sept. 20, 1899, and which had
been framed by a Committee of which Past Grand Master Day, now
Grand Minister of State in the Supreme Council, was Chairman. See
also 1899, pp. 55-59.
(23) Ohio Grand Lodge Proceedings (1887), p. 76.  
(24) Ibid. 75 
(25) Ohio Grand Lodge Proc., 1889, p. 19.  
(26) Ibid. p. 44.
(27) Hershiser v. Williams (Pamphlet Op.), 4. The leading plaintiff
was the head of the Cerneau Supreme Council. New Age, XVI.
(28) Hershiser v. Williams, 6 Ohio Cir. Ct. 147 (1892). A pamphlet
entitled "Cerneau Masonry Legal in Ohio" was issued apropos of this
decision, in which the author (F. W. Chandler) calmly ignored the
effect of the ruling and emphasized obiter dicta in the brief
opinion.
(29) 53 Ohio St. 666 (1895).  
(30) New Age, XVII, 525, 526.
(31) Pa. Grand Lodge Proc., 1887, p. 72.  
(32) Ibid. 1888, p. 25.
(33) Ibid. 1889, p. 20, Cf. p. 116.  
(34) Ibid. p. 21.  
(35) Ibid. p. 117. 
(36) Ibid.  
(37) Colorado Grand Lodge Proc., 1888, pp. 25, 27.
(38) Utah Grand Lodge Proc., 1889, p. 20.  
(39) Ibid. p. 43.
(40) Occasional Bulletin, Sup. Coun. No. 9, p. 43.
(41) Iowa Grand Lodge Proc., 1889, pp. 193, 194. He had been urged
by Grand Secretary Parvin. See Morcombe, Parvin s Life and Labors,
275.
(42) Ibid. p. 329.  
(43) Ibid. p. 333.  
(44) Ibid. p. 334.
(45) It continued, however, as the Grand Lodge of South Dakota.
(46) Dakota Grand Lodge Proc., 1889, p. 26.  
(47) Ibid. p. 36.
(48) Oregon Grand Lodge Proc., 1889, pp. 46, 47.  
(49) Ibid. p. 69. 
(50) Ibid . p. 97.  
(51) Vt. Grand Lodge Proceedings, 1889, p. 21. 
(52) D.C. Grand Lodge Proc., 1889, p. 33.
(53) Fla. Grand Lodge Proc., 1890, p. 34, Ex. "C".
(54) Ibid. p. 66. 
(55) Ibid. p. 67.
(56) Ga. Grand Lodge Proc., 1889, pp. 28, 29.
(57) Ibid pp. 56-72. See Proc., 1894, pp. 101-105, as to mode of
renouncing Cerneauism.
(58) Ill. Grand Lodge Proc., 1889, pp. 50, 51
(59) "Ariz. Grand Lodge Proc., 1889, pp. 19; 20.
(60) See Off. Bull. Sup. Coun., 61-63.
(61) Minn. Grand Lodge Proc., 1890, pp. 31-36.
(62) Ibid. pp. 69-73. 
(63) Ibid. p. 74.
(64) N. M. Grand Lodge Proc., 1890, pp. 23-25.
(65) Ibid. p. 47. 
(66) Ibid. p. 54.
(67) N.J. Grand Lodge Proc., 1890, pp. 36-38.
(68) Ibid. p. 64.
(69) La. Grand Lodge Proc., 1890, pp. 96-97.  
(70)Ante p.--
(71) La. Grand Lodge Proc., 1909, pp. 17, 80. The edict of March
24, 1908, is reprinted on the New Age, X, 556.
(72) Reprinted, New Age, X, 271-273.
(73) Bayliss v. Grand Lodge of Louisiana, 131 La. 579, 59 So 996
(1912).  
(74) Neb. Grand Com. Proc., 1889, pp. 1051, 1052.

(To Be Continued)

