Correspondence.

single individual , until his death or resignation ? Clearly , one of two things must result—either the D . G . M . gets too much honour , or the other brethren of the province get too little ! Yours fraternally , A LONDON AND COLONIAL P . M .

The United States And Masonic Charity.

THE UNITED STATES AND MASONIC CHARITY .

To the Editor of the FREEMASON ' S CHRONICLE . DEAR SIR AND BROTHER , —I like to see a man with the courage of his opinions , and Bro . Hughan , if ho is of the same mind as to the tendency of American Freemasonry as ho was fivo years and a-half ago , is greatly to be applauded for boldly proclaiming the fact . But he is somewhat unfortunate in tho reasons he gave last week for

remaining still unconvinced by your article of tho 2 nd January 1875 , as supplemented by that which appeared in your issue of tho 7 th instant . Kentucky , for instance , deserves , and will no doubt rcccivo , all possible honour for its Institntion for Widows and Orphans , opened in 187 S , but this is not a case in point . Your criticism , which was general in its character , was published in the very infancy

of the year 1875 . It is , of course , out of my power to interpret your meaning , bnt I supposo your picture of American Freemasonry referred to tho years preceding 1875 , when Kentucky had no such building , or tho scheme for erecting one was only in embryo . This case , therefore , docs not affect your argument , or affects it only in a very slight degree . I have nothing but praise to utter in behalf of

North Carolina , with its "Masonic Orphan Asylum , at Oxford , with 137 inmates , " or of Louisiana with its Relief Lodge , No . 1 of New Orleans . I admit , also , that Pennsylvania has done some noble work besides erecting one of the costliost of American Masonic Temples , but these are all the jurisdictions winch Bro . Hughan seems able to specify , and yet in the United States thero aro some eight and forty

Grand Lodges . Many of these , especially thoso lying out in the far West , and in as yet thinly-populated districts , are small , and their Lodges much scattered . Idaho , Indian Territory , Nevada , New Mexico , Utah , Washington Territory , Wyoming , in these- there are probably not more than three score subordinate Lodges altogether . But what of New York with its subscribing membership of over

80 , 000 brethren ; and how about Alabama , 387 Lodges ; Arkansas , 337 ; wealthy California , 203 Lodges ; compact Connecticut , 120 Lodges ; Georgia , 300 Lodges ; Illinois , 693 Lodges ; Indiana , 528 Lodges ; Iowa , 3-IS Lodges ; little Maine , 179 Lodges ; Maryland , 174 Lodges ; Massachusetts , 221 Lodges ; Michigan , 338 Lodges ; Mississippi , 314 Ledges : Missouri , 490 Lodges ; New Jersey , 149

Lodges ; Ohio , 400 Ledges ; S . Carolina , 182 Lodges ; Tennessee , 406 Lodges ; Texas , 179 Lodges ; Vermont , 100 Lodges ; Virginia , 231 Lodges ; Wisconsin . riOS Lodges ? These jurisdictions taken together comprise over ( 5 , 700 Lodges , or with New York some 7 , 500 Lodges , but Bro . Hughan has nothing to say about these , unless I am to include them among ' tho several Grand Lodges , " which " like

Pennsylvania , havo done a noble work . I am not , however , in love with generalities , and shonld bo bettor satisfied of the force of Bro . Hughan ' s apology , if ho were somewhat moro precise in his information . Bnt , says he , " the majority of Grand Lodges are comparatively new bodies . " Admitted , but not so " comparatively new , " they might not have made a beginning in the direction already

marked out by Kentucky founded in 1800 , Louisiana in 1812 , North Carolina 1777 , and Pennsylvania 1764—I take my dates , as I havo taken my figures abovo , from Kenning ' s Cosmopolitan Calendar , 1880 . For example , of tho Grand Lodges I have enumerated , Alabama was founded in 1821 , Arkansas in 1832 , California in 1850 , Connecticut in 1789 , Georgia in 1786 , Illinois , in 1840 , Indiana in

181 S , Iowa in 1544 , Maine in 1 . 820 , Maryland in 1787 , Massachusetts in 1733 , Michigan in 1836 , Mississippi in 1818 , Missouri in 1821 , New Jersey in 1786 , New York in 1787 , Ohio in 1808 , S . Carolina in 1787 , Tennessee in 1813 , Texas in 1837 , Vermont in 1784 , Virginia in 1778 , Wisconsin in 1843 . If these arc not such "comparatively new bodies " but they can find means and the inclination to embark in

distant pilgrimages , muster in their thousands at triennial grand encampments or on sundry grand occasions , have grand processions , and erect grand and costly temples , they cannot be so " comparatively new " that they cannofc raise funds for tho relief of necessitous brethren . The youngest of the abovo Grand Lodges can point to an existence of thirty years , and it has 203 Lodges on its roll . Is this

too short a time to think of doing something towards erecting a Masonic Asylum or Institute , or are the Lodges too few and the membership too limited for anything to be done in that direction ? Bro . Hnghan seems to have lost sight of tho fact that his argument about the newness of the Grand Lodges cuts both ways , and as I have said , if they have been able to find tho time and means for

what thoy have done , they might and should have had some regard for Charily . I am surprised at Bro . Hughan ' s reference to the " Masonic Relief Associations , " and regret he should have descended so low in his conception of tho true character and scope of Freemasonry as to place it in the category of Sick , Burial , and Insurance Funds , or

what are known generally as "Benefit Societies , " in which the members pay each a certain sum weekly , monthly , or otherwise . Then , if one of them falls sick , he receives a certain allowance ; if he dies , his representatives receive the wherewith to defray the funeral expenses , and perhaps , in addition , a given amount , as in cases of Life Insurance . This mav be Freemasonry according to Bro .

Hughan ' s ideas , or in tho estimation of American brethren , but it has nothing in common with the Freemasonry of Desagu ' liers , Payne , Anderson , and as more or less similarly understood and observed by successive generations of brethren from 171 . 7 to the present time . It is Freemasonry modelled on the lines of the , Accident Insurance Society ( Limited ) , of which you recently gave UJIUU particulars , but

The United States And Masonic Charity.

to any snch view I for one must decline to subscribe . We are very proud of our own and other Masonic Benevolent Institutions , wheresoever they may have been established on the face of the earth ; at the same time , we must bear in mind that such Institutions aro the outcome of Freemasonry , not Freemasonry the outcome of the Institutions . When we orecfc an asylum or establish a fund for the relief of

unfortunate brethren or their families , we illustrate our belief in one of the most important articles of our Masonic creed . A Masonio Relief Association is a Masonio Limited Liability Company , the members of which , as I havo already pointed out , are entitled to a certain measure of relief in return for certain periodical payments . It is an investment on one's ovvn account against a rainy dav , not a

seasonable contribution in aid of others . I do not suppose that Bro . Hnghan anticipated or desired , when he laid such stress in his letter of last week on these associations and the " one million pounds " they have been tho means of raising " during the last few years , " that any such interpretation shonld be put upon his statement . Yet , in all seriousness , I ask your numerous readers , Is this not a

legitimate interpretation thereof ? Bro . Hughan speaks of the noble work that is clone by * " several Grand Lodges like Pennsylvania , " aud that " without any paid staff . " Well , the unpaid staff deserve credit for the disinterestedness of their labours , but our Grand Lodge Fund of Benevolenco and the Funds of our threo Institutions are in each case administered by an

unpaid staff . There are paid officers , of course , but thon they give up the whole of their time to the fulfilment of their arduous and important duties . On tho other hand , Bro . Hnghan passes unnoticed the mileage allowances to brethron attending Grand Lodge , which , in tho accounts of so many of the American Grand Lodges , form so considerable an item of expenditure . Their Grand Secretaries are paid

officers , and I think I am right in saying that many American Grand Masters have travelling allowances . I fear that in drawing attention to these points I have overstepped the limits of the original contention ; bnt in comparing English and American Masonry it is only just that such matters as these should be noticed . I agree with you and Bro . Hughan that " the more careful the

Grand Lodges are in the selection of their initiates , the less need thero will be for charity . " Let me , however , point out to Bro . Hughan that this is beside the question . He objected , and objects , to the statement in your first number , that American Masons love show and costly temples , & c , but when it is asked , " Where aro the American Masonic Benevolent Institutions , & o . ? " it is left to Echo to reiterate the question . Whether the American and English Grand

Lodges are as careful as they should be in the selection of initiates is a matter of opinion , aud whether , if they exercised the greatest possible care in this respect , there would be no need for charity , is also a matter of opinion . But our three noble Masonic Benevolent Institutions aro three grand facts , and tho comparative absence of anything of the kind in the oight-and-forty Grand Lodges of the United States , is likewise a . fact , though I leavo it to our American brethreu and your readers to qualify tho latter as they think

proper . Yours faithfully , BRITON .

Jachin And Boaz.

JACHIN AND BOAZ .

To the Editor of the FREEMASON s CHRONICLE . DEAR SIR AUD BROTHIER , — Accord mo a little space in your columns for the purpose of noticing the points in Bro . Norton ' s letter , which appeared last week . I judged , and as ifc turns out , judged rightly , that 1760 was a clerical error for 1762 , but as tho point at issue was ono of a few

years only I thought it well to notice it . I mentioned , not with any idea of boasting , but in justification of my offering any criticism at all , that I had had a great deal to do with books , both new and old , bnt I did not therefore , " pronounce the copy of ' Jachin aud Boaz' in the Masonic Temple incomplete . " I am well aware of the fact that in those days printers very

commonly considered the title page and tho blank page at back as pages i . and ii ., so that the first page of the preface—if any—would rightly be iii ., the second iv ., and so on . I readily accept Brother Norton ' s statement that the Boston copy is perfect , nor should I have questioned it had his description been more complete or more

lucid , or perhaps a little more of both . But then if . does not follow it is a copy of the original edition of Jachin and Boaz . As to the other might-have-beens , they were not so much intended as arguments—though as such they , perhaps , are not without a certaiu value—as to show that assertions , even by Bro . Norton , might be met

in various ways . With reference to the fourth point that I have " coolly" requested Bro . Norton " to produce positive evidence that tho said pamphlet Jachin and Boaz was not printed before 1757 , " I will content myself with pointing out that as Bro . Norton is the assailant , ifc is for him to produce evidence that Oliver ' s position is untenable . If it is as strong

as he imagines , ifc will sweep all before ifc , but in order to do this Bro . Norton will have to achieve the notoriously difficult task of proving a negative . I decline to accept all the lato Dr . Oliver ' s statements about Freemasonry , but I must equally decline to reject them all . Tho Editor of the Freemason thinks Oliver is right in this particular instance , and he is no mean authority in such a matter . Bro . Walter

Spencer , the present representative of the firm which published most , if not all , of Dr . Oliver's Masonic Works , incliues to the same opinion . Therefore , something more is wanted than the opinions of Bros . Carson and Hnghan , eminent as Masons though they may be , in order to convict Oliver of a mistake .

With reference to the result of Bro . Pulsifer's examination of the Gentleman's Magazine , it . does not disprove Oliver ' s statement . All it proves is that a " Jachin and Boaz" was published iu 1762 , which the Editor of the Magazine has described as a " new book , " when , in fact , it may havo been only a " new edition . " The absence of any