Iowa state bystander. [volume] (Des Moines, Iowa) 1894-1916, 1905-07-21

| a grand lodge in any state 1t has sole,
absolute and exclusive jurisdiction in
| that state. o other grand lodge what.
ever can lawfully interfere with this
jurisdiction, and can nei her establish
/ lodge in such state, ncr continue any
authority over bodies over which 1t
might properly have exercised prior
to the organization of such grand
lodge therein"
mis- doctrine has been held to ap-
ply in the case Of Prince Hall grand
lodge. But it is ccnclusively proven
by the researchers OF Upton and Eng.
lish Masonic scholars that a the time
in question this theory of exclusive
jurisdiction was unknown. The fact
that this colored body did not join
with the white lodges of Massachu-
sets at he time of formation of that
| grand lodge cannot be held to affect
its regularity.
Robert F. Gould, the greatest of
Masonic historians, analyzing a sim
liar case, says:
This step would not carry with
it the stamp of irregularity as rela ing
| to the continued existence of any
minority of lodges, large or small,
which might decline to affiliate with
the new organization. The status Of
these would be unimpaired by the
act of the MAORI y.
In the same connection, speaking
of the American doctrine, Mr.. Gould
says:
Some of these authorities go so far
as to maintain that if three cut of
ninety.nine lodges assemble and erect
grand lodge. the remaining ninety
six become irregular This, OF course,
is a monstrous doctrine
The crux of he whole matter is
thus expressed by Mr.. Upton in his
chapter upon the American doctrine:
=. But this much we may admit. that II
such a law (of exclusive jurisdiction)
existed in 1903, it must have been
made by white Masons, for even If
the negroes accepted such a law forty
wears years later. the widest TO-
| mancer will hardly claim hat any OF
the three negro lodges in existence
in 1905, or any member of any OF
these lodges had, directly orindirectly,
assented to any such doctrine as ear
" as 1908 Ho wthen could that law
be binding on the negro Masons? VIII
| fo,lv be carried so far as to claim
that white Masons could: First, eX-
clude the negro brethren from the
viii organizations and then, hay
ing dcne this, proceed in these Or
saniaztions. without the consent of
! the negroes to create Ia" lha'
| would bind negro Masons and render
il impossible for them to continue
their growth? Surely the proposition
is too mons rous to be considered
The same author takes up the queS-
ton in detail as to later negro lodges
and grand bodies and analyses the
nroDosition that the diffusion OF ne
gro Masonry in the newer states and
territories is an unquestlonea IN
fringemen, and that invading bodies
are indisputably illegitimate. And or
this he says:
"The negroes having lawfully re-
ceived the light of Masonry and being
debarred from the organizations con-
trolled by the whites, had both the
right an dthe duty to provide ways
and means to pass that light o their
nosterity; that to the mewp aume
Dosterity; that as the white prac-
tically-and in many instances ex-
nressly-limited their opera ions to
the white race, and the negroes prac'
tica]lv limited theirs to the black
race. there is no real conflict OF Jurls
diction between them; that most il
NOT all of the so-called laws, with
which their presence is supposed to
conflict, the modern languages bullt
IN bv the whites without their con-
sent after their rights to exist had
accrued. that hese laws are valid not
only so long as they do not confilct
with RICH that are based upon the
higher laws of the Masonic institu-
tiCn itself; and finally that the eX-
,stence among THE negroes of Mason
nv is lawful origin; it's successful
existence against every form
of opposition for practically a cen ury
and a quarter, the benefiicient effects
of it's existence and that as the intel
lisence. the morality, the ability and
tie consequent influence of tina race
increase the inconsistency of position
of the white organizations will be-
come more and more apparent to all
thinking minds
Against the claim that negro grand
lodges are clandestine this same au-
thority gives apt argument. He says:
Authority From England.
"If and American citizen jump
your homestead or moning claim, he
does not by that act cease to be an
American citizen, an the clldren on
which he begets while squa ing on
vcnr land are not illegitimate If he
complies with the marriage laws-no
ma to- how many other laws he may
violate. Just so, if England warrants
a lodge in New South Wales. or Sco.-
land. in Peru or New Zealand, or
Hamburg, in New York; or if lodge
| CT Masons invades your territory,
ENGLAND or the other invader may be
very unjust and unkind, and worthy
of your hostility; but the invading
! grand lodges or their lodges do not
lose any particle Of their Masonic
legitimate CT clandestine, II the land
marks CT Masonry are not violated
no matter what other laws or regu-
lations or doctrines are ou ragged. In
the one case the man is a claim
jumper'-but a citizen and the father
of legitimate offspring; in the other
the grand lodge is an 'invader'-but
a regular grand lodge of Mascns and
the parent of legitimate and perfectly
| regular lodges and Masons."
The Gazette recognizes shat the
fact that this controversy is not one
for the discussion in newspaper col
umns. 1t is believed, however, that
presentation of the case from the
viewpoint of colored Masons will be
! of interese even to white members