which he justly received the thanks of the Lodge, the proceedings were closed, and the record has been completed. It is but simple justice to Bro. James W. Allen, Secretary of St. John's Lodge, to say that his record of this case bears the marks of great care and painstaking, and that in all essential particulars it is clear and accurate. St. John's Lodge having thus discharged, what, to its members, must have been one of the most painful duties within the range of their Masonic experience, it remains for this Grand Lodge to take such action upon the record of the case presented, as law and justice require. To the members of this Grand Body, and especially to those whose connection is a permanent one, there is a peculiar sadness attached to a case like the present. There must be retrospections and memories of brighter days; there must be yearnings of sympathy toward the respondent and sad regrets for his fall. There must be, at least, hope and the tenderness of charity for the whole future of his life. Above all, there can be no exultation and no shade of bitterness, as we wistfully gaze back upon a companionship once cherished, and perhaps never to pass wholly from our kind regard. But justice, honor, and the integrity of the Craft will all be imperilled if duty shall fail. Your committee, in the discharge of that duty, as it is commended to them after a careful examination of the case, respectfully recommend that the proceedings of St. John's Lodge in the trial of Solon Thornton, be confirmed. TRACY P. CHEever, Committee. The report was accepted, and the recommendation. unanimously adopted, confirming the action of Saint John's Lodge, whereby Solon Thornton is expelled. from all the rights and privileges of Freemasonry. The committee to whom was referred the complaint of Trinity Lodge, of Clinton, against Wilder Lodge, of Leominster, reported as follows: REPORT OF COMMITTEE ON THE COMPLAINT OF TRINITY LODGE AGAINST WILDER LODGE. IN GRAND LODGE, The Committee appointed, at the Quarterly Communication in March last, to investigate the complaint of Trinity Lodge, Clinton, against Wilder Lodge, Leominster, have attended to that duty, and respectfully offer the following report: This complaint embraces a charge of unmasonic conduct with two specifications. First, That Wilder Lodge has invaded the jurisdiction of Trinity Lodge in accepting a candidate from the town of Sterling. Second, That the candidate is unworthy. As to the first specification, the question of jurisdiction,-the indisputable points are: First, That Sterling is about four miles from Clinton, and seven miles from Leominster. Second, There is Railroad communication with the three towns during the day, but none at night; consequently, as the Lodges meet only at night, communication must be had by the county road, in carriages or on foot. Third, All the Brethren of Sterling, with but one exception, have received the degrees in Trinity Lodge, Clinton. From these several points, the natural conclusion must be, that no sane man, if obliged to go on foot, will consider it "most convenient" to walk seven miles, rather than four, and if he is a merciful man, and sane, he will have the same consideration for his horse, if he has the choice to ride. Upon this conclusion, and the fact that since the two Lodges were chartered, all the Brethren of Sterling have received the degrees in, and affiliated with Trinity Lodge (with only the one exception just mentioned) your committee are of the opin ion that Trinity Lodge has jurisdiction over the town of Sterling, and that Wilder Lodge has invaded that jurisdiction. As to the second specification, that the candidate is unworthy, the committee offer the following history of the case, that their conclusions may be clearly understood; also, to show the spirit that has characterized the conduct of the two Lodges involved in the controversy. a resident of Sterling, a prac February 20, 1872, titioner in the Eclectic School of medicine, made application for the degrees in Wilder Lodge, Leominster. The committee on the application asked further time at the Stated Communications in March, April and May. One of the committee wrote to Sterling for information regarding this candidate, and received a reply (signed by every Mason in town at the time) protesting strongly against his admission. The Worshipful Master of Trinity Lodge also addressed a letter to the Worshipful Master of Wilder Lodge, protesting against the action of Wilder Lodge, in invading the jurisdiction of Trinity Lodge; but waived that argument in favor of the more important and, as he believed, more effective one, of character. This protest and letter cannot be found, and the precise statements and expressions cannot be given, but all agree that the principal objections made to the admission of the candidate were on account of his intemperate and immoral character. At the Stated Communication in June a majority of the committee made an unfavorable report and he was rejected. This closes the first chapter of this history. The question of jurisdiction was still claimed by Trinity Lodge, and the impu tations against the character of the candidate were, in a certain degree, established by this rejection. The Brethren of Sterling were satisfied with the result, and felt no further attempt would be made to lift an unworthy candidate into the Fraternity. Not so, however, with Wilder Lodge. They had not yielded a single point in the case, had made no inquiries regarding jurisdiction, and had allowed the rejection only because, to use the expression of one of the principal members of the Lodge, "they did not, at that time, think it expedient to elect him." The rejection of this candidate occurred at the Stated Communication of Wilder Lodge held June 18, 1872. February 11, 1873, just one year after the first application, and the seventh month after his rejection, made a second application for the degrees in Wilder Lodge. The Annual Election of the Lodge had intervened, and a new Worshipful Master had succeeded to the Chair. This new Master was a physician, also of the Eclectic School, and an intimate friend of the candidate; than whom no man was better able to judge of his merits or his fitness for the degrees in Masonry. This second application was referred to two Past Masters and the Secretary. At the next Stated Communication, held March 11, 1873, each of the committee made a favorable report and the candidate was accepted. March 25th., at a Special Communication, he received the first degree. Thus far had this second application proceeded without the knowledge of any of the ten or twelve Brethren from Sterling, who had protested against the first application. The first knowledge they had, came from the candidate, who hastened to proclaim himself an Entered Apprentice. At a Special Communication of Trinity Lodge, held April 8, 1873, some of the Brethren of Sterling complained of this action of Wilder Lodge, and it was voted, that the Secretary be requested to report to the Grand Lodge, the action of Wilder Lodge in accepting -, of Sterling. The Secretary addressed the following communication to the Grand Master. TRINITY LODGE, CLINTON, April 10, 1873. M. W. Sereno Dwight Nickerson, Grand Master of the Grand Lodge of Massachusetts : DEAR SIR AND BROTHER:-I have the honor to hereby officially inform you that at a Special Communication of Trinity Lodge, held on the 8th. inst., the following vote was passed. Voted, that the Secretary be requested to report to the Grand Lodge the action of Wilder Lodge, of Leominster, in accepting one -, of Sterling. The facts in the case are these. First, The individual is within our jurisdiction and Wilder Lodge had no right to accept him without our consent, which they have never asked for. Second, The individual is not a proper person to be made a Mason, his habits being of a very immoral character. Some time ago he applied for the degrees to Wilder Lodge, and was rejected; every Mason in Sterling signing a petition against him. With this paper in their archives, and without again consulting any of the Brethren in Sterling, Wilder Lodge has, clandestinely, as it were, accepted him on a second application, and already conferred the first degree. These facts can be substantiated by the Brethren in Sterling, members of our Lodge, and thinking the cause of Masonry is injured by the action of Wilder Lodge, the case is now left in your hands. Trusting it may receive your early attention, we remain, Fraternally yours, (Signed) HENRY N. OTTERSON. Secretary of Trinity Lodge. On receipt of this communication the Grand Master issued the following order. GRAND LODGE OF MASSACHUSETTS, To the Master of Wilder Lodge, Leominster : DEAR SIR AND W. BROTHER:-Complaint having been made to me that your Lodge has improperly taken jurisdiction over a candidate by the name of ——, of Sterling, you are hereby directed to refrain from further conferring any of the degrees in Freemasonry upon said until said complaint is investigated, and until further instructions are issued from the Grand Master. Very truly and fraternally yours, (Signed) SERENO D. NICKERSON, This order effectually stopped all further progress, and the candidate still remains an Entered Apprentice. The history of this case betrays a remarkable determination on the part of Wilder Lodge to admit this candidate into the Fraternity. With the exception of the rejection of his first application, there is no evidence of any disposition to investigate his character, or guard the Institution against the admission of an unworthy candidate. As evidence of the disposition to elect him at all hazards, note the following incident: |