We think a judicious stirring up of High Priests and Secretaries would have a beneficial effect.

The Committee on Appeals and Grievances appears to have an easy time; reporting, as usual, nothing to do.

The Report on Correspondence is again from the pen of Comp. JOSEPH P. HORNER, and carefully reviews the transactions of twenty-four Grand Chapters, noting everything of interest in their proceedings. California receives fraternal notice, and the report of our predecessor is characterized as an "able paper."

In reviewing the proceedings of Iowa, he gets in the following good one on COR. SON, of New Jersey:

Our confrère don't understand CORSON's declaration that the New Jersey delegation to Baltimore next September will not room so near the Louisianians as they did at St. Louis three years ago. Well, we'll explain, and our new brother shall have the experience for which we have duly paid our pro rata. At St. Louis, our delegation, having some idea of comfort, secured and arranged quite pleasant rooms, which, from the habits and regularity of its occupants, became known as the "Home of the Virtuous." Unfortunately, delegations from New Jersey, and other parts which shall be nameless, not liking their own quarters, repaired regularly to room No. 282, and made night hideous until near dawn, and consumed vast quantities of ice-water and matches at our expense, thus plundering us at once of our sleep and our money; and, in consideration of which, CORSON promised (rashly) that we should turn the tables upon them at Baltimore. Calm consideration has cooled both his blood and his generosity, and now he is trying to back out of his agreement, but he could no more help hanging around us when we do meet than he could-fly.

We are pleased to see that Comp. HORNER has received the reward of merit by being elected Deputy Grand High Priest, and we hope to greet him as Most Excellent, at the next annual Convocation. The M.. E.. M. E. GIRARD was elected Grand High Priest, and the R.. E.. JAMES C. BATCHELOR was reelected Grand Secretary.

MAINE.

The Grand Chapter of Maine assembled in annual Convocation in the city of Portland, on the second day of May, 1871, the M... E... STEPHEN YOUNG, Grand High Priest, presiding, the R.. E... IRA BERRY being Grand Secretary. All the Chapters in the jurisdiction, thirty-three in number, were represented at the opening, and of the Grand officers, only the First and Third Vails were pro tems.

The Address of the Grand High Priest is confined, principally, to a record of his official acts. He says:

Nothing has come to my knowledge to disturb the harmony of the various Chapters in our jurisdiction, and the past year has seemed to be one of uninterrupted prosperity. It is a matter of pride with me, therefore, that I have little to present for your consideration but the bare record of my official acts.

He reports the issue of two dispensations for the formation of new Chapters, and two special dispensations for conferring degrees in less than the usual time. He evidently deems an apology for the last to be necessary, for he says:

The reasons in these cases were so strong that they overcame my almost invinci ble repugnance to documents of this nature; for, while I fully believe in the provision of the Constitution which provides for the dispensing power, I hold that this power should be exercised with extreme caution and only in rare cases.

The following question was submitted and decided:

A Companion requests a dimit from a Chapter. He has paid his dues, but refuses to pay a certain sum voluntarily subscribed by him for the benefit of the Chapter, and is accused of dishonesty in various business transactions. Is he entitled to a dimit?

Ans. He is entitled to a dimit unless charges are filed against him, and the alleged offences are proved, after due trial.

We hold that a companion is not entitled to a dimit while charges are pending against him; he must remain a member until he is vindicated or convicted.

He calls upon the Grand Chapter to fix the status of the District Deputy Grand High Priests, who, he says, are not members of the Grand Chapter, and have no vote by virtue of their office; he recommends that this be at once remedied, and that the

officers in question be provided with an appropriate official costume. He also recommends that some provision be made by which the members of the Grand Council will be enabled to retain possession of the insignia of their office during the year, in order that they may appear appropriately clothed in their official visits to subordinate Chapters. This is all very well, but our " special wonder" is excited as to the manner of men composing the Grand Council away down in Maine, when the Grand High Priest gravely proposes that they shall be required to give a good and sufficient bond for the safe return of the property at the expiration of their office. This, to us, appears to be a somewhat singular suggestion, but then we suppose Comp. YOUNG is acquainted with his confréres upon the Grand Council.

He concludes with the following beautiful peroration:

Let me congratulate you upon the happy auspices under which we now come together.

While we are enjoying the blessings of peaceful prosperity, the seething tide of war is laying waste the fertile fields of Europe. While we meet with almost unbroken ranks, to exchange our fraternal greetings, many a lodge of the old world has become a Lodge of Sorrow for those who will see its lights no more.

We have but just emerged from the same flaming furnace, and the smell of fire is still on our garments.

We cannot better show our appreciation of the blessings of peace, than by laboring to perpetuate them; and nothing will conduce more to this effect than a dilligent dissemination of the fundamental principles of our ancient Order. Let us then renew our zeal in this cause, and work hand in hand with religion for the good of our fellow-men. Whenever all men shall be brought to love God and their neighbor, an appeal to arms will be no longer possible, and war will disappear from the face of the earth.

Comp. JOSIAH H. DRUMMOND presents a lengthy and able report upon the question of the employment of substitutes, and as this is a subject of general interest to the Craft we quote a portion of the report:

The Special Committee, to which was referred so much of our Grand High Priest's address last year as refers to the use of substitutes, ask leave to report.

They have endeavored to ascertain the early customs of Royal Arch Masons, as having an important bearing upon the question.

Availing themselves of the able address of Comp. WILLIAM S. GARDNER, at the Centennial Anniversary of St. Andrew's Chapter of Boston, in December, 1869, we find,

That the Royal Arch Degree was conferred in that Chapter (then appurtenant to St. Andrew's Lodge) in 1709; that so far as the record discloses, it was not conferred upon three brethren together till 1797; that in February, 1795, the Chapter voted, "That in future there shall only two be advanced to the Royal Arch Step the same evening."

It is a singular coincidence that the first time three brethren were exalted together was upon the occasion of the visit for the first time of THOMAS SMITH WEBB. The Chapter had been previously using the Irish Ritual. Soon after Comp. WEBB and HAMMER, from Temple Chapter, Albany, again visited the Chapter and conferred some of the degrees "after their manner."

At this time, undoubtedly, WEBB (who was made a Mason in 1792) was perfecting his system; for in the autumn of 1797, St. Andrew's Chapter adopted his work, and in conjunction with other Chapters took measures to form a Grand Chapter, which was accomplished in 1798, the date of the origin of the American system of Royal Arch Masonry. WEBB had published his Monitor the year before, but no forms for the installation of Chapter officers are given in it, and, therefore, we cannot tell whether the charge to the High Priest and the ritual containing the clause referring to the number of candidates, existed before 1798 or not. But the Constitution of the Grand Chapter, framed in January of that year, contains the portion of the charge referred to. It thus appears that the requirement of having three exalted together did not exist in Massachusetts before WEBB promulgated his system. We are informed by our Massachusetts Companions that the use of substitutes in that jurisdiction commenced when they adopted WEBB's system, and has continued ever since.

Turning now to New York, we have to regret that the early history of Temple Chapter, of which WEBB was a member, has never been published, so far as we can learn. It is the present practice there to use substitutes, and has been for many years; indeed, the earliest proceedings to which we have had access (1824) indicate that they were then used as a matter of course.

He also refers to ten other Grand Chapters which have been in existence for more than fifty years, all of which, he asserts, have authorized the use of substitutes. The

"from

opposition to the practice, manifested in many jurisdictions, arises, he says, the language of the ritual, and the installation charge to the High Priest. They are in direct conflict with the practice; but the fact is, the practice is older than the ritual, and when the ritual was adopted, the old practice was not changed to conform to it." The following resolutions were adopted as Standing Regulations:

Resolved, That in the absence of the High Priest, King and Scribe from any meeting of a Chapter, the next officer in rank shall preside, unless he request a Past High Priest to officiate for him.

Resolved, That in the absence of the High Priest, King and Scribe from any Chapter under this jurisdiction, no degrees shall be conferred unless a Past High Priest is present to preside.

The Report on Correspondence is as usual from the facile pen of Comp. DRUMMOND, and is one of the best reports we have yet had the pleasure of perusing. He reviews the transactions of thirty-six Grand Chapters, but omits ours for the very good reason that our proceedings for 1871 had not been received by him.*

Comp. DRUMMOND understands the reason of the delay in their issue, and we promise him that no cause of complaint shall exist in future, if we can avoid it.

In reviewing the transactions of the Grand Chapter of the District of Columbia, he thus gently chides Comp. MASON for the carelessness of his style:

Comp. J. EDWIN MASON presented an able Report on Correspondence, but marred, we are sorry to say, by things too carelessly-to speak mildly-written. Comp. M. is a nervous, vigorous writer, and his style is sharp and incisive; but we believe him to be above saying a severe thing undeserved, for the sake of saying a sharp one.

While his Grand Chapter was battling for its life, we made due allowance, but now when all questions have been settled, we dislike to see him fighting the battles over again with the same zeal and excitement.

Comp. HENDERSON, of Kentucky, gets a smart rap over the knuckles, in the following:

Comp. H. A. M. HENDERSON presented the Report on Correspondence, a brief summary with few comments, and a poor reason given for making them few.

Bat if he should not be more happy in his comments than he is in the following reply to Comp. BELL, we commend his prudence in being so chary of them:

"Under the head of SECEDED CHAPTERS Kentucky is reviewed. From what did our Grand Chapter ever secede? It was never a member of the General Grand ChapAs it never acceded, how could it secede?"

ter.

For, the three Chapters which formed the Grand Chapter of Kentucky, were chartered by THOMAS SMITH WEBB, as Deputy General Grand High Priest, under the authority of the Constitution of the General Grand Chapter; those three Chapters, reciting that constitution as their authority, and proceeding according to the instructions of WEBB, formed the Grand Chapter, which then asked the approbation of the General Grand Chapter, sent delegates to its session in 1819, obtained its approbation and recognition, was represented in it in 1826, 1847, 1850, 1853 and 1856; and in 1857 it adopted the following resolution: Resolved, That this Grand Chapter hereby dissolves its connection with the General Grand Chapter of the United States of America; and that the subordinates of this Grand Chapter govern themselves accordingly."

Can the blind lead the blind? Shall they not both fall into the ditch?"

We confess to being provoked at such blunders as this of Comp. H., and the more because there is such a general carelessness-not to say ignorance-in relation to masonic history upon nearly all questions, that if it was in secular matters, it would seem to be, and would be held to be, willful perversion of the truth. We speak in sorrow, rather than in anger.

The following history of the Order of High Priesthood will be found exceedingly interesting, and we trust we shall be excused for quoting it entire :

THE ORDER OF HIGH PRIESTHOOD.

The action of the Grand Chapter of New York in assuming jurisdiction over this Order, has attracted the attention of the Craft to consider its real office. Comp. A. I. SAWYER Submitted a report to the Grand Council of Michigan, which we copy (save a little) as the best introduction to our own discussion :-

* Our proceedings reached him while his report was going through the press, and a brief but fraternal notice appears at the end of his report, instead of being in their proper place.

"It is impossible," says Dr. MACKEY, "from the want of authentic documents, to throw much light upon the historical origin of this degree. No allusion to it can be found in any ritual works out of America, nor even here anterior to about the end of the last and beginning of this century. WEBB is the first who mentions it, and gives it a place in the series of Capitular degrees."

Dr. MITCHELL, in his work entitled "History of Freemasonry and Masonic Digest," says, We have not yet examined the history of the origin of the Order of High Priesthood, but we do not hesitate to say, that it is a thing of modern invention; indeed, so recently has this imposing Order been introduced, that pre-disposed as the Craft everywhere seems to be to embrace every newly invented appendage to Freemasonry, this Order or degree has not yet become universally known throughout the United States. Twenty years ago we had never heard of it." And further on he says: "But we do not regard this as at all remarkable, knowing, as we do, that the degree has no sort of connection with Freemasonry," &c.. &c.

Comp. WILLIAM HACKER, President of the Council of High Priests of Indiana, for the last twelve or fifteen years, in his beautiful little manual of the Order, says: WEBB, in the second edition of his Monitor,' published in 1802, makes the first mention of it, that has as yet been found; and but little doubt need be entertained that WEBB and his associates, SNow, FoWLE, and GLEASON, were the real authors of it. Where they got the germ or original idea from, is as equally unknown, but doubtless this was wholly original with them, as nothing they were known to be in possession of at the time will bear any comparison in the most remote particular, to the Order of High Priesthood, as they have handed it down to us."

Comp. HACKER also says he has examined "au old manuscript said to be in the handwriting of JOHN SNOW, in the earlier days of his manhood, in which was contained a very succinct draft of the Order as we now have it, and which, doubtless, is as near the original draft as will ever be obtained."

In a private letter dated October 26, 1870, Comp. HACKER says: "In regard to the Order of High Priesthood, the manner in which it has been kept and administered until within a few years past has really given it no history. I investigated the subject some twelve years since, and became convinced that JOHN SNow, late of Ohio, was really the author of it, about, or between the years 1797 and 1801."

The old manuscript" referred to, he says, "was the esoteric ritual of the Order complete, which I copied, and it is the ritual adopted and used in this State ever since."

In a private letter from Companion JOSIAH H. DRUMMOND, of Maine, who informs me that he is preparing a report for the Grand Chapter of his State upon the subject of High Priesthood, he says: "The earliest record I have found of the conferring of the degree or Order is in the proceedings of the Grand Chapter of Massachusetts, in which it is recorded that HENRY FOWLE Conferred it in Maine in July, 1820." Further on he says: "I always supposed it was arranged by WEBB. In the Monitor of 1797 no allusion is made to it; in the edition of 1802 it is given as a regular thing and no mention made of its history, etc., so I had taken it for granted that WEBB invented it between 1797 and 1802," etc. "But

In justice to Comp. DRUMMOND it is proper that I should add that he says: I have really just begun my inquiries," etc.

Comp. HAZELRIGG, of Indiana, in a private letter written sometime in July, I think, substantially agrees with what I have already quoted as to origin, history, etc., of the Order, but placing an estimate as to the importance of the Order similar to Dr. MITCHELL. I would have preferred using his own language, but unfortunately have mislaid his letter and can not do so; a circumstance I very much regret.

From the foregoing and other documentary evidence your committee concluded: First, that the exact origin of the Order, the precise time when and by whom first arranged and taught, are, and probably ever will be, wrapped in a mist of impenetrable doubt and uncertainty. But that it was founded some time between the years 1797 and 1802, and probably by WEBB, SNOW, FOWLE, and GLEASON, first published in WEBB'S Monitor of 1802, and first taught by one or more of the parties above mentioned. Nothing is certain, however, which of the gentlemen named had the honor of first inaugurating, inventing, or teaching it, although it would seem to your committee that JOHN SNOW has precedence of the others in this particular.

Secondly, that "the manner in which it has been kept and administered, until within a few years past, has really given it no history."

One thing is certain, viz: Grand Councils of High Priests are of comparatively recent origin, and until conferred under the auspices of Grand Councils, but little that is reliable connected with the Order can be found. Then the real history of the Order of High Priesthood commences in each State.

For instance, a Grand Council of High Priests was organized in 1838 in Ohio, in 1849 in Connecticut, between 1852 and 1856 [1853] in Kentucky, in 1857 in Maine and California, and not till 1861 in our own State-but ten years ago, at which time (January 10, 1861,) our much honored, Most Excellent President, (Comp. EBENEZER

SPRAGUE,) was set apart and solemnly consecrated to the office of High Priest of the Order.

Notwithstanding all this, as Comp. HACKER very appropriately says, the Order "has in its structure all the elements of sublimity and impressiveness. Its covenants are solemn and forcible; its means of recognition are alike ingenious, simple, full of dignity, and both scriptural and masonically appropriate, and when conferred as its just merits demand, has never failed to excite the admiration of the recipient or to increase his zeal in the great cause of human benefaction."

CHRONOLOGY OF THE ORDER. So far as your committee have been able to find, no special chronological date has ever yet been assigned to the Order of High Priesthood, but that the christian or common era has generally been adopted. Occasionally the Royal Arch Era has been used; not for any particular reason, however, except from its association with capitular Masonry, and then only incidentally.

Bnt if the degree of High Priesthood is to be elevated to the dignity of an Order, and its conventions graced with the significant title of Grand Councils, your committee see no good reason why it should not also have an era peculiar to its own, as well as other degrees, systems, or orders of Masonry. And assuming this to be the case, they would follow the plan of the rest and make it coeval with the legend, event, or idea represented or significant in the ceremonies pertaining to the degree, system, or order.

Following the example, we must go back to the battle of the nine kings, and the blessing of Abram by Melchisedek, after returning from the slaughter of Chedorlaomer and his associates, that being the principal event exemplified in the ceremonies of the Order.

That being 1911 years B. C., we shall have to add that amount to the Christian era, making ours 3782. It has been suggested that we might follow the Knights Templar, and date from the origin of the Order.

But since it is impossible, with our present knowledge, to ascertain whether our Order was founded in the year 1797, '98, '99, 1800, 1801, or 1802, and since the date of the legend or event exemplified or commemorated in the ceremonies of the degree, is a matter of historical record; and further, that although the Knights Templar profess to date from the origin of the Order, nevertheless it is also a historical fact that they really date from the year in which Baldwin, king of Jerusalem, assigned them a place of retreat in a Christian Church, called the Church of the Holy Temple, "while protecting the pilgrims through the passes and defiles of the mountains to the Holy City." We would, therefore, prefer to take our chronology from the principal historical fact commemorated in the ceremonies of the Order, viz: the blessing of Melchisedek, which took place, as before stated, 1911 B. C., making, according to that plan, our present date, as before stated, 3782.

If we accept the above and adopt the plan suggested, it yet remains to select a proper synonym to use in connection with the figures already mentioned, commemorative in itself of the event upon which the degree or Order is founded.

Upon this point your committee had intended to remain silent, preferring to leave the matter to your own judgments, but upon more mature reflection and further research, have finally concluded to present the following elaboration of their views by Camp. HACKER, as a proof of this report, and recommend its adoption, viz: "To what language shall we go for a proper term to denote the chronology?" If we go to the Shemitic languages we have the word borak or boraka, to bless, to wish a blessing to, or invoke a blessing on, etc. But these same articulations also mean in the languages in which they are used, to curse, to blaspheme. That being the case it would, in my opinion, not be very appropriate, and its double meaning objectionable. When we look to the Japhetic stock we find the words BEO FACIO, Blessed or to Bless, to bless and to make happy. This, like the former, does not seem to have a double and opposite meaning, and would, therefore, not be as objectionable as the other; this might be abbreviated thus, A.. B..-But there would be an objection to that as it has already been adopted as signifying a degree conferred in our schools and colleges of learning. Then, to obviate that objection, we might fix it thus: A..BEO..— Anno Beo Facio, the year of the blessing.

We think, however, the Order originated in January, 1799, at the session of the General Grand Chapter, and that WEBB was its author. He was at that session appointed chairman of a Committee to report a Constitution, and did so. In that Constitution he gives forms for installing High Priests. After the questions are answered and the installation prayer made, "All the companions, except High Priests and Past High Priests, are then requested to withdraw, while the new High Priest is solemnly bound to the performance of his duties; and after the performance of other necessary ceremonies, not proper to be written, they are permitted to return." The Grand High Priest then declares him "duly installed and anointed High Priest."

That this alluded to the Order of High Priesthood, there can be no doubt. The form for installation follows that of the installation of the Master of a Lodge, and the foregoing proceedings are had in lieu of conferring the Past Master's degree. Mark