The Jealous Jurisdiction

The Jealous Jurisdiction

On March 18, 1864 a communication from Renfrew Lodge was read in reply to a letter written by Bro. C. E. Field, Secretary of Mississippi Lodge, complaining of violation of constitution by making a mason of a person who lived within the jurisdiction of Mississippi Lodge. Pakenham is distant from Mississippi Lodge by 12 miles and from Renfrew by 26 miles. The reply stated that it was unintentional to infringe upon the rights of Mississippi Lodge, that it was through inadvertency, and that the matter would be properly laid before the Renfrew Lodge at their next regular communication and the proceedings reported to Mississippi Lodge. It was moved that no action be taken on the above matter, but that it be laid over until Mississippi Lodge heard from Renfrew Lodge.

This seemingly aggressive conduct between the Lodges points to something which is not expected in Lodge matters today, and that is the apparent significance of jurisdictional boundaries between the Lodges. Whether the concern was prompted only by technical constitutional matters or other matters (such as financing, for example) is unclear. It is noted that at the same Meeting, it was agreed that one dozen new aprons for use in the Lodge be procured, which points to a rather active membership anticipation, so one would assume that the desire to retain strict control over possible members must have been motivated by more than a simple desire to achieve increased membership. By the way, at the Meeting of May 20, 1864 an account for aprons amounting to $6.60 was approved (which would be 55 cents for each of 12 aprons if that was the number of aprons covered by that price).
On April 15, 1864 a committee was appointed to confer with Renfrew Lodge on the subject of initiating Geo. Bolton (presumably the person who was the subject of this constitutional debate) and to report thereon at the next meeting.

On June 24, 1864 the Secretary was instructed to write to Renfrew Lodge requesting an immediate transfer of Bro. Geo. Bolton with the fee of his initiation to Mississippi Lodge, and "if not at once satisfactorily replied to the case was to be reported to the Grand Lodge".

On July 15, 1864 Bro. Mostyn reported for the committee appointed to confer with Renfrew lodge that a communication from the Secretary of Renfrew Lodge was received, reporting that the demand of Mississippi Lodge had been complied with by Renfrew Lodge.

On October 14, 1864 it was moved that "the committee appointed to settle the difficulty with Renfrew Lodge proceed in that business and bring it to an issue".

On December 9, 1864 Bro. R. R. Smith of Renfrew Lodge "explained the feeling of that Lodge on the Bolton case". It was moved that "our business with Renfrew Lodge be laid over until after the installation of Officers in that Lodge".

On February 23, 1866, a letter was received from the Wor. Master of Renfrew Lodge to see if Mississippi Lodge would allow them to initiate J. B. Dickson (who lived within the jurisdiction of Mississippi Lodge) into Masonry. A committee of enquiry was appointed. It is somewhat surprising, in view of the earlier jurisdictional difficulties encountered, that Renfrew Lodge would even raise the possibility, but at least the letter of request for consent was a step beyond the former unilateral conduct of Renfrew Lodge in initiating a person beyond its jurisdiction. As it turned out, Mr. Dickson's application was found to be unfavourable, and Renfrew Lodge was notified accordingly.

On December 21, 1866 the following is recorded:

A letter from the Secretary of Corinthian Lodge No. 59 Ottawa was read in which he states that Mr. Allan Frazer of Fitzroy had made application to that Lodge for initiation and that he had been balloted for and accepted, but before initiating him they wish to have the concurrence of this Lodge, he being a resident of our district.

Moved by W. Bro. Menzies, sec. by W. Bro. McEwen that we give Corinthian Lodge permission to initiate Mr. Frazer.

Moved in amendment by Bro. Scrimgeour, Sec. by Bro. McDougal that this Lodge do not give its concurrence to the above.

     The amendment was carried.

It is not entirely clear why the Lodge would take objection man making application to a Lodge outside his geographical jurisdiction. This is especially difficult to follow in view of the fact that Mississippi Lodge was, at that time, apparently enjoying rather significant popularity. At the Meeting of December 21, 1866 alone, there were two favourable applications for Initiation, and another for Affiliation. Further, at the Meeting two other Brethren gave verbal notice of intention to apply for membership in Mississippi Lodge. And at the subsequent meeting of January 18, 1867 two additional applications for Initiation were received (George Campbell and William G. Willoughby). Again, at that latter meeting, the following appears:

Moved by Bro. McDougal, Sec by Bro. Field that the Sec'y to a write to Corinthian Lodge to ascertain whether Mr. Allan Frazer has been initiated by them, and if so to demand constitutional restitution. Carried.

On February 15, 1867, the following appears:

A letter from the Sec. of Dalhousie Lodge Ottawa was read in which he expresses regret at having initiated Mr. Al Grant who lives in our jurisdiction.

Moved by W. Bro. Menzies Sec by W. Bro. McEwen that Bros. McDougal, Field and McDiarmed be a committee with full power to act in the above affair. Carried.

There is the obvious question whether Allan Frazer is the same person as Allan Grant, and whether it was Corinthian or Dalhousie Lodge which was in question. In either case, however, it continues to be abundantly clear that Mississippi Lodge is guarding its jurisdiction jealously. To complicate this jurisdictional preoccupation, however, consider the minutes of the meeting of November 4, 1870 wherein it is reported that "Mr. Peter Barrie of Carleton Place made application to be initiated into the mysteries of masonry in this Lodge...the ballot being passed was found clear". It is clear from prior minutes that Carleton Place had its own Lodge at the same time, so one has to wonder by what authority Mississippi Lodge was apparently encroaching upon the jurisdiction of St. John's Lodge in Carleton Place. Mr. Barrie was later initiated into Mississippi Lodge on December 2, 1870.
An odd reference appears in the Minutes of November 8, 1872, wherein it is reported that a communication was received from The Right Wor. the Grand Master Bro. Wilson giving notice to cease any further communication with the Grand Lodge of Vermont (presumably in the United States) "for reasons therein mentioned". No further explanation is proffered.
On May 3, 1878, one of the Brethren drew to the attention of the Lodge the fact that Bro. John McPhee ("a resident of this village") was lately initiated in Madawaska Lodge No. 196 without consultation with this Lodge. The Secretary was instructed to write to Madawaska Lodge on the subject.

The matter of consent from the Lodge of governing jurisdiction again surfaced in the minutes of April 5, 1889, wherein a communication from Goodwood Lodge, Richmond was received asking for permission to initiate several men from the jurisdiction of Mississippi Lodge. It is reported that, "...after considerable discussion it was decided that this lodge could not consent to the request as it was directly opposed to the constitution". This is the first time that a "legal" theory was advanced to protect the jurisdictional claim of the Lodge. And the legalistic approach seems rather contrary to the pattern of courtesy which appeared to have been developing, whereby the various Lodges, once consulted on the technical matter, would defer the apparent paramountcy to the more sociable resolution. After all, one can safely assume that if a man applies to be a member of a certain Lodge, even one which is beyond the jurisdictional boundary of his residence, he must have good reason for doing so, and to deny him that pleasure seems to defeat the point of the fraternity. Clearly the broader concept of residency in the "district" had not yet developed. See also the entry on April 1, 1892 wherein another application of Goodwood Lodge was declined for the reason that "...it would establish a bad precedent, and that in such cases all should be treated alike".

On March 5, 1909, the following appears:

A communication was read from Bro. J. H. Paterson, an Entered Apprentice Mason, who is at present a student in Montreal, asking this Lodge to allow him to take his Second Degree in Waverly Lodge No. 82, Montreal to save him expense of trip back to Almonte.

It was moved by Bro. Donaldson, seconded by Bro. Porritt and adopted - That Bro. Paterson be allowed to take his Second Degree in Waverly Lodge in accordance with his request.

At the meeting of May 7, 1909 it is reported that a communication was received from the Secretary of Waverley Lodge No. 82, A.F. & A.M. G.R.Q. stating that Bro. J. H. Paterson had been passed to the second Degree on April 9, 1909.

At the meeting of June 4, 1909, a motion was made, seconded and adopted that the Secretary convey to the W. M. and officers of Waverley Lodge No. 82 "our appreciation of their courtesy in conferring the second Degree for Bro. J. H. Patterson". If nothing else, the apparent protection of jurisdiction provided the occasion for the Lodges to communicate with one another. To close the matter, Bro. Paterson was raised in Mississippi Lodge on June 4, 1909.

The jurisdictional issue hit a high (or perhaps low) point on June 19, 1910, the account of which is recorded in the minutes of February 3, 1911. A circular from the Grand Master of A.F. & A.M. in Canada, Province of Ontario was read, wherein is recited that the Wor. Master, Officers and members of Pine Grove Lodge at Port Huron, Michigan (a Masonic Lodge under the jurisdiction of the Grand Lodge of Michigan) "appeared in Masonic clothing at Sarnia in the Province of Ontario, and acting as a Lodge performed a Masonic ceremony". The circular further records that "permission was not

sought from nor given by any competent Masonic authority warranting the said Pine Grove Lodge to appear and act as a Lodge within the jurisdiction of the Grand Lodge of Canada in the Province of Ontario". The circular recited that the Ontario Grand Lodge was sovereign in the Province of Ontario. Apparently the Grand Master of Masons in the State of Michigan was approached about these matters but he "declined to disavow the act of Pine Grove Lodge and has declined to make any explanation or to repudiate the unlawful and unfriendly invasion of this jurisdiction and has approved the act complained of". The crunch was as follows:

Now therefore I, Daniel Fraser MacWatt: Grand Master of Masons of the Grand Lodge of Canada in the Province of Ontario do ordain and decree that fraternal relations between the Grand Lodge of Canada in the Province of Ontario and the Grand Lodge of Michigan shall from this date cease and determine; that all Masons owing allegiance to this Grand Lodge are forbidden to hold Masonic intercourse of any kind with Masons holding under the Grand Lodge of Michigan; and I do further ordain and decree that Masons under the jurisdiction of the Grand Lodge of Michigan shall not be received as visitors in any Lodge under the jurisdiction of the Grand Lodge of Canada nor be granted any Masonic right as privilege within this jurisdiction.

As the saying goes "them's fightin' words"! One can imagine that this circular would have had particular impact upon the Masons in Sarnia, with whom the Michigan Masons undoubtedly had contact. If there is more to this than meets the eye, there is no further explanation recorded. It seems that the only basis for the rejection is that contained in the numerous preambles to the circular; viz., "the ceremony then performed was not one authorized by this Grand Lodge of Canada in the Province of Ontario". The only palliative for this diseased state of affairs was that on July 7, 1911 a communication was read from the Grand Master "revoking decree issued against Grand Lodge of Michigan".

On February 6, 1913 it is reported that, "Communication was read from St. John's Lodge #63 Carleton Place asking Mississippi Lodge to waive its jurisdiction on residence of Mr. Wm. Illingworth. Moved...that this Lodge grant St. John's Lodge the right to receive the application of Mr. Wm. Illingworth and that this Lodge waive all rights thereto. Carried". This was still a serious business.

On October 6, 1944 the Master reported that discussions had been held between this Lodge and the Arnprior Lodge regarding competing jurisdictional rights to candidates for initiation. For the time being the matter was resolved with the consent of Arnprior to the initiation of a candidate who had expressed a preference for Almonte. Of further interest is the apparent decision of the two Masters "that Pakenham be an open district for any person who wished to come to this lodge or Arnprior, and our W. M. thought this was a happy arrangement for both lodges. Bro. (Louis) Peterson thought that we should have something more definate (sic) & that letters be exchanged between the two secretaries and made a motion accordingly. Carried".

A deliberate approach to jurisdiction is exemplified in the minutes of February 3, 1950:
An application was presented from Mr. Richard Donaldson Kelly of Perth, Ontario who wished to be initiated into Mississippi Lodge. The secretary was instructed to write to True Britons' Lodge No. 14 at Perth and ask for a waiver of jurisdictional rights and a certificate of character in order that this application could be dealt with. It would also require a dispensation from Grand Lodge before any action could be taken.

On March 3, 1950 it is reported that "The Secretary read a dispensation from Grand Lodge which stated that Mississippi Lodge was authorized to act upon the petition presented by Mr. Richard Donaldson Kelly of the town of Perth". Mr. Richard D. Kelly was admitted in due form and obligated by Wor. Bro. Dr. J. K. Kelly, his uncle. The Secretary further noted that, "This degree marked an unique occasion for Mississippi Lodge in that Bro. Richard Kelly is the second of the Kelly family to be the fourth generation to be initiated into this Lodge. Wor. Bro. Adams requested that the minutes show the appreciation of Mississippi Lodge to True Britons' Lodge for waiving all jurisdictional rights to Bro. Richard Kelly and allowing him to be initiated here". It would clearly be but a little short of dismissive to consider such "jurisdictional rights" as little more than a nicety!

March 21, 1974: "The matter of concurrent jurisdiction was discussed and the meeting agreed we in Ottawa District 1 should all have concurrent jurisdiction. Bro. Lannie Phillips gave notice of motion that at the next regular meeting he would move or cause to have moved that this lodge make application to the Most Wor. the Grand Master to have concurrent jurisdiction with all lodges in Ottawa District 1". The motion was carried at the subsequent meeting on April 18, 1974, and thus ended the debate and not infrequent acrimony which had prevailed since 1861.