Gurney's Reports, 1884.

"Masonic correspondence has become a great feature of the Masonic Institution, and he who does not carefully read and study the respective annual reports fails to acquire inestimably valuable Masonic information, and deprives himself of inexpressible pleasure. Drummond, of Maine; Simons, of New York; Gurney, of Iliinois; Parvin, of Iowa; Pierson, of Minnesota; Hedges, of Montana; Vincil, of Missouri; Meed, of Washington; Staton, of Kentucky; Wheeler, of Connecticut; Wait, of New Hampshire; Singleton, of the District of Columbia; Vaux, of Pennsylvania; Hammond, of Nevada; Inglesby, of South Carolina; Richards, of Ohio; Chadwick, of Oregon; Innes, of Michigan, and others are great lights in this service of the Fraternity, and merit high commendation. Probably Simons is the most conservative and Gurney the most sensational. Anyway they thus appear to us. The latter dearly loves to find a topic to thrust through and through, but none is truer to what he conceives to be strictly Masonic, nor more zealous in upholding and defending the Ancient Craft banner. His reports of 1884 are very important and are eliciting unusual attention and criticism. His special report to the Grand Lodge of Illinois on the Memphis and the Ancient and Primitive Rite appeared in this magazine last month, and hence now is passed by. His regular report to the Grand Lodge is most important and will first receive review.

"Report To Grand Lodge:—Heretofore Bro. Gurney has mercilessly condemned the unanimity theory of forming Grand Lodges, and he still dissents to it, yet nevertheless in the opening of the report now under review he unwittingly demonstrates its correctness and proves that it is 'the accepted law of organization.'"

* * *

"Minority Theory.—Bro. Gurney finds no reason for endorsing the minority theory, and with his trenchant pen he cuts it all to pieces. Under the caption 'Grand Lodge of Victoria,' he says: 'In 1863 and 1876 unsuccessful attempts were made to organize a Grand Lodge. April 13th, 1883, a preliminary meeting of brethren, not lodges, was held in Melbourne to once more inaugurate the undertaking, and, so far as the common law of organization dictates, with a like want of success attending previous efforts. On the 19th day of June the convention was held, fifteen lodges being represented. There were also present bodies of Masons from two other lodges, who were as would appear, in sympathy with the movement. At this point we find, upon page 27 of "proceedings," that "Masonry has been established here some forty years, and, according to recent returns, the lodges under the three constitutions (English, Irish and Scotch) number ninety-five, with probably five thousand members." The facts are, therefore, that fifteen lodges, with about eight hundred members, assume to dictate an organization for the whole Fraternty of the Colony. Our brethren of Victoria rest their claims to legality upon the declaration of our late Bro. Mackey, that three lodges are authorized to consummate the organization This is true if such lodges constitue a majority of the lodges of a defined territory. This is what that distinguished author says: (Vide Mackey's Jurisprudence, pp. 423 and 42.) "The fact is, that there is no ancient regulation on the subject; but the necessity of thee lodges concurring is derived from the well known principles of the civil law, that a college or corporate body must consist of three persons at least. Two lodges could not unite in a Masonic college or corporate body, nor form that corporate body known as a Grand Lodge. But not more than three are necessary, and accordingly the Grand Lodge of Texas, which was established in 1837, by three lodges, was at once recognized as regular and legal by all the Grand Lodges of the United States and other countries.* * * The Grand Lodge thus formed, by the union of not less than three lodges in convention, at once assumes all the prerogatives of a Grand Lodge, and acquires exclusive Masonic jurisdiction over the territory within whose geographical limits it has been constituted. No lodge can continue to exist, or be subsequently established in the territory, except under its authority; and all other Grand Lodges are prohibited from exercising any Masonic authority within the said territory.'

"'We give both quotations to show that the presumption cannot be entertained that he intended to insist that a minority of lodges, fifteen, could formulate an organization for ninety-five; becanse not in all the annals of the Institution has it ever been recognized that a minority of lodges or Grand Lodge, could determine legislation for the majority. If Bro. Mackey had been of the opinion that three lodges could have controlled, notwithstanding the presence of twenty others in Texas, he would have so said; but the facts are, that the three lodges who instituted that Grand Body were a majority of the lodges of that particular domain, and if memory is not at fault, they constituted the entire Fraternity of the jurisdiction.'"