I've edited the Archive TXT document in accordance to the book. Due to the automatic text document creator causing problems here. But if you don't want to read it:
You can watch a screen-roll and hear a guy read this instead if you want. The guy is a Christian, but he's reading from a book. If you can't stand his additional comments you can just skip it.
The Anti-Mason Movement of the 1800's Exposed and Attempted to Stop Freemasonry
https://www.bitchute.com/video/xd5nMQOS5epj/
The pages he is reading from starts at page 237 of the book, in the PDF that is page 243.
https://archive.org/details/incoilsorcoming00gragoog/page/n5/mode/2up
The book is written in 1882 and is called "In the Coils; Or, The Coming Conflict".
Page 237 of the original book, page 243 in the PDF.
Princeton, May 6th, 18 -
My Dear Doctor: — I am too busy to pay you a visit as I should like to do, and hence drop you a note to ask a favour. I wish you would carefully consider the propriety of the nomination of my nephew, John Bates, for member of congress from our district. I suppose you know his name has been mentioned, and as it has gone so far, we are anxious that he should be nominated. You are somewhat acquainted with him and his history, and therefore I hope that you will feel favourable toward him and assist him all you can. Will you be so kind as to let me know your own opinion of the matter and the prospects for John in your precinct?
Respects to your family.
Yours,
N. R. Dover.
After due inquiry and reflection Groves sent to Mr. Dover the following answer:
Brandon, May 18th, 18 —.
My Dear Friend: — I have delayed a reply to your note in order that I might be able to answer both your questions fully and with some degree of certainty.
I am glad to be able to say that I am personally acquainted with your nephew, and that I highly esteem him. I have consulted several influential men in our village, and we all agree in our opinion of Bates and his prospects in this precinct. So I can answer both of your questions together and use the
plural "we" and "our" instead of showing you mine opinion alone.
We believe Bates to be the best candidate in the field as yet, and it is possible that he will have our hearty support.
We are not altogether satisfied with any of our candidates; but we do not expect to find one that will suit us in every particular. We may consistently support a person and yet have some objection to him. So in regard to Bates. We have one serious objection to him, but whether that will be in our way of supporting him depends on circumstances. I suppose you want a plain statement of the whole matter rather than any uncertain and flattering promises, and I will not be kept back by fear of offending you, or by a desire for office or popularity, from stating clearly our objection to Bates, and the circumstances in which he may probably expect our support.
We do not object to his abilities, moral character, republicanism, relatives or general fitness for the place. We appreciate him for all these. Our only objection to him is, that by certain and numerous oaths which he considers binding, (we do not, however,) he has pledged his support to a monopoly which is more powerfull and dangerous than those which he professes to oppose, and has sworn his allegiance to a government which claims supremacy over all other authority whether of church or state. In a word, as we are informed, Mr. Bates is a Freemason.
Now we know that everyone who enters the lodge swears "to support the constitution of the Grand Lodge of the state, and to conform to the laws of any lodge of which he shall be a member, and also to obey all regular signs, summons or tokens from any Mason or body of Masons." Now whatever he may be told before taking this oath, after he does so he is taught that the authority of the lodge is absolute, the covenant is irrevocable, and its obligations are supreme.
In General Ahiman Rezon; or, Freemason's Guide" we read:
"The candidate, entering the lodge, is on the point of binding himself voluntarily, absolutely and without reservation forever."
Webb's Monitor says:
"The covenant is irrevocable. Even though a Mason may be suspended or expelled, though he may withdraw from the lodge, journey into countries where Masons cannot be found, or become a subject of despotic governments that persecute, or a communicant of bigoted churches that denounce Masonry, he cannot cast off or nullify his Masonic covenant. No law of the land can affect it; no anathema of the church can weaken it. It is irrevocable."
Again this same Masonic author says :
"The first duty of the reader of this synopsis is to obey the edicts of his Grand Lodge. Right or wrong, his very existence as a Mason hangs upon obedience to the power immediately set above him. Failure in this must infallibly bring down expulsion, which as a Masonic death, ends all. The one unpardonable crime in a Mason is contumacy or disobedience."
Although it takes much space in my letter, let me give you more testimony, with the names of the witnesses, who are all eminent members of the order and high in authority and some of whose works are in nearly every lodge, and necessarily have some effect on the members:
"That this surrender of free will to Masonic authority is absolute,
(within the scope of the landmarks of the order), and perpetual, may be inferred from an examination of the emblem (the Shoe or Sandal) which is used to enforce this lesson of resignation." — Morris — Dictionary of Freemasonry.
"Disobedience is so subversive of the ground work of Masonry, in which obedience is so strongly inculcated, that the Mason who disobeys subjects himself to severe penalties." — Ibid,
"A Grand Lodge is invested with power and authority over all the craft within its jurisdiction. It is the Supreme Court of Appeals in all Masonic cases, and to its decrees unlimited obedience must be paid by every lodge and every Mason situated within its control. The government of Grand Lodges is, therefore, completely despotic. While a Grand Lodge exists, its edicts must be respected and obeyed without examination by its subordinate lodges." — Mackey — Lexicon of Freemasonry, page 188.
"For ourselves, we deny as Masons that any civil government on earth has the right to divide or curtail Masonic jurisdiction when once established. It can only be done by competent Masonic authority and in accordance with Masonic usage." — Grand Lodge Report.
"A 'due summons' from the lodge or Grand Lodge is obligatory upon him, and should he refuse obedience he will be disgracefully expelled from the society with public marks of ignominy that can never be erased." — Morris — Dictionary of Freemasonry, page 29.
"Disobedience and want of respect to Masonic superiors is an offence for which the transgressor subjects himself to punishment" — Mackey — Masonic Jurisprudence, page 611.
"Hence we find that the Master's authority in the lodge is as despotic as the sun in the firmament which was placed there by the Creator, never to deviate from its accustomed course, till the declaration is promulgated that time shall be no more." — Oliver— Signs and Symbols of Freemasonry, page 142.
"Treason and rebellion also, because they are altogether political offences, cannot be inquired into by a lodge; and although a Mason may be convicted of either of these acts in the courts of his country, he cannot be masonically punished; and notwithstanding his treason or rebellion his relation to the lodge, to use the language of the old charges, remains indefeasible." — Mackey — Masonic Jurisprudence page, 510 (or 610).
"There is no duty more forcibly enjoined in Masonry than that of warning a brother of danger impending to his person or interests. To neglect this is a positive violation of obligation, and destroys any person's claim to be entitled a Mason." — Morris — Dictionary of Freemasonry, page 325.
"The powers and privileges of the Master of a lodge are by no means limited in extent." — Chase — Digest of Masonic Law, page 380.
"As a presiding officer the Master is possessed of extraordinary powers, which belong to the presiding officer of no other association." — Mackey — Masonic Jurisprudence, page 344.
"The system of Masonic law has little of the republican or democratic spirit about it." — Morris — Webb's Freemason's Monitor, revised edition, page 195.
"Once a Mason, always a Mason — once a Mason everywhere a Mason. However independent either as individuals or as lodges, whether grand or subordinate — and we are each and all truly free and uncontrolled by anything save our ancient laws and constitution --- yet no Mason can be a foreigner to another Mason. We are all equal citizens of one common government, having equal rights, equal privileges and equal duties; and in which government, thank God, the majority does not govern. For our order in its very constitution strikes at the root of that which is the very basis of popular government. It proclaims and practices, not that the will of the masses is wise and good, and as such to be obeyed; not that the majority shall govern, but that the law [i.e. above mentioned ancient law] shall govern. Our tenet is not only that no single man but that no body of men (however wise or numerous), can change in any degree one single landmark of our ancient institution. Our law is strictly organic; it cannot be changed without being destroyed. You may take a man to pieces, and you may take a watch to pieces; but you cannot alter his organs and put him together again as you do the time keeper. Masonry is the living man, and all other forms of government mere convenient machines, made by clever mechanics, for regulating the affairs of state. Not only do we know no North, no South, no East and no West, but we know no government save our own. To every government save that of Masonry, and to each and all alike, we are foreigners; and this form of government is neither pontifical, autocratic, monarchial, republican, democratic nor despotic; it is a government per se, and that government is Masonic. We have nothing to do with forms of government, forms of religion, or forms of social life. We are a nation of men only bound to each other by Masonic ties, as citizens of the world, and that world the world of Masonry; brethren to each other all the world over, foreigners to all the world beside.'
The above is a Masonic address in a nut-shell; it is the compressed essence of Masonic life." — Missouri Grand Lodge Report for 1867.
What a remarkable array of Masonic testimony! And yet the half has not been told. I might go on almost indefinitely showing its foul, treasonable and anti-republican nature, as legibly portrayed under these extracts from standard Masonic publications. The above sentences are complete quotations and not garbled. They are concise and plain. The language is authoritative. Masonic superiors never argue with subordinates. They dictate.
No wonder a most prominent member admits the following:
"There is no charge more frequently made against Freemasonry than that of its tendency to revolution and conspiracy, and to political organizations which may affect the peace of society or interfere with the rights of government." — Mackey — Mystic Tie of Freemasonry, page 43.
Remember, my friend Dover, that I am not speaking of your nephew's personal views of the supremacy of the lodge, nor saying what he would do if he should find that some of the laws, summons or orders of the lodge should conflict with his duties to the government, but merely showing you what the lodge, according to its standard authors, claims, and what every Mason has sworn to perform. If Mr. Bates should go to congress and then find in some cases that he must violate either his official oath or Masonic obligation, I do not say which he would consider binding; but I do say, for I know, that the lodge by its writers, its lecturers and its decrees declares that its obligations are supreme, its authority above all civil authority, and obedience to his superiors the first duty of every Mason. If eminent members know and tell the truth about their own order, if Grand Lodge reports can be believed, there can be no doubt on this point. Please read again carefully what these have said, yes, dared to print, and you will see our objection to sending Bates to congress, or electing him or any Mason to any office until he renounces his allegiance to the lodge. Do you think that we demand too much? Every other foreigner, before he is allowed even to vote, must renounce his allegiance to the government under which he was born, and to which perhaps he has never sworn or acknowledged obedience. We require of him, and properly, the following obligation:
"I do declare on oath that it is bona fide my intention to become a citizen of the United States, and to renounce and abjure forever all allegiance and fidelity to all and every foreign prince, potentate, state and sovereign, and particularly -------------, of whom I am a subject."
Is it then right for free citizens of this country to vote into any office a person who --- has sworn and still lives under and acknowledges allegiance to another — a monarchial and a despotic government? Has not the Grand Lodge of one state, in consistency with the general teaching of Masonry declared that all its members are foreigners to our government? Let us then consider them as such; and our government also should consider them as such, and forbid them to hold office, sit on the jury, or even to vote until they take the oath prescribed for other foreigners.
When I tell you that the "Most Puissant Sovereign Grand Commander of the United States," of whom every Mason in the country is a sworn subject, is an ex-confederate general, whose rebel hands are deeply dyed by the crimson blood of loyal citizens, and who at one battle of the late war led a brigade of Indians against the boys in blue, who, by these cruel savages, were murdered, scalped and mutilated in a manner too barbarous for description, you will see more force in this argument. And why was not the arch traitor, the leader of the rebellion, hung when captured? He and the president of the United States and many congressmen and judges were Royal Arch Masons, and had each sworn to the following:
"Furthermore, do I promise and swear, that I will aid and assist a companion Royal Arch Mason when engaged in any difficulty; and espouse his cause so far as to extricate him from the same, if in my power, whether he be right or wrong."
Is it not reasonable then to suppose that these men, who had sworn to fulfil their duties as civil officers, chose rather to obey Masonic obligations and extricate a rebel from his difficulty? This is the only explanation of this strange event which is worthy of any consideration. And it is made more certain when we remember that, according to Mackey's Jurisprudence, "Treason and rebellion also, because they are altogether political offences, cannot be inquired into by the lodge."
These facts concerning the oaths and teachings of the lodge will explain many other strange things in the history of our country. They will often explain why some improper person is nominated and elected to some office, or the illegal contestant is given the seat, or a criminal is acquitted or pardoned, and perhaps promoted. Why was our present representative, who you say has not brains enough to be a pettifogging lawyer, and who is notoriously dishonest, sent to congress? Why was he nominated by our party? In answer to this question The Wasp, whose editor is an anti-monopolist, but also inconsistently a Mason, says: "Because, as the superintendent of our main railway told a prominent man before the convention which nominated him, the present incumbent was this company's most available candidate because he was high up in Masonry." Thus he admits that the lodge is used for the purpose of securing improper nominations and electing to office unworthy men, and certainly implies that it is used to control them while in office. So you see our objection to any Mason going to congress, and our only objection to the nomination of Mr. Bates. The one condition on which we will give him our united and hearty support is that he goes before the clerk of the United States Court and takes the oath required of all foreigners, inserting the word Freemasonry in the blank.
I have given you freely and honestly a lengthy statement of this case; but if there is anything further you desire to know I would be glad to answer your inquiries. I should be glad to receive a visit from you at any time.
Yours,
Warren Groves.
N. R. Dover.
Princeton.
You can watch a screen-roll and hear a guy read this instead if you want. The guy is a Christian, but he's reading from a book. If you can't stand his additional comments you can just skip it.
The Anti-Mason Movement of the 1800's Exposed and Attempted to Stop Freemasonry
https://www.bitchute.com/video/xd5nMQOS5epj/
The pages he is reading from starts at page 237 of the book, in the PDF that is page 243.
https://archive.org/details/incoilsorcoming00gragoog/page/n5/mode/2up
The book is written in 1882 and is called "In the Coils; Or, The Coming Conflict".
Page 237 of the original book, page 243 in the PDF.
Princeton, May 6th, 18 -
My Dear Doctor: — I am too busy to pay you a visit as I should like to do, and hence drop you a note to ask a favour. I wish you would carefully consider the propriety of the nomination of my nephew, John Bates, for member of congress from our district. I suppose you know his name has been mentioned, and as it has gone so far, we are anxious that he should be nominated. You are somewhat acquainted with him and his history, and therefore I hope that you will feel favourable toward him and assist him all you can. Will you be so kind as to let me know your own opinion of the matter and the prospects for John in your precinct?
Respects to your family.
Yours,
N. R. Dover.
After due inquiry and reflection Groves sent to Mr. Dover the following answer:
Brandon, May 18th, 18 —.
My Dear Friend: — I have delayed a reply to your note in order that I might be able to answer both your questions fully and with some degree of certainty.
I am glad to be able to say that I am personally acquainted with your nephew, and that I highly esteem him. I have consulted several influential men in our village, and we all agree in our opinion of Bates and his prospects in this precinct. So I can answer both of your questions together and use the
plural "we" and "our" instead of showing you mine opinion alone.
We believe Bates to be the best candidate in the field as yet, and it is possible that he will have our hearty support.
We are not altogether satisfied with any of our candidates; but we do not expect to find one that will suit us in every particular. We may consistently support a person and yet have some objection to him. So in regard to Bates. We have one serious objection to him, but whether that will be in our way of supporting him depends on circumstances. I suppose you want a plain statement of the whole matter rather than any uncertain and flattering promises, and I will not be kept back by fear of offending you, or by a desire for office or popularity, from stating clearly our objection to Bates, and the circumstances in which he may probably expect our support.
We do not object to his abilities, moral character, republicanism, relatives or general fitness for the place. We appreciate him for all these. Our only objection to him is, that by certain and numerous oaths which he considers binding, (we do not, however,) he has pledged his support to a monopoly which is more powerfull and dangerous than those which he professes to oppose, and has sworn his allegiance to a government which claims supremacy over all other authority whether of church or state. In a word, as we are informed, Mr. Bates is a Freemason.
Now we know that everyone who enters the lodge swears "to support the constitution of the Grand Lodge of the state, and to conform to the laws of any lodge of which he shall be a member, and also to obey all regular signs, summons or tokens from any Mason or body of Masons." Now whatever he may be told before taking this oath, after he does so he is taught that the authority of the lodge is absolute, the covenant is irrevocable, and its obligations are supreme.
In General Ahiman Rezon; or, Freemason's Guide" we read:
"The candidate, entering the lodge, is on the point of binding himself voluntarily, absolutely and without reservation forever."
Webb's Monitor says:
"The covenant is irrevocable. Even though a Mason may be suspended or expelled, though he may withdraw from the lodge, journey into countries where Masons cannot be found, or become a subject of despotic governments that persecute, or a communicant of bigoted churches that denounce Masonry, he cannot cast off or nullify his Masonic covenant. No law of the land can affect it; no anathema of the church can weaken it. It is irrevocable."
Again this same Masonic author says :
"The first duty of the reader of this synopsis is to obey the edicts of his Grand Lodge. Right or wrong, his very existence as a Mason hangs upon obedience to the power immediately set above him. Failure in this must infallibly bring down expulsion, which as a Masonic death, ends all. The one unpardonable crime in a Mason is contumacy or disobedience."
Although it takes much space in my letter, let me give you more testimony, with the names of the witnesses, who are all eminent members of the order and high in authority and some of whose works are in nearly every lodge, and necessarily have some effect on the members:
"That this surrender of free will to Masonic authority is absolute,
(within the scope of the landmarks of the order), and perpetual, may be inferred from an examination of the emblem (the Shoe or Sandal) which is used to enforce this lesson of resignation." — Morris — Dictionary of Freemasonry.
"Disobedience is so subversive of the ground work of Masonry, in which obedience is so strongly inculcated, that the Mason who disobeys subjects himself to severe penalties." — Ibid,
"A Grand Lodge is invested with power and authority over all the craft within its jurisdiction. It is the Supreme Court of Appeals in all Masonic cases, and to its decrees unlimited obedience must be paid by every lodge and every Mason situated within its control. The government of Grand Lodges is, therefore, completely despotic. While a Grand Lodge exists, its edicts must be respected and obeyed without examination by its subordinate lodges." — Mackey — Lexicon of Freemasonry, page 188.
"For ourselves, we deny as Masons that any civil government on earth has the right to divide or curtail Masonic jurisdiction when once established. It can only be done by competent Masonic authority and in accordance with Masonic usage." — Grand Lodge Report.
"A 'due summons' from the lodge or Grand Lodge is obligatory upon him, and should he refuse obedience he will be disgracefully expelled from the society with public marks of ignominy that can never be erased." — Morris — Dictionary of Freemasonry, page 29.
"Disobedience and want of respect to Masonic superiors is an offence for which the transgressor subjects himself to punishment" — Mackey — Masonic Jurisprudence, page 611.
"Hence we find that the Master's authority in the lodge is as despotic as the sun in the firmament which was placed there by the Creator, never to deviate from its accustomed course, till the declaration is promulgated that time shall be no more." — Oliver— Signs and Symbols of Freemasonry, page 142.
"Treason and rebellion also, because they are altogether political offences, cannot be inquired into by a lodge; and although a Mason may be convicted of either of these acts in the courts of his country, he cannot be masonically punished; and notwithstanding his treason or rebellion his relation to the lodge, to use the language of the old charges, remains indefeasible." — Mackey — Masonic Jurisprudence page, 510 (or 610).
"There is no duty more forcibly enjoined in Masonry than that of warning a brother of danger impending to his person or interests. To neglect this is a positive violation of obligation, and destroys any person's claim to be entitled a Mason." — Morris — Dictionary of Freemasonry, page 325.
"The powers and privileges of the Master of a lodge are by no means limited in extent." — Chase — Digest of Masonic Law, page 380.
"As a presiding officer the Master is possessed of extraordinary powers, which belong to the presiding officer of no other association." — Mackey — Masonic Jurisprudence, page 344.
"The system of Masonic law has little of the republican or democratic spirit about it." — Morris — Webb's Freemason's Monitor, revised edition, page 195.
"Once a Mason, always a Mason — once a Mason everywhere a Mason. However independent either as individuals or as lodges, whether grand or subordinate — and we are each and all truly free and uncontrolled by anything save our ancient laws and constitution --- yet no Mason can be a foreigner to another Mason. We are all equal citizens of one common government, having equal rights, equal privileges and equal duties; and in which government, thank God, the majority does not govern. For our order in its very constitution strikes at the root of that which is the very basis of popular government. It proclaims and practices, not that the will of the masses is wise and good, and as such to be obeyed; not that the majority shall govern, but that the law [i.e. above mentioned ancient law] shall govern. Our tenet is not only that no single man but that no body of men (however wise or numerous), can change in any degree one single landmark of our ancient institution. Our law is strictly organic; it cannot be changed without being destroyed. You may take a man to pieces, and you may take a watch to pieces; but you cannot alter his organs and put him together again as you do the time keeper. Masonry is the living man, and all other forms of government mere convenient machines, made by clever mechanics, for regulating the affairs of state. Not only do we know no North, no South, no East and no West, but we know no government save our own. To every government save that of Masonry, and to each and all alike, we are foreigners; and this form of government is neither pontifical, autocratic, monarchial, republican, democratic nor despotic; it is a government per se, and that government is Masonic. We have nothing to do with forms of government, forms of religion, or forms of social life. We are a nation of men only bound to each other by Masonic ties, as citizens of the world, and that world the world of Masonry; brethren to each other all the world over, foreigners to all the world beside.'
The above is a Masonic address in a nut-shell; it is the compressed essence of Masonic life." — Missouri Grand Lodge Report for 1867.
What a remarkable array of Masonic testimony! And yet the half has not been told. I might go on almost indefinitely showing its foul, treasonable and anti-republican nature, as legibly portrayed under these extracts from standard Masonic publications. The above sentences are complete quotations and not garbled. They are concise and plain. The language is authoritative. Masonic superiors never argue with subordinates. They dictate.
No wonder a most prominent member admits the following:
"There is no charge more frequently made against Freemasonry than that of its tendency to revolution and conspiracy, and to political organizations which may affect the peace of society or interfere with the rights of government." — Mackey — Mystic Tie of Freemasonry, page 43.
Remember, my friend Dover, that I am not speaking of your nephew's personal views of the supremacy of the lodge, nor saying what he would do if he should find that some of the laws, summons or orders of the lodge should conflict with his duties to the government, but merely showing you what the lodge, according to its standard authors, claims, and what every Mason has sworn to perform. If Mr. Bates should go to congress and then find in some cases that he must violate either his official oath or Masonic obligation, I do not say which he would consider binding; but I do say, for I know, that the lodge by its writers, its lecturers and its decrees declares that its obligations are supreme, its authority above all civil authority, and obedience to his superiors the first duty of every Mason. If eminent members know and tell the truth about their own order, if Grand Lodge reports can be believed, there can be no doubt on this point. Please read again carefully what these have said, yes, dared to print, and you will see our objection to sending Bates to congress, or electing him or any Mason to any office until he renounces his allegiance to the lodge. Do you think that we demand too much? Every other foreigner, before he is allowed even to vote, must renounce his allegiance to the government under which he was born, and to which perhaps he has never sworn or acknowledged obedience. We require of him, and properly, the following obligation:
"I do declare on oath that it is bona fide my intention to become a citizen of the United States, and to renounce and abjure forever all allegiance and fidelity to all and every foreign prince, potentate, state and sovereign, and particularly -------------, of whom I am a subject."
Is it then right for free citizens of this country to vote into any office a person who --- has sworn and still lives under and acknowledges allegiance to another — a monarchial and a despotic government? Has not the Grand Lodge of one state, in consistency with the general teaching of Masonry declared that all its members are foreigners to our government? Let us then consider them as such; and our government also should consider them as such, and forbid them to hold office, sit on the jury, or even to vote until they take the oath prescribed for other foreigners.
When I tell you that the "Most Puissant Sovereign Grand Commander of the United States," of whom every Mason in the country is a sworn subject, is an ex-confederate general, whose rebel hands are deeply dyed by the crimson blood of loyal citizens, and who at one battle of the late war led a brigade of Indians against the boys in blue, who, by these cruel savages, were murdered, scalped and mutilated in a manner too barbarous for description, you will see more force in this argument. And why was not the arch traitor, the leader of the rebellion, hung when captured? He and the president of the United States and many congressmen and judges were Royal Arch Masons, and had each sworn to the following:
"Furthermore, do I promise and swear, that I will aid and assist a companion Royal Arch Mason when engaged in any difficulty; and espouse his cause so far as to extricate him from the same, if in my power, whether he be right or wrong."
Is it not reasonable then to suppose that these men, who had sworn to fulfil their duties as civil officers, chose rather to obey Masonic obligations and extricate a rebel from his difficulty? This is the only explanation of this strange event which is worthy of any consideration. And it is made more certain when we remember that, according to Mackey's Jurisprudence, "Treason and rebellion also, because they are altogether political offences, cannot be inquired into by the lodge."
These facts concerning the oaths and teachings of the lodge will explain many other strange things in the history of our country. They will often explain why some improper person is nominated and elected to some office, or the illegal contestant is given the seat, or a criminal is acquitted or pardoned, and perhaps promoted. Why was our present representative, who you say has not brains enough to be a pettifogging lawyer, and who is notoriously dishonest, sent to congress? Why was he nominated by our party? In answer to this question The Wasp, whose editor is an anti-monopolist, but also inconsistently a Mason, says: "Because, as the superintendent of our main railway told a prominent man before the convention which nominated him, the present incumbent was this company's most available candidate because he was high up in Masonry." Thus he admits that the lodge is used for the purpose of securing improper nominations and electing to office unworthy men, and certainly implies that it is used to control them while in office. So you see our objection to any Mason going to congress, and our only objection to the nomination of Mr. Bates. The one condition on which we will give him our united and hearty support is that he goes before the clerk of the United States Court and takes the oath required of all foreigners, inserting the word Freemasonry in the blank.
I have given you freely and honestly a lengthy statement of this case; but if there is anything further you desire to know I would be glad to answer your inquiries. I should be glad to receive a visit from you at any time.
Yours,
Warren Groves.
N. R. Dover.
Princeton.
