In The Beginning

On Wednesday evening, Feb. 23, 1853, representatives from the Lodges then existing in the Territory of Minnesota-St. Paul Lodge of St. Paul, St. John's Lodge of Stillwater and Cataract Lodge of St. Anthony-met in convention in St. Paul to take measures to organize a Grand Lodge. Temporary organization was effected and a committee appointed to draft a constitution and regulations for the government of a Grand Lodge. The convention then adjourned until the following day, when a constitution was adopted and a Grand Lodge regularly formed with W. Bro. A. E. Ames of Cataract Lodge, St. Anthony, as Grand Master.

On June 21, 1853, Grand Master Ames issued a dispensation for the organization of a new Lodge at Minneapolis, Hennepin county, to be known as Hennepin Lodge. At the Annual Communication of the Grand Lodge, Jan. 2, 1854, representatives from the new Lodge appeared with the books and records of that Lodge and petitioned for a charter. The committee on "Lodges U. D." after examining the work, returns and by-laws of the Lodge, presented resolutions recommending that a charter be issued. The report of the committee was received by the Grand Lodge by a vote of 12 to 4, Deputy Grand Master Aaron Goodrich and the representatives of St. Paul Lodge voting in the negative. The Deputy Grand Master then moved to lay the resolutions on the table, which motion was negatived by a vote of 7 to 8, the representatives of St. John's Lodge adding their votes to those previously cast in opposi tion to the granting of the charter.

Pending further action in the matter the Grand Lodge was then called from labor to refreshment until 8 o'clock the following morning. Upon reconvening at the appointed time it was observed that the representatives of St. Paul Lodge were not present. The supposition was that they hoped. by absenting themselves, to pre vent a quorum and thus defeat favorable action in the matter of granting a charter to the new Lodge. If such was their expecta tion it failed of realization, how-ever, for the Grand Lodge adopted the resolution granting a charter to Hennepin Lodge No. 4 by a vote of 10 to 1, Deputy Grand 'Master Goodrich casting the nega tive vote.

The real motives which prompted the representatives of St. Paul Lodge to absent themselves from the second day's session of the Grand Lodge was for years a subject of controversy among the brethren who were in attendance at that session, and the true solution of that problem is something that must forever remain a mystery. The most commonly accepted theory was-and not with out some degree of plausibility-that the brethren of St. Paul Lodge were jealous of the great power which the votes of a second Minneapolis Lodge added to the votes of the appointive officers of the Grand Lodge, would place within the grasp of the Grand Master. He might, if he so desired, perpetuate himself in office indefinitely and assume a dictatorial sway over all the affairs of the Grand Lodge, disposing of them to suit his own personal whims and ambitions. The intense rivalry which is so distinguish ing a feature of all relations between the twin cities was, even in that early day, in the infancy of their existence, as marked as it is today, and undoubtedly had its influence on the motives of the St. Paul brethren.

W. Bro. Geo. R. Metcalf, in his "History of the Grand Lodge," referring to the question of the granting of a charter to Hennepin Lodge, says:

"The opposition to such action has been usually ascribed to the fear that with another Lodge in the neighborhood of St. An thony, the Grand 'Master would have been able to have perpetuated his hold on the Grand East indefinitely. Such a view is unreason able. No one was less likely to override constitutional require ments than Grand Master Ames, and the explanation, the most rational and probable, if expressed in this address would but renew the consideration of a controversy which began in the early days of the Grand Lodge and only ceased with the death of the contest ants."

Bro. Metcalf has delved deeply into this subject and his view of the matter will be accepted without question. That his estimate of Grand Master Ames is a just one is amply borne out by all the information that can be obtained regarding the life of that distin guished Mason.

That all concerned in this episode were sincere Masons, and were consistently seeking to further the best interests of the fra ternity in Minnesota, can hardly be doubted after a study of the early Masonic records and a knowledge of the prominent part taken by them in the social and business life of the community.

Birth of Ancient Landmark Lodge

The first Masonic Lodge in the Territory of Minnesota was organized in St. Paul in 1849, under a dispensation from the Grand Lodge of Ohio, and was known as St. Paul Lodge No. 1. Brethren from all sections of the Union composed its membership and their ideas of Masonic work differed widely. Political feeling ran high in the community and even found its way within the tyled recesses of the Lodge.

Torn asunder by discord and dissension the Lodge ceased work for about a year. Finally in October, 1852, St. Paul Lodge applied for and received a charter from the Grand Lodge of Ohio. Subsequently the Grand Lodge of -Minnesota was organized as previously related.

Soon after the formation of the Grand Lodge, a number of brethren, some of them old residents and others recent arrivals in the town, and most of them not in affiliation with any Lodge in the territory, started a movement for the organization of a new Lodge. Time had not entirely effaced the differences in St. Paul Lodge; their Lodge room was situated in the extreme end of the town, and for these and other reasons it was felt that the organiza tion of a new Masonic Lodge was very much to be desired.

The St. Paul of that day was divided into two hostile camps, known as Upper Town and Lower Town, and the rivalry existing between the two sections was most bitter and intense. Each fac tion resorted to the most desperate means to gain an advantage over the other and the jealousies and bickerings which resulted cast into insignificance the later-day- skirmishes between St. Paul and Minneapolis. St. Paul Lodge was located in Lower Town; the Upper Town brethren needed no stronger reason for the organiza tion of an Upper Town Lodge, and the movement soon took defin ite shape in the presentation of a request to St. Paul Lodge to give consent to the formation of a new Lodge in the city. The proposi tion was voted down; subsequently the request was again presented and received a majority of the votes, but it was held by one of the brethren that a two-thirds vote was necessary to pass it, and, lack ing one vote of the required number, the request was again refused.

The brethren were not, however, to be easily discouraged in their project and on Saturday evening. Dec. 31, 1853, a meeting was held in the hall of Minnesota Chapter No. 1, R. A. M., for the purpose, as stated in the minutes of the meeting, "of associating Tm the purpose of forming a Lodge and to disseminate the genuine principles of Masonry." After some deliberation it was decided to petition the Grand Lodge of Minnesota to grant a charter under the name of Ancient Landmark Lodge No. 5, and recommended as its first officers, A. G. Chatfield, Worshipful Master; I. P. Wright, Senior Warden, and A. T. C. Pierson, Junior Warden.

At the morning session of the Grand Lodge on Jan. 3, 1854, immediately after the question of granting a charter to Hennepin Lodge had been disposed of, Bro. W. H. Mower, Senior Warden of St. John's Lodge, presented a petition from the following named Master Masons, "known to him as worthy brethren," praying for a charter to open a new Lodge in St. Paul, by name of "Ancient Landmark," signed: Andrew G. Chatfield, James Y. Caldwell, C. D. Fillmore, R. Haus, P. T. Bradley, Geo. L. Becker, A. J. Morgan, Charles Rauch, Henry Morris, I. P. Wright, G. W. Biddle, A. T. Chamblin, A. T. C. Pierson. With the exception of Bro. Chamblin, who was a member of St. Paul Lodge, none of these brethren were at that time affiliated with any other Lodge in the territory.

The petition was received by the Grand Lodge, and on motion of Bro. H. N. Setzer, Worshipful Master of St. John's Lodge, the following resolution was adopted:

"Resolved, That the Grand Secretary be instructed to issue a charter to `Ancient Landmark Lodge No. 5,' upon the brethren depositing the usual fee, ($45.00)."

Those voting affirmatively on this resolution were Grand Mas ter Ames, Senior Grand Warden Brawley. Grand Senior Deacon D. W. C. Dunwell. Grand Marshal Pierson and the representatives of St. John's Lodge and Cataract Lodge. Deputy Grand Master Goodrich cast the only negative vote. Yeas, 11 nays, 1.

The Grand Lodge then took a recess during which the new Lodge was constituted and the following officers installed by Grand Master Ames:

• W. M., A. G. Chatfield.
• S. W., I. P. Wright.
• J. W., A. T. C. Pierson.
• Treasurer, A. T. Chamblin.
• Secretary, A. J. Morgan.
• S. D., J. Y. Caldwell.
• J. D., G. W. Biddle.
• Tyler, P. T. Bradley.

The Lodge was then closed until Thursday evening, Jan. 5, the date selected for the first Regular Communication. The Grand Lodge reconvened at the appointed hour. W.'. Bro. Setzer of St. John's Lodge presented the credentials of Ancient Landmark Lodge No. 5, to-wit:

"At a meeting of Ancient Landmark Lodge No. 5, held in their Lodge room at St. Paul, Jan. 3, 1854, P. M. Andrew G. Chatfield was elected W. M., I. P. Wright, S. W., and A. T. C. Pierson, J. W. and the several officers were installed in their respective offices at 12 o'clock M. in ample form.

"In witness whereof, I have this 3rd day of January, A. D. 1854, subscribed my hand and seal.

"GEO. L. BECKER, "Secretary Pro Tem, "Ancient Landmark Lodge No. 5." The credentials were received and the representatives were permitted to take their seats.

Bro. A. T. C. Pierson, J. W., appeared and took his seat as a representative of Ancient Landmark Lodge NO. 5.

This is the history of the organization of Ancient Landmark Lodge No. 5. All available sources have been drawn upon in its compilation, and great care has been taken to verify facts and dates as far as possible. It may be that the relevancy of some of the points touched on may be questioned, but the writer believes that the early history of Ancient Landmark Lodge is so intimately associated with most of the events that have been related that a history of the Lodge would be incomplete without some reference to them.

How We Got Our Name

For the distinctively Masonic name that the Lodge bears we are indebted to the suggestion of Bro. Joel E. Whitney. At the preliminary meeting of the charter members this brother was present as a visitor. He was well versed in Masonic lore and procedure, and aided to a great extent by his counsel and advice in the organization of the Lodge. Bro. Whitney was a member of Ancient Landmark Lodge of Portland, Maine. When the question of naming the new Lodge was under discussion, and the brethren were at a loss to find a title that would be satisfactory to all, Bro. Whitney came to the rescue by suggesting the name of his own Lodge. The suggestion met with instant and unanimous approval of the brethren and thus was the first peculiarly Masonic name entered on the roll of Minnesota Lodges.

Although Bro. Whitney took a keen interest in the new Lodge he never affiliated with it. Deafness rendered him incapable of participating in, or deriving any enjoyment from Lodge meetings. He was for several years associated with Bro. Combs in the 'book and stationery business. He was the second daguerreian artist in the city and his pictures of St. Paul had considerable influence in advertising the advantages and promoting the interests of the city.

Bro. Whitney's father was also a Mason and his funeral was the first Masonic observance of the kind ever held in Minnesota.

Andrew Gould Chatfield

As recorded in the book of the Golden Jubilee and presented January 7, 1904.

The first Worshipful Master of Ancient Landmark Lodge was born at Butternuts, Otsego county, New York, January 27, 1810. His maternal grandfather was Jonathan Starr, a soldier in the Revolutionary war. His maternal grandmother was of the Ruggles family, among whose descendants are some of the most distinguished jurists of New York. His father, Enos Chatfield, owing to loss of property through a defective land title, was able to give his children but little aid in securing an education. Andrew, thrown upon his own resources, succeeded in working his way through the academy at Hamilton. He then took up the study of law in the office of Henry T. Colton at Painted Post, New York, and in 1833 was admitted to the bar. He soon after removed to Addison county, where he formed a partnership and was soon in the enjoyment of a lucrative practice.

He was married on June 27, 1836, to Eunice E. Beeman.

He served as a member of the New York assembly in 1838 and again in 1840. While a member of the assemble, he served with the late Samuel J. Tilden on the committee which had under consideration the “Anti-Rent” trouble.

In 1846 he was a member of the constitutional Convention of New York. In 1848 he removed to Southport, now Kenosha, Wisconsin, forming a partnership with Volney French, and soon acquired a lucrative practice. He received the Masonic degrees in Southport Lodge No. 7 in 1849, and subsequently became Master of the Lodge. In 1850 he was elected county judge of Racine county, but later resigned to resume the practice of law.

While in attendance upon the United States Supreme Court in Washington in 1853, he formed the acquaintance of Hon. H. H. Sibley, then serving as delegate in congress for the Territory of Minnesota. Judge Chatfield became so interested in the glowing accounts of the new territory related by the enthusiastic Sibley, that the later recommend him to President Pierce, who appointed him associate justice of the Supreme Court of the Territory. In June 1853, he removed to Minnesota and entered upon the discharge of his duties, which he continued until the close of his term, April 23, 1857.

He held the first term of court ever held in Fillmore county, then in the Second judicial district, and the hamlet where that court sat is now the thriving city of Chatfield – named at that time in honor of the Judge.

In 1854 Judge Chatfield located a claim in the Minnesota valley, which he afterwards laid out and named the village of Belle Plaine. At the close of his term on the supreme bench he resumed the practice of his profession until 1870, when he was elected judge of the Eighth judicial district, which office he continued to hold up to the time of his death.

His health becoming impaired, in the spring of 1873 he visited the Hot Springs of Arkansas in the hope of obtaining the needed relief, but without avail. His health continuing to decline, he died at Belle Plaine on October 3, 1875, his remains were laid to rest in the Episcopal church yard on Sunday, October 6. The Masonic burial services were held under the auspices of the Grand Lodge, Most Worshipful Grand Master Charles Griswold officiating, assisted by officers of the Grand Lodge. The pallbearers were Judge Wescott Eilkin, Gen. H. H. Sibley and Judge Aaron Goodrich of Saint Paul, Judge Brown of Shakopee, Hon. F. J. Whitlock of Belle Plaine, Hon. M. J. Severance of Mankato, and Judge Atwater and J. N. Shaw of Minneapolis. A large number of Masons were present, the Lodges at Belle Plaine, Shakopee, Carver, St. Peter, La Sueur, Mankato, St. Paul and Minneapolis being represented.

Judge Chatfield’s death was widely noticed, and glowing tributes were paid to his worth as a lawyer, as a judge, a Mason and a man.

A. G. Chatfield was named in the charter of Ancient Landmark Lodge No. 5 as its first Worshipful Master. He held that office until the first Annual Communication of the Lodge in June 1854 – a period of six months. Bro. Chatfield’s residence was at Mendota. The judicial district over which he presided was a large one, and he found very little time to devote to the Lodge. In fact he presided at but four meetings. Nevertheless, he ever maintained a keen interest in the Lodge’s welfare.

Maj. T. M. Newson, in his “Pen Pictures,” says of Judge Chatfield: “He was a straight, splendidly-built man, with a florid complexion and elegant address; very genial in his manners; indeed one might say he was a fine American gentleman, all of the olden time.’ He was a judge of the finest purity of character, very careful and very honest, and very sincere, and very conscientious in his convictions of right.”

And this was the first Worshipful Master of Ancient Landmark. May his successors ever strive to maintain the same lofty ideals.