E. H. ADDINGTON

OF FREEMASONRY IN LOUISIANA. _ 3
who was also the representative of the Foulhouze Supreme Council, translated
by Ch. Laffon de Ladebat, and published at New Orleans, in 1853.
The translator, on page 69 of the Proces-Verbal de Stances du Supreme
(Jonseil (New Orleans, 1857), says that "right or wrong" (d tort on
d, raison) when this document was published in Paris, August 18, 1852, its
authorship was attributed to Foulhouze. Be this as it may, the only portion
of the report which has any bearing upon the questions at issue, is based on
a report presented to the Grand Lodge of Louisiana by James Foulhouze,
January 29, 1849. Owing to the schism then existing, the old Grand Lodge
had appointed a committee "to inquire into the rise and progress of Freemasonry
in Louisiana, and the accumulation of Rites in and by the State
Grand Lodge." As chairman of the committee, Foulhouze had free access
to the archives of the Grand Lodge and its subordinates, and if he examined
them he wilfully falsified both. To bolster up the then existing system, he
asserted that Polar Star Lodge had accumulated the Rites previous to the
formation of the Grand Lodge, and, that the practice had been continued
uninterruptedly from that time to the date of his report. In support of this
assertion he appealed to the records and archives of Polar Star Lodge; it
will be seen hereafter that they prove quite the reverse. The so-called "concordat"
of 1833, to which the Indiana Committee attach so much importance,
was first published in Foulhouze's report, but nowhere in that report can be
found the assertion that, on the formation of the Grand Consistory; in 1813,
"the previously organized Scottish Rite lodges came under its jurisdiction."
It was reserved for Folger to make that discovery; and a most wonderful
discovery it is when we consider that there was not a single Scotch Rite
ledge in the State at the time.
In answer to the misrepresentations of Folger, Foulhouze and De Marconnay,*
we submit the following outline of the history of Masonry in Louisiana,
so far as it relates to the question of Rites.
*The Indiana Committee say it is immaterial for what purpose Folger's book was
"written, or what 'his prejudices may have been. But the testimony of an interested witness
can only be taken for what it is worth, and as Folger relies upon Foulhouze and De
Marconnay as authority for his statements, a "brief notice of these two arch-disturbers of
the Masonic peace of Louisiana cannot be considered out of.place.
Folger (p. 218 says that in 1832, LeBlanc