THE BUILDER MAGAZINE

A Journal for the Masonic Student

Published Monthly by the National Masonic Research Society

Vol. 9 No. 6 – June 1923

WHAT I THINK ABOUT THE SHRINE

By Bro. James S. McCandless

Imperial Potentate A.A.O.N.M.S. for N.A., Hawaiian Islands

AS I HAVE GONE ABOUT over the country, I have been asked here and there by prominent and responsible brethren what is my opinion about solicitation for membership in the Shrine. Some of these brethren appear to feel that it would be better if the Imperial Council were to prohibit solicitation in all forms. My answer invariably is that I am not opposed to the kind of solicitation we permit among Shriners.

You know that a Mason is not permitted to solicit members for the Blue Lodge. I sometimes wonder if it would not be better if we did permit this. A young man who joins our Fraternity and who takes the various degrees and becomes experienced in all the various Masonic bodies and has worked in close contact with Masons — so many of whom are the cream of our American manhood — cannot help but become a better young man than he would be otherwise.

Some of my brother Masons are of the opinion that a certain length of time should elapse between a man's becoming a member of the Knights Templar or the Scottish Rite and his admittance into the Shrine. I do not see any point to that argument whatsoever. What is the difference to anybody whether a man comes in inside of a month or inside of a few days if he is made of the right material to begin with, if he has the right mind and comes with the right motive? If the Shrine happens to be the most companionable and most pleasant place for a young man, he will go there. It seems to me that if there is to be any friendly rivalry at all among Masonic bodies or between them and the Shrine, that instead of finding fault with Shriners for having attractive meetings, these other bodies ought to try to make their meetings more attractive. Make it worth while for a man to attend a Blue Lodge or a Chapter or a Council and he will attend!

One of the reasons that I am proud of the Shrine is that it calls the attention of some of our young Americans to Masonry and often, perhaps, induces them to seek admittance to our Order. I say that I am glad of this because I think it is a good thing and I am happy if the Shrine is an inducement to any young man to become a Mason.

The Shrine is not in any sense a detriment to Freemasonry; in my judgment it is one of the greatest things which has ever happened to Freemasonry, and I know from my own personal experience and observation that the great majority of Shriners are the very highest type of our American manhood. How could this be otherwise? For consider! No young man can come to us until he has become a member of the Blue Lodge and also of either the Scottish Rite or the York Rite Bodies. He has been ballotted on in every one of these organizations and in none of them has he been found wanting. He comes to us with a clean record; therefore, if there is anything wrong with a Shriner, it should have been found out long before he reached our gates.

We are not doing anything in any way to hurt Freemasonry. When the Shrine was started some fifty years or so ago there was some doubt in the minds of Masons then whether or not the formation of such an organization would prove a detriment or discredit to the Fraternity. The Shrine was gotten up by a mere handful of men — there were thirteen of them, as I recall it — in the city of New York, for the purpose of getting together and having a dinner where good fellows might hold sway; that was the sole intention of it when founded and it was something with which nobody could quarrel. Now, this little movement — it was little then — got such a hold on the men who enjoyed its privileges that they finally established a national organization with a very beautiful ritual and this gradually grew into the present great A.A.O.N.M.S. with its Imperial Council, and its almost half a million members.

The Shrine has a creed of its own — Justice, Good Fellowship, Charity, Love of Country, and, that which is an attribute of the Holy One Himself, Love of One's Neighbor. These beautiful ideals comprise the teachings of the Shrine.

We have a ceremonial which lends itself to play. Anyone who belongs to the Shrine and can't be a boy and have a little of God's sunshine in his soul and a lot of clean, healthy gladness in his heart has no business belonging with us, because the Shrine is the playground of Masons — you will note I say playground OF Masons, not FOR Masons!

A FEW CUT UP PRANKS

Of course, we have a few men with us who cut up pranks and do foolish things and every other organization has such members in it — the Blue Lodge, the Commandery, the Scottish Rite — but that is neither here nor there. Every man cannot be a top-notcher but if anybody supposes that the Shrine permits a lot of unMasonic conduct on the part of Masons or lets all of its members do just as they please, he is badly mistaken. In an Order as large as ours, you are sure to find a few men who, out of thoughtlessness or folly, become guilty of actions of which the rest of us are ashamed but I do not believe the entire organization should be held responsible for what a few of its members do. Every time you have a great meeting of men where thousands are present and all of them are away from home, you are going to have some things happen which you do not like but I do not see how these things can be avoided.

We in the Shrine are determined to keep our house in order as perfectly as we can. We have a committee on law and order which functions at all of our national meetings and it is there for the sole purpose of looking after just such cases as described above and to see that nothing goes on which will bring discredit upon us or upon the Masonic Orders from which we emanate. This committee has been in force for two years now and will be on duty in Washington, D.C., when we meet next June. Brother A.L. Cameron of Memphis, Tenn., is chairman. I wish to pay a tribute to the efficient manner in which that committee took care of things in San Francisco. Out there in that great city on the coast, there was no rowdyism, no misconduct, not one case in which a man was brought before the committee for censure or expulsion. At Washington, D.C., this committee will have its own provost guard and it will work in conjunction with the regular authorities of that city. The city authorities and the Shrine authorities together will not permit any rough doings on the streets and will immediately stop anything bordering on vulgarity or indecency. The Washington meeting of the Shrine is to be the greatest in our history, I believe, and I am confidently expecting that we shall all be proud of the manner in which the great crowds will be cared for.

To me one of the most beautiful things in all of these meetings, in fact in all our Shrine meetings, is that we are a common meeting ground for all the various Masonic Rites; the Scottish Rite Mason, the York Rite Mason and the Blue Lodge Mason fraternize and learn to be good fellows together in our Temples and meetings. There are no jealousies or bickerings or contentions amongst us and the sole purpose is that we may together enjoy good fellowship in that manner which has been famous among Masons ever since Masonry began to be.

In my own estimation, the greatest work that the Shrine is now undertaking is the building of our hospitals for poor crippled children. It seems to me that this is the greatest charity which has ever been undertaken by any fraternal organization in the entire world. In my heart I know it is the culmination and proof of that which every Blue Lodge Mason is taught — namely, Charity to all. All the way through the different degrees of Masonry from that of Entered Apprentice to that of Knight Templar or Master of the Royal Secret, every Mason is saturated with this great passion of brotherly love and relief. When Brother W. Freeland Kendrick, who was Imperial Potentate 1919-1920, brought his proposition for this great work before us, we were in a proper mood to receive it because we had the spirit of charity in our souls.

THE GREAT DREAM IS NOW BEING REALIZED

Brother Kendrick's great dream is now being realized. Our hospitals are functioning and that successfully under the direction of a Board of Trustees and this Board has five orthopedic specialists as an Advisory Board. These brethren, with the help of all the rest of us, have already authorized ten of these hospitals of mercy; five of them are now under construction and three of them will have been dedicated before these words are in print — one in the Twin Cities on April 14th, one in Shreveport, La., on April 20th and the one in San Francisco in May when I am there.

We are now working in our third year on these hospitals and through assessment of the members of the Nobility, we have an annual fund of over one million dollars to carry on the project. When these ten hospitals are all finished and in working order they will be a credit not only to the Mystic Shrine but to Freemasonry the world over; and that fact will make us glad because we are MASONS first — then SHRINERS.

One of the most interesting developments in our crippled children's hospital project that I know of is the manner in which we are going to handle our hospital service in Honolulu. When I was elected Imperial Potentate at San Francisco, I got up an excursion to Honolulu. We had about one thousand of the Nobility on board, including all the Imperial Officers except two. We also had three members of our Board of Trustees of the Crippled Children's Hospitals. Some of us Honolulu Shriners had been troubled to know how we might do our share in caring for our crippled children in the Hawaiian Islands. Since each of our hospitals costs us from $250,000.00 to $300,000.00, it was out of the question for us to build a hospital there. Also it was impossible for us to try to transport our crippled children to San Francisco because that would be too expensive as in many cases the family or part of it would have to accompany the patient. So we worked out the plan of having a Mobile Unit of surgeons come to Honolulu for a time. This suggestion was made to the Board of Trustees and they arranged for it. Dr. Hatt with a staff of five will be in Honolulu for a period of one year. At every operation, he will invite in the Hawaiian Doctors to assist him (most of our Honolulu physicians are Shriners) and at the end of the year, these local physicians will be able to carry on that work in conjunction with our own local hospital facilities. This unit can function also in Nevada, Arizona and in the great Northwest.

One of my dreams is that the Knights Templar or the Scottish Rite Bodies or perhaps both together may follow our lead and erect homes possibly in conjunction with our hospitals because oftentimes when we have cured the poor little cripples who come to us we find they have no place in which to live. These children should have a home and they should be educated and taught how to grow up and become useful citizens in the world. These children have to be taken care of by somebody and nobody realizes how many of them there are in the country. Just think of it, my brethren! according to the records on file with us there are now more than 486,000 of these boys and girls in the United States alone who need the kind of treatment we are going to give to a few of them in our hospitals! The only limit we set is that these children must not be over fourteen years of age. We shall not refuse, however, to take care of any regardless of age if we can accommodate them. When they come to us we pay all expenses, and treatment and care in these hospitals is absolutely free.

I like this idea of extending charity to these poor little crippled tots regardless of race, creed or nationality, or whether they belong to Masonic families. When I pass into the Great Beyond St. Peter will not ask me whether I gave my charity to the children of Shriners or to this church or to that or organization; he will ask me how much charity I gave, regardless.

WHAT ABOUT THE NEGRO SHRINE?

I have been asked many times what we are doing about the so-called Negro Shrine. We are working on that problem but I do not believe it is now possible to say anything very definite about it. The main point is that we are jealous of our name Mystic Shrine. We have no quarrel with any other organization at all but we want to make sure that in North America nobody can make use of our name Ancient Arabic Order Nobles of the Mystic Shrine, except ourselves. We also are trying to protect our emblems and insignia and these we have had copyrighted in almost all the states. I am sorry to say that we cannot copyright the fez because that is a headdress which any man may wear if he wishes. However, we carry a design on the fez, the famous crescent, as our own emblem and we are getting that copyrighted in every state. Also, we are trying to get dealers not to sell fezzes to anyone but Shriners who have their cards; in fact, we are going still further than that — we are trying to get dealers to sell these shrine fezzes to Temples only. The dealers helped us in San Francisco to protect our fezzes and emblems and we trust that the dealers in Washington, D.C., will do the same.

Some brethren here and there have asked me if I have considered it wise for Shrine Temples to hold circuses. Now, I am in favor of having a good time but I do not want to see anything that looks like gambling going on or anything of that sort. If we can have circuses which ladies can attend, I am in favor of them, just as I am in favor of anything which makes for clean laughter and a good time.

Shriners wear conspicuous costumes and oftentimes they put on parades that attract a good deal of attention. These things often cause rumors to get started which have no foundation at all. One of the most notorious instances of these utterly groundless rumors is the story that a year ago somebody was going to charter a steamship and go across the Pacific Ocean in order to have one long spree. There was nothing to this story whatsoever. The Nobility would not go on such a boat.

Let the sun shine for us all! Let there be gladness! Let all men enjoy life while it is given to them to live! Pass happiness around! Work so as to add to the joy of the world and to the welfare of man! These are things I believe in. They are things for which the Shrine stands.

* * *

OREGON AND THE LITTLE RED SCHOOLHOUSE

An Oregon Mason

(All publication rights in whole or in part strictly reserved.)

---

The author of this important contribution was recommended to us by Brother P. S. Malcolm, 33°, Inspector-General in Oregon, Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite, and it was he who suggested that the article appear over a nom de plume. The author is a prominent professional man whose position has made it possible for him to follow in detail and at first hand all the developments of the notable struggle to put on the Oregon statute books the now famous Public School Law. Brother Malcolm, who has also (as one will learn from the article) actively participated in the campaign and as a responsible leader, has read and approved the account published herewith, which may be accepted as an accurate history of a movement about which there has been a deal of discussion and controversy. All correspondence intended for the author may be addressed to THE BUILDER. An Oregon Mason refers to a group of Blue Lodge Masons who opposed the Bill. It would be interesting to learn from them their ground of opposition. Can't one of them furnish us with the contra side of the argument?

---

IN A DISPATCH recently carried from New York on the wires of a news-gathering association which serves newspapers in every state of the Union, reference was made to Oregon's new anti-parochial school law. It was but one — though rather a notable one — of a multitude of instances of misrepresentation, through misunderstanding, of the compulsory public school attendance bill passed by the voters of Oregon at the election of November 8, 1922.

Oregon has no anti-parochial school law, nor any school law whose object or purpose is anti anything. It has a law whose plain, affirmative, certain purpose is to require attendance by all children of grammar school age in the public schools of the state.

This purpose is completely set forth in the language of the act itself. Its inspiration and the impelling motive of its original proponents are most clearly summarized in one of a series of advertisements published during the campaign for the bill by Hon. P. S. Malcolm, 33°, Inspector-General in Oregon, Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite. He said:

The Scottish Rite Masonic bodies are promoting this measure because their members believe that the hope of America is in its public schools; that if American institutions are to endure, American children of grammar school age must be taught common ideals — AMERICAN; that they must be taught in a common language — ENGLISH; that they must be taught to foster and uphold one set of principles — those of our American forefathers. They believe that the future of our race, our nation and our institutions will be perpetuated if ALL our children are so taught, and not otherwise.

There is nothing in this law which need in the least abridge the right of the parent to give the child whatever kind of religious instruction seems to him best. The law was conceived as a patriotic measure, as is plainly indicated by the Scottish Rite declaration quoted in the foregoing. Its proponents raised no issue of religion nor sought to raise any. An issue of religion was raised in the campaign, but not by them, as will be explained herein. And the great mass of voters undeniably voted for the law as a measure of patriotism.

From its inception up to the present the new law has been more misrepresented and therefore more misunderstood in the nation at large than any other measure ever enacted in the state of Oregon. The attempt to defeat the bill by misrepresenting its purpose and its sponsorship failed, but its enemies are still active. They have announced that they will attack the law in the courts. They are raising an enormous fund to finance their effort. They have announced that if they are defeated in the court of first resort they will carry their appeal to the Supreme Court of the United States. And one of their principal propagandists has advised his auditors at a public meeting, by undeniable implication, to resist the law forcibly, declaring that they can't build jails big enough and often enough to hold you men.

THIS LAW IS STRlCTLY MASONIC

Now this article is being written for Masons. To Masons there is a simple, wholly sufficient and final answer in refutation of the charge that the Oregon public school compulsory attendance law is a measure of religious repression. This answer is that the law was conceived by Masons, drafted by Masons and placed on the ballot through the efforts of Masons. Every Mason knows that the Masonic Order stands ever for the fullest expression of religious freedom under the fatherhood of God; that Masonry knows neither religious creed nor religious cult, either to espouse or to oppose; that back through the ages the voice of Masonry has ever been raised alike against religious oppression and religious repression, and for the freedom of every man to worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience, and finally that we never proselyte.

The inspiration for the Oregon public school compulsory attendance bill came from the Supreme Council of the Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite for the Southern Jurisdiction of the United States, which on May 20, 1920, committed itself unreservedly to the principle of the universal education of children in the public schools, by adoption of the following resolution:

Resolved, that we recognize and proclaim our belief in the free and compulsory education of the children of our nation in public primary schools supported by public taxation, upon which all children shall attend and be instructed in the English language only, without regard to race or creed, as the only sure foundation for the perpetuation and preservation of our free institutions, guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States, and we pledge the efforts of the membership of this Order to promote by all lawful means the organization, extension and development to the highest degree of such schools, and to oppose the efforts of any and all who seek to limit, curtail, hinder or destroy the public school system of our land.

A month after the adoption of this resolution by the Scottish Rite Supreme Council, it was endorsed in principle, though not in text and form, by the Grand Lodge of Oregon, Ancient Free and Accepted Masons. Also in June of 1920 the Imperial Council, Ancient Arabic Order Nobles of the Mystic Shrine, in session in Portland, endorsed the resolution. Thus by the end of June, 1920, three important major organizations in Masonry had, from an Oregon standpoint, placed themselves on record for and as upholding the public schools.

The first definite movement to translate this plain Masonic declaration of principle and purpose into action was taken upon the occasion of a visit to Portland, early in 1922, by Hon. J. H. Cowles, 33°, Grand Commander for the Southern Jurisdiction of the Scottish Rite. Commander Cowles held a conference while here with Inspector-General Malcolm and other prominent Scottish Rite men, and the subject of the compulsory public school attendance resolution came up. Based upon information given him, Commander Cowles expressed the opinion, which was concurred in by the others present, that conditions in this state appeared favorable for initiatory effort towards the enactment of a law to execute here the purpose of the resolution. The general body of Blue Lodge Masons was on record through their Grand Lodge resolutions as being in sympathy with the public school movement; Oregon was known as a progressive state in matters of legislation, and the initiative and referendum system of elections in its fullest development was available here. Certain aggressions on the part of Roman Catholics which affected some of the public schools, and which will be particularized later in this article, had started people generally to thinking about the public school question. Recent developments in naturalization and other courts which had revealed some rather flagrant cases of nonassimilation of foreign born persons who had grown up here but had not attended the public schools, or had attended them but little, had similarly affected the public thought in regard to the schools. Altogether public sentiment, it was considered, was ripe for the effort and it was decided at this conference to proceed.

THE OREGON K.C.C.H. TOOK THE LEAD

The conference assigned to the Knights Commander of the Court of Honor of the Scottish Rite in Oregon the work of placing under way an initiative campaign for a suitable bill which would carry out the purpose of the movement. Robert E. Smith, of Portland, headed this committee and organized the preliminary work.

To Judge John B. Cleland, eminent as a jurist, a citizen and a Mason, (he is a Past Grand Master of the Grand Lodge of Oregon) was delegated the task of drafting the bill. His very authorship constituted a guarantee satisfactory to many people of the legal soundness of the measure, so that when the cry of unconstitutionality was raised by its opponents — which happened very early in the ensuing campaign — its supporters declined to register dismay or even serious misgiving. In the view of its friends the bill was sound and the law is sound. Those who opposed the bill on the ground of alleged unconstitutionality and who are now declaring that the courts will set the law aside were its opponents then and are its enemies now.

Stripped of legal verbiage and collateral clauses, this is what the law provides:

Any parent, guardian or other person in the state of Oregon, having control or charge or custody of a child under the age of sixteen years and of the age of eight years or over, at the commencement of a term of public school in the district in which said child resides, who shall fail or neglect or refuse to send such child to a public school for a period of time a public school shall be held during the current year in said district, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and each day's failure to send such child to a public school shall constitute a separate offense and . . . (the offender) shall, on conviction thereof be subject to a fine of not less than $5 or more than $100 or to imprisonment in the county jail not less than two nor more than 30 days, or by both....

Exceptions are provided for children unable to attend school because of physical disability, for children who have completed the eighth grade, for children living at a distance from a school and for children who are being taught by parent or special instructor and who can satisfy the county school superintendent that such instruction is standard and sufficient. Under another provision the act is to become effective September 1, 1926.

Thus, it will be noted, the measure, in addition to being carefully drawn was also considerately drawn. There is provision for exemption from its terms of all children on whom it would work hardship. There is provision for deferred effectiveness in order to allow private and denominational schools time in which to readjust their affairs. There is the definite single purpose, bluntly stated, that all children shall be required to attend the public schools. So far as is consistent with this definite object the law is drawn in liberal terms.

PROMINENT OREGONIANS BACKED THE BILL

Into the work of the initiative campaign now came many prominent men of Oregon; men known not only for their work in Masonry but also for their standing and accomplishments in the judicial, official, civic and business life of the state. They came with enthusiasm and unity of purpose. They wanted to see Oregon become the first state to stand out openly for the universal Little Red Schoolhouse. They knew that the fight they were inaugurating would bring down criticism upon them but they did not falter. They possessed the courage of their convictions.

Prominent among those who engaged in the work of preparing and circulating the petitions for the initiative was Ira B. Sturges, of Baker. His name headed the formal list of initiators printed upon the petitions. Others were: Dr. Robert C. Ellsworth, Pendleton; Harold Baldwin, Prineville; W. B. Daggett, Redmond; Lewis H. Irving, Madras; Collin E. Davis, The Dalles; Leslie G. Johnson, Marshfield; C. A. Swope, Grant's Pass; W. F. Harris, Roseburg; John R. Penland, Albany; J. R. Jeffery, Seaside; F. C. Holibaugh, St. Helens; O. O. Hodson, McMinnville and E. L. Johnson, Hillsboro. All of them are Scottish Rite Masons. All of them are prominent in the life of Oregon. The personnel of the sponsorship was in itself a guarantee of the sincerity of the cause.

Within twenty-four hours after the circulation of the initiative petitions had begun simultaneously in every district of Oregon, more than the 28,000 names required to assure the measure a place on the ballot had been obtained. A check of the signatures made in the office of the Secretary of State at Salem showed some 35,000 valid signatures. The spontaneity of the response surprised even the friends of the bill and left its opponents gasping. Friends and foes alike of the measure realized that such a response could mean only one thing — that there was a demand for the proposed legislation sufficient to make the movement formidable.

The campaign, directed by Inspector-General Malcolm and carried out through an organization known as the Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite School Committee, headed by George B. Cellars, a Knight Commander of the Court of Honor, was affirmative, able and forceful. It was confined strictly to the issue presented in the bill — that of the necessity for enacting a law which would insure the education on standard lines and on common ground in the public schools of all children of grammar school age. There were no attacks on parochial schools or other denominational or private schools in the arguments put forth. There was nothing defensive in anything offered by the committee, which maintained the high ground throughout that the bill, being a thoroughly meritorious one, needed no defense. In newspaper advertisements, in circulars and by word of mouth the campaigners put forth everywhere the message of Inspector-General Malcolm which has already been quoted in the foregoing, with elaborations and correlative facts and arguments in support of the bill. Never was the religious issue raised by the Scottish Rite during the campaign. Mr. Malcolm steadfastly ignored efforts which were made to involve him in religious controversy.

PUBLIC SCHOOLS TAUGHT BY NUNS

But organizations outside the Scottish Rite which flocked to the support of the bill after it had been launched did campaign the religious issue. One of the things done by some of these was to set before the public generally the facts already referred to in this article, regarding certain Roman Catholic activities affecting the public schools. It was made known that in five public school districts of Oregon every teacher was a Catholic nun. These districts were, like all public school districts, supported by general taxation of all their property owners. But majorities of the residents of these districts were heavily Catholic. These Catholic majorities elected Catholic boards of directors and they in turn hired the nuns as teachers. Protestants who objected had no recourse. They must, under the law, send their children to school, and the only schools available were those taught by nuns.

In some districts this condition had existed for a number of years, and in others it was of recent origin. A photograph was widely circulated and published in circulars and advertisements showing the pupil-body of a school in Washington county grouped in front of their school building, with two Catholic sisters, their teachers, among them. Circulation of this photograph had a decided effect.

Here, so far as the public school compulsory attendance bill was concerned, was an issue wholly extraneous because the condition exposed would not be affected either by the passage or the defeat of the measure. Yet the campaign on this feature of the situation made many votes for the school bill. And there was a further erect: in the first legislative session following the campaign a law was passed prohibiting the wearing of any religious garb whatsoever by any teacher in any public school of Oregon.

It is a peculiar fact that, with possibly one or two exceptions, no organization supported the bill with unanimity throughout its membership. In the Scottish Rite itself there was a small minority of dissenters. Blue Lodge Masons were divided. While many of the most influential voices in Oregon Masonry were raised in its support, a few equally influential ones were lifted against it, including that of Hon. George G. Brown, of Salem, Grand Master for Oregon. Undoubtedly the great majority of Oregon Masons voted for the bill, but there was an opposing minority respectable in its proportions and worthy of respect in its personnel.

VARIOUS CHURCHES OPPOSED THE BILL

Most Protestant church memberships showed similar division of sentiment regarding the bill. The Lutheran church organization opposed the bill, because it maintains sectarian schools of its own. Certain supporters of the bill brought out during the campaign that Lutheran schools had existed in Oregon wherein all the teaching was done in German. English was never spoken there. It may be conceded that Lutherans quite generally, if not unanimously, opposed the bill. So, probably, did the Seventh Day Adventists. While the Episcopal church organization opposed the measure strongly, there can be no doubt that many members of that church supported it. At Corvallis, where a session of the Oregon Presbytery was held while the campaign was in progress, twenty-five Presbyterian ministers signed a resolution of opposition to the bill and this was heralded forth as an official action, but so many other Presbyterians, lay and ministerial, set up a clamor of protest that the only conclusion the public could reach was that the Presbyterian church was divided on the subject, as most other organizations were. The question of support of or opposition to the bill was quite generally a matter of individual judgment and conscience. And the result showed that 11,821 more Oregon voters judged and decided in favor of the bill than opposed it. The official vote was: Ayes, 115,506; Noes, 103,685.

But notwithstanding that Oregon is on record as standing for the universal Little Red Schoolhouse, through enactment of this law, the battle is not over. Interests which opposed the bill, headed by the Knights of Columbus, have announced that they will attack the law in the courts. Archbishop Alexander Christie, of Oregon, and Frank J. Lonergan, head of the Knights of Columbus organization in this state, recently made a trip to Washington and New York to help organize this proposed attack. Backing them are other denominational and private school interests.

While the ground of this proposed attack will undoubtedly be an allegation of unconstitutionality of the law its exact line and scope have not been made known. Undoubtedly its basis will be the same as that cited. during the campaign by opponents of the bill in their charges of unconstitutionality which is that of the first amendment to the Federal Constitution and second, third and fourth articles of the Bill of Rights of the state of Oregon. The constitutional amendment reads:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridge the freedom of speech or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

And sections numbered 2, 3 and 4 of the Bill of Rights of the Constitution of Oregon, read thus:

When Judge Cleland drafted the Oregon bill he knew all about the amendment quoted and the Bill of Rights as well. He so drafted the bill that, in his opinion and in the opinion of other eminent attorneys with whom he conferred, it did not in the least conflict with any of the prohibitions quoted. Both the affirmation for and the contention against the legality of the bill have been backed by attorneys of standing and reputation as lawyers.

A MICHIGAN CASE IS CITED

In support of their contention the opponents of the bill cite as a precedent a Michigan case of October 1, 1920, wherein the Secretary of State had denied a place on the ballot on the ground of alleged unconstitutionality to a compulsory public school attendance bill. A mandamus action was brought and a majority of five judges of the Supreme Court granted the mandamus on the ground that the Secretary of State, a ministerial officer, was not the judge of the constitutionality of the act. A minority of three judges went outside of this question and handed down a decision, written by Justice Fellows, who said:

This minority decision is to be cited by the opponents of the Oregon law in bringing their own case.

Just what is in the minds of the law's opponents to do in case they lose their case, as friends of the Oregon law believe they will, had not been generally indicated, but what one of the chief Facials of the Knights of Columbus would do is indicated by his own words. On a recent visit to Portland, Joseph Scott of Los Angeles, heralded as a Knight of St. Gregory in recognition of his world services for Catholicism, addressed a large gathering of Knights of Columbus and said, in the course of his remarks:

We expect you men here to defend your homes against those who, masquerading as so-called Americans, are none else than dyed-in-the-wool hypocrites. We'll expect you not to give any quarter and to adopt a no-temporizing attitude in dealing with this type of scrub. They are an ignorant, unintelligent set of mercenary scoundrels and grafters. Their doctrines are against the real principles of Americanism and our conceptions of our duties to state, nation, church and family cannot but make us antagonistic to them.

This incident is not given here as purporting to show a general trend of thought among opponents of the school law, Catholic or Protestant. Indeed, this writer will say frankly that he does not believe such sentiments are held or backed by any considerable proportion of the membership even of the Knights of Columbus, who are, in their great preponderance, law-respecting and law-abiding. But the incident does show how one high official of the Knights of Columbus thinks and how he talks. And the picture he presents is not pretty.

* * *

All good Masons are peaceable subjects to the powers that be, and never suffer themselves to be concerned in plots and conspiracies against the peace and welfare of the nation, to behave undutifully to the lawful authorities, or countenance a brother in his rebellion, though he may be pitied as an unhappy man.

— Selected.

* * *

FURTHER LETTERS ON MASONIC EDUCATION

The Education of the Heart Is Necessary

The education of Masons in Masonry involves a consideration of fundamentals and the beginning of Masonic life and experience. There we learn that we are first prepared to be made Masons in our heart. It was not a physical or a mental preparation, but an emotional one in the truest sense of that word. Then we were hoodwinked that our hearts might be taught to conceive before our eyes beheld the beauties of Masonry. Thus the beginning of our Masonic education was in the heart, as distinguished from the head. With the heart man believeth unto righteousness, so with the heart man commences his education in Masonry.

What is meant by heart education? Our fathers as Operative Masons worked in the tangible, the concrete, and in the material, while we in the present day work as Speculative Masons. It is not the power of arriving at certain conclusions and thus governing ourselves accordingly: it is rather that responsive faculty of our being which seeks some indefinite object which can alone meet its needs and desires and then accept that as the sum total of life.

We devote considerable time and attention to the education of the other faculties such as the will, imagination, and mental and physical powers, but devote only a limited amount of time to the education of the heart. This results in many men with small hearts, devoid of broad and generous impulses. It produces men with cold hearts and never with tender affection — hearts as cold as marble and lacking in love and sacrifice.

The education of the heart involves two steps. First, fellowship with the principles of Masonry. This requires a mastery and understanding of the ritual and fellowship with brethren in both public and private life, and in addition the taking part in all of the work within the lodge. Second, service to man. Work in this field enlarges the heart and consecrates life with a new gladness and a different viewpoint. A large and noble heart comes through companionship and service, and the best way to educate Masons is by constant companionship with Masons and their principles and service for Masonry and the world.

In carrying out this plan, the Grand Lodge of North Dakota has established a committee on Masonic Service and Education, consisting of five members. This Committee selects an Executive Secretary, whose duties are to oversee the Masonic Education programs of the state. He is to visit each lodge sometime during the year, assist the lodges in arranging their programs of Masonic service, and arrange for speakers to deliver various bulletins issued by the Masonic Service Association of the United States, and in addition, to assist each lodge in working out some plan of Masonic service during the year to bring about a betterment of community life in general.

— Edwin A. Ripley, Grand Master, North Dakota.

Study Classes and Lectures Should Be Used

The best way to educate Masons in Masonry is to hold before the initiated and newly made Mason seriously the ideals for which the Fraternity stands. This is best accomplished by a serious and reverent attitude in the conferring of the degrees. Then some time should be set apart to a serious study of the meaning attached to the symbolism of the Craft, and this should be presented to the members of the lodge through lectures by well informed brethren or study classes where the members shall meet and take up in detail one after another the ceremonies and symbols as they are presented in the degrees, beginning with their earliest esoteric meaning and follow them through the ages up to a consideration of their present significance. If this can be consistently carried out and the brethren discouraged from applying for so called higher degrees, Masons will become Masons in truth as well as lodge members.

— Edward P. Hufferd, Grand Master, Colorado.

* * *

WORLD-WIDE MASONRY AND ITS DESIRABILITY

Bro. Oliver Day Street, Alabama

WE READ in our Monitors and in the effusions of Masonic orators of the Universality of Masonry, and how that Masonry unites men of every country, sect and opinion. We are told that in the great cities, that in the depths of the forests of Africa and South America, that on the vast steppes of Asia, and on the plains and deserts of Arabia, Masons are to be found everywhere, and ready to make themselves known by the familiar words, signs and tokens, and to extend succor and relief even at the peril of their own lives. We stare, and our bosoms heave with pride that we belong to so beneficent and so universal a brotherhood. It is a beautiful fiction which it is a pity to destroy, but the lamentable fact is there is not a word of truth in it.

Many of you will, therefore, be shocked and disappointed when I tell you that there is not and never has been and, if many of our most estimable brethren can have their way, there never will be universal Masonry. Many of the greatest regions and peoples of earth are utterly destitute of Freemasonry, while the Masonry which exists among many others is repudiated and denied by each other and by the Masonry of the English speaking countries. Some Grand Lodges admittedly recognize only those grand bodies which speak English; others while not professing this standard, made it good in practice. Some draw a line on those which do not quite agree with them on some religious dogma or as to just how far Masonry may take part in the political questions of the day, or on some rule of mere practice or policy on which uniformity has never existed among the recognized Masonic bodies. The most trivial and absurd difference in either doctrine or practice is seized upon by some Grand Lodge, which imagines it is the conservator of pure and unadulterated Freemasonry, to erect impassable barriers between the Masonic bodies of the world. Among the most rancorous disputes that the world has ever witnessed are those that have raged over questions of minor or no importance. Only the disputes among the religious sects and denominations can be compared to them.

The intolerance on the part of many Masons and Masonic bodies towards others claiming to be Masonic is so extreme that they frown even on any suggestion of getting acquainted or of even conferring together. So illiberal is this attitude of aloofness that nearly all of our American Grand Lodges would draw their Pharisaical robes around them and spurn with contempt any suggestion of a World Masonic Conference, or any other movement which would bring together with them Masons or bodies which they have not already formally recognized as legitimate and regular Freemasonry. In other words, we will have nothing to do with men or organizations which are not already perfect according to our standards and which consequently already need no help from us and from whom of course we ourselves need no help. Self sufficient in our own conceit, we will not admit that we can learn anything of value from the Masons of other countries and in our smug complacency we say that the are impossible as Masons. It is precisely the same mental attitude of Greek toward barbarian, Ancient Hebrew toward Gentile, Pharisee toward Samaritan, which we so unsparingly condemn in others, but which we, (as-they), can not see in ourselves.

THIS IS NOT A DESIRABLE CONDITION

All will admit that this is not a desirable condition, all are hoping that it may be changed, but every one is demanding and expecting that this change shall be wrought by everybody else conforming to his views of what is correct. This ignorant and narrow provincialism will forever prevent the Masons of the world getting together. Until we recognize that, though we may be right, yet others who differ from us may not be wrong; till we concede the possibility that, while in the main right, we may, nevertheless, be in a measure wrong; till we admit that, while they err in some respects, in the main they may be right; till we can realize that there are two sides to every question that arises between sincere and honorable men; till we are willing to get acquainted with our Masonic neighbors, to learn and attempt to understand their point of view, to put ourselves in their places, to meet them for mutual study of each other, to exercise that truly Masonic virtue of charity, we must dismiss all hopes of a real world-wide Masonic fraternity.

If we differ with them as to the Masonic necessity of a declaration of a belief in Deity, we must be prepared to admit that there are two sides to this question, when we see such men among us as Louis Block of Iowa, George W. Baird of the District of Columbia, William F. Kuhn of Missouri, Sam Henry Goodwin of Utah, and James A. Bilbro of Alabama, taking directly opposite positions on the question. We must be willing to meet and discuss this question with them, and maybe we shall find we are not so far apart after all.

If we see that differences of view as to the nature of the Deity are keeping us apart, we must first be prepared to admit that there are not only two but many sides to this question, since we see scarcely any two of our ablest Masonic scholars agreeing on it. Indeed we see the greatest theologians and philosophers differing upon it as they have always differed. Perhaps we should find by approaching this question in an open frame of mind that Masonry does not prescribe what one's beliefs shall be as to the attributes of Deity.

If we find that opinions as to the presence of the Bible on the altar are separating us, we might remember that the Bible was not a part of the paraphernalia of the lodge for nearly a half century after the founding of the Grand Lodge of England, and that even today it is not on the altar of the British lodges but on the Master's pedestal, and that the Grand Lodge of England, admits that the Koran, or the Vedas, or the Zend Avesta may be used in place of the Bible.

If views as to the office of the Bible in lodge separate us, if some insist that Masons must believe all its teachings, while others claim it is displayed as a symbol of divine truth, we must be prepared to admit that there is room for difference here, since we continue to admit as Masons men who do not accept any part of the Bible and many others who reject at least one-half of it.

WHAT IF POLITICAL DIFFERENCES DIVIDE US?

If we draw the line on those who, we think, engage in polities let us imagine, if we can, what the Masonic Fraternity of the United States would do if some party were to arise in this country which openly declared against free speech, freedom of the press, freedom of thought, freedom of conscience, and in favor of domination of the State by the Church. If Masonry did not fight such propositions it would perish, yet these are precisely the propositions which confront Masonry in France, Belgium, Spain, Italy, and in all South and Central American nations, not to mention Mexico and numerous other countries. There are certain great fundamental political questions which Masonry always and everywhere has professed and for which, if it is not willing to fight, it is not worthy to exist. A little serious investigation might show that the political activities of the Masonry which we condemn in other countries is no more than precisely what we should and would do under the same circumstances.

As Foreign Correspondent I have frequent occasions to observe the extreme narrowness sometimes manifested on this question. Let me illustrate with one example:

A certain very able Reviewer in an English speaking country was horrified and astonished when the Grand Orient of Italy invited the Grand Lodges of the world to participate with it in the celebration of the victory of Italy in 1870 over the Pope of Rome and the consequent downfall of the papacy as a temperal power in Italy. This distinguished brother thought that for such meddling in polities the Grand Orient should be cast into outer darkness and utterly excluded from the Masonic pale.

I think any philanthropic, charitable or fraternal organization anywhere in the world may with the greatest propriety join in the celebration of so distinct a step in advance taken by humanity. Should any Grand Lodge of the United States of America which dares to celebrate the Fourth of July be excluded from the Masonic pale? Would there be any impropriety in the Grand Lodge of England, or any other Grand Lodge or Grand Orient, celebrating the signing of Magna Carta, or the granting of the English Bill of Rights, or the disestablishment of the Church anywhere as a political or governmental agency? Could Masons not with propriety observe the birthday of Martin Luther, or of John Knox, or of John Wycliffe? Why may they not celebrate the victories of Oliver Cromwell, or the burning of Savonarola, or Joan of Arc, or the flight of Roger Williams, or of the Pilgrim Fathers, or of the French Huguenots from religious persecution? We as Masons make much of George Washington in this country and even in England. Is any one so simple as to believe this is not chiefly because he was a great and successful warrior and a wise statesman — politician, if you please? Why may not Masons as such take public pride in the successful attempt of the politicians of any people anywhere to separate Church and State? Or to shake off the shackles which either Church or State has attempted to fasten upon freedom of thought, freedom of speech, freedom of conscience, or freedom of action? If Masons may not do these things what may they do besides confer degrees and bestow alms?

WHAT ABOUT DOCTRINE OF EXCLUSIVE TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION?

If a refusal to admit the doctrine of exclusive territorial jurisdiction in our eyes renders a Grand Lodge anathema, we should remember that at the beginning this doctrine was nowhere recognized and that today it is not recognized at all in many countries and recognized only as a wise and sound policy in others. In several countries two or more systems exist in perfect harmony alongside each other. Should not these facts give us pause and suggest that in this question is involved nothing of principle that ought to keep Masons apart? It is possible that by frank discussion we might be able, to show our brethren of other countries the wisdom and advantages of this policy.

Grand Lodges of so-called Ancient Craft origin often refuse to recognize those of Scottish Rite origin because no one has ever been able to give a convincing account of the regularity of origin of Scottish Rite Masonry. But it should be remembered that, though we can carry the history of Ancient Craft Masonry nearly a hundred years further back than we can that of the Scottish Rite, yet the regularity of the origin of Modern Ancient Craft Masonry can no more be shown than can that of the Scottish Rite. There are at least plausible grounds for belief that the Scottish Rite is but a development from the Ancient Craft. Possibly by getting together and talking it over the Scottish Rite Supreme Councils and Scottish Rite Masons generally might be convinced of the wisdom of adopting the plan so successfully adopted in the United States, England and some other countries of not interfering with the first three or symbolic degrees but leaving them to the exclusive jurisdiction of Grand Lodges.

One may ask, Is Masonic Universality desirable, will it be productive of any benefits or advantages? To ask this question is to challenge the value of Freemasonry altogether, to question whether it is worth while at all, for if it is good for one man it is good for all men, and if it is not good for all it is worthless for any. It also denies the truism that in union is strength. I believe no intelligent Mason can be found who will deny the desirability of a world-wide Fraternity teaching and practicing the doctrines we profess.

One may then ask, How are the conditions above pointed out to be corrected? Our answer is, not by the methods we have been employing, not by refusing to have any communication with each other, not by standing aloof and denouncing each other, not by regarding as contaminating or unclean Masons and Masonic bodies merely because upon some one or all of these questions they differ from us.

SOME SOLUTIONS ARE SUGGESTED

First, we would suggest that the International Masonic Association, at Geneva, Switzerland, be supported and developed until it becomes as it was planned to be, a real center from which can be secured Prompt and reliable information concerning all Masonic movements and activities on the continent of Europe especially.

Secondly, we already have in the National Masonic Research Society, of Iowa, an organization that might be made to perform a like service in this country. Or if this Society is not well adapted or well located for the purpose one could be easily devised. The principal thing would be to provide the financial support and the men equal to the task and tell them to go to work in their own way to get the information.

Thirdly, our Committees on Foreign Correspondence should endeavor to get facts and lay them before their respective Grand Lodges rather than revamping half-baked opinions founded on fragmentary or false information. Preconceived opinions, or opinions of a past generation, should be laid aside and the whole question examined anew.

Fourthly, intelligent Masons visiting foreign countries should be encouraged to visit the lodges there and get first-hand information, instead of being forbidden to do so as is now the rule. Occasionally, carefully selected delegations night be sent for this purpose. The information procured by these means should be given free publicity. All this would cost some money, it is true, but not more than could be easily provided. Fifthly, a World Congress of Freemasons should be held periodically, say every five years, without any legislative powers but authorized only to discuss and express opinions on Masonic questions.

The first of such congresses should be held in England as the oldest Masonic country, or in the United States as the one having the greatest number of Masons. The list of Grand Bodies invited should, while being carefully selected, not be too restricted. It should be distinctly understood that invitation to and participation in the congress was not the equivalent of recognition. It should not be lost sight of that the main purposes of the congress were to get acquainted with each other, to provide opportunity for discussion and exchange of ideas, and the securing and imparting of information.

I am well aware that some brothers will raise their hands in horror and say that I am suggesting a Universal Grand Lodge. That cry has killed every movement for Masonic solidarity that has ever been suggested, but this scarecrow has long enough prevented cooperation among Masons. I am as much opposed to a General, or Supreme, or Universal Grand Lodge as are these brethren, but I can see the difference between such a body and one convened merely for conference and discussion.

Finally, we must rid ourselves of the self-righteous idea that by having any communication or association with Masons or Masonic bodies not already recognized as regular, we render ourselves unclean. We shall not be hurt Masonically socially, or morally, by meeting and discussing Masonry with men whom we may never technically recognize as Masons.

If the dream of Universal Masonry is ever to be realized a beginning must be made. Brethren and Masonic bodies must be found of sufficient vision to take the lead and of sufficient perseverance and courage to keep the movement moving. We believe that a few years of effort along the lines we have indicated would result in a much better understanding among the Masonic bodies of the world.

* * *

BEN FRANKLIN, PATRON OF MANY ARTS

Bro. James Murray, New York

---

Franklin is easily the greatest figure of this continent prior to the Revolutionary War, and since then none but Washington and Lincoln have arisen to dispute his solitary eminence. After the fashion of some unexpected development in Nature, he appeared among the Colonists like a visitor from another star, the first humanist of America, and the first humorist, a great towering soul who believed in life and tried to let the light shine. The author of this essay has caught something of the blithesome spirit of his subject, for the which we may each one be grateful, seeing that in these days of world desolation and regret, Franklin's indomitable and happy spirit is not the least of the many treasurers we have need of from the past.

---

AT THE BICENTENNIAL celebration of the birth of Benjamin Franklin more than seventy wreaths were placed on his statue in Printing House Square, Park Row, New York, by organizations and industries, including the Grand Lodge of New York, to which Franklin had made unique contributions. How wonderful is the man whom no less than seventy organizations claim as their own! To each he had given something so vital and so necessary that on his two hundredth birthday anniversary they delighted to do him honor! What a heritage with which to endow posterity! Surely, such a life is well worth the attention that his celebration has created.

The Autobiography, which so inimitably tells the story of his earlier years, ranks, in the charm, vividness and simplicity of its faultless style, among the few masterpieces of English prose. The author catalogs with astonishing frankness the mistakes of his youth, not with any pleasure in the recollection of them, but in the hope of saving others from similar slips. The pages of the Autobiography are still the best source from which to refresh one's knowledge of this period of Franklin's career. The modern writer had best go forward as speedily as possible to the point where his public services began.

At the tender age of ten he was taken from school to assist his father in the business of a tallow chandler and soap boiler, a trade that he greatly disliked. At the age of twelve he was apprenticed to his brother, a printer. Although this work was much more congenial, he met with such discouragement, abuse and disappointment that he ran away and we next find him seeking independent employment at his trade, first in Philadelphia and later in London. The boy printer, the runaway apprentice, the young journeyman, friendless, penniless and far from home in these distant cities, are pictures that have been made familiar to many generations of American readers.

On returning to Philadelphia, Franklin bought the Pennsylvania Gazette and by judicious management was able to discharge, by installments, his indebtedness. As he prospered financially, he suggested and carried forward scheme after scheme of civic improvement. These public spirited activities secured for him the attention and influence that follow success in practical affairs and caused him shortly to be regarded as one of the foremost citizens of his adopted city.

To further his schemes he was fond of organizing men into associations and developed a singular aptitude for creating, conducting and perpetuating such bodies. Among others, the Junto, a select club, which was a power in local affairs, was the child of his brain. It was a paper which he read before this body on the lack of organization in Philadelphia for extinguishing fires that led to the formation of the Union Fire Company. Years later, Franklin boasted with pride that the city had never lost by fire more than one or two houses at a time, and that the flames have often been extinguished before the house in which they began had been half consumed.

The example of Franklin, like that of Lincoln, will ever be an inspiration to the home student. He deliberately trained himself in English composition and the ability to write he thus acquired gave him not only his entrance into polities but much of his success as a philosopher and statesman. Poor Richard's Almanac became a pulpit from which Franklin preached to a multitude. The epigrams of Poor Richard are as renowned as any collection in English literature. His political and social satires bear comparison with those of the greatest satirists. In a word, Franklin, from his earliest days, was a born teacher of men and ranks among the world's most distinguished moralists. But, though an earnest preacher of morality, he was never identified with any religious organization. The fact that he was a Freemason relieves him of the charge of having been an atheist. He possessed the rarest kind of tolerance and accommodated himself easily to the customs of his associates but, in the end, and after much meditation, he formulated a creed of his own.

His first public office came to him in 1736 when he was chosen clerk of the General Assembly. This post he continued to occupy for fourteen years when he was elected a member. In 1737, he was appointed postmaster of Philadelphia, an office which he found, as he says, of great advantage, for though the salary was small it facilitated the correspondence that improved his newspaper. The postmaster general of the Colonies recognized Franklin's practical ability by employing him as his controller in regulating the several offices and bringing the officers to account and when, in 1753, the postmaster general died, Franklin became his successor.

Amid the crowding occupations of these busy years Franklin found time for the scientific research toward which heart always yearned. Besides entrapping the lightning from the clouds with his kite, he performed countless other experiments and wrote treatises upon them which, collected into a volume, made no small stir in France and were taken much notice of in England.

In his Autobiography, he records with just pride that he received the degree of Master of Arts first from Yale College and afterwards from Harvard. "Thus without studying in any college," he says, "I came to partake of their honors. They were conferred in consideration of my improvements and discoveries in the electric branch of natural philosophy." The Universities of St. Andrew, Edinburgh and Oxford, in succession, later conferred upon him the degree of Doctor of Laws in recognition of his diplomatic services in Great Britain.

Franklin's head was never turned by the many honors that he received and he did not hesitate when opportunity offered to make a joke at his own expense. One of his electrical experiments was an attempt to kill a turkey by shock. He himself received the full effect of the electrical discharge and he was rendered unconscious. When restored his first remark was, "Well, I meant to kill a turkey and instead I nearly killed a goose."

In 1764 the Pennsylvania Assembly selected him for an important mission to Great Britain and the Colony also appointed him their agent. Such was his industry and success that year by year Pennsylvania reappointed him. Later Massachusetts, New Jersey and Georgia in succession voted him their agent. Thus for some years he represented no less than four of the American Colonies. His life in London as Colonial Agent brought him into contact with England's leading men and with many distinguished foreigners from continental Europe with results the importance of which can scarcely be magnified. His new duties not only trained him in diplomacy but immeasurably broadened his horizon. In his Autobiography Franklin remarks that his father used often to quote the proverb, "A man who is diligent in business shall stand before kings." He adds with pardonable pride that he had stood before four kings and dined with three of them. When the Stamp Act was introduced in the English Parliament and the shadow of the Revolutionary War began to fall over the Colonies, the figure of Franklin stood sole and unique among the Colonists as a master of diplomacy and international affairs. As a statesman he sought to find means whereby amicable relations between the Mother Country and the Colonies could be maintained. He labored unweariedly to prevent a breach. But his opposition to the policy of the British ministry began with their earliest attempts to tax the Colonies. To a friend he wrote: "Depend on it, my good neighbor, I took every step in my power to prevent the passing of the Stamp Act. Nobody could be more concerned than I to oppose it sincerely and heartily." But he was not yet ready to part with old lamps for new ones. He wrote: "At heart I am no revolutionist. I believe in purifying, not in breaking down. I would to God that 1 could have convinced the British of their error."

In those days of agitation, he was still the philosopher and sage and his views were far in advance of his times. All wars are follies, he maintained, very expensive and very mischievous ones. When will mankind, he asked, be convinced of this and agree to settle their differences by arbitration?

His departure marked an era in the relations of Great Britain and her American colonies. All hope of agreement, all possibility of reconciliation upon one side, or of recession upon the other, was absolutely over when Franklin shook from his feet the dust of the Mother Country. That he gave up in despair of maintaining peace meant that war was certain and imminent.

He arrived in Philadelphia, May 5, 1775, and, two months later, formulated the first plan for the confederation of the Colonies to be presented to Congress. Then for eighteen months he toiled in the domestic service of his country. Useful as were his labors at home, however, his presence as a trained negotiator, schooled by fourteen years of the most difficult kind of diplomatic service, was indispensable abroad, and in September, 1776, he was elected envoy to France. The wisdom of this choice and the estimate set by Europe upon his abilities were indicated by the excitement which was created by his arrival at the French capitol. During his residence in Paris, he exercised an influence with the French minister which can hardly be exaggerated. Throughout the War for long and weary months communication between the two countries was extremely slow. The only news to reach Paris was colored by passing through Great Britain, and France was most guarded in her attitude and reluctant to take an open stand upon the side of the Colonies. Thus in the dread year of 1777 tales travelled across the Channel that Washington was drawing off the remnant of his forces in a demoralized retreat and that Philadelphia had fallen before Howe. Franklin, however, refused to despair for his country. When told that Howe had taken Philadelphia he laughingly replied: "No, sir, Philadelphia has taken Howe."

The brunt fell upon Franklin from first to last to keep the Colonies from financial failure, just as Washington alone stood between his country and military disaster. Yet to many, Franklin's task would have been far more difficult than that of Washington. He alone at Paris could tap the rock and make the waters flow. So Congress relied upon him to discharge all foreign bills and indebtedness and poured upon him an endless flood of drafts. After much personal discouragement and discomfort, he obtained from the King a promise of a free gift of 6,000,000 livres in addition to 3,000,000 furnished for interest drafts and eventually by his personal influence and popularity he brought about the decisive French alliance.

Throughout his career Franklin commanded men's confidence. To the exclusion of his colleagues, he enjoyed a monopoly of the respect and personal regard of the French ministry. And even the English, when they made advances for conciliation, addressed to him their communications. Erasmus Darwin wrote in a letter to him: "Whilst I am writing to the philosopher and friend, I can scarcely forget that I am also writing to the greatest statesman of the present, and perhaps of any century, who has spread the happy contagion of liberty among his countrymen and, like the greatest man of all antiquity, the leader of the Jews, has delivered them from the house of bondage and the scourge of oppression." Jefferson when he succeeded Franklin as minister at the French court wrote: "No one can replace him, I am only his successor."

Franklin was made a Mason in the Tun Tavern Lodge in 1732 or thereabouts, and from his printing press in Philadelphia two years later was sent the first book on Freemasonry ever published in America — a reprint of Anderson's The Constitutions of the Freemasons. The first Masonic lodges organized in Philadelphia held annual festivals and elected Grand Masters without written authority from the ruling Grand Lodge of England, or any of its dependencies, by virtue of the immemorial right of Masons, and in due course Franklin became Grand Master of Pennsylvania.

Both Franklin and his son were treated with marked distinction by the Masonic Fraternity in London. In Paris, he was elected member of the famous French Lodge of the Nine Sisters of which many distinguished Frenchmen were members.

Among illustrious Americans, Franklin stands preeminent. The study of his character, his mind and his career are of perennial interest. One becomes attached to him, bids him farewell with regret and feels that for such as he the longest span of life is far too short. The faults and defects of character and conduct that are urged against him appear trivial when compared with the affection and admiration he inspired in the great mass of mankind both in the generations contemporary with him and in those which know him only as one of the great figures of history.

Franklin had instinctively the noblest of all ambitions, that of being of practical use to his fellow men. To promote the welfare of mankind was the chief motive of his life. Every moment he could snatch from enforced occupations was devoted to doing, devising, or suggesting something advantageous to the human race. As a patriot, none surpassed him. Intellectually few men of any age or nation are his peers. He covered, and covered well, vast ground. He was one of the most distinguished of all scientists. He was a profound thinker and preacher in morals and the conduct of life. Excepting only the founders of great religions, it would be difficult to name any person who has exerted greater influence upon the ideas, motives and habits of human life.

Franklin died in Philadelphia April 17, 1790, in his eighty-fifth year. More than twenty thousand persons attended his funeral. He was not buried with Masonic rites, for the Modern lodges of which he had been Grand Master had become extinct during his long sojourn abroad and had been succeeded by the Ancients. His memory, however, has never grown dim among Masons. They cherish him as one of their forebears who, through wise counsel, patriotism, untiring zeal and unswerving loyalty helped to lay the corner stone of a great Nation.

His attributes demand endless descriptive adjectives — all of which seem weak and pulpless when describing a man whose talents were so versatile that he excelled in whatever he embraced — whether science, art, industry, diplomacy, commerce, or philosophy.

What a pity that this age of specialization uncompromisingly demands that, if a man be a scientist, he shall not be a philosopher: if he be an industrial man, he must not be a poet! The jack-of-all-trades today is despised. Twentieth century philosophy is: know one thing but know it well! And there like a shining beacon light stands Franklin, patron saint of more than three score arts and industries, who was all and excelled in each. A man who in his life lived many lives and lived them all fully and fruitfully!

* * *

THE ORIGIN OF THE LEGEND OF THE THIRD DEGREE

Bro. R. J. Meekren, Canada

---

The author of this paper is in charge of a group of members of the National Masonic Research Society who are making a special study of the Legend of the Third Degree. These brethren cooperate with each other through the mail. Their findings will in due course appear in THE BUILDER and ultimately, it is hoped, in book form. Such brethren as may wish to join in this fascinating study may send their names to THE BUILDER, or, better still, may communicate directly with Brother R. J. Meckren, Stanstead, Quebec, Canada. The Society is already indebted to Brother Meekren for many labours: the keen insight revealed in the following paper shows how well qualified he is to conduct special researches, and leads one to prophesy that we shall be very much more indebted to him in the future.

---

A QUESTION OF PERENNIAL interest to Masonic students is the origin of the Legend of the Third Degree. The margin of disagreement is constantly shrinking, for whereas not so very long ago opinions varied all the way from a literal acceptance of the tale as veritable history to the assertion that it was invented by Anderson or Desaguliers or some one else in or about 1723, it is now, one would judge, very generally agreed that we are not dealing with history, nor yet with fiction in the literary sense, but with an allegorical drama of the nature of the Mystery or Miracle plays of the Middle Ages, of the type of Everyman, of the more elaborate Passion Play of Oberammergau; and further, that the plot is archaic, ancient, and traditional. The discussion now lies within these limits: Was this plot once public property, and if so, when and under what circumstances did it become an integral part of the Masonic Ritual?

Bro. D. E. W. Williamson, in his article in THE BUILDER for May, 1922, page 144, would seem to be of the opinion that it was once public property and came into the tradition of the Craft somewhere between 1535 and 1546 through the medium of Tyndale's or Coverdale's versions of the Bible. The facts are important. Previous versions (which were in manuscript, by the way) were translations from the Latin of the Vulgate; Tyndale's was a translation from the Hebrew in which the title Abi or Abif was rendered as part of the name, whereas in the Septuagint, the ancient Greek version, and in the Latin versions which were taken from it, the word was translated my father. The coincidence is too remarkable to be fortuitous, and we are obliged to conclude that this short-lived version of the Bible had something to do with our Legend, as it is told today. But does this necessarily imply that it was at this time that the story was invented? The archaic character of the story makes this scarcely even possible. Was it at this time that it was adapted to the purposes of Masonic Ritual? Many considerations tend to incline us to a negative answer. And not the least of these is the argument very forcefully put by Brother J. S. M. Ward in his Freemasonry and the Ancient Gods, [see THE BUILDER, May, 1922, page 151] to the effect that the Fraternity is, and has always been so far as any indication goes, a secret society, or a society holding secrets. To this one may add that it is also, and always has been, intensely conservative.

IN WHAT SENSE THE THIRD DEGREE IS MYTH

In seeking more light upon the subject it may not be unprofitable to turn a little further afield. The bringing in of ancient religious mysteries and such like material to explain Masonic usages is rather discredited now-a-days, but the fault lies perhaps with the mode of employment rather than with the facts themselves. It may help us not a little to realize that what we are dealing with in the Third Degree is myth, and this equally whether the Legend has always been part of the tradition of the Craft, or an eighteenth or Sixteenth century importation. Like other myths it has grown; and also it is the expression of the feeling of a social group. Like others, too, it has been first interpreted as history, and then as conscious invention, and now it is ready for scientific treatment.

By classifying it as a myth, in the technical sense, we are enabled to use in its elucidation the conclusions of anthropologists and students of the history and evolution of mythology and religion. Within the brief space of an article it is not possible to do more than barely state some of the more important of these conclusions, but even so it may be worth our while.

First, and as stated above, myth is the expression of the feelings and ideals of a social group. That this is preeminently so in the present case hardly needs to be pointed out. Secondly, it is normally the explanation of custom. Tylor's Primitive Culture, a work to be found in most public libraries of any size, will satisfy any inquirer on this point. From this it would follow that our Ritual preceded the Legend. Of course this rule is not absolute, for, in modern imitations of our Order, as well as in the higher degree, the process has been reversed. But these are cases of conscious and deliberate invention, and not of growth and survival to which alone the above principle properly applies. And in comparing such inventions with the genuine myth the difference at once strikes the discerning eye. Even in these cases it is curious to trace the influence of the Work upon the Legend. A staking example is the Mark Degree, where the original story has been greatly modified to fit a matured and simplified ritual. This agrees with the hypothesis of Brother Race, in a paper published in the Transactions of the Lodge of Research, Leicester, for a knowledge of which the present writer is indebted to the kindness of the Editor of THE BUILDER. In this paper the internal difficulties of the story, its inconsistencies and improbabilities, are shown to be explicable by regarding it as the plot of a play in which the incidents are made to fit the exigencies of the stage.

MYTH AND RITUAL GO TOGETHER

But myth, again, is the invariable accompaniment of ritual and it would appear as if they normally develop together from the simplest beginnings. This would suggest that we must reduce the story to its lowest factors before we begin to look for its origin.

Again, both custom and myth are extremely tenacious of life, but not of form. The action persists but its reference and details may be completely changed. The incident remains but the motive is entirely new. Even apparently insignificant details may be retained with an entirely new explanation for their presence foisted into the story. Tylor's work, mentioned above, is the classical authority on this point. Indeed he coined the technical term survival to designate this constantly recurring phenomenon. In our own case, therefore, we may confidently look for customs and stories that are ancient, of unknown antiquity, but that have developed and grown, quite possibly out of all knowledge of their originals, unless one is able to produce intermediate stages.

Then we may apply the comparative method that has proved so fruitful in similar investigations in other fields. This brings us to a set of facts that have hardly even been alluded to by most writers on this subject — the wide variations in the Legend itself. Brother Race, for instance, in the paper above referred to, has critically examined the version current in British Freemasonry; Brother Williamson deals with that familiar to American Masons. The difficulties of the one do not exist in the other, and criticism applied to the other might be entirely irrelevant to the former. And there are again other variations even yet of authority in Europe, while there are many traces of yet others in the disjecta membra of sources, especially in the mass of references, allusions, documents and illicit publications dating from the eighteenth century. A comparison of these would seem to point to some extremely interesting and important conclusions.

One may note some of the more salient of these. It would appear for instance that the original story, as it emerged into the historical period, that is, the Grand Lodge era, knew nothing of any pursuit or punishment of criminals. In fact a whole class of degrees were invented from 1750 on, (the Ecossais and Kadosh degrees) to supply this lack. Another is that the motive for the crime was very uncertain. Jealousy on the part of K.S. over Baltis, Queen of Sheba, appears in one wild account where the wise king is made to play a part like that of his father's dealings with Uriah the Hittite. In others, professional jealousy appears as the motive. Again, in certain early French work it is said that the Hebrew name of God was the original WORD, but that it was feared that it might have become known, and so les autres maitres, not K.S., on discovering the body, current opportun de le changer, et substituerent a Jehova le mot. . ..

When we get through this process of cancelling out the variations and taking what underlies all versions we have left a very simple and indefinite, but highly significant, story which might thus be told. Someone was killed by someone else, who was assisted by two others; fifteen people had something to do with the affair; the body was hidden; and a green branch was connected with its discovery. Neither time, place, nor occasion is certain, any more than the motive and identity of the actors. To which may be added the special Masonic element, that this occurred during the erection of some vast and important building. Other minor details are constant. There is a hill top, and a reference to the Cardinal Points for example. This bare skeleton of a plot is obviously connected with such stories as that of the Apprentice Pillar at Rosslyn, and the Apprentice's Window at Lincoln, no less than with similar stories from Germany and the remarkable and complex tale that is half told in Perdiguier's Livre du Compagnonage of the death of Maître Jacques at the hands of the disciples of Maître Soulise — and it is at the same time practically identical with the myths of mystery ritual literally the world over. Such plots are not first public and then by some lapse of memory covered by the veil of secrecy, but whenever found to be public property can generally be shown to have been once secret. These are several normal ways in which a mystery becomes public, but none (excepting of course deliberate invention) by which what is public becomes a mystery.

OUR LEGEND'S CONNECTION WITH MIRACLE PLAYS

How came our legend to have such close analogies with the Miracle Plays? The Mystery is always dramatic, indeed it is not too rash to suppose that the origin of all drama, as of dancing, is to be found in primitive mystery ritual. The origin of the Oriental theatre has not, so far as the present writer is aware, yet been investigated but that of the Greeks has, and it is practically certain that it had its origin directly in the Mysteries of Dionysus. A comparison of the Greek tragedies remaining shows under all the variety and humanity of the general aspect an extraordinary coincidence in the essentials of the plots. In all of them can be found an Agon, a Pathos, a Messenger, a Threnos, an Anagnorisis, a Peripeteia, and a Theophany. In some of the plays one or other of these elements may be reduced to the barest minimum yet a distinct trace will persist; the order may vary but the cycle remains. Now translate these terms into ordinary English and apply them to our Legend. There is an Agon or struggle; a Pathos, or suffering; a Messenger; a Threnos, or lamentation; an Anagnorisis, or discover, and finally a Peripeteia, or reversal of feeling, a change from darkness to light, from sorrow to joy, and even a sort of pale reflection of a Theophany, or revelation of the Divinity. What happened in Athens was that a Mystery became public, and we have the Greek plays as a result. But there were hundreds of other mysteries of which we do not even definitely know the existence, and which were never public. But to go further into this would lead us altogether too far afield.

I reecho Brother Williamson's lament as to the difficulty of gaining access to original sources of information. I have been unable so far to do more than barely touch this field of inquiry. But I feel convinced that here lies a possibility of explaining, by means of the laws of the normal development of religious and semi-religious ideas and institutions, the things that are so puzzling in our ancient Fraternity. In any case it was too much to believe that such at Legend, coupled with such a Ritual, so closely paralleling those of mystery rites everywhere and in every age, could have been devised by eighteenth century scholars, or even evolved by sixteenth century craftsmen.

EDITOR'S NOTE

---

Bro. David E. W. Williamson, Reno, Nevada, who has been at work this past year upon a book concerning the Third Degree, had opportunity to read Bro. Meekren's manuscript printed above and as a result of his interest in the same wrote YE EDITOR a long letter in which occurred a paragraph good to read as a codicil to Bro. Meekren's brilliant paper. If this communication is printed here instead of in the Correspondence Department it is in order to render it all the more useful to those who are interested in the subject, and not in any sense as a supplement to the above article.

---

Brother Meekren has followed the line of reasoning that I find in the Revised Mackey on the 'Origin of the Third Degree.' The chapter in the History is from the pen of Bro. Clegg, himself, I imagine, because it carries a vein of thought that he has touched upon in several letters to me. But Bro. Meekren adds much from a deep store of classic reading and reaches several conclusions under his various heads that are distinctively original and suggestive. As to ab and its construct forms of abi and abiv he is quite right, I think, in his view, but a clincher would be to have the original of Josephus looked up to see what Josephus really wrote at the point translated by Whiston: Antiochus to Zeuxis His Father. Zeuxis was the commanding general of his forces and not his father in fact. My Bagger's Septuagint is not the last word in scholarship, of course, but according to it Chiram ton patera mou would be translated Hiram, who belonged to my father, which I believe is the consensus of scholars on this point. In a footnote, the editor (not named) says that according to the Alexandrine MS. it might mean Chiram, my son or even Chiram, my servant. But every city Arabian vagabond and huckster in Cairo, according to Col. Green and many fugitive writings, has the expression abuya in his mouth all day long, addressed to anybody whom he seeks to induce to buy his wares. And abuya means my father and nothing else.

I think I shall have to unload all these abi facts upon you in a page or so one of these days, if you think anybody would care to read them. You see I'm sceptical about the Craft being interested in such matters as derivation and possible meaning of words and feel that you have made THE BUILDER interesting and educational by eliminating the dead wood. Except to those whose tastes lie in a philological direction, derivations are certainly dead wood and besides they require such painful accuracy to be anything more than mere guesses.

— David E. W. Williamson, Nevada.

* * *

ASPIRATION

Bro. C. Gordon Lawrence, Canada

* * *

* * *

MEMORIALS TO GREAT MEN WHO WERE MASONS

Bro. Geo. W. Baird. P.G.M., District of Columbia

WINFIELD SCOTT SCHLEY

REAR ADMIRAL, WINFIELD SCOTT SCHLEY, U. S. N., the hero of Santiago, was the only man ever made a Mason at sight in the District of Columbia. After becoming a member of Benjamin B. French Lodge in 1895, he found himself so fascinated with Freemasonry that he took all of his degrees one after another as rapidly as he could. I think that Freemasonry had a great deal to do with his thought and feelings from that time until his death, and I am anxious to have it known that one who made such a place for himself in our national annals found so much worth in our Craft during the last years of his life.

Winfield Scott Schley was born in Maryland in 1849 and received his early education in Frederick of that state. He was appointed a cadet midshipman in our navy in 1856 and was graduated a midshipman in 1860.

He was ordered to the Steam Frigate Niagara of the East India squadron and soon was off on a cruise, during which time he was promoted to past midshipman.

The Niagara was ordered home very hurriedly at the time of the Civil War but its officers and men were in ignorance of the extent of the calamity which had befallen the nation until the vessel reached Cape Town, at which time the commanding officer learned that civil war was actually under way.

The voyage home was made partly under sail and partly under steam as the ship did not carry coal enough for the entire distance. It was thought that each and every man should go with his state but it was not known how many states had seceded until the Niagara reached Boston when an officer came on board at which time the crew was mustered and the statement made that every officer must take an additional oath of allegiance. Those who refused or asked time to consider were placed under arrest with the exception of Schley himself who was allowed forty-eight hours in which to communicate with his people. Before that time had expired he learned that Maryland had not seceded, upon which he promptly took the oath.

He was shortly afterward promoted to the rank of Master and ordered to the old sailing Frigate Potomac stationed at Ship Island in Mississippi Sound. This duty was monotonous and irksome, and officers and men tried to escape from it, but Schley did not have long to wait before receiving his first command. He was put in charge of one of the famous ninety day gunboats called the Winona.

When Captain Farragut arrived to assemble his fleet at the bar of the Mississippi River, he found it necessary to jettison part of the cargo of the Colorado and of the Pensacola in an effort to get them through the shallow water. He succeeded in getting the Pensacola over but not the Colorado. Schley's own little ship was particularly useful in these maneuvers. Several Confederate gunboats (the Ivy, the Manassas, etc.) not infrequently came within range while reconnoitering but never lingered very long after a shot was fired.

On one occasion Farragut sent Schley up to the head of the passes for observation and very soon heard heavy firing. He signalled Schley to cease firing and return but that officer did not heed his orders. The signal was repeated again and again but still Schley did not heed it. After the firing had ceased and the Winona returned, Farragut sent up a signal, Commanding Officer, come aboard. Schley remarked afterwards in telling the story that he confidently expected a court-martial. Captain Farragut met him on the quarterdeck of the Hartford and administered a severe reprimand during which time Schley kept glancing nervously at the yardarm because he was afraid he might be hanged there. He said he never felt so mean or ashamed in his whole life. When Farragut had finished his reprimand, he exclaimed, Now, young man, come into the cabin with me, I have something more to say!

Schley followed him into the cabin. As soon as the door was closed, Farragut produced a bottle of sherry and two glasses, held up a glass of wine, and exclaimed: "Young man, if I commanded a gunboat and got into a mixup with the enemy, and was getting the better of him, I'll be d—d if I'd see a signal either."

Schley was in charge of the Winona at the Port Huron, Louisiana, engagement, and in most of the engagements which took place about Port Hudson, Grand Gulf, Baton Rouge and the Chalmette Batteries: he helped run the Mississippi River forts, and he was at the fall of New Orleans.

After the Civil War was ended Commander Schley served at the Naval Academy as instructor in Spanish, in which language he was very proficient. Leaving there he made a cruise in the Pacific in the famous Wateree, a vessel that was afterward carried up by a tidal wave and left stranded on the sands of Africa three-quarters of a mile from the water.

He again returned to the Naval Academy and then once again made another Pacific cruise, this time in the sloop of war Benicia. Later he commanded the Essex. Then he became lighthouse inspector and later was chief of the Bureau of Equipment of the Department of the Navy.

After that he became commander of the cruiser Baltimore. The members of his crew got into a fight with the crew of a Chilean cruiser and became thereby forced into diplomatic differences with the officials of that republic. In the give and take of this diplomatic quarrel, he acquitted himself well. Later he became commander of the battleship New York, and later still assumed chairmanship of the lighthouse board.

When the Spanish American War broke out, he was placed in command of the flying squadron, his flagship being the Brooklyn. The West Indies squadron was commanded by an estimable officer who had broken down in health and who was succeeded temporarily by a captain who was a grade in rank below Schley (now a commodore) and to whom for some reason the Navy Department had given the temporary rank of rear admiral. Newspapers reported the Spanish squadron under Cervera as enroute to the United States and it was known that there were guns in that Spanish fleet capable of very long range. Dailies along the Atlantic Coast frightened cities very much so that many feared that Cervera might be planning to destroy them. Commodore Schley assembled his flying squadron at the mouth of the Chesapeake, which was central and there stayed in readiness for an attack the moment the Spanish Fleet might be reported. That fleet was discovered in the region of Martinique in waters controlled by the West Indies squadron. Upon sailing for those waters, Commodore Schley found himself, when in action, working under an officer above whom he himself ranked. Neither that officer nor Schley quarreled or uttered any complaints but the general public became much agitated and to this day men argue as to whom the honors of that naval encounter should go.

Admiral Schley was a very temperate man and always careful of his health. He avoided drugs, depended largely on nature to relieve his ailments, enjoyed life and was seldom ill. Death came suddenly as he had always wished and was due to a cerebral hemmorhage while walking along the streets of New York City. Bystanders who lifted the well dressed and slender form from the sidewalk were astonished to discover it to be the body of the famous Winfield Scott Schley. He was buried with military and Masonic honors in the National Cemetery at Arlington. Over his grave was erected the beautiful granite memorial shown in the accompanying illustration.

* * *

CHAPTERS OF MASONIC HISTORY

Bro. H. L. Haywood

Editor, The Builder

PART IV — FREEMASONRY AND THE ROMAN COLLEGIA

THE ORIGIN OF MODERN Freemasonry has been traced by means of documents and other historical records to guilds of builders in the Middle Ages. These guilds in turn were derived from yet earlier forms of organized endeavour (as has already been noted in the chapter on the Cathedral Builders) therefore Masonic historians have found it necessary to try to push their way back behind them in an attempt to learn how they came into existence. Nearly all these historians have fastened their attention on the Roman collegia (plural form of collegium) as furnishing the most probable ancestry for the guilds from which Freemasonry sprang, therefore it is necessary for a Masonic student to know something about those societies of ancient Rome.

A collegium was an association of persons, never less than three, for some chosen object, usually of a trade, social, or religious character, organized according to law. It had its own regulations and usually its own meeting place. In the majority of cases these collegia were dealt with by law as having what is known in lawyer parlance as a legal personality, that is to say, they could own property and they could be held accountable through their officials for their acts. The collegiate organizations reached their perfection and became most popular in Rome, therefore they are generally known as Roman collegia, but they were also popular in many other countries as well.

I. — COLLEGIA WERE ORGANIZED AMONG GREEKS, EGYPTIANS, ETC.

The great majority of Greek Collegia were organized about the worship of some god or hero. Religion was a public activity controlled by the state and consequently was formal in its character; many men and women, feeling the need for something more emotional, organized themselves into cults for the private worship of their favourite gods, and these organizations were often collegiate in form. It is believed that the famous Orphic mysteries, so often described by Masonic writers, were begun in this manner. Collegia of worshippers of Bacchus existed in the second century; there is a record of such a collegium dated 186 B.C. These and other Greek collegia were called by various names, thiassoi, hetairai, etc.

Political activity among the Greeks sometimes assumed the collegiate form, especially among the lower classes and among colonies of resident aliens, the latter of whom usually settled at or near some seaport. There were political collegia at Athens in the time of Pericles, and they caused much trouble. In 413 B.C. a group of them conspired to overthrow the democratic government. Such Greek associations, however, were not very numerous or powerful, and never reached anything like the state of development as that attained in Rome.

Collegia became more or less common in Egypt in the first century B.C., especially among the worshippers of Isis. Apuleius mentions one such organization under date of 79 B.C., and there is reason to believe that they had existed much earlier. In many cases they took the form of burial clubs, about which more anon. Records of the existence of such associations in the famous region of the Fayum have been found, bearing date of 67 B.C. In Asia Minor, also, traces of collegia have been unearthed, and it is believed that Thyatira had a larger number than any other city in Asia; its college of smiths became known throughout the world.

II — COLLEGIA BECAME VERY COMMON IN THE ROMAN EMPIRE

Among the Romans collegiate associations were so old that legend attributed their founding to Numa, the second of the traditional Roman kings, and there is a mention of collegia in the Twelve Tables. These organizations flourished unhampered until after the beginning of the first century B.C., during which time some opposition began to develop among Roman law makers. In 64 B.C. they were forbidden for a while, with the exception of a few of a religious character, but in 58 a Clodian law once again permitted them. This law was set aside only two years afterwards. Julius Caesar in his turn forbade them all, except Jewish associations of worship, on the ground that they dabbled too much in politics. When Augustus became emperor he espoused the cause of the collegia and caused to be adopted an imperial statute that came to stand as the foundation of all jurisprudence having to do with them and with similar organizations. The Emperor Marcus Aurelius was the greatest friend the collegia ever had.

Except for these general statutes the collegia were left very much to themselves until Nero became emperor, when he caused to be adopted a series of regulations controlling the associations in Italian towns. These regulations were extended to include provincial towns by Trajan, and from his regime until the end one emperor after another assumed such increasing control of the collegia that there came a time when they were merely cogs in the great machinery of state. Membership was made hereditary; transfer of a man from one collegium to another was forbidden; and freedom to work or not to work was everywhere denied. Industry became in effect a state controlled monopoly, and workmen were as restricted as soldiers in an army. The imperial system in its last centuries was supported by the power it extorted from the collegia, so that the organizations of trades, the organizations of polities, and the organizations of military forces became three great pillars underneath the empire.

In spite of the great mass of regulations and restrictive laws, and of the severe penalties hedging them all about, a great many collegia came into existence under conditions and for purposes that violated the statutes. These were known as collegia illicits, and gave the officials just such trouble as bootleggers give nowadays. Some of these unlawful associations were of a religious character, others were hatching places for political intrigues. When apprehended they were severely dealt with through the person of their president, who was compelled to pay a heavy fine or else go to jail.

It is amazing to discover how many collegia there were. More than twenty-five hundred inscriptions are in existence, and these have emanated from some four hundred and seventy-five towns and villages of the empire. In the city of Rome itself more than eighty different trades were organized, and it is believed that if the memorials were more complete the number would be considerably increased. It is a great misfortune that we are so dependent on inscriptions and similar records, because time has not dealt kindly with such things, but this is the case and because the classic writers almost always scorned to speak of them owing to their plebeian character. Like our own literary historians the old Latin writers loved to tell about lords and ladies and other notables, their fortunes, their intrigues, and their wars: the numberless masses of common folk lay outside their range of vision. An attempt to discover what the historians of the Roman Empire have had to say about the collegia will bring this home to a man; in all the histories that I was able to consult I did not find any reference worth reading except in one or two of the thick volumes of Duruy, the Frenchman. Gibbon raises his eyebrows; Ferrers has nothing to say; Mommsen forgets all about it, though in 1870 he published a tome in Latin on the matter, which, so far as one may discover, has never been translated into English; and so it goes. One is driven back on the archaeologists.

A great many collegia were organized solely for the purpose of guaranteeing a member a decent sepulture; they were known as teuinorum collegia, or burial clubs. Each club of this kind built or leased a hall, and held regular meetings upon which occasions poems were read about the deceased, or a feast was held to commemorate a brother on his birthday anniversary. Each of these pathetic little societies owned, or had access to, a columbarium. A columbarium, God save the mark, was a kind of nickname, and meant literally dovecote, which was a name suggested by the fact that it so much resembled the little buildings in which aristocrats housed their doves. In a dark room, half underground, were galleries of niches, each large enough to contain an urn; every member of the collegium was entitled to his niche and his urn, and there were provisions for a vase of flowers, perhaps, or even an inscription.

Death was a thing of horror to the Roman, especially if he had the misfortune to be poor, because his creeds taught him that a man illy buried would turn out an unhappy ghost, or even would wander unhoused about the winds, a forlorn and shivering spirit in an agony of loneliness. Accordingly, every man strained his resources to see to it that his own soul was protected against such a fate. The rich could build their own monuments — every Roman highway of any importance was lined by such things — but the slaves and the poor were hard put to stave off neglect after death. They resorted to the expedient of pooling their resources, and the burial club was the result.

It is impossible for us moderns to realize how much such a thing meant to a Roman with little or no means. The public custom of disposing of the uncared for dead was repellent beyond description. Great pits were kept half open near the centers of population and into these, without any ceremony, the corpses of the poor were dumped. To escape such a horror a man was willing to make almost any sacrifice.

Owing to this feeling about burial the Romans were always patient with any attempt at securing decorous funeral lites, therefore the collegia having such matters in charge were dealt with patiently and often with lenience. It is supposed by such authorities as Sir William Ramsey that many of the early Christian churches were first organized as burial clubs in order to escape the wrath of the officials, especially when all private religious associations were under the ban, as happened several times. It is believed by some that the early church was often persecuted, not because of the theological doctrines it taught, but because officialdom deemed associations of private persons a menace to the state.

The great majority of collegia came into existence for more mundane purposes. Almost every profession, art, and trade had its own organization made in due form, and according to imperial statute. Sometimes the division of function among these crafts was carried to an extreme as when the garbage collectors had their own collegium, the slipper makers theirs, the vendors of fish theirs, the wig makers theirs, etc. The oldest known inscription refers to a collegium of cooks, 200 B.C. It has been alleged by many Masonic writers that collegia of masons, or builders and architects, occupied a distinctive place and enjoyed special honours and privileges. It is true that Cicero remarks of the honourableness of architecture, and that a few other of the Latins mention that calling as having a peculiar usefulness, but other than this I have never been able to discover any grounds for the assertions so freely made by our own historians, though I have searched with loving care, seeing that I have wished to find such evidence.

There were no collegia in Roman Africa, and there were not many in the Eastern Empire, but elsewhere they were thickly scattered through Roman civilization. Every regiment of soldiers carried with it its own collegia of engineers, carpenters, and such craftsmen, and, as Coote remarks, it was as easy to imagine a Roman without a city as to conceive his existence without collegia.

III — HOW THE COLLEGIA WERE ORGANIZED

Each collegium aspired to control or own a hall or meeting place, which it called schola, or in some cases, curia. For officials it had a kind of president called by different names, magistri, curitarious, quinquennales, perfecti praesides, and so on. Decuriones were a kind of warden, and there were factors or quaestors to manage the business affairs. Each society had its own laws, called lex college, and its house rules or by-laws, and these regulations were based, as already explained, on the imperial statutes. Fees and dues went into a common chest, called the arca. It has been alleged by some writers that the funds thus accumulated were used for charitable purposes but the best informed archaeologists dissent from this opinion, and say that the income was employed to defray necessary expenses for the upkeep of headquarters, and for memorial banquets. Oftentimes some well-to-do member or friend left behind a legacy, usually with the direction that it be used for memorial banquets, but sometimes for the benefits of the membership as a whole. Most collegia besought the graces of a patron, often a woman, who, in return for signal honours, helped defray the expenses of the little group. It is supposed by a few chroniclers that these patrons, who often belonged to the upper classes, were more or less useful in controlling the activities of the collegia in the interests of the established order.

The social system of Rome, with its semi-caste form, was reflected inside the collegium where the differences of rank were anxiously observed, and the member from some noble house always received special honours. Slaves were often admitted, if they came with the consent of their masters, and there were many freedmen, who were in many cases wealthy men. For the most part, the technical organization of the body, with its officials, its ranks, and its parish outlines, was modelled on the lay-out of the typical Roman city which was to a Roman the ne plus ultra of political organization.

IV. — THE COLLEGIA AND FREEMASONRY

To the student of the evolution of Freemasonry from its first crude traces until its present state of affluence and power, the story of the collegia is of considerable importance. The enthusiastic notion that those ancient associations were Masonic lodges in the literal sense, and that through them our Fraternity as it now exists can trace its history back to 1000 B.C. or beyond, must be abandoned except in a sense so broad as almost to rob the idea of any meaning at all. Nevertheless the collegiate organization may justly be considered as one item in a long chain of general as sociational development, the last link of which is our modern Fraternity.

There are three or four theories which hold that one may trace a certain tenuous continuity between the Roman collegia and modern Freemasonry.

One of these is the Dionysiac Artificers theory. This hypothesis was given the shape with which we are now familiar by Hyppolito Joseph Da Costa in his Sketch for the History of the Dionysian Artificers (published complete in instalment form in The Montana Mason beginning with November, 1921), and he was followed, and his arguments repeated, by The History of Freemasonry, drawn from authentic source of information; with an account of the Grand Lodge of Scotland, from its institution in 1736 to the present time, compiled from the Records; and an Appendix of Original Papers, a famous old volume long attributed to Alexander Lawrie but now generally believed to have been written by Sir David Brewster. The essence of this theory is that these Artificers were employed — lodges of them, that is — in the building of King Solomon's Temple, and that they preserved the secrets of architecture until at last they transmitted them to such of the Roman collegia as practised that art.

At this juncture the equally well known Comacine theory comes in. According to this reading of the matter, as we may learn from The Cathedral Builders, by Leader Scott, and from Brother Ravenscroft's codicils to the same in his Comacines: Their Predecessors and Their Successors, a few of the Roman builders' collegia (collegia fabrorum) took refuge from the Barbarian invasions on or near Lake Como in Northern Italy and there kept alive a knowledge of building until such time as conditions had stabilized themselves and Europe had become ready for another civilization. When the barbarian peoples began to build their own cities and to lay out their highways these Comacini, so the theory has it, went here and there to teach the people the arts of building. They established schools, and acted as missionaries in general throughout the various countries of Europe, England included, all of which will be described in more adequate manner in a chapter to come.

The third of the theories that would connect the collegia with early Masonic guilds is that which Gould elaborates at some length in the first volume of his History, but without committing himself one way or the other. According to this theory, collegia entered Britain with the Roman army of conquest and were responsible for the cities, highways, dikes and churches, some remains of which are still in existence. When the Angles, Saxons and Danes made an end of the Roman civilization in the islands, the collegia continued to exist among them in a somewhat changed form, known as guilds. Among these guilds were those devoted to building and its allied arts, and out of these guilds there emerged in time those organizations of Masons who gave us Freemasonry. Some of the greatest historians in the world deny all this in toto — Freeman among them — while others accept it. A layman must make up his mind to suit himself.

Still another theory is that which connects the medieval guilds of Europe with the collegia that lingered late in and about Constantinople, or, as it was called, Byzantium. It is supposed that as these organizations of Byzantine builders came more and more into demand they moved gradually across Italy and on up into central Europe where they served as the seed out of which came the Teutonic guilds. According to the theory, it was from these Teutonic guilds that the Masonic guilds of England came, and it was out of the English guilds that Freemasonry emerged.

Until such time as more evidence is forthcoming these, and other theories that could be described if space permitted, will all hang more or less in the air. For my own part I do not accept any of them as proved. None of them have a sufficient bottom of known facts. It appears to me that we should hold judgment in suspense.

Nevertheless and in spite of this uncertainty, the collegia will ever continue to be of importance to us Masons because they give us one of the best examples in the world of how and why it is that such a thing as Freemasonry grows up out of human nature. In the days of the Roman Empire life became hard and it grew complex, so that the individual found himself helpless to battle the world alone. He discovered that if he would combine his own puny individual forces with the resources of his neighbours and friends that what he alone could not do he might do through cooperation. Through pooling their money, their knowledge, their influence, and their good will the dim multitudes of common people learned to hold their own in a great hard world.

It is so today. The lodge is a means whereby the solitary individual may escape from his helplessness by linking his own life onto the lives of his fellows. In its utmost essence that is what Freemasonry does. It goes down into the depths of a man's nature until it finds what is most permanent and universal in him and links that onto the inmost nature of many others. Held together by such a Mystic Tie brethren work and live together and they who might in our large centers lead lonely lives as strangers or even as enemies are able to rescue from the welter of modern life the sweet amenities of friendship, brotherly love, relief, mutual tolerance, and kindliness. What the collegium was to the men of ancient Rome, the Masonic lodge is to men of today.

WORKS CONSULTED IN PREPARING THIS ARTICLE

Livy, Metamorphosis, XI, 30. Kennedy, St. Paul and the Mystery Religions, 72, etc. Poland, History of the Greeks. Waltzing, Historical Studies of the Professional Corporations of the Romans. Pauly, Realencyclopadie, article by Kornemann on Collegium. Hastings, Dictionary of the Bible, vol. V, 132. A Companion to Latin Studies, see. 202. Find complete Latin bibliography in sec. 563. Hasting, Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics, vol. VI, 218. Hatch, The Organization of Early Christian Churches. Encyclopedia Britannica, eleventh edition, vol VI, 564. Mommsen, De Collegiis et Sodalitiis Romanorum Kiliae, 1870. Grote, History of Greece, vol. V, Greenidge, Handbook of Greek Constitutional History, 208 ff. Davis, The Influence of Wealth in Imperial Rome, section on Gilds. Pliny, Epistle X, 97, 98. Abbott, The Common People of Ancient Rome, 205. Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum, XI, 5047; V, 7906; Ill, 953; VIII, 14683; III, 3583; XIV, 2112; XIV, 326. Friedlander, Roman Life and Manners, I, 146. Fowler, The Religious Experience of the Roman People, ch. beginning p. 270. Barnes, Early Church in the Light of the Monuments, 53. De Rossi, Roma Soterranea, 58. Bulletino di Arch. Crist. Ramsey, The Church in the Roman Empire, 213. Hatch, Bampton Lectures, 152. Le Blant, Actes, 282. Dill, Roman Life From Nero to Marcus Aurelius. Plutarch, Numa. Duruy, History of Rome, several chapters; consult index. Cobern, The New Archaeological Discoveries and the New Testament. Pelham, Essays on Roman History, 701 ff. Ars Quatuor Coronatorum, XI, 170. Scott, The Cathedral Builders, book II, eh. 3. Clegg, Mackey's History of Freemasonry, ch. 46 ff. Gould, The History of Freemasonry, vol. I, 36. See bibliographical notes in entire chapter. Coote, The Romans of Britain. Fort, Early History and Antiquities of Masonry. Hope, Historical Essay on Architecture. Newton, The Builders, part I, ch 5. Armitage, A Short Masonic History, vol I ch 7. Gould, The Concise History of Freemasonry, (Crowe's Revision), 10. Ward, Freemasonry and the Ancient Gods, part 1, ch. 17. Spence, Encyclopedia of Occultism, article on Freemasonry. Corpus Juris Civilis, Dig. XLVII, 22. Brown, From Schola to Cathedral.

Mackey's Encyclopedia — (Revised Edition):

Ancient Mysteries, 497; Builder, 123; Collegium, 158. Comacine Masters, 161; Egyptian Mysteries, 232; Freemasons of the Church, 150; Gilds, 296; Initiations of the Egyptian Priests, 234; Isis, 358; Mysteries of Osiris, 540; Oath of the Gild, 524; Orphic Mysteries, 539; Osiris, 540; Roman Colleges of Artificers, 630; Stone-Masons of the Middle Ages, 718.

THE BUILDER:

Vol. III, 1917. — Masonic History — Suggestions for Research, p.204; The Cathedral Builders, p. 380.

Vol. IV, 1918. — The Comacines, p. 63.

Vol. VI, 1920. — A Bird's-Eye View of Masonic History, 236

Vol. VII, 1921. — Whence Came Freemasonry, p. 90.

Vol. VIII, 1922. — A Mediating Theory, p. 318.

According to our usual custom Study Club articles will be discontinued for July and August during which season nearly all Study Clubs discontinue their meetings. The series will be resumed in THE BUILDER for September with an article on The Comacine Masters, and that will be followed by others in due order until a more or less complete history of the Craft will have been published.

* * *

EDITORIAL

THE SHRINE AND ITS PROBLEMS

AN ESTIMABLE Masonic scribe has recently published an article under the caption, Do We Want the Shrine? The burden of his argument is that the Shrine is a kind of novel experiment in which lurks a deal of danger for Freemasonry and it is high time Craftsmen were looking into the matter. The unfortunate thing about this writer, so far as the present subject is concerned, is that he is some fifty years too late.

The Shrine is not an experiment, blushing with timidity, but a veteran among fraternities with a half century of achievement behind it. It built its first temple in New York City in 1872, which is fifty-one years ago. It elected Pro. Walter M. Fleming its first Imperial Potentate in New York in June, 1876, and on the same date held the first meeting of its Imperial Council, subsequent to which time the Council has been in session some forty-seven times. Since Mecca Temple was organized (1872) the Shrine has chartered more than one hundred and fifty temples, many of which have buildings of their own that are as imposing as they are unique. Its membership now runs close to five hundred thousand and every one of these is either a Knight Templar or a Scottish Rite Mason. It is too late to ask if we want the Shrine. About one-fifth of the total Masonic membership of this country have voted to make it a reality.

It is this fact of the Masonic character of its personnel that raises the problems which the above mentioned writer has discussed, because the profane world, knowing of the intimacy between the Shrine and Masonic bodies, accept the Shrine as being itself a Masonic organization and therefore hold Freemasonry responsible for all its doings. With this opinion that the Shrine is an integral part of the Masonic family of rites and bodies a great many Masons appear to agree, for they accept it into their circles on the same terms as organizations known as strictly Masonic. They devote departments to it in Masonic periodicals; they incorporate its story in their histories of the Order; and they invite it to house itself in their own buldings, as witness the great new temple now building in Detroit where the Shrine is to have headquarter facilities on a par with Blue Lodges, Chapters, the Consistory, etc., etc. What is still more important, Shrine representatives are frequently permitted to solicit their membership directly from among Masons, and often while Masonic bodies are at work, as at Scottish Rite reunions. Some may be quite willing to accept the Shrine frankly as being as much a Masonic body as a lodge or a chapter; others may refuse to admit that it is more than an auxiliary; in either case the fact remains that the Shrine and Masonic bodies strictly so called are living and working on terms of closest intimacy, so that, whatever be the formal status of the Shrine, its welfare and the general welfare of the Craft must necessarily, and to a certain extent, go hand in hand.

Some of the problems that have arisen from this intimacy have been pretty generally discussed, often with anxious care, and some times in Grand Lodge. The habit of soliciting members, so frankly referred to by Brother McCandless in his article in this issue, grates on the sensibility of many Blue Lodge Masons who look upon solicitation in any form as unmasonic. These same brethren dislike very much to see men seek admittance to a Blue Lodge merely as a step looking toward membership in the Shrine. Also they have been shocked on two or three occasions by what one Grand Lodge spokesman described as mad doings. Furthermore, many of these same brethren feel that in Masonry there is an almost solemn dignity, like that which one finds in all sincere religion, and that this dignity does not appear to them to comport well with a parade of Masons going down a city street in red fezzes and flowing pantaloons.

There is no attempt to raise such questions here, which are cited merely by way of illustration, least of all is there any attempt to answer them. But there is one principle that may be mentioned which, if it were always adhered to, would automatically dispose of almost all such difficulties. In all Masonic activities whatsoever the strictly Masonic work of every Masonic body must have always the right of way; secondary and auxiliary activities must always take a second place. This applies not only to the Shrine but to all the other playgrounds of Masonry. It is a great evil when a Blue Lodge initiation is crowded into the early afternoon in order to free the lodge room for a dinner dance, or when it is hurriedly got out of the road in order that an amateur orchestra may entertain the crowd. Such doings ARE unmasonic, and should be everywhere frowned on.

Brother McCandless and his colleagues are in the vanguard of those who frown on them. All Shriners are brother Masons, and some of the wisest heads of the Craft are members of the Imperial Council. They are fully awake to all their problems, and it is pretty safe to predict that they will meet them in a spirit that looks only to the high ideals of Masonry. One thing is certain. No good will ever come from attempts to set one group of Masons into opposition with other groups. We are all members of one great family, and our welfare must ever consist in the application of the family spirit to all our problems.

Such problems as may now confront the Shrine are incidental to all great organizations, and there is no need to fear lest the wisdom of Masonry fail in solving them as they arise from time to time. Meanwhile every Mason can cordially echo the sentiments expressed by Brother McCandless in his last paragraph. It is a good thing for brethren to enjoy good fellowship; to let God's sunshine into every heart; to increase the joy of life; to add to the gaiety of nations.

THE CHARM OF FINE MANNERS

A rare old Spanish Dictionary of the eighteenth century described etiquette as a book of ceremonies hid in the king's palace. The words are fragrant as an old wine, are they not, and suggest, after the manner of poetry, many more things than they tell. In the Old French, from which etiquette is derived, the term was used of the tickets given out at court to enable each member of the king's suite to find the place in line properly suited to his rank. This association of courtliness, of kingly mien, and elegant deportment, hangs like an aroma about the word still, and conveys to us a hint of what sort of thing it is. Good manners accepted and used, and consequently transformed into a ceremonial, such a thing is etiquette, and only a boor would make light of it. It is to good manners what the written score is to music, and quite as necessary, lest the harmony of social intercourse evaporate away.

Emerson once exclaimed that if manners were lost out of the world, some gentleman would rediscover them, because they are necessary to the social life of civilized people. The Sage of Concord was little given to forms; indeed, he did more than any other man of his generation to dissolve them, but for all that he saw clearly how necessary they are. The charm of fine manners is music and sculpture and picture, he remarked on another occasion. A saying similar to this is attributed to an old sage of ancient Europe: Men make laws, women make manners. It is to say that men contribute strength; women, beauty; and that charm, address, and courtesy are as important as armies and gunpowder.

Our brethren in England long ago learned how good and beautiful a thing it is for Masons to work together in lodge under the inspiration of etiquette. They employ a Master of Ceremonies, and ask of each member that he observe the due forms of lodge behavior, for they know that good manners and soft words have brought many a difficult thing to pass. Brother Campbell-Everden wrote a very excellent book on the subject.

Operative Masons of the old days have often been described as rude men of calloused hands and rough behavior. One may doubt this. The Old Charges have a great deal to say about the Points of Fellowship, and Anderson's Constitutions, which is certainly an excellent witness, devotes one of its six sections and a very large amount of space to a Mason's behavior in and out of lodge. The book is a reflection, and to a certain extent a preservation, of customs grown ancient by 1723, and shows that for many generations the brethren had been anxious to subdue their passions, to improve themselves in Masonry, and to enjoy the privileges of happy social intercourse.

It is sometimes hinted that in our own lodges we are not so observant of these graces. There may be something to this charge. Our national culture is not as rich, as complex, or as firmly established as that of the Old World. Our traditions and racial tendencies have always tended to make light of etiquette. The Puritans and Pilgrims who gave us the key of so much of our social behavior retained a stiff knee and kept their hats on. Walt Whitman loved to voice this uncouthness in his poems. I am no dainty, dolce, affetuoso, he cried, but rough, bearded, and to be wrestled with.

It may be that something of this spirit lingers in our lodges. We may not make a point of addressing the chair in strict decorum because we feel that it betokens servility. It may be that we sometimes carry on conversations during initiation ceremonies, and enter and leave a lodge room without observing the forms, because we enjoy living in a free and easy atmosphere.

It is more probable that other causes lie behind these lapses. The great majority of American men are gentlemen by instinct, and the observation applies especially to Masons, who have been elected out of the total citizenship because of their social aptitudes. Our lodges are often very large. The official group changes rapidly. Many Masons can't attend lodge regularly, and accordingly grow rusty. Also there is a great deal of travelling about, not only from town to town but among the various rites, so that an individual is often hard put to remember his cues.

These facts represent conditions, not excuses, and offer a challenge to the governors of the Craft. Etiquette is necessary. It belongs to the lex non scripta of Freemasonry, laws that are not written but laws all the same. It is minor jurisprudence and quite as necessary as that required by the constitutions or enjoined by statutes and by-laws. To see a lodge conducted with decorum, so that all its activities carry forward like the strains of music, is a delight and a privilege. It is, in a sense, the work of Freemasonry, which is evermore building temples in the minds and hearts of men, and which requires that there should be a book of ceremonies hidden away in the king's palace.

* * *

THE LIBRARY

THE INFANCY AND YOUTH OF SCIENTIFIC THOUGHT

A HISTORY OF MAGIC AND EXPERIMENTAL SCIENCE DURING THE FIRST THIRTEEN CENTURIES OF OUR ERA, by Lynn Thorndike, Ph. D., Professor of History in Western Reserve University. Two volumes, 5¾ X 8½, xl-835 and vi-1036 pages respectively, published by the Macmillan Company, New York, N. Y. Price $10.00. Orders can be placed through the Book Department, National Masonic Research Society.

MAGIC IS SO COMMONLY THOUGHT of as trickery, and science as fact, that to many the very title of this work may seem self-contradictory. If the reader will cast aside such a prejudice he can the better do justice to this truly monumental work.

Whether we agree or disagree with the conclusions of Professor Thorndike there can be no question about his prodigious industry and his transparent sincerity. He has travelled far afield to peruse at first hand the original manuscripts in their dusty treasuries in the Old and New Worlds. Not only does he freely interpret the books and manuscripts that he has unearthed in various countries but he is frank when listing other works to tell how little he is acquainted with their contents whenever such may be the case. It is well for him to do this, for his book (if it had no other value) is a remarkable work of reference, containing as it does quotations and comments upon information stored hitherto in rare publications in several languages, often hidden away where distance, war, and other difficulties have barred the investigator.

Such a production as this by Professor Thorndike has very much of value to us. Ceremonies and rites, rituals and formulas of words and phrases, are all within the scope of such an inquiry as his.

We must admit that from first to last there is no direct discussion of our ancient Craft. In fact, only in one place do we find an allusion to the Fraternity, and that, in Vol. I, page 183, is by no means important. The author there tells us that the architect as described by Vitruvius, at the beginning of the Roman Empire under Julius and Augustus Caesar, went about his work without magical procedure. We are told that perhaps permanent building is an honest downright open constructive art where error is at once apparent and superstition finds little hold. If so, one wonders how there came to be so much mystery about Freemasonry.

But we may venture to suggest that the Professor does not seem to be acquainted with what has appeared in such works as Dr. Mackey's Encyclopaedia, and his History; Brother George W. Speth's Builders' Rites and Ceremonies: H. Clay Trumbull's work on the primitive rite of the Blood Covenant; the same author's Threshold Covenant; the essays on animal symbolism in William Andrews' Church Treasury, and other treatises of this class. Perhaps he purposely excluded such funds of information though the peculiar practices of religious congregations and of trade organizations would not appear to be foreign in any way to his general inquiry.

Professor Thorndike's field of study is broad and his labors are of twenty years' duration. He deems magic to include all occult arts and sciences, superstitions and folk-lore, and that magicians were probably the first to experiment scientifically. There are numerous references to our ancient friend and brother, the great Pythagoras. Of the latter's esteem for the magical qualities of numbers there is much evidence. The Bible, the Apocrypha, and magic have each a chapter of compelling interest, followed by equally noteworthy comments upon the literature relating to the Apostles and the early Fathers of the Church.

One is tempted to cite freely. There is, for example, the exposure by Hippolytus of the frauds of magicians; the early explanation of the high priest's breastplate; the use of phrases to ward off injury or to do harm — an ancient idea not unknown as a supposed novelty even in these so-called up-to-date times; such mathematical diversions as attempts to square the circle in the year 1010; the lament by Abelard in 1107 on the national morals, that princes were violent, prelates winebibbers, judges mercenary, patrons inconstant, the common men flatterers, promise makers false, friends envious, and everyone in general ambitious, a regret on things going to the dogs that reads as familiarly as many letters to the modern newspaper.

There is the curious argument recorded that necromancy was once advocated to take the place of rhetoric among the seven liberal arts and sciences. Then there is the division of the mechanical arts, that, omitting theatrical performances and following the analogy of the seven liberal arts, was planned in the years 1272-1279 to be earth culture, food science, medicine, costuming, armor making, architecture, and business courses. We read the claim in the first century by Pliny and several later writers that boiling drinking water makes it more wholesome, a wise suggestion that was as recently as 1856 rejected, though present day practice favors the prudence of the Roman author. There is the Latin writer, Neckam, who tells us that in the days of antiquity the liberal arts were the monopoly of free men, the mechanical or adulterine arts being others. We note the prayer for promoting the virtues of precious gems or amulets. An enjoyably intimate description of people in the year 1230 confirms the belief that humanity is singularly the same as ever, at least in prejudices. There is the philosopher of the thirteenth century who divides science into theoretical or speculative and practical or operative, a choice of some note to us.

The author is not convinced that every medieval scientist was persecuted by the church but he does devote a chapter to Cecco d'Ascoli, an astrologer of some learning, who was put to death by the Inquisition.

Professor Thorndike's closing chapter is so instructive upon the heritage of these pioneers of science, and shows so clearly that the tendencies of our times are indebted to them and colored by the reflection of their thought, that it might well serve us an illuminating beacon for further voyages in these deep waters of knowledge, the world's first steps in science.

— Robert I. Clegg.

* * *

A JEWISH RABBI'S INTERPRETATION OF THE THREE DEGREES

THE EVIDENCES OF FREE-MASONRY FROM ANCIENT HEBREW RECORDS IN THREE LECTURES ON THE THREE DEGREES, by Rabbi Brother J. H. M. Chumaceiro. Sixth Edition. The Bloch Publishing Company, 26 East 22nd Street, New York City. Forty-eight pages, bound in paper: thirty-five cents. Obtainable through the Book Department, National Masonic Research Society.

This little book possesses an interest of its own aside from its intrinsic merit as an interpretation of Freemasonry, for it was written by a Jewish Rabbi whose interest in the Craft was almost equal to his passion for Hebrew lore. His Introduction gives an account of Masonic history that is very reminiscent of Dr. Oliver, quaint and interesting now, and, after a generation of Masonic research, valueless. The greater part of the book is divided among three lectures on the Craft Degrees which the author was wont to deliver to tiled audiences.

In the lecture on the E. A. Degree he devotes himself to Boaz and to Jacob's Ladder, to the interpretation of which he brings a deal of Rabbinic tradition. He believes that the pillar was named Boaz to honor the name of that man famous in Hebrew history as one of the ancestors of David and Solomon.

Similarly, in his lecture on the F. C. portion, he interprets Jachin as having been so named to memorialize a hero. In this chapter there is much matter about Shibboleth, and the Number Seven.

The third lecture gives an interpretation of Tubal Cain, and also a long disquisition on Hiram Abiff, which name is interpreted as meaning noblest chief. In connection with these paragraphs is printed a remarkable dirge, composed in the Ancient Hebrew manner, supposed to have been pronounced by Solomon at the death of H. A. There is an interpretation of The Lost Word, and there are several paragraphs on the Emblems of the Third Degree.

In this entire volume there are few things that would not now be challenged by competent Masonic historians and symbologists but for all that there is a winning earnestness about it that will bring its message home to a reader, whether he be a Hebraist or not.

* * *

THE PART PLAYED BY JEWS IN THE HISTORY OF AMERICAN MASONRY

THE JEWS AND MASONRY IN THE UNITED STATES BEFORE 1810, by Samuel Oppenheim; being a Reprint from the Publications of the American Jewish Historical Society, No. 19, (1910), and sold by The Black Publishing Company, 26 East 22nd Street, New York City: price thirty-five cents; also by the Book Department. National Masonic Research Society.

This treatise was submitted to The American Jewish Historical Society as a slight contribution to the history of the Jews in this country and as a basis for further work. It is well to read it in connection with articles on cognate themes in the Jewish Encyclopaedia, in which learned work it should have a place, for it is full of such information as an encyclopedia is designed to supply.

Among the many instructive pages in this book of ninety-four pages is a rapid but complete sketch of Moses M. Hays, the greatest, perhaps, of all Jewish Masons in this land, whose connection with Masonry probably commenced about 1768 when he was appointed Deputy Inspector General of Scottish Rite Masonry for North America by Henry Andrew Francken, who had been commissioned by Stephen Morin, of Paris, acting under the authority of Frederick II of Prussia, the Grand Master of Scottish Rite Masons of Europe and holding jurisdiction over America. (Page 7.) Mr. Oppenheim adds a remark: Why such extraordinary powers were granted to Hays, a Jew, is a question remaining to be answered.

The story, or supposed story, of the manuscript purported to have been found by Bro. Nathan H. Gould, of Newport, R. I., in which it is said that in 1656 or 1658 certain Jews were given the degrees of Maçonerie is a famous crux of Masonic scholarship. It is well ventilated on page 9 If., and the Masonic student will do well to have the account by him for the sake of the data it contains. The author appears to be non-committal.

The earliest Presidential Masonic correspondence that exists on record is a letter written by King David's Lodge of Newport, R. I., to George Washington and signed by Moses Seixas, as Master, and by Henry Sherburne. The lodge's letter, and Washington's gracious reply are both given in full. A great deal is said about Moses Seixas, who was Grand Master of Rhode Island, 1802-1809, and a very famous Mason in his day.

Another name illustrious in the annals of Jewish Masonry is Emanuel De La Motta, of Charleston, S. C., who was instrumental in establishing a Supreme Council for the Northern Jurisdiction in New York in 1813, and who became its head. Isaac Da Costa was another famous Jewish Mason in those days, A Sublime Lodge of Perfection was organized by him in Charleston in February, 1783, he being then Deputy Inspector General of Masonry under appointment from Moses M. Hays. (Page 76.) This is NOT the Da Costa who wrote the famous work on The Dionysian Artificers.

The Supreme Council of the 33° Degree of the Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite of Freemasonry, said to be the first Supreme Council known, and superseding all previous analogous organizations, being, it is also said, a transformation of the former Rite of Perfection or Ancient Accepted Rite, was organized at Charleston, on May 30, 1801, by John Mitchell, Frederick Dalcho, Emanuel De La Motta, Abraham Alexander, Major T. B. Bowen, and Israel Delichen. A list exists of the officers composing this Council in 1802, and also of the officers and members of the different sections or divisions of the degrees of the Scottish Rite in that year. Of this list fourteen are known to have been Jews. Others in the list, Dr. Frederick Dalcho, Dr. Isaac Auld, and John Mitchell, who were claimed to have been Jews, are known not to have been of that race.

This Frederick Dalcho, it may be added here, was born in London of a father who had attained distinction in the army of Frederick the Great. Dalcho became a physician in the British Army stationed at Charleston but later retired to private practice, and later still (1814) became a rector in the Episcopalian church. He became very active in all grades of Masonry, was made Grand Secretary of the A. & A. S. R., and later Grand Commander. Owing to strife and dissension he resigned from all Masonic activity in 1823.

It is not as well known as it should be that the famous Governor Oglethorpe of Georgia was a Mason — made in England it is believed — and one of the founders of Solomon's Lodge, No. 1, of Savannah, which was organized in 1785. More than once he gave official recognition and honors to the Craft. Mr. Oppenheim believes that Governor Oglethorpe's very friendly reception of the Jews in 1733, was due to the fact that he and they were Masons.

Such facts as these, and many more like them, are to be found in this scholarly work. All Masonic students, especially those who specialize in Masonic Americana, should own it.

* * *

THE QUESTION BOX

THE BUILDER is an open forum for free and fraternal discussion. Each of its contributors writes over his own name, and is responsible for his own opinions. Believing that a unity of spirit is better than a uniformity of opinion, the Research Society, as such, does not champion any one school of Masonic thought as over against another, but offers to all alike a medium for fellowship and instruction, leaving each to stand or fall by its own merits.

The Question Box and Correspondence Column are open to all members of the Society at all times. Questions of any nature on Masonic subjects are earnestly invited from our members, particularly those connected with lodges or study clubs which are following our Study Club course. The Society is now receiving from fifty to one hundred inquiries each week; it is manifestly impossible to publish many of them in this Department.

THE GREEK ORTHODOX CHURCH AND FREEMASONRY

Has the Greek Orthodox Church pronounced against Freemasonry after the fashion of the Roman Catholic Church? This inquiry, which comes to hand with singular regularity, has proved (for some reason or other) strangely difficult to answer. If the reader chances to be able to supply any information, or to suggest any possible sources of information, his assistance will be appreciated. The query was sent to Atlantis Greek Daily, of New York. Its manager, L. L. Lontos, submitted an interesting reply, here given in full:

So far as we know the Greek Orthodox Church is not in favor of secret societies, taken as a whole, but has never made any formal pronouncement with reference to Freemasonry. We understand that many prominent men of affairs in Greece are Freemasons, one of them being the former Premier, Gounaris, one of the ablest men of that country, who has been recently executed by the Revolutionary Government, now in power in Greece.

* * *

DOES KENTUCKY HAVE UNIFORM WORK?

In visiting among lodges in Kentucky I have found the work to be somewhat different here and there. Doesn't the Grand Lodge of Kentucky demand Uniform Work'?

M.K.T., Kentucky

Your inquiry was referred to Bro. W. H. McDonald, of Louisville, Kentucky, whose reply, written in his rich and friendly vein and with a touch of humor between the lines, is here given in full. Brother McDonald is Editor and General Manager of the Masonic Home Journal, published semi-monthly at Louisville for the Craft in Kentucky; it is a journal unique in make-up and appeal and always full of the warmth of human kindness.

* * *

MOZART AS A MASON

I have a request from up state for information bearing upon Mozart. The brother says in his letter that he would like to know more about the work of this great genius.

G.A.P., South Dakota.

You will find a complete account of Mozart as a Mason in Ars Quatuor Coronatorum, Vol. XXVI, page 241 if., under the caption "Bro. Mozart and some of his Masonic Friends". Beginning on page 245 is a valuable account of his Masonic productions.

Mozart arrived at Vienna in 1781, and joined the Craft in 1784. His biographer, Otto Jahn, says:

After he joined the Craft, Freemasonry occupied a very important position in Mozart's life. Six months after his own initiation he induced his father to become a Mason, and shortly before his father's death he wrote to him as follows: (Mozart had at this time been a Mason for about two years.)

'Since death is the true end and object of life, I have so accustomed myself to this true best friend of man, that its image not only has no terrors for me but tranquilizes and comforts me. And here I thank God that he has given me the opportunity of knowing it as the key of all beatitude.'

But nothing more clearly shows how seriously Mozart regarded Masonry than his compositions for the lodge. Himself the greatest musician that has ever been a member of the Craft, no Masonic music that has ever been written compares with his.

The principal Masonic pieces are:

1. Die Gesellenreise, op. 468, a Masonic song, composed March 26, 1785.

2. & 3. The Opening and Closing of the Lodge. Op. 483 and 484. These were probably composed for the first meeting of the Lodge Neugekronten Hoffnung.

4. A short cantata, Maurerfreude, op. 471, for tenor and chorus, dated April 20, 1785, performed on the 24th of the same month, in honour of Von Born, at a special lodge held on that day to celebrate his discovery of the method of working ores by amalgamation. The success of this discovery was celebrated by the Lodge Zur wahren Eintracht by a banquet, at which the cantata was performed.

5. A short Masonic cantata, said to have been written by Schikaneder, for two tenors and a bass, with orchestral accompaniment, op. 623. This was written for the consecration of a Masonic temple, on the 15th November, 1791. It was the last finished composition of which Mozart conducted the performance.

6. The cantate Die ihr des unermesslichen Weltalls Schopfer ehrt, op. 619.

7. Maurerische Trauermusik, an orchestral piece, an elegy on the death of Duke Georg August of Mecklenburg-Strelitz, and Prince Franz Esterhazy, op. 477.

8. The Magic Flute.

In the British Museum there is a manuscript collection of sixty-six Masonic songs in German, some of which are ascribed to Mozart.

Mozart is stated to have been initiated in the Lodge Zur Wohlletigkeit in the autumn of 1784. Other authorities state that he was initiated in the Lodge Zur Hoffnung or the Lodge Zur gekronten Hoffnung. As a matter of fact all these statements are in a measure true.

* * *

SIR ROBERT BADEN-POWELL NOT A MASON

One of the Craft Lodges in this city desires to know if Sir Robert Baden-Powell is a Mason.

C.B.M., Ontario.

A letter addressed to P. Colville Smith, Grand Secretary, United Grand Lodge of England, elicited the reply so far as I am aware, Sir Robert Baden-Powell is not a Mason.

* * *

CORRESPONDENCE

MASONIC BODIES NAMED FOR DR. KANE

As a member of Kane Council No. 2, Royal and Select Masters of Newark, N. J., may I add a word to M. W. Bro. G. W. Baird's autobiography of Dr. Elisha Kent Kane as it appears in the March, 1923, issue of THE BUILDER?

Bro. Baird states that Dr. Kane's name is perpetuated in Masonry by Kane Lodge No. 252, F. & A. M., of New York, and he apparently gives that body all the credit for initiating the movement for the Kane Memorial in Cuba.

In addition to Kane Lodge of New York we have here in New Jersey Kane Council No. 2, R. & S. M., and also Kane Lodge No. 55, F. & A. M. in Newark, both of which bodies are named for Dr. Kane: also an Eastern Star Chapter of that name in Newark.

The Bro. William E. Somers mentioned in the article is a member of Kane Council and a zealous student of all matters relating to the life of Dr. Kane. It was due to his untiring efforts that the whole matter of the memorial tablet was brought about and the expense was borne mainly by the three Kane bodies I have mentioned.

We members of Kane Council are very proud of our illustrious namesake and I feel that the Masonic world should know that we did our share in perpetuating his memory.

— C. N. Millington, New Jersey.

THE BUILDER has also received a letter from Brother Antonio Urbina, Secretary, informing us that a Kane Lodge, composed principally of Americans, was formed at Preston, Oriente, Cuba, last June under the jurisdiction of the Grand Lodge of the Island of Cuba.

* * *

SIX BROTHERS RAISED IN ONE EVENING

On Monday evening, March 26th, 1923, Star of Hope, No. 430, F. & A. M., of the State of New York, conferred the Third Degree on six sons of Wm. C. Lutz, Sr., of that lodge, by special dispensation from Grand Master Arthur S. Tompkins. It is claimed that this is the first time in Masonic history when six blood brothers were raised to the Sublime Degree of Master Mason the same evening.

The Fellowcraft Team of the New York Post Office Square Club who are famous for the presentation of their drama, The Temple Tragedy, officiated on this auspicious occasion.

Fourteen hundred brethren crowded the Brooklyn Masonic Temple to witness the unique event.

— Richard S. Power, New York.

* * *

PROFESSOR KIRSOPP LAKE WRITES ABOUT MITHRAISM

I have read with much interest Bro. Haywood's article on Mithraism in THE BUILDER for May, and liked it very much. The only thing which I feel inclined to add is that I think you might bring out a little more plainly the fact that in Mithraism, as in all the Mystery religions, there seems to have been the underlying belief in the attainment of immortal life through death. The whole point of most of these Mysteries is the belief that the Lord of the Cult was a supernatural being who either had been a god who became man or was a man endowed with some supernatural power which enabled him to win his way through all kinds of difficulties, usually including a painful death, to the goal of immortal and divine happiness. The initiate, who reproduced symbolically the experience of the Lord, really shared in the privileges which the Lord had obtained. Immortality through death by repeating the experience of the Lord is, I think, the formula which most nearly covers all Mystery religions, or, as it would perhaps be better to call them, sacramental religions. For, as you know, the word mystery is the usual Greek word for sacrament and sacramentum became the usual Latin word for mystery.

— K. Lake, Massachusetts.

Readers will be interested to know that Bro. Kirsopp Lake, of the Divinity School of Harvard University, is Chaplain of The Harvard Lodge, as described by Bro. Guy H. Holliday in THE BUILDER for April. Bro. Lake is a man of incredible learning who has specialized in the field covered by Mithraism and other Ancient Mysteries. Ye Editor has long lived in hope of enticing Professor Lake into the ranks of Masonic scholars where his shining gifts and extraordinary attainments would prove of inestimable value to the Craft.

* * *

WISE WORDS ABOUT MASONIC ARCHITECTURE

Among the many letters received in response to the editorial, Expert Wanted! A Masonic Consulting Architect, printed in THE BUILDER, March, 1923, page 84, here is one of peculiar interest. Brother Osgood is one of the two members of the firm of Osgood and Osgood of Grand Rapids, Michigan, consulting architects for the George Washington National Memorial, now in process of erection at Alexandria, Virginia.

The subject of Masonic temple design is as basic and scientific as is the designing of any other specific type of building, and yet I think it is a fair statement to say that as a group there are more existing failures in Masonic temples erected today than in any other special class of buildings, such as schools, hospitals, churches, theatres, etc. The question that interests us is why is it that this condition exists. There are many reasons but, for fear of overloading this letter, I will give the one big explanation which can be summed up in a few words, namely the employment of architects who have had no experience on such work professionally, or from the standpoint of a Masonic executive and worker in various bodies.

If committees would generally only use the same sound business judgment in employing an architect that they do in matters pertaining to their own individual business success, this situation would be different. But they generally employ an architect not because of his qualifications in, or knowledge of the subject, but because he just happens to be an architect and lives in the town where the building is contemplated, is a member of the Craft, is 'one of the boys'; and all this, added to the fact that the money is to be raised locally, makes it difficult to tell this architect that the committee is more responsible to their brother constituents in producing a one hundred per cent efficient Masonic working building, than they are in advancing his ambitions or desires. Mr. Architect feels hurt if his fellows for one moment even suggest his inability to handle the problem, for is he not an architect? does he not belong to the Fraternity? is he not a citizen and a supporter of the project? Of course he is but, as a matter of fact, this Mr. Architect all during his professional career has been designing residences, or factories, or banks, or anything else than Masonic temples. This home job is his first and in most cases his last Masonic temple, but he wants it and moves heaven and earth to stop it from going outside, just to save his professional status. He has very little knowledge to start with and when through, he has done what the committee has told him to do, and thus has acted in the capacity of a draftsman and not as an advisor.

Now I am quite sure if these same committees were to have a hospital problem on their hands, they would say to themselves 'the thing to do first is to find some architect or firm of architects who from training and experience are specialists in hospital construction, for we shall be held responsible for the success of our project, and those advancing the money have a right to demand the last word in hospital arrangement, operation and upkeep.' There is as much logic in thinking that the average designer, or worse yet, industrial engineer, can give these results on any specialized type of building, as it is to consider the employment of a veterinarian to remove a human appendix. They all can make a stab at it, but either the public or the patient takes the chances. The question of responsibility is with those who do the employing and to me that responsibility is far greater to the constituents represented than to an individual or small group. A man who has never designed a Masonic temple has to start from the beginning and build up his knowledge and doesn't know what it ought to cost or worse still what it will cost.

The building of a Masonic temple is a man's job and the right results can be obtained provided the same good business principles are used that would make any business a success.

Show me the first architect who is big enough, and is interested enough in the Masonic Fraternity (if he has had no experience in this kind of work) to say, Why I guess I know as much about the requirements of the problem as any other architect in town, but I don't think any of us can give the results that you should have. I will be pleased to do this work but I advise the employment of a consulting architect to aid me, a man who knows this game, and together we will give the results that you have a right to expect! Show me such a man, and you have found an architect worthy of a place in his profession and of membership in our Fraternity.

— S. Eugene Osgood, Grand Rapids, Michigan.

* * *

WANTED: INFORMATION ABOUT CORNER STONES

I am compiling a list of important buildings here and abroad of which the corner stones have been laid by Masons. Brethren who can furnish me with any information of this kind will please send direct to me.

C. E. Krause,
338 West Main St.,
Batavia, N.Y.

* * *

MASONIC LODGES OF THE CHEROKEE NATION

The oldest Lodge of Free and Accepted Masons in the present state of Oklahoma is Cherokee Lodge, No. 10, originally 21. It was flourishing in 1852 under the jurisdiction of the Grand Lodge of Arkansas. The Cherokee Nation of Indians gave to this lodge and to the Sons of Temperance two lots in the town of Talequah, the capital of the Cherokee Nation. In 1868 this lodge was discontinued on the rolls of the Grand Lodge of Arkansas but with other Indian lodges it continued to work until 1877 when it received a new charter under the Grand Lodge of Indian Territory.

Other lodges are Fort Gibson Lodge No. 36, chartered by Arkansas, November 5, 1850, dropped from Arkansas 1868, chartered by the Grand Lodge of Indian Territory, 1878, as Alpha Lodge, No. 12; and Flint Lodge, No. 74, chartered under Arkansas, 1853, dropped 1867, and again chartered as Flint Lodge, No. 11, under Indian Territory.

Many Cherokees and other Indians participated in the inauguration of the Grand Lodge of Indian Territory in 1874. Of the Cherokee Indians the following have been Most Worshipful Grand Masters of the Grand Lodge of Indian Territory: Harvey Lindsey, 1882; Florian Nash, 1885, 1886, 1887; Leo E. Bennett, 1889 to 1892; and Wilson O. Burton in 1904. Under the jurisdiction of Oklahoma, after the absorption of the Territory, O'Lonzo Conner was Grand Master in 1919. Leo E. Bennett was Grand Treasurer from 1899 to 1917.

These facts are gleaned from the History of the Cherokee Indians, by Emmet Starr, (The Warden Co., Oklahoma City, 1921). Arthur C. Parker, New York.

* * *

FREEMASONRY IN MEXICO

On Sunday October 1, 1922, the writer preached in the Masonic Temple at Tampico, Mexico, and at 6 P.M. on Monday, October 2, constituted Tampico Commandery No. 1 Knights Templar and installed its officers, acting under a Dispensation from the Grand Master of the Grand Encampment of the United States. At 8 P.M. the hall was opened to Freemasons and their friends who listened for an hour to an address on Freemasonry. The Tampico Masonic Temple is valued at $125,000, and the Lodge, Chapter, and Commandery are prospering.

From Tampico I went to Mexico City where I gave an hour's address to Auahuac Lodge on Thursday evening October 6. Saturday October 7, I met with Toltec Lodge and took a part in the work of the Third Degree; giving the Lectures and the Charges. Toltec Lodge was chartered by the Grand Lodge of Missouri forty years ago. The two lodges in the city and the one at Tampico are subordinate to the York Grand Lodge, which is composed of eighteen lodges with some nine hundred members. This Grand Lodge is recognized by the Grand Lodge of Missouri and there is no good reason why any American Grand Lodge should hesitate to recognize it, as it holds to the fundamentals of Freemasonry according to our standards. There is another Grand Lodge with headquarters in the City of Mexico which we ought not to recognize, as it does not require what we regard as essential.

— C. H. Briggs, P.G.M., Missouri.

* * *

TUBERCULOSIS SANATORIUM COMMISSION ASKS FOR SUGGESTIONS

Masonry had its beginnings among the men who were builders of things material — the homes, temples and cathedrals of the old world. Masonry developed into an organization of men striving to build things spiritual, to reconstruct the hearts, minds and lives of men, to change their ideals just as the Craft had changed from Operative to Speculative Masonry. The time has now come for Masonry to give some thought to the building of things physical, to the reconstruction of the broken bodies of men.

The business man who goes on year after year without an inventory is now considered a poor manager. Yet Masonry has never made an inventory of its building material — its membership. How many of us die each year of some preventable disease? How many are inmates of insane asylums, without hope? How many of us are out of employment? How mane of us are about to fail in business? These and many other questions should be included in our stock taking, not from idle curiosity, but to get facts that may enable the Craft to go to work intelligently, and thereby put into practice some of its great and beautiful teachings.

It has been estimated by the National Tuberculosis Association that there are 42,300 Masons in the United States suffering from tuberculosis at all times, and that 4,700 of them die every year from this disease. Up to the present time, little has been done for the relief of these brethren. No matter how wealthy a man may be when tuberculosis claims him he can spend all of his fortune seeking health. How about the average man whose income stops when he is compelled to stop work? Unless the hand of fraternal assistance is extended he will die in poverty and leave a heritage of debt and pauperism to his family.

Help is freely given when a local lodge finds one of the brethren in distress. But the average lodge cannot carry a brother for a year or more and spend one or two thousand dollars upon each case. Hospitals for such cases are limited and expensive. While the charity of the Fraternity is an inexhaustible mine of purest gold, yet it is not scientifically worked and through the lack of organization very little has been accomplished for the care and cure of consumptive brethren.

A Commission has been appointed by the Grand Lodges of Texas, New Mexico and Arizona to study this subject and to make some recommendations for the establishment of a sanatorium for sick brethren. Many hundreds of such cases come to the Southwest every year seeking health and many become a charge upon the Blue Lodges of this section. The problem has become so serious that united action is necessary.

The members of the Commission will welcome suggestions from readers of THE BUILDER of plans for financing the construction and operation of a National Masonic Tuberculosis Sanatorium. Send your communications to me.

— R. J. Newton, 2130 River Ave., San Antonio, Texas.

* * *

YE EDITOR'S CORNER

Do you recall the cut of The Cycle of Cathay that appeared on page 37 of the February issue? It is interesting to know that the Northern Pacific Railroad published an exceedingly interesting little booklet on that ancient design called The Story of the Monad. I have a few copies at hand to give away.

* * *

Several brethren wrote to chastise us for adopting the practice of carrying over the tail ends of articles to the rear pages. The thing was a temporary expedient adopted as a part of a plan for transforming the make-up of the magazine. About that more anon.

* * *

Have you a Masonic burial ground in your community?. If so please send us its name and location, along with the address of the official in charge. Ever and anon some brother writes to make some inquiry about such things.

* * *

These are good days for hiking — it is my favorite sport but any kind of weather is good for the kind of jaunt described in Who'll Walk With Me?