The Builder Magazine

June 1923 - Volume IX - Number 6

 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

FRONTISPIECE - THE SECOND PYRAMID OF GIZEH?

WHAT I THINK ABOUT THE SHRINE - By Bro. James S. McCandless, Imperial Potentate A.A.O.N.M.S. for N.A., Hawaiian Islands

OREGON AND THE LITTLE RED SCHOOLHOUSE - By An Oregon Mason

FURTHER LETTERS ON MASONIC EDUCATION - By Two Grand Masters

WORLD-WIDE MASONRY AND ITS DESIRABILITY - By Bro. Oliver Day Street, Alabama

BEN FRANKLIN, PATRON OF MANY ARTS - By Bro. James Murray, New York

THE ORIGIN OF THE LEGEND OF THE THIRD DEGREE - By Bro. R. J. Meekren, Canada

ASPIRATION – Poem By Bro. C. Gordon Lawrence, Canada

MEMORIALS TO GREAT MEN WHO WERE MASONS - WINFIELD SCOTT SCHLEY - By Bro. Geo. W. Baird, P.G.M., District of Columbia

THE STUDY CLUB - Chapters of Masonic History - Part IV, Freemasonry and the Roman Collegia By Bro. H.L. Haywood

 

EDITORIAL - The Shrine and Its Problems

 

"The Charm of Fine Manners"

 

THE LIBRARY - The Infancy and Youth of Scientific Thought

A Jewish Rabbi's Interpretation of the Three Degrees

The Part Played by Jews in the History of American Masonry

 

THE QUESTION BOX - The Greek Orthodox Church and Freemasonry

Does Kentucky Have Uniform Work ?

Mozart As a Mason

Sir Robert Baden-Powell Not a Mason

 

CORRESPONDENCE - Masonic Bodies Named for Dr. Kane

Six Brothers Raised in One Evening

Professor Kirsopp Lake Writes About Mithraism

Wise Words About Masonic Architecture

Wanted: Information About Corner Stones

Masonic Lodges of the Cherokee Nation

Freemasonry in Mexico

Tuberculosis Sanatorium Commission Asks for Suggestions

 

YE EDITOR'S CORNER

 

All Articles in this Magazine Copyright 1923 by the National Masonic Research Society

 

----o----

 

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 ohe 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  $300,00000, 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.

 

----o----

 

Oregon and the Little Red Schoolhouse

 

By 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, 33d, 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, 33d, 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, 33d, 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 o f 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 t he 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 m ad e 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 lay 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:

 

"Sec. 2. Freedom of Worship - All men shall be secured in the natural right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their own consciences.

 

"Sec. 3. No law shall in any case whatever control the free exercise and enjoyment of religious opinion or interfere with the rights of conscience.

 

"Sec. 4. No religious test shall be required as a qualification for any office of trust or profit."

 

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 l, 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 hill. 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:

 

"While the proposed amendment is very carefully worded to attract votes, it takes from the parent the privilege of educating his children in parochial or private schools; indeed it takes from them the right to exercise any control over the education of their own offspring and gives such right to the state. It prohibits the conduct of the business of educating children by private parties, denominations and corporations, organized for that purpose under our laws, and takes from them without compensation the right to use for educational purposes property owned by them and devoted to that use, admitted to be worth seventy millions of dollars.

 

"Some 120,000 children between the ages of 5 and 16 years are now being educated in the parochial schools of the state. The instructions cover the usual branches taught in the public schools, and in addition there is moral training and the doctrine of the Christian religion is inculcated in these youthful minds. That these schools may be regulated by the state is admitted on all hands, but that their existence may be prohibited by state mandate is an entirely different proposition. Before the bossiness of educating the young in the same course taught by the public schools, before the business of educating the young in the Christian religion, before the business of conducting these parochial schools, can be outlawed and prohibited, their prohibition mast bear some reasonable relation to the public good, or the public health, or the public morals, or the public safety or the public welfare. The right to regulate I concede; the right to prohibit I deny."

 

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.

 

----o----

 

"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.

 

----o----

 

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.

 

----o----

 

World-Wide Masonry and Its Desirability

 

By 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 Charta, 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.

 

----o----

 

Ben Franklin, Patron of Many Arts

 

By 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 my 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!

 

----o----

 

The Origin of the Legend of the Third Degree

 

By 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 Maitre Jacques at the hands of the disciples of Maitre 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 t