THE BUILDER MAY 1917

MEXICO -- A REPLY TO A REPLY
BY BRO. EBER COLE BYAM, ILLINOIS


IN replying to the article of Bro. John Lewin McLeish, published in
the November, 1916, issue of THE BUILDER, under the title "Masonic
Light upon Mexico--A Reply," I find myself compelled to question
the authorities cited therein.

As prefacing his article, Bro. McLeish says: "Bro. Byam presents so
strong a brief against the Mexican revolution, which he
characterizes as an I.W.W. Revolution, incidentally condemning
Mexican Masonry and condoning Mexican Catholicism, that I am sorely
tempted to plain speaking. Realizing fully our Masonic Doctrine of
Tolerance, I shall stress the fact that any allusions herein made
apply strictly to Catholicism in Mexico, and I shall support my
arraignment by references easily obtainable to those seeking More
Masonic Light upon Mexico."

I am sorry that Bro. McLeish did not yield to the temptation to
speak plainly; I assure him he would have been listened to with all
due respect. I am glad Bro. McLeish mentions our "Masonic Doctrines
of Tolerance," and I am prompted to remark that, if Bro. McLeish
desires, I will furnish him with a list of recognized authorities
on Mexican history and of original documents supporting them.

Bro. McLeish "quotes" Clavigero in his "History of Mexico," as
saying: "The Spaniards, in one year of merciless massacre,
sacrificed more victims to avarice and ambition, than the Indians
during the existence of their empire, devoted in chaste worship to
their native gods."

The foregoing words do not appear in the history written by
Clavigero. Bro. McLeish found this quotation in "Mexico in
Transition from the Power of Political Romanism to Civil and
Religious Liberty," by William Butler; and Butler, in turn, refers
to Clavigero. This "Clavigero" is the English translation by
Charles Cullen, printed in London in 1787, and in the translation
by this Englishman we find one of those numerous sources of
misrepresentation so productive of injustice and misunderstanding.
Cullen could not let pass the tempting opportunity to calumniate
the Spaniard, and deliberately interpolated a whole paragraph which
does not appear in the original Italian text of Clavigero in the
Cesena edition of 1780.

Bro. McLeish, in quoting again from Butler, in reference to the
"Laws of Reform," mentions six classes of laws as being the Laws of
Reform objected to by the Pope. Reference to page 159 of Butler's
work discloses the fact that Butler refers to Austria and not to
Mexico; and the quoted "laws" bear no relation to the "Laws of
Reform." either in phrasc or intent.

Bro. McLeish quotes from Gutierrez de Lara--a Mexican socialist
writer: "In Mexico, on the other hand, the invading Spaniards found
not barbarism, but a feudal civilization, private ownership of land
in place of communal ownership, and serfdom in place of nomadic
liberty."

A. F. Bandelier, a recognized authority, made an exhaustive study
of this subject, which warranted him in declaring that: "The notion
of abstract ownership of the soil, either by a nation or state, or
by the head of its government, or by individuals, was unknown to
the ancient Mexicans. Definite possessory right was vested in the
kinship composing the tribe; but the idea of sale, barter,
conveyance or alienation of such by the kin had not been
conceived."

In other words, the system of land tenure was communal. He
furthermore finds that "the principle and institution of feudality
did not exist in aboriginal Mexico."

As regards the ethics of the Spanish Conquest, when compared with
those of present day war methods --Carranza's murderous activities
for examplc I refrain from comment; but if the conduct of the
conquerors be compared with the ethics and practices of military
operations of contemporaneous Europe, they will not suffer
materially. The reference to the branding of prisoners of war, as
quoted by Bro. McLeish, would appear as though this practice became
an established custom after the Conquest was affected and continued
to the time of independence. Here again Bro. McLeish has relied
upon Butler and been led astray. The words quoted by Bro. McLeish
occur on page 16 of Butler's work and he, in turn, refers to
"Wilson's Mexico," page 209, where we find that Butler has not used
the words of Wilson at all. Wilson, in turn, quotes from the
Lockhart translation of Bernal Diaz (1844). Lockhart uses a Spanish
text which in itself is not always in agreement with the original
manuscript of Bernal Diaz.

The practice of branding prisoners of war as slaves after the
Conquest met with the vigorous protests of the Churchmen and
resulted in its early suppression. The practice admits of no
defense, but it must be remembered that to the Indians it was a
gentle substitute for their own practice of human sacrifice and
cannibal feast. The enslaving of the female members of the
conquered tribes was also common practice, and these unfortunates
were often destined to the altar and the stewpot. One has but to
read Sahagun, Duran, Motolinia, The Anonymous Conqueror, The
Letters of Cortes, the several native writers with unpronounceable
names--Ixtlilxochitl, Tezozomoc, Chimalpain, etc.--and the
surviving fragments of Aztec picture writings, to discover the
exaggerated hideousness of the Mexican Indian's mixture of war and
religion with its attendant human sacrifice and cannibalism.
According to their own accounts the Aztecs sacrificed twenty
thousand men at the dedication of their temple in 1487, and nine
hundred at the dedication of the Great Sun Stones in 1481. Wherever
the Spaniards went in their explorations of this land of blood they
found ample evidences in sight and smell of this horrible practice.
To speak of these tribes, with their straw thatched temples and
grotesque images, their one-story houses and primitive
surroundings, as possessing a civilization in any respect superior
to the Spaniards is the height of the ridiculous.

Bro. McLeish quotes de Lara as saying: "The ignorant priests burned
to ashes the invaluable library in the Imperial Palace of the
Aztecs." According to the accepted authorities there was no "Aztec
Empire," no "Aztec emperor," and, consequently, no "Imperial
Palace." Furthermore, Ahuitzotl, who was elected War Chief in 1487
and died in 1502, is claimed by Indian tradition to have destroyed
all the picture writings then existing, so that the "invaluable
library" must have been created within the twenty years just
preceding the Conquest. Personally, I suspect that Ahuitzotl has
been maligned and that there were never many more picture writings
than what the Spaniards found and preserved. The aboriginal
Mexicans, other than signs for names, possessed no means of record
beyond drawing a crude picture to illustrate the event. And the
native traditions have been voluminously recorded by Mexican
Indians who learned to use the Spanish letters, immediately
following the Conquest.

Bro. McLeish quotes from his article published in LIGHT for June
15th, 1916, as follows: "Mexico seemed hopelessly enslaved * * *
for three hundred years this sad condition had persisted in Mexico
* * * in consequence the clergy were stupendously rich * * * for
the native born was abject misery, slavery, dire poverty * * *
through the country the Dread Inquisition flourished * * * victims
filled to overflowing the great military prisons * * * so
unutterably cruel were the penalties attached by the Inquisitors to
failure to pay the clerical tithes * * * however much the native
born contributed to their task masters it was never enough."

Bro. McLeish then says: "A Roman Catholic Bishop, Las Casas,
protested strenuously against the Spanish cruelties, crossing the
Atlantic twice to show convincing evidence that a continuation of
the policy inaugurated by Cortes could only result in utter
extermination of the Aztecs as a race and nation."

Cortes issued a decree prohibiting the employment of those under
twelve; limiting hours of labor to "from sun up to one hour before
sun down, with an hour for rest at midday," which in that latitude
means practically ten hours; Indians could be employed for a period
not exceeding twenty days, and could not be re-ernployed until
thirty days had passed; certain rations were prescribed, and a
minimum wage specified. Cortes was some hundreds of years ahead of
his time in welfare legislation. The enemies of Cortes gained the
upper hand for a time. and made a mess of everything, and it was
against these that the complaints were raised.

If the protests of Las Casas were justified they must have been
effective, because of the self evident fact that the natives not
only were not exterminated, but today form a considerable portion
of the population. But Las Casas was not the only one to complain.
Practically all of the clergy of that period added their protests
to those of Las Casas, and the result was the reorganization of the
Colonial government, the appointment of the Viceroy Mendoza, and
the issuance of the justly famed Code of Laws for the protection of
the Indians.

Las Casas finally became so extreme in his charges that he aroused
strong opposition and severe criticism because of his self evident
exaggerations, but the King of Spain persisted in his determination
to have the Indians treated humanely, and it was the Viceroy Luis
de Velasco who in 1551 completed the work of freeing the Indians.
To some mine owners who complained of the injury they might suffer
and the consequent loss of revenue to the Crown, Velasco said: "The
liberty of the Indians is more important than all the mines in the
world, and the revenues from them are not of such nature that they
should override both divine and human laws." The truth is that the
clergy, the Spanish Kings, and the Colonial government all worked
together to protect the Indians and to enable them to live as they
pleased. These well intentioned gentlemen seemed to have assumed
that the Indians knew better than they the mode of life best suited
to their comfort, and they were left free to follow the ways of
their fathers.

The tribal wars were stopped, along with the old religion with its
human sacrifice and cannibalism. The Indians were permitted to live
in their villages which the Spaniards were not permitted to occupy.
They were confirmed in the possession of their communal fields,
which they were prohibited from selling, and were allowed to
appoint or elect their own tribal offlcials. They were exempt from
all charges for attorney's fees and court costs, and were not
obliged to pay any fees for religious services. Much to the disgust
of the Spanish colonists, the natives formed a self governing
privileged class. It is for this reason that thc Indian lives as he
does today; he is following the mode of life to which his ancestors
were accustomed centuries before the white man came. That which
appears as "abject misery and dire poverty" to the uninformed
American is a perfectly satisfactory state of existence to the
Indian, which he is stubbornly averse to changing.

The Indians were specifically excepted from the operations of the
"Dread Inquisition," which, in turn, never concerned itself with
the collection of the tithes, from which the Indians were also
exempt. It may be well to remark in passing that the Inquisition in
Mexico, during nearly three hundred years, executed only fifty-one
individuals, (one authority says forty-one), most of whom were
Portuguese Jews who had accepted Christianity and then apostatized.
This number is indeed greater than the twenty-four victims of witch
hunting that were hanged in New England by our Puritan ancestors.
It would be as just to condemn the Congregational Church of today
for the witch hanging as to condemn the Catholic Church for the
operations of the Inquisition. Furthermore, the punishments
inflicted by the civil power for the Inquisition were those
commonly practiced by the civil tribunals of the day for the most
trifling offenses.

When it comes to commenting on the statement of Bro. McLeish that
"in consequence the clergy were stupendously rich * * * however
much the native born contributed to their task masters it was never
enough," I will begin by quoting Humboldt, who, in his edition of
1822, (vol. 3, page 102,) says: * * * few estates belong to the
Mexican clergy, and their real wealth, as we have already stated,
consists in tithes and capitals laid out on farms of small
cultivators. These capitals are usefully directed and increase the
productive power of the national labor." According to Humboldt, the
sum total of the capitals amounted to $44,500,000.  This money was
loaned by the clergy at a uniform rate of five per cent. and
accomplished, to the extent of the capital invested, the very thing
that the American Congress has only recently granted the American
farmer, namely, "Farm Credits."

The real purpose of the Mexican "Liberals?' is illustrated by the
fact that these loans were seized and the sums owing extracted by
foreclosure from the unfortunate "small cultivators," who were thus
left ruined by the very "Liberal" agencies that had been clamoring
a regard for their welfare. As a consequence, the "small
cultivator," instead of getting a loan from the Bishop at five per
cent., had to apply to some loan shark where he was robbed
accordingly.

The interest earned on these funds was devoted to the upkeep of a
large number of educational and charitable institutions maintained
by the clergy. Scattered through the pages of Mexican history are
incidental references to different hospitals, orphanages, homes for
old people, night schools, colleges and universities, to an extent
that evidences a large number of these institutions. And the
important fact must be mentioned that all this education was
furnished free. The only charges levied by the clergy were for room
and board where these accommodations were furnished. But, even at
that, the prices were ridiculously cheap and numerous students were
given free room and board when unable to pay.

The curriculum was the equal of that of any educational institution
in the world at the time. The "colleges" included a large part of
what would today be taught in the primary school, and the standard
for entrance was very moderate. Primary education was left to the
parents and the parish priest who hardly had to do more than teach
the children to read and write. Spanish orthography is phonetic,
thus making the process of learning it very easy and dispensing
with the enormous waste of time and energy required of the
unfortunate Anglo Saxon children in learning to read, write and
spell the difficult English language.

Matias Romero, in "Mexico and the United States," page 101, says:
* * * in the first sixty-five years of Spain's control in Mexico no
less than seven seats of the higher learning had been established
on secure foundations." These were in the capital, while throughout
the country every city of importance had one or more such
institutions and even such out of the way places as Patzcuaro,
Guayangereo, Huisquilucan, Tirepetio, and Tepotzotlan, possessed
flourishing colleges. There must have been a large amount of
primary education to have furnished these institutions with the
thousands that attended them.

Justo Sierra, in "Mexico, Its Social Evolution," vol. 2, page 479,
says: * * * "Bishop Zumarraga founded in the villages schools for
girls like that of Tezcoco and wrote to the emperor 'the thing that
most occupies my mind and exerts my little forces is that in this
town and in every bishopric there should be a college of Indian
boys learning grammar at least!' Thus in 1536 he created near the
convent the Franciscans had at Tlalteloloc, the famous college of
the Holy Cross." This same author says that "the missionary
teachers secured the passage of laws compelling attendance at
school." Probably the first compulsory education laws in the
world's history and that was nearly four hundred years ago.

The great University of Mexico occupied the monastery of St.
Francis and was formally opened in 1553, eighty-three years before
Harvard was opened. In 1578 a chair of medicine was established,
two hundred and four years before a like study was begun in
Harvard, and in 1661 the study of anatomy and surgery was begun and
dissection practiced, eighty-six years before William Hunter opened
the first school of dissection in England. Matias Romero, on page
104, quotes Humboldt, who visited Mexico in 1803, as saying: "No
city of the New Continent, not excepting those of the United
States, presents scientific establishments so great and solid as
those of the capital of Mexico."

The result of "independence" is partly illustrated by Poinsett,
who, in his "Notes on Mexico," London 1825, p. 95, says, speaking
of the School of Mines: "The funds of the institution have been
devoted to other uses and the lectures and studies have ceased."
Poinsett visited the University, and says, on page 112: "* * *
besides this university there are inferior colleges (High Schools)
and several large schools under the direction of the regular
clergy. Most of the people in the cities can read and write." (The
italics are mine.)

The "Laws of Reform" closed practically all the institutions of
higher learning in Mexico, and while the so-called "Liberals"
expressed a regard for education the practical results of their
activities were the general discouragement of education and a
tremendous increase in illiteracy. Justo Sierra, in "Mexico--Its
social Evolution," Vol. 2, page 548, says: "The laws of December
12th and 14th, 1872, completed the confiscation of the endowment
funds which had been created to support the educational
institutions of the republic. The great private foundations which
had accumulated during three centuries were then swept away and no
others were created to replace them. The wealthy Spaniards had been
one of the greatest sources of these endowment funds and as the
Spaniards were expelled in 1828 that fount was definitely closed.
The attacks upon wealth, and particularly upon the clergy,
completed the work of preventing any further donations for the
support of educational institutions and as the government itself
was penniless the consequent result is obvious."

The only available statistics on the wealth of the Catholic Church
in Mexico are from sources antagonistic to that institution and
intended to show how great the wealth has been. One "authority"
makes a guess as to how much each pastor might have received during
the year in fees for marriages, baptisms and burials (all of which
items are never reported in any church). He then multiplies this
sum by twenty and charges it up to the Church as "capital." He also
places an exaggerated valuation on the conventual establishments
(mostly used as schools) and assumes a 5 per cent. interest on this
"capital," as being an income which they "ought to earn." By thus
padding both "income" and "capital," he arrives at a total income
of $7,456,593, and a total capital of $179,163,754. The figures
just quoted are from a report rendered by the Mexican Minister of
Justice and Ecclesiastical Affairs, made in 1833.

In 1833 a political group of York Rite and Scottish Rite Masons,
consisting, among others, of Dr. Mora, Gomez Farias, Fagoaga,
Gorostiza y Couto, Espinoza de los Monteros, and Lorenzo de Savala,
formulated a plan to take over the Church property and with it pay
the foreign debt of Mexico. These "Masons" proposed to possess
themselves of the Church patronage, i. e. to appoint the bishops,
define the dioceses and make new ones; to handle all the Church
funds and property, and to obey the Church laws regarding dogma,
but none others. To induce the Pope to agree to this arrangement
they offered to pay him $100,000 a year.

And yet Bro. McLeish and the "Liberals" of Mexico call this
"religious liberty," and these laws "good laws !" As regards the
practical operation of the "Laws of Reform" by Juarez, one instance
will suffice. In 1859 Jose Ives Limantour (father of Diaz' minister
of finance) purchased a lot of condemned Church property which the
government assessed at $587,419, being the capital which the
government calculated from the rentals on a basis of 6 per cent.
For this property the government received exactly $1,832.40 in
cash. The balance was paid in custom house certificates and other
paper which had cost Limantour $40,006.50.

Bro. McLeish denies my statement that the "Laws of Reform" were
"not aimed to secure freedem of worship but at the spoliation of
the Catholic Church," and yet, in reference to the "stripping" of
the Church, he says in capitals, "WHY NOT?" He quotes Bro. Wagstaff
as saying: "Masonry does not fight Catholicism," and yet intimates
that Porfirio Diaz violated his "Masonic Vows," when he neglected
to apply the full rigor of the Laws of Reform, saying: "He lifted
the barriers and allowed the Catholic clergy * * * etc."

Bro. McLeish quotes Tourbillon as saying: "The Catholics knew that
with the late President Madero in power they could not dominate *
* * the principles of the Madero government were based on Masonic
ideas * * * put into practice even in the machinery of the
government, practical Masonry * * * with absolute faith in his
brethren to carry out the principles contained in the Masonic
Code."

Are we to understand from the foregoing that "Masonic Vows," or a
"Masonic Code," exists in Mexico, requiring "Masons" to engage in
politico-revolutionary activity and to make bitter war on the
differing faith of their neighbors? Bro. McLeish takes exception to
my statement that "Latin-American Masonry is atheistic,
revolutionary and contentious, and in Mexico it has become
anarchistic and murderous." Yet he agrees that it was atheistic
under the mastership of General Reyes.

Bro. McLeish himself relates enough of the revolutionary activities
of Mexican Masonry to prove that it is "revolutionary," and his
casual mention of the strife between the "York Rite" and the
"Scottish Rite" branches in Mexico proves that Mexican Masonry is
contentious. Not only did these two branches of "Masonic Brethren"
battle viciously for the supremacy, but they gave birth to a third
"body," called the "National Rite," which added fuel to the fires
of revolution. The present deplorable condition of Mexico proves
that Mexican "Masonry" is "anarchistic," because the Mexican
"Masons" claim the "credit" for having brought this condition
about. That Mexican Masonry is "murderous" is amply evidenced by
the countless executions that have been carried out without other
reasons than the murderous spite of these Mexican "Masons." During
the rule of Iturbide it was reported that the "Masons" had plotted
his assassination in their "lodges." The plot failed, and, as a
consequence, the "Masons" charged one of their number who had been
favored by Iturbide with having "betrayed the secrets of the
order," and hounded him out of the country.

One had only to read Mexican history to become sickened with
Mexican "Masonry" and Mexican "Masons." Bro. McLeish speaks of the
priest Hidalgo being made a Mason in 1806. Be this as it may, we
find Hidalgo in 1810 running a short few months career of wanton
riot and needless butchery. On September 16th he released the
prisoners (not political prisoners) from the jail in Dolores,
securing thereby eighty recruits. He jailed the Spanish residents
and permitted the mob to sack their homes. In San Miguel this was
repeated, and here Hidalgo stood on the balcony of the house of one
of his victims and tossed the stolen silver dollars to the roaring
mob on the street. The utterly inexcusable massacre in Guanajuato
and the sack of the city was by Hidalgo's order. In his progress of
destruction Hidalgo had carried with him some eightynine Spaniards,
unarmed civilians, all of whom were beheaded after the battle of
Aculco. In Guadalajara he ordered some seven hundred unarmed
civilians to be beheaded.

In his declaration before the military court he admitted that these
victims of his fury had been murdered without reason "well knowing
that they were innocent." The war for "independence" in Mexico was
but a repetition of the foregoing and some of the participants
reverted to cannibalism.

A common practice of these "Masonic" Mexican revolutionaries is to
mutilate prisoners. Do American Masons know what this means?

And Bro. McLeish did not forget to quote from the Abbe Domenech.
"This very reverend Father," as Bro. McLeish calls him, was
Maximilian's "press agent" for a time in Mexico and was then sent
to France to continue in that capacity there. In Mexico the Abbe
was denied admittance to social and ecclesiastical circles and
vented his spite in a manner permitting succeeding generations to
perpetuate his name as has been done by Bro. McLeish. The Abbe
never hesitated to mention names and places except in his charges
against the clergy, and then he became dumb. His calumnies aroused
a storm of demands for proof, but he remained discreetly silent.

Bro. McLeish takes emphatic exceptions to my statement that the
Mexican Revolution is an I.W.W. revolution. The I.W.W. held a
convention in Chicago last Fall, and the Daily News of November
21st quotes the delegate from Yucatan as saying: "In Yucatan
wonderful progress has been made * * * and here the I. W. W. has
had a chance to get in its licks." I know, and I think Bro. McLeish
knows what that has meant to Yucatan.

Bro. McLeish "again quotes from The New Age," etc., etc., in
support of Jose Castellot. This is not the point. So again I ask
"Will Bro. McLeish vouch for this 'Brother ?' "

I do not intend this article as a defense of anything or anybody,
but I do intend it as an exposition of the TRUTH. I would further
like it to be a warning to the Masonic fraternity in the United
States against permitting the organization again to be used to pull
political chestnuts out of the Mexican fire.

