THE BUILDER, FEBRUARY 1919

"FREEMASONRY IN AMERICA PRIOR TO 1750"
BY BRO. A.G. PITTS, SECRETARY PALESTINE LODGE, MICHIGAN

FREEMASONRY in America prior to 1750" by Brother Melvin M. Johnson,
Past Grand Master of Massachusetts, is a book of the kind that used
to characterize Masonry. The author, to maintain his thesis, relies
especially upon the easy device of ascribing to former generations
the ideas of the present. Such a device is not only easy but
especially likely to be successful in Masonry. The average Mason is
only too ready to believe that the laws and customs of Masonry were
the same in 1730 as they are today.

The especial duty of the National Masonic Research Society is to
study the changes in these laws and customs, to emphasize the fact
that they have changed, and to prevent Masonic literature from
falling back into the condition it was when Hallam wrote:

"The curious subject of Freemasonry has unfortunately been treated
of only by panegryists and caluminators, both equally mendacious."

This was said in 1856. Soon after arose the new school including
the Quatuor Coronati group--Hughan, Gould, Chetwode-Crawley, Speth
and the rest, who adopted and steadfastly pursued the rigorous
methods of modern historians. The most striking illustration of the
effect of this reform upon the profane world and of the new respect
for the Craft which the latter thereupon acquired is found in a
comparison of the articles under the heading "Freemasonry" in the
ninth and in the eleventh (latest) edition of the Encyclopedia
Britannica. The contemptuous tone of the ninth edition is well
known and has been often referred to. The eleventh edition gives
space to an article of extraordinary merit and of extraordinary
length.

Past Grand Master Johnson's thesis is that Massachusetts has every
kind of priority in the history of "Freemasonry in America Prior to
1750." The first lodge in Boston was of 1733. But there was a lodge
at Philadelphia as early as 1730 and even a Grand Lodge. How is he
to secure priority for Boston in respect to these matters ?

He does it by heaping injurious epithets upon the Philadelphia
brethren. Witness the following sample:

"1721 June 24. On this day the Mother Grand Lodge of the Masonic
world, that at London, adopted a regulation quoted under '1700'
supra. This has ever since been the law forbidding the formation of
a lodge without a Grand Master's Warrant.

"This Mother Grand Lodge then had jurisdiction over the new world
and every regular and duly constituted lodge which existed in
America during the period with which we are dealing derived its
authority directly or indirectly therefrom. At least from the
public promulgation of this rule (1723) every lodge which met in
the colonies without the required authority (and there were
doubtless a number of them) was irregular and not entitled to
Masonic recognition. All such came under the second paragraph of
said Regulation VIII. Clandestine and irregularly made Masons were
no more entitled to Masonic recognition in the eighteenth century
than they are now in the twentieth century. The so-called lodges in
the colonies, therefore meeting without warrant in those early days
are no part of legitimate Masonic history until they 'humbled
themselves' as did the Masons of Pennsylvania when in 1734 they
applied for and received recognition from Provincial Grand Master
Price 1734-6. Until then, under the law quoted they were 'rebels.'
And never in any phase of the life of the world have rebels
obtained the right of legitimacy unless the rebellion was
successful. In dealing with questions of precedence, primacy is to
be accorded to regularity, and obedience to law is to be preferred
to violation thereof."

Section VIII upon which so much is based, was adopted by the first
Grand Lodge not later than 1723 since it is found in the
constitutions printed in that year. The statement is there made
that the regulations then first printed were adopted June 24; 1721.
Maybe there were, but we have no authority for the claim but the
statement of Rev. James Anderson and we have learned not to accept
any statement of his unless verified.

Here is Section VIII:

"VIII. No set or number of brethren shall withdraw or separate
themselves from the lodge in which they were made brethren or were
afterward admitted members, unless the lodge becomes too numerous;
nor even then, without a dispensation from the Grand Master or his
deputy: and when they are thus separated, they must immediately
join themselves to such other lodge as they shall like best, with
the unanimous consent of that other lodge to which they go (as
above regulated) or else they must obtain the Grand Master's
warrant to join in forming a new lodge.

"If any set or number of Masons shall take upon themselves to form
a lodge without the Grand Master's warrant the regular lodges are
not to countenance them nor own them as fair brethren and duly
formed, nor approve of their action and deeds; but must treat them
as rebels, until they humble themselves as the Grand Master shall
in his prudence direct, and until he approve of them by his
warrant, which must be signified to the other lodges as the custom
is when a new lodge is to be registered in the list of lodges."

If the Grand Lodge which adopted Regulation VIII had undertaken to
legislate for Masonry everywhere we should have many questions to
ask as to where they got the authority to do so. But we are spared
this inquiry for these regulations are expressly entitled "for the
use of the lodges in and about London and Westminster."

Regulation III, printed at the same time, requires each lodge to
keep a list of all the lodges "in town." Regulation XII provides
that the Grand Lodge consists of the Masters and Wardens of all the
regular particular lodges upon record. If this be of world-wide
application and lodges not regular are irregular or clandestine
then the Grand Lodge of London and Westminster meant to so
characterize the scores of lodges in Scotland, in Ireland and in
England outside the capital. We shall see if that was its
intention.

Regulation XIII provides that apprentices must be admitted Masters
and Fellow Craft only in Grand Lodge. Regulation XX that the Grand
Master shall visit all the lodges "about town" during his
Mastership. Regulation XXII that the brethren of all the lodges "in
and about London and Westminster" shall meet at an annual
communication and feast. Regulation XXXIX that no new regulation
can be adopted except by vote of a majority of all the brethren
present at the annual grand feast including "Even the youngest
Entered Apprentice." All this points irresistibly to the idea of a
local Grand Lodge, not one for all the world.

There follows a "postscript" giving the manner of constituting a
new lodge which is by the Grand Master present in person. After
that an "approbation" certifying that the regulations were adopted
with the "consent of the brethren and fellows in and about the
cities of London and Westminster" and ordering that they be
received in every particular lodge "under our cognizance."

The truth is that the first Grand Lodge was formed to be a Grand
Lodge for the four lodges which formed it and with no idea of
territorial jurisdiction whatever. It is most curious to trace the
growth of the idea of exclusive territorial jurisdiction until it
reaches its full stature (as it has done in America alone) when it
appears as the doctrine that there must be one Grand Lodge for each
political State and only one and that any lodge in that State which
does not hold of the established Grand Lodge of that State is ipso
facto clandestine. Nowhere in the world is there so perfect an
illustration of the dictum of Past Grand Master Simons (in his
"Masonic Jurisprudence") that it is human nature to encroach.
Brother Simons also laid down in emphatic language the duty of
Freemasons to resist the never-ending, successive encroachments of
Grand Lodge. Since his time the encroachments have gone on until
now what he enjoined as a duty has become a crime and even the
repetition of his injunction to resist is a Masonic crime.

This is the significance of the present inquiry. The question of
precedency between Massachusetts and Pennsylvania is of little
consequence. What is of the utmost consequence is to put the theory
of Grand Lodge absolutism in its proper place. And a contribution
can be made to this work by a study of the origin of Grand Lodges.
The Grand Lodge of 1717 was successful beyond all expectation.
Organized by and for four lodges it began almost at once to be
joined by the other lodges of London and soon by those of
Westminster. Already in 1723, as we have seen, it is powerful
enough to enjoin upon its lodges a refusal to recognize any new
lodge formed from among Masons under its authority without the
authority of its Grand officers. But up to that time the Masons
under its authority were only those who were members of its lodges.

In 1724 it takes the second step; it ordains "that no new lodge in
or near London without it be regularly constituted, be countenanced
by the Grand Lodge, nor the Master or Wardens be admitted at the
Grand Lodge." (Gould's History of Freemasonry, American Edition,
Vol. III, p. 127.)

This is the first appearance of territorial jurisdiction.

It is significant that in quoting this in the second edition of the
Constitutions published in 1738 Anderson omits the words "in or
near London." This interested omission is the measure of the extent
of encroachment between 1724 and 1738.

At a later meeting in 1724, also, it was ordered that "if any
brethren shall meet irregularly and shall make Masons at any place
within ten miles of London the persons present at the making (the
new brethren excepted) shall not be admitted even as visitors into
any regular lodge whatsoever, unless they come and make such
submission to the Grand Master and (Grand Lodge as they shall think
fit to impose upon them." (Gould, Vol. III, p. 129.)

As in the last preceding quotation the boldface words indicate an
omission made by Anderson in the Constitutions of 1738.

Now we are in position to understand what the Grand Lodge of 1717
understood by its characterization of certain brothers as "rebels"
in Regulation VIII. Philadelphia was not "in or near London" and it
was not "within ten miles of London." But, allowing the Grand Lodge
all the authority it claimed, it did not even claim to control
Masonry outside those territorial limits.

It may be remarked in passing that there is evidence that, at least
as late as 1726, in the words of Brother Gould, "the 'beneficent
despotism' which arose out of the unconditional surrender of their
inherent privileges by four private lodges, was not submitted to
without resistance by the Craft at large. (Gould, Vol. III, p.
133.)

In other words, even as far as we have got in 1726, we find that
the pretensions of the Grand Lodge are treated with contempt "in
and near London" and it is again to be noted that this article
leaves aside the very large question--the enormous question--how
did it come that four lodges could make new laws which should be
binding upon Masons who never belonged to any of the four ? But
having asked the question it will not delay us much to give the
answer. By assumption and encroachment only.

But up to 1734 and much later we can, for our present purpose,
admit the validity of every law that they passed leaving this
question aside. It was many years before they ever claimed
jurisdiction over all England even, and they never claimed any
jurisdiction over Scotland or Ireland and they never claimed
exclusive jurisdiction over the colonies and other parts of the
world.

In 1725 the regulation allowing the making of Fellowcrafts and
Masters at Grand Lodge only was repealed. This marks the fact that
the Grand Lodge had begun to secure the adherence of lodges more
than ten miles from London. In 1727 Provincial Grand Masters were
first appointed. In 1729 lodges were constituted in Bengal and at
Gibraltar and in 1729 a lodge at Madrid was received. In 1730 a
Provincial Grand Master was appointed for New York, New Jersey and
Pennsylvania.

Upon this Brother Johnson remarks:

"The issuance of this deputation, however, establishes three facts,
viz:

"1. The then jurisdiction of the Grand Lodge of England over these
colonies.

"2. That regular and duly constituted lodges could exist in the
colonies only through the authority of a Provincial Grand Master
appointed by the Grand Master of England.

"3. That no one else had authority to establish lodges in
Pennsylvania, New York or New Jersey until at least after June 24,
1732, the end of the term of the deputation.

"The establishment of lodges in Pennsylvania during the term of
Coxe's deputation and without his sanction was therefore irregular
and in direct contravention of his authority.
(Gould, Vol. IV, p. 362.)"

That reference to "Gould, Vol. IV" is startling. If Gould said
anything like that we have to revise the opinion we have had of
Gould for thirty years.

But be reassured "Gould, Vol. IV," is a reference to that pirated
edition of Gould which stands for all time as a monument to
American Masonry and a new demonstration of the evil effect of
extravagant pretensions. American Masonry, since it makes an
excessive parade of brotherly love, of rectitude and the like,
might be expected to steal the life work of Masonry's most
distinguished scholar, allowing him to die in poverty leaving his
aged wife unprovided for. This we did--we Americans. Fifty cents a
set on the copies of Gould's History sold in America would have
made him comfortable and free from anxiety in his old age. He did
not get a cent. Every American Mason that owns or uses the American
edition of Gould's History owes Mrs. Gould a dollar.

This by the way. Perhaps an apology is due for such a digression.
All that it was necessary to say is this: Volume IV of Gould's
History, after page 300, is the American addition to the History
and "Gould, Vol. IV, p. 362," is one of the precious pages which
P.G.M. Drummond contributed.

But let us go back a little. In 1725 we find a Grand Lodge at
Dublin showing signs of having been in existence for some time. In
1726 a Grand Lodge was organized for Munster probably by a single
lodge. In 1728 this Grand Lodge adopted regulations, the tenth of
which required each lodge to provide itself with a copy of the
Constitutions printed at London in 1723. Upon these regulations as
a whole, Bro. Chetwode-Crawley remarks:

"We have the same restrictions on jurisdiction as were current in
the Grand Lodge of England. The provisions were only for
constituted lodges within easy reach.
Caementaria Hibernica Fas. I."

We find a Grand Lodge at Dublin in 1729 and in 1730 it published a
book of Constitutions which is a copy of Anderson's Constitutions
of 1723. Thus that famous Regulation VIII is almost precisely the
same as already quoted above. In XXII "Dublin" takes the place of
"London and Westminster."

If the Grand Lodge of London by its Constitution and regulations of
1723 was assuming jurisdiction over the whole Craft then the Grand
Lodge at Dublin was making the identical claim in publishing its
identical constitution and regulations of 1730 and these two Grand
Lodges were rivals and enemies. As a matter of fact Lord Kingston
was Grand Master of both Grand Lodges in succession--of the Grand
Lodge at London in 1729, and of that at Dublin and that at Munster
(at the same time) in 1731. As a matter of fact the Grand Lodges of
Munster and of Dublin had not yet thought of being Grand Lodges for
any territory or of being other than Grand Lodges for their own
lodges wherever located, and the Grand Lodge of London was only
just beginning to have such thoughts. Lord Kingston, while Grand
Master of both Munster and Dublin in 1731, constituted a lodge at
Mitchelstown (near Cork in Munster) which held under the Grand
Lodge of Dublin.

Thus Ireland narrowly escaped coming under a system like that of
Germany today where there are six Grand Lodges no one of which has
or claims any exclusive territorial jurisdiction whatsoever.
Undoubtedly to that extent the German usage represents the original
form and idea of Grand Lodges. It is amusing to reflect that some
of our Western Grand Lodges have made this adherence to the
original form of Masonry ground for denying recognition of German
Grand Lodges at all.

The next Grand Lodge to be noticed is that organized at York in
1725, of course in imitation of the one at London. Again we find
them adopting the regulations published by the Grand Lodge of
London in 1723. Under date of July 6, 1726, we find the Grand Lodge
of York expelling a Wm. Scourfield for making Masons "without the
consent of the Grand Master contrary to Article VIII." The
conclusion is irresistible that the Grand Lodge at York accepted
the authority and force of the regulations of 1723, applying them
to its own locality as the Grand Lodge of London applied them to
London and Westminster and as the Grand Lodge at Philadelphia
applied them to Philadelphia.

Now let this be repeated so that it will be clearly understood.

In 1730 there were four Grand Lodges with identical regulations.
Each Grand Lodge has its Regulation VIII. Each then was forbidding
the formation of lodges without its Grand Master's warrant. Was the
Grand Lodge of York, then, forbidding the organization of new
lodges at London or at Belfast or at Cork? Of course not. Was it
assuming exclusive jurisdiction over the whole Craft? Of course
not. How shallow then to claim that the Grand Lodge at London was
doing so. And how careless (?) to overlook the fact, which stares
us in the face, that these regulations are entitled regulations for
the lodges of London and Westminster.

In 1736 the Grand Lodge of Scotland was organized. Not fewer than
100 lodges were invited to take part and thirty-three accepted the
invitation. Melrose did not join until 1891, and Kilwinning in 1744
resumed her independency and also her status as a Grand Lodge and
continued to grant charters for seventy years thereafter.

Finally in 1723 another Grand Lodge was organized at London which
proceeded to make itself "legitimate," according to the test laid
down by Past Grand Master Johnson, by becoming "successful." As
soon as it had made good its footing it was recognized by the Grand
Lodges of Ireland and of Scotland and of York. Says Dr.
Chetwode-Crawley:

"Toward the close of the century the Grand Lodge of the Moderns
(the one founded in 1717) stood isolated among English-speaking
Grand Lodges. Even in the Colonies, where it had been first to
plant lodges, the more democratic organization of the Antients,
aided by the ubiquitous Military Lodges, in which Ireland had such
a preponderance, rapidly and surely won its way to acceptance. It
has been generally found more convenient to ignore this isolation,
than to accept the conclusions that must be drawn from it.     
Caementaria Hibernica Fas. II."

It is notorious that the union of 1813 between the Grand Lodge of
1717 and that of 1753 was a surrender on the part of the older
sister and to a large degree an admission that the younger had run
her out of the field.

It is extraordinary but not at all inexplicable that never in this
country has justice been done to the Grand Lodge of Antients, that
never has its history been truthfully written. It is extraordinary
because it is our real progenitor. The part of the Grand Lodge of
Moderns in the establishment of Masonry in this country is
negligible. Where the latter did succeed in establishing Masonry it
was nearly always sooner or later supplanted by Masonry which
originated with the Grand Lodge of Antients or with her affiliates,
the Grand Lodges of Scotland and of Ireland.

It is not inexplicable because the history of this Grand Lodge is
most annoying to certain Masonic Grand Lodge authorities.

A Mason writing Masonic history, with no axe to grind and no thesis
to maintain, could write of the origin of the Grand Lodge of
Antients very simply and naturally. It has been hushed up and
covered up and made complicated because no one dared tell the truth
and take the odium.

In 1751 the Grand Lodge of England had made much progress toward
establishing the doctrine that it owned the territory over which it
had undertaken to establish exclusive jurisdiction. Its claim was
modest at its greatest extent. It did not claim, as do American
Grand Lodges, that its exclusive jurisdiction was necessarily
co-extensive with the jurisdiction of the political state. There
was no Kingdom of England in 1751, nor in 1717. The political state
was the Kingdom of Great Britain. England was no more a separate
state at either date than is the upper peninsula of Michigan (which
probably ought to have a separate Grand Lodge) today. No more a
separate state than are those counties which formerly comprised the
two separate jurisdictions of Oklahoma and Indian Territory, each
of which formerly had its separate Grand Lodge, which Grand Lodges
assumed that when the political divisions were united they also
must hasten to unite.

But the first Grand Lodge did want to own England. Then arose a
rival Grand Lodge which called itself the Grand Lodge of Antients,
claiming the right to occupy the same territory and by making its
claim good it forever destroyed the doctrine that any Grand Lodge
can own any territory and forever established the opposite doctrine
that a Grand Lodge, being the creature of lodges, cannot be given
by those lodges what they themselves do not possess, that is to
say, exclusive jurisdiction over any territory whatsoever. What
they do possess and what they can grant is jurisdiction over their
own members only.

Now we can go to work, we Americans, those of us that do not hold
and would not accept office in any Grand Lodge, and rewrite
American Masonic history giving its proper place to the Grand Lodge
of Antients in that history. We can take down James Anderson from
his pedestal and set up Lawrence Dermott in his place. Especially
we can put Masonic jurisprudence upon a rational basis. It is miles
from having one now.

Let us have no more talk about the "Mother" Grand Lodge. What
P.G.M. Johnson means by that and what we have long understood by it
he expresses when he says (by implication) that every lodge in the
world derives its authority directly or indirectly therefrom.

The three Grand Lodges in Ireland none of them derived in any way
or in any sense from the Grand Lodge of 1717. All three were
organized by lodges composed wholly or for the most part of Masons
who had never owed or paid allegiance to the premier Grand Lodge.
The same is true still more emphatically of the Grand Lodges at
York. True beyond any possible question or limitation of the Grand
Lodge of Scotland. And when we come to the Grand Lodge of Antients
there is no evidence that it is not true of it also. It has suited
the purpose of the authorities to represent it as founded by rebels
and seceders. The burden of proof is on them. They cannot produce
any.

It is the Grand Lodge of Scotland, the Grand Lodge of Ireland, and
the Grand Lodge of Antients that spread Freemasonry over the earth
and especially over this continent. They are our mothers. We are
all anxious to read a history of "Freemasonry Prior to 1800"
written from this standpoint. Let some one write it. Not even the
present writer knows how it would read.

It may be the fault of my method but only now I am ready to go back
to my latest quotation from Brother Johnson and to complete my
reply to it.

He makes the statement, it will be remembered, that no one had
authority to establish lodges in Pennsylvania, etc., except by
authority of the Grand Lodge of London.

This statement is so extraordinary that it is even doubtful what he
means by it. It has never been seriously questioned but the Grand
Lodges of England, Ireland and Scotland had concurrent jurisdiction
over the colonies and all over the world outside the British Isles.
The whole history of the early American Grand Lodges is a history
of the English, Irish and Scottish lodges uniting to organize a
Grand Lodge. Massachusetts herself derives from Scotland as much as
from England, and Scotland is, of course, not derived from England.
To this day there is no question of the right of any Grand Lodge to
organize lodges in any country which has no Grand Lodge and it is
understood that Massachusetts has chartered lodges for China.

To be sure the Grand Lodge of Scotland did not exist in 1730-32.
But there were two Grand Lodges in Ireland and one of them became
very active in chartering lodges in foreign parts. Whether it
chartered any prior to 1732 it is not worth while to inquire for it
certainly had the right to do so as much then as at any later time.
It is not likely that the Philadelphia Lodge had any warrant or
other express authority any more than did those that organized the
Grand Lodges at London, at Cork, at Dublin, at York and in
Scotland. Why they needed any, any more than did those other
lodges, it is impossible for any candid person to understand. They
also had the same right to organize a Grand Lodge that the other
lodges had. No one would have questioned it in those days. The
Grand Lodge at London had got no farther than "ten miles from
London." If the Masons of Ireland could organize a Grand Lodge in
1730, and those of Scotland could organize one in 1736 why, in the
name of sense, could not the Masons of Philadelphia organize one in
1732? As late as 1738 the Grand Lodge at London recognizes the
regularity of the Grand Lodge at York, bracketing it with the Grand
Lodges of Ireland, Scotland and Italy. See the "Constitutions" of
that date.

It is most probable that the Masonry of Philadelphia was of Irish
origin in some way. Dr. Chetwode Crawley has pointed out that the
Penns were Irish Masons as early as the days of the Grand Lodge of
Munster. This is not the evidence relied upon, however. What is
relied upon is the language of Dr. Benjamin Franklin's letter to
Henry Price at Boston, dated Nov. 28, 1734, in which he asks for a
"charter."

Now at that time the only Grand Lodge that knew anything about
charters was the Grand Lodge of Ireland. From Ireland they were
adopted by the Grand Lodge of Antients in 1753 and the oldest Grand
Lodge began to use them in 1757.

What Brother Price granted to Brother Franklin we do not know and
especially we do not know and have grave reason to doubt that
Franklin, if he received anything, accepted it and acted upon it.
What he asked for was a charter for a Grand Lodge. Past Grand
Master Johnson quotes with great exultation a Philadelphia
newspaper of March 20 to 27, 1735, which states that at a Grand
Lodge held at Boston, Feb. 21, Grand Master Price appointed
Benjamin Franklin Provincial Grand Master for the Province of
Pennsylvania.

Now of course Brother Price was himself only a Provincial Grand
Master and had no power to appoint a Provincial Grand Master. That,
however, is only an attempt to write like Brother Johnson. What
Masonic authorities may lawfully do and what they actually
undertook to do in the early days are two very different questions.
But Past Grand Master Drummond asserts that "the record shows" that
what Brother Price sent was a deputation to hold a lodge at
Philadelphia under the Provincial Grand Lodge of Boston. Is he
wrong? As a matter of fact there is no record. Referring to the
newspaper item Brother Johnson says:

"We are now for the first time, in possession of the date of
Franklin's appointment."

If the newspaper is his only authority it does not prove much. We
know that the Grand Lodge at Philadelphia continued as a Grand
Lodge at least until 1741. Also that what Brother Franklin asked
for was a charter "confirming the brethren of Pennsylvania in the
privileges they at present enjoy of holding annually their Grand
Lodge, choosing their Grand Master, Wardens and other officers who
may manage all affairs relating to the brethren here with full
power and authority, according to the customs and usages of Masons,
the said Grand Master of Pennsylvania only yielding his chair when
the Grand Master of all America shall be in place."         
(Gould, Vol. IV, p. 236.)

This is that "humbling themselves" on the part of the Pennsylvania
"rebels" to which Brother Johnson refers in our first quotation
from him. He is easily satisfied.

As has been said the question of precedency between Pennsylvania
and Massachusetts is of little consequence. It is to be hoped that
there will be found in the present inquiry license to examine the
question whether the modern doctrine as to the absolute and
unlimited power of Grand Lodges is a doctrine necessary or useful.

It may be readily admitted that greater authority should be given
to Masonic government than it had yet acquired in 1734. The evil of
the looseness of these days appears from Brother Franklin's famous
letter to Brother Price. He fears the establishment of a rival (and
cheap) Masonry in Philadelphia which will discredit the institution
and he believes that the sanction of some authority from Great
Britain will add weight to his Grand Lodge.

It is proper, perhaps, that every Grand Lodge should enforce
exclusive control over the territory it occupies if it can. This
does not alter the fact that the methods adopted in many cases in
the history of American Masonry have been most uncharitable,
unfraternal and disgraceful and such as would not have been adopted
if we had known the whole truth about the origin of Grand Lodge
authority. Nor does it alter the fact that such exclusive
jurisdiction has not been found necessary in other countries. Nor
the fact that we are at liberty to consider a different
organization of the Freemasonry of the United States. One could be
found which would add to instead of diminishing the power,
influence and prestige of the Craft.

There is another consideration which is important. The glory of
Freemasonry is her great men. Says Carlyle:

"I say great men are still admirable! I say there is at bottom,
nothing else admirable! No nobler feeling than this of admiration
for one higher than himself dwells in the breast of man. It is to
this hour, and at all hours, the vivifying influence in man's
life."

Benjamin Franklin ought to be one of our Masonic heroes--second in
this country to Washington alone. Nevertheless if it were true that
he was an irregular or clandestine Mason, if it were true that he
would act illegally for the sake of the petty vanity of writing
himself Grand Master, if he was a "rebel" and a self-confessed
rebel who made "humble submission" as such, then let the truth be
told. In writing history historical truth is above everything. But
none of these things are true.

Among the seven or eight Grand Lodges first organized none is more
regular than Benjamin Franklin's. This is the conclusion of
Brothers Hughan and Gould. Everyone should read what they have to
say about it, especially Brother Gould. See the American Edition of
his great history at page 241 of Vol. IV.

Of all the founders of early Grand Lodges the greatest name is
Benjamin Franklin. Of all the early Grand Masters the greatest name
is Benjamin Franklin. The glory of furnishing this name to
Freemasonry belongs to us all. If Massachusetts cares nothing for
this the rest of us ought to.

Let us protest against vilifying and blackening him without cause.

