Bro. Drummond's Defence.

BRO . DRUMMOND'S DEFENCE .

WE cannot seo how Bro . Drummond mends the matter of the Yorston case , ( disagreeable and

painful as it is , ) by his letter to the Masonic Token , a copy of which we present elsewhere in our impression to-day . He is like the witness always dreaded by barristers , —he says " too much . "

His confidences , as revealed to our worthy Bro . Berry , the able editor of the Masonio Token , are alike effusive an d characteristic . He shows us his hand so clearly , that as he is evidently leading from a single " trump , " he enables Bro . Gould to bring in his strong and leading " suit " with singular effect . Even his own admissions tell against himself and his

" particepes criminis . " Prom his " confession , " it is clear now , as Bro . Jack suspected then , that a " ring" was formed , to publish Bro . Gould ' s History somehow or other , though we do not

proi ' ess for one moment to understand how Bros . Carson , Drummond , Parvin , and Yorston could fancy then , or even hold to it now , that what they were contemplating , was

characterised either by Masonic good form or equitable treatment , as between "brother and brother . " Bro Yorston was " handicapped" in his start by a "leetle " difficulty .

He wanted to print the work undoubtedly , but he felt it necessary to stand fair with the American Craft . In the "United States we all know the Lodges often deal corporately with matters outside the purview of English Freemasonry .

They take what is familiarly termed the "high moral line" on many subjects , which we , in our worn-out old country at home , think better to leave alone . We in fact do not " travel" beyond the Masonic " Record . "

Having respect to many recent American " deliverances , " " de omnibus rebus et quibusdum aliis , " it seems not easy to say off-hand what matter of private transaction or personal bearing our American Lodges might not deem it

well to discuss and to adjudicate upon , on an alleged common law of Masonic morality and inter-individual relationship . Accordingly , though Bro . Yorston could not legally be prevented from reprinting Gould ' s Historv in America ,

as he thought best , there seemed to be a moral law of Masonic comity and brotherly good feeling , which some Lodges in America might think he was violating , and might

treat with disapproval and condemnation . This stumbling block in his way explains his apparent anxiety to come to some sort of a friendly understanding with Bro . Jack .

Accordingly , he laid himself out to accomplish this feat of Masonic international agreement , but he is never quite comfortable either in his verbiage or his protestations . He blew hot and cold , as we say ; and having to do with

a eanny Scotchman , as well as a worthy brother , who saw through his "little game " from the first , he had very little chance in the light and assurance of " running straight . " And here it is that , as we view it , Bros . Carson and Drummond seem to " pan out" so badly .

Bro . Yorston bases his action on Carson . Bro . Drummond first relies on Bro . Carson , and then asserts his own subjective view of tbe case and the correspondence . After that , as the Frenchman said , " tout est fini . " But we confess that we do not see how any one , setting

Bro. Drummond's Defence.

himself fairly down to master that peculiar correspondence , can have any doubt where the " shoe pinched . " Bro . Drummond ' s excuse seems simply to be , firstly , " I know I ouffht not to have gone and done it ; " and .

secondly , "it was only a little one ; " and he therefore winds up with an impermissible and stupid " tu quoque " to Bro . Gould , who certainly , considering hia Masonic labours , had a right to expect fair and courteous treatment from professed Masonic students , and high American Masonic officials .

The matter is a very melancholy one in itself , and in its " output , " for all the brethren of our Order everywhere , and especially as before the world , often tempted aud ever ready to scoff at Masonic professions , and to question Masonic reality . Had Bro . Yorston , using his legal rights , originally printed the work , no one would have said anything , least of all Bros . Jack and Gould , as the state of the law of

copyright is very hard on the " brain carrier , " and those whose labours , and struggles and sacrifices are so easily discounted , and so often forgotten . Yet , as it is useless to " cry over spilt milk , " so is it a waste of words and time to

pour forth ceaseless " Jeremiades on a " fait accompli . If , as a rule , " silence is golden , " how much more is it so where neither regret nor complaint can undo an injury , or obliterate the evil , which mnst be left to the certain

" Nemesis " of time and justice ? But to cover this fortunate discovery of the " pea " under the " thimble , " with the " high falutin '" of profuse Masonic profession ; and to hoist the " Jolly Roger" in tne is ior

guise ox a peaceiui ana nonesr . uraaer , coo mucn the consciences and digestions of " Gods and men , " and is a serious blot on the fair escutcheons of international and intellectual Freemasonry .

The New Philadelphia Theory.

THE NEW PHILADELPHIA THEORY .

BY BRO . JACOB NORTON . SINCE 1874 Bro . MacCalla has hammered away with all his might to prove that Coxe was " undoubtedly " connected with the earliest introduction of Masonry into

Philadelphia ; and he actually succeeded in making converts to his theory at home and abroad . * Recently , however , it was found that the Daniel Coxe theory is far from being " undoubted ; " in fact , there is not the least

foundation for it . But in order to soothe the former believers in the Coxe theory , which includes all the Pennsylvania Masons , Bro . Gould assured them that the St . John ' s Lodge of 1731 was a " Time Immemorial

Lodge , " and was , therefore , legal and legitimate without " authority from home . " Had Bro . Gould stopped there I would not have troubled him further about it ; but it seem s

that his Philadelphia disappointed friends were not sufficiently soothed with his " Time Immemorial" concession . Hence , in the Keystone of 8 th October , Brother

Gould , in a long letter , tried to prove that the 1731 Lodge

at Philadelphia was not a 1731 Lodge at all , but it was a 1728 , or much older Lodge . This letter is spiced up here and there with an "if so , " a conjecture ; and with the well-known method used in debating clubs , he proves to his own satisfaction all he desires . He says : — " It is evident that this [ Philadelphia ] Lodge was insti-