Sie sind auf Seite 1von 44

g f a b

I t e

r a

r t e

( H e a r the O ther Side )

:| w






The National Membership Defense Committee

The Administration and W elfare Committee, The Grievance Committee, The Resolutions Committee,
of the

1935 National A M O R C Rosicrucian Convention in San Jos, California July 14th to 20th

P rin te d in U . S . A . T H E R O S IC R U C IA N P R E S S , L T D . S a n Jo s , C alifo rn ia 2 9

The Purpose of This Report

T TH E 1935 Convention of R osicru cians held in San Jos, California, with registered delegates and officers from every section of N orth A m erica present, it was unanimously voted, upon the recommendation of the Membership D efense Committee, and of the Administration and W elfare Committee, that these com m ittees should complete the inquiry and investigation being made into the charges made against AMORC and its officers, and th a t the reports of their investigations and inquiry should be sworn to and signed by every person involved in the investigation and then published in suitable form as a defense of AMORC against the malicious campaign of injury being carried on by the conspirators. The Membership D efense Committee, voluntarily formed by members, and organized for the purpose of defending the rights and interests of the members of AMORC against any interference created by the activities of the conspirators, took charge of the various reports and investigations made by the convention com m ittees, and subm its herewith its report and argum ent as a b rief and readable outline of the fa cts brought to light, not only by these convention com m ittees and investigators but by its own activities throughout the past two years. This com m ittee of membership defense is convinced th at the officers of AMORC are not interested in any exploitation of the weaknesses in ch a ra cter or other personal ch aracteristics of any of the conspirators, or are they interested in indulging in the unhappy and unpleasant duty of retorting to the malicious and defam atory rem arks of those who have been consistently attem pting to destroy the good repute and in teg rity of AMORC. A t best, the whole investigation is like unto wading into a quagm ire of a m ost unpleasant and deplorable nature. I f it were not for the fa c t th a t the ten or twelve years of silence on the p art of AMORC and its officers, and their reluctance to give any consideration to the false and fictitious charges brought again st them had enabled these conspirators to point to the silence as seeming evidence of guilt, and had not this sam e silence encouraged the con spirators to feel th a t they could safely go into Court and secure injunctions and restraining orders and other legal actions th a t g reatly interfered with the peaceful activities of AMORC, causing AMORC to spend large sums of money in defending itself before the Courts of law, and in correcting the wrong impression th a t was thus created in the minds of newspaper editors, magazine w riters, public officials, and a large portion of the public itself, the Membership Defense Committee would not have finally decided to issue any printed m a tter or statem ent in defense of AMORC and its officers. In each case where the activities of the conspirators or their associates have brought the m a tter into Court, AMORC and its officers have been able to completely and cleanly defend itself, while the conspirators have failed u tterly to support any one of their charges or con tentions with either evidence or the least foundation in fa c t, to w arrant any of the charges made. Therefore, AMORC and its officers have been victorious in each court issue and decree up to the present time. B u t as months have passed, the m atter has broadened and is no longer a m atter fo r the Courts of law, but for the Courts of public opinion, because the conspira tors have le ft no stone unturned to dissem inate their malicious pamphlets, letters, newspaper articles, affidavits, and m anufactured exhibits to the public a t large. To continu to rem ain silent in the face of such a nation-wide campaign is not only absurd and ridiculous but unfair to AMORC as an organization whose integrity, honesty of purpose and sin cerity have never been questioned until these few conspirators started their campaign. This entire pamphlet or booklet, there fore, was prepared by members of the

Membership D efense Com m ittee, representing the membership of AMORC and not the Board of D irectors or administra to rs of AMORC. I t ls issued in defense of the organization and its officers as well as in defense of the members. I t is issued in the sp irit of ju stice. I t is sent forth as a m a tter of inform ation to those who have read the books and pamphlets, letters and circulars, is sued by Mr. Clymer, Mr. Saunders, and their three or four associates, and have made inquiry of us.

I f this pamphlet, like its predecessor, W hite Book C, succeeds in merely answ ering the charges made by the conspirators and defending the organization against any inju ry which m ight result from such charges, the booklet will have served its only purpose, and its mission will have been fulfilled. F ra te rn a lly submitted to the m ember ship a t large, and to those who have inquired fo r such defensive information,

National Membership Defense Committee,

O. Ray Stevens. Chairman Peter Falcone, Secretary.

A ttested and approved fo r publication, H. S P E N C E R L E W IS Im perator of AMORC for N orth and South Am erica. San Jo s, California A ugust 6th, 1935.

The Valu of Testimony

I t is common practice in all civilized courts of law and inquiry, and it is good common sense among civilized beings, to demand th at those who bring charges against an individual or an organization m ust support their charges and prove them true and exact. I t is not ordinarily necessary in any court, or from the common-sense point of view is it necessary, th a t the person or organization so charged m ust prove him self guiltless of the charges made. I f those who m ake the charges cannot prove them, the other side need not present any defense. Very often, however, those who are suffering under malicious and false charges m ust present their defense in order to reveal the unsoundness, incorrectness, and falsity of the charges made; otherwise no board of inquiry, no court of law, m ay arrive a t a complete and adequate conclusin. T h a t is the principal reason why AMORC and its adm inistration have been prevailed upon to perm it its defense to be offered to its membership. w eak and all of his contentions m ust be worthless, or there would be no need of augm enting them with untruthful and deliberately deceptive statem ents. I f the conspirators ag ainst AMORC had any truthful charges to m ake against AMORC and its officers, there would be no need fo r them to add to the truthful ones a number of statem ents, charges, claim s, and intim ations th at are not only false, but deliberately and knowingly m anufactured out of the whole cloth, and ridiculous and absurd on the face of them. I f these conspira tors are deliberately falsifying, and with trick ery and maliciousness m anufacturing evidence in regard to some of the charges they have made ag ainst AMORC, their whole testim ony is disqualified and should be considered as the Courts would consider it wholly unworthy and evidently malicious. The defense, as presented herewith, does not attem p t to prove the good re pute, integrity, sincerity, and honesty of AMORC, fo r these remain unshaken, but ra th er to show that in the specific charges made by its conspirators E V E R Y V IT A L IS S U E AND CH ARG E R A IS E D B Y TH EM IS F A L S E AND IN M OST C A S E S D E L IB E R A T E L Y M A N U FA C T U R E D W I T H M A LIC IO U S F O R E THOUGHT. T H IS W IL L BEC O M E E V ID E N T A S ONE R E A D S EACH AND E V E R Y ONE O F T H E S T A T E M EN TS CO N TA IN ED IN T H E FO L LO W IN G P A G E S.

False Evidence
I t is commonly recognized in all courts of law and among persons of good com mon sense th at when a w itness resorts to falsehood, falsely m anufactured evidense, deliberate deceit, misquotations, and the tricky use of unrelated elements to produce an artificial impression, he is immediately disqualified as a com petent witness or as one to be given any consideration. When it is found in any inquiry th a t the principal witness or the one who is m aking the charges ag ain st another has deliberately and knowingly, wilfully and maliciously, falsified in one or two of his statem ents or pieces of evidence and exhibts, all the rest of his testim ony becomes suspected, and unworthy of consideration as tru th. I f a w itness or plaintiff against another person has to resort to false, malicious, and artificially manufactured evidence ag ainst a person to support one or two points in his argument, the whole of his argum ent m ust be

$ 1 ,0 0 0 Reward


T R U E AND CO R R EC T AND TA K EN FRO M G E N U IN E P U B L IC A T IO N S AC T U A L L Y IN E X IS T E N C E . H eretofore the conspirators h a v e claimed th a t no com m ittees were actually a t work a t any convention; th at the conventions consisted of only a handful of picked members, and not seven hundred to one thousand persons from all parts of the country; and th a t the evidenee subm itted by the D efense did not exist! B u t the conspirators have never been able to prove their statem ents. L et them now accept this thousand-dollar challenge and disprove the evidence!

The Membership Defense Committee.

The Conspiracy and The Plot

BO U T nineteen years ago the Supreme Council of A M O R C for North A m erica was confronted with the unpleasant tasks of removing from the editorial chair of its official magazine, a man who had made m any unusual claim s and had given very impressive answers to the categorical questions asked a t the time of his application for membership. Mr. Alfred Saunders of New Y ork City had declared him self to be an English Freem ason, a French Rosicrucian, and an experienced editor of wide business and social connections. A form al and custom ary inquiry was duly carried on, the investigating com m ittee Consulting the references he had named in his ap plication. These individuis seemed to be im partial and unbiased in their glowing endorsement of Mr. Saunders. He was admitted, like all accepted applicants, to the Neophyte (preparatory) degrees of the Order, and while still being tested and tried in these prelim inary sections of the regular work, he was assigned edi torial supervisin of the magazine. W ithin a few months, however, a number of serious doubts were expressed by members of AMORC, who were also affiliated w i t h Freem asonry. Finally a group of men from this Order, who also belonged to the A. F . & A. M. and the A. A. S. R . asked the Suprem e Coun cil of AMORC to m ake certain further inquines regarding Mr. Saunders. The very first inquiry made in the m anner suggested revealed th at Mr. Saunders was not a member of the French Rose-Croix or Rosicrucian Order, but the actu al Commander in Chief of a form of Freem asonic Scottish R ites * generally alleged in the United S tates to be clan destine! Upon being examined personally and confronted with the indisputable evi dence, Mr. Saunders admitted his directorship of an unrecognized form of Masonry which he had concealed from the officers of AMORC. Thereupon the Supreme Council, in regular session, voted him out of his position as editor and as a m ember of the AMORC.
* T l i e r i t e s w e r e s ty le d th e T h i r d - t h i r d a n d l a s t d e g r e e s o f th e S c o t t i s h R i t e s o f C e rn e a u . u n a s s o e ia te d in a n y w a y w ith th e re c o g n iz e d S c o t t i s h R i t e s o f th e U n ite d S t a t e s a n d E n g la n d a n d n o t ev en s p o n s o re d in th e U . S . A . b y a n y f o r e ig n f o r m o f F r e e m a s o n r y . (S e e P h o t o E x h i b i t N o . 1 in t h i s b o o k .)

All of the foregoing is history w ritten into the preserved records of AMORC, aecompanied with the letters gathered by members of the investigating com m ittee (who were also Freem asons) and by Mr. Saunders own admissions. How ever, in the past two years, Mr. Saunders and his cohorts have claimed th a t he was not affiliated with any clandestine form of Scottish R ite but with an organiza tion widely recognized in foreign lands, known as the Ancient and Prim itive R ites of Memphis and M izraim . This la tte r claim is wholly false as can be seen by the official stationery of Mr. Saunders unrecognized body. A few days a fte r his dismissal, Mr. Saunders called upon the chief officers of AMORC and claimed th a t their action had deprived him of a very profitable enterprise th a t he had under way and had interfered with his activities in operating lodges of his Cerneau form of Masonry, and th a t he would devote the remainder of his life to destroying AMORC, attack in g the ch aracter of its officers, and testify ing ag ainst its chief executive, H. Spencer Lew is.1 Such a th reat was considered trite and absurd by AMORC, and so it would have been, if, in the course of events, two other individuis heading other sm all philosophical groups calling them selves R osicrucian had not been tempted to find in Mr. Saunders a tta ck s and a tti tude the very aid they needed to help them create a tta ck s on what they con sidered a rival body. These two bodies were the Philosoph ical Publishing Company Royal F r a te r nity of R osicrucians operated by a Germn or Dutch farm er of Quakertown, Penna., known by the ame of Dr. R. Swinburne Clym er,2 and the "R o sicru cian Fellow ship of Oceanside, California, directed by the late M ax Heindel. These bodies saw in the rapidly growing, authorized and authentic AMORC organi zation a serious challenger to the ridiculous pretensions offered by their small groups. Despite their claim s to being
L e tte r s w r it te n to H . S p e n c e r L e w 3 a n d o t h e r s o v e r M r. S a u n d e r s s ig n a t u r e in th e p a s t flfte e n y e a r s h a v e c o n s i s t e n t ly d e m o n s t r a t e d t h i s t h r e a t in v a r io u s fo r m s . T h is c o m m itte e a n d o t h e r s h a v e s e e n th e s e le t t e r s c o v e r in g a n u m b e r o f y e a r s . -M r . C ly m e r h a s u se d a v e r y la r g e n u m b e r o f d iffe r e n t a n d a s s o r te d a m e s f o r h is l i t t l e b o o k - p u b lis h in g c o m p a n y in t h e p a s t y e a r s ; u n til v e r y r e c e n t ly n o n e o f th e s e a m e s ev e n s l i g h t l y r e s e m b le d th e tr u e a m e o f th e R o s i c r u c ia n O r d e r a s fo u n d in a ll a n c ie n t r e c o r d s o f E u ro p e .

devoted solely to hum anitarian and loving purposes with a clean heart and sane mind, exem plifying the goodness and tolerance of the G reat M aster, these two organizations forgot their ideis and so-called Rosicrucian spirit, and saw in Mr. Saunders malicious a t tack s and cam paign of destruction a.n opportunity. They found it convenient to give credence to this self-avowed de stryer of ch aracter and reputation, who claimed th a t he could produce evi dence th a t AMORC was a fraud and a pretenso, and th a t its officers were imposters and deceivers in m any and varied ways. P olitics often m ake strange bed-fellows, and it was surprising to see with what cunning and alacrity Mr. Saunders united these two rival and disagreeing bodies into allies of his campaign by furnishing them with absurd ammunition. U naw are a t first th a t Mr. Saunders was deliberately deceiving them, they were, nevertheless, willing to use his destructive ammunition in any m anner th a t m ight fu rth er their in terests; then becoming aw are of his unreliability, they ca st out of their alliance the open assistance of Mr. Saunders, but trusted th a t he had transm itted to someone, possibly one of them, the evidence he claimed to have. Thus the two little publishing societies found them selves in the m idst of a cam paign of vilification, destruction, and slander ag ain st AMORC, without the evi dence or fa c ts to support it. Mr. Clymer probably suspicioned th a t his hated rival book concern, the Rosicrucian Fellow ship, had secretly bargained with Mr. Saunders for the evidence; and the F e l lowship could have had much evidence to indcate th a t Mr. Clymer had outm artialled them and secured it for per sonal use. To AMORC the situation was amusing for a number of years. I t said little of the b attle being waged by the two against one. AMORC did nothing but occasionally deny, with dignity and conservatism , the m ost serious of the slanderous or critical rem arks of the two groups, or of Mr. Saunders, who continued his cam paign as an independent destructionist. This attitude on the p art of AMORC, however, was a serious m istake, even though it was adopted with the best intentions. Mr. Clymer, as well as Mr. Saunders, became bolder and bolder in the m anufacture of fictitiou s charges

against AMORC and the invention of false evidence. L e tte r a fte r letter was w ritten by Mr. Saunders to newspaper letter columns, to fra tern a l m agazine forum s, to public officials, and scores of others each le tte r contradicting some fundam ental point in previous letters, but generally giving expression to newly concocted discoveries detrim ental to AMORC. Mr. Clymer, on the other hand, owning a small, antiquated, but workable printing press, issued pamphlet a fte r pamphlet fo r ten years, each pretending to contain his discoveries of the evils to be found in AMORC and gradually libelling the personal ch aracter and reputation of AMORC executives. Thus the plot originated by Mr. Saun ders as a m eans of revenge, w as beng evolved and carried out with growing elaborateness and increasing m aliciousness. Month by month the strength of AMORC was being increased by its publication of the true history of the ancient R osicrucian Brotherhood and the real fa cts of its philosophy, aim s, and purposes. These facts, incidentally, were disconcerting to the other groups of R osicrucians fo r w hat AMORC said and proved in its literatu re did not agree with the opposing claim s of the others. How the m a tter would have ended no one knows, but in 1930 Mr. Saunders found a new ally, a man by the am e of Sm ith, living in California, who becam e a clearing house fo r Saunders, Clym er and the others, by uniting all of their separate and incom patible charges and claim s, gathering and inventing new and startlin g fa cts and carryin g on the vilification and slander in his own ame as an unbiased w orker in behalf of the gullible public who should be protected against the impostures of AM ORC. He was furnished with all the evi dence th a t each of th e high contracting p arties had accum ulated, supplied with some money and the promise of support. He, in tura, secured the help of one Daines in Caada who mailed the slanderous m a tter from a Canadian P ost Office in order to avoid conflict with the rules and regulations of the U. S. P ost Office. Thus a real conspiracy was evolved, with all the ancient and honorable devices of those who m ake a business of w ilfully and deliberately slandering and libelling others with malicious and false charges. N either Mr. Clymer, Mr. Saunders, or the Fellovvship knew precisely w hat Mr.

Sm ith intended to do, or how he carried out his plans, or w hat evidence he had secured from each point of his alliance. When, however, AMORC brought this conspiracy cam paign into a Superior Court of California, Mr. Sm ith reluctan tly admitted his part in the conspir acy and often cowered behind the statem ent th a t he refused to answer questions because his answer would tend to incrim inate him of felony. The evi dence real evidence this time secured by the Sheriff in Mr. Sm iths home, revealed his con tact with Saunders, Daines, Clymer, the Rosicrucian Fellowship and several others. Sm ith was perpetually enjoined by the Court from fu rther participation in the conspiracy and enjoined from fu rther distributing letters, p a m p h l e t s and printed m a tter prepared by the conspirators fo r distribution. This order was made by the Court a fte r Sm ith admitted in open Court th a t he could not prove any of the sin ister or serious charges th a t had been made ag ainst AMORC or its officers and a fte r he had failed to establish any good motive for his widespread a tta ck s. W h at his real motive m ay have been m ay be guessed by later developments.

T he Climax
The Court decisin ag ainst Sm ith, Cly mer, Daines, and their allies, did not end the campaign, however. Mr. Clymer claimed th a t since he lived in a different S ta te , the California decisin did not affect him. Mr. Saunders was found to have a very unsavory plice and social record and a t once withdrew from the public dissemination of his attack s, and Daines claimed immunity because of his Canadian resdence. The Court decisin did one thing, how ever. I t caused each of the conspirators to feel suspicious. All believed th at someone had been consciously or unconsciously careless in guarding the secret activities of their inner correspondence. Saunders accused Daines and wrote a number of letters deploring Daines stupidity; Clymer blamed Saunders as a falsifier, especially since Saunders had never produced one iota of the trunkfu l of evidence which he originally claimed to have. Sm ith alleged th at Clym er had been too stupid to guard his actions. From letters received it would seem, to the best of our belief, th a t Daines

wrote vague and unsigned notes to AMORC intim ating th a t he had cleverly deceived all the others in the unholy alliance to send all the accum ulated "evidence to him fo r copying, and th a t now he was ready, for a certain sum of money covering his expenses and loss of time from his im portant business affairs to come to California and show to AMORC all the documents and "ev i dence he had in his possession.* W hether Clymer and Saunders as well as Sm ith ever learned of the offer made by Daines to AMORC or not is not known, but they discontinued their association with him in their future activities and even wrote letters w am ing others to be guarded in their correspondence with him, and a t once proceeded to work separately. B ut, conspiracies need spies, and lawyers, and stupid tools. Therefore Cly m er and Saunders contacted an atto raey in California, and the attorney won the support or aid of a disgruntled exemployee of AMORC who th ereafter signed his ame to nevv, absolutely false and crim inally libelous statem ents. I t is generally rumored th a t this ex-employee seeks as his reward, perm anent employment under a reorganized AMORC, controlled by those now a tta ck in g the Order and particularly its officers. I t is known th at the attorney involved has openly stated th at he expects to collect a fabulous fee from the reorganized Order. Thus the situation existed a t the beginning of the year 1935. One attorney claim ing th at he would see th a t the wrecked AMORC was reorganized and good positions given to certain individ uis if they would help him do the w recking; and Mr. Clymer and his form er associates uniting in issuing three new pamphlets against the AMORC in the hope of not only destroying AMORC, but of so com pletely disqualifying it th a t no one could re-organize it as a future rival to his little organization. The situation was becoming unbearable not only to the officers of AMORC, but to all the thousands of members in every S ta te and Province of N orth Am erica. A t both the 1934 and 1935 annual conventions of AMORC th e hundreds of delegates and representatives of
* A t th e tim e , D a in e s w a s s t i l l w ith o u t a n y e m p lo y m e n t a s f a r a s o u r i n v e s tig a tio n 3 r e v e a le d . W e do n o t lcnow w h a t h is p u r p o s e m a y h a v e b e e n in w a n tin g to s h o w t h e m a n u a c t u r e d e v id e n c e to A M O R C o ff ic ia ls . T h e y r e fu s e d to m a k e a n y n e g o t ia t io n s w ith h im .

AMORC V O TED U N A N IM O U SLY to put an end to the malicious campaign by appointing a number of voluntarily formed com m ittees to the ta sk of securing the fa c ts the tru th and exposing it. Thus cam e about the official reports containing the surprising fa c ts and real evidence introduced in the 1935 Convention held from Ju ly 14th to 20th in the city of San Jos, California, and unanimously adopted by all present with the recomm endation th a t the fa c ts be published in a defensive book by AMORC fo r circulation among its members and friends, or all who had received the defam atory m a tter issued by the conspir ators.

W ho A re the Conspirators?
I t is quite custom ary in all established departm ents of civil investigation to turn the spotlight upon the source of comp lain tthe complainer, the critic, or the one who is m aklng the charges. Very often this reveis a motive or incentive fo r com plaint th a t nullifies the charges made. C ertainly no report of a com plete in vestigation of the charges made again st AMORC should be considered unless it included some fa cts regarding the characters originating them. I t is a notable fa c t th a t although the charges made ag ainst AMORC for the past nineteen years have been couched in words to m ake it appear that the actu al mem bers of the organization were dissatisfied with the adm inistration and adm inistrators of AMORC, nevertheless all of the Creative, inventive and schem ing members of the conspiracy are nonm em bers of AMORC, while the active, a ctu al m em bers of the organization have unanimously supported, endorsed, and approved the adm inistration and ad m inistrators by vote and enthusiastic resolution a t each and every annual convention of the AMORC. If, then, the thousands of members within the organization (who, naturally, would feel the g re a te st effect of any m aladm inistra tion o r m isrepresentation) have consistently failed in the past nine teen years to tak e any p art in the creation of the charges made, there m ust be some reason why those wholly on the outside seek to disrupt the organi zation. H ere is where the spotlight is helpful, if turned upon the true Instiga-

tors and active m anagers of the long conspiracy.

M r. Alfred Saunders
We have already described this indi vidual to some exten t in the H istory of the Plot. This man with a serious plice record in England (see the Birm ingham Daily Post, Birm ingham , England, for Wednesday, Ju ly 15, 1903) was not only the leader of an alleged clandestine Freem asonic body in New Y ork, but he openly claimed and artfu lly admitted th at he had a Rosicrucian organization of his own, in embryo, and sought to introduce it in A m erica under the title of Temple of N eith, which term he used in his correspondence of the past.

D r. R. Swinburne Clymer
A Germ n or D utch printer who discovered years ago th a t it was more profitable to spend all of his tim e a t the type case than in farm ing, and leaving his hobby of printing to spare-tim e indulgences in his am ateur press shop; especially when it enables him to fo ster and glorify some of the weirdest notions th at a human mind ever harbored. His fondness fo r titles, fo r self-appointed and self-devised positions of eminent authority, supported by diplomas and charters of his own creation and print ing, has made its indelible im print on the records of the Federal Government. His craze for appropriating or sim ulating the ames and emblems of other organizations is second only to his fanta stic love for w riting threatening and challenging letters to every person or organization th at seems to be an obstacle to the impossible goal he has set for him self Grand M aster of the World and the Islands of the S ea. (!) Y ears ago he invented (in his mind) g re a t medical colleges or colleges of therapeutics, and offered diplomas to those who had no medical training but did have some money, it is alleged by the A m erican Medical Association in its Jo u rn al fo r Decem ber 15, 1923. I t is even claimed by this Association th a t Mr. Clym er issued to him self a Diploma with the degree of "D r. sometime before his College was actu ally functioning in a sm all P ost Office B ox. A t any rate, the Jo u rn al , alleges th a t when the Federal Government closed up various fraudulent diploma m ilis, Mr. Clymer was one of those to be found guilty. All of this evidence of fraud was

introduced a t a hearing before the Secretary of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania again in 1934. A t other times he has Invented strange medicines and m ystic charm s or amu lis, and has printed circulars describing and ofering for sale strange remedies claimed to do things which medical and scientific men have proven absurd and ridiculous. His la te st and m ost astonishing conviction about him self and his powers, is th a t he is the successor to a man by the ame of D r. Beverly Randolph, who Clymer says was the originator of A m ericas first Rosicrucian organization. As the successor to Randolph, this farm er-p rinter believes th a t he has inherited a number of titles which R an dolph used only in a novel a book of fiction and never taken seriously by any of its readers in the 19th century. D r. Clymer has, admittedly, succeeded in printing and selling about one thousand copies of his own R osicrucian books in which he attem pts to give his own very poor and unlearned description of the Rosicrucians. His ignorance of ancient Rosicrucian landm arks, symbols, term s, principies, and ideis is so extensive and colossal th a t he actually takes symbols of od pagan cults and adopts them, and does not know where to con tact a single genuine Rosicrucian center in Europe. B ut, D r. Clymer does know how to threaten everyone with more of his printed m a tter in an attem pt to add a few more members to the group of gullible persons who have joined his R osicrucian society conducted from the little farm house ju s t outside of a Pennsylvania town. This is his g re a t delusion: I f I can break down the faith of thousands who are now members of th at organization known as AMORC, some of them may believe that I am their saviour and accept my claim s to Rosicrucian authority and join my classes, buy my books and eventually secure one of my Royal F ra tern ity Diplomas. Since D r. Clymer has never been a m ember of AMORC, is unacquainted w ith its inner workings, claim s to have the only true Rosicrucian Temple of the whole world in his farm house,* and has been in so much legal difficulty in the past, his motive in attacking AMORC m ay be ju stly questioned and gravely suspicioned by any fa ir mind
* S e e P h o to E x h i b i t s N o s. 2 a n d 3.

as it has been n court actions and conventions in the past fifteen years. The other members of the campaign to assist in injuring AMORC are: (a) An attorney frequently involved in directing critical a tta ck s ag ain st in dividuis and corporations, and recently proclaimed in an official S ta te inquiry as the xnost stupid man in C alifornia by one of the members of the com m ittee. He has w ritten letters to various persons in which he has repeated alm ost verbatim , either in his own letters or in letters enclosed, the charges spread by the campaign of m aliciousness conducted by the conspirators. The Com m ittee fu rther finds th a t this attorney has a personal, financial m otive back of his activities in this respect. (b) A young man engaged as a grocery clerk a t tim es in California, and a t other tim es as a m essenger for others of the critica, going from one city to another securing signatures from new AMORC members under the pretense th at the said petition is to aid the AMORC adm inistration. He is a m ere tool in the hands of the others and has admitted to investigation com m ittees th at he really has no criticism to m ake of the AMORC officers "whom he loves, but nevertheless signs the m alicious and slanderous letters prepared by his elders, in order th a t they m ay be free of responsibility. (c and d) Two men living in Col orado, who, as low d eg ree m em bers o f AMORC, never having m et any of the officers of AMORC, or ever having seen any of its adm inistration records or documents, were induced to m ake affidavits to the effect th a t they knew and believed th a t the adm inistration affairs of AMORC in California were illegal, dishonest, unconstitutional and malicious in intent and result, etc. W ith such false charges prepared by Saunders, Clymer, and others, they were used as tools for a new form of a tta c k upon AMORC in 1934. They were probably lead to believe th at they were aiding

in bettering the AMORCs deplorable conditions as one of them claim s to the investigators who closed in on his vascillating argum ents, or to rid A m er ica of a terrible fraud th a t is keeping the citizens from enjoying peace and happiness, as "D r. Clymer contends in his lame explanation for his unbiased a ctiv ity (!) o f fteen years.

D r. Clymers Printed Charges and the M anufactured Evidence

As we have explained, D r. Clymer adopted, bait, hook and sin ker, all the false and malicious charges originally invented by Saunders, the origin ator o f the Plot. B u t these soon became weak, for as tim e passed, each month and year proved the fa lsity of m ost of them and D r. Clymer was forced to invent new charges and m anufacture the false evi dence to support them. His la st a tta c k consisted of three large nondescript pamphlets printed piecem eal by him in his little shop, and is sued fo r nation-wide circulation in Ju ly of 1935 ju s t before the annual Convention of AMORC members and delegates. These pamphlets were intended to discourage the hundreds planning to go to the Convention and to tem pt newspapers and m agazines to use the highly inflammable charges as the basis fo r extrav ag an t exposes. Every od, new and im aginable charge and m alicious idea th a t was capable of expressing itself in the minds of Saunders, Clymer, or their cohorts, was paraded in grand array in these books with more venom, hate and wicked fa l sity than a t any other tim e of the whole Plot. "D r. Clymer signed these books with his own ame, and anticipating a Wholesale destruction of AMORC's ntegrity, he boasted of his stupid and contradictory com pilation with the hope th a t it would be of beneflt to all maiikind.

W hat AM ORC Members Believe

A t our annual Conventions of the AMORC held in San Jo s, California, during the month of Ju ly, there have been assembled for one entire week the highest representatives of the Order in N orth A m erica such as: Regional Grand Officers. Lodge and Chapter M asters and Offi cers. Deputy Grand M asters. Grand Councilors from Nine D istricts. Inspectors-G eneral. D istrict Commissioners. Special D elegates and Members. These representatives have come from every section of N orth A m erica and from some foreign d istricts as is shown by the roll cali tak en a t each Convention. F o r m any months before the Convention is held, the official magazine th a t goes to every member, The Rosicrucian D igest, carries notices inviting every Regional Grand Lodge, every Lodge and Chapter and branch of our work, to appoint official delegates or representatives to come to the Convention in behalf of their local members. E v ery delegate, representative and mem ber is urged to be present in order to participate in the m akng of recomm endations, suggestions, com ments or criticisms. In these official notices the membership generally is urged to pre pare its com ments, criticism s, suggestions and recomm endations in w ritten form , and to either bring them to the Convention in person or subm it them to their own local Inspector-G eneral or Grand Councilor, D istrict Commissioner, Lodge offcer, or delegate, in order th a t these com m ents, criticism s, suggestions and recomm endations m ay be read be fore the Convention and voted upon. A m ost sincere and honest attem p t is made by the adm inistration of AMORC to have its N ational Convention truly representative of the membership of the Order and to give them every opportunity in a dem ocratic m anner to express itself and to bring before the Con vention and before the officers of the adm inistration every helpful, constructive suggestion or recommendation, and every vital criticism , and every important consideration of every point and p art of the work of the organization, including its adm inistration.

Convention Committees
A t each Convention for many years the elected Chairm an of the Convention, drawn from among the rank and file of membership, appoints six or seven outstanding business men, attorneys, newspaper men, or educators, as Chairmen of im portant com m ittees, such as: 1. W elfare and A dm inistration Comm ittee. 2. Grievance Committee. 3. Resolutions Committee. 4. Credential and A u thenticity Com m ittee. 5. Auditing or Financial Committee. 6. The N ext Y ea r Convention Com m ittee. A fte r appointing these com m ittees, or som etm es uniting two of them into one com m ittee, the Chairm an announces that ajiy registered delegate or officer present a t the Convention, regardless of his standing by grade in the Order, may volunteer to join any one of the com m ittees and participate in its activities or demand certain activities and investigations on the p art of said com m ittees. No attem p t is made by the officers of the adm inistration to lim it or interfere w ith the free and voluntary joining of any one of these com m ittees on the p art of anyone attending the Convention. A t the cise of each Convention, the Im perator and the officers of the ad m inistration have asked from the platform w hether anyone present a t the Con vention was prohibited, restrained, or in any way influenced in not joining any com m ittee th a t he m ay have selected to work with, or prevented in any manner from securing any of the information, any fa cts, any records, and data, th a t would have been helpful to him or her in solving any of the problems of the organization or overcoming any of the possible errors of adm inistration or other activities. A t no time, a t any of the Conventions, has any member ever stated

publicly from the floor of the Convention, or privately so fa r as any case can be found th at he or she was prohibited or prevented in a free, democratic expression of anything they desired in these regards.

Membership Defense Committee

Two years ago a number of members living in California, having witnessed the activities of the conspiracy as made m anifest in Court actions which have ended victoriously in all proceedings to date fo r AMORC, decided voluntarily and without any recomm endation from the organization, to form a Membership D efense Com m ittee, or in other words, a Defense Committee representing the membership and not the executive or adm inistrative officers. The purpose of this com m ittee was to demand from the Supreme Grand Lodge the right, or secure the privilege, of learning the am es of every one of the D istrict Commissioners and local representatives of the Order throughout the country, or to have the ames and addresses of any m em ber living in any locality, if deemed necessary, and to appoint certain officers of the Defense Committee to secure from every Regional Grand Lodge, Lodge or Chapter, a legal paper of authorization appointing the Membership D efense Committee to represent them in any investigation or any legal action, or any plan th a t they m ight find advisable, and to secure from the rank and file of membership in their own way and through their own means of communication any data, any comments, criticisms, recommendations or suggestions th at would tend to improve the admin istration and activities of AMORC or R E V E A L ANY TE N D EN C Y OR D E S IR E ON T H E P A R T O F T H E M EM B E R S H IP G E N E R A L L Y TO H A V E ANY CH AN GES M ADE IN T H E ADM IN ISTR A TIO N OR G E N E R A L ACT IV IT IE S O F TH E ORGANIZATION. This Membership Defense Committee pledged itself to defend the members and their rights against the m achinations and deliberate interference on the p art of any conspirators.

m ere handful of six or seven mem bers were authorized to represent the mem bership a t large in its a tta c k s upon the adm inistration and general control of the organization. They contended, in com plicated legal verbiage in the form of affidavits which they presented to the Court, th a t the membership generally was restless, dissatisfied, unhappy and in open rebellion ag ainst the admin istration of the Order and its Board of D irectors, and th a t each or every suit th a t they had brought or intended to bring was being brought in the ame of all the mem bers, and by autliority of the members. The things th a t these conspirators demanded, i f granted by the court or courts, would have caused an in ter ference in the regular m ailing of the lectures each week, in the preparation of any fu rth er secret lectures, lessons, or monographs, in the carrying out of any of the secret rituals, w elfare a c tivities, or other ideis and purposes of the organization. Even the judges in the courts saw th a t this would be unfair and a grave inju stice to the members a t larg e unless the membership itself demanded it. Since a t every one of the previous N ational Conventions the voluntary comm ittees referred to above had reported th a t there was no dissension, no rebel lion, 110 serious criticism or demands, and since the reports of the com m ittees read in open session of the Conventions were voted upon by every member present and unanimously subscribed to w ithout a dissenting voice, it was apparent th a t the few dissenters did not represent the membership a t large, or any portion of it, except possibly one or two ex-m em bers who had been sus pended previously from the Order for various good and sufficient reasons; and th a t the rem ainder or active conspira tors were those unconnected with the Order but having personal, m ercenary reasons fo r desiring an alm ost complete suspensin of all of the AMORC a c tivities.

W h at the Committees Did

A t each Convention, each one of the com m ittees was allowed to function freely and without any interference, as was testified to in their sworn affidavits a t the cise of each Convention. The W elfare and A dm inistration Committee was perm itted to exam ine every book, every financial record, every membership

T he Conspiracy Campaign
I t was found through the firft two court actions instigated by the ctn sp irators and which turned into victories for AMORC, th at the com plainants were attem pting to prove to the Courts of California and elsewhere, th a t they a

record, every bit of corresponderse in the files of the organization and in its safes and vaults dating back to the year 1916. The Grievance Com m ittee was furnished with every letter, every pamphlet, every printed or w ritten criticism , charge, complaint, affidavit, or insinuation made by either the conspirators or any member or outsider, and to take each com plaint, criticism , or grievance and run it down in its essence, nature, and purpose, to determ ine whether it was well founded, or false and libelous as p art of a conspiracy, or w orthy of consideration. The Auditing Com m ittee was allowed to cali in auditors, certified public accountants, and others well qualified, from outside of the organization to audit the books and records, financial system , bank books, and everything else pertaining to the financial and business end of AMORC, and to examine the regular audits of AMORC th a t have been made year by year since 1916 by certified public accountants and auditors. The other com m ittees were allowed to work in the sam e manner. Cablegram s and m essages were sent abroad to verify certain statem ents or claim s, these Com munications being sent to non-members and unbiased persons who could give reliable inform ation. Special letters were sent to various places. H istorical records were searched by persons communicated with by telephone, and every means was used by these com m ittees to m ake their work thorough and unbiased without any control or restriction on the p art of the adm inistration of AMORC.

tion had an opportunity to investgate the reports during the process of their making. E ach Convention, therefore, has gone on record with an unanimous vote, and in the form of a sworn affidavit, th a t it has never found any of the charges, com plaints, insinuations and intim ations of the conspirators to be true or based on truth and fact, or otherwise than M A LIC IO U SLY L IB E L O U S , SLA N D ER O U S, AND D E L IB E R A T E L Y IN JU R IO U S . E ach Convention has voluntarily passed a resolution unanimously voted upon without a single dissenting voice approving the adm inistrations past y ears activities, expressing confidence in the adm inistration and the administrato rs, and pledging its loyal support to the Board of D irectors, their chief executives.

T he Astonishing Facts
From all of this is revealed the aston ishing fa c t th at it is not the members within the organization those who have the utm ost a t stake, who are financially supporting it and have a right to receive adequate returns, or those who are the m ost fam iliar with all of its activities and have the g reatest fa cility in knowing and determ ining w hat is going on th a t m ake the charges against AMORC and its adm inistrators. The charges come exclusively from those who are outside of the organization, who have had no opportunity and no means of learning the real fa c ts of w hat is going on within the organization, but who are either interested in so-called rival organizations or who are anxious to promote something of their own m aking to take the place of AMORC if it can. This aston ishing situation, th a t the members of the organization are wholly satisfied, and th a t a few on the outside seek to destroy it and claim to be doing it on behalf of the members, constitutes one of the m ost peculiar situations th a t has ever been placed before a Court of law or inquiry.

T he Convention Reports
All of the reports of the various com m ittees read to the Convention a t its official session were in the form of affidavits signed by every member on each com m ittee, sworn to before a N otary and then certified to by the Chairm an of the Convention. When read to the Con vention, these reports were adopted, paragraph by paragraph, often with long and tedious explanations accom panying each paragraph, so there could be no m istake on the p art of anyone in understanding what the reports contained. I t is a notable fa c t th a t in none of the Conventions has there been a single dissenting voice in connection with any of the reports read, inasmuch as every member present a t the Conven

T he Courts Decisions
F o r this reason, in each and every Court action th a t has been started by the conspirators in connection with a definite issue and based upon false charges against the organization, the Court has ruled th a t inasmuch as the conspirators have not been able to sup port th eir contentions and th at it would

be an injustice to the general membership to g rant what the conspirators have demanded, the court has refused to sustain the injunctions sought by the con spirators and perm itted the adm inistra tion of AMORC to continu its activities without interruption. In one other case brought by the con spirators, the conspirators have constantly sought a postponement of the case until more than a year had passed, and a t the present tim e is aw aiting trial. I f the conspirators were sure of the soundness and truth of their m ali cious charges, they would not be so agreeable to postponem ents, and would have done their utm ost to secure a de cisin within the shortest possible time.

The Membership D efense Committee, on the other hand, proceeded a t once with its many members present from all p arts of the country to organize itself into rapid action and to not only inves tg a te the charges made by Clymer but to cali personally upon some of the con spirators and learn from them their mo tives or purposes.

Astonishing Rcsults
Throughout the whole Convention week for m any hours each morning, afternoon and evening the com m ittee on W elfare and A dm inistration, the com m ittee on G rievances, and the Membership De fense Com m ittee, totalling over one liundred members on all three com m it tees, searched through all the records, files, bookkeeping system , bank books, audits, correspondence, official documents, and everything else pertaining to the adm inistration and activities of the organization from the year 1916 to 1935, in an attem p t to find the least verification of the charges made by Clymer or to disprove them as false and malicious. In its interview s with some of the conspirators, the com m ittee found mercenary motives and even intim ations th a t a t least one of them would abandon his activities ag ain st the Order if he were offered a good position on the staff of AMORC a t a good salary ! Another intim ated th a t if certain personal and m ercenary things were complied with to his satisfaction, he would sign a paper withdrawing from cooperation in the plan to involve AMORC in fu rther legal actions. Even Mr. Clym ers motives were found to be highly colored in nature and quality as well as in the trick y use of words and phrases.

D r. Cymers Newcst Charges

Not satisfied w ith being a party to one Court inquiry in which he was named as a co-conspirator, and wherein the judge rules against the conspiracy and warns the conspirators not to continu their activities, Clymer has persisted in accepting from Saunders and others cer tain false and maliciously deceptive statem ents about AMORC and its ad m inistration and HA S IN V E N T E D a score of other false charges of his own, and has inserted these in books and pamphlets throughout the United States, Caada, and elsewhere. The crux of his campaign of malicious inquiry was attem pted ju s t a few weeks before the 1935 Convention, when he sent scurrious pam phlets to represen tatives, secretaries, M asters, and officers of our Chapters and branches, and to newspaper w riters, publishers and others who m ight m ake m eat of his malicious statem ents to injure the organization, and to prevent a peaceful, harmonious Convention in Ju ly of 1935. Scores of copies of these books were rapidly forwarded to Headquarters by those who received them, and they were distributed by the adm inistration officers among the delegate members and officers attending the Convention in order th a t everyone present m ight be fam iliar with the newest charges made by Clym er and thereby be prepared properly to investgate them through their various com m ittees and independently.

The Committees' Reports

This booklet, then, contains a summ ary of the reports made by these com m ittees in the form of sworn affidavits signed by all of the large number of persons on the com m ittee and voted upon unanimously without a dissenting voice by all of the officers, councilors, com missioners, inspectors, delegates, and m embers present a t the Convention.


In a very involved and badly conceived F re fa c e to the larg est of his 1935 books, D r. Clym er says th a t In spite of any and all appearances to the contrary, we have no malicious feeling again st Mr. Lew is; we hold no grudge and entertain no personal anim osity against him. . . . W e have experienced no personal delight in the use of the harsh term s and odious adjectives necessary to accu rately describe his activi ties. Y et, in th at sam e preface, he calis Mr. Lew is a successful deceiver, a vile imposter, a clever charlatan, a c ra fty sorcerer, a pilfering ch arlatan , who is guilty of fraudulent activities and wicked practises, illegal practises, deceptive wiles, insidious trickery, etc. Note th a t D r. Clymer says he is accu rately describing m atters in his pamphlets. He constantly harps on truth, precise term s, carefully worded descriptions, honest, straight-forw ard statem ents, no deception, no evasions, no p artial quotations, no falsehoods. W ell, let us see what D r. Clymer says in his honest, rugged style and ex amine the precise and honest E V ID E N C E he offers. Herewith follows a b rief sum m ary of the principal charges falsely made by Mr. Clymer in term s and phrases deliberately twisted and distorted to read to the public with the utm ost disadvantage to AMORC, and intended to be injurious to the organization and its adm inistrators.

Number One
Clym er claim s th a t the first Rosicrucians to come to A m erica did not come in 1694 but th at a Mr. Randolph established the first R osicrucian foundation in A m erica in the N ineteenth Century. A rthur Edward W aite, the eminent Masonic historian of London who has w ritten m any books on Rosicrucian and Masonic history, and who Clymer adm its is a good authority, condemns Randolph as a self-deceived pretender whose sex teachings brought him into trouble with the Government and who com m itted suicide before he was com pletely cleared of these charges, and whose vague wanderings and inane w ritings could never have been any p art of real R osicru cianism a t any time. And he quotes Randolph as saying, in one of Randolphs own books, th a t everything he had said about Rosicrucianism he had made up out of his own mind or consciousness.

The com m ittee found th a t in no historical record of the Rosicrucian Order published in Europe, either by W aite or F ra . W ittem ans, a member of the B elgian Senate and an eminent historian, or in any encyclopaedia, was Randolphs ame mentioned as an organizer or leader of Rosicrucian activities,* To prove his false claim s th a t the early Rosicrucians of 1694 who came to Philadelphia from Europe were not Rosi crucians, Clymer publishes in his pam phlets an e x tra c t from a book by Julius Sachse, who was a descendant of those early Rosicrucians, a historian, member of a number of Am erican historical so* I n m o s t o f th e s e h i s t o r i c a l b o o k s o r re c o rd 3 th e A M O R C o f N o r th A m e r ic a is m e n tio n e d a s th e tr u e R o s ic r u c ia n O r d e r. S e e a ls o th e s u b je c t o f R o s ic r u c ia n in th e R e v is e d 1 4 th e d itio n E n c y c lo p a e d ia B r i t a n n i c a , th e N ew I n t e r n a tio n a l E n c y c lo p a e d ia , th e N e ls o n s L o o s e - le a f E n c y c lo p a e d ia , th e M o d e rn E n c y c lo p e d ia , th e A m e r ic a n a , th e W e b s t e r s U n a b r id g e d D ic tio n a r y , e t c ., a l l o f w h ic h d e s c r ib e A M O R C b u t f a i l u t t e r l y to m e n tio n R a n d o lp h o r C ly m e r .

i 1 > ia u t A ^ " - r C L -^ r r [

^ irt.-kA -- o jt - <

t& x r{(x *^ -y c Z f il

< _$ > a ix'n d .q \

.j S

UHfo 0-1aK J> L^t^CrKi/

f V - iu r r la + lfa r ,^ & k a j

ft>&XJUY\tdy ct^d,
cnO t J'A * * < 4 & *->

^ , >t^ '
< ~ i/r r ^ f

A( '/ g k< iil

Q teu rtJrrJt

CI, A w 2 *

T h e above is a reprodu ction of a letter p roving th a t A lfred H . Sau nd ers was C om in and er'in-C h ief in 1 9 1 5 and 1 9 1 6 , of a clandestine "S co ttish R ite organ izatio n N O T a M em phis'M izraim body, as C lym er and Sau nd ers nou? claim. Freem asons will readily note the tric k y " difference betw een the emblem o f the E a g le " used on this stationery and the germine em blem of the tru e, recognized A . A . S. R . N o te also th at this clandestine body had its G rand O rie n t ( ! ) in N ew Y o rk C ity not where the recognized Suprem e C ouncls are located.

E x h i lo il* N o . I

T h e farm -house and barn in Pen nsylvania, ow ned by C lym er G rand M aster o f all R osicru cian s for all the W o rld ! T h e house is his only head q u arters for his "la rg e o rg an izatio n . T h e v a ca n t barn is pointed ou t to visitors as th e Suprem e T em p le of his organ ization . T hese photos were taken in July, 1 9 3 5. D ozens of visitors to his headq u arters have taken such photos and m any m ore. T h ey tell the truth about C lym er's claims for a great organ ization , tem ples, grottos, large con v en tion s, conclaves, etc. T h e symhol shown above is from the c rn e r of C lym er's R o sicru cian stationery. H e says it is a tru c R . C . symbol. W h o cver heard of the Satan ic snake being entw ined around the Divine R osy C ross, or of the Eg yp tian B eetle tak ing the place of the Sacred R ose, on the C ross?

x h i b i l -

N o .

Cfgura dumaJb^pb: (Labal: nec nm.(^&aaJ^p6 iad^&acu

ScuJrim us ^ ^ ^ ^ \ cuC aurc in ,
e x w it f f f H f c i T jg /e jitr iu r L . s

^3a{f& ttacfi 'Vifi'nK. .


t^n ^ ^ rTt^^l>nfyi Prcifatat 3h malot unb iat. 1 luwfwr bof^t Atj(aj{fli.


Z fC iC X roatin [Ui
"JUo jtjmiejot/

'Jchi/ m U crm ia u ii fapti

NSCJrtTminjOlaur. latttott

J)u u il^ftiurs Oj^mw! Aitttit K^/Sura, aiqujsonixii Ohe erfdxtmu /Lvnm 'TfuM Jui

JULACH 9 chrvc>ttiS>

3 r* g fT Julj'ittxn

J k. urttaxH tattT\fxxb<n


M ituiny.
y k o ru m

PHIL050PHU iS t fAIUlTIO f*i PLU*opbtt

zjbrw-tkm^ W !W jn6auim rintiat w f < fl.u&m --u t U fm u u rA trl |

< V 9 . cf '



T h e above is a photo of one of the pages in th e book by Sachsc, reprodu cing one of the R osiciu cian N'fanuscripts found in the possession of the inystic com niunity in Eastern Pennsylvania during the years 1 6 9 4 -1 8 0 0 . T h is m anuscript is identical with sym bolic herm etic, alchem ical charts found in m any Eu ropean R osicrucian records.


N o .4 .


tiitc rfo

< P /W llW i
Wt im
U rim u.

hit idi .jotaiin

/ n il'iu .^ / JriU rix ii'y .^ rtrTlv flU il )! V lliflM t / . ^ .f* w oiiy $u

.W 'll iittflikjiiuvmJJtM , ,.lV rtxirdiircnJP iiiitin in em , 'Jr Jd?U tt\jrlH jM t!+t . _ t* s l4 -< )W if/ '- '< V k II m if'cr inrirm i^ii, to>ibra^ jt l .V id* rt'dlkm Jw feiJ* irtfM .'ftfat l ii| )n i6 r (mi illnit.X>ai> iv/tn}jitu m'urii.

l \ i>K iitttm atttJm tarm tJf

ty uh udt le** nalihu.
.t tlU KflUlll

n* layan (aovn

W .

re/iJty .foaatt
IC ahai lvhoa

i . .Utttihi imcx Id m iq j.ufliafitf"** fiM be wjfrwt. ^ Jhsfr


f^tijfrtffxtM niciv.



A n o th e r reprodu ction of a page from the book by Sachse, proving th at the pietistical m ystics of early Pennsylvania were R osicrucians. T his page of secret R osicru cian philosophy was one of m any found in their w ell'preserved instruction papers. If they were not R osicru cian m ystics how did they com e to have such secret papers and m any R osicrucian jewels, emblems, and symbols?

x h b i t No.

Sanctuarium Suprem um et Sui Ju ris

p u b l i e r a au b ? a o i n 1 ' a v i e de ch ^c u n de cea e - j r v a m s s u r cuaque

* " "


t Ol

? a r i ? ,ie

9 .J u m

19oQ E . V .

C i^ n

, y O r j r a r d Encauaae (V&pu3 ^ - C h . D e t r s ( T a d s r ), ' Voul chmid.(Ed .P ace ) * .B e a u d e l^ t, _ j V c t o r B la n c h a r d L orenzu P r s t t i > rnes?t a lh a v w , E. J a r i n - i H . (ju e n ti n , -- j r T h ^ d - r Reuea,

T h e upper photo shows an ann ou ncem en t issued in G erm an y in 1 9 0 7 inviting mem* bers o the R osicrucian O rd e r in all parts of Eu rope, and members of its allied groups, the O . T . O ., to p articpate in a C ongress or C on vention to form an nterncitiorial alliance. T he low cr photos show the first and last page of a m im eographed copy of the report of th at C on vention concluded in Paris, Ju n e 9 , 1 9 0 8 . N o te th at the rep ort was signed by Papus and T e d e r, form er Suprem e M asters of the M artin ist O rd er, B lanch ard , the p resent S u p re m e M ster of the "Martinists, and T h eod ore Reuss, Suprem e M agus of the R osicrucians and O . T . O . B lanch ard was a p articip an ! in the Fudosi * C ongress in 1 9 34 , representing the M artin ist O rder.

E x h i b I r No. 6




4 0


r e
_* ii m H tv e

. des s c . n c . d

r o , x
< 1" '*

T h e above photo shows the cover and one inside page of F ran ce's m ost dignified and respected occult publication. N o te th at it is the om cial publication of the R osicrucian A lchem ical Society of F ra n ce , and the French A M O R C . N ote also th at its d ire c to r--o w n e r and editor is the very em inent F. Jollivet C astelot. T h is ph oto proves th at it reported the F U D O S I C on ven tion , and issued a new F a m a " about it.


Ncx 7

' '! M


>>K INs-TKt'nTOJ



N O T E THE R E T E /^ E N C E

T h ose r e th e r e a l a c tiv e M em bers o f a ls o r a lle d

. T


t h e H e r m e t i.-


E>oteric Roekruciatts

p T oliae vh u t utoh

Eotertscher Rosenhreivcer.
Uat das im Vll.a Gelebrte pr&ktiech iu

B r o th e r s o ! L ig h t, o r lH u r o i n a t i

r t ', tm ig h t in (logree <tiitie* th e j i k (-Iipu -' who la s bocotii* teclinicftlly [jfrect in p r a c tisin g
b(- A .d e p tu u w h o a s a e lii e v e 1 t..i-hiu.>ni Ke>il< lir m f ie t i . - J M n c e p - w h o li.v K tic o .il y c o r r e c t ly in te r t i r t o i th '' l i e v o i t e c h n it'ftj r*"M ilta


b e z e ic h n e t d e n P r a k t ic u a , d e r t c c h u s c h J e k t g n w o r d e n i t.

p er-

h e z e ic h n e t d e n A d e p te ii, d e r le c b iiia e h e E r t o lg e e r z ie it h a t . h e z e i c h n e t d e n P r i n z e p . d e r d a e r * i e l l e n E r i o l g e m y a t s c l i r i c h t i g i r ic n u ii t Vm t.

The to t a lit y o f th e d e g re e * o th e O. T . O. .n R ii r a t e n

,Arm(enna Mnaonvu*

n < k1 scht A


m v M i< 'h


T h e up per photo shows pages of the O . T . O . guide book in English and G erm n, acco rd in g to the C on stitu tion of 1 9 0 6 . It was issued by Suprem e M agus Peregrin u s" n 1 9 0 7 four years before C row ley ever heard o f the O . T . O ., and twelve years before C row ley m an u factu red his im itation O . T . O . T h e low er reproduction is from a letter on O . T . O . station ery w ritten by the Suprem e M agus Peregrin us who signed one of the A . M . O . R . C. C h arters. It proves th at P eregrin u s and T h e o d o r R euss-W illsson were identical. T h is also proves th at C row ley did not sign the A . M . O . R. C . C h arter.

jlc a te o ttia u ^ o

T he tw o upper photos are ot M asm e docum ents issued in R ou m an ia in the year 1 8 8 2 (w hen C row ley was a c h ild ). N o te th a t the principal sign ature is preceded by one of the kind of crosses th at C lym er says was invented and controlled by C row ley and never used by others. O th er photo shows M asonic letterhead printed in Boston in 1 8 9 0 , containing the same m ark. Low er photo shows illustration from H istory o f F re e ' m aso n ry" by Stillson and H ughson. It is the signature of an em inent Freem ason and high officer of the K m g h t T em p la rs. N o te the cross before his sign ature. T h e other crosses show the different form s as found on od R osicru cian and M asonic docum ents.

E*hbi Ir No.


K o f c n ( r c u 3 0 c

iUJL m>y<:

W ofeo****
V >ic

_ ftosae



; S - / "
U C *'

W r B f < -'

<len' rtchen. .i**~ .c-C*0 _ arf " * * Stutttf3 **-: ' ch*^ tai"1 *' b U . ch onn r t X cocha' ftl i riuif Fia OH**
f t ic < ie fe ' c' '

F ,a p e re- " " '

f l 'c S c -

A ? f w * * T = - - s s r f f * - * - Rosen*4

ort . ,


A **n

* * * ? 'S ^ rU O f^ A rf v ""** c l . 1 aN cH

s s S*w

_ **rvrtv.. \ \ < " c K -A U * ,,n T .1. 'r

T h e above photos give p roo f th at an R . C . m agazine u>as published in G erm an y and A u stria in recen t years, and its ow ner and puhlisher was T . R eusfi'W illsson" (P e re grin u s) the S f r e m e M agus. It also proves th at D r. Fran z H artm an n was a F ra te r of the R . C . It also proves th at A M O R C of N o rth A m erica was duly recognized by the foreign branches.

Er*hibit- No.


of 19 0 6
m y M. S P E N C E R L E W t* , m om he had aever Kxm, and told where he wa# (P m id e n t o f the .Yeir York lnatltute fo r Psychlcal st the inoment of recital. whtcb facts were aftTivard verlfled to th m lnuteat detf.ll. ltescarch.) in this dem onstraron lt wa not posslble for H R y ear 1906 w a i the mdium to ever taare seca the room be de scribid, and thereore there coulrt have oeen *no o ne o f th e m oat fraud.
sn cce ssfu l to r th ad v an cem en t of p sy ch l<*81 re sea rch and study, m ore w ondorful d ls c o re ries, re v eia tio n s and co n clu sion s h av in g been ^rfected in th is one v ea r thnn have been recorded In th e a n n a is cf. th j S c i ence alnce th e flrs t s p irit-r a p s w ere heard in th U co u n try in 184SIn resp oiise to th e reqn ost ro m th e S'.ind'ay "World fo r an ace o m it o f tlie m o st re m a rk a b lo ^ sychlo ex h ih itio n o f th e y er, l w ill d escrib e th e cem ou Btration b efo re th e so clety by a yon n g A m e r ic a n Iridian, w h o c4nimo<l th a t in a tra n c e ho could conim im ir.ate w ith th e s p irit o f an In d ian cb ie f. and a i : w ith th e 'O reat. S p ir it, and th a t th is wuult d escrib e th ro u g h him th e hornee o f th o se sath ered in th e room . T h e mddiom d a d escrib e, a c c u r a t* ly an d lu de-

T h is leaveti trot tw o e x p la n a tio n s th a t o f te le pathv an d th a t o f a c tu a l s p irit co m m u n ica tio n . Of rau rse, thoaa p resen t k n ew th e ir ro om s, and te le pnt.hy w as. po ssib to, o r th e mediun ro n ld h\vr received, -te ie n a th lc a lly , th e d e scrlp tio n s o { th e rooms fro m th e p erson s p resen t. B u t g ia n tln g th is. we flnd th a t te le p s th y conU not e x p la ir th e m eth o d w h ereb y th e m dium ie sm lbed th e room in w h lch th e g en tle m a n b e fo re q e n tio n e d w a t sp en d in g ih e orenln/?, o r could lt arplaln how th e m dium w as en ab led to te ll n s ju s t w bat th lt - g en tle m a n w as d o in g: for no one p resen t knew vvhere th e g en tlem a n was. and c c r U in ly no one k n ew c x a c tly whnt he and th e o th e rs w ith h im m ig h t be doinp. T h e m e iio m wr.s a s tr a r g e r to all p resen t, an d thcre coul I h av e been no co n . If te le p a tk y can ex p la ln th is d e m o n stra tio n then we m u st ad m it th a t te lep a th y betw ecn s tr? n g e r? at. a d lsta n ce a t an> tim e . 1 1 1 1 'i>der any couA* tio n e, ia pos3tble. T h is is e x te n d a s th i lm ita tlo o s o te le p a th y to a n e x tre m , b u t even * k --

U m

T h e upper photo is a rep rod u ction of a photo of T h eo d o r R eu ss'W illsso n , jo u r' nalist, editor, and publisher; P e re g rin u s, Suprem e M agu s of the O . T . O . and the R osicrucian O rd er o f G erin any. A u stria, and Sw itzerlan d, published in a biographical guide book issued in Z u rich , Sw itzerland, 1918. T h e low er photo is a reprodu ction from the N . Y . Su nday W o r ld editorial page, Ja n u a ry , 1 9 0 7 . N o te the title under the ame o f H . S p encer Lewis.

Er * hi b i Ir No.


T he abovp is a reprodu ction of the an cien t A lchem ical and H erm etic R osy Cross which A M O R C has used in some o f its literatu re. C lym er, with astonishing display of ig n oran ce of R osicru cian o r H erm etic history and sym bolism, says th at this ancient, sacred and dearly beloved sym bol, is " a Black M agic C ross invented by C row ley, the black m agician, in 1 9 1 0 or 1 9 1 1 . ' W h a t can one say to such gross injustice and m aliciousness? E v e ry w riter on true R osicrucian symbolism in the past th ree cen tu ries has referred to this encyclopaed ic sym b ol," which contains the keys to the most sacred tru th s o f the C hristian Rosy C ross. T h e letters I. N . R . I. in the four points of the^ star are symbolical of the C hrist C onsciousness. T o associate this with "black m agic is a deliberate display o f sacreligious insult which the H ierarch y o f the Cosmos can never forgive. O n ly a mind devoid o f respect for the sacred symbol of highly cultured persons would think of offering an insult of this kind solely to further his personal, m ercen ary grievances.

Cyh bi[ No.


cieties, and a g re at authority on the subject. Clymer quotes Sachse as an eminent historian and then deliberately modifies and distorts one of Sachses quotations which he publishes in his note book as follows: A fter rem aining in Holland for some time, the party left R otterdam for London, where they arrived during the month of August [1693]. W hile in London the leader of the party had con siderable intercourse with the so-called Philadelphists, a society which was formed in England by the celebrated Ja n e Leade [not Bacon and o th ersj, originally fo r the purpose of studying and explaining the w ritings of Jaco b Boehme. The outcome of this movement was a league of Christians [not Rosicru ciansj who insisted on depth and inwardness of the spirit. P age 15. The truth of the m atter is th a t the original Sachse quotation in Sach ses book is as follows: A fter rem aining in Holland for some time, the p arty left Rotterdam fo r London, where they arrived during the month of August. W hile in London the leader of the party had considerable intercourse with the so-called P h ila delphists,' a society which was formed in England by the celebrated Ja n e Leade, originally for the purpose of studying and explaining the w ritings of Jaco b Boehme. The outcome of this movement was a league of Christians who insisted on depth and inwardness of the sp irit. Page 15. As a revelation of the cunning, trickery, unfair and malicious m anner in which Clymer has quoted Sachse and used him to belie the AMORC, Clymer deliberately ignored the following quo tations from the same book by Sachse from which Clymer quoted the above distorted paragraph: Conspicuous among the la tte r class is the Community of Germn P ietists, or true Rosicrucian m ystics, who carne in a body to these shores in the year of Grace 1694, under the leadership of M agister Johannes Kelpius, e tc. In troduction to Sachses book dated Philadelphia, November, 1S95. "Ten years later, Ju ne 24, 1694, K el pius and his chapter of P ietists or true Rosicrucians landed a t Philadeiphia, walked to Germantown, and finally settled on the rugged banks of the W issahickon. Page 4, F ir s t Chapter. "In th at retired valley beside the flowing brook the secret rites and mys-

teries of the tru e R osicrucian Philosophy flourished unmolested for years until the sta te of affairs brought about by the A m erican Revolution together with pernicious Sunday legislation which also discrim inated ag ainst the keepers of the scriptural Sabbath day, gradually caused the incoming generation to assim ilate with the secular congregations. P age 7, F ir s t Chapter. In the first Chapter of Mr. Sachses book we find on page 9 a full-page illustration entitled: T itle page of R osi crucian mms. (O riginal in possession of w rite r.) Speaking of this Rosicrucian m anuscript left by these early m ystics and which Mr. Sachse had in his pos session, and of other sim ilar Rosicrucian m anuscripts* illustrated in the book, Mr. Sachse say s: "A number of these illustrations consist of secret symbols of the R osicru cians, copied direct from an ancient m an uscript, an heirloom in the w riters fam ily.

Sachses Proof
W e see from the foregoing quotations th a t Sachse positively and unqualifiedly says th a t these early m ystics were R osi crucians, and th a t they practiced the H erm etic and R osicrucian arts, and were not a religious cult. I t is true th a t they were called "P ie tis ts by some historians because of th eir pious nature. The term P ie tist w as not the ame of any religious cult. I t is a simple Germn word. Sachse explains this in a footnote which Mr. Clym er wilfully ignored. I t reads as follows: Christopher Sauer sta te s th a t the ame first arse from an expression used by a Professor Veller, who, in a funeral sermn on one of the students, said he was a P ie tist, meaning th a t he was a God-fearing person Sau ers A lm anac, 1751. P age 130. From this it will be seen th a t although these m ystics were pious and some of them did actu ally belong to the Q uaker Church, the Germn Lutheran, and other religious denominations ju s t as R osicru cians do today, they were R osicrucians in a colony studying and practicin g the Rosicrucian work from 1694 on up to and beyond the year 1800. This proves the first falsehood of Mr. Clym ers contentions, even though he tried to present his false charge with a misquoted or distorted e x tra c t from Sachses book.

CJymer says and charges th at when AM ORCs officers speak of the R osicru cian Order and its existence in Europe a t the present tim e and during the past centuries, or speak of international con ventions and congresses being held in Europe, th at the Im perator of AMORC is lying and deceiving his membership and th a t there are no such foreign branches of the organization active, and th a t there have been no conventions or congresses of R osicrucians held in E u rope or elsewhere. The Committee has read a m ass of evidence in the form of books by W aite, F ra . W ittem ans and C astells,1 another eminent Masonic historian, in which b oo ks the ames, dates and places o f a c tive Rosicrucian bodies in various parts of Europe are given for the N ineteenth and Tw entieth Century, and the ames, dates and places of Rosicrucian Conven tions and congresses are given. This evidence was supported by newspaper and m agazine reports of such con ventions2 which the com m ittee saw and examined in person, by cablegram messages from abroad confirming such con ventions, by photographs of assembled groups a t conventions and congresses, and by other indisputable statem ents made under oath and even signed and sealed by members of the A m erican Council abroad, and by the officers, chief

convention; and insina tes th a t the Imperator did not attend any such con vention. He claim s also th a t no reputable m agazine or historical record published in Europe or Am erica contains any report of such a Congress being held in B russels in 1934.s The com m ittee has examined passports of persons who attended the con vention, records of hotels where dele gates from various countries stopped fo r over a week in Belgium, newspaper reports published in Europe regarding the convention, certification of a radio announcement of the convention that was made over one of the principal radio stations in Brussels, moving pictures th a t were taken of the officers and dele gates a t the convention, and other m atter, including signed documents that have been verified by cable dispatches and by inquines made by newspaper men and other unbiased authorities. In addition thereto, the com mittee publishes herewith part of a magazine called The Rose-Croix published in F ran ce as the official publication of the R osicrucian Alchem ical S o c i e t y of F ran ce, and of the AMORC of F ra n ce .1 The magazine is in its fortieth year, and under the directorship of the emi nent scientist and alchem ist, and M aster Rosicrucian, Jollivet-C astelot. The fa ct th a t the magazine has been published for fo rty years shows the age of the organization in F rance, and the reliability of its statem ents. I t contains a full report of the Brussels convention and of the form ation of the federation called Fudosi, guaranteeing the genuineness and authenticity of AMORC as the only authentic Rosicrucian Order in N orth and South A m erica perpetuating the ancient and true organization of Rosicrucians, and their genuine prin cipies and laws. All of this evidence, which the com m ittee verified, unquestionably disproves Clym ers charges, and refutes his statem ent th a t the Im perator, H. Spencer Lewis, has deceived his membership in A m erica, and th a t there are no reports of the Fudosi convention to be found in any European or Am erican records.
3A m o n g o t h e r r e p u t a b le p u b lic a tio n s s e e F u n k a n d W a g n a l l's S tan d ard Y ear B o o k fo r 1934, c o n ta m in g f a c t s a b o u t t h is C o n g r e s s on p a g e 467.

offieials o f foreign

governm ents, w ho

certified the documents. This, then, proves the falsity of Clym ers second charge.

Number Three
Clymer charges, and goes to g reat length to arge, th at when the Im perator of AMORC said he attended a g reat congress of Rosicrucians and other mystical societies in Brussels, Belgium , in Ju ly of 1934, a t which tim e a unin or federation of all the R osicrucian and m ystical societies was formed, endorsing AMORC and refuting Clym ers claim s, th at the Im perator of AMORC was lying, and deceiving his members, and th at no such federation as the Fudosi was formed, th a t there was no congress or
J T h e R e v . F . d e P . C a s te lls . A. K . C ., ( P . M ., P . Z ., P . P . G ra n d A . C h ., P . P . G ra n d J . , o f K e n t , E n g la n d ) F r e e m a s o n ic a n d R o s ic r u c ia n H is t o r ia n .

Clymer also charges with m any bombastic statem ents and vitriolic words that a certain sign, in the form of connected crosses, used by Im perator H. Spencer Lewis before his official signatures on documents, is an invention of one Crowley of England, and used by no one else but Crowley and Im perator Lewis, and therefore a confession on the part of Im perator Lewis th a t he is owned and controlled, and the whole AMORC organization owned and con trolled, by Crowley a black m agician of Europe and th at the whole teachings and rituals of AMORC are filled with the Crowley black m agic ideas; and th at Im perator Lewis is selling out the AMORC to Crowley little by little. He claim s th at the Rosicrucian affiliated or ganization known as Ordre Temple O rientis" (O. T. O .), which ame appears on one of the Rosicrucian charters granted to Im perator Lewis, is an or ganization owned and controlled, in vented and designed by Crowley, and is a black m agic organization formed by Crowley in 1911; and th at other symbols appearing on the said ch a rter were invented by Crowley and owned and controled by him, and constitute fu rther confessions by Im perator Lew is th at AMORC is a part of Crowleys black magic organization. The evidence which this com m ittee has seen and verified shows th a t in all the AMORC records and advices to AMORC officers in North A m erica it is officially proclaimed th at Crowley is in bad repute in Europe and has never been a p art of any genuine Rosicrucian organization. He did in 1911 appropriate and adopt for him self without permission certain ancient Rosicrucian signs, symbols and titles, ju s t as did Randolph before Clymer, and ju s t as Clymer has done as Randolphs successor. The com m ittee has seen indisputable evidence in W aites book, W ittem ans book, and the books of other Masonic and Rosicrucian historians of Europe and in Am erica, to the effect th at the Order of the Oriental Temple was affiliated with the genuine Rosicrucian organization as fa r back as the Seventeenth Century in Europe and in 1895 John Y arker, eminent Masonic historian in London was Supreme Magus of the O. T. O. Theodor R euss-(W illss o n ) Peregrinus was the elected successor to Y arker. I t has seen records of a convention of the O. T. O. held in Europe in 1906 and 1908,1 and it has

seen a copy of the Constitution of the O. T. O. published in A u stria and Germ any in 1907,2 proving th a t the organi zation was a large one before 1911. I t has seen evidence to prove th a t the ch arter granted to H. Spencer Lewis in the ame of the O. T. O. was not granted by Crowley, but by the wellknown European m ystic, Magus Theo dor Reuss-W illsson of Munich, whose L atin official ame is known all over Europe as Peregrinus.1 1 I t has seen much evidence to prove th a t the ecclesiastical cross emblem which the Im perator H. Spencer Lewis uses before his ame on official docu m ents was not. invented by Mr. Crow ley, but was in use on Masonic and Rosicrucian documents in the Seven teenth and Eighteenth Centuries and the com m ittee reproduces herewith photographs of Roumanian Masonic docu ments and other documents dating as fa r back as 1882, showing sim ilar or identical m arks made before the signatures of officers who were in no wise connected w ith or known to Crowley. Crowley m ust have been a m ere child in those years. This documentary evidence is presented herewith in this report/ The other symbols referred to by Mr. Crow ley and the numbers 7-7-7 stated by Clymer to be one of Crowleys symbols have been found of ancient usage in Rosicrucian documents, and in no sense belonging to or controlled by Mr. Crow ley.5 Furtherm ore, the members a t the Con vention testified from the floor of the Convention th a t although a m ajority of them had been in the organization seven or eight years, and a large number over twelve years, no member had ever found in the teachings, rituals, or work of AMORC the least indication of black m agic form ulas, black m agic principies, or black m agic ideas, and th a t the progression of the lectures and lessons and the principies contained in them would prevent the introduction of black magic
2S e e P h o to E x h i b i t N o. 8 in t h i s b o o k . 3P h o t o E x h i b i t N o. 8 a ls o s h o w s th e m a n n e r in w h ic h T h e o d o r R e u s s - W i l ls s o n a s P e r e g r i n u s ." th e S u p r e m e M a g u s . s ig n e d a l l o f fic ia l Com munications. T h i s sig n atu re is id e n ti c a l w ith t h a t o n th e G e r m a n - A u s tr ia n - S w itz e r la n d c h a r t e r g r a n te d to I m p e r a t o r L e w is , a n d w h ic h C ly m e r r id ic u lo u s ly o r m a lic io u s ly s a y s w a s s ig n e d b v C ro w le y . N o te a ls o th e o ffic ia l R o s ic r u c i a n " s a lu ta tio n , E v e r y o u r s in th e B o n d s o f th e O r d e r , ' a p h r a s e n e v e r fo u n d in C r o w le y s p a p e r s . 4See P h o t o E x h i b i t N o . 9 in t h i s b o o k .

unless all of the thousands of lectures already in use by AMORC w ere corapletely controverted, perverted, and eontradicted. The fa e t th a t Crowley wilfully and wrongly used a fte r 1911 some of the early Rosicrucian emblems (and not until 1919 did he use a few of the O. T. O. emblems) does not constitute w hat Cly m er claim s is a confession on the p art of Im perator Lew is as being assocated w ith Crowley. B y such reasoning Crow ley m ust have sponsored all Masonic Lodges formed in England or A m erica since 1911, because such Lodges use some of the symbols which Crowley used in 1911 to 1918, and which he arb itrarily adopted without w arran t! Therefore, this absurd and deliberately m alicious statem en t was wholly and com pletely negated by the com m ittee and the m em bers of the convention. I t is the m ost wicked of Clym ers false inventions a potion of poison concocted by Clymer with full knowledge th a t it was a lie a delibrate lie.

Perhaps the m ost self-contradictory of Clym ers charges is th a t the Rosi crucian teachings and course of instruction, ritualism , secret laws and prin cipies, have been taken from published books, contrary to the claim of Im pera to r Lewis, who in 1918 offered a reward for any evidence th a t m ight be subm itted to prove th a t the secret teach ings, rituals, laws and principies, and dem onstration work of the AMORC system , were taken from printed books or public books of any kind. To support his claim and charge, Cly m er resorts again to manufactured evi dence by selecting m atter th at is unrelated to his charge and wilfully attem pting to deceive his readers into believing th a t it is legitm ate evidence. E very m em ber of AMORC knows th at the secret teachings th a t constitute the regular Temple grades of instruction, ritual and dem onstrations, end with the N inth Grade, and th a t th ereafter only supplem entary reading, not containing any of the fundam ental principies, sec re t laws, rituals, or teachings of AMORC, is given to the members, for they receive their teachings in another m anner not understood by Clymer, and having nothing to do with the printed or typew ritten lectures. B u t Clymer proceeds to put forward a few of the supple m entary lectures, less than fo rty of them, out of the w hole AMORC course of over three thousand lectures, as evi dence of his claim. In these few sup plem entary lectures chosen by Clymer he shows th a t m atter has been extracted from the w ritings of Franz Hartm ann, from Eckartshausen, and Bucke. But, even the e xtra cts which he presents clearly show th at they have naught to do with Rosicrucian teachings, R osicru cian principies, Rosicrucian laws, R osi crucian rituals, or Rosicrucian demon strations. They are purely dissertations on the history and biography of R osi crucians and on the spiritual valu of the Rosicrucian work throughout the world. Certainly no one would cali biographical, allegorical, or historical sketches a p art of the secret teachings and fundam ental principies of Rosicrucianism. Furtherm ore, Clymer charges that Im perator Lewis is guilty as a thief and a pilferer, and charges him with plagiarism because of these extracts in a m ere handful of the many thousands

Number Five
Clym er fu rth er charged th a t the title Im perator used by H. Spencer Lewis was invented by Crowley and never used by anyone else but Crowley until H. Spencer Lew is used it, thereby again proving th at the AMORC is associated with Crowley! Mr. Clym er is very positive and very m alicious in his statem ents in this regard. Y et, he knows th a t this statem ent is as false as any of his other claim s. The Com m ittee finds from the books by W aite, W ittem ans and a score of others, and from documents and papers even of a Masonic nature, th a t the term Im perator was used by chief executives of the R osicrucian Order as early as 1700. W aite, in his book, cites a dozen instances of where the title Im perator w as found signed to ancient R osicrucian documents. This absurd, ridiculous, and deliberately deceitful s ta te m ent on the p art of Clymer is there fore wholly and to tally negated by our investigations. Mr. Clymer would not dar m ake such a bold-face statem ent in any Court. He simply hopes th a t some ignorant person will believe it. He is simply being trick y and cra fty in his maliciousness. Y et, he claim s to be a lover of tru th and a Rosicrucian M aster ( ! ) .

of AMORC lectures. Y et, the extracta which Clymer publishes show th a t the lessons give credit to the authors from whom the e x tracts have been made and to their books. Certainly it is a unique thing fo r a man to be charged with plagiarism when he adinits th a t he has extracted m atter from the works of others and gives the am es of the au thors and books.1 This flagrant charge and malicious falsehood on the p art of Clymer is therefore negated by the very evidence Cly m er submits, for he does not show th a t any of the secret teachings, rituals, laws, principies, demonstrations, or other m a t te r constituting the Rosicrucian system of instruction has been taken from any book published a t any tim e. F o r years Clymer has claimed th a t H. Spencer Lewis invented and created all the Rosicrucian rituals and teachings and th at they were not reliable. Now, he reverses his claim and says they were all stolen from reliable books.

constitute proof th a t he was not a rec ognized and active F r a te r of the R osi crucians. Mr. Clym er either wilfully falsified when he said th a t F ra n z H a rt mann was never a m em ber of the R osi crucians, or he knows nothing about R osicrucian history which is unique in one who claim s to be Grand M aster of the W orld.

Number Eight
Clymer furtherm ore attem pts to belittle the Im perator Lewis by claim ing th a t in 1906 he was only an office boy working in a m agical palace picking up a few little trick s which he now uses to deceive his members a t conventions and lodge dem onstrations. (!) Clymer claim s th a t in 1906 the Im perato r Lewis was not only a m ere office boy, but uneducated and in no way prepared to go to Europe in 1909 and receive the initiation in the Rosicrucian Order, because he had never graduated from public school. The Com m ittee has seen evidence th a t he did gradate from a public school in New Y ork in the year 1899 under P rin cipal Zabriski, and the program of graduation shows th a t he had created an o rchestra in the school and directed its perform ance a t the graduation exercises. O ther evidence shows th a t in 1905 the Im perator Lewis was elcted Fresident of the New Y ork In stitu te for P sychical R esearch because of his scientific knowledge in the field of m etaphysics and mysticism , and th a t his associates in th a t organization were E lla W heeler W ilcox, F ra . E lb ert Hubbard, and Mr. Funk of Funk and W agnalls, publishers of the L ite ra ry D igest, and m any other prominent persons. O ther evidence shows th a t Im perator Lew is in 1906 was employed as a special w riter and featu re w riter fo r the New Y o rk Herald and the New Y ork World, and the Com m ittee repro duces herewith a special article w ritten a t the request of the E ditor of the New Y ork World, and published in Ja n uary of 1907, in one of its Sunday editions, dealing with the work done by H. Spencer Lew is as President of the New Y ork In stitu te for Psychical R e search.3 This society was composed of several hundred scien tists and investig ato rs who were studying the su b ject of psychic and telepathic dem onstrations and of general m etaphysical principies. I t was a non-com m ercial organization

Number Seven
Clymer fu rth er charges th a t Fran z H artm ann and von E ckartshau sen, from whom the specific ex tracts were taken by AMORC, never w ere Rosicrucians, and should not have been quoted. The Committee finds from the historical books and other records of Europe th at von E ckartshau sen has alvvays been ad mitted, and called, a R osicrucian; and it presents herewith a photograph of ju st one of the Germn R osicrucian m agazines in which F ranz H artm ann is listed as a member of the Rosicrucian Order in Germany and A u stria.2 The Committee also finds th at in Jam es H astings E n cyclopedla of Religin and E th ics, F ran z H artm ann is mentioned in Volume 10 under the su b ject of Itosicrucianism as a member of the Germn and A ustrian jurisdiction. T h at H artm ann was for a tim e a Theosophist, and th a t a t tim es he veiled his Rosicrucian connections, as many hundreds and thousands have done in the past and present, does not
1W e b s t e r , 3 a n d e v e r y o t h e r E n g l is h d ic t io n a r y d e fin e s a p la g ia ris t a s o n e w h o s t e a l s fr o m th e w r i t in g s o f a n o th e r and p a sses th em ol as h is own p ro d u ctio n . H o w c o u ld A M O R C o to d a y o r a n y e n c y c lo p a e d ia p u b lis h a n y o u tlin e o r f a i r l y c o m p le te h is t o r y o f th e p a s t a c t i v i t i e s o f th e R o s ic r u c ia n s w ith o u t q u o tin g o r t a k i n g e x t r a c t s f r o m th e r e c o r d s a n d w r i t in g s o f p a s t h is t o r ia n s , a r c h iv i s t s o r s c r ib e s ? S o lo n g a s d u e c r e d i t is g iv e n , i t i s n o t o n ly e t h i c a l ly a n d m o r a lly c o r r e c t b u t a n e c e s s ity .

selling no membership, selling no books, and having no business featu res of any kind. An article in the N. Y. Evening Jo u rn al, in 1908, by E lla W heeler W ilcox, shows th at H. Spencer Lew is was still President of the Society. F u rth ermore, in 1906 the Im perator was a m arried man with a son two years od, and never in his lifetim e could he have been employed in a m agical factory , inasmuch as a complete record of his activities throughout all of those years and up to the present tim e has been verified. Thus Clym ers stinging, personal, vitriolic slurs again st H. Spencer Lew is as a reputable person are negated by indis putable evidence, some of which is reproduced herewith. B u t why did Cly m er have to add such a deliberate falsehood to his chain of accu rate evidence ? Can anyone believe anything th a t Cly m er says in his charges and claim s?

Number Nne
Clymer charges th a t a t no tim e were the books of AMORC audited until the conspirators demanded an audit in 1934, and th at the membership was kept in ignorance of what had been done with the funds of the organization. The Com m ittee finds th at a certified accountant, unconnected with the organization, and recognized by the B anks and the S ta te of C alifornia as a reliable auditor, has made an audit of the books each year ever since the organization carne to Cal ifornia, and other audits have been made each year since 1916. The Com m ittee fu rther finds th at these audits were suban tted a t each and every Convention, and to the Convention com m ittees for exam ination, and th a t members visiting AMORC have had access to these audits and did examine them a t each Conven tion. I t found th a t the U. S. Government had audited the books on two occasions prior to 1934 because of the false charges made by the conspirators, and th a t the Government had given AMORC a clean bil of health. The Committee also found th at when the conspirators demanded an audit by one of their own auditors it was freely granted by AMORC w ithout hesitation, and th a t the audit was entirely satisfacto ry as fa r as AMORC was con cerned, but entirely contradctory to the charges made by the conspirators.*

Members a t the 1935 Convention testified th a t they had been present a t many Conventions and had been freely offered all of the AMORC financial rec ords for exam ination. In this regard it m ay be noted, however, th a t members of other F ratern ities even of the largest in A m erica testified th a t they had never seen all the financial records of other organizations offered a t Conventions. I t is neither custom ary or compulsory. The auditors reports themselves were carefully examined by the com m ittee and found to be free of any discrepancies, any m aladm inistration of funds, or any unw arranted appropriation of funds by the Im perator or other officers, or any m isuse of the funds in any way. In fact, all the audits proved th a t Clym ers charges th a t large sums of money had been sen t to Europe or personally misappropriated by the officers were absolutely false and ridiculous. Why does not Clymer quote one single instance of m isuse of the funds, since he has had a copy of the auditors special exam ination made for him and his cohorts? Ju s t ONE instance of personal misuse of the funds for personal or selfish use, quoted verbatim from one of the audits would have proved their contentions.

Number Ten
Clymer charged th a t the Lewis fam ily was usurping the power and authority of the organization and running it in th eir own w ay" without proper authorization. The Committee found th at in the or iginal incorporation papers the S ta te of California granted to the Im perator and his wife, the Supreme Secretary and his wife, and one other fifth person, the right to have the sol voting power of the organization, inasmuch as H. Spen cer Lew is and his wife and the others were the originators as well as incorporators of the AMORC Supreme Grand Lodge and th a t all foreign Rosicrucian authority and documents were in the personal ame of H. Spencer Lewis and not a group of persons. The Committee made inquiries through legal channels and found th a t the Corporation of AMORC is a perfectly correct one in every legal sense, and th a t the Im pera to r and his i'amily or associates are not usurping any authority th a t be-

* S in c e th e dem anded a u d it w a s m a d e o v e r te n m o n th s a g o , a n d c o s t th e c o n s p ir a to r s a c o n s id e r a b le s u m o f m o n e y ; an d s in c e th e y c la im e d t h a t s u c h a c o m p le te a u d it w o u ld p r o v e " t h a t la r g e s u m s o f m o n e y h ad b e e n r o b b e d o r w r o n g ly u se d b y t h e O ffic e r s o f A M O R C ; a n d s in c e C ly m e r a n d th e o t h e r s h a v e h a d c o m p le te c o p ie s o f t h a t a u d it f o r te n m o n th s , w h y did n o t C ly m e r q u o te o n e s in g le in s t a n c e o f w r o n g u s e o f th e A M O R C f u n d s ?

longs to anyone else, inasmuch as no one else (except Charles D. Dean, now deceased and his place filled by Dr. Le B run) was ever connected with the Cor poration and no one has put in any claim to the right o' directing th e AMORC in place of the present directors. The Con vention itself voted unanimously th a t it would have no one else but the present officers. How can anyone be a usurper of some authority if there never was anyone else in possession of th a t au thority, and no one else comes forward and claim s it? This was the very embarrassing question asked by the Court during one of the conspiracy triis. The conspirators could not answer. Why does Clymer use such a trick y word as usurper ? And how can he intelligently and honestly charge th at the Lew iss are illegally or wrongly m anaging a movem ent which they established and incorporated? Is not such a charge grossly malicious to any thinking person ?

would not have to pay any income tax if it continued to m aintain the system of operation it had used for years! A t no time in the history of this or ganization has AMORC received a demand for money as income tax, despite what Mr. Clym er and his cohorts in California have m aliciously stated. The Committee, therefore, found th a t this charge was another deliberate attem p t to injure the reputation and integrity of the organization and its officers. Why did they m ake this false charge ? I f they can m anufacture charges in this free-handed manner, how can they claim to be working with clean hands to protect (!) the membership of A M O RC?

Number Twelve
Clym er or his associates also charged and have stated in letters signed over their signatures and in affidavits filed in court actions th a t the P ost Office D epartm ent of the United S ta te s Gov ernm ent was conducting serious inquines looking toward the cancellation of AMORCs mail privileges. This would be a serious situation, indeed, if true, for it would mean the possible annihilation of AMORC. To show how sincere these conspirators are in their claim s th a t w hat they are doing is solely for the good of the organization and in behalf of the mem bers, it should be noted th at by filing com plaints with the United S ta tes Government in an attem pt to have the P ost Office D e p a r t m e n t stop AM ORCs mail, if successful, it would have prevented AMORC from m ailing any lectures, literatu re, or anything at all to any m ember anywhere, or to receive any mail from any of its members. I f this is w hat they cali w orking in be half of the m em bers best interests, then, may we all be saved from it! The Com m ittees found th a t the Gov ernm ent did m ake a long and thorough investigation some years ago, a fte r the conspirators had filed a malicious complaint, but the Government did not stop AMORCs m ail, and there has been no interference with AM ORCs mail up to the present time, and there is no inves tigation of AMORC on the p art of the P ost Office pending now or has there been for a long period of time. Thus another very malicious and false charge rem ains for Clymer and his co horts to wipe aw ay with more manufactured evidence or trick y statem ents. Or, will they contend th a t all parts of

Number Eleven
Clymer and his cohorts have been charging fo r a number of years th a t the United State s Government found th a t the AMORC was a profit-m aking ra ck e t with huge sums of money being appropriated by Im perator Lewis and his fam ily, and th a t therefore the AMORC organization was not entitled to income tax exemption, as a nonprofit organization. The Committee found th at m any years ago the United S ta te s Government had granted exemption to AMORC in re gar to income tax, and th a t this had never been set aside. I t found from correspondence with the Government and other records th at about a year ago the conspirators attem pted to have the United S ta te s Government set aside the AMORC exemption on the basis of fraud in the handling of the AMORC i'unds. I t found th at the Government had sent a special auditor to San Jos, California, who spent six whole weeks of seven hours a day auditing every book and finaneial record, including the bank books of AMORC, covering m any years, and th at this auditor found no fraud, no discrepancies, no errors, and no misadm inistration of the funds. As a result of this investigation on the p art of the Government, a letter was sent to AMORC from W ashington dated May 28, 1935, in which the . original ex emption to AMORC was stated again, and the AMORC was assured th a t it

the Government are ineom petent to in vestgate AMORC, and only the six con spirators are capable of knowing the tru th ?

Number Thirteen
Clym ers associates claim th a t every tim e AMORC recommends books by other authors and published by publishing houses in Philadelphia, New Y ork, Boston, Chicago, S t. Louis, Indianapolis, San F rancisco, M ontreal, London, or elsewhere, and recommends th a t the m embers buy these books direct from the publishers or bookstores, w ithout any profit to AMORC, th a t AMORC and the Im perator are deceiving the mem bers, inasmuch as H. Spencer Lew is owns and Controls all of these various publishing houses throughout the United S ta te s and elsewhere, and the income from the sale of these books reverts to H. Spencer Lew is and his son. How ridiculous it is to say th a t such firms as Doran & Company, MacM illan, Doubleday & P age, David M cK ay Co., L ittle, Brow n & Co., and scores of others are owned by H. Spencer L ew is! The m embers a t the Convention testified th a t not one of them had ever seen a recom mendation, in the Rosicrucian m agazines or lectures, of books published by other organizations or companies th a t could have been owned or controlled by the Im perator. The only books owned and controlled by AMORC are those which AMORC adm its it has prepared and printed. The absurdity of such a charge becomes alm ost childish in its nature when one thinks of it, and y et this is the type of m atter th a t these conspira tors publish in letters and pamphlets, not for AMORC members to read, but fo r strangers, and especially for newspaper editors and educators who do not know w hat books have been recom mended or w hat publishing houses have been mentioned.

Number Fourteen
Clymer and his associates claim th a t not only are the Suprem e O fficers robbing the funds of the organization lieartlessly and in enormous am ounts,*
R e m e m b e r , n o t a s i n g l e c o n c r e te , d e fln ite o r ta n g i b l e i n s t a n c e o f s u c h ' ro b b in g o r m is a p p r o p r ia tio n i s m e n tio n e d , d e s p ite t h e f a c t th a t t b e y h a v e a c o m p le te a u d it o f a l l A M O R C fin a n c ia l r e c o r d s , c o V e rin g m a n y y e a r s , a n d m a d e b y t h e i r o w n s e le c te d a n d p a id c e r tif ie d o r r e g is t e r e d a c c o u n ta n t.

but th a t the membership of the organi zation is rapidly decreasing because of its d issatisfaction with the adm inistra tion of AM ORC; and th a t in the city of San Jo s itself, the City Officials and every person of repute scorns the offi cers of AMORC and belittles them. The Committee found th a t the stories about the robbing of the funds are not only untrue but untenable in the face of the very rigid system which the Board of D irectors has voluntarily instituted whereby no one receives anything but a recognized, established salary, and cannot selfishly draw upon any of the funds fo r any personal, m ercenary pur pose. The fa c t th a t the books have been constantly audited even by the con spirators themselves and by the Gov ernm ent and no wrongdoing has ever been found disproves th a t malicious charge. I t found th a t the membership of the organization has steadily increased, even during the years of depression, and th a t while two or three hundred members per month had become delinquent in their dues, they were not suspended from membership or cancelled, but return again when their delinquency is adjusted. The Committee found th a t in any month not more than a sm all fraction of one per cent of the membership has resigned from the Orders activities, and these complete resignations have been due to removis to foreign countries, inability to keep up the study periods or other reasons, and in only a very sm all num ber o f cases less than one-tenth of one per cent do the resigned members m ake any com plaint regarding the teachings or a c tivities of the organization. The increase of buildings and property, the many expenditures fo r marvelous improvements, and the increasing size in the Convention each year, in addition to the post office receipts showing the increasing number of lessons and lectures going to members each month and each year, disprove the statem ent th at the membership of the organization has been decreasing. I t is very apparent to every business firm in San Jos, and to every member visiting San Jos, th a t the organization has had a marvelous and steady growth in every way. The Com m ittee also found th a t a t each Convention various Officials of the City have been present and welcomed the Rosicrucians to the city of San Jos, and have paid high tribute to the organiza tion and particu larly to its Im perator and other executives. During the Con vention this very year, a member rep-

resenting the C ity Council and a mem ber representing the Chamber of Commerce were present and in behalf of the city paid high tribute to the organiza tion and its officers. The Committee interviewed newspaper editors, the Chief of Plice, the judges of the courts, the City M anager, the m erchants, principis of schools, the P ostm aster, and as many other prominent characters in the city as they could find, and found all of them paying the highest tribute to the organization and its offi cers. In fa ct, the entire assem bly of members and delegates attending the Convention in 1935 the larg est ever assembled found th at wherever they went throughout the city of San Jo s, th a t storekeepers, hotel m anagers, and per sona of all walks of life paid high tr i bute to the AMORC organization and its officers.

Other Charges
Thus each and every one of the charges published by Clymer in his

pam phlets and subscribed to by his associates here in California, constituting w hat is, in our opinion, and belief, a group of conspirators, or originated by Mr. Saunders, were found to be absolutely false, and in not one single in stance w as there any evidence to sup port even a slig ht oundation for the charges made. F o r this reason the Mem bership D efense Com m ittee herewith presents the sum m ary of the report by the Com m ittee on A dm inistration and W elfare which embodies the report by the Com m ittee on G rievances, with their attestation s as to the investigations they conducted and the fa c ts as they found them. The Membership Defense Committee will be w atchful of w hat fu rth er attem pts the conspirators m ake to injure the organization, and is prepared now to put into printed form fu rth er documenta ry evidence regarding the activities of these conspirators, their motives and purposes, and the inju stice of their cam paign.

The National Membership Defense Committee.

W hat the Special Committee Reported

A fter the special Adm inistration and W elfare com m ittee, voluntarily formed a t the 1935 Convention, had completed its five-day investigation and inquiry into the charges made by Clym er in his books, and by the other defam ers of the Order, it presented its 57-page re port to the Convention, a fte r each mem ber of the Committee had read it and signed his or her ame before a notary, attestin g to its correctness. W e offer herewith the Conclusin of th at long report, as read to the Con vention and adopted unanimously w ith out a single dissenting voice. (O ther com m ittees voluntarily formed a t the Convention had also investigated many of the charges from special angles, and also voted, therefore, on this r e p o r t): The voluntary members of the Ad m inistration and W elfare Com m ittee desire to report th a t a careful, exhaustive search and investigation of the records, including correspondence, audits and all available data, as well as lengthy inter views with the several enemies of the Order, reveal th a t the charges made are fictitious, w ithout foundation, and represen t a vilifcatan o f the various O fficers of the Order, and are also false claim s and exaggerations of petty instances, as well as heckling. I t is evident th a t their motives a re : by innuendo, falsification, and high-pressure means, to place the officers of the Order on the defensive and in a false lig ht; and through clever distortion of the O fficers proper and well-m eaning acts develop friction within the Order so as to disrupt it and cause the members to demand a change in the Constitution, in order th a t certain sinister influences m ay assume control of the Order and domnate its future a c tivities fo r a selfish purpose and private gain, and thus place the organization

in the very category with which they have falsely charged both the Order and its present Officers. This report has been analyzed and approved by each and every member of the A dm inistration and W elfare Com m ittee and is signed with the signatures of each and every com m ittee m em ber. (The following are the signatures of the members of the above special com m ittee as sworn to before a N otary Public.) Elrod W ard, Chairm an of the Conven tion, San Francisco, Calif. A. B . W alker, Chairm an of the Com m it tee, Los Angeles, Calif. Dr. F . Ralph Moore, Los Angeles, Calif.

M ary A. Burke, Seattle, Wash. A. W. Nichols, San Francisco, Calif. Evelyn H arper, W ebster Grove, Mo. A. M. W avia, Los Angeles, Calif. J . W. Burns, H arrison Mills, B. C. Mrs. M. L. Em ig, B erkeley, Calif. F . W. Modersohn, Chicago, 111. R. L. Bush, San Jos, Calif. O. R . Edmunds, Palm yria, W isc. L. C. Em ig, Berkeley, Calif. W. E. Ruthnufif, Orofino, Idaho. Harold Leader, Los Angeles, Calif. Cari Anderson, Redwood City, Calif. Miss A. E . Sm ith, Memphis, Tenn. Hope Grenander, San Jos, Calif. Wm. P. Krehm, Los Angeles, Calif. Norman G. Boswell, San Jos, Calif. D r. J . C. Guidero, Los Angeles, Calif. Minnie H. Ludtke, Los Angeles, Calif.

A Challenge to M r. Clymer
Numerous tim es during the varied career of Mr. Clymer, he has declared in his acrimonious Iiterature attack in g AMORC and its officers, principally Dr. Lewis, th at he had but two aim s: F irst, th at he desired to bring his contentions before the entire world and in some pub lic m anner prove the claim s of AMORC false; second, th at AMORC could not and would not face him in any public consideration of the m atter under dispute because of his evidence, and he sought to make this known. Believing a t first th at Mr. Clymer was sincere, his challenge was accepted in good faith, the Im perator offered to m eet him in a public debate, he to bring his evidence and the AMORC representative his, and to perm it A LL interested parties, including the general public, to attend the session. Would Mr. Clymer accept this fair method ? He would not. He evaded it on the pretense th a t he was not interested in a debate (th is a fte r all his declaring th at he wanted the m atter brought before the public in an open and fair m anner). W hat was his evasive alternative? I t was th a t we perm it a committee, mainly composed of F reemasons, to investigate the claim s of both parties and render a decisin. This was a direct reversal of his form er position. W ith all due respect to the Masonic Order, why should its members, of all the different classes of society, be selected as the judges in a controversy th at concerns many individuis, both men and women, who are not Masons ? Further, why should any one class of persons, or fratern ity, be selected as the judge in the m a tter? I t is quite safe to say th a t Mr. Clymer would V IG O RO U SLY P R O T E S T if AMORC were to demand th at the offi cers of the Am erican Medical A ssociation, who are V E R Y fam iliar with Mr. Clymers past record, and who have even published th a t record, should be the judges in the controversy. Y et, a fte r all, AMORC would have as much righ t to insist upon them if SIN G L E G RO U PS were to be made the judges. B u t Mr. Clymer has repeatedly stated th at he wishes to tell the world and the public a t larg e about AMORC and displav his evidence for their exam ination. Then why not let this same public, which he hopes to reach, composed of all groups and fratern ities, men and women of every walk of life, be the ju d ge? The average man and woraan has a natu ral inherent sense of ju stice and of w hat is fair, and, therefore, once again we publish a challenge which was sent to Mr. Clymer by registered mail, which, we believe, every reader will admit, a fte r analysis, is so open, so fair, th a t if it is not accepted, it will be to them prim a facie evidence o f the hypocrisy o f Mr. Clymer and an indication th a t he actualy does not seek to m eet AMORC in an open debate and present fa cts for exam ination by all interested parties. I t is quite true th a t Mr. Clymer has published books AND BO OKS purporting to contain the evidence for his charges but which, in reality, are but a conglom eration of distorted fa cts and misconceptions. H O W EV ER , upon an open platform his evidence could not consist o f m erely his own quotations; the originis, I T H E IR E N T IR E T Y , would need be introduced and seen by all interested. There could be no alterations, deletions, or under or over emphasis of term s. His evidence would have to stand upon the w eight of its own authority. Perhaps it is because Mr. Cly m er knows this th a t he finds it safer and less em barrassing to P R IN T his "evi dence. Furtherm ore, in his books, Mr. Clymer prints but his versin, presenting the defendants reply in an ineffectual manner. B U T OH HOW D IF F E R E N T on a public platform , in the presence of a forceful, eloquent speaker, with com plete evidence available, would Mr. Cly m er find it! This is perhaps why Mr. Cly mer, using every pretense, shies from a debate. Another m ay w rite the books for Mr. Clymer which he issues as his own, but on the public platform in the pres ence of hundreds, perhaps thousands, Mr. Clymer would have to depend solely and exclusively upon his own ablty to present his argum ents and evidence. Undoubtedly, this also is the reason why

Mr. Clym er m akes m any sacrifices rath er than m eet Dr. Lewis on the public platform in debate. The following, then, is a challenge issued by D r. H. Spencer Lewis, Im perator of AMORC, to Mr. R. Swinburne Clymer, and sent him by registered mail. See, m y good reader, if you can find in this challenge any reason why Mr. Clymer should evade accepting it, if he is really sincere in w anting to bring his evi dence and claim s into the open and be fore all interested parties. I f Mr. Cly m er refuses to accept such a fran k and open challenge, ju st as it is with all its liberal term s, obviously to the advantage of Mr. Clymer, then in your opinion what, if any, valu can be attributed to his statem en t th a t he wishes the m atter brought into public lig h t? August 20, 1935. Mr. R. Swinburne Clymer. D ear Mr. Clym er: A s you have openly declared yourself desirous of presenting to all interested parties the evidence you claim to have, which would disprove all AMORC claim s, we are again, and fo r the la st tim e, go ing to te s t the sin cerity of your vaunted statem ents by challenging you to an open public debate and presentation of evi dence. We do not believe th a t this m atter should come before any single, private group or body fo r investigation as a sta r cham ber proceedings, which you seem to seek, since no single group or body is alone interested in the authen ticity of R osicrucian claim s. W e would not expect you to subm it your evidence, fo r example, to a com m ittee composed of offi cers of the A m erican Medical A ssocia tion, or do we expect you to have th a t body pass upon your integrity. So we believe, as would every fa ir minded person, th a t the interested public as a whole is the best judge since Rosicrucianism is not fo r one class of society, but for all classes. As fo r the intelligence and sense of ju stice of the general public, we are willing to ta k e our chances with a public audience. I can see no reason why you should not if you are sincere. There are three elem ents to be considered in preparation for a public de bate. They a re : F irst, the cost; second, the place; third, the method of announcing it to the public. To prevent you from having any logical excuses fo r once again evading a challenge of this nature,

we will give you the decided preference in all three of these elements. 1. You will, in person, represent your own case and I shall represent AMRC. 2. You will bring with you tangible, definite evidence th a t will be recognized by any court to support your charges a g ain st AMORC, and likewise, I shall in troduce equally acceptable evidence to disprove your claim s and your sta te m ents of authenticity. 3. All evidence, yours and mine, will be submitted to a com mittee composed of the audience and three attorneys of the city in which the debate is held. You m ay select one attorney in th a t city and we another, and the two attorneys select the third. The judgm ent of this com m ittee will be the final decisin on the debate. 4. Since the rental expense of the hall and railroad transportation m ight prove a hardship to you, W E W IL L P A Y fo r the rental of ANY H A LL you select IN AN Y C IT Y O F ONE HUND R ED THOUSAND OR M ORE, in the mid-western states, which would be about equal distance between your sta te and mine, and pay your transportation to the city. You may, of course, pay your own transportation if you desire. 5. The m eeting m ust be held upon a Sunday afternoon or evening, so th a t as many people as possible may attend not ju s t one group or com mittee as you seem to prefer. You m ay invite, in addition to the general public, your followers, and I shall invite AMORC mem bers. 6. So th a t the public may be advised of the debate and given every opportu nity to attend and since you may not be in a position to do so, W E W IL L P A Y all newspaper and radio advertisem ents announcing the affair. You will, of course, be given ampie opportunity to examine all such announcements before they are made. 7. You will agree th a t representa tivos of the press be present to m ake notes of your address for publication and examine your evidence, and, of course, we shall gladly likewise comply. 8. The debate will be confined to your charges, the ones you have been m aking in books against AMORC, and your a ttem pts to substantiate your authen ticity; and AMORC will be confined to repudiating your charges and to substantiating its own authenticity. 9. The debate is to be held upon any Sunday in November or December, 1935

except upon a holiday, or two days preceding a holiday, to avoid m aking it impossible for the g reatest number to attend. 10. You are to accept this fa ir chal lenge in full, without evasin or modification on or before O ctober 1, 1935. I sincerely hope th a t you will not once again resort to your custom ary evasin by wishing to have only a limited group m ake a prvate investigation, or th at you will not suddenly, as in the past, fin'd the public platform too large and well illuminatcd for your claim s and th a t you will not state, as heretofore, your dislike for debates and your preference fo r publishing one-sided books behind whose covers the real fa cts are concealed; but instead will, in a fran k manner, come out into the open, perm itting an inquiry by the general interested public. V ery truly yours, H. Spencer Lewis, Im perator, RO SIC R U C IA N O RDER, (A M O RC).

Is Mr. Clymer Afraid to Debate?

W ill Mr. Clym er accept or will he again dodge the responsibility of his statem ents and ask for private, limited, com m ittee investigations ? Is it really true th a t Mr. Clymer is so very afraid of the open public platform , and especially the experience of m eeting Dr. Lewis in public d ebate? W h at a m arvelous opportunity fo r Mr. Clymer to expose AMORC and Dr. Lew is if he really has anything th a t would stand the light of an open public platform inves tig ation! Is it possible th a t Mr. Clymer cannot speak for him self in the presence of those he accu ses? Is it also possible th a t Mr. Clymer rem ains a t his farm headquarters because he fears public scrutiny of his ability to m eet an opponent face to face where replies to his charges would imm ediately be made in his presence ? W ill he accept or evade? P a st experiences seem to bear out the belief th a t Mr. Clymer is afraid to debate Dr. Lew is in public.

Verwandte Interessen