Page images
PDF
EPUB

House. We may judge of the excess of his mortification, and it is probable that he had been opposed even to the union, foreseeing its results. It may be easily understood why the United Society did not get a Charter of incorporation during the continuance of the proprietary government.

The

Thus the two Societies which during two years and more had been opposed to each other, and seemed to aim at each other's destruction, became firmly united. Their union was sincere, and they laboured harmoniously in promoting the cause of Science. Laws were made according to the Treaty, taken from those of the two Societies with great fairness. division of the Society into Committees was taken from the Rules of the Philosophical Society, and the oral communication and discussion which give so much life to our proceedings, from those of the old Junto, which the American Society had retained. In 1771, they published the first volume of their transactions, which gained them credit and reputation in America and Europe.

From the facts above stated it appears to me to result:

1. That our Society dates its origin as far back as the year 1727 when the Junto was first established by Dr. Franklin.

2. That having been the founder of the two Societies which were united in 1768, that great man may justly be considered as the founder and the

father of our Society and as such will forever be entitled to our veneration and grateful remembrance. In a secondary degree, this Society is also indebted to the talents and labours of Charles Thomson, without whose exertions the Junto would not have been placed in a situation to contend with the Philosophical Society, which probably would not have been revived but for the jealousy which the Junto under his direction excited, and this Society would not have been formed and consequently would not now exist.

In writing this narrative, I have endeavored to preserve the strictest impartiality. The passions of those times have long since subsided, and it is far from my wish to revive them.

If this essay should ever be published, some of the most important documents might be added by way of appendix.

It may not be out of place to mention here the names of the officers of our Society for the years 1769 and 1770, as they are not in our printed Transactions, which begin only with 1771.

For 1769.

President, Benjamin Franklin

Vice-Presidents, Dr. Thomas Cadwalader, Dr. Thomas Bond, and Joseph Galloway

Secretaries, Charles Thomson, Rev. Wm. Smith,

Thomas Mifflin, and John Ewing

Curators, Dr. Adam Kuhn, Dr. John Morgan, Lewis Nicola

Treasurer, Philip Syng.

For 1770.

President, B. Franklin

Vice-Presidents, Joseph Galloway, Dr. Thomas Bond, Şamuel Rhoads

Secretaries, Rev. Dr. Wm. Smith, Charles Thomson, Thomas Mifflin, Geo. Roberts

Curators, Isaac Bartram, Dr. B. Rush, Owen Biddle

Treasurer, Philip Syng.

[The views set forth in the above paper by Mr. Du Ponceau were opposed in a communication made to the Society on the same date by J. Francis Fisher, Esq., of Philadelphia. These communications were referred to a special committee whose report follows. Unfortunately Mr. Fisher's paper has not been found in the Archives of the Society.]

[ocr errors]

REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE

TO WHICH

MR. DU PONCEAU'S HISTORY WAS

REFERRED

READ OCTOBER 15TH, 1841.

The Committee, to whom were referred, on the 26th of June 1840, the Communications of Mr. Du Ponceau and Mr. Fisher, relating to the early history of the Society, beg leave to present their report:

1

The paper of Mr. Du Ponceau was presented on the 19th of June, 1840, but read at an adjourned meeting, held a week afterwards, when the Committee was appointed. It is universally admitted that the present Society was formed by the union of two Societies existing prior to 1769, which we shall designate, as the author of the paper has done, by the abridged titles of "Philosophical Society" and "American Society." In the outset of his paper, Mr. Du Ponceau states that a difference of opinion exists whether the American Society was a continuation of the Junto instituted by Franklin in 1727, or a different association of more recent date. Among those who hold the latter opinion, Mr. Du Ponceau mentions Mr. Sparks, who expresses it, or at least his doubts on the point, in the first volume of his life of Franklin. As the author of the paper holds this opinion to be erroneous, and as he believes the work

« PreviousContinue »