68 REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE 



letter, was really the Franklin-Junto revived, after, 

 perhaps, an interruption; but mistook it for a new 

 Society. Now the Committee conceive that this is 

 not a question of veracity between two men, where 

 a contradiction must be explained away, in order to 

 avoid the imputation of untruth to one of the parties. 

 On the contrary, they view it only as a question of 

 the probable accuracy of two gentlemen, in relation 

 to a doubtful point. Under this aspect of the ques 

 tion, they apprehend that Thomson is more likely 

 to be accurate, writing in 1768, than Smith in 1792. 

 Besides, Dr. Smith, preparing an Fulogium, and 

 not a formal history of the Society, might easily 

 have fallen into the natural error of supposing the 

 existence of but one Junto, an opinion which some 

 members of this Committee admit they entertained, 

 before they had investigated the subject. 



If, however, weight is still to be given to the 

 assertion of Dr. Smith, which, it may be remarked, 

 is loosely expressed in not alluding to the Philosoph 

 ical Society as part of the foundation of our Society, 

 the Committee think it is completely neutralized by 

 the statement contained in the following extract from 

 Dr. Thomas Bond s oration before our Society, de 

 livered on the 21st of May 1782. 



Franklin &quot;gradually established many necessary 

 institutions, among which was this Philosophical 

 Society, so early as 43, when the plan was formed 

 and published, the members chosen, and an invita- 



