86 REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE 



The Committee now come to consider the difficulty 

 implied in the supposition of the existence of two 

 Juntos meeting in this city at the same time. This 

 difficulty is ably presented by Mr. Du Ponceau. 

 Speaking of the assumption of the existence of two 

 juntos, one begun in 1727, the other in 1750, and sup 

 posing both to have ended in 1768, or 69, he says, in 

 his note to Mr. Kane : 



&quot;During these 18 or 19 years, there would have 

 been two Societies in Philadelphia, same name, same 

 objects, same rules, same exercises, same qualifica 

 tions, in short, a fac-simile of each other. This ap 

 pears, if not impossible, at least quite improbable. 



&quot;There would have been at least some difference 

 in the name, as the New Junto, the Junto No. 2, or 

 the like. Courtesy would have required it. Shop 

 keepers do not take each others signs. It must have 

 been, if otherwise, in opposition to Franklin s Junto, 

 and an insult. It is not .pretended. It would have 

 produced confusion.&quot; 



Two suppositions are admissible in explanation of 

 the existence of two Juntos without involving the 

 difficulties so forcibly urged by our President in the 

 above extract. One is that the Franklin-Junto, 

 through the suggestion of its members, caused the 

 second Junto to be established, without revealing its 

 own existence; the other, that it exercised its in 

 fluence openly with its young friends, to induce them 

 to establish a Society on the model of their own. 



