of the treasury to borrow $5,000,000 for the United States at 7 3-10 per cent. interest.

The first communication looking to a union was presented at the meeting of the Law Library Company in March, 1821, in a communication from George M. Dallas, secretary of the Associated Members of the Bar, stating that a committee of three members of this association, consisting of Thomas Kittera, Samuel Shoemaker and William Delany, Esquires, had been appointed to meet such a committee as may be appointed by the Law Library Company, to ascertain and report on what terms the Law Library Company will dispose of their stock. Whereupon the Law Library Company disposed of the communication with a very curt resolution that "It is inexpedient for this company to dispose of its stock." The next move came from the Library Company in March, 1825. It was resolved that a committee be appointed to confer with any committee that may be nominated on the part of the Law Association to ascertain if the funds of that institution could not be obtained for the purposes of this company. At a special meeting in September of the same year the committee reported that they had had a conference with a committee of the Law Association, and had determined, in conjunction with that committee, to apply to their constituents respectively for the appointment of a committee to digest a plan of union. After several interlocutory reports the committee reported March 30, 1827, that a plan of union had been formed on the basis of amendments to the charter of the Law Library Company, and had obtained the sanction of the Attorney-General and of the Supreme Court. And on the second of April, 1827, the new charter was presented, approved by Frederick Smith, Attorney-General, and by Gibson, Chief Justice; Duncan, Rogers and Huston, justices, and signed by 54 of the principal members of the bar of that day, many of whom lived down to the memory of the present bar not much beyond middle age. The charter was accepted by both parties, and the new institution came into being under its present name of the Law Association.

We have come now to the present association. Neither of its predecessors absorbed the other, but an amicable union took place which preserved the features of both. The Library Company was regarded as the parent, and it received the members of the other into its own membership, and the new charter came into operation as an amendment to the old. But the Law Library had been governed by a board of seven directors, with no other officers than the secretary and treasurer elected by the board. The Law Association accepted the organization of the Associated Bar, and elected a chancellor, vice-chancellor, treasurer, secretary and three committees, one of censors, one of finance, and one on library. With some minor changes from time to time the same organization has continued down to the present day.

At the first election the officers of the new association were: Chancellor, William Rawle; vice-chancellor, Horace Binney; secretary, George M. Dallas; treasurer, Thomas I. Wharton; and the association seems to have proceeded with new life and a hopeful future.

In December, 1830, a communication from Samuel H. Horn, George Sharswood and Benjamin Gerhard was received, asking, as a committee, on what terms the use of the library of the Law Association might be obtained for the disputants of the Law Academy on the evenings of their meetings. At the next meeting the proposition was favorably reported upon, and subsequently the Law Academy made a handsome donation of funds, and from that time forward the relations of the two associations have always been harmonious and even cordial.

As an instance of the seriousness and formality of accession to the privileges of the association, we may recall that at the same meeting the future chancellor, Peter McCall, was proposed for membership, and the application was referred to the board of censors. At the next meeting the censors made a favorable report on the application of Peter McCall, Esq., for membership and the ballot was then taken, and he was declared to be duly elected.

In March, 1849, new rules were adopted for the government of the library, among which were that it should be open from 10 o'clock until 3 p. m., and from 4.30 until sunset daily throughout the year, except during the months of July and August, on Christmas and New Year's Day, the twenty-second of February and on Saturday afternoons and Sundays, at which times it should be closed. The library was then on the second floor of what is now called Congress Hall, at Sixth and Chestnut, between the rooms of the District Court. The east room was definitely assigned as a conversation room. Conversation in the library room was forbidden. The rule as to closing at sunset no doubt came down from the day, or rather the night, of candles, and at the bottom of it was the very serious risk of fire. Looking at this by-law reminds me of a geographical conundrum that used to be jocosely asked about the Philadelphia Library, which had a similar rule in the days of the autocracy of the librarian, Lloyd Smith: Why is the Philadelphia Library the easternmost point in the United States? Because there the sun sets earlier than in any other place.

In 1854 the association had reached another ebb in its affairs, and there was apparently no meeting from December, 1854, until December, 1857. At the former, Mr. Binney was declared re-elected as chancellor. Mr. Ingersoll was elected at the latter. Mr. Ingersoll declining, Mr. Meredith was elected.

In the spring of 1860, a very important accession was made to the finances of the association. At the March meeting, a committee consisting of Eli K. Price, Benjamin Gerhard, Edward Hopper and William Henry Rawle was appointed to go to Harrisburg to memorialize the legislature to aid the library. The result was the act of April 2, 1860, P. L. 594, granting the association a tax of twenty-five cents on original writs. This was received with great satisfaction and the association resolved that the privilege should be used in a liberal way. At the meeting of April 7 it was resolved that "in the opinion of this body, the tax given by the