be guarded against; and the Colonel, late in the fall of the year, supposed to be October, 1781, was so unfortunate as to be surrounded and captured near Fort Herkimer, with Abraham Wollever, by a party of Indians. The captors were much elated with their success, and hurried off with their prisoner into the deep recesses of the forest, where it was supposed they intended to inflict upon him a lingering death by torture.

The Colonel understood this to be their intention, and for a time, no doubt, felt some disquiet and a fervent solicitude to get rid of such uncomfortable companions. He had no relish for a stake-burning and as little desire, probably, to have his ears saluted with the music of an Indian pow-wow; and therefore contrived during the night, after he was taken, to make his escape and return to the fort after an absence of two days and two nights. He felt it was no disgrace to turn his back upon an enemy on an emergency of this kind, and thereafter avoided being placed in a like predicament.

He lived near the small stream called Staring's creek, in Schuyler, on which there was a small grist-mill burned by the French and Indians in 1757, and being rebuilt the mill was again destroyed during the revolution. He was a man of thrift and owned many broad acres of land, some of which have been retained by the descendants to a very recent date, if they are not now the owners. The reader who may be curious to see the particulars of the Colonel's capture and escape will do well to consult the Annals and Recollections of Oneida County, published by Judge Jones.

At the treaty of peace in 1783, Colonel Staring was a prominent and influential man and enjoyed the confidence of his countrymen almost without stint. He was a member of the convention from Montgomery county, called in 1788, to consider the present constitution of the United States, which had been submitted to the several states for ratification or rejection. He was an ardent friend of Governor George Clinton, an anti-federalist, and he with a large

majority of the convention, when elected, were opposed to the ratification of the constitution.

It has been often asserted that he was absent on the 26th of July, 1788, when the final vote was taken on the resolution to ratify the constitution, having been detained from attendance by the management of one of the prominent advocates of the measure. This can not be true if the members composing the convention and voting on the resolution have been accurately given by Mr. William Jay, who states in his life of John Jay (vol. I, p. 266), there were fifty-seven members in all elected, and this was the number besides the president, Gov. George Clinton, which voted on the resolution, there being a majority of three in favor of it.

Mr. Hammond (vol. I, page 21 of his Political History), thinks Mr. Jay's statement incorrect. He sets down the whole number of members elected to the convention at sixty-seven, consequently there must have been nine absentees on the final vote. Ten states had ratified the constitution when the final vote was taken in the New York convention. The assent of nine only was required to give the constitution effect. The ratification by New Hampshire on the 21st of June, 1788, she being the ninth state, was not known at Poughkeepsie where the convention was in session, until some time in July. The news from Virginia which ratified on the 26th of June, reached the New York convention in all probability before the 26th of July. This changed the whole aspect of the controversy going on in the convention, and must have placed Governor Clinton and the majority in a very embarrassing position. By a rejection New York would have seceded from the confederacy, and being then one of the smaller states her condition in that case must have excited the most intense apprehensions. This was felt and expressed by some of the leading and influential members of the majority, who gave the resolution such form of expression as they hoped would quiet the public and still preserve to the state her place as a member of the union.

Indulging somewhat in speculation, I can not refrain from saying, if Mr. Hammond's account of the whole number elected be right, it is fair to presume that the nine absentees were anti-federalists, unless they were kept away by some other cause than voluntary absence.

There is no doubt the Colonel was a great admirer of good horses, desired to possess those of the best blood and most improved breed, and if he did loiter a little from his place in the convention to indulge his fancy in examining Baron Steuben's stud, his vote could not have defeated the ratifying resolution had he been present. If we may now judge him by all the characteristics of his life he was the last man in the convention to swerve in the least from opinions once formed.

His friend, Governor George Clinton, was reelected in 1789, but his adherents were defeated in every direction, showing that the Governor had a strong hold in the confidence and affections of the people, and could stand up against the influence of a powerful party at home backed by all the influence of the general government, then directed by Alexander Hamilton.

Upon the organization of this county in 1791, Colonel Staring was appointed first judge of the court of common pleas, by Governor Clinton, which office he held many years. By the constitution of 1777, first judges of counties held their places during good behavior and until sixty years old. The selection of laymen for the bench at that early day in the history of the state was not unfrequent, and especially for the courts of common pleas, and even one of the justices of the supreme court organized soon after the adoption of the constitution, was not a lawyer. I allude to John Sloss Hobart, who held the office of United States senator, from this state, from January to May 1798.

Many amusing and curious anecdotes are still remembered and repeated of Judge Staring's mode of administering justice during his judicial career. He was an honest, straightforward man, but he entertained very peculiar notions of his

powers and duties as a judge. Some of his decisions while on the bench were considered by the lawyers rather in the light of judicial novelties, than as chiming in exactly with common law precedents. The country was new, however, and the demands of justice comparatively small. He no doubt performed the duties of his station, notwithstanding his limited knowledge of legal principles and restricted elementary education, with quite as much success, and with as much satisfaction to the suitors and the public as many have done who filled like stations, at far later periods in the history of our country..

The story of the Yankee Pass, the fame of which had reached the farthest bounds of New England more than forty years ago, and which I heard repeated west of the Mississippi river in 1819, is no doubt familiar to most of the people in the county, and particularly to those of German extraction. I have been frequently told the whole story was fabulous, and got up to amuse our primitive fathers of the valley at the expense of the judge, or by some one envious of his promotion to such honors; for it must be remembered that no longer ago than the close of the last century the county was not exempt from party strife, nor destitute of men who felt themselves competent to fill any office in it within the gift of the people or government. Stripped of all embellishment, the story, as told, has this extent and no other. One Sunday morning the judge saw a man, on horseback, coming along the highway from the west, and presuming that no one would venture openly to violate the laws of the state, unless justified by the exceptions named in the statute, he asked the man to stop, and seeing he was a stranger, inquired of him reasons why he was thus disregarding his duty and the requirements of the law. The stranger, who is reported to have been a New England Yankee, did not excuse his conduct to the judge's satisfaction, and declining to stop over until the next day, the latter exacted the payment of the fine of six

York shillings imposed by the statute, for the infringement of this branch of it.

After paying his fine, the traveler asked the judge to give him a certificate to that effect, urging the necessity of it to protect him against being again called to account by some other magistrate. The judge had no doubt heard of dispensations and indulgences from the lips of his parents. He thought the request reasonable, and told the traveler to write one and he would sign it. This was done, and the stranger proceeded on his journey eastward. Some few months after this occurrence, the judge having occasion to visit the Messrs. Kanes, merchants, at Canajoharie, on matters of business, was requested by them to pay an order of twenty-five dollars which he had several months before drawn on them, as appeared from the date. It is said he was much surprised by this demand made upon his purse, and at first denied having given the order, but finding the signature to be his handwriting, and making particular inquiries in respect to the presentation of the order and the individual who brought it to the store, he came to the conclusion that the paper presented to him for payment was no other than the one he had signed allowing the traveler to continue his journey on Sunday, after paying his fine. It was then called the Yankee Pass, from a supposition that no one except a native of New England had the cunning and audacity to practice so keen and grave a joke.

The act to prevent immorality, in force at that time, contained several exceptions, and among them was one allowing any one to travel on Sunday twenty miles to attend public worship, and this fact was quite as likely to be known to the traveler as some others he was no doubt quite familiar with. He must have known Judge Staring and the Kanes, and was well enough acquainted in the Mohawk valley, and with the standing and business occupation of its inhabitants, to know that the judge's order on the Messrs. Kanes would be honored at sight, or he would not have attempted the