implied contracts where neither statute or common law interferes. His was the narrow contracted project which arose from the individual case, and the individual character of the parties, and not from established principles of equity which are applicable to all suits. His system reduced the judge and the juror to the character of arbitrators without chart or compass to direct their course. As a judge he was uniformly and zealously in favor of making every man support the clergyman who was settled in the town, whether they believed his doctrine or not. The court consisted of Farrar, Wingate and Arthur Livermore, and were in term at Dover; Judge Livermore informed me that the other two judges had expressed a decided disapprobation of my conduct and zeal in supporting those who claimed exemption from ministerial taxes assessed for the support of clergymen. I expressed my regret that any of the judges were inclined to support a privileged order, but that circumstance, instead of restraining, would increase my exertions—and that so long as I remained at the bar, the court would find me a persevering, determined advocate for the rights of conscience and of property. Judge Wingate was a man of talents — of a strong mind, and such was respected. He read much, even in old age- and was then able to read fine print. His reading at that time was principally confined to history and theology. His memory was strong and retentive — and he acquired a rich fund of useful knowledge— and general information. He wrote little for the press. A concise memoir of the late Meshech Weare is the only publication that I recollect reading that was printed in his lifetime. After his death. a few of his letters were published. He considered debt as a great evil, and studiously avoided it. He did not wait to have his laborers, mechanics and others call upon him for their services, but at particular periods settled and paid their demands. As a sample of this, in January, 1837, he paid the editor of the Portsmouth Journal, the ninety fifth semiannual subscription for that paper. His frugality, on some occasions, degenerated into that species of avarice whose character approaches meanness. An instance of this kind occurred when he was in Congress. It arose in consequence of an amour he had with the landlady. She demanded. a sum of money from him. He reluctantly consented to pay, but not so much as she required. She then threatened him with a suit. To avoid this, instead of paying her demand, he agreed to submit the question to arbitrators, who awarded a liberal sum to the woman with which he reluctantly complied. This statement I received from one of the arbitrators. Judge Wingate was considered as a man of strict integrity, but of strong passions and prejudices. He was a man of great decision of character- and on some occasions it appeared to result more from obstinacy than a commendable spirit of manly firmness. This was sometimes apparent from his conduct in court. This induced that distinguished jurist, Theophilus Parsons, to say to the writer, "That it was of great importance, that your Judge Wingate should form a correct opinion before he pronounces it—for after that, law, reason and authority will be unavailing." His person in the prime of life was six feet high, and he then weighed from one hundred seventy to one hundred seventy five pounds; but four or five years before his death his body bent forward and he walked with considerable difficulty. The 15th of August, 1830, he observed in one of his letters that when he left college he was the youngest in his class, but that when he wrote he was the oldest that then stood on the catalogue of Harvard College. He also survived every member of the first Congress under the constitution, with whom he served. During a number of the last years he lived, his diet was simple. It consisted principally of boiled milk and biscuit, morning and evening. He seldom drank tea or coffee, excepting when he had company. On the 7th of March, 1838, he died at his residence in Stratham, aged ninety eight years ten months and twelve days. DOCUMENTS ILLUSTRATING THE HISTORY OF THE ACTION OF NEW HAMPSHIRE RELATIVE TO THE ENLARGEMENT OF THE POWERS OF CONGRESS UNDER THE ARTICLES OF CONFEDERATION, AND THE ADOPTION OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES, SUPPLEMENTAL TO THE NOTES IN THE APPENDIX TO VOL. XX, NEW HAMPSHIRE STATE PApers. CORRESPONDENCE RELATIVE TO THE ADOPTION OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES. NOTE. In 1868 and 1869, Captain W. F. Goodwin, U. S. A., who was much interested in New Hampshire history, collected copies of the records of the several towns in this state, which showed the action of each regarding the convention to consider the Federal constitution, The returns collectively are quite voluminous, and will be arranged in a suitable volume and lodged in the office of the Secretary of State. They indicate that many of the towns appointed advisory committees to consider the proposed form of Federal government, and to act to some extent as mentors for the delegates. Very few towns by vote appear to have instructed against ratification. Probably there were less than ten of this class, and the delegates from one or two of these disregarded their instructions. Colonel Ebenezer Smith, of the Meredith-New Hampton class, with three others, did not vote. (See "The New Hampshire Federal Convention," by J. B. Walker, Concord, N. H.) The author of this work mentions some interesting traditions as to the final vote in the convention. The following letter, found among the Goodwin town returns, is an addition to the traditionary evidence. Isaac Patterson was for many years town clerk of Bath. He was a lawyer by profession, and lived to a great age. His father, Captain Isaac Patterson, represented the Piermont-Warren class, and not the Franconia-Lincoln class as is sometimes erroneously stated. The letter is as follows: CAPT. W. F. GOODWIN, U. S. A., BATH, N. H., April 30, 1869. I have seen two or three letters from you requesting a copy from the town records of Bath of the proceedings in choosing a delegate to attend the convention at Exeter, N. H., February, 1788, to ratify the Federal constitution. I will now inform you why you have not received any answer to your letters. It is because there are no records of said convention in this town. The town meeting for the choice of a delegate to attend said convention, I can find no record of. Bath was probably classed with Lisbon, formerly called Concord, and I think Samuel Young was the delegate chosen. I most sincerely sympathize with you in your laudable undertaking to obtain copies from the town records of the most important convention ever held in New Hampshire. My father, Isaac Patterson, of Piermont, was a member of said convention, representing classed towns. The opposition was sanguine they would defeat the adoption of the constitution in this state, but the friends of the measure were enough for them. While the opposition were still at dinner, the vote was taken and the measure carried. Yours truly, ISAAC PATTERSON, Town Clerk. [Charles Thomson to President Sullivan.] [Farmer's State Papers, Vol. 11, p. 29.] OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF CONGRESS March 31st 1787 Sir I have rec" the letters Your Excellency did me the honor to write on the 11th & 30th July-the 26th Augt—the 24 Oct', the 25th Nov 1786 and the 24th Jan 1787, & have the honor to inform You that Your letter of the 3 of this month with the vote of the Gen |