The Fugitive Slave Law and Its Victims Anti-Slavery Tracts No. 18

The Project Guten­berg EBook of The Fugi­tive Slave Law and Its Vic­tims by Amer­ican An­ti-​Slav­ery So­ci­ety

This eBook is for the use of any­one any­where at no cost and with al­most no re­stric­tions what­so­ev­er. You may copy it, give it away or re-​use it un­der the terms of the Project Guten­berg Li­cense in­clud­ed with this eBook or on­line at www.guten­berg.net

Ti­tle: The Fugi­tive Slave Law and Its Vic­tims An­ti-​Slav­ery Tracts No. 18

Au­thor: Amer­ican An­ti-​Slav­ery So­ci­ety

Re­lease Date: Novem­ber 9, 2004 [EBook #13990]

Lan­guage: En­glish

Char­ac­ter set en­cod­ing: ASCII

*** START OF THIS PROJECT GUTEN­BERG EBOOK FUGI­TIVE SLAVE LAW ***

Pro­duced by Cur­tis Weyant, An­drea Ball and the On­line Dis­tribut­ed Proof­read­ing Team.

THE

FUGI­TIVE SLAVE LAW

AND

ITS VIC­TIMS.

AMER­ICAN AN­TI-​SLAV­ERY SO­CI­ETY, 138 NAS­SAU STREET, NEW YORK. 1856.

AN­TI-​SLAV­ERY TRACTS. No. 18.

* * * * *

THE FUGI­TIVE SLAVE LAW, AND ITS VIC­TIMS.

* * * * *

The Fugi­tive Slave Law was en­act­ed by Congress in Septem­ber, 1850, re­ceived the sig­na­ture of HOW­ELL COBB, [of Geor­gia,] as Speak­er of the House of Rep­re­sen­ta­tives, of WILLIAM R. KING, [of Al­aba­ma,] as Pres­ident of the Sen­ate, and was “ap­proved,” Septem­ber 18th, of that year, by MIL­LARD FILL­MORE, Act­ing Pres­ident of the Unit­ed States.

The au­thor­ship of the Bill is gen­er­al­ly as­cribed to James M. Ma­son, Sen­ator from Vir­ginia. Be­fore pro­ceed­ing to the prin­ci­pal ob­ject of this tract, it is prop­er to give a syn­op­sis of the Act it­self, which was well called, by the New York _Evening Post_, “An Act for the En­cour­age­ment of Kid­nap­ping.” It is in ten sec­tions.

SYN­OP­SIS OF THE LAW.

SEC­TION 1. Unit­ed States Com­mis­sion­ers “au­tho­rized and re­quired to ex­er­cise and dis­charge all the pow­ers and du­ties con­ferred by this act.”

SECT. 2. Com­mis­sion­ers for the Ter­ri­to­ries to be ap­point­ed by the Su­pe­ri­or Court of the same.

SECT. 3. Unit­ed States Cir­cuit Courts, and Su­pe­ri­or Courts of Ter­ri­to­ries, re­quired to en­large the num­ber of Com­mis­sion­ers, “with a view to af­ford rea­son­able fa­cil­ities to re­claim fugi­tives from la­bor,” &c.

SECT. 4. Com­mis­sion­ers put on the same foot­ing with Judges of the Unit­ed States Courts, with re­gard to en­forc­ing the Law and its penal­ties.

SECT. 5. Unit­ed States Mar­shals and deputy mar­shals, who may refuse to act un­der the Law, to be fined One Thou­sand dol­lars, to the use of the claimant. If a fugi­tive es­cape from the cus­tody of the Mar­shal, the Mar­shal to be li­able for his full val­ue. Com­mis­sion­ers au­tho­rized to ap­point spe­cial of­fi­cers, and to call out the _posse comi­ta­tus_, &c.

SECT. 6. The claimant of any fugi­tive slave, or his at­tor­ney, “may pur­sue and re­claim such fugi­tive per­son,” ei­ther by procur­ing a war­rant from some judge or com­mis­sion­er, “or by seiz­ing and ar­rest­ing such fugi­tive, where the same can be done with­out pro­cess;” to take such fugi­tive be­fore such judge or com­mis­sion­er, “whose du­ty it shall be to hear and de­ter­mine the case of such claimant in a sum­ma­ry man­ner,” and, if sat­is­fied of the iden­ti­ty of the pris­on­er, to grant a cer­tifi­cate to said claimant to “re­move such fugi­tive per­son back to the State or Ter­ri­to­ry from whence he or she may have es­caped,”--us­ing “such rea­son­able force or re­straint as may be nec­es­sary un­der the cir­cum­stances of the case.” “In no tri­al or hear­ing un­der this act shall the tes­ti­mo­ny of such al­leged fugi­tive be ad­mit­ted in ev­idence.” All mo­lesta­tion of the claimant, in the re­moval of his slave, “by any pro­cess is­sued by any court, judge, mag­is­trate, or oth­er per­son whom­so­ev­er,” to be pre­vent­ed.

SECT. 7. Any per­son ob­struct­ing the ar­rest of a fugi­tive, or at­tempt­ing his or her res­cue, or aid­ing him or her to es­cape, or har­bor­ing and con­ceal­ing a fugi­tive, know­ing him to be such, shall be sub­ject to a fine of not ex­ceed­ing one thou­sand dol­lars, and to be im­pris­oned not ex­ceed­ing six months, and shall al­so “for­feit and pay the sum of one thou­sand dol­lars for each fugi­tive so _lost_.”

SECT. 8. Mar­shals, deputies, clerks, and spe­cial of­fi­cers to re­ceive usu­al fees; Com­mis­sion­ers to re­ceive ten dol­lars, if fugi­tive is giv­en up to claimant; oth­er­wise, five dol­lars; to be paid by claimant.

SECT. 9. If claimant make af­fi­davit that he fears a res­cue of such fugi­tive from his pos­ses­sion, the of­fi­cer mak­ing the ar­rest to re­tain him in cus­tody, and “to re­move him to the State whence he fled.” Said of­fi­cer “to em­ploy so many per­sons as he may deem nec­es­sary.” All, while so em­ployed, be paid out of the Trea­sury of the Unit­ed States.

Sect. 10. [This Sec­tion pro­vides an ad­di­tion­al and whol­ly dis­tinct method for the cap­ture of a fugi­tive; and, it may be added, one of the loos­est and most ex­traor­di­nary that ev­er ap­peared on the pages of Statute book.] Any per­son, from whom one held to ser­vice or la­bor has es­caped, up­on mak­ing “sat­is­fac­to­ry proof” of such es­cape be­fore any court of record, or judge there­of in va­ca­tion--a record of mat­ter so proved shall be made by such court, or judge, and al­so a de­scrip­tion of the per­son es­cap­ing, “with such con­ve­nient cer­tain­ty as may be;”--a copy of which record, du­ly at­test­ed, “be­ing pro­duced in any oth­er State, Ter­ri­to­ry, or Dis­trict,” and “be­ing ex­hib­it­ed to any judge, com­mis­sion­er, or oth­er of­fi­cer au­tho­rized,” &c. “shall be held and tak­en to be full and con­clu­sive ev­idence of the fact of es­cape, and that the ser­vice or la­bor of the per­son es­cap­ing is due to the par­ty in such record men­tioned;” when, on sat­is­fac­to­ry proof of iden­ti­ty, “he or she shall be de­liv­ered up to the claimant.” “_Pro­vid­ed_, That noth­ing here­in con­tained shall be con­strued as re­quir­ing the pro­duc­tion of a tran­script of such record as ev­idence as afore­said; but in its ab­sence, the claim shall be heard and de­ter­mined up­on oth­er sat­is­fac­to­ry proofs com­pe­tent in law.”

The name of the NORTH­ERN men who vot­ed for this cru­el kid­nap­ping law should not be for­got­ten. Un­til they re­pent, and do works meet for re­pen­tance, let their names stand high and con­spic­uous on the roll of in­famy. Let the “slow-​mov­ing fin­ger of scorn” point them out, when they walk among men, and the stings of shame, dis­ap­point­ment, and re­morse con­tin­ual­ly vis­it them in se­cret, till they are forced to cry, “my pun­ish­ment is greater than I can bear.” As to the _South­ern_ men who vot­ed for the law, they on­ly ap­peared in their le­git­imate char­ac­ter of op­pres­sors of the poor--whom God will re­pay, in his own time. The thou­sand-​tongued voic­es of their broth­er's blood cry against them from the ground.

The fol­low­ing is the vote, in the SEN­ATE, on the en­gross­ment of the bill:--

YEAS,--Atchi­son, Bad­ger, Barn­well, Bell, Berrien, But­ler, Davis (of Mis­sis­sip­pi), Daw­son, A.C. DODGE (of Iowa), Downs, Foote, Hous­ton, Hunter, JONES (of Iowa), King, Mangum, Ma­son, Pearce, Rusk, Se­bas­tian, Soule, Spru­ance, STUR­GEON (of Penn­syl­va­nia), Tur­ney, Un­der­wood, Wales, Yulee.--27.

NAYS.--Bald­win, Brad­bury, Chase, Coop­er, Davis (of Mas­sachusetts), Day­ton, Hen­ry Dodge (of Wis­con­sin), Greene, Smith, Up­ham, Walk­er, Winthrop.--12.

AB­SENT, OR NOT VOT­ING.--Ben­ton, Bor­land, _Bright_ of In­di­ana, _Clarke_ of Rhode Is­land, Clay, _Cass_ of Michi­gan, Clemens, _Dick­in­son_ of New York, _Dou­glas_ of Illi­nois, _Ew­ing_ of Ohio, _Felch_ of Michi­gan, _Hale_ of New Hamp­shire, _Ham­lin_ of Maine, _Miller_ of New Jer­sey, Mor­ton, _Nor­ris_ of New Hamp­shire, _Phelps_ of Ver­mont, Pratt, _Se­ward_ of New York, _Shields_ of Illi­nois, _Whit­comb_ of In­di­ana. [Fif­teen North­ern Sen­ators ab­sent from the vote.]

On the fi­nal pas­sage of the Bill in the Sen­ate, the yeas and nays were not tak­en. _D.S. Dick­in­son_ of New York, who had been ab­sent when the vote was tak­en on the en­gross­ment, spoke in fa­vor of the bill. Mr. Se­ward was said to be ab­sent from the city, de­tained by ill health.

When the Bill came up in the HOUSE OF REP­RE­SEN­TA­TIVES, (Septem­ber 12th,) JAMES THOMP­SON of Penn­syl­va­nia, got the floor,--doubt­less by a pre­vi­ous un­der­stand­ing with the Speak­er,--and ad­dressed the House in sup­port of the Bill. He closed his re­marks by _mov­ing the pre­vi­ous ques­tion_! It was or­dered, and thus all op­por­tu­ni­ty for re­ply, and for dis­cus­sion of the Bill was cut off. The Bill was then passed to its third read­ing--equiv­alent to en­act­ment--by a vote of 109 YEAS, to 75 NAYS; as fol­lows:--

YEAS. _Maine._--THOMAS J.D. FULLER, of Calais; EL­BRIDGE GER­RY, of Wa­ter­ford; NATHANIEL S. LIT­TLE­FIELD, of Bridg­ton.

_New Hamp­shire._--HAR­RY HI­BBARD, of Bath; CHARLES H. PEASLEE, of Con­cord.

_Mas­sachusetts._--SAMUEL A. ELIOT, of Boston.

_New York._--HI­RAM WALDEN, of Waldensville.

_New Jer­sey._--ISAAC WILDRICK, of Blairstown.

_Penn­syl­va­nia._--MI­LO M. DIM­MICK, of Strouds­burg; JOB MANN, of Bed­ford; J.X. MCLANA­HAN, of Cham­bers­burg; JOHN ROB­BINS, Jr., of Philadel­phia; THOMAS ROSS, of Doylestown; JAMES THOMP­SON, of Erie.

_Ohio._--MOSES HOAGLAND, of Millers­burg; JOHN K. MILLER, of Mount Ver­non; JOHN L. TAY­LOR, of Chill­icothe.

_Michi­gan._--ALEXAN­DER W. BUELL, of De­troit.

_In­di­ana._--NATHANIEL AL­BERT­SON, of Greenville; WILLIAM J. BROWN, of Ami­ty; CYRUS L. DUN­HAM, of Salem; WILLIS A. GOR­MAN, of Bloom­ing­ton; JOSEPH E. MC­DON­ALD, of Craw­fordsville; ED­WARD W. MC­GAUGH­EY, of Rockville.

_Illi­nois._--WILLIAM H. BIS­SELL, of Belleville; THOMAS L. HAR­RIS, of Pe­ters­burg; JOHN A. MC­CLER­NAND; WILLIAM A. RICHARD­SON, of Quin­cy; TIM­OTHY R. YOUNG, of Mar­shall.

_Iowa._--SHEP­HERD LEF­FLER, of Burling­ton.

_Cal­ifor­nia._--ED­WARD GILBERT.

[All these North­ern Traitors called them­selves _Democrats_! save three--_Eliot_ of Mas­sachusetts, _Tay­lor_ of Ohio, and _Mc­Gaugh­ey_ of In­di­ana, who were Whigs.]

--> Ev­ery Rep­re­sen­ta­tive of a Slave­hold­ing State, who vot­ed at all, vot­ed YEA. Their names are need­less, and are omit­ted.

NAYS _Maine._--Otis, Sawtelle, Stet­son.

_New Hamp­shire._--Amos Tuck.

_Ver­mont._--Hebard, Hen­ry, Meacham.

_Mas­sachusetts._--Allen, Dun­can, Fowler, Mann.

_Rhode Is­land._--Dixon, King.

_Con­necti­cut._--But­ler, Booth, Wal­do.

_New York._--Alexan­der, Ben­nett, Brig­gs, Bur­rows, Gott, Gould, Hal­loway, Jack­son, John A. King, Pre­ston King, Mat­te­son, McKissock, Nel­son, Put­nam, Rum­sey, Sack­ett, Scher­mer­horn, School­craft, Thur­man, Un­der­hill, Sil­vester.

_New Jer­sey._--Hay, King.

_Penn­syl­va­nia._--Calvin, Chan­dler, Dick­ey, Freed­ley, Hamp­ton, Howe, Moore, Pit­man, Reed, Stevens.

_Ohio._--Ca­ble, Carter, Camp­bell, M.B. Cor­win, Crow­ell, Dis­ney, Evans, Gid­dings, Hunter, Mor­ris, Root, Vin­ton, Whit­tle­sey, Wood.

_Michi­gan._--Bing­ham, Sprague.

_In­di­ana._--Fitch, Har­lan, Ju­lian, Robin­son.

_Illi­nois._--Bak­er, Went­worth.

_Wis­con­sin._--Cole, Doty, Dur­kee.

_Cal­ifor­nia._--Wright.

AB­SENT, OR NOT VOT­ING. An­drews, Ash­mun (Mass.), Bo­kee, Brooks, But­ler, Casey, Cleve­land (Conn.), Clarke, Con­ger, Duer, Gilmore, Good­enow, Grin­nell (Mass.), Levin, Nes, Newell, Ogle, Olds, Peck, Phoenix, Pot­ter, Reynolds, Ris­ley, Rock­well (Mass.), Rose, Schenck, Spauld­ing, Strong, Sweetser, Thomp­son (Iowa), Van Dyke, White, Wilmot (Penn.) [33--all North­ern men.]

[Fif­teen South­ern Rep­re­sen­ta­tives did not vote.]

DANIEL WEB­STER was not a mem­ber of the Sen­ate when the vote on the Fugi­tive Slave Bill was tak­en. He had been made Sec­re­tary of State, a short time pre­vi­ous. All, how­ev­er, will re­mem­ber the pow­er­ful aid which he gave to the new com­pro­mise mea­sures, and among them to the Fugi­tive Slave Bill, in his no­to­ri­ous Sev­enth of March Speech, [1850.] A few ex­tracts from that Speech will show how heav­ily the re­spon­si­bil­ity of the ex­is­tence of this law rests up­on DANIEL WEB­STER:--

“I sup­pose there is to be found no in­junc­tion against that re­la­tion [Slav­ery] be­tween man and man, in the teach­ings of the Gospel of Je­sus Christ, or of any of his Apos­tles.”--_Web­ster's 7th March Speech_, (_Au­tho­rized Edi­tion_,) p. 9.

“One com­plaint of the South has, in my opin­ion, just foun­da­tion; and that is, that there has been found at the North, among in­di­vid­uals and among leg­is­la­tors, a dis­in­cli­na­tion to per­form, ful­ly, their Con­sti­tu­tion­al du­ties in re­gard to the re­turn of per­sons bound to ser­vice, who have es­caped in­to the free States. In that re­spect, it is my judg­ment that the South is right, and the North is wrong.” * * * * “My friend at the head of the Ju­di­cia­ry Com­mit­tee [Mr. MA­SON of Vir­ginia] has a bill on the sub­ject now be­fore the Sen­ate, with some amend­ments to it, WHICH I PRO­POSE TO SUP­PORT, WITH ALL ITS PRO­VI­SIONS, _to the fullest ex­tent_.”--_Idem._ p. 29.

He pro­ceed­ed to as­sure the Sen­ate that the North would, on due con­sid­er­ation, ful­fil “their con­sti­tu­tion­al obli­ga­tions” “_with alacrity_.” “There­fore, I re­peat, sir, that here is a ground of com­plaint against the North well found­ed, which ought to be re­moved, which it is now in the pow­er of the dif­fer­ent de­part­ments of this Gov­ern­ment to re­move; which calls for the en­act­ment of prop­er laws au­tho­riz­ing the ju­di­ca­ture of this Gov­ern­ment, in the sev­er­al States, to do all that is nec­es­sary for the re­cap­ture of fugi­tive slaves, and for the restora­tion of them to those who claim them Wher­ev­er I go, and when­ev­er I speak on the sub­ject, and when I speak here, I de­sire to speak to the whole North, I say that the South has been in­jured in this re­spect, and has a right to com­plain; and the North has been too care­less of what, I think, the Con­sti­tu­tion peremp­to­ri­ly and em­phat­ical­ly en­joins up­on her as a du­ty.”--_Idem._ p. 30.

In a speech in the Unit­ed States Sen­ate, Ju­ly 17, 1850, made with an ev­ident view to calm that North­ern feel­ing which had been aroused and ex­cit­ed by his 7th of March speech, be­yond the pow­er of priest or politi­cian whol­ly to sub­due, Mr. WEB­STER said there were var­ious mis­ap­pre­hen­sions re­spect­ing the work­ing of the pro­posed Fugi­tive Slave Bill:--

“The first of these mis­ap­pre­hen­sions,” he said, “is an ex­ag­ger­at­ed sense of the ac­tu­al evil of the recla­ma­tion of fugi­tive slaves, felt by Mas­sachusetts and the oth­er New Eng­land States. What pro­duced that? The cas­es do not ex­ist. There has not been a case with­in the knowl­edge of this gen­er­ation, in which a man has been tak­en back from Mas­sachusetts in­to slav­ery by pro­cess of law, not one.” * * * * “Not on­ly has there been no case, so far as I can learn, of the recla­ma­tion of a slave by his mas­ter, which end­ed in tak­ing him back to slav­ery, in this gen­er­ation, but I will add, that, as far as I have been able to go back in my re­search­es, as far as I have been able to hear and learn, in all that re­gion there has been no one case of false claim. * * * _There is no dan­ger of any such vi­ola­tion be­ing per­pe­trat­ed.”[A]--Web­ster's Speech on the Com­pro­mise Bill, in the Unit­ed States Sen­ate, 17th of Ju­ly, 1850, edi­tion of Gideon & Co., Wash­ing­ton_, pp. 23-25.

[Foot­note A: See al­so Mr. Web­ster's let­ter to the Cit­izens of New­bury­port, dat­ed May 15th, 1850, where­in he urges the same point, with great pains of ar­gu­ment.]

With such words did Mr. Web­ster en­deav­or to al­lay North­ern alarm, and to cre­ate the im­pres­sion (which was cre­at­ed and which pre­vailed ex­ten­sive­ly with his friends) that the Fugi­tive Law was on­ly a con­ces­sion to South­ern feel­ing, and that few or no at­tempts to en­force it were like­ly to be made.

But when a few months had proved him a false prophet, and the South­ern chase af­ter fugi­tive men, wom­en, and chil­dren had be­come hot and fierce, and in one or two in­stances the hunter had been foiled in his at­tempts and had lost his prey, Mr. Web­ster changed his tone, as fol­lows:--

In May, 1851, at Syra­cuse, N.Y., he said: “De­pend up­on it, the Law [the Fugi­tive Slave Law] will be ex­ecut­ed in its spir­it and to its let­ter. It will be ex­ecut­ed in all the great cities--here in Syra­cuse, in the midst of the next An­ti-​Slav­ery Con­ven­tion, if the oc­ca­sion shall arise.”

Cer­tain­ly, so far as in Mr. Web­ster lay, so far as was in the pow­er of Mr. Fill­more, and the of­fi­cers of the Unit­ed States Gov­ern­ment gen­er­al­ly, and of the still larg­er crowd of _ex­pec­tants_ of of­fice, noth­ing was left un­done to in­tro­duce the tac­tics, dis­ci­pline, and cus­toms of the South­ern plan­ta­tion in­to our North­ern cities and towns, in or­der to en­force the Fugi­tive Law.

* * * * *

The re­main­der of this Tract will be de­vot­ed to a record, as com­plete as cir­cum­stances en­able us to make, of the VIC­TIMS OF THE FUGI­TIVE SLAVE LAW. It is a ter­ri­ble record, which the peo­ple of this coun­try should nev­er al­low to sleep in obliv­ion, un­til the dis­grace­ful and bloody sys­tem of Slav­ery is swept from our land, and with it, all Com­pro­mise Bills, all Con­sti­tu­tion­al Guar­an­tees to Slav­ery, all Fugi­tive Slave Laws. The es­tab­lished and ac­cred­it­ed news­pa­pers of the day, with­out ref­er­ence to par­ty dis­tinc­tions, are the au­thor­ities re­lied up­on in mak­ing up this record, and the _dates_ be­ing giv­en with each case, the read­er is en­abled to ver­ify the same, and the few par­tic­ulars which the com­pass of the Tract al­lows to be giv­en with each. With all the ef­fort which has been made to se­cure a good de­gree of com­plete­ness and ex­act­ness, the present record must of ne­ces­si­ty be an im­per­fect one, and fall short of ex­hibit­ing all the enor­mi­ties of the Act in ques­tion.

JAMES HAM­LET, _of New York, Septem­ber, 1850_, was the first vic­tim. He was sur­ren­dered by Unit­ed States Com­mis­sion­er Gar­diner to the agent of one Mary Brown, of Bal­ti­more, who claimed him as her slave. He was tak­en to Bal­ti­more. An ef­fort was im­me­di­ate­ly made to pur­chase his free­dom, and in the ex­ist­ing state of the pub­lic feel­ing, the sum de­mand­ed by his mis­tress, $800, was quick­ly raised. Ham­let was brought back to New York with great re­joic­ings.

_Near Bed­ford, Penn., Oc­to­ber 1._ Ten fugi­tives, from Vir­ginia, were at­tacked in Penn­syl­va­nia--one mor­tal­ly wound­ed, an­oth­er dan­ger­ous­ly. Next morn­ing, both were cap­tured. Five oth­ers en­tered a moun­tain hut, and begged re­lief. The wom­an sup­plied their wants. Her hus­band went out, pro­cured as­sis­tance, cap­tured the slaves, and re­ceived a re­ward of $255.

_Har­ris­burg, Penn., Oc­to­ber._ Some slaves, num­ber not stat­ed, were brought be­fore Com­mis­sion­er M'Al­lis­ter, when “the prop­er­ty was proven, and they were de­liv­ered to their mas­ters, who took them back to Vir­ginia, by rail­road, with­out mo­lesta­tion.”

_De­troit, 8th Oc­to­ber._ A ne­gro was ar­rest­ed un­der the new law, and sent to jail for a week, to await ev­idence. Great num­bers of col­ored peo­ple armed them­selves to res­cue him. Re­sult not known.

HEN­RY GAR­NETT, _Philadel­phia_, ar­rest­ed as the slave of Thomas P. Jones, of Ce­cil Coun­ty, Mary­land, and tak­en be­fore Judge Gri­er, of the Unit­ed States Supreme Court, Oc­to­ber 18, 1850, who de­clared his de­ter­mi­na­tion to ex­ecute the law as he found it. The Judge said that the claimant had not tak­en the course pre­scribed by the fugi­tive act, and pro­ceed­ed to ex­plain, in a de­tailed man­ner, what the course should be in such cas­es. As the claimant thus failed to make out his case, the pris­on­er was or­dered to be dis­charged.

_Boston, about 25th Oc­to­ber._ At­tempt to seize WILLIAM and ELLEN CRAFT. William Craft armed him­self, and kept with­in his shop. Ellen was con­cealed in the house of a friend. Their claimants, named Hugh­es & Knight, were in­dict­ed for defama­tion of char­ac­ter, in call­ing W.C. a slave, and brought be­fore a mag­is­trate. The feel­ing ex­cit­ed against them was so great, that they at length fled from the city. Short­ly af­ter, it be­ing con­sid­ered haz­ardous for Mr. and Mrs. Craft to re­main in the coun­try, they were en­abled to es­cape to Eng­land.

[In a let­ter, dat­ed Ma­con, Geor­gia, Nov. 11, John Knight gives a par­tic­ular ac­count of the pro­ceed­ings and ex­pe­ri­ences of him­self and his friend Hugh­es, on their then re­cent vis­it to Boston for the pur­pose, to quote his own lan­guage, “of re-​cap­tur­ing William and Ellen Craft, the ne­groes be­long­ing to Dr. Collins and Ira Tay­lor.” Willis H. Hugh­es al­so pub­lished his state­ment.]

_New Al­bany, In­di­ana._ A wom­an and boy giv­en up, and tak­en to Louisville. They were so white that, even in Ken­tucky, a strong feel­ing arose in their fa­vor on that ground. They were fi­nal­ly bought for $600, and set free.

ADAM GIB­SON, _Philadel­phia, De­cem­ber 21, 1850_. Sur­ren­dered by Ed­ward D. In­gra­ham, Unit­ed States Com­mis­sion­er. The case was hur­ried through in in­de­cent haste, tes­ti­mo­ny be­ing ad­mit­ted against him of the most ground­less char­ac­ter. One wit­ness swore that Gib­son's name was Emery Rice. He was tak­en to Elk­ton, Mary­land. There, Mr. William S. Knight, his sup­posed own­er, re­fused to re­ceive Gib­son, say­ing he was not the man, and he was tak­en back to Philadel­phia.

What com­pen­sa­tion has the Unit­ed States Gov­ern­ment ev­er made to Adam Gib­son, for the in­ju­ri­ous act of its agent, In­gra­ham? Had not the Slave­hold­er been more hon­or­able than the Com­mis­sion­er or the mak­ers of the Fugi­tive Law, Gib­son would have been in Slav­ery for life.

HEN­RY LONG, _New York, De­cem­ber, 1850_. Brought be­fore Com­mis­sion­er Charles M. Hall, claimed as the fugi­tive slave of John T. Smith of Rus­sell Coun­ty, Vir­ginia. Af­ter five or six days' pro­ceed­ings, there be­ing some doubt of the Com­mis­sion­er's le­gal right to act, the al­leged fugi­tive, Long, was tak­en be­fore Judge Jud­son, Dis­trict Judge of the Unit­ed States. The Cas­tle Gar­den Union Safe­ty Com­mit­tee re­tained Mr. George Wood in this case, as coun­sel for the slave claimant. Long was sur­ren­dered by Judge Jud­son, and tak­en to Rich­mond, Vir­ginia. Judge J. was com­pli­ment­ed by the _Wash­ing­ton Union_ as “a clear-​head­ed, com­pe­tent, and in­de­pen­dent of­fi­cer, who has borne him­self with equal dis­cre­tion, lib­er­al­ity, and firm­ness. Such judges as he,” con­tin­ues the _Union_, “are in­valu­able in these times of tur­moil and ag­ita­tion.” At Rich­mond, Long was ad­ver­tised to be sold at pub­lic auc­tion. On Sat­ur­day, Jan­uary 18th, he was sold, amid the jeers and scoffs of the spec­ta­tors, for $750, to David Clap­ton, of Geor­gia. The auc­tion­eers (Pul­lam & Slade), in com­menc­ing, said there was one con­di­tion of the sale. Bonds must be giv­en by the pur­chas­er that this man shall be car­ried South, and that he shall be kept South, and sold, if sold again, to go South; and they de­clared their in­ten­tion to see the terms ful­ly com­plied with. Long was sub­se­quent­ly ad­ver­tised for sale at At­lanta, Geor­gia.

_Near Coatsville, Chester Coun­ty, Penn._ On a writ is­sued by Com­mis­sion­er In­gra­ham, Deputy Mar­shal Halzell and oth­er of­fi­cers, with the claimant of an al­leged fugi­tive, at night, knocked at the door of a col­ored fam­ily, and asked for a light to en­able them to mend their bro­ken har­ness. The door be­ing opened for this pur­pose, the mar­shal's par­ty rushed in, and said they came to ar­rest a fugi­tive slave. Re­sis­tance was made by the oc­cu­pant of the house and oth­ers, and the mar­shal's par­ty fi­nal­ly driv­en off--the slave own­er ad­vis­ing that course, and say­ing, “Well, if this is a spec­imen of the pluck of Penn­syl­va­nia ne­groes, I don't want my slaves back.” The mas­ter of the house was severe­ly wound­ed in the arm by a pis­tol shot; still he main­tained his ground, declar­ing the mar­shal's par­ty should not pass ex­cept by first tak­ing his life.

_Mar­ion, Williamson Coun­ty, Ill., about De­cem­ber 10, 1850._ Mr. O'Havre, of the city po­lice, Mem­phis, Ten­nessee, ar­rest­ed and took back to Mem­phis a fugi­tive slave, be­long­ing to Dr. Young. He did so, as the Mem­phis pa­per states, on­ly “af­ter much dif­fi­cul­ty and heavy ex­pense, be­ing strong­ly op­posed by the Free Soil­ers and Abo­li­tion­ists, but was as­sist­ed by Mr. W. Allen, mem­ber of Congress, and oth­er gen­tle­men.”

_Philadel­phia, about Jan­uary 10, 1851._ G.F. Al­ber­ti and oth­ers seized, un­der the Fugi­tive Slave Law, a free col­ored boy, named JOEL THOMP­SON, al­leg­ing that he was a slave. The boy was saved.

STEPHEN BEN­NETT, _Columbia, Penn._, ar­rest­ed as the slave of Ed­ward B. Gallup, of Bal­ti­more. Tak­en be­fore Com­mis­sion­er In­gra­ham; thence, by _habeas cor­pus_, be­fore Judge Kane. He was saved on­ly by his free­dom be­ing pur­chased by his friends.

_The Huntsville (Ala.) Ad­vo­cate_, of Jan­uary 1, 1851, said that Messrs. Mark­wood & Chester had brought back “_sev­en of their Slaves_” from Michi­gan.

_The Mem­phis (Tenn.) Ea­gle_, of a lat­er date, says that with­in a few weeks “at least five fugi­tive slaves have been brought back to this city, from free States, with as lit­tle trou­ble as would be had in re­cov­er­ing stray cows.” The same pa­per adds, “We oc­ca­sion­al­ly re­ceive let­ters no­ti­fy­ing us that a slave, said to be the prop­er­ty of some one in this vicin­ity, has been lodged in jail in Illi­nois or In­di­ana, for his own­er, who will please call, pay charges, and take him away.”

_In Boston, end of Jan­uary, 1851._ A col­ored man, late­ly from North Car­oli­na, was sought by of­fi­cers, un­der Mar­shal De­vens, aid­ed by a lawyer, named Spencer, pro­vid­ed by the New York Union Safe­ty Com­mit­tee. The ar­rest was not at­tempt­ed. It was found that the col­ored man was too strong­ly guard­ed and pro­tect­ed.

Mrs. TA­MOR, or EU­PHEMIA WILLIAMS, _Philadel­phia, Febru­ary, 1851_, moth­er of six chil­dren, ar­rest­ed and brought be­fore Com­mis­sion­er In­gra­ham, as the slave Ma­ha­la, be­long­ing to William T.J. Pur­nell, of Worces­ter Coun­ty, Mary­land, ad­mit­ted to have been ab­sent since 1829--twen­ty-​two years. Chil­dren all born in Penn­syl­va­nia; old­est about sev­en­teen--a girl. Her hus­band al­so in cus­tody, and al­leged to be the slave of an­oth­er man. Un­der writ of _habeas cor­pus_, Mrs. Williams was tak­en be­fore Judge Kane, of the Unit­ed States Cir­cuit Court. Af­ter a full hear­ing, she was dis­charged, as not be­ing the wom­an al­leged.

SHADRACH, _in Boston, Febru­ary 15, 1851_. Ar­rest­ed in Taft's Corn­hill Cof­fee House, by deputies of Unit­ed States Mar­shal De­vens, on a war­rant is­sued by George T. Cur­tis, Unit­ed States Com­mis­sion­er, on the com­plaint of John Caphart, at­tor­ney of John De Bree, of Nor­folk, Va. Seth J. Thomas ap­peared as coun­sel for Caphart. Af­ter a brief hear­ing be­fore G.T. Cur­tis, Com­mis­sion­er, the case was ad­journed to the fol­low­ing Tues­day. Short­ly af­ter the ad­journ­ment, the court-​room was en­tered by a body of men, who bore away the pris­on­er, Shadrach. Af­ter which he was heard of in Mon­tre­al, Cana­da, hav­ing suc­cess­ful­ly, with the aid of many friends, es­caped the snares of all kid­nap­pers, in and out of Boston. The act­ing Pres­ident, MIL­LARD FILL­MORE, is­sued his procla­ma­tion, coun­ter­signed by DANIEL WEB­STER, Sec­re­tary of State, re­quir­ing pros­ecu­tions to be com­menced against all who par­tic­ipat­ed in the res­cue.

_Shawnee­town, Illi­nois._ A wom­an was claimed by Mr. Ha­ley, of Geor­gia, as his slave; and was de­liv­ered up to him by two Jus­tices of the Peace, (ear­ly in 1851.)

_Madi­son, In­di­ana._ George W. Ma­son, of Davies Coun­ty, Ken­tucky, ar­rest­ed a col­ored man, named MITCHUM, who, with his wife and chil­dren, lived near Ver­non. The case was tried be­fore a Jus­tice of the Peace, named Bas­nett, who was sat­is­fied that Mitchum was Davis's slave, and had left his ser­vice _nine­teen years be­fore_. The slave was ac­cord­ing­ly de­liv­ered up, and was tak­en to Ken­tucky, (Feb. 1851.)

_Clearfield Coun­ty, Penn., about 20th Jan­uary, 1851._ A boy was kid­napped and tak­en in­to slav­ery.--_Mer­cer (Pa.) Pres­by­te­ri­an_.

_Near Rip­ley, Ohio._ A fugi­tive slave, about Jan­uary 20, killed his pur­suer. He was af­ter­wards tak­en and car­ried back to slav­ery.

_Burling­ton, Lawrence Coun­ty, Ohio, near the end of Febru­ary, 1851_, four lib­er­at­ed slaves were kid­napped, re-​en­slaved, and sold. Ef­forts were made to bring the per­pe­tra­tors of this ne­far­ious act to pun­ish­ment, and re­store the vic­tims to free­dom.

_At Philadel­phia, ear­ly in March, 1851_, oc­curred the case of the col­ored wom­an HE­LEN or HAN­NAH, and her son, a child of ten­der years. She was tak­en be­fore a Com­mis­sion­er, and thence, by writ of _habeas cor­pus_, be­fore Judge Kane. An ad­di­tion­al ques­tion arose from the fact that the wom­an would soon be­come the moth­er of an­oth­er child. Judge Kane de­cid­ed that she was the prop­er­ty of John Per­du, of Bal­ti­more, to­geth­er with her son, and her un­born child, and they were all sur­ren­dered ac­cord­ing­ly, and tak­en in­to slav­ery.

_Pitts­burg, March 13, 1851._ RICHARD GAR­DINER was ar­rest­ed in Bridge­wa­ter, Beaver Coun­ty, Penn­syl­va­nia, claimed as the prop­er­ty of Miss R. By­ers, of Louisville, Ken­tucky. Judge Ir­win, of the Unit­ed States Dis­trict Court, “re­mand­ed the fugi­tive back to his own­er.” He was af­ter­wards bought for $600, and brought in­to a free State.

_The Wilm­ing­ton (Del.) Jour­nal_, in March, 1851, says kid­nap­ping has be­come quite fre­quent in that State; and speaks of a ne­gro kid­napped in that city, on the pre­vi­ous Wednes­day night, by a man who had been one of the city watch­men.

THOMAS SIMS, ar­rest­ed in _Boston_, April 4, 1851, at first on pre­tence of a charge of theft. But when he un­der­stood it was as a fugi­tive from slav­ery, he drew a knife and wound­ed one of the of­fi­cers. He was tak­en be­fore Com­mis­sion­er George T. Cur­tis. To guard against a rep­eti­tion of the Shadrach res­cue, the Unit­ed States Mar­shal, De­vens, aid­ed by the May­or (John P. Bigelow) and City Mar­shal (Fran­cis Tukey) of Boston, sur­round­ed the Court House, in Boston, with heavy chains, guard­ed it by a strong ex­tra force of po­lice of­fi­cers, with a strong body of guards al­so with­in the build­ing, where the fugi­tive was im­pris­oned as well as tried. Sev­er­al mil­itary com­pa­nies al­so were called out by the city au­thor­ities, and kept in readi­ness night and day to act against the peo­ple, should they at­tempt the de­liv­er­ance of Sims; Fa­neuil Hall it­self be­ing turned in­to bar­racks for these hirelings of slav­ery. Ev­ery ef­fort was made by S.E. Se­wall, Esq., Hon. Robert Rantoul, Jr., and Charles G. Lor­ing, Esq., to save Sims from be­ing re­turned in­to slav­ery, and Boston from the eter­nal and in­ef­face­able dis­grace of the act. But in vain. The om­nipo­tent Slave Pow­er de­mand­ed of Boston a vic­tim for its in­fer­nal sac­ri­fices. Mil­lard Fill­more, Daniel Web­ster, and their nu­mer­ous tools, on the Bench, in Com­mis­sion­ers' seats, and oth­er of­fi­cial sta­tions, or in hopes of gain­ing such sta­tions bye and bye, had fall­en up­on their faces be­fore the mon­ster idol, and sworn that the vic­tim should be pre­pared. Thomas Sims was or­dered back to slav­ery by Com­mis­sion­er G.T. Cur­tis, and was tak­en from the Court House, in Boston, ear­ly on the morn­ing of April 11th, [1851,] to the Brig Acorn, ly­ing at the end of Long Wharf, and thence in the cus­tody of of­fi­cers, to Sa­van­nah, Geor­gia.

There, af­ter be­ing lodged in jail, and severe­ly and cru­el­ly whipped, as was re­port­ed, he was at length sold, and be­came merged and lost in the great mul­ti­tude of the en­slaved pop­ula­tion. The sur­ren­der of Sims is said to have cost the Unit­ed States Gov­ern­ment $10,000; the City of Boston about as much more; and Mr. Pot­ter, the claimant of Sims, about $2,400, mak­ing a to­tal of some $22,000, di­rect­ly ex­pend­ed on the case.

_Vin­cennes, In­di­ana, April, 1851._ Four fugi­tive slaves were seized, claimed by one Mr. Kir­wan, of or near Flo­rence, Al­aba­ma. The mag­is­trate, named Robin­son, gave up the fugi­tives, and they were tak­en in­to slav­ery.

_In Sal­is­bury Town­ship, Penn., April, 1851_, an el­der­ly man was kid­napped and car­ried in­to Mary­land.

_Near Sandy Hill, Chester Coun­ty, Penn., in March, 1851_, a very wor­thy and es­timable col­ored man, named Thomas Hall, was forcibly seized, his house be­ing bro­ken in­to by three armed ruf­fi­ans, who beat him and his wife with clubs. He was kid­napped.

MOSES JOHN­SON, _Chica­go, Illi­nois_, brought be­fore a Unit­ed States Com­mis­sion­er, dis­charged as not an­swer­ing to the de­scrip­tion of the man claimed.

CHARLES WED­LEY, kid­napped from _Pitts­burg, Penn­syl­va­nia_, and tak­en in­to Mary­land. He was found, and brought back.

_Cincin­nati, Ohio, June 3, 1851_, an at­tempt to ar­rest a fugi­tive was made. But a scuf­fle en­sued, in which the man es­caped.

_Cincin­nati, Ohio._ About the same time, some slaves, (num­ber not stat­ed,) be­long­ing to Rev. Mr. Per­ry and oth­ers, of Cov­ing­ton, Ken­tucky, were tak­en in Cincin­nati, and car­ried back to Ken­tucky.

_Philadel­phia, end of June, 1851_, a col­ored man was tak­en away as a slave, by steam­boat. A writ of _Habeas Cor­pus_ was got out but the of­fi­cer could not find the man. This is prob­ably the same case with that of JESSE WHIT­MAN, ar­rest­ed at Wilkes­barre.

FRANK JACK­SON, a free col­ored man in _Mer­cer, Penn._, was tak­en, ear­ly in 1851, by a man named Charles May, in­to Vir­ginia, and sold as a slave. He tried to es­cape, but was tak­en and lodged in Fin­cas­tle jail, Vir­ginia.

THOMAS SCOTT JOHN­SON, free col­ored man, of _New Bed­ford_, was ar­rest­ed near Portsmouth, Vir­ginia, and was about to be sold as a slave; but, by the stren­uous in­ter­po­si­tion of Capt. Card, cer­tifi­cates were ob­tained from New Bed­ford, and he was set at lib­er­ty.

ELIZ­ABETH WILLIAMS, _West Chester Coun­ty, Penn._, de­liv­ered in­to slav­ery by Com­mis­sion­er Jones. (Ju­ly, 1851.)

DANIEL HAWKINS, of _Lan­cast­er Coun­ty, Penn._, (Ju­ly, 1851,) was brought be­fore Com­mis­sion­er In­gra­ham, Philadel­phia, and by him de­liv­ered to his claimant, and he was tak­en in­to slav­ery.

_New Athens, Ohio, Ju­ly 8, 1851._ Eigh­teen slaves, who had es­caped from Lewis Coun­ty, Ken­tucky, were dis­cov­ered in an old build­ing in Adams Coun­ty, Ohio. Some white men, pro­fess­ing to be friend­ly, mis­led them, and brought them to a house, where they were im­pris­oned, bound one by one, and car­ried back to Ken­tucky. [The en­act­ment of the Fugi­tive Slave Law is the di­rect stim­ulat­ing cause of all these cas­es of kid­nap­ping.]

_Buf­fa­lo, Au­gust, 1851._ Case of DANIEL ----. D. was a cook on board the steam­er “Buck­eye State.” He was en­gaged in his av­oca­tion, when Benj. S. Rust, with a war­rant from Unit­ed States Com­mis­sion­er H.K. Smith, went on board the boat. Daniel was called up from be­low, and as his head ap­peared above the deck, Rust struck him a heavy blow, up­on the head, with a large bil­let of wood, which knocked him back in­to the cook-​room, where he fell up­on the stove and was bad­ly burned. In this state, he was brought be­fore the Com­mis­sion­er, “bleed­ing pro­fuse­ly at the back, of the head, and at the nose, and was more­over so stu­pe­fied by the as­sault, that he fell asleep sev­er­al times dur­ing the brief and very sum­ma­ry pro­ceed­ings.” For most of the time he was un­able to con­verse with his coun­sel, and “sat doz­ing, with the blood slow­ly ooz­ing out of his mouth and nos­trils.” Af­ter a very hur­ried form, and mock­ery of a tri­al, Daniel was or­dered to be de­liv­ered to Rust, the Agent of George H. Moore, of Louisville, Ken­tucky. By a writ of _Habeas Cor­pus_, Daniel was brought be­fore Judge Coak­ling, of the Unit­ed States Court, at Auburn, who gave a de­ci­sion that set Daniel at lib­er­ty, and he was im­me­di­ate­ly hur­ried by his friends in­to Cana­da. Rust was in­dict­ed, in Buf­fa­lo, for his bru­tal as­sault on Daniel. It was ful­ly proved; he af­ter­wards plead guilty, and; was let off with the pal­try fine of fifty dol­lars.

JOHN BOLD­ING, _ar­rest­ed in Pough­keep­sie, New York_, claimed as the prop­er­ty of Bar­ret An­der­son, of Columbia, S.C. Bold­ing was a young man, of good char­ac­ter, re­cent­ly mar­ried, and had a small tai­lor's shop in P. He said he was told, when a boy, that he was the son of a white man. He was tried be­fore Unit­ed States Com­mis­sion­er Nel­son, who or­dered him to be de­liv­ered up to his claimants, and he was tak­en qui­et­ly from the city to Columbia, S.C. The sum of $2,000 was raised in New York, and paid to Bold­ing's own­er, who had con­sent­ed to take that sum for him, and Bold­ing re­turned to his fam­ily in Pough­keep­sie.

_Chris­tiana, Lan­cast­er Coun­ty, Penn., Sept. 1851._ Ed­ward Gor­such, (rep­re­sent­ed as a very pi­ous mem­ber of a Methodist Church in Bal­ti­more,) with his son Dick­in­son, ac­com­pa­nied by the Sher­iff of Lan­cast­er Coun­ty, Pa., and by a Philadel­phia of­fi­cer named _Hen­ry Kline_, went to Chris­tiana to ar­rest cer­tain slaves of his, who, (as he had been pri­vate­ly in­formed by a wretch, named Wm. M. Pad­gett,) were liv­ing there. An at­tack was made up­on the house, the slave-​hold­er declar­ing (as was said) that he “would not leave the place alive with­out his slaves.” “Then,” replied one of them, “you will not leave here alive.” Many shots were fired on both sides, and the slave-​hunter, Ed­ward Gor­such, was killed.

At a sub­se­quent tri­al, a num­ber of per­sons (near­ly forty) were com­mit­ted to take their tri­al for “trea­son against the Unit­ed States, by levy­ing war against the same, in re­sist­ing by force of arms the ex­ecu­tion of the Fugi­tive Slave Law.” CAST­NER HAN­WAY was of the num­ber. Af­ter suf­fer­ing im­pris­on­ment and be­ing sub­ject­ed to great loss of time and heavy ex­pens­es, they were all dis­charged.

_Syra­cuse, Oc­to­ber 1, 1851._ JER­RY, claimed as the slave of John McReynolds, of Mar­ion Coun­ty, Mis­souri, was brought to tri­al be­fore Com­mis­sion­er J.F. Sabine. He was res­cued by a large body of men from the of­fi­cers who had him in cus­tody, and was next heard of in Cana­da.

_James R. Lawrence_, a lawyer of Syra­cuse, act­ed as coun­sel for _James Lear_, at­tor­ney of McReynolds.

[N.B. Daniel Web­ster's prophe­cy was not ful­filled.]

_Columbia, Penn._, (fall of 1851.) Man named HEN­RY, ar­rest­ed as the slave of Dr. Du­vall, of Prince George's Coun­ty, Mary­land,--tak­en to _Har­ris­burg_, be­fore Unit­ed States Com­mis­sion­er McAl­lis­ter and by him con­signed to slav­ery.

_Judge Den­ning_, of Illi­nois, dis­charged a ne­gro brought be­fore him as a fugi­tive slave, on the ground that the Fugi­tive Slave Law was un­con­sti­tu­tion­al.

_Two al­leged slaves ar­rest­ed_ at _Columbia, Penn._, on war­rant of Unit­ed States Com­mis­sion­er McAl­lis­ter,--claimed as prop­er­ty of W.T. Mc­Der­mott, of Bal­ti­more. One was car­ried in­to slav­ery, one es­caped. (Novem­ber, 1851.)

_Near New Philadel­phia, Mary­land_, a wom­an, mar­ried to a free col­ored man, with whom she had lived ten years, was ar­rest­ed as the slave of a Mr. Shreve, of Louisville, Ken­tucky. She was tak­en back to Ken­tucky.

RACHEL PARK­ER, free col­ored girl, kid­napped from house of Joseph S. Miller, West Not­ting­ham, Penn., by the “no­to­ri­ous Elk­ton Kid­nap­per, Mc­Creary,” Dec. 31, 1851. Mr. Miller tracked the kid­nap­pers to Bal­ti­more, and tried to re­cov­er the girl, but in vain. On his way home, he was in­duced to leave the cars, and was un­doubt­ed­ly mur­dered,--it was sup­posed in re­venge of the death of Gor­such at Chris­tiana. Mr. Miller's body was found sus­pend­ed from a tree. A suit was brought in the Cir­cuit Court of Bal­ti­more Coun­ty, for the free­dom of Rachel Park­er, Jan. 1853. Over six­ty wit­ness­es, from Penn­syl­va­nia, at­tend­ed to tes­ti­fy to her be­ing free-​born, and that she was not the per­son she was claimed to be; al­though, in great bod­ily ter­ror, she had, af­ter her cap­ture, con­fessed her­self the al­leged slave! So com­plete and strong was the ev­idence in her fa­vor, that, af­ter an eight days' tri­al, the claimants aban­doned the case, and a ver­dict was ren­dered for the free­dom of Rachel, and al­so of her sis­ter, Eliz­abeth Park­er, who had been pre­vi­ous­ly kid­napped, and con­veyed to New Or­leans.

--> Mc­Creary was de­mand­ed by Gov. Bigler, of Penn­syl­va­nia, to be de­liv­ered up for tri­al on a charge of kid­nap­ping; but Gov. Lowe, of Mary­land, re­fused to sur­ren­der him. See _Stan­dard_, Ju­ly 2, 1853.

JAMES TASKER, _New York City_, (Feb. 1852,) ar­rest­ed through the treach­ery of Po­lice Of­fi­cer Mar­tin, and brought be­fore Unit­ed States Com­mis­sion­er George W. Mor­ton, as the slave of Jonathan Pinck­ney, of Mary­land. He was giv­en up, and tak­en back to slav­ery.

HO­RACE PRE­STON, ar­rest­ed in _Williams­burg, New York_, as the slave of William Reese, of Bal­ti­more, Mary­land;--Richard Bus­teed, of New York, be­ing At­tor­ney for the slave­hold­er. He was brought be­fore Unit­ed States Com­mis­sion­er Mor­ton, 1st April, 1852; for sev­er­al days pre­vi­ous he had been kept a pris­on­er, and his wife knew not what had be­come of him. He was giv­en up by the Com­mis­sion­er, and was car­ried in­to slav­ery. The same po­lice­man, Mar­tin, (who act­ed in the case of James Tasker,) was ac­tive in this case; be­ing, doubt­less, the orig­inal in­for­mant.

Pre­ston was af­ter­wards bought for about $1,200, and brought back.

_Columbia, Penn._, (end of March, 1852;) a col­ored man, named WILLIAM SMITH, was ar­rest­ed as a fugi­tive slave in the lum­ber yard of Mr. Got­tlieb, by Deputy Mar­shal Sny­der, of Har­ris­burg, and po­lice of­fi­cer Ridge­ley, of Bal­ti­more, un­der a war­rant from Com­mis­sion­er McAl­lis­ter. Smith en­deav­ored to es­cape, when Ridge­ley drew a pis­tol and shot him dead! Ridge­ley was de­mand­ed by the Gov­er­nor of Penn­syl­va­nia, of the Gov­er­nor of Mary­land, and the de­mand was re­ferred to the Mary­land Leg­is­la­ture.

Hon. J.R. Gid­dings pro­posed the erec­tion of a mon­ument to Smith.

JAMES PHILLIPS, who had resid­ed in _Har­ris­burg, Penn._, for four­teen years, was ar­rest­ed May 24, 1852, as the for­mer slave of Den­nis Hud­son, of Culpep­per Coun­ty, Vir­ginia, af­ter­wards bought by Hen­ry T. Fant, of Fauquier Coun­ty. He was brought be­fore Unit­ed States Com­mis­sion­er McAl­lis­ter. Judge McK­in­ney vol­un­teered his ser­vices to de­fend the al­leged fugi­tive. The Com­mis­sion­er, as soon as pos­si­ble, or­dered the man to be de­liv­ered up; and, af­ter four­teen years' lib­er­ty, he was tak­en back to slav­ery in Vir­ginia. Af­ter­wards, bought for $900, and tak­en back to Har­ris­burg.

_Wilkes­barre, Penn._, (Sum­mer of 1852.) Mr. Har­vey ar­rest­ed and fined for shield­ing a slave.

_Sacra­men­to, Cal­ifor­nia_; a man named Lath­rop claimed an­oth­er as his slave, and Judge Fry de­cid­ed that the claim was good, and or­dered the slave to be sur­ren­dered. Mr. Lath­rop left, with his slave, for the At­lantic States.

_A beau­ti­ful young wom­an_, near­ly white, was pur­sued by her own­er [and fa­ther] to New York, (end of June, 1852.) There a large re­ward was of­fered to a po­lice of­fi­cer to dis­cov­er her, place of res­idence. It was dis­cov­ered, and mea­sures tak­en for her ap­pre­hen­sion; but the alarm had been tak­en, and she es­caped.

_Sacra­men­to, Cal­ifor­nia_; three men were seized by a Mr. Perkins, of Mis­sis­sip­pi. The Court de­cid­ed them to be his prop­er­ty and they were car­ried back to Mis­sis­sip­pi.--_Stan­dard_, Ju­ly 29, 1852.

_Pe­ters­burg, Penn._ Two fugi­tives from Al­aba­ma slav­ery were over­tak­en, and tak­en back, Septem­ber, 1852.

JOHN HEN­RY WIL­SON, a lad of four­teen years, kid­napped from Danville, Penn­syl­va­nia, and tak­en to Bal­ti­more, where he was, of­fered for sale to John N. Den­ning. Kid­nap­pers com­mit­ted to jail, Oc­to­ber, 1852.

[--> DANIEL WEB­STER, the en­dors­er of the Fugi­tive Slave Law, died at Marsh­field, Mass., Oc­to­ber 24th, 1852, in the very height of the Law's tri­umphant op­er­ation.]

_LOUISA_, a col­ored wom­an, claimed by Mrs. Reese, of San Fran­cis­co, Cal­ifor­nia, was seized by five armed men, and put on board Steam­er Gold­en Gate, and car­ried it is not known whith­er. The aid of the Law was not in­voked. The Cal­ifor­nia _Chris­tian Ad­vo­cate_, from which the above is tak­en, says, “Two col­ored men, stew­ards on the Gold­en Gate, were sent back to the States on the last trip un­der the State Fugi­tive Law.”

_A mu­lat­to wom­an, in San Fran­cis­co_, was or­dered to be de­liv­ered to her claimant, T.T. Smith, Jack­son Coun­try, Mis­souri, by “Jus­tice Shep­herd,”--_San Fran­cis­co Her­ald_--in _Stan­dard_, Novem­ber 4, 1852.

_San­dusky, Ohio._ Two men, two wom­en, and sev­er­al chil­dren were ar­rest­ed and tak­en from a steam­boat just about to leave for De­troit. Tak­en be­fore May­or Fol­lett, by a man who claimed to be their own­er. R.R. Sloane, Esq., was em­ployed as coun­sel for the slaves. No one claim­ing cus­tody of the slaves, or pro­duc­ing any writs or war­rants, Mr. Sloane sig­ni­fied to the crowd present that there ap­peared to be no cause for the de­ten­tion of the per­sons. Im­me­di­ate­ly a rush was made for the door. A man, who be­fore had been silent, ex­claimed, “Here are the pa­pers--I own the slaves--I'll hold you in­di­vid­ual­ly re­spon­si­ble for their es­cape.” The slaves es­caped in­to Cana­da, Oc­to­ber, 1852. Mr. Sloane was af­ter­wards pros­ecut­ed for the val­ue of the slaves, and judg­ment giv­en against him to the amount of $3,950.

_Thir­ty slaves_, says the _Maysville_ (Ky.) _Ea­gle_, “es­caped from Ma­son and Brack­en Coun­ties, a short time ago. Some of them were cap­tured in Ohio, by their own­ers, at a dis­tance of about forty miles from the riv­er.” “They brought the cap­tured slaves home with­out en­coun­ter­ing the least ob­sta­cle, or even an un­kind word.”--_Stan­dard_, Novem­ber 4, 1852.

THE LEM­MON SLAVES. At New York, eight per­sons, claimed by Jonathan Lem­mon, of Nor­folk, Vir­ginia, as his slaves, were brought be­fore Judge Paine, Novem­ber, 1852. It ap­peared that they had been brought to New York by their own­er, with a view of tak­ing them to Texas, as his slaves. Mr. Louis Napoleon, a re­spectable col­ored man, of New York, pro­cured a writ of habeas cor­pus, un­der which they were brought be­fore the court. Their lib­er­ation was called for, un­der the State Law, not be­ing fugi­tives, but brought in­to a free State by their own­er. Said own­er ap­peared, with Hen­ry D. La­paugh as his coun­sel, aid­ed by Mr. Clin­ton. At their ur­gent re­quest, the case was post­poned from time to time, when Judge Paine, with ev­ident re­luc­tance, de­creed the free­dom of the slaves. E.D. Cul­ver and John Jay, Es­qs., were coun­sel for the slaves. The mer­chants and oth­ers of New York sub­scribed and paid Mr. Lem­mon the sum of $5,280, for loss of his slaves. The New York _Jour­nal of Com­merce_ was very ac­tive in rais­ing this mon­ey. The same men were in­vit­ed to con­tribute some­thing for the des­ti­tute men, wom­en, and chil­dren claimed by Lem­mon. The whole amount giv­en by them all, was two dol­lars. About one thou­sand dol­lars were raised for them among the bet­ter dis­posed but less wealthy class.

THOMAS BROWN alias GEORGE BOR­DLEY, _Philadel­phia, Novem­ber, 1852_, was claimed by one An­drew Pearce, Ce­cil Coun­ty, Mary­land. Giv­en up to claimant by Com­mis­sion­er In­gra­ham. The ar­rest of the man was made by the no­to­ri­ous kid­nap­per, George F. Al­ber­ti. Mr. Pet­tit, coun­sel for the claimant.

[Tran­scriber's note: The fol­low­ing note is in­sert­ed af­ter the fol­low­ing sec­tion but does not re­fer to any spe­cif­ic re­port­ed in­ci­dent.]

--> The Slave­hold­ers of Ken­tucky be­gin form­ing as­so­ci­ations for mu­tu­al pro­tec­tion against loss of run­away slaves. The pream­ble of the plan of as­so­ci­ation pro­posed at a meet­ing at Min­er­va Ken­tucky, held in the win­ter of 1852-53, is as fol­lows:--“Where­as it has be­come ab­so­lute­ly nec­es­sary for the slave-​own­ers of Ken­tucky to take such steps as will se­cure their prop­er­ty, we, the cit­izens of Mass. and Brack­en coun­ties, do rec­om­mend,” &c. [end note]

RICHARD NEAL, free col­ored man, kid­napped in Philadel­phia and car­ried from the city in a car­riage to­wards Mary­land. A writ of _habeas cor­pus_ was ob­tained, the kid­nap­pers were over­tak­en, and Neal brought back af­ter re­sis­tance and var­ious hin­drances. The Supreme Court of Penn­syl­va­nia dis­charged him. Febru­ary, 1853.

_Ten slaves_, ar­rest­ed in In­di­ana, and tak­en back to Ten­nessee, by W. Car­ney and oth­ers. Re­sis­tance was made, and W. Car­ney “was very bad­ly in­jured dur­ing the fra­cas.”--_Nashville ----_, March 5, 1853. [Tran­scribers' note: ---- sub­sti­tut­ed for word cut off on orig­inal page.]

_Al­ton, Illi­nois._ A man claimed to be­long to Wal­ter Car­ri­co, of War­ren Coun­ty, Mis­souri, was ar­rest­ed by po­lice of­fi­cers from St. Louis. Af­ter be­ing lodged in jail in St. Louis he made his es­cape, and again went in­to Illi­nois. He was pur­sued, found, and tak­en back to St. Louis.--_St. Louis Re­pub­li­can_, March, 1853.

AMAN­DA, a slave girl, was brought to St. Louis, from near Mem­phis, Ten­nessee, a year be­fore, by a son of her mas­ter, and by him set free, with­out his fa­ther's con­sent. Af­ter the fa­ther's death, an at­tempt was made to seize Aman­da, and take her back to Ten­nessee with­out tri­al. This was pre­vent­ed by of­fi­cers, the girl tak­en from the steam­boat Cor­nelia, and brought be­fore Levi Davis, Unit­ed States Com­mis­sion­er. He de­cid­ed in fa­vor of the claimants, (the heirs of the es­tate, of course.)--_St. Louis Re­pub­li­can_, March 17, 1853.

JANE TRAIN­ER, a col­ored child, about ten years old, in the pos­ses­sion of Mrs. Rose Coop­er, _alias_ Porter, (a wom­an ad­mit­ted by her coun­sel to be a com­mon pros­ti­tute,) was brought be­fore Judge Duer, of New York City, by a writ of _habeas cor­pus_, which had been ap­plied for by Charles Train­er, the fa­ther of the child, (a free col­ored man, who had fol­lowed the par­ties from Mo­bile to New York,) and who de­sired that the cus­tody of his daugh­ter's per­son should be grant­ed to him. [June, 1853, and pre­vi­ous.] Judge Duer de­cid­ed that it was not with­in his ju­ris­dic­tion to de­ter­mine to whom the cus­tody of the child be­longed; the Supreme Court of New York must de­cide that. Judge D. pro­posed to both par­ties that the child should be put in­to his hands, and he would pro­vide a prop­er per­son for her care and ed­uca­tion, but the wom­an (Porter) would not con­sent to this. She ev­ident­ly de­signed to train up the child for a life of shame, and per­haps of slav­ery al­so. The case was brought by a writ of _habeas cor­pus_, be­fore Judge Bar­cu­lo, of the Supreme Court, sit­ting at Brook­lyn. The ef­fort to serve the writ was at first de­feat­ed by the no­to­ri­ous New York bul­ly, Cap­tain Isa­iah Ryn­ders, act­ing, it was said, un­der the ad­vice of James T. Brady, coun­sel for Mrs. Porter. For this in­ter­fer­ence with, the law, Ryn­ders and some oth­ers were ar­rest­ed and tak­en be­fore Judge Bar­cu­lo, who let them off on their mak­ing an apol­ogy! The sec­ond at­tempt to serve the writ on the child was more suc­cess­ful. Af­ter hear­ing coun­sel, Judge Bar­cu­lo ad­judged “that the said Charles Train­er is en­ti­tled to the care and cus­tody of said Jane Train­er, and di­rect­ing her to be de­liv­ered to him as her fa­ther,” &c. In giv­ing his de­ci­sion, Judge B. said, “It is not to be as­sumed that a child un­der four­teen years of age is pos­sessed of suf­fi­cient dis­cre­tion to choose her own guardian; a house of ill-​fame is not a suit­able place, nor one of its in­mates a prop­er per­son for the ed­uca­tion of such a child.” Jane Train­er's moth­er was af­ter­wards bought from slav­ery in Mo­bile, Al­aba­ma, and en­abled to join her hus­band and child.

In 1854, Charles Train­er ob­tained a ver­dict in King's Coun­ty Court, New York, for $775 dam­ages, against Rose Coop­er.

[N.B. Though not strict­ly a case un­der the Fugi­tive Slave Law, this is very prop­er­ly in­sert­ed here, as the whole spir­it of the wom­an, of her coun­sel, and of the means he took to ac­com­plish his base de­signs, was clear­ly in­sti­gat­ed by that Law, and by the ma­lig­nant in­flu­ences it brought in­to ac­tion against the col­ored peo­ple, both slave and free.]

BASIL WHITE, Philadel­phia, was sum­mar­ily sur­ren­dered in­to slav­ery in Mary­land, by Unit­ed States Com­mis­sion­er In­gra­ham, June 1, 1853. He was be­trayed in­to the clutch­es of the kid­nap­per Al­ber­ti, by a col­ored man named John Dorsey.

_Two slaves_ of Sylvester Sin­gle­ton, liv­ing near Burling­ton, (Ky.?) es­caped and reached Colum­bus, Ohio; were there over­tak­en by their mas­ter, who se­cured them and took them back with him.--_Cincin­nati En­quir­er_.

JOHN FREE­MAN, a free col­ored man, seized in In­di­anapo­lis, and claimed as the slave of Pleas­ant Elling­ton, a Methodist church-​mem­ber, (Sum­mer, 1853,) of Mis­souri. Free­man pledged him­self to prove that he was not the per­son he was al­leged to be. The Unit­ed States Mar­shal con­sent­ed to his hav­ing time for this, pro­vid­ed he would go to jail, and pay _three dol­lars a day_ for a guard to keep him se­cure! Bonds to any amount, to se­cure the mar­shal against loss, if Free­man could go at large, were re­ject­ed. Free­man's coun­sel went to Geor­gia, and “af­ter many days re­turned with a ven­er­able and high­ly re­spectable gen­tle­man from Geor­gia, Mr. Patil­lo, (post-​mas­ter of the place where he re­sides,) who had vol­un­tar­ily made the long jour­ney for the sole pur­pose of tes­ti­fy­ing to his knowl­edge of Free­man, and that he was well known to be free!” But Free­man was still kept in jail. Af­ter sev­er­al days, Elling­ton brought wit­nessess to prove F. to be his slave. The wit­ness­es, and Lis­ton (coun­sel for Elling­ton) wished to have Free­man strip him­self, to be ex­am­ined naked. By ad­vise of his coun­sel he re­fused. The mar­shal took him to his cell, and com­pelled him to strip. The wit­ness­es then swore that he was Elling­ton's prop­er­ty. Free­man's coun­sel pro­duced fur­ther ev­idence that he had been known as a free man _twen­ty_ years. Elling­ton claimed that he had es­caped from him _six­teen_ years be­fore. The man who did es­cape from Elling­ton, just six­teen years be­fore, was dis­cov­ered to be liv­ing near Malden, Cana­da. Two of the Ken­tucky wit­ness­es vis­it­ed and rec­og­nized him. Free­man was then re­leased, but with a large debt up­on him, $1,200, which had grown up by the un­usu­al­ly heavy ex­pens­es of his de­fence and long im­pris­on­ment, Free­man brought a suit against Elling­ton for false im­pris­on­ment lay­ing dam­ages at $10,000. A ver­dict for $2,000 was giv­en in his fa­vor, which was agreed to by Elling­ton's coun­sel.--_In­di­ana Free Demo­crat_, May, 1854.

_Three slaves_, two men and a girl, fled from near Maysville, Ken­tucky, in­to Ohio. Were pur­sued by their own­ers and as­sis­tants, five men armed, and were over­tak­en, says the Maysville _Week­ly Ex­press_, “at the bridge over Rat­tlesnake Creek, on the Pe­ters­burg and Green­field road, about ten o'clock at night,” the slaves be­ing, armed, and ac­com­pa­nied by a white man. Both par­ties fired, the ne­gro girl was wound­ed, but still fled; one of the ne­gro men was al­so wound­ed, and, says the Maysville pa­per, they “were tracked a mile and a half by the blood.” The oth­er slave was se­cured and tak­en back to Ken­tucky, “much bruised and cut in the af­fray.” “The white man,” says the same pa­per, “was al­so caught and beat­en in a very se­vere man­ner with a club, and strong hopes are en­ter­tained that he will die.”--_Wilm­ing­ton (Ohio) Re­pub­li­can_, Ju­ly, 22, 1853.

_A col­ored girl_, be­tween four and five years old, sud­den­ly dis­ap­peared from Prov­idence, R.I., Ju­ly 13, 1853; at the same time, a mu­lat­to wom­an, who had been heard to make in­quiries about the child, was miss­ing al­so. Be­lieved to be a case of kid­nap­ping.

_A ne­gro boy_, says the Mem­phis _In­quir­er_, “left his own­er in this city,” and went on board the steam­boat Au­ril­la Wood, bound for Cincin­nati. By a tele­graph­ic mes­sage he was in­ter­cept­ed, tak­en from the boat at Cairo, Illi­nois, and tak­en back to Mem­phis. (Sum­mer, 1853.)

GEORGE W. MC­QUER­RY, _Cincin­nati, Ohio_. A col­ored man, who had resid­ed three or four years in Ohio, and mar­ried a free wom­an, by whom he had three chil­dren, was re­mand­ed to slav­ery by Judge McLean (Au­gust, 1853.) The man was tak­en by the Unit­ed States Mar­shal, with a posse, across the riv­er to Cov­ing­ton, Ken­tucky, and there de­liv­ered to his _mas­ter_!

_Two men kid­napped_ from Chica­go, and tak­en to St. Louis. See _Chica­go_ Tri­bune, quot­ed in _Stan­dard_, Aug. 27, 1853.

_Three Slaves_ tak­en by _Habeas Cor­pus_, from steam­boat Trop­ic, and brought be­fore Judge Flinn, at Cincin­nati, Au­gust, 1853. The wom­an Han­nah ex­pressed a wish to re­turn to her mas­ter in the boat. Judge Flinn or­dered her in­to the cus­tody of the claimants with­out in­ves­ti­ga­tion. Judge F. asked Han­nah if she had the cus­tody of the child Su­san, to which she an­swered that she had. Where­upon the Judge al­so or­dered her back in­to the cus­tody of the claimants, with­out ex­am­ina­tion. Mr. Jol­liffe protest­ed against or­der­ing the child back with­out ex­am­ina­tion. The Court said they would take the re­spon­si­bil­ity. The ex­am­ina­tion then pro­ceed­ed in the case of the man Ed­ward. It ap­peared that they were pur­chased in Vir­ginia, to be con­veyed to Mis­sis­sip­pi. The boat stopped at Cincin­nati, and the slaves were twice tak­en by the agent of the own­ers on shore, and up­on the ter­ri­to­ry of Ohio. Mr. Jol­liffe com­menced his ar­gu­ment at 7, P.M., and ar­gued that the slaves, be­ing brought by their own­ers up­on free ter­ri­to­ry, were legal­ly free. Mr. J., be­fore fin­ish­ing, was tak­en ill, and obliged to leave the court-​room; he first begged the Court to ad­journ un­til morn­ing, which was re­fused by Judge Flinn. Judge Keys said the Ohio riv­er was a high­way for all States bor­der­ing on it, whose cit­izens had a right al­so to use the ad­ja­cent shores for pur­pos­es nec­es­sary to nav­iga­tion. Mr. Zinn stat­ed that Mr. Jol­liffe had been obliged to re­tire, in con­se­quence of ill­ness, and had re­quest­ed him to urge the Court to con­tin­ue the case. Judge Flinn said--“The case will he de­cid­ed to-​night; that is de­cid­ed on. We have not been silt­ing here four or five hours to de­ter­mine whether we will de­cide the case or not. It will be de­cid­ed, and you may come up to it side­ways or square; or any way you please; you must come to it.” Mr. Zinn said he was not go­ing to ar­gue. He had made the re­quest out of cour­tesy to a pro­fes­sion­al broth­er. He doubt­ed the pow­er of the Court to de­liv­er the boy in­to slav­ery. Judge Flinn said--“I do not wish to hear any ar­gu­ments of that na­ture.” The man was then or­dered to be tak­en by the Sher­iff, and de­liv­ered to claimant on board the boat,--which was done.--_Cincin­nati Gazette_, 27th Au­gust, 1853.

PATRICK SNEED, a col­ored wait­er in the Cataract House, Ni­agara Falls, ar­rest­ed on the pre­tend­ed charge of mur­der com­mit­ted in Sa­van­nah, Geor­gia. He was brought, by _Habeas Cor­pus_, be­fore Judge Shel­don, at Buf­fa­lo, (Septem­ber, 1853,) and by him or­dered to be “ful­ly dis­charged.”

BILL, [or WILLIAM THOMAS,] a col­ored wait­er at the Phenix Ho­tel, Wilkes­barre, Penn., de­scribed as a “tall, no­ble-​look­ing, in­tel­li­gent, and ac­tive mu­lat­to, near­ly white,” was at­tacked by “Deputy Mar­shal Wynkoop,” Sept. 3, 1853, and four oth­er per­sons, (three of them from Vir­ginia.) These men came “sud­den­ly, from be­hind, knocked him down with a mace, and par­tial­ly shack­led him.” He strug­gled hard against the five, shook them off, and with the hand­cuff, which had been se­cured to his right wrist on­ly “in­flict­ed some hard wounds on the coun­te­nances” of his as­sailants. Cov­ered with blood, he broke from them, rushed from the house, and plunged in the riv­er close by, ex­claim­ing, “I will be drowned rather than tak­en alive.” He was pur­sued, fired up­on re­peat­ed­ly, or­dered to come out of the wa­ter, where he stood im­mersed to his neck, or “they would blow his brains out.” He replied, “I will die first.” They then de­lib­er­ate­ly fired at him four or five dif­fer­ent times, the last ball sup­posed to have struck on his head, for his face was in­stant­ly cov­ered with blood, and he sprang up and shrieked. The by-​standers be­gan to cry “shame” and the kid­nap­pers re­tired a short dis­tance for con­sul­ta­tion. Bill came out of the wa­ter and lay down on the shore. His pur­suers, sup­pos­ing him dy­ing, said, “Dead nig­gers are not worth tak­ing South.” Some one brought and put on him a pair of pan­taloons. He was helped to his feet by a col­ored man named Rex; on see­ing which, Wynkoop and par­ty head­ed him and pre­sent­ed their re­volvers, when BILL again ran in­to the riv­er, “where he re­mained up­wards of an hour, noth­ing but his head above wa­ter, cov­ered with blood, and in full view of hun­dreds who lined the banks.” His claimants dared not fol­low him in­to the wa­ter; for, as he said af­ter­ward, “he would have died con­tent­ed, could he have car­ried two or three of them down with him.” Prepa­ra­tions [rather slow it would ap­pear,] were made to ar­rest the mur­der­ous gang, but they had de­part­ed from the place. BILL then wad­ed some dis­tance up the stream, and “was found by some wom­en flat on his face in a corn-​field. They car­ried him to a place of safe­ty, dressed his wounds,” and the suf­fer­ing man was seen no more in Wilkes­barre.--_Cor­re­spon­dence of New York Tri­bune_.

Wynkoop and an­oth­er were af­ter­wards ar­rest­ed in Philadel­phia, on a charge of ri­ot, the war­rant is­su­ing from a State mag­is­trate of Wilkes­barre, on the com­plaint of William C. Gilder­sleeve, of the place. Mr. Jack­son, the con­sta­ble who held them in cus­tody, was brought be­fore Judge Gri­er, of the Unit­ed States Supreme Court, by _habeas cor­pus_. Judge Gri­er, dur­ing the ex­am­ina­tion, said:--

“I will not have the of­fi­cers of the Unit­ed States ha­rassed at ev­ery step in the per­for­mance of their du­ties by ev­ery pet­ty mag­is­trate who choos­es to ha­rass them, or by any un­prin­ci­pled in­ter­lop­er who choos­es to make com­plaints against them--for I know some­thing of the man who makes this com­plaint.” “If this man Gilder­sleeve fails to make out the facts set forth in the war­rant of ar­rest, I will re­quest the Pros­ecut­ing At­tor­ney of Luzerne Coun­ty to pros­ecute him for per­jury. * * * If any tup­pen­ny mag­is­trate, or any un­prin­ci­pled in­ter­lop­er can come in, and cause to be ar­rest­ed the of­fi­cers of the Unit­ed States, when­ev­er they please, it is a sad af­fair. * * * If _habeas cor­pus­es_ are to be tak­en out al­ter that man­ner, I will have an in­dict­ment sent to the Unit­ed States Grand Ju­ry against the per­son who ap­plies for the writ, or as­sists in get­ting it, the lawyer who de­fends it, and the sher­iff who serves the writ. * * * I will see that my of­fi­cers are pro­tect­ed.” On a sub­se­quent day, Judge Gri­er gave an elab­orate opin­ion, recit­ing the facts in the case, _as stat­ed by the pris­on­ers_, and or­der­ing them to be _dis­charged_! He said:--“We are un­able to per­ceive, in this trans­ac­tion, any­thing wor­thy of blame in the con­duct of these of­fi­cers in their un­suc­cess­ful en­deav­ors to ful­fil a most dan­ger­ous and dis­gust­ing du­ty; ex­cept, per­haps, a want of suf­fi­cient courage and per­se­ver­ance in the at­tempt to ex­ecute the writ!”

Wynkoop and the oth­er were dis­charged by Judge Kane on the ground that they did on­ly what their du­ty, un­der the Law, re­quired. (May, 1854.)

_A fam­ily of col­ored per­sons_, at Union­town, Pa., were claimed as slaves by a man in Vir­ginia. They ad­mit­ted that they had been his slaves, but de­clared that they had come in­to Penn­syl­va­nia with their mas­ter's con­sent and knowl­edge, on a vis­it to some friends in Fayette Coun­ty, and were not, there­fore, _fugi­tives_. This was over­ruled, and the ne­groes were sent back by a Unit­ed States Com­mis­sion­er, name not giv­en. (Septem­ber, 1853.)[A]--_Pitts­burgh Sat­ur­day Vis­iter_.

[Foot­note A: _A cor­re­spon­dent_ of the _New York Evening Post_, writ­ing from Colum­bus, Ohio, Septem­ber 1, 1853, states that a very large num­ber of fugi­tive slaves are con­tin­ual­ly pass­ing through that State; that they are gen­er­al­ly armed; and that they find in­creas­ing sym­pa­thy among the peo­ple on the road, and the boat­men on the lakes.]

_A des­per­ate fight_ be­tween a par­ty of four fugi­tives and about dou­ble the num­ber of whites, took place in Car­roll Coun­ty, Mary­land. Four white men shot--none dan­ger­ous­ly. Two of the slaves wound­ed, one severe­ly. They were cap­tured. (Oc­to­ber, 1853.)--_West­min­ster (Md.) Demo­crat_.

_Wash­ing­ton, In­di­ana._ In April, 1853, GEORGE, a ne­gro man, was ar­rest­ed and claimed by a Mr. Rice, of Ken­tucky, as his slave. Judge Clemens or­dered his sur­ren­der to Rice, who took him to Louisville, and there sold him to a slave-​trad­er, who took him to Mem­phis, Ten­nessee. Here a man from Mis­sis­sip­pi claimed that George was _his_ slave, ob­tained a writ of re­plevin, and took pos­ses­sion of him.

JOSHUA GLOVER, col­ored man, claimed as the slave of B.S. Gar­land, of St. Louis Coun­ty, Mis­souri, was ar­rest­ed near Racine, Wis­con­sin, about the 10th of March, 1854. Ar­rest made by five men, who burst sud­den­ly in­to his shan­ty, put a pis­tol to his head, felled him to the ground, hand­cuffed him, and took him in a wag­on to Mil­wau­kee jail, a dis­tance of twen­ty-​five miles. They swore that if he shout­ed or made the least noise, they would kill him in­stant­ly. When vis­it­ed, says the _Mil­wau­kee Sen­tinel_, “We found him in his cell. He was cut in two places on the head; the front of his shirt and vest were soak­ing and stiff with his own blood.” A writ of _habeas cor­pus_ was im­me­di­ate­ly is­sued; al­so a war­rant for the ar­rest of the five men who as­sault­ed and beat him in his shan­ty. Thou­sands of peo­ple col­lect­ed around the jail and court-​house, “the ex­cite­ment be­ing in­tense.” A vig­ilance com­mit­tee of twen­ty-​five per­sons was ap­point­ed to watch the jail at night and see that Glover was not se­cret­ly tak­en away. The next day, at about five o'clock, P.M., a con­sid­er­able ac­ces­sion of per­sons be­ing made to the crowd, and it ap­pear­ing that ev­ery at­tempt to save Glover by the laws of Wis­con­sin had been over­ruled by Unit­ed States Judge Miller, a de­mand was made for the man. This be­ing re­fused, an at­tack was made up­on the door with ax­es, planks, &c. It was bro­ken in, the in­ner door and wall bro­ken through, and Glover tak­en from his keep­ers, brought out, placed in a wag­on, and driv­en off at great speed.

S.M. Booth, ed­itor of the _Mil­wau­kee Free Demo­crat_, Charles Clement, of the _Racine Ad­vo­cate_, W.H. Wa­ter­man, and George S. Wright were ar­rest­ed for aid­ing and abet­ting the res­cue of Glover. Booth was sub­se­quent­ly dis­charged by the Supreme Court of Wis­con­sin, on the ground that the Fugi­tive Slave Law is un­con­sti­tu­tion­al. He was, how­ev­er, re-​ar­rest­ed, and held to an­swer in the Unit­ed States Courts, on the same charge; the of­fered bail was re­fused, and he was lodged in jail. The case was sub­se­quent­ly tried be­fore the Dis­trict Court of the Unit­ed States, at Mil­wau­kee, on the ques­tion as to the right of a State ju­di­cia­ry to re­lease pris­on­ers un­der a writ of _habeas cor­pus_, who may be in the law­ful cus­tody of Unit­ed States of­fi­cers; and al­so to de­ter­mine the con­sti­tu­tion­al­ity of the Fugi­tive Slave Law. (_Wash­ing­ton Star_, Septem­ber 20, 1854.) The At­tor­ney Gen­er­al, Caleb Cush­ing, made him­self very ac­tive in push­ing for­ward this case. Mr. Booth, ear­ly in 1855, was fined one thou­sand dol­lars and sen­tenced to one month's im­pris­on­ment. John Rye­craft, for same of­fence, was sen­tenced in a fine of two hun­dred dol­lars and im­pris­on­ment for ten days. All for acts such as Chris­tian­ity and Hu­man­ity en­join. On a writ of _habeas cor­pus_, Messrs. Booth and Rye­craft were tak­en be­fore the Wis­con­sin Supreme Court, sit­ting at Madi­son, and dis­charged from im­pris­on­ment. This, how­ev­er, did not re­lieve them from the fines im­posed by the Unit­ed States Court. The own­er of the slave brought a civ­il suit against Mr. Booth, claim­ing $1,000 dam­ages for the loss of his slave. Judge Miller de­cid­ed, Ju­ly, 1855, that the $1,000 must be paid.

ED­WARD DAVIS, _March, 1854_. As the steam­boat Key­stone State, Cap­tain Hardie, from Sa­van­nah, was en­ter­ing Delaware Bay, bound to Philadel­phia, the men en­gaged in heav­ing the lead heard a voice from un­der the guards of the boat, call­ing for help. A rope was thrown, and a man caught it and was drawn in­to the boat in a great­ly ex­haust­ed state. He had re­mained in that place from the time of leav­ing Sa­van­nah, the wa­ter fre­quent­ly sweep­ing over him. Some bread in his pock­et was sat­urat­ed with salt wa­ter and dis­solved to a pulp. The cap­tain or­dered the ves­sel to be put in to New­cas­tle, Delaware, where the fugi­tive, hard­ly able to stand, was tak­en on shore and put in jail, to await the or­ders of his own­er, in Sa­van­nah. DAVIS claimed to be a free man, and a na­tive of Philadel­phia, and de­scribed many lo­cal­ities there. Be­fore Judge Brad­ford, at New­cas­tle, Davis's free­dom was ful­ly proved, and he was dis­charged. He was again ar­rest­ed and placed in jail on the oath of Cap­tain Hardie, that he be­lieved him to be a fugi­tive slave and a fugi­tive from jus­tice. Af­ter some weeks' de­lay, he was brought to tri­al be­fore Unit­ed States Com­mis­sion­er Samuel Guthrie, who or­dered him to be de­liv­ered up to his claimant on the ground that he was legal­ly a slave, though free-​born. It ap­peared in ev­idence that Davis had for­mer­ly gone from Penn­syl­va­nia to re­side in Mary­land, con­trary to the laws of that State; which for­bid free col­ored per­sons from oth­er States to come there to re­side; and be­ing un­able to pay the fine im­posed for this of­fence (!) by the Or­phan's (!) Court of Har­ford Coun­ty, was com­mit­ted to jail and sold as a slave for life, by Robert Mc­Gaw, Sher­iff of the Coun­ty, to Dr. John G. Archer, of Louisiana, from whom he was sold to B.M. Camp­bell, who sold him to William A. Dean, of Ma­con, Geor­gia, the present claimant. Thus a free-​born cit­izen of Penn­syl­va­nia was con­signed, _by law_ to slav­ery for life:

[-->In May, 1854, the Kansas-​Ne­bras­ka Bill was en­act­ed.]

AN­THO­NY BURNS, ar­rest­ed in Boston, May 24, 1854, as the slave of Charles F. Sut­tle, of Alexan­dria, Vir­ginia, who was present to claim him, ac­com­pa­nied by a wit­ness from Rich­mond, Vir­ginia, named William Brent. Burns was ar­rest­ed on a war­rant grant­ed by Unit­ed States Com­mis­sion­er Ed­ward Gree­ley Lor­ing, tak­en to the court-​house in Boston, ironed, and placed in an up­per sto­ry room un­der a strong guard. The hear­ing com­menced the next morn­ing be­fore Mr. Lor­ing, but was ad­journed un­til Sat­ur­day; May 27, to give the coun­sel for A. Burns time to ex­am­ine the case. On Fri­day evening, (26th,) an at­tack was made up­on the court-​house by a body of men, with the ev­ident de­sign of res­cu­ing Burns; a door was forced in, and one of the mar­shal's spe­cial guard, (named Batchelder,) was killed, whether by the as­sailants or by one of his own par­ty is un­cer­tain, it be­ing quite dark; up­on the cry of Batchelder that he was killed, the at­tack­ing par­ty re­treat­ed and made no fur­ther at­tempt. The tri­al of the case pro­ceed­ed on Sat­ur­day, again on Mon­day, Tues­day, and Wednes­day, when the Com­mis­sion­er said he would give his de­ci­sion on Fri­day. Dur­ing the tri­al, Burns was con­tin­ual­ly sur­round­ed by a nu­mer­ous body-​guard, (said to be at least one hun­dred and twen­ty-​five men,) se­lect­ed by Wat­son Free­man, Unit­ed States Mar­shal, from the vilest sinks of scoundrelism, cor­rup­tion, and crime in the city to be Deputy Mar­shals for the oc­ca­sion. These men, with ev­ery form of loath­some im­pu­ri­ty and hard­ened vil­lainy stamped up­on their faces, sat con­stant­ly around the pris­on­er while in the court-​room, the han­dles of pis­tols and re­volvers vis­ibly pro­trud­ing from their breast pock­ets. A com­pa­ny of Unit­ed States troops, from the Navy Yard, oc­cu­pied the court-​house, and guard­ed all av­enues to the Unit­ed States court-​room. The tes­ti­mo­ny of nu­mer­ous high­ly re­spectable wit­ness­es was ad­duced to show that An­tho­ny Burns was in Boston a month ear­li­er than the time at which he was said to have left Rich­mond. R.H. Dana, Jr. and Charles M. El­lis, coun­sel for Burns, made very elo­quent and able ar­gu­ments in his be­half. Seth J. Thomas and E.G. Park­er were the coun­sel for Sut­tle, the case be­ing con­stant­ly watched and aid­ed by the Unit­ed States Dis­trict At­tor­ney, Ben­jamin F. Hal­lett, who was in reg­ular tele­graph­ic com­mu­ni­ca­tion with the Pres­ident of the Unit­ed States, (F. Pierce,) at Wash­ing­ton. An ef­fort was made, and fol­lowed up with much pa­tience, to buy Burns's free­dom, Sut­tle hav­ing of­fered to sell him for $1,200. The mon­ey was raised and ten­dered to Sut­tle, when dif­fi­cul­ties were in­ter­posed, es­pe­cial­ly by Mr. At­tor­ney Hal­lett, and the at­tempt failed. Sut­tle af­ter­wards de­clared he would not sell Burns for any sum, but that he should go back to Vir­ginia. On Fri­day morn­ing, June 2d, Com­mis­sion­er Lor­ing gave his de­ci­sion, over­rid­ing all the tes­ti­mo­ny in Burns's fa­vor, us­ing cer­tain ex­pres­sions which fell from Burns in the first heat and con­fu­sion of his ar­rest, as tes­ti­mo­ny against him, and con­clud­ing with or­der­ing him to be de­liv­ered up to the claimant. Some four hours were con­sumed in get­ting Court Street, State Street, &c., in a state of readi­ness for the re­moval of the pris­on­er. A reg­iment of Mas­sachusetts In­fantry had been post­ed on Boston Com­mon, un­der com­mand of Col. Ben­jamin Franklin (!) Ed­mands, from an ear­ly hour of the day, in an­tic­ipa­tion of the Com­mis­sion­er's de­ci­sion. These troops, which had been called out by the May­or, Jerome V.C. Smith, were marched to the scene of the kid­nap­ping, and so placed as to guard ev­ery street, lane, and oth­er av­enue lead­ing to State Street, &c., the route through which the slave pro­ces­sion was to pass. No in­di­vid­ual was suf­fered to pass with­in these guards; but acts of vi­olence were com­mit­ted by them on sev­er­al in­di­vid­uals. Court Square was oc­cu­pied by two com­pa­nies of Unit­ed States troops, (chiefly Irish­men,) and a large field-​piece was drawn in­to the cen­tre. All prepa­ra­tions be­ing made, Wat­son Free­man (Unit­ed States Mar­shal) is­sued forth from the court-​house with his pris­on­er, who walked with a firm step, sur­round­ed by the body-​guard of crim­inals be­fore men­tioned, with drawn Unit­ed States sabres in their hands, and fol­lowed by Unit­ed States troops with the afore­said piece of ar­tillery. Pre­ced­ed by a com­pa­ny of Mas­sachusetts mount­ed troops, un­der com­mand of Colonel Isaac H. Wright, this in­fa­mous pro­ces­sion took its way down Court Street, State Street and Com­merce Street, (for the pro­pri­etors of Long Wharf re­fused to al­low them to march up­on their premis­es, through a pub­lic high­way in all or­di­nary cas­es,) to the T Wharf, where the pris­on­er was tak­en on board a steam tow-​boat, and con­veyed down the har­bor to the Unit­ed States Rev­enue Cut­ter Mor­ris; in which he was trans­port­ed to Vir­ginia.

It may not be amiss to have giv­en, in a sin­gle in­stance, this some­what de­tailed ac­count of the pro­cess of seiz­ing, try­ing, and de­liv­er­ing up a man in­to slav­ery, whose on­ly crime was that he had fled from a bondage “one hour of which is fraught with more mis­ery than ages of that which our fa­thers rose in re­bel­lion to throw off,” Thomas Jef­fer­son, the Vir­gini­an slave­hold­er, him­self be­ing wit­ness.

An­tho­ny Burns, hav­ing been sold in­to North Car­oli­na, was af­ter­wards pur­chased with mon­ey sub­scribed in Boston and vicin­ity, for the pur­pose, and re­turned to Boston.

The _il­le­gal­ity_ of the May­or's con­duct in or­der­ing out the mil­itary, and giv­ing to the Colonel of the reg­iment the en­tire con­trol of the same, was ful­ly shown by dif­fer­ent and high­ly com­pe­tent writ­ers, among whom was P.W. Chan­dler, Esq., whose two ar­ti­cles, in the _Boston Ad­ver­tis­er_, de­serve to be re­mem­bered with re­spect. The May­or's ex­cuse was that he de­sired to _keep the peace_. But these Mas­sachusetts troops re­ceived pay for their day's work from the Unit­ed States Gov­ern­ment. Judge HOAR, in a charge to the Grand Ju­ry, de­clared the act of the May­or, in call­ing out the mili­tia, to be an in­frac­tion of law.

STEPHEN PEM­BROKE, and his two sons, _Robert_ and _Ja­cob_, 19 and 17 years of age, were ar­rest­ed in New York al­most si­mul­ta­ne­ous­ly with the seizure of Burns in Boston; claimed as the slaves of David Smith and Ja­cob H. Grove, of Sharps­burg, Wash­ing­ton Coun­ty, Mary­land. They es­caped May 1st, and came to New York, fol­lowed close­ly by their mas­ters, who dis­cov­ered their re­treat in Thomp­son Street, and pounced up­on them by night. At 8-1/2 o'clock, next morn­ing, they were tak­en be­fore Unit­ed States Com­mis­sion­er G.W. Mor­ton, “where the case came up for the most sum­ma­ry and hasty hear­ing that has ev­er char­ac­ter­ized our ju­di­cial pro­ceed­ings.” Dun­ning and Smith were coun­sel for the mas­ters, but the fugi­tives had no coun­sel; and the hear­ing was fin­ished, and a war­rant grant­ed to the slave claimants be­fore the mat­ter be­came known in the city. When Mr. Jay and Mr. Cul­ver has­tened to the court-​room to of­fer their ser­vices to the pris­on­ers, as coun­sel, they were as­sured by of­fi­cers, _and by Com­mis­sion­er Mor­ton him­self_, that the men want­ed no coun­sel, and were not in the build­ing. On search, how­ev­er, it was found they were in the build­ing, locked up in a room. They said they de­sired coun­sel and the aid of friends. A writ of _habeas cor­pus_ was ob­tained, but be­fore it could be served the three men had been re­moved from the State, and were on their way to Bal­ti­more. [See the pub­lished. Card of E.D. CUL­VER, Esq.] Stephen Pem­broke was the broth­er, and his sons the nephews of Rev. Dr. Pen­ning­ton, of New York City, Pas­tor of a Pres­by­te­ri­an (col­ored) Church. Stephen Pem­broke was pur­chased and brought back to New York, ($1,000 hav­ing been con­tribut­ed for that pur­pose,) and re­lat­ed his ex­pe­ri­ence of the slave's life, at a pub­lic meet­ing, held in the Broad­way Taber­na­cle, Ju­ly 17, 1854. His sons had been sold, and re­mained in slav­ery.

JAMES COTES, free man of col­or, re­sid­ing in Gib­son Coun­ty, In­di­ana, went to Jef­fer­son­ville, (Ind.,) to take the cars for In­di­anapo­lis. On go­ing to the de­pot, at 6, A.M., for the morn­ing train, he was knocked down, “beat over the head with a brick-​bat, and cut with a bowie-​knife, un­til sub­dued. He was then tied, and in open day­light in full view of our pop­ulace, borne off bleed­ing like a hog.” He was un­doubt­ed­ly tak­en to the jail, in Louisville. On cross­ing the riv­er to Louisville he met the cap­tain of a steam­boat, who knew him to be a free man. (About June 1, 1854.) The kid­nap­per was ar­rest­ed and held to bail in the sum of $1,000, to take his tri­al at next Cir­cuit Court.

_Near Cedarville, Ohio, May 25, 1854_, about noon, “a col­ored man, of mid­dle age and re­spectable ap­pear­ance, was walk­ing on the Colum­bus and Xe­nia turn­pike. He was alone. A man in a bug­gy over­took him, and in­vit­ed him to ride, say­ing he was a friend to the col­ored man, and promis­ing to as­sist him in ob­tain­ing his lib­er­ty.” He took the col­ored man to the house of one Chap­man, “three miles south of Sel­ma, in Greene coun­ty.” There Chap­man and the oth­er, (whose name was William Mc­Cord,) fell up­on the col­ored man, struck him with a _colt_ up­on the head, so that he bled severe­ly, and bound his hands be­hind him. “Soon af­ter the ne­gro got loose and ran down the road; Mc­Cord ran af­ter him, cry­ing 'Catch the d----d horse thief,' &c., Chap­man and his son fol­low­ing; ne­gro picked up a stone, the man a club and struck him on the head, so that he did not throw the stone. He was then tied, and helped by Mc­Cord and Chap­man to walk to the bug­gy. Mc­Cord asked Chap­man, the son, to ac­com­pa­ny him to Cincin­nati with the col­ored man, promis­ing to give him half the re­ward ($200) if he would. They then start­ed, driv­ing very fast.” “We had not gone over two or three miles,” said Chap­man, “be­fore the ne­gro died, and af­ter tak­ing him two or three miles fur­ther, put him out, and left him as now dis­cov­ered,”--viz. in a thick wood, one mile south of Clifton. The above facts are tak­en from the tes­ti­mo­ny giv­en at the coro­ner's in­quest over the body. “The ju­ry gave in sub­stance the fol­low­ing ver­dict:--De­ceased came to his death by blows from a colt and club in the hands of one William Mc­Cord, as­sist­ed by the two Chap­mans.” Chap­man, the son, said that Mc­Cord made him a propo­si­tion to join and fol­low kid­nap­ping for a busi­ness, stat­ing that he knew where he could get four vic­tims im­me­di­ate­ly. Mc­Cord was tak­en and lodged in Xe­nia jail. The Chap­mans bound over to take their tri­al for kid­nap­ping.--_Wilm­ing­ton (Ohio) Her­ald of Free­dom_.

_Colum­bus, In­di­ana._ A Ken­tuck­ian en­deav­ored to en­tice a lit­tle ne­gro boy to go with him, and both were wait­ing to take the cars, when mis­chief was sus­pect­ed, and a crowd of peo­ple pro­ceed­ed to the de­pot, and made the kid­nap­per re­lease his in­tend­ed vic­tim. (June, 1854.)--_In­di­ana Free Demo­crat_.

---- BROWN, a res­ident of Hen­der­son, Ken­tucky, was ar­rest­ed for aid­ing four fe­male slaves to es­cape from Union Coun­ty, Ken­tucky, to Cana­da. Unit­ed States Mar­shal Ward and Sher­iff Gavitt, of In­di­ana, made the ar­rest. He was lodged in Hen­der­son jail.--_Evansville (Ind.) Jour­nal_, June 2, 1854.

Sev­er­al Ken­tucky planters, among them Archibald Dixon, raised $500 in or­der to se­cure Brown's con­vic­tion and sen­tence to pen­iten­tiary.

[Tran­scriber's note: The fol­low­ing note ap­pears as a foot­note to this sec­tion with­out spe­cif­ic ref­er­ence to any of the cit­ed cas­es.]

--> The case of SOLOMON NORTHUP, though not un­der the Fugi­tive Law, is so strik­ing an il­lus­tra­tion of the pow­er which cre­at­ed that law, and of the con­stant dan­ger which im­pends over ev­ery col­ored cit­izen of the North­ern States, fast threat­en­ing to in­clude white cit­izens al­so, that it must not he passed over with­out men­tion. He was kid­napped in 1841, from the State of New York, and kept in slav­ery twelve years. Two men, named Mer­rill and Rus­sell, were ar­rest­ed and tried as his kid­nap­pers, and the fact ful­ly proven. But the case was got in­to the Unit­ed States Courts, and the crim­inals went un­pun­ished. [end of note]

_Nine slaves_ left their mas­ters in Boone Coun­ty, Ken­tucky, on Sun­day, June 11, 1854, hav­ing three hors­es with them. Ar­rived at the riv­er, they turned the hors­es back, and tak­ing a skiff crossed at mid­night to the Ohio shore. Af­ter trav­el­ling two or three miles, they hid dur­ing Mon­day in a clump of bush­es. At night they start­ed north­ward again. A man, named John Gyser, met them and promised to as­sist them. He took them to a sta­ble, where they were to re­main un­til night. He im­me­di­ate­ly went to Cov­ing­ton, Ken­tucky, learned that $1,000 re­ward was of­fered for their ap­pre­hen­sion, and gave in­for­ma­tion of their place of con­ceal­ment. At evening a strong band of Ken­tuck­ians, with Unit­ed States Deputy Mar­shal George Thay­er, as­sist­ed by three Cincin­nati of­fi­cers, sur­round­ed the sta­ble and took the nine pris­on­ers, on a war­rant is­sued by Unit­ed States Com­mis­sion­er Pen­dery. They were all giv­en up to their claimants, and tak­en back to Ken­tucky.

_A New Or­leans cor­re­spon­dent of the New York Tri­bune_, in a let­ter dat­ed Ju­ly 3, 1854, writes, “Dur­ing a re­cent trip up the riv­er I was on sev­er­al steam­ers, and on ev­ery boat they had one or more run­away slaves, who had been caught and were be­ing tak­en in _irons_ to their _mas­ters_.”

_On the Steam­er Alvin Adams_, at Madi­son, In­di­ana, a man was ar­rest­ed as a fugi­tive and tak­en to Louisville, Ken­tucky. He was claimed as the slave of John H. Page, of Bowl­ing Green. The _Louisville Jour­nal_, edit­ed by a North­ern man, stig­ma­tised him as a “ras­cal,” for his at­tempt to be free. (Ju­ly, 1854.)

_Two col­ored men_, on their way to Chica­go, were seized and tak­en from the cars at Lasalle, Illi­nois, by three men, who said they were not of­fi­cers. The col­ored men were known to be free; one was “a re­spectable res­ident of Chica­go.” Some of the pas­sen­gers in­ter­fered; but it be­ing night, and very dark, and the cars start­ing on the col­ored men were left in the hands of their kid­nap­pers.

_Chica­go, Illi­nois._ Three men from Mis­souri, with a war­rant from the Gov­er­nor of that State, to take a cer­tain fugi­tive slave, seized a man whom they met in the street, bound him with a hand­ker­chief, and to quick­en his steps beat him with the butt of a pis­tol. He suc­ceed­ed in shak­ing off his cap­tors and fled, a pis­tol-​bul­let be­ing sent af­ter him, which did not hit him. He made good his es­cape. The men were ar­rest­ed and held to tri­al for as­sault with dead­ly weapons. By an ex­traor­di­nary con­spir­acy on the part of Dis­trict At­tor­ney Hoyne, Sher­iff Bradley, and oth­ers, these men were tak­en from jail to be car­ried to Spring­field, Illi­nois, two hun­dred miles dis­tant, to ap­pear be­fore Chief Jus­tice Treat, that he might in­quire “whether said al­leged kid­nap­pers were just­ly held to bail and im­pris­oned.” It was so sud­den­ly done that the coun­sel for the kid­napped man and for the State of Illi­nois had not time to reach Spring­field be­fore the men were dis­charged and on their way to Mis­souri. The Grand Ju­ry of the Coun­ty (in which Chica­go is) had found a true bill against them, of which the Sher­iff pro­fessed to be ig­no­rant, (which was deemed hard­ly pos­si­ble,)--un­der which bill they would prob­ably have been con­vict­ed and sen­tenced to the State Prison. Thus the om­nipo­tent Slave Pow­er reach­es forth its hand in­to our most North­ern cities, end saves its min­ions from the pun­ish­ment which their law­less acts have just­ly mer­it­ed.--_Chica­go Dai­ly Tri­bune_, Sept. 21, 1854.

--> The three kid­nap­pers pub­lished a state­ment in the _St. Louis Re­pub­li­can_ of Septem­ber 26.

HEN­RY MASSEY, at Philadel­phia, Septem­ber, 1854, was brought be­fore Unit­ed States Com­mis­sion­er E.D. In­gra­ham, claimed by Franklin Bright, of Queen Anne's Coun­ty, Mary­land, as his slave. Ar­rest­ed in Har­ris­burg.

HAR­VEY, ar­rest­ed near Cum­minsville, Ohio,--es­caped,--tak­en again in Goshen, about ten miles from Cincin­nati, and lodged in the jail of that city. An in­ves­ti­ga­tion of the case was had be­fore Unit­ed States Com­mis­sion­er Pen­dery, and the slave re­mand­ed to the cus­tody of his mas­ter.--_Cincin­nati Com­mer­cial_, Septem­ber 22, 1854.

_By­ber­ry, Penn­syl­va­nia, Septem­ber 18, 1854._ A car­riage load of sus­pi­cious look­ing men came to this place in the af­ter­noon. They wait­ed un­til night­fall, when they burst in­to the house of a col­ored fam­ily, “seized the man in pres­ence of his wife and an­oth­er wom­an, threat­en­ing to shoot them if they in­ter­fered--dragged him out, beat­ing him over the head with a mace. The poor fel­low con­tin­ued to scream for help un­til his voice was sti­fled by his groans; they forced him in­to their car­riage and drove off, be­fore any ef­fec­tu­al as­sis­tance could be of­fered.” He was a sober and in­dus­tri­ous man, and much re­spect­ed. His wife was left heart­bro­ken, with one child.--_Nor­ris­town (Pa.) Olive Branch_.

_The Frank­fort (Ky.) Yeo­man_, of Novem­ber 18, 1854, said:--“Kid­nap­ping free ne­groes in Ohio, and de­lud­ing our slaves from their mas­ters to re­cap­ture and sell them, is an es­tab­lished pro­fes­sion of a gang lo­cat­ed up­on the bor­ders of the Ohio Riv­er, com­bin­ing with ne­gro-​traders in the in­te­ri­or of this State.” The names of some em­ployed in this busi­ness are giv­en, two of whom, hav­ing been ar­rest­ed and im­pris­oned, threat­ened to burn the city of Frank­fort for in­ter­rupt­ing their busi­ness.

JANE MOORE, a free col­ored wom­an, at Cincin­nati, Novem­ber, 1854, seized in the house of her sis­ter, (Sycamore Street,) beat­en, and with the help of a deputy mar­shal from Cov­ing­ton, Ken­tucky, car­ried over to Cov­ing­ton, and lodged in jail, on pre­tence of her be­ing a fugi­tive slave. She was tak­en be­fore the May­or of Cov­ing­ton, “who heard the case with im­par­tial­ity.” Her free­dom was es­tab­lished, and she re­leased.

_At In­di­anapo­lis, In­di­ana, De­cem­ber, 1854_, Ben­jamin B. Wa­ter­house was in­dict­ed for har­bor­ing fugi­tive slaves, con­trary to the pro­vi­sions of the Fugi­tive Law. He was found guilty, but the ju­ry rec­om­mend­ed him “to the fa­vor­able con­sid­er­ation of the Court, and stat­ed that the ev­idence was bare­ly suf­fi­cient to con­vict.” He was fined fifty dol­lars and to be im­pris­oned one hour, and the gov­ern­ment to pay the costs.---_Chica­go Tri­bune_.

_A Propo­si­tion for Kid­nap­ping_, on a large scale, was made by John H. Pope, “po­lice of­fi­cer and con­sta­ble,” in a let­ter dat­ed “Fred­er­ick, Mary­land, Unit­ed States of Amer­ica, Jan­uary 1, 1855,” and ad­dressed to Mr. Hays, Sher­iff of Mon­tre­al, Cana­da. “Vast num­bers of slaves,” says Mr. Pope, “es­cap­ing from their mas­ters or own­ers, suc­ceed in reach­ing your Provinces, and are, there­fore, with­out the pale of the 'Fugi­tive Slave Law,' and can on­ly be re­stored by cun­ning, to­geth­er with skill. Large re­wards are of­fered and will be paid for their re­turn, and could I find an ef­fi­cient per­son to act with me, a great deal of mon­ey could be made, as I would equal­ly di­vide. * * * The on­ly ap­pre­hen­sion we have in ap­proach­ing too far in­to Cana­da is the fear of be­ing ar­rest­ed; and had I a good as­sis­tant in your city, who would in­duce the ne­groes to the fron­tier, I would be there to pay the cash. On your an­swer, I can fur­nish names and de­scrip­tions of ne­groes.”

This let­ter was pub­lished, doubt­less at the Mon­tre­al Sher­iff's re­quest, in the _Mon­tre­al Gazette_, Jan­uary 13, 1855.

--> The _Mon­tre­al Gazette_, of Febru­ary 3, pub­lished a sec­ond let­ter from J.H. Pope.

_A war­rant was is­sued in Boston_, Jan­uary 10, 1855, by Unit­ed States Com­mis­sion­er Charles Levi Wood­bury, for the ar­rest of JOHN JACK­SON, as a fugi­tive from ser­vice and la­bor in Geor­gia. Mr. Jack­son, who had been for some time in the city, was nowhere to be found.

ROSET­TA ARM­STEAD, a col­ored girl, was tak­en by writ of _habeas cor­pus_ be­fore Judge Jami­son, at Colum­bus, Ohio. Roset­ta for­mer­ly be­longed to Ex-​Pres­ident John Tyler, who _gave her_ to his daugh­ter, the wife of Rev. Hen­ry M. Den­ni­son, an Epis­co­pal cler­gy­man of Louisville, Ken­tucky. Mrs. D. hav­ing de­ceased, Roset­ta was to be sent back to Vir­ginia in care of an in­fant child, both be­ing placed in charge of a Dr. Miller, a friend of Mr. Den­ni­son. Pass­ing through Ohio, the above writ was ob­tained. Roset­ta ex­pressed her de­sire to re­main in free­dom in Ohio. The case was re­moved to Cincin­nati, and was de­layed un­til Mr. Den­ni­son could ar­rive from Louisville. (_Ohio State Jour­nal_, March 12, 1855.) The girl was set free; “but was again ar­rest­ed by the Unit­ed States Mar­shal up­on the same war­rant which Judge Park­er had de­clared il­le­gal; there­upon an­oth­er _habeas cor­pus_ was is­sued, which the Mar­shal re­fused to obey; when he was fined $50, and im­pris­oned for con­tempt.” Even Unit­ed States Com­mis­sion­er Pen­dery, be­fore whom the case was brought as that of a fugi­tive slave, pro­nounced the girl free, and she was placed in the care of a guardian. The Unit­ed States Mar­shal be­ing tak­en by _habeas cor­pus_ be­fore Judge McLean, of the Unit­ed States Supreme Court, was set at lib­er­ty, Judge McL. al­leg­ing that the pro­ceed­ings in the State Court were null and void!

GEORGE CLARK, a col­ored boy, eigh­teen years of age, in Penn­syl­va­nia, was de­coyed in­to the house of one Thomp­son, (Febru­ary 23, 1855,) where he was seized by three men, one of whom was Solomon Sny­ders, a well known ruf­fi­an and kid­nap­per in the neigh­bor­hood, who said to him, “Now, George, I am go­ing to take you to your mas­ter.” The screams of George for­tu­nate­ly brought de­liv­er­ance to him. The three men were ar­rest­ed, tried, and sen­tenced to im­pris­on­ment for kid­nap­ping, by the Court of Dauphin Coun­ty.--_Nor­ris­town (Penn.) Olive Branch_.

_The Nor­ris­town (Penn.) Olive Branch_, (in con­nec­tion with the last named case,) speaks of a case which had oc­curred a short time be­fore, un­der the Fugi­tive Law, be­fore Unit­ed States Com­mis­sion­er McAl­lis­ter, at Har­ris­burg, Penn­syl­va­nia, and which has not yet been men­tioned in this record. A col­ored man and his wife, with their in­fant child, were tak­en, “one morn­ing, very ear­ly,” be­fore Com­mis­sion­er Richard McAl­lis­ter, and be­fore any coun­sel could reach the spot the case had been de­cid­ed against the man and wom­an; but the babe, hav­ing been born in Penn­syl­va­nia, they did not “dare to send that” in­to slav­ery; “so the on­ly al­ter­na­tive was to take it away from its moth­er,” which was done, and that evening the man and wom­an were tak­en South. No time had been al­lowed to bring for­ward wit­ness­es in their be­half, and there was on­ly a sin­gle wit­ness against them, and he a boy about sev­en­teen years old, and a rel­ative of the slave-​claimant. The wom­an's suf­fer­ings, on ac­count of the sep­ara­tion from her child, seemed greater than for her own fate. The ar­ti­cle from the Nor­ris­town pa­per is in the _Na­tion­al An­ti-​Slav­ery Stan­dard_, June 2, 1855.

GEORGE MITCHELL, a young col­ored man, at San Jose, Cal­ifor­nia, ar­rest­ed and tak­en be­fore Jus­tice Allen, April, 1855, “charged with ow­ing ser­vice and la­bor to one Jesse C. Coop­er, of Ten­nessee.” Mitchell was brought in­to Cal­ifor­nia by his then own­er, in 1849, the year be­fore the en­act­ment of the Fugi­tive Slave Law. His ar­rest was made, un­der a Fugi­tive Slave Law of Cal­ifor­nia. By _habeas cor­pus_ the case was car­ried be­fore Judge C.P. Hes­ter, of the Dis­trict Court. Mitchell was dis­charged on the ground (we be­lieve) that the Cal­ifor­nia Law was un­con­sti­tu­tion­al; al­so that the pro­ceed­ings were “ab­so­lute­ly void.” On the 21st April (or May) “an­oth­er at­tempt was made to re­duce George to slav­ery at San Fran­cis­co.” He was brought be­fore the Unit­ed States Dis­trict Court, Judge Hoff­man pre­sid­ing, claimed un­der the Unit­ed States Fugi­tive Law as the prop­er­ty of the above-​named Coop­er. [The re­sult of the tri­al not known.]--_San Jose Tele­graph_.

_At Dayville, Con­necti­cut_, June 13, 1855, an at­tempt was made to seize a fugi­tive slave; “but the cit­izens in­ter­fered and the fugi­tive es­caped.” He was claimed by a res­ident of Pom­fret, who said he had bought him in Cu­ba.--_Hart­ford Re­li­gious Her­ald_.

_At Burling­ton, Iowa_, a col­ored man, called DICK, was ar­rest­ed and tak­en be­fore Unit­ed States Com­mis­sion­er Frazee. “Much ex­cite­ment was caused.” He was claimed as be­long­ing to Thomas Ruth­ford, Clark Coun­ty, Mis­souri. Dick was dis­charged as not be­ing the man claimed. (June, 1855.)

_A white girl_, four­teen years of age, daugh­ter of Mr. Samuel God­shall, of Down­ing­town, Chester Coun­ty, Penn­syl­va­nia, while walk­ing up­on the road, was seized by two men, a plas­ter put up­on her mouth, and she tak­en in a close car­riage in the di­rec­tion of Mary­land. Af­ter go­ing twelve miles, they put her out of the car­riage, “in a se­clud­ed and woody por­tion of the coun­try, threat­en­ing to kill her if she made any alarm, when they drove away as fast as they could.” Some col­ored peo­ple met her, got the plas­ter off her mouth, and aid­ed her home. It was sup­posed the kid­nap­pers mis­took her for a mu­lat­to girl; but dis­cov­er­ing their blun­der dis­missed her.--_Philadel­phia Ledger_, Ju­ly 9, 1855.

_The Nor­ris­town (Penn.) Her­ald_ re­lates a case sim­ilar to the pre­ced­ing. Ben­jamin John­son, a white lad of fif­teen, on his way from his fa­ther's, at Evans­burg, to S. Jar­rett's, near Jef­fer­son­ville, was in­vit­ed to ride by a man in a car­riage. The man took him by an un­usu­al route; night com­ing on, the boy was alarmed and at­tempt­ed to es­cape, “when the vil­lain caught him and drove off at full speed, and by threats and blows pre­vent­ed him from mak­ing any alarm.” He drove to a dis­tance of fif­teen miles be­yond Jef­fer­son­ville, when the boy suc­ceed­ed in mak­ing his es­cape. (Ju­ly, 1855.)

JANE JOHN­SON, and her two sons, (col­ored,) brought in­to Philadel­phia (on their way to New York and thence to Nicaragua) by John H. Wheel­er. Stopped to dine at Blood­good's Ho­tel. Jane there made known her de­sire to be free. In­for­ma­tion of the same was con­veyed to Pass­more Williamson, Sec­re­tary of the Penn­syl­va­nia Abo­li­tion So­ci­ety, an old as­so­ci­ation found­ed by Ben­jamin Franklin, Ben­jamin Rush, and oth­ers. Mr. Williamson went to the ho­tel, and found that the par­ty had gone to the steam­boat, at the foot of Wal­nut Street. He pro­ceed­ed thith­er, found them, and told the moth­er that she and her sons had been legal­ly made free by be­ing brought by their mas­ter in­to a free State. Af­ter some de­lay, Jane rose to leave the boat. Wheel­er en­deav­ored to de­tain her. Williamson held Wheel­er back, and the wom­an went on shore, a num­ber of col­ored per­sons tak­ing up the boys and car­ry­ing them from the boat. They were en­abled to es­cape. (Ju­ly 18, 1855.)

The cel­ebrat­ed case of PASS­MORE WILLIAMSON fol­lowed, be­fore Judge Kane, of the Unit­ed States Dis­trict Court. (See “Case of Pass­more Williamson,” re­port­ed in full, and pub­lished in Philadel­phia, by Uri­ah Hunt & Son, 1856.) On the 27th Ju­ly, Mr. Williamson was com­mit­ted to Moy­amensing Prison, by Judge Kane, “for a con­tempt of the court in re­fus­ing to an­swer to the writ of _habeas cor­pus_;” Mr. W. _hav­ing an­swered_ that he had not, and nev­er had had, the cus­tody of the three al­leged slaves, and there­fore could not pro­duce them in court. Mr. Williamson was kept in prison un­til Novem­ber 3d, when he was dis­charged by Judge Kane, the tech­ni­cal “con­tempt” hav­ing been re­moved.

CE­LESTE, a mu­lat­to wom­an, claimed as a slave, be­fore Judge Bur­goyne, Cincin­nati, Ohio. It ap­peared that she was brought to Cincin­nati by her mas­ter, and she was set free.--_Cincin­nati Gazette_, Ju­ly 7, 1855.

_Two fugi­tives_, in In­di­ana, (Septem­ber, 1855,) re­quest­ed aid of the con­duc­tor of the Madi­son and In­di­anapo­lis Rail­road. The aid giv­en was to take them back to Madi­son, whence they were con­veyed over the riv­er to Ken­tucky. Be­fore leav­ing that State they had been hunt­ed and at­tacked by dogs. These they had despatched with their knives. The con­duc­tor was dis­missed from his po­si­tion. An agent of the ex­press com­pa­ny was said to have aid­ed him in the sur­ren­der of the men.--_Madi­son Couri­er_.

JACK, a col­ored boy, nine years of age, “claimed by Joseph Tuck­er, of Mo­bile, as his slave, was sent back to his mas­ter from Boston, in the brig Sel­ma, Cap­tain Rogers, on the 18th in­st.” (Oc­to­ber, 1855.)--_Boston Times_.

JA­COB GREEN, a col­ored man, was seized near Hol­li­days­burg, Penn­syl­va­nia, by one Par­sons, as a fugi­tive slave. Par­sons could show no au­thor­ity for de­tain­ing Green, who, with the help of some by­standers, re­leased him­self and es­caped.--_Hol­li­days­burg Stan­dard_, Oc­to­ber 24, 1855.

_Four men in­dict­ed for kid­nap­ping_ at Greens­burg, In­di­ana, in the Spring of 1855. Their names--David and Thomas Maple, Mor­ri­son, and Mc­Closkey. Charged with kid­nap­ping two men, whom they con­veyed to a slave state, and sold as slaves. The two Maples, fear­ing the in­dict­ment, ab­scond­ed. The oth­er two were ar­rest­ed, and brought to tri­al in Oc­to­ber, 1855, at the State Court, be­fore Judge Lo­gan. “De­fen­dants' coun­sel moved to quash the in­dict­ment, for the rea­son that the sec­tion of the statute of In­di­ana against kid­nap­ping was in vi­ola­tion of the acts of Congress, and, there­fore, void; and the Court ac­cord­ing­ly quashed the in­dict­ment”--_In­di­anapo­lis Jour­nal_.

_Eight fugi­tives from Ken­tucky_ reached Adams Coun­ty, Ohio, close­ly fol­lowed by sev­er­al Ken­tuck­ians, who at­tempt­ed to search the hous­es of sev­er­al of the cit­izens. “The peo­ple, in­dig­nant at this out­rage, as­sem­bled with arms, and placed an in­junc­tion up­on these sum­ma­ry pro­ceed­ings.” “The men-​hunters then of­fered $2,000 to any traitor who would be­tray the fugi­tives in­to their hands. But, so far as we have learned, the bribe was as un­suc­cess­ful as the at­tempt­ed search.” (Novem­ber, 1855.)--_Car­roll Free Press_.

_At Wil­son's Cor­ner, Ben­salem, Buck's Coun­ty, Pa._, Dec. 13, 1855, a col­ored man in the em­ploy of John Hen­der­son was seized by three men, who tied him, threw him in­to a wag­on, and drove off at full speed. They were seen, and quick­ly fol­lowed by men on horse­back. Af­ter two hours' hard rid­ing, the kid­nap­pers were over­tak­en. A fight en­sued--the black man was re­leased; when three pis­tol-​shots were fired by the kid­nap­pers, killing a horse, and wound­ing one of the res­cu­ing par­ty severe­ly. A state­ment of the facts was pub­lished, as an ad­ver­tise­ment, in the _Philadel­phia Ledger_, signed by William Williams and John Hen­der­son.

“_Two very bright mu­lat­to girls_,” says the _Staunton (Va.) Spec­ta­tor_, “one be­long­ing to Mr. John Church­man, and the oth­er to the es­tate of Colonel Craw­ford, de­ceased, took the cars at Staunton, on the morn­ing of De­cem­ber 30, 1855, and made their way suc­cess­ful­ly to Bal­ti­more, en route for a free State. At Bal­ti­more they were de­tect­ed just as they were about to take the train for Philadel­phia, and in­for­ma­tion of their ar­rest was im­me­di­ate­ly for­ward­ed to D. Church­man, of this place.” On the fol­low­ing Fri­day they were tak­en back to Vir­ginia. “They were so near­ly white that their suc­cess in im­pos­ing up­on the con­duc­tors of the cars is not as­ton­ish­ing, and the on­ly won­der is that they were de­tect­ed at all. Since their re­turn, the ne­gro girls have been sold--Mr. Church­man's for $1,050, and the oth­er for $950.”

FAN­NY, a col­ored child of fire years old, was tak­en from Chica­go, Illi­nois, in­to Ten­nessee, and sold for $250. A man named F.M. Chap­man, with his ser­vant William R. Tra­cy, were ar­rest­ed as the kid­nap­pers, and tak­en be­fore Jus­tice De­Wolf. Chap­man claimed to have owned the child in Arkansas, and to have brought her to Illi­nois [there­by mak­ing her free.] He pro­cured Tra­cy to take the child to Ten­nessee and sell her. The re­sult of the case not known. (Jan­uary, 1856.)

_Two fugi­tives_, pass­ing through Ohio, (Jan­uary, 1856,) were close­ly pur­sued and near­ly over­tak­en at Colum­bus, Ohio. “Ten min­utes pre­vi­ous warn­ing on­ly saved the fugi­tives from their pur­suers.” Deputy Mar­shal J. Un­der­wood, be­ing called on to act in the case, re­fused, and re­signed his of­fice, say­ing, he did not ex­pect to be “called up­on to help ex­ecute the odi­ous Fugi­tive Slave Law.”--_Cincin­nati Com­mer­cial_.

[--> The fol­low­ing may, not im­prop­er­ly, find a place here.]

The House of Del­egates of Vir­ginia, ear­ly in 1856, adopt­ed the fol­low­ing:--“_Be it re­solved by the Gen­er­al As­sem­bly_, That our Rep­re­sen­ta­tives in Congress are re­quest­ed, and our Sen­ators be and are here­by in­struct­ed, to se­cure the pas­sage of a law mak­ing full com­pen­sa­tion to all own­ers whose slaves have or may here­after es­cape in­to any of the non-​slave­hold­ing States of this Union, and there be with­held from those to whom such ser­vice or la­bor may be due.”

_Four­teen per­sons of col­or_, held at Los An­ge­los, Cal­ifor­nia, ear­ly in 1856, as the ser­vants of one Robert Smith, were brought be­fore Judge Ben­jamin Hays, on a writ of _habeas cor­pus_. Smith al­leged that he for­mer­ly resid­ed in Mis­sis­sip­pi, where he owned these per­sons; was now about to re­move to Texas, and de­signed to take these per­sons with him as his slaves. Judge Hays de­cid­ed that they were all free, and those un­der twen­ty-​one years of age were placed in the charge of the sher­iff, as their spe­cial guardian.--_Los An­ge­los Star._ The opin­ion of Judge Hays (who was said to be a na­tive of South Car­oli­na,) is a very able one, and un­der the cir­cum­stances, of much in­ter­est. It may be found in the _Stan­dard_, of April 5, 1856.

_Two col­ored lads_, named RALLS and LO­GAN, liv­ing in Cincin­nati, were kid­napped thence by two men, named Orr and Simp­kins, and tak­en to St. Louis, Mis­souri, where the men tried to sell them. The men were ar­rest­ed as kid­nap­pers. (March, 1856.)

_The De­catur (Illi­nois) Chron­icle_ states that “a man charged with be­ing a fugi­tive slave was re­cent­ly ar­rest­ed at that place and car­ried off, no one knows where. The sher­iff of the coun­ty was the will­ing in­stru­ment in the hands of the claimants; no at­tempt to ap­peal to the law was made, the ne­gro be­ing car­ried off as if he were a stray horse or dog.” The _Chica­go Tri­bune_ says: “If this is a true state­ment of the af­fair, that sher­iff has laid him­self li­able to the charge of kid­nap­ping, and should at once be pro­ceed­ed against with such rig­or as his of­fence de­mands.” (April, 1856.)

MAR­GARET GAR­NER _and sev­en oth­ers_, at Cincin­nati, Ohio, Jan­uary, 1856. Of this re­cent and pe­cu­liar­ly painful case we give a some­what de­tailed ac­count, main­ly tak­en from the Cincin­nati pa­pers of the day.

About ten o'clock on Sun­day, 27th Jan­uary, 1856, a par­ty of eight slaves--two men, two wom­en, and four chil­dren--be­long­ing to Archibald K. Gaines and John Mar­shall, of Rich­wood Sta­tion, Boone Coun­ty, Ken­tucky, about six­teen miles from Cov­ing­ton, es­caped from their own­ers. Three of the par­ty are fa­ther, moth­er, and son, whose names are Si­mon, Mary, and Si­mon, Jr.; the oth­ers are Mar­garet, wife of Si­mon, Jr., and her four chil­dren. The three first are the prop­er­ty of Mar­shall, and the oth­ers of Gaines.

They took a sleigh and two hors­es be­long­ing to Mr. Mar­shall, and drove to the riv­er bank, op­po­site Cincin­nati, and crossed over to the city on the ice. They were missed a few hours af­ter their flight, and Mr. Gaines, spring­ing on a horse, fol­lowed in pur­suit. On reach­ing the riv­er shore, he learned that a res­ident had found the hors­es stand­ing in the road. He then crossed over to the City, and af­ter a few hours dili­gent in­quiry, he learned that his slaves were in a house about a quar­ter of a mile be­low the Mill Creek Bridge, on the riv­er road, oc­cu­pied by a col­ored man named Kite.

He pro­ceed­ed to the of­fice of Unit­ed States Com­mis­sion­er John L. Pen­dery, and procur­ing the nec­es­sary war­rants, with Unit­ed States Deputy Mar­shal El­lis, and a large body of as­sis­tants, went on Mon­day to the place where his fugi­tives were con­cealed. Ar­riv­ing at the premis­es, word was sent to the fugi­tives to sur­ren­der. A firm and de­cid­ed neg­ative was the re­sponse. The of­fi­cers, backed by a large crowd, then made a de­scent. Break­ing open the doors, they were as­sailed by the ne­groes with cud­gels and pis­tols. Sev­er­al shots were fired, but on­ly one took ef­fect, so far as we could as­cer­tain. A bul­let struck a man named John Pat­ter­son, one of the Mar­shal's deputies; tear­ing off a fin­ger of his right hand, and dis­lo­cat­ing sev­er­al of his teeth. No oth­er of the of­fi­cers were in­jured, the ne­groes be­ing ren­dered pow­er­less be­fore they could reload their weapons.

On look­ing around, hor­ri­ble was the sight which met the of­fi­cers' eyes. In one cor­ner of the room was a near­ly white child, bleed­ing to death. Her throat was cut from ear to ear, and the blood was spout­ing out pro­fuse­ly, show­ing that the deed was but re­cent­ly com­mit­ted. Scarce­ly was this fact no­ticed, when a scream is­su­ing from an ad­join­ing room drew their at­ten­tion thith­er. A glance in­to the apart­ment re­vealed a ne­gro wom­an hold­ing in her hand a knife lit­er­al­ly drip­ping with gore, over the heads of two lit­tle ne­gro chil­dren, who were crouched to the floor, and ut­ter­ing the cries whose ag­onized peals had first star­tled them. Quick­ly the knife was wrest­ed from the hand of the ex­cit­ed wom­an, and a more close in­ves­ti­ga­tion in­sti­tut­ed as to the con­di­tion, of the in­fants. They were dis­cov­ered to be cut across the head and shoul­ders, but not very se­ri­ous­ly in­jured, al­though the blood trick­led down their backs and up­on their clothes.

The wom­an avowed her­self the moth­er of the chil­dren, and said that she had killed one and would like to kill the three oth­ers, rather than see them again re­duced to slav­ery! By this time the crowd about the premis­es had be­come prodi­gious, and it was with no in­con­sid­er­able dif­fi­cul­ty that the ne­groes were se­cured in car­riages, and brought to the Unit­ed States Dis­trict Court-​rooms, on Fourth Street. The pop­ulace fol­lowed the ve­hi­cle close­ly, but evinced no ac­tive de­sire to ef­fect a res­cue. Ru­mors of the sto­ry soon cir­cu­lat­ed all over the city. Nor were they ex­ag­ger­at­ed, as is usu­al­ly the case. For once, re­al­ity sur­passed the wildest thought of fic­tion.

The slaves, on reach­ing the mar­shal's of­fice, seat­ed them­selves around the stove with de­ject­ed coun­te­nances, and pre­served a moody si­lence, an­swer­ing all ques­tions pro­pound­ed to them in mono­syl­la­bles, or re­fus­ing to an­swer at all. Si­mon is ap­par­ent­ly about fifty-​five years of age, and Mary about fifty. The son of Mr. Mar­shall, who is here, in or­der, if pos­si­ble, to re­cov­er the prop­er­ty of his fa­ther, says that they have al­ways been faith­ful ser­vants, and have fre­quent­ly been on this side of the riv­er. Si­mon, Jr., is a young man, about twen­ty-​two years old, of a very lithe and ac­tive form, and rather a mild and pleas­ant coun­te­nance. Mar­garet is a dark mu­lat­to, twen­ty-​three years of age; her coun­te­nance is far from be­ing vi­cious, and her sens­es, yes­ter­day, ap­peared par­tial­ly stul­ti­fied from the ex­cit­ing tri­als she had en­dured. Af­ter re­main­ing about two hours at the mar­shal's of­fice, Com­mis­sion­er Pen­dery an­nounced that the slaves would be re­moved to the cus­tody of the Unit­ed States Mar­shal un­til nine o'clock Tues­day morn­ing, when the case would come up for ex­am­ina­tion.

The slaves were then tak­en down stairs to the street-​door, when a wild and ex­cit­ing scene pre­sent­ed it­self; the side­walks and the mid­dle of the street were thronged with peo­ple, and a cou­ple of coach­es were at the door in or­der to con­vey the cap­tives to the sta­tion-​house. The slaves were guard­ed by a strong posse of of­fi­cers, and as they made their ap­pear­ance on the street, it was ev­ident that there was a strong sym­pa­thy in their fa­vor. When they were led to the car­riage-​doors, there were loud cries of “Drive on!” “Don't take them!” The coach­men, ei­ther from alarm or from a sym­pa­thet­ic feel­ing, put the whip to their hors­es, and drove rapid­ly off, leav­ing the of­fi­cers with their fugi­tives on the side­walk. They start­ed on foot with their charge to the Ham­mond Street sta­tion-​house, where they se­cured their pris­on­ers for the night.

The slaves claimed that they had been on this side of the riv­er fre­quent­ly, by con­sent of their mas­ters.

About three o'clock ap­pli­ca­tion was made to Judge Bur­goyne for a writ of _habeas cor­pus_, to bring the slaves be­fore him. This was put in the hands of Deputy Sher­iff Buck­ing­ham to serve, who, ac­com­pa­nied by sev­er­al as­sis­tants, pro­ceed­ed to Ham­mond Street sta­tion-​house, where the slaves were lodged. Mr. Ben­nett, Deputy Unit­ed States Mar­shal, was un­will­ing to give them up, and a long time was spent par­ley­ing be­tween the mar­shal and the sher­iff's of­fi­cers. The sher­iff be­ing de­ter­mined that the writ should be ex­ecut­ed, Mr. Ben­nett went out to take coun­sel with his friends. Fi­nal­ly, through the ad­vice of May­or Faran, Mr. Ben­nett agreed to lodge the slaves in the jail, ready to be tak­en out at the or­der of Judge Bur­goyne. Mr. Buck­ing­ham ob­tained the com­plete con­trol of the slaves.

On the morn­ing of the 29th, Sher­iff Bras­hears, be­ing ad­vised by lawyers that Judge Bur­goyne had no right to is­sue his writ for the slaves, and re­mem­ber­ing Judge McLean's de­ci­sion in the Roset­ta case, made a re­turn on the writ of _habeas cor­pus_, that the slaves were in the cus­tody of the Unit­ed States Mar­shal, and, there­fore, with­out his ju­ris­dic­tion. This re­turned the slaves to the cus­tody of the Mar­shal. By agree­ment, the par­ties per­mit­ted the slaves to re­main in the coun­ty jail dur­ing that day, with the un­der­stand­ing that their ex­am­ina­tion should com­mence the next morn­ing, be­fore Com­mis­sion­er Pen­dery. An in­quest had been held on the body of the child which was killed, and a ver­dict was found by the ju­ry charg­ing the death of the child up­on the moth­er, who it was said would be held un­der the laws of Ohio to an­swer the charge of mur­der. An ex­am­ina­tion took place on Wednes­day, be­fore the Unit­ed States Com­mis­sion­er. Time was al­lowed their coun­sel to ob­tain ev­idence to show that they had been brought in­to the State at for­mer times by their mas­ters. A meet­ing of cit­izens was held on Thurs­day evening, to ex­press sym­pa­thy with the al­leged fugi­tives.

The _Cincin­nati Com­mer­cial_ of Jan­uary 30, said:--The moth­er is of an in­ter­est­ing ap­pear­ance, a mu­lat­to of con­sid­er­able in­tel­li­gence of man­ner, and with a good ad­dress. In re­ply to a gen­tle­man who yes­ter­day com­pli­ment­ed her up­on the looks of her lit­tle boy, she said, “You should have seen my lit­tle girl that--that--[she did not like to say, was killed]--that died, that was the bird.”

The _Cincin­nati Gazette_, of Jan­uary 30, said:--We learn that the moth­er of the dead child ac­knowl­edges that she had killed it, and that her de­ter­mi­na­tion was to have killed all the chil­dren, and then de­stroy her­self, rather than re­turn to slav­ery. She and the oth­ers com­plain of cru­el treat­ment on the part of their mas­ter, and al­lege that as the cause of their at­tempt­ed es­cape.

The coro­ner's ju­ry, af­ter ex­am­in­ing the cit­izens present at the time of the ar­rest, went to the jail last evening, and ex­am­ined the grand­moth­er of the child--one of the slaves. She tes­ti­fied that the moth­er, when she saw they would be cap­tured, caught a butch­er knife and ran to the chil­dren, say­ing she would kill them rather than to have them re­turn to slav­ery, and cut the throat of the child, call­ing on the grand­moth­er to help her kill them. The grand­moth­er said she would not do it, and hid un­der a bed.

The ju­ry gave a ver­dict as fol­lows:--That said child was killed by its moth­er, Mar­garet Gar­ner, with a butch­er knife, with which she cut its throat.

Two of the ju­rors al­so find that the two men ar­rest­ed as fugi­tives were ac­ces­sories to the mur­der.

“The mur­dered child was al­most white, and was a lit­tle girl of rare beau­ty.”

The ex­am­ina­tion of wit­ness­es was con­tin­ued un­til Mon­day, Febru­ary 4, when the com­mis­sion­er lis­tened to the ar­gu­ments of coun­sel un­til Febru­ary 7th. Messrs. Jol­liffe and Gitchell ap­peared for the fugi­tives, and Colonel Cham­bers, of Cincin­nati, and Mr. Finnell, of Cov­ing­ton, Ken­tucky, for the claimants of the slaves. A great num­ber of as­sis­tants, (amount­ing very near­ly to five hun­dred,) were em­ployed by the Unit­ed States Mar­shal, H.H. Robin­son, from the first, mak­ing the ex­pens­es to the Unit­ed States Gov­ern­ment very large; for their twen­ty-​eight days' ser­vice alone, at $2.00 per day, amount­ing to over $22,000. Febru­ary 8th, the case was closed, so far as re­lat­ed to the three slaves of Mr. Mar­shall, but the de­ci­sion was post­poned. The ex­am­ina­tion in re­gard to MAR­GARET and her chil­dren was far­ther con­tin­ued. It was pub­licly stat­ed that Com­mis­sion­er Pen­dery had de­clared that he “would not send the wom­an back in­to slav­ery while a charge or in­dict­ment for mur­der lay against her.” Colonel Cham­bers, coun­sel for the slave-​claimants, in his ar­gu­ment, “read long ex­tracts from a pam­phlet en­ti­tled, 'A North­ern Pres­byter's Sec­ond Let­ter to Min­is­ters of the Gospel of all De­nom­ina­tions, on Slav­ery, by Nathan Lord, of Dart­mouth Col­lege,' ap­prov­ing and rec­om­mend­ing Dr. Lord's views.” Colonel Cham­bers hav­ing al­lud­ed, in his re­marks, to Mrs. Lucy Stone Black­well, and said that she had sought to give a knife to Mar­garet Gar­ner, the Court gave per­mis­sion to Mrs. Black­well to re­ply to Colonel C. Mrs. B. pre­ferred not to speak at the bar, but ad­dressed the crowd­ed court-​room di­rect­ly af­ter the ad­journ­ment. Her elo­quent re­marks will be found in the pa­pers of the day. At the close of the hear­ing, Febru­ary 14th, the com­mis­sion­er ad­journed his court to the 21st, af­ter­wards to the 26th, when, he said, he would give his de­ci­sion.

Mean­time the case was mak­ing some progress in the State courts. Sher­iff Bras­hears hav­ing made re­turn to the Com­mon Pleas Court that the fugi­tives were in the cus­tody of the Unit­ed States Mar­shal, Judge Carter said this could not be re­ceived as a true re­turn, as they were in the Coun­ty jail, un­der the sher­iff's con­trol. The sher­iff then amend­ed his re­turn, so as to state that the pris­on­ers were in his cus­tody, as re­quired in the writ, and this was re­ceived by the Court. The fugi­tives now came ful­ly in­to the charge of the State au­thor­ities. The sher­iff held them “by virtue of a _capias_ is­sued on an in­dict­ment by the grand ju­ry for mur­der.”

The slaves de­clared they would go danc­ing to the gal­lows rather than to be sent back in­to slav­ery.

On the 26th Febru­ary, Com­mis­sion­er Pen­dery gave his de­ci­sion. First, he re­fused to dis­charge Mar­garet and three oth­ers from the cus­tody of the Unit­ed States Mar­shal and de­liv­er them to the Sher­iff of Hamil­ton Coun­ty, al­though held to an­swer, un­der the laws of Ohio, to the charge of mur­der. He then pro­ceed­ed to con­sid­er the claim of Mar­shall to three of the slaves, de­cid­ed it to be valid, and or­dered them in­to Mar­shall's cus­tody. He then con­sid­ered Gaines's claim to Mar­garet and her three sur­viv­ing chil­dren, de­cid­ed that al­so to be good and valid, and or­dered them to be de­liv­ered in­to the pos­ses­sion of said Gaines.

The case of the right­ful cus­tody, as be­tween the Unit­ed States Mar­shal and the Ohio Sher­iff al­so came on, Febru­ary 26th be­fore Judge Leav­itt, of the Unit­ed States Dis­trict Court, and was ar­gued by coun­sel on both sides. On the 28th, Judge Leav­itt de­cid­ed that the cus­tody was with the Unit­ed States Mar­shal. The sub­stance of Judge L.'s ar­gu­ment and de­ci­sion is found in the fol­low­ing ex­tract.

"Judge McLean says: 'Nei­ther this nor any oth­er Court of the Unit­ed States, nor Judge there­of, can is­sue a _habeas cor­pus_ to bring up a pris­on­er who is in cus­tody un­der the sen­tence or ex­ecu­tion of a State Court, for any oth­er pur­pose than to be used as a wit­ness. And it is im­ma­te­ri­al whether the im­pris­on­ment be un­der _civ­il or crim­inal pro­cess_.' If it be true, as there as­sert­ed, that no Fed­er­al Court can in­ter­fere with the ex­er­cise of the prop­er ju­ris­dic­tion of a State Court, ei­ther in a civ­il or crim­inal case, the con­verse of the propo­si­tion is equal­ly true. And it re­sults that a State Court can­not take from an of­fi­cer of the Unit­ed States, even on a crim­inal charge, the cus­tody of a per­son in ex­ecu­tion on a civ­il case.

“It is said in ar­gu­ment that if these per­sons can­not be held by the ar­rest of the Sher­iff un­der the State pro­cess, the rights and dig­ni­ty of Ohio are in­vad­ed with­out the pos­si­bil­ity of re­dress. I can­not con­cur in this view. The Con­sti­tu­tion and laws of the Unit­ed States pro­vide for a recla­ma­tion of these per­sons, by a de­mand on the Ex­ec­utive of Ken­tucky. It is true, if now re­mand­ed to the claimant and tak­en back to Ken­tucky as slaves, they can­not be said to have fled from jus­tice in Ohio; but it would clear­ly be a case with­in the spir­it and in­ten­tion of the Con­sti­tu­tion and the Act of Congress, and I trust noth­ing would be haz­ard­ed by the pre­dic­tion that up­on de­mand prop­er­ly made up­on the Gov­er­nor of Ken­tucky, he would or­der them to be sur­ren­dered to the au­thor­ities of Ohio to an­swer to its vi­olat­ed law. I am sure it is not go­ing too far to say that if the strict­ness of the law did not re­quire this, an ap­peal to comi­ty would not be in vain.”

Mr. Cham­bers said his client, Mr. Gaines, au­tho­rized him to say that he would hold the wom­an Mar­garet, who had killed her child, sub­ject to the req­ui­si­tion of the Gov­er­nor of Ohio, to an­swer for any crime she might have com­mit­ted in Ohio.

Judge Leav­itt's de­ci­sion cov­ered the cas­es of the four adult fugi­tives. An­oth­er le­gal pro­cess was go­ing on, at the same time, be­fore Judge Bur­goyne, of the Pro­bate Court, viz.--a hear­ing un­der a writ of _habeas cor­pus_ al­lowed by Judge Bur­goyne, al­leg­ing the il­le­gal de­ten­tion, by the Unit­ed States Mar­shal, of the three ne­gro chil­dren, Samuel, Thomas, and Sil­la Gar­ner, which took place in the Pro­bate Court, be­fore Judge B., on the af­ter­noon of Febru­ary 27.

Mr. Jol­liffe said he rep­re­sent­ed the in­fants at the re­quest of their fa­ther and moth­er, who had so­licit­ed him to save the chil­dren, if pos­si­ble.

Messrs. Head­ing­ton and Ketchum ap­peared for the Unit­ed States Mar­shal.

Judge Bur­goyne in­ti­mat­ed that, in view of the se­ri­ous and im­por­tant ques­tions in­volved, he should re­quire some time to ren­der a de­ci­sion. He in­ti­mat­ed, how­ev­er, that a ma­jor­ity of the Judges of the Supreme Court hav­ing passed on the con­sti­tu­tion­al­ity of the Fugi­tive Slave Law was no rea­son why he should not take up the Con­sti­tu­tion and read it for him­self, be­ing sworn to sup­port the Con­sti­tu­tion of the Unit­ed States and the Con­sti­tu­tion of the State of Ohio.

Mr. Ketchum sug­gest­ed that his Hon­or was as much bound in con­science to re­gard the de­ci­sion of the ma­jor­ity of the Judges of the Unit­ed States Courts as the ex­press pro­vi­sions of the Con­sti­tu­tion it­self.

Judge Bur­goyne said, that how­ev­er the de­ci­sions of the Judges of the Unit­ed States Courts might aid him in com­ing to a con­clu­sion, where the obli­ga­tions of his con­science were in­volved, he could not screen him­self be­hind a de­ci­sion made by some­body else.

Judge Bur­goyne sub­se­quent­ly de­cid­ed that, in as far as the Fugi­tive Slave Law was in­tend­ed to sus­pend the writ of _habeas cor­pus_--and he be­lieved that it was so in­tend­ed--it clear­ly tran­scend­ed the lim­its pre­scribed by the Con­sti­tu­tion, and is “ut­ter­ly void.” Judge B. re­quired the Unit­ed States Mar­shal to an­swer to the writ on the fol­low­ing Fri­day; and on his ne­glect to do so, fined and im­pris­oned him. Judge Leav­itt, of the Unit­ed States Court, soon re­leased the Mar­shal from prison.

The _Cincin­nati Columbian_, of Febru­ary 29, gave the fol­low­ing ac­count:--The last act of the dra­ma of the fugi­tives was yes­ter­day per­formed by the ren­di­tion of the sev­en per­sons whose ad­vent in­to the city, un­der the bloody aus­pices of mur­der, caused such a sen­sa­tion in the com­mu­ni­ty. Af­ter the de­ci­sion of Judge Leav­itt, Sher­iff Bras­hears sur­ren­dered the four fugi­tives in his cus­tody, un­der a _capias_ from an Ohio court, to Unit­ed States Mar­shal Robin­son. An om­nibus was brought to the jail, and the fugi­tives were led in­to it--a crowd of spec­ta­tors look­ing on.

Mar­garet was in cus­tody of Deputy-​Mar­shal Brown. She ap­peared great­ly de­pressed and dispir­it­ed. The lit­tle in­fant, Sil­la, was car­ried by Pfc. Rus­sell, the door-​keep­er of the Unit­ed States Court, and was cry­ing vi­olent­ly. Pol­lock, the re­porter of the pro­ceed­ings in the Unit­ed States Court, con­duct­ed an­oth­er of the fugi­tives, and all were safe­ly lodged in the om­nibus, which drove down to the Cov­ing­ton fer­ry-​boat; but, al­though a large crowd fol­lowed it, no hoot­ings or oth­er signs of ex­cite­ment or dis­ap­pro­ba­tion were shown.

On ar­riv­ing at the Ken­tucky shore, a large crowd was in at­ten­dance, which ex­pressed its plea­sure at the ter­mi­na­tion of the long pro­ceed­ings in this city by tri­umphant shouts. The fugi­tives were es­cort­ed to the jail, where they were safe­ly in­car­cer­at­ed, and the crowd moved off to the Mag­no­lia Ho­tel, where sev­er­al toasts were giv­en and drank. The crowd out­side were ad­dressed from the bal­cony by H.H. Robin­son, Esq., Unit­ed States Mar­shal for the South­ern Dis­trict of Ohio, who de­clared that he had done his du­ty and no more, and that it was a plea­sure to him to per­form an act that added an­oth­er link to the glo­ri­ous chain that bound the Union. [What a _Union_! For what “glo­ri­ous” pur­pos­es!]

Mr. Finnell, at­tor­ney for the claimants, said he nev­er loved the Union so dear­ly as now. It was proved to be a sub­stan­tial re­al­ity.

Judge Flinn al­so ad­dressed to the crowd one of his pe­cu­liar ora­tions; and was fol­lowed by Mr. Gaines, own­er of Mar­garet and the chil­dren. Af­ter hearty cheer­ing the crowd dis­persed.

Fur­ther to sig­nal­ize their tri­umph, the slave­hold­ers set on the Cov­ing­ton mob to at­tack Mr. Babb, re­porter for one of the Cincin­nati pa­pers, on the charge of be­ing an abo­li­tion­ist, and that gen­tle­man was knocked down, kicked, tram­pled on, and would un­doubt­ed­ly have been mur­dered, but for the in­ter­fer­ence of some of the Unit­ed States Deputy Mar­shals.

A le­gal ir­reg­ular­ity on the part of the Sher­iff was brought to the no­tice of Judge Carter on the morn­ing of Febru­ary 29. It was passed over light­ly.

On the Sun­day af­ter the de­liv­ery of the slaves, they were vis­it­ed in the Cov­ing­ton jail by Rev. P.C. Bas­sett, whose ac­count of his in­ter­view, es­pe­cial­ly with Mar­garet, was pub­lished in the _Amer­ican Bap­tist_, and may al­so be found in the _Na­tion­al An­ti­slav­ery Stan­dard_ of March 15, 1850. Mar­garet con­fessed that she had killed the child. “I in­quired,” says Mr. Bas­sett, “if she were not ex­cit­ed al­most to mad­ness when she com­mit­ted the act! 'No,' she replied, 'I was as cool as I now am; and would much rather kill them at once, and thus end their suf­fer­ings, than have them tak­en back to slav­ery and be mur­dered by piece-​meal.' She then told the sto­ry of her wrongs. She spoke of her days of suf­fer­ing, of her nights of un­mit­igat­ed toil, while the bit­ter tears coursed their way down her cheeks.”

Gov­er­nor Chase, of Ohio, made a req­ui­si­tion up­on Gov­er­nor More­head, of Ken­tucky, for the sur­ren­der of Mar­garet Gar­ner, charged with mur­der. The req­ui­si­tion was tak­en by Joseph Coop­er, Esq. to Gov. More­head, at Frank­fort, on the _6th of March_--an un­par­don­able de­lay in the cir­cum­stances. Gov. More­head is­sued an or­der for the sur­ren­der of Mar­garet. On tak­ing it to Louisville, Mr. Coop­er found that Mar­garet, with her in­fant child, and the rest of Mr. Gaines's slaves had been sent down the riv­er in the steam­boat Hen­ry Lewis, to be sold in Arkansas. Thus it was that Gaines kept his pledged word that Mar­garet should be sur­ren­dered up­on the req­ui­si­tion of the Gov­er­nor of Ohio! On the pas­sage down the Ohio, the steam­boat, in which the slaves were em­barked, came in col­li­sion with an­oth­er boat, and so vi­olent­ly that Mar­garet and her child, with many oth­ers, were thrown in­to the wa­ter. About twen­ty-​five per­sons per­ished. A col­ored man seized Mar­garet and drew her back to the boat, but her babe was drowned! “The moth­er,” says a cor­re­spon­dent of the _Louisville Couri­er_, “ex­hib­it­ed no oth­er feel­ing than joy at the loss of her child.” So closed an­oth­er act of this ter­ri­ble tragedy. The slaves were trans­ferred to an­oth­er boat, and tak­en to their des­ti­na­tion. (_See_ Mr. Coop­er's let­ter to Gov. Chase, dat­ed Colum­bus, March 11, 1856.) Al­most im­me­di­ate­ly on the above trag­ic news, fol­lowed the tid­ings that Gaines had de­ter­mined to bring Mar­garet back to Cov­ing­ton, Ken­tucky, and hold her sub­ject to the req­ui­si­tion of the Gov­er­nor of Ohio. Ev­ident­ly he could not stand up un­der the in­famy of his con­duct. Mar­garet was brought back, and placed in Cov­ing­ton jail, to await a req­ui­si­tion. On Wednes­day, Mr. Cox, the pros­ecut­ing-​at­tor­ney, re­ceived the nec­es­sary pa­pers from Gov. Chase, and the next day (Thurs­day), two of the Sher­iffs deputies went over to Cov­ing­ton for Mar­garet, but did not find her, as she had been tak­en away from the jail the night be­fore. The jailor said he had giv­en her up on Wednes­day night, to a man who came there with a writ­ten or­der from her mas­ter, Gaines, but could not tell where she had been tak­en. The of­fi­cers came back and made a re­turn 'not found.'

The _Cincin­nati Gazette_ said,--"On Fri­day our sher­iff re­ceived in­for­ma­tion which in­duced him to be­lieve that she had been sent on the rail­road to Lex­ing­ton, thence via Frank­fort to Louisville, there to be shipped off to the New Or­leans slave mar­ket.

He im­me­di­ate­ly tele­graphed to the sher­iff at Louisville (who holds the orig­inal war­rant from Gov. More­head, grant­ed on the req­ui­si­tion of Gov. Chase,) to ar­rest her there, and had a deputy in readi­ness to go down for her. But he has re­ceived no re­ply to his dis­patch. As she was tak­en out on Wednes­day night, there is rea­son to ap­pre­hend that she has al­ready passed Louisville, and is now on her way to New Or­leans.

Why Mr. Gaines brought Mar­garet back at all, we can­not com­pre­hend. If it was to vin­di­cate his char­ac­ter, he was most un­for­tu­nate in the means he se­lect­ed, for his du­plic­ity has now placed this in a worse light than ev­er be­fore, and kept be­fore the pub­lic the mis­er­able spec­ta­cle of his dis­hon­or.

We have learned now, by ex­pe­ri­ence, what is that boast­ed comi­ty of Ken­tucky on which Judge Leav­itt so earnest­ly ad­vised Ohio to re­ly."

The as­ser­tion of the _Louisville Jour­nal_, that Mar­garet was kept in Cov­ing­ton jail “ten days,” and that the Ohio au­thor­ities had been no­ti­fied of the same, is pro­nounced to be un­true in both par­tic­ulars by the _Cincin­nati Gazette_, which pa­per al­so de­clares that prompt ac­tion was tak­en by the gov­er­nor of Ohio, and the at­tor­ney and sher­iff of Hamil­ton Coun­ty, as soon as the fact was known.

Here we must leave MAR­GARET, a no­ble wom­an in­deed, whose hero­ic spir­it and dar­ing have won the will­ing, and ex­tort­ed the un­will­ing, ad­mi­ra­tion of hun­dreds of thou­sands. Alas for her! af­ter so ter­ri­ble a strug­gle, so bloody a sac­ri­fice, so near to de­liv­er­ance once, twice, and even a third time, to be, by the vil­lainy and ly­ing or her “re­spectable” white own­er again en­gulphed in the abyss of Slav­ery! What her fate is to be, it is not hard to con­jec­ture. But friend­less, heart-​strick­en, robbed of her chil­dren, out­raged as she has been, not whol­ly with­out friends,

“Yea, three firm friends, more sure than day and night, Her­self, her Mak­er, and the an­gel Death.”

* * * * *

Ex­tract from a ser­mon re­cent­ly de­liv­ered in Cleve­land, Ohio, by Rev. H. BUSH­NELL, from the fol­low­ing text: “And it was so, that all that saw it, said, There was no such deed done nor seen from the day that the chil­dren of Is­rael came up out of the land of Egypt un­to this day: CON­SID­ER OF IT, TAKE AD­VICE, AND SPEAK YOUR MINDS.”--JUDGES XIX: 30.

A few weeks ago, just at dawn of day, might be seen a com­pa­ny of strangers cross­ing the win­ter bridge over the Ohio Riv­er, from the State of Ken­tucky, in­to the great city of our own State, whose hun­dred church-​spires point to heav­en, telling the trav­ellers that in this place the God of Abra­ham was wor­shipped, and that here Je­sus the Mes­si­ah was known, and his re­li­gion of love taught and be­lieved. And yet, no one asked them in or of­fered them any hos­pi­tal­ity, or sym­pa­thy, or as­sis­tance. Af­ter wan­der­ing from street to street, a poor la­bor­ing man gave them the shel­ter of his hum­ble cab­in, for they were strangers and in dis­tress. Soon it was known abroad that this poor man had of­fered them the hos­pi­tal­ities of his home, and a rude and fe­ro­cious rab­ble soon gath­ered around his dwelling, de­mand­ing his guests. With loud clam­or and hor­rid threat­en­ing they broke down his doors, and rushed up­on the strangers. They were an old man and his wife, their daugh­ter and her hus­band with four chil­dren; and they were of the tribe of slaves flee­ing from a bondage which was worse than death. There was now no es­cape--the tribes of Is­rael had band­ed against them. On the side of the op­pres­sor there is pow­er. And the young wife and moth­er, in­to whose very soul the iron had en­tered, hear­ing the cry of the mas­ter: “Now we'll have you all!” turn­ing from the side of her hus­band and fa­ther, with whom she had stood to re­pel the foe, seized a knife, and with a sin­gle blow near­ly sev­ered the head from the body of her dar­ling daugh­ter, and throw­ing its bloody corpse at his feet, ex­claimed, “Yes, you _shall_ have us all! take that!” and with an­oth­er blow in­flict­ed a ghast­ly wound up­on the head of her beau­ti­ful son, re­peat­ing, “Yes, you _shall_ have us all--take that!” mean­while call­ing up­on her old moth­er to help her in the quick work of eman­ci­pa­tion--for there were two more. But the pi­ous old grand­moth­er could not do it, and it was now too late--the res­cuers had sub­dued and bound them. They were on their way back to the house of their bondage--a life more bit­ter than death! On their way through that city of church­es whose hun­dred spires told of Je­sus and the good Fa­ther above; on their way amid the throng of Chris­tian men, whose no­ble sires had said and sung, “Give me _lib­er­ty_, or give me _death_.”

But they all tar­ried in the great Queen City of the West--in chains, and in a felon's cell. There our preach­er vis­it­ed them again and again. There he saw the old grand­fa­ther and his aged com­pan­ion, whose weary pil­grim­age of un­re­quit­ed toil and tears was near­ly at its end. And there stood the young fa­ther and the hero­ic wife “Mar­garet.” Said the preach­er, “Mar­garet, why did you kill your child?” “It was my own,” she said, “giv­en me of God, to do the best a moth­er could in its be­half. _I have done the best I could!_ I would have done more and bet­ter for the rest! I knew it was bet­ter for them to go home to God than back to slav­ery.” “But why did you not trust in God--why not wait and hope?” “I did wait, and then we dared to do, and fled in fear, but in hope; hope fled--God did not ap­pear to save--_I did the best I could!”_

And who was this wom­an? A no­ble, wom­an­ly, ami­able, _af­fec­tion­ate moth­er_. “But was she not de­ranged?” Not at all--calm, in­tel­li­gent, but res­olute and de­ter­mined. “But was she not fiendish, or be­side her­self with pas­sion?” No, she was most ten­der and af­fec­tion­ate, and all her pas­sion was that of a _moth­er's fond­est love_. I rea­soned with her, said the preach­er; tried to awak­en a sense of guilt, and lead her to re­pen­tance and to Christ. But there was no re­morse, no de­sire of par­don, no re­cep­tion of Christ or his re­li­gion. To her it was a re­li­gion of _slav­ery_, more cru­el than death. And where had she lived? where thus taught? Not down among the rice swamps of Geor­gia, or on the banks of Red Riv­er. No, but with­in six­teen miles of the Queen City of the West! In a nom­inal­ly Chris­tian fam­ily--whose mas­ter was most lib­er­al in sup­port of the Gospel, and whose mis­tress was a com­mu­ni­cant at the Lord's ta­ble, and a pro­fessed fol­low­er of Christ! Here, in this fam­ily, where slav­ery is found in its mildest form, she had been kept in ig­no­rance of God's will and word, and learned to know that the mildest form of Amer­ican slav­ery, at this day of Chris­tian civ­iliza­tion and Demo­crat­ic lib­er­ty, was worse than death it­self! She had learned by an ex­pe­ri­ence of many years, that it was so bad she had rather take the life of her own dear­est child, with­out the hope of Heav­en for her­self, than that _it_ should ex­pe­ri­ence its un­ut­ter­able ag­onies, which were to be found even in a Chris­tian fam­ily! But here are her two lit­tle boys, of eight and ten years of age. Tak­ing the el­dest boy by the hand, the preach­er said to him, kind­ly and gen­tly, “Come here, my boy; what is your name?” “Tom, sir.” “Yes, _Thomas_.” “No sir, _Tom_.” “Well, Tom, how old are you?” “Three _months_.” “And how old is your lit­tle broth­er?” “Six _months_, sir!” “And have you no oth­er name but Tom?” “No.” “What is your fa­ther's name?” “Haven't got any!” “Who made you, Tom?” “No­body!” “Did you ev­er hear of God or Je­sus Christ?” “No, sir.” And this was slav­ery in its best es­tate. By and by the aged cou­ple, and the young man and his wife, the re­main­ing chil­dren, with the mas­ter, and the dead body of the lit­tle one, were es­cort­ed through the streets of the Queen City of the West by a _na­tion­al guard of armed men_, back to the great and chival­rous State of old Ken­tucky and away to the sham­bles of the South--back to a life-​long servi­tude of hope­less de­spair. It was a long, sad, silent pro­ces­sion down to the banks of the Ohio; and as it passed, the death-​knell of free­dom tolled heav­ily. The sovereign­ty of Ohio trailed in the dust be­neath the op­pres­sor's foot, and the great con­fed­er­acy of the tribes of mod­ern Is­rael at­tend­ed the fu­ner­al ob­se­quies, and made am­ple pro­vi­sion for the nec­es­sary ex­pens­es! “And it was so, that all that saw it, said, _There was no such deed done, nor seen from the day that the chil­dren of Is­rael came up out of the land of Egypt un­to this day_; CON­SID­ER OF IT, TAKE AD­VICE, AND SPEAK YOUR MINDS!”

* * * * *

With the sad case of MAR­GARET GAR­NER we close, for the present, the record of the Fugi­tive Slave Law, as its his­to­ry has been dai­ly writ­ing it­self in our coun­try's an­nals. En­act­ment of hell! which has marked ev­ery step of its progress over the land by suf­fer­ing and by crimes,--crimes of the blood­iest dye, groan­ings which can­not ful­ly be ut­tered; which is tracked by the drip­ping blood of its vic­tims, by their ter­rors and by their de­spair; against which, and against that Wicked Na­tion which en­act­ed it, and which suf­fers it still to stand as their LAW, the cries of the down-​trod­den poor go up con­tin­ual­ly in­to the ears of God,--cries of bit­ter­est an­guish, min­gled with fiercest ex­ecra­tions--thou­sands of Rachels weep­ing for their chil­dren, and will not be com­fort­ed, be­cause they _are not_.

Read­er, is your pa­tri­otism of the kind which be­lieves, with the sup­port­ers of old monar­chies, that the Sovereign Pow­er can do no wrong? Con­sid­er the long record which has been laid be­fore you, and say if your coun­try has not en­act­ed a most wicked, cru­el, and shame­ful law, which mer­its on­ly the con­dem­na­tion and ab­hor­rence of ev­ery heart. Con­sid­er that this law was aimed at the life, lib­er­ty, and hap­pi­ness of the poor and least-​priv­ileged por­tion of our peo­ple--a class whom the laws should be­friend, pro­tect, and raise up. What is the true char­ac­ter of a law, whose work­ing, whose fruits are such as this mea­gre out­line of its his­to­ry shows? Is it fit that such deeds and such a law should have your sanc­tion and sup­port? Will you re­main in a mo­ment's doubt whether to be a friend or a foe to such a law? Will you coun­te­nance or sup­port the man, in the church or in the state, who is not its open and out-​spo­ken op­po­nent? Will you not, rather, your­self tram­ple it un­der foot, as alike the dis­grace of your coun­try, the en­emy of hu­man­ity, and the en­emy of God? And nobly join, with heart and hand, ev­ery hon­est man who seeks to load with the op­pro­bri­um they de­serve, the law it­self and ev­ery­thing that jus­ti­fies and up­holds it?

In this tract no men­tion is made of that great com­pa­ny of slaves who, fly­ing from their in­tol­er­able wrongs and bur­dens, are over­tak­en be­fore reach­ing the Free States--(alas, that we should mock our­selves with this emp­ty name of _free_!)--and car­ried back in­to a more re­mote and hope­less slav­ery; nor of the thou­sands who, hav­ing fled in for­mer years, and es­tab­lished them­selves in in­dus­try and com­fort in the North­ern States, were com­pelled again to be­come fugi­tives, leav­ing their lit­tle all be­hind them, in­to a still more North­ern land where, un­der British law, they find at last a rest­ing-​place and pro­tec­tion; nor to any great ex­tent of the nu­mer­ous cas­es of white cit­izens, pros­ecut­ed, fined, ha­rassed in ev­ery way, for the _crime_ of giv­ing shel­ter and suc­cor to the hunt­ed wan­der­ers. To have in­clud­ed these--all em­phat­ical­ly _vic­tims_ of the Fugi­tive Slave Law--would swell our tract in­to a vol­ume. What a tes­ti­mo­ny against our land and our peo­ple is giv­en by their ac­cu­mu­lat­ed weight! EV­ERY LIV­ING MAN AND WOM­AN is GUILTY OF THIS GREAT SIN, WHO EI­THER BY APOL­OGY, OR BY SI­LENCE, LENDS IT THE LEAST SUP­PORT.

--> In a record like the fore­go­ing, deal­ing so large­ly with facts and dates, per­fect ac­cu­ra­cy is not to be ex­pect­ed, al­though much pains have been tak­en to make it strict­ly cor­rect. Any in­for­ma­tion, on good au­thor­ity, which will help to make the record more ex­act, or more com­plete, will be very grate­ful­ly re­ceived. It should be ad­dressed to SAMUEL MAY, JR., No. 21 Corn­hill, Boston, Mass.

* * * * *

Pub­lished at the of­fice of the AMER­ICAN AN­TI-​SLAV­ERY SO­CI­ETY, No. 138 Nas­sau Street, New York. Al­so to be had at the An­ti-​Slav­ery Of­fices, No. 21 Corn­hill, Boston, and No. 31 North Fifth Street, Philadel­phia; of JOEL McMIL­LAN, Salem, Columbiana Co., Ohio, and of JA­COB WAL­TON, Jr., Adri­an, Michi­gan.

[Tran­scriber's note: The fol­low­ing re­main as in the orig­inal: Pitts­burg, Penn­syl­va­nia; Los An­ge­los; Pitts­burgh Sat­ur­day Vis­iter.]

End of the Project Guten­berg EBook of The Fugi­tive Slave Law and Its Vic­tims by Amer­ican An­ti-​Slav­ery So­ci­ety

*** END OF THIS PROJECT GUTEN­BERG EBOOK FUGI­TIVE SLAVE LAW ***

***** This file should be named 13990.txt or 13990.zip ***** This and all as­so­ci­at­ed files of var­ious for­mats will be found in: http://www.guten­berg.net/1/3/9/9/13990/

Pro­duced by Cur­tis Weyant, An­drea Ball and the On­line Dis­tribut­ed Proof­read­ing Team.

Up­dat­ed edi­tions will re­place the pre­vi­ous one--the old edi­tions will be re­named.

Cre­at­ing the works from pub­lic do­main print edi­tions means that no one owns a Unit­ed States copy­right in these works, so the Foun­da­tion (and you!) can copy and dis­tribute it in the Unit­ed States with­out per­mis­sion and with­out pay­ing copy­right roy­al­ties. Spe­cial rules, set forth in the Gen­er­al Terms of Use part of this li­cense, ap­ply to copy­ing and dis­tribut­ing Project Guten­berg-​tm elec­tron­ic works to pro­tect the PROJECT GUTEN­BERG-​tm con­cept and trade­mark. Project Guten­berg is a reg­is­tered trade­mark, and may not be used if you charge for the eBooks, un­less you re­ceive spe­cif­ic per­mis­sion. If you do not charge any­thing for copies of this eBook, com­ply­ing with the rules is very easy. You may use this eBook for near­ly any pur­pose such as cre­ation of deriva­tive works, re­ports, per­for­mances and re­search. They may be mod­ified and print­ed and giv­en away--you may do prac­ti­cal­ly ANY­THING with pub­lic do­main eBooks. Re­dis­tri­bu­tion is sub­ject to the trade­mark li­cense, es­pe­cial­ly com­mer­cial re­dis­tri­bu­tion.

*** START: FULL LI­CENSE ***

THE FULL PROJECT GUTEN­BERG LI­CENSE PLEASE READ THIS BE­FORE YOU DIS­TRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK

To pro­tect the Project Guten­berg-​tm mis­sion of pro­mot­ing the free dis­tri­bu­tion of elec­tron­ic works, by us­ing or dis­tribut­ing this work (or any oth­er work as­so­ci­at­ed in any way with the phrase “Project Guten­berg”), you agree to com­ply with all the terms of the Full Project Guten­berg-​tm Li­cense (avail­able with this file or on­line at http://guten­berg.net/li­cense).

Sec­tion 1. Gen­er­al Terms of Use and Re­dis­tribut­ing Project Guten­berg-​tm elec­tron­ic works

1.A. By read­ing or us­ing any part of this Project Guten­berg-​tm elec­tron­ic work, you in­di­cate that you have read, un­der­stand, agree to and ac­cept all the terms of this li­cense and in­tel­lec­tu­al prop­er­ty (trade­mark/copy­right) agree­ment. If you do not agree to abide by all the terms of this agree­ment, you must cease us­ing and re­turn or de­stroy all copies of Project Guten­berg-​tm elec­tron­ic works in your pos­ses­sion. If you paid a fee for ob­tain­ing a copy of or ac­cess to a Project Guten­berg-​tm elec­tron­ic work and you do not agree to be bound by the terms of this agree­ment, you may ob­tain a re­fund from the per­son or en­ti­ty to whom you paid the fee as set forth in para­graph 1.E.8.

1.B. “Project Guten­berg” is a reg­is­tered trade­mark. It may on­ly be used on or as­so­ci­at­ed in any way with an elec­tron­ic work by peo­ple who agree to be bound by the terms of this agree­ment. There are a few things that you can do with most Project Guten­berg-​tm elec­tron­ic works even with­out com­ply­ing with the full terms of this agree­ment. See para­graph 1.C be­low. There are a lot of things you can do with Project Guten­berg-​tm elec­tron­ic works if you fol­low the terms of this agree­ment and help pre­serve free fu­ture ac­cess to Project Guten­berg-​tm elec­tron­ic works. See para­graph 1.E be­low.

1.C. The Project Guten­berg Lit­er­ary Archive Foun­da­tion (“the Foun­da­tion” or PGLAF), owns a com­pi­la­tion copy­right in the col­lec­tion of Project Guten­berg-​tm elec­tron­ic works. Near­ly all the in­di­vid­ual works in the col­lec­tion are in the pub­lic do­main in the Unit­ed States. If an in­di­vid­ual work is in the pub­lic do­main in the Unit­ed States and you are lo­cat­ed in the Unit­ed States, we do not claim a right to pre­vent you from copy­ing, dis­tribut­ing, per­form­ing, dis­play­ing or cre­at­ing deriva­tive works based on the work as long as all ref­er­ences to Project Guten­berg are re­moved. Of course, we hope that you will sup­port the Project Guten­berg-​tm mis­sion of pro­mot­ing free ac­cess to elec­tron­ic works by freely shar­ing Project Guten­berg-​tm works in com­pli­ance with the terms of this agree­ment for keep­ing the Project Guten­berg-​tm name as­so­ci­at­ed with the work. You can eas­ily com­ply with the terms of this agree­ment by keep­ing this work in the same for­mat with its at­tached full Project Guten­berg-​tm Li­cense when you share it with­out charge with oth­ers.

1.D. The copy­right laws of the place where you are lo­cat­ed al­so gov­ern what you can do with this work. Copy­right laws in most coun­tries are in a con­stant state of change. If you are out­side the Unit­ed States, check the laws of your coun­try in ad­di­tion to the terms of this agree­ment be­fore down­load­ing, copy­ing, dis­play­ing, per­form­ing, dis­tribut­ing or cre­at­ing deriva­tive works based on this work or any oth­er Project Guten­berg-​tm work. The Foun­da­tion makes no rep­re­sen­ta­tions con­cern­ing the copy­right sta­tus of any work in any coun­try out­side the Unit­ed States.

1.E. Un­less you have re­moved all ref­er­ences to Project Guten­berg:

1.E.1. The fol­low­ing sen­tence, with ac­tive links to, or oth­er im­me­di­ate ac­cess to, the full Project Guten­berg-​tm Li­cense must ap­pear promi­nent­ly when­ev­er any copy of a Project Guten­berg-​tm work (any work on which the phrase “Project Guten­berg” ap­pears, or with which the phrase “Project Guten­berg” is as­so­ci­at­ed) is ac­cessed, dis­played, per­formed, viewed, copied or dis­tribut­ed:

This eBook is for the use of any­one any­where at no cost and with al­most no re­stric­tions what­so­ev­er. You may copy it, give it away or re-​use it un­der the terms of the Project Guten­berg Li­cense in­clud­ed with this eBook or on­line at www.guten­berg.net

1.E.2. If an in­di­vid­ual Project Guten­berg-​tm elec­tron­ic work is de­rived from the pub­lic do­main (does not con­tain a no­tice in­di­cat­ing that it is post­ed with per­mis­sion of the copy­right hold­er), the work can be copied and dis­tribut­ed to any­one in the Unit­ed States with­out pay­ing any fees or charges. If you are re­dis­tribut­ing or pro­vid­ing ac­cess to a work with the phrase “Project Guten­berg” as­so­ci­at­ed with or ap­pear­ing on the work, you must com­ply ei­ther with the re­quire­ments of para­graphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 or ob­tain per­mis­sion for the use of the work and the Project Guten­berg-​tm trade­mark as set forth in para­graphs 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.

1.E.3. If an in­di­vid­ual Project Guten­berg-​tm elec­tron­ic work is post­ed with the per­mis­sion of the copy­right hold­er, your use and dis­tri­bu­tion must com­ply with both para­graphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any ad­di­tion­al terms im­posed by the copy­right hold­er. Ad­di­tion­al terms will be linked to the Project Guten­berg-​tm Li­cense for all works post­ed with the per­mis­sion of the copy­right hold­er found at the be­gin­ning of this work.

1.E.4. Do not un­link or de­tach or re­move the full Project Guten­berg-​tm Li­cense terms from this work, or any files con­tain­ing a part of this work or any oth­er work as­so­ci­at­ed with Project Guten­berg-​tm.

1.E.5. Do not copy, dis­play, per­form, dis­tribute or re­dis­tribute this elec­tron­ic work, or any part of this elec­tron­ic work, with­out promi­nent­ly dis­play­ing the sen­tence set forth in para­graph 1.E.1 with ac­tive links or im­me­di­ate ac­cess to the full terms of the Project Guten­berg-​tm Li­cense.

1.E.6. You may con­vert to and dis­tribute this work in any bi­na­ry, com­pressed, marked up, non­pro­pri­etary or pro­pri­etary form, in­clud­ing any word pro­cess­ing or hy­per­text form. How­ev­er, if you pro­vide ac­cess to or dis­tribute copies of a Project Guten­berg-​tm work in a for­mat oth­er than “Plain Vanil­la ASCII” or oth­er for­mat used in the of­fi­cial ver­sion post­ed on the of­fi­cial Project Guten­berg-​tm web site (www.guten­berg.net), you must, at no ad­di­tion­al cost, fee or ex­pense to the us­er, pro­vide a copy, a means of ex­port­ing a copy, or a means of ob­tain­ing a copy up­on re­quest, of the work in its orig­inal “Plain Vanil­la ASCII” or oth­er form. Any al­ter­nate for­mat must in­clude the full Project Guten­berg-​tm Li­cense as spec­ified in para­graph 1.E.1.

1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for ac­cess to, view­ing, dis­play­ing, per­form­ing, copy­ing or dis­tribut­ing any Project Guten­berg-​tm works un­less you com­ply with para­graph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.

1.E.8. You may charge a rea­son­able fee for copies of or pro­vid­ing ac­cess to or dis­tribut­ing Project Guten­berg-​tm elec­tron­ic works pro­vid­ed that

- You pay a roy­al­ty fee of 20% of the gross prof­its you de­rive from the use of Project Guten­berg-​tm works cal­cu­lat­ed us­ing the method you al­ready use to cal­cu­late your ap­pli­ca­ble tax­es. The fee is owed to the own­er of the Project Guten­berg-​tm trade­mark, but he has agreed to do­nate roy­al­ties un­der this para­graph to the Project Guten­berg Lit­er­ary Archive Foun­da­tion. Roy­al­ty pay­ments must be paid with­in 60 days fol­low­ing each date on which you pre­pare (or are legal­ly re­quired to pre­pare) your pe­ri­od­ic tax re­turns. Roy­al­ty pay­ments should be clear­ly marked as such and sent to the Project Guten­berg Lit­er­ary Archive Foun­da­tion at the ad­dress spec­ified in Sec­tion 4, “In­for­ma­tion about do­na­tions to the Project Guten­berg Lit­er­ary Archive Foun­da­tion.”

- You pro­vide a full re­fund of any mon­ey paid by a us­er who no­ti­fies you in writ­ing (or by e-​mail) with­in 30 days of re­ceipt that s/he does not agree to the terms of the full Project Guten­berg-​tm Li­cense. You must re­quire such a us­er to re­turn or de­stroy all copies of the works pos­sessed in a phys­ical medi­um and dis­con­tin­ue all use of and all ac­cess to oth­er copies of Project Guten­berg-​tm works.

- You pro­vide, in ac­cor­dance with para­graph 1.F.3, a full re­fund of any mon­ey paid for a work or a re­place­ment copy, if a de­fect in the elec­tron­ic work is dis­cov­ered and re­port­ed to you with­in 90 days of re­ceipt of the work.

- You com­ply with all oth­er terms of this agree­ment for free dis­tri­bu­tion of Project Guten­berg-​tm works.

1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or dis­tribute a Project Guten­berg-​tm elec­tron­ic work or group of works on dif­fer­ent terms than are set forth in this agree­ment, you must ob­tain per­mis­sion in writ­ing from both the Project Guten­berg Lit­er­ary Archive Foun­da­tion and Michael Hart, the own­er of the Project Guten­berg-​tm trade­mark. Con­tact the Foun­da­tion as set forth in Sec­tion 3 be­low.

1.F.

1.F.1. Project Guten­berg vol­un­teers and em­ploy­ees ex­pend con­sid­er­able ef­fort to iden­ti­fy, do copy­right re­search on, tran­scribe and proof­read pub­lic do­main works in cre­at­ing the Project Guten­berg-​tm col­lec­tion. De­spite these ef­forts, Project Guten­berg-​tm elec­tron­ic works, and the medi­um on which they may be stored, may con­tain “De­fects,” such as, but not lim­it­ed to, in­com­plete, in­ac­cu­rate or cor­rupt da­ta, tran­scrip­tion er­rors, a copy­right or oth­er in­tel­lec­tu­al prop­er­ty in­fringe­ment, a de­fec­tive or dam­aged disk or oth­er medi­um, a com­put­er virus, or com­put­er codes that dam­age or can­not be read by your equip­ment.

1.F.2. LIM­IT­ED WAR­RAN­TY, DIS­CLAIMER OF DAM­AGES - Ex­cept for the “Right of Re­place­ment or Re­fund” de­scribed in para­graph 1.F.3, the Project Guten­berg Lit­er­ary Archive Foun­da­tion, the own­er of the Project Guten­berg-​tm trade­mark, and any oth­er par­ty dis­tribut­ing a Project Guten­berg-​tm elec­tron­ic work un­der this agree­ment, dis­claim all li­abil­ity to you for dam­ages, costs and ex­pens­es, in­clud­ing le­gal fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REME­DIES FOR NEG­LI­GENCE, STRICT LI­ABIL­ITY, BREACH OF WAR­RAN­TY OR BREACH OF CON­TRACT EX­CEPT THOSE PRO­VID­ED IN PARA­GRAPH F3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUN­DA­TION, THE TRADE­MARK OWN­ER, AND ANY DIS­TRIB­UTOR UN­DER THIS AGREE­MENT WILL NOT BE LI­ABLE TO YOU FOR AC­TU­AL, DI­RECT, IN­DI­RECT, CON­SE­QUEN­TIAL, PUNI­TIVE OR IN­CI­DEN­TAL DAM­AGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NO­TICE OF THE POS­SI­BIL­ITY OF SUCH DAM­AGE.

1.F.3. LIM­IT­ED RIGHT OF RE­PLACE­MENT OR RE­FUND - If you dis­cov­er a de­fect in this elec­tron­ic work with­in 90 days of re­ceiv­ing it, you can re­ceive a re­fund of the mon­ey (if any) you paid for it by send­ing a writ­ten ex­pla­na­tion to the per­son you re­ceived the work from. If you re­ceived the work on a phys­ical medi­um, you must re­turn the medi­um with your writ­ten ex­pla­na­tion. The per­son or en­ti­ty that pro­vid­ed you with the de­fec­tive work may elect to pro­vide a re­place­ment copy in lieu of a re­fund. If you re­ceived the work elec­tron­ical­ly, the per­son or en­ti­ty pro­vid­ing it to you may choose to give you a sec­ond op­por­tu­ni­ty to re­ceive the work elec­tron­ical­ly in lieu of a re­fund. If the sec­ond copy is al­so de­fec­tive, you may de­mand a re­fund in writ­ing with­out fur­ther op­por­tu­ni­ties to fix the prob­lem.

1.F.4. Ex­cept for the lim­it­ed right of re­place­ment or re­fund set forth in para­graph 1.F.3, this work is pro­vid­ed to you 'AS-​IS' WITH NO OTH­ER WAR­RANTIES OF ANY KIND, EX­PRESS OR IM­PLIED, IN­CLUD­ING BUT NOT LIM­IT­ED TO WAR­RANTIES OF MER­CHAN­TIBIL­ITY OR FIT­NESS FOR ANY PUR­POSE.

1.F.5. Some states do not al­low dis­claimers of cer­tain im­plied war­ranties or the ex­clu­sion or lim­ita­tion of cer­tain types of dam­ages. If any dis­claimer or lim­ita­tion set forth in this agree­ment vi­olates the law of the state ap­pli­ca­ble to this agree­ment, the agree­ment shall be in­ter­pret­ed to make the max­imum dis­claimer or lim­ita­tion per­mit­ted by the ap­pli­ca­ble state law. The in­va­lid­ity or un­en­force­abil­ity of any pro­vi­sion of this agree­ment shall not void the re­main­ing pro­vi­sions.

1.F.6. IN­DEM­NI­TY - You agree to in­dem­ni­fy and hold the Foun­da­tion, the trade­mark own­er, any agent or em­ploy­ee of the Foun­da­tion, any­one pro­vid­ing copies of Project Guten­berg-​tm elec­tron­ic works in ac­cor­dance with this agree­ment, and any vol­un­teers as­so­ci­at­ed with the pro­duc­tion, pro­mo­tion and dis­tri­bu­tion of Project Guten­berg-​tm elec­tron­ic works, harm­less from all li­abil­ity, costs and ex­pens­es, in­clud­ing le­gal fees, that arise di­rect­ly or in­di­rect­ly from any of the fol­low­ing which you do or cause to oc­cur: (a) dis­tri­bu­tion of this or any Project Guten­berg-​tm work, (b) al­ter­ation, mod­ifi­ca­tion, or ad­di­tions or dele­tions to any Project Guten­berg-​tm work, and (c) any De­fect you cause.

Sec­tion 2. In­for­ma­tion about the Mis­sion of Project Guten­berg-​tm

Project Guten­berg-​tm is syn­ony­mous with the free dis­tri­bu­tion of elec­tron­ic works in for­mats read­able by the widest va­ri­ety of com­put­ers in­clud­ing ob­so­lete, old, mid­dle-​aged and new com­put­ers. It ex­ists be­cause of the ef­forts of hun­dreds of vol­un­teers and do­na­tions from peo­ple in all walks of life.

Vol­un­teers and fi­nan­cial sup­port to pro­vide vol­un­teers with the as­sis­tance they need, is crit­ical to reach­ing Project Guten­berg-​tm's goals and en­sur­ing that the Project Guten­berg-​tm col­lec­tion will re­main freely avail­able for gen­er­ations to come. In 2001, the Project Guten­berg Lit­er­ary Archive Foun­da­tion was cre­at­ed to pro­vide a se­cure and per­ma­nent fu­ture for Project Guten­berg-​tm and fu­ture gen­er­ations. To learn more about the Project Guten­berg Lit­er­ary Archive Foun­da­tion and how your ef­forts and do­na­tions can help, see Sec­tions 3 and 4 and the Foun­da­tion web page at http://www.pglaf.org.

Sec­tion 3. In­for­ma­tion about the Project Guten­berg Lit­er­ary Archive Foun­da­tion

The Project Guten­berg Lit­er­ary Archive Foun­da­tion is a non prof­it 501(c)(3) ed­uca­tion­al cor­po­ra­tion or­ga­nized un­der the laws of the state of Mis­sis­sip­pi and grant­ed tax ex­empt sta­tus by the In­ter­nal Rev­enue Ser­vice. The Foun­da­tion's EIN or fed­er­al tax iden­ti­fi­ca­tion num­ber is 64-6221541. Its 501(c)(3) let­ter is post­ed at http://pglaf.org/fundrais­ing. Con­tri­bu­tions to the Project Guten­berg Lit­er­ary Archive Foun­da­tion are tax de­ductible to the full ex­tent per­mit­ted by U.S. fed­er­al laws and your state's laws.

The Foun­da­tion's prin­ci­pal of­fice is lo­cat­ed at 4557 Melan Dr. S. Fair­banks, AK, 99712., but its vol­un­teers and em­ploy­ees are scat­tered through­out nu­mer­ous lo­ca­tions. Its busi­ness of­fice is lo­cat­ed at 809 North 1500 West, Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887, email busi­ness@pglaf.org. Email con­tact links and up to date con­tact in­for­ma­tion can be found at the Foun­da­tion's web site and of­fi­cial page at http://pglaf.org

For ad­di­tion­al con­tact in­for­ma­tion: Dr. Gre­go­ry B. New­by Chief Ex­ec­utive and Di­rec­tor gb­new­by@pglaf.org

Sec­tion 4. In­for­ma­tion about Do­na­tions to the Project Guten­berg Lit­er­ary Archive Foun­da­tion

Project Guten­berg-​tm de­pends up­on and can­not sur­vive with­out wide spread pub­lic sup­port and do­na­tions to car­ry out its mis­sion of in­creas­ing the num­ber of pub­lic do­main and li­censed works that can be freely dis­tribut­ed in ma­chine read­able form ac­ces­si­ble by the widest ar­ray of equip­ment in­clud­ing out­dat­ed equip­ment. Many small do­na­tions ($1 to $5,000) are par­tic­ular­ly im­por­tant to main­tain­ing tax ex­empt sta­tus with the IRS.

The Foun­da­tion is com­mit­ted to com­ply­ing with the laws reg­ulat­ing char­ities and char­ita­ble do­na­tions in all 50 states of the Unit­ed States. Com­pli­ance re­quire­ments are not uni­form and it takes a con­sid­er­able ef­fort, much pa­per­work and many fees to meet and keep up with these re­quire­ments. We do not so­lic­it do­na­tions in lo­ca­tions where we have not re­ceived writ­ten con­fir­ma­tion of com­pli­ance. To SEND DO­NA­TIONS or de­ter­mine the sta­tus of com­pli­ance for any par­tic­ular state vis­it http://pglaf.org

While we can­not and do not so­lic­it con­tri­bu­tions from states where we have not met the so­lic­ita­tion re­quire­ments, we know of no pro­hi­bi­tion against ac­cept­ing un­so­licit­ed do­na­tions from donors in such states who ap­proach us with of­fers to do­nate.

In­ter­na­tion­al do­na­tions are grate­ful­ly ac­cept­ed, but we can­not make any state­ments con­cern­ing tax treat­ment of do­na­tions re­ceived from out­side the Unit­ed States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff.

Please check the Project Guten­berg Web pages for cur­rent do­na­tion meth­ods and ad­dress­es. Do­na­tions are ac­cept­ed in a num­ber of oth­er ways in­clud­ing in­clud­ing checks, on­line pay­ments and cred­it card do­na­tions. To do­nate, please vis­it: http://pglaf.org/do­nate

Sec­tion 5. Gen­er­al In­for­ma­tion About Project Guten­berg-​tm elec­tron­ic works.

Pro­fes­sor Michael S. Hart is the orig­ina­tor of the Project Guten­berg-​tm con­cept of a li­brary of elec­tron­ic works that could be freely shared with any­one. For thir­ty years, he pro­duced and dis­tribut­ed Project Guten­berg-​tm eBooks with on­ly a loose net­work of vol­un­teer sup­port.

Project Guten­berg-​tm eBooks are of­ten cre­at­ed from sev­er­al print­ed edi­tions, all of which are con­firmed as Pub­lic Do­main in the U.S. un­less a copy­right no­tice is in­clud­ed. Thus, we do not nec­es­sar­ily keep eBooks in com­pli­ance with any par­tic­ular pa­per edi­tion.

Most peo­ple start at our Web site which has the main PG search fa­cil­ity:

http://www.guten­berg.net