d 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 order