If, as was freely declared by the abolitionists, it was possible for free negroes to be abducted from the Northern states under the form of procedure laid down by the act of 1793, there can be little reason to doubt that the same thing was equally possible under the procedure established by the act of 1850. Certain it is that the anti-slavery people were not dubious on this point, but they had scarcely had time to formulate their criticisms of the new law when the first case under it of which there is any record demonstrated the ease with which this legislation could be taken advantage of in the commission of a foul injustice. The case occurred September 26, only eight days after the passage of the act. A free negro, James Hamlet, then living in New York, was arrested as the slave of Mary Brown, of Baltimore. The hearing took place before a United States commissioner and the negro's removal followed at once. The community in which Hamlet was living was greatly incensed when the facts concerning his disappearance became known, and the sum of money necessary for his redemption was quickly contributed. Before a fortnight had elapsed he was brought back from slavery.[793] [793] Marion G. McDougall, _Fugitive Slaves_, pp. 43 and 44, with the references there given; Wilson, _Rise and Fall of the Slave Power_, Vol. II, pp. 304, 305. See Appendix B, p. 372. The summary manner in which this case was disposed of had prevented a defence being made in behalf of the supposed fugitive. In the next case, however, that of Thomas Sims, which was tried before the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts in 1851, the negro was represented by competent counsel, who brought forward objections against the second Fugitive Slave Law. Almost the first of these was directed against the power of the special officers, the commissioners, created by the new law. It was insisted that the authority with which these officers were invested was distinctly judicial in character, despite the constitutional provision limiting the exercise of the judicial power of the United States to organized courts of justice, composed of judges, holding their offices during good behavior, and receiving fixed salaries for their services.[794] The same argument seems to have been adduced in Scott's case, tried before the District Court of the United States in Massachusetts in 1851; in the case of Miller _vs._ McQuerry, tried before the Circuit Court of the United States in Ohio in 1853;[795] in Booth's case, argued in the Supreme Court of Wisconsin in 1854;[796] in the case known as _ex parte_ Robinson, adjudicated by the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of Ohio at its April term, 1855;[797] and in the case _ex parte_ Simeon Bushnell, argued and determined in the Supreme Court of Ohio in 1859.[798] The court met this argument by a direct answer in four of the cases mentioned, namely, those of Sims, Scott, Booth and _ex parte_ Robinson. In the