The anonymous author, a member of the Philadelphia bar, opens this pamphlet by explaining its origin: a phonographic report of the Christiana treason trials was taken by order of the court but never published in full. The present work aims to fill that gap, drawing on official dockets, prison records, and the writer's own recollections. The preface also takes aim at a rival pamphlet by Mr. Brent, which the author dismisses as a vehicle for 'spleen and mortification' rather than a fair account. This combative tone signals that the narrative is not neutral but shaped by the author's legal perspective and evident frustration with the prosecution's conduct.

The Author's Sources and Stated Purpose

The preface lists the documentary foundations of the pamphlet: the phonographic trial transcript, dockets from Alderman Reigart and Commissioner Ingraham, records of the Philadelphia County Prison and the federal courts, and files of the Evening Bulletin. Where these sources left gaps, the author relied on his own memory or that of friends who attended the trial. This explicit disclosure of method is unusual for a partisan pamphlet and suggests an effort to establish credibility. The author also notes that Mr. Brent's competing report had a 'very limited circulation' and was issued 'by the authority of the State,' implying that the present work is a corrective to official bias. The preface thus frames the pamphlet as both a public service and a rebuttal.

Prison Conditions and Witnesses' Escape

The author describes the Moyamensing Prison as 'badly ventilated and miserably heated,' with cells lacking fires during cold weather. Some prisoners 'predisposed to pulmonary complaints' suffered severely, and the court eventually ordered better quarters for two of them. A more dramatic episode involves the escape of two prosecution witnesses from the Debtors' Apartment on November 9, 1851. They used their cell shutters and blankets to flee, accompanied by a white man held on another charge. The District Attorney sought a writ of habeas corpus for the runaways, but the defense argued the escape actually harmed their clients, as the missing witnesses might have helped the accused. The author mocks the prosecution's claim that the witnesses would not flee because they received $1.25 per day, retorting that 'most men, whatever their complexion, would prefer the light and air of heaven at 50 cents per day, to a cell 8 by 12.'

Contradictions in Official Accounts

The author highlights a telling inconsistency between two official narratives of the escape. One official insinuated that the witnesses were 'assisted from without,' while another claimed 'assistance came from within.' The author points out that the witnesses were under the 'strict and especial charge of the government officers,' making outside help unlikely. He also notes that Moyamensing was 'notoriously insecure,' with iron bars merely set into mortar that a prisoner could remove with a knife. By juxtaposing these details, the author undermines the prosecution's insinuations of conspiracy and shifts suspicion onto the prison's own lax security. This pattern of exposing contradictions recurs throughout the pamphlet, reflecting the author's legal training and his aim to discredit the government's case.

Readers should approach this pamphlet as a lawyer's brief, not a dispassionate history. The author's selection of details—from the prison's poor ventilation to the escape of witnesses—serves to highlight what he sees as prosecutorial overreach and official incompetence. The work is valuable for its contemporary perspective on the tensions surrounding the Fugitive Slave Act, but its partisan origins mean that every claim should be weighed against other sources. The author's own acknowledgment of relying on memory and friends' accounts is a reminder of the limits of this record.