United States newspapers, 1799

Thomas is a named addressee, and Kentucky the geographic qualifier. The Lexington post-office heading is preserved separately. The notice says uncollected letters would be returned after three months; no collection, occupation, age, household or exact residence is proved. No existing profile is identified. Glasgow-3592 and Glasgow-1620 are weak chronology-only comparisons with no Kentucky or correspondence bridge. Other compatible namesakes remain open; a birthplace or absent migration field is not an exclusion. Identity review (6 October 2026): Thomas Glasgow, 'Kentucky', is listed among letters remaining at the Lexington post office (printed 24 January 1799). No WikiTree profile fits: the two prior comparisons are Irish- and Scottish-recorded men with no Kentucky link, and one died in Scotland. No compatible WikiTree profile after a duplicate search for: Thomas Glasgow.

Thomas is the subscriber and reported victim; William Steel is the alleged thief. The notice states Thomas’s location but gives no age or family. Reward checked visually as twenty dollars, not fifty. Identity review (6 October 2026): 'STOP THIEF': Thomas Glascoe reports $115 stolen from his house on Tinicum Island, near Chester on the Delaware, on 31 March 1799, by a man calling himself William Steel (notice dated 9 April 1799). No WikiTree profile fits this Thomas Glascoe; the Dublin-born Glasco profiles have no American record. No compatible WikiTree profile after a duplicate search for: Thomas Glascoe.

Printed trustee and planned committee roster, not proof of attendance, completion of the examination, kinship or individual identity beyond the regional comparison. Identity review (6 October 2026): A University of North Carolina notice dated 10 May 1799 names Mr. James Glasgow, Newbern, among the trustees forming the visitation committee for the 4 July examination. The University's own catalogue lists James Glasgow (of Glasgow County) as a trustee from 1790 to 1801, and Battle's history names the Secretary of State James Glasgow among trustees at examinations. This is a strong match to Glasgow-634.

Two issues repeat the same township list. Resolution V directs the proceedings to be signed by the chairman, secretary and citizens present; the township names follow Robert Galbraith, chairman. John is apparently a participating citizen, without an individually specified office or signature mark. This is Huntingdon County context, not modern Allegheny County; no family role is stated. Identity remains unresolved. Compatible candidates have chronology only, without an individual place, occupation or family bridge. These three John contexts may involve different men; the two Allegheny reprints are one list. Identity review (6 October 2026): John Glasgow is listed under Allegheny Township in a township-grouped list of Huntingdon County election-meeting participants (September 1799). Allegheny Township passed into Cambria County in 1804, where Glasgow-664 (John Glasgow, 1777–1845) was enumerated in Allegheny Township in 1820 and died at Glasgow, Cambria County. That makes Glasgow-664 a stronger possible match than before. An older John Glasgo, head of a Huntingdon County household in 1790, has no profile and competes.

Full named paragraph recaptured and checked. Long s is normalized in Glascoe and Kingsessing. The full resolutions and political purpose have not been examined; no age or family is stated. Identity review (6 October 2026): Nathaniel R. Glascoe is named on the Kingsessing Township committee to act with the county committee (Aurora, 13 September 1799). He has no WikiTree profile under any spelling. No compatible WikiTree profile after a duplicate search for: Nathaniel R. Glascoe.

Reported commissioners’ allegations and conclusions, not an adjudicated conviction. The bounded paragraph introduces the attributed practices; later continuation gives further allegations. No family connection is stated. Identity review (6 October 2026): A commissioners' report printed in the Raleigh papers in December 1799 names James Glasgow, Esq., 'the late Secretary', and attributes irregular military land warrants to him. This is a strong match to Glasgow-634.

Continuation of the commissioners’ report: these are attributed allegations, including a proposed need for Holladay’s testimony, not independent evidence of guilt or an adjudicated conviction. Harrison and Holladay are distinct people; county of Glasgow is a place. Only the clean left column is preserved here. Identity review (6 October 2026): The Raleigh Minerva continuation of the commissioners' report (17 Dec 1799) alleges that James Glasgow handled a warrant and assignment involving soldier James Harrison and witness Samuel Holladay, and grants issued by the Secretary to himself. This is a strong match to Glasgow-634. Harrison and Holladay are not his kin.

The document is reproduced as part of a response to allegations: this newspaper extract does not authenticate a signature, title or completed transfer. Francis claims Harrison kinship; it is not Glasgow kinship. Publication in December 1799 differs from the printed deed date 1785. The two Register 31 December URLs are archive copies of the same page. The supplementary reply passage attributes unsigned warrants to hurried business and denies fraudulent intention; this is his reported explanation, not a finding that the accusations were disproved. Identity review (6 October 2026): A printed reply to the warrant accusations (Raleigh, late December 1799) reproduces a conveyance dated 20 July 1785 by which Francis Harrison, claiming as heir-at-law, purportedly transferred his rights in the military lands of Stephen and James Harrison to James Glasgow, witnessed by Samuel Holladay. This is a strong match to Glasgow-634. The kinship stated is among the Harrisons, not with Glasgow.

This paragraph announces a reply without printing its text. Forename is not stated in this bounded notice; attribution to James follows the same issue’s late-Secretary report and remains contextual. It establishes neither guilt nor exoneration. Identity review (6 October 2026): The Weekly Raleigh Register (24 Dec 1799) says it has seen Mr. Glasgow's reply to the land-fraud charges and will print it. No forename is given, but the same-issue context of the late Secretary's land-warrant case makes Glasgow-634 probable.

This is the committee’s reported statement, not a conviction or an exact arrest date. Its language about offenders is attributed, not adopted as an independently proved description. Identity review (6 October 2026): A committee report (Raleigh Minerva, 31 Dec 1799) says that of those it considered offenders in the land-warrant matter, none had been arrested except James Glasgow. This is a strong match to Glasgow-634.

Conditional proposed trial provision, not proof that a trial occurred, that an amendment became law or that guilt was adjudicated. Identity review (6 October 2026): A legislative debate report (Weekly Raleigh Register, 31 Dec 1799) mentions a proposed amendment to include James Glasgow's case, should it be thought proper to bring him to trial. This is a strong match to Glasgow-634, whose trial took place in 1800.