New-York daily tribune., 1858-03-17

'Otect, published to-day. The victim OF this out
rsge, named Arcby, had formerly been slave
In MifsissipPi but having been brought BY his
former owner into California, under the Con-
stitution of the State ard according TO the law
as settled by numerous decisions, be thereby be-
came free. The Mississippi master, after resi-
deDce IN the State, during which he bought farm
ard taught school, concluded to move back again.
Archy, however, who, in ignorance at fret oil
his rights, had submitted to be hired out, now
claimed bis liberty under the laws of California and
missioner was applied to- but declined TO have any
thing TO do with the case on the ground that Archy
instead of flying from Mississippi, had come to Cali
fornia in company with the claimant County
Judge from whom Arcby had sued out writ OF
habeas corpus, after a long and most uOjusthable
hesitation, found himself constrained to recognize
Arcby as a free man. But in this emergency two
judges Of the Supreme Court come TO the claim
ants assistance, reduce the unfortunate Archy to
Slavery, and hand him over to the claimant, to be
carried out Of the State.
These two Judges seem TO have improved the
opportunity to decide Dred Scott fashion, several
points in favor Of Slavery which did not come
before them, and more particularly to lay il down
as law that shareholders possess the right of travel
ing at pleasure through the Free States, taking
their slaves with them. This doctrine seryiceabe
it may be for cases to arise hereafter, did not
however meet the necessities of the present claim
ant He was no traveller, and even of these tSO
I,l h,,+ fba lappn n
attempt to pass him of as such. He had settled
in the State, had bought land, and had pursued
regular occupation a schOolmaster 1t was
necessary therefore, 10 look round for some other
prttcnse upon which to reduce Archy to slavery.
This pretense was found not in any principles or
alleged principles of law, but was made entirely
matter of favor. The Court decided, in fact that
neither the law of California nor the Constitution
of the United States furnished any grounds upon
which Archy could be held as a slave. BY law. he
s free But what of that Has not Judge
fancy intimated, as the settled conviction of this
country and the basis Of all our Institutions that
negroes have no rights which white men are bound
to respect? Accordingly, while this Court holds
that by law Archy is free these two Judges, as a
mark of their special favor for the claimant, pro-
coed to reduce him to slavery The claimant is a
young man, out of health, and probably he was
ignorant of the law. On these grounds, he is ex
empted from its operation, with special caveat
that this case shall not operate as precedent!
The injustice thus done TO Archy may seem to the
good people of California matter of trhiog cOnse
qucnce. But decent degree of self-respect would
sppear TO require them to take Instant stepsiorpun
ishiDg man who thus dares to bring the admins
traton of justice into ridicule and contempt 1t is
bad enough to be obliged to put up with wrong de-
cisions, but this open disregard of all law, this
avoWal of special personal favor the ground upon
which case is decided this acknowledgment of
Injustice in the declaration that future cases will be
decided differently, can hardly be allowed to pass
without serious notice.