IN an sons., 31
diverse state interests and policies, might prevent the return of fugi-
tives from justice and labor, and to guard against inconvenience in
these matters, the power was conferred upon the general government -
over these subjects, and it is supreme. So, also, the constitution
provided for courts to administer the laws of the United States. In
pursuance of the provisions cited relating to the returuof fugitives
from justice and labor, congress, in 1793, passedran act for the re-
turn of both classes offugitives. 1 St. 302. Sections 1 and 2 of
that act, relating to fugitives from justice, have been carried into the
Revised Statutes of the United States, and constitute sections 5278
and 5279, which, so far as applicable to this easeyread as follows :~
"Sec. 5278. Whenever the executive authority of any state or territory de-
mands any person, as a fugitive from justice, of the executive authority of any
state or territory to which such person has tied, and produces a copy of an
indictment found, or an affidavit made before a magistate of any state or ter-
ritory, charging the persondemanded with having committed treason, fel-
ony, or other crime, certified as authentic by the governor or chief magistrate
of the state or territory from whence the person so charged has tied, it shall
be the duty of the executive authority of the state or territory to which such
person has fled to cause him to be arrested and secured, and to cause notice
to be given to the executive authority making such demand, or to the agent
of such authority appointed to receive the fugitive, and to cause the fugitive
to be delivered to such agent when he shall appear.
"Sec. 5279. Any agent so appointed who receives the fugitive into his cus-
tody shall be empowered to transport him to the state or territory from which
he has tied. And every person who, by force, sets at liberty or rescues the
fugitive from such agent, while so transporting him, shall be fined not more
than five hundred dollars, or imprisoned not more than one year. "
When the governor of a state, acting under this statute, upon the _ ·
demand of the authorities of another state, issues his warrant for the
arrest of a party charged with a crime, and that party is arrested by
any proper officer, and delivered over to the pa1·ty empowered by the
state in which the offense was committed, to be carried to that state
and delivered to its proper authorities, we have no doubt that the .
governor issuing the warrant, the oihcer executing it, and the party
to whom he is delivered, are acting by virtue and under the authority
of the act of congress, and no other, and pro hac vice are oiiicers or
agents of the United States. Ea: parte Smith, 3 McLean, 129; Prigg’s
Case, 16 Pet. 539. From the time of arrest till he is delivered to
the authorities of the state demanding his surrender, the party is in
the custody of the law,—and that law a law of the United States,
and the supreme law of the land. In this case Bayley had been ar-
rested upon a warrant issued by the governor of California, on a de- u
mand by the governor of Oregon, and delivered into the custody of
the petitioner, Robb, who was duly commissioned and authorized by
the governor of Oregon to receive him and convey him to Oregon,
which duty he was engaged in performing, in pursuance of the pro-
visions of the act of congress, when he was served with the writ of