m an sons. 83
and the cases were heard upon copies of the records, permitted by
the supreme court to be filed, upon affidavits stating the facts.
In discussing the powers of the state and national courts, the court,
speaking by its chief justice, says:
"If the judicial power exercised in this instance has been reserved to the
states, no offense against the laws of the United States can be punished by
their own courts without the permission and according to the judgment of
the courts of the state in which the party happened to be imprisoned; for if
the supreme court; of Wisconsin possessed the power it has exercised in re-
lation to offenses against the act of congress in question, it necessarily fol·
lows that they must have the same judicial authority in relation to any other
law of the United States; and, consequently, their supervising and control-
ling power would embrace the whole criminal code of the United States, and
extend to offenses against our revenue laws, or any other law intended to
guard the different departments of the general government from fraud or
yiolence. And it would embrace all crimes, from the highest to the lowest,
including felonies, which are punished with death, as well as misdemeanors,
which are punished by imprisonment. And moreover, if the power is pos-
sessed by the supreme court of the state of Wisconsin, it must belong equally
to every other state in the Union, when the prisoner is within its territorial
limits; and it is very certain that the state courts would not always agree in
opinion; and it would often happen thatan act which was admitted to be an
offense, and justly punished, in one state, would be regarded as innocent,
and indeed as praiseworthy, in another.
"It would seem to be hardly necessary to do more than state the result
to which these decisions of the state courts must inevitably lead, It is, of
itself, a sunicient and conclusive answer; for no one will suppose that a gov-
ernment which has now lasted nearly seventy years, enforcing its laws, by its
ohm tribunals, and preserving the union of the states, could have lasted a
single year, or fullilled the high trusts committed to it, if offenses against its
laws could not have been punished without the consent of the state in which
the culprit was found.
" The judges of the supreme court of Wisconsin do not distinctly state from
what source they suppose they have derived this judicial power. There can
be no such thing as judicial authority, unless it is conferred by a govern-
ment or sovereignty; and if the judges and courts of Wisconsin possess the
jurisdiction they claim, they must derive it either from the United States or
the state. It certainly has not been conferred on them by the United States;
and it is equally clear it was not in the power of the state to confer it, even
if it had attempted to do so; for no state can authorize one of its judges, or
courts, to exercise judicial power by habeas corpus, or otherwise, within the
jurisdiction of another and independent government. _And although the
state of Wisconsin is sovereign within its territorial limits to a certain ex-
tent, yet that sovereignty is limited and restricted by the constitution of the
United States. And the powers of the general government and of the state,
although both exist and are exercised within the same territorial limits, are
yet separate and distinct sovereignties, acting separately and independently
of each other, within their respective spheres. And the sphere of action ap-
propriated to the United States is far beyond the reach of the judicial process
issued by a state judge or a state court, as if the line of division was traced
by landmarks and monuments visible to the eye. And the state of Wis-
consin had no more power to authorize these proceedings of its judges and
courts than it would have had if the prisoner had been confined in Michigan,
or in any other state of the Union, for an offense against the laws of the
state in which he was imprisoned? 21 How. 514. .
v.l9,no.1—3