In support of the first point, a law of Illinois was read, declaring that whenever the executive of any other state shall demand of the executive of this state any person as a fugitive from justice, and shall have complied with the requisition of the act of Congress in that case made and provided, it shall be the duty of the executive of this state to issue his warrant to apprehend the said fugitive, &c. It would seem that this act does not purport to confer any additional power upon the executive of this state independent of the power conferred by the Constitution and laws of the United States, but to make it the duty of the executive to obey and carry into effect the act of Congress. {225} The warrant on its face purports to be issued in pursuance of the Constitution and laws of the United States, as well as of the state of Illinois. To maintain the position that this warrant was not issued under color or by authority of the laws of the United States, it must be proved that the United States could not confer the power on the executive of Illinois; because if Congress could and did confer it, no act of Illinois could take it away, for the reason that the Constitution and laws of the United States, passed in pursuance of it, and treaties, are the supreme law of the land, and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding. This is enough to dispose of that point. If the Legislature of Illinois, as is probable, intended to make it the _duty_ of the governor to exercise the power granted by Congress, and no more, the executive would be acting by authority of the United States. It may be that the Legislature of Illinois, appreciating the importance of the proper execution of those laws, and doubting whether the governor could be punished for refusing to carry them into effect, deemed it prudent to impose it as a duty, the neglect of which would expose him to impeachment. If it intended more, the law is unconstitutional and void--16 Peters, 617 Prigg _versus_ Pennsylvania. In supporting the second point, the attorney-general seemed to urge that there was greater sanctity in a warrant issued by the governor than by an inferior officer. The court cannot assent to this distinction.