Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 3.djvu/487

4^ FBDEKAL EHPORTER. �no question as to who holds the legal title. The protection of individual property belongs to the state tribunals, and 'never bas been vested in any other. This owner, for whom the defendant acta, was correct in invoking judicial author- ity, and appealing to that for protection and relief. That court bas decided that the owner was entitled tbereto, and th© resuit is here in this certificate of the officer who carried into efifect the remediai prooess. The defendant claims he should be discharged because he was acting under the author- ity of that order, and that only. He was holding the posses- Bion of the land into which he as agent had been put judi- cially; that was bis authority. �To this the United States reply and say that they do not deny the action of the court, but insist that the authority of the government is paramount. They say : What is alleged on behalf of the defendant may be true, and it may be equally true that the railroad company may never bave made com- pensation to the owner for the right of way, but that is of no moment or consequence to them. Their right is paramount. It is a right they possess under the constitution of the United States, and laws made in pursuance thereof, and those are the supreme law of the land. This road is declared to be a post-route under those laws, and so long as it remains open the United States bave a clear right to take and use it for the postal service. �These are the positions assumed by the parties to this com- plaint, and it raises the direct question whether federal legis- lative authority, when applied in this intermediate way, is paramount to the state law, by which only the protection of individual property is assured. It is evident, if each stands firmly on the assumed right, the consequences might be very similar to those which would attend the concussion of an im- movable body with one that is irresistible. �I regard the power of the United States, in respect to the transmission of mails, to be supreme and exclusive, when exercised in a direct manner, as it is in cases of bank incor- porations. If it is so exercised in postal matters then our laws and the constitution, under which they act, would forbid ����