Tarble's Case

Mr. B. H. Bristow, Solicitor-General, contra, and for the United States, cited as conclusive the cases of Ableman v. Booth and United States v. Booth, in this court,1 in which cases the action of the Supreme Court of Wisconsin–the same court to which the writ of error in the present case had gone–in disregarding the action of the Federal courts or their officers under the act of Congress known as the Fugitive Slave Law–because, as the Wisconsin court held, the act was unconstitutional and void, and could therefore give the Federal court no jurisdiction–was overruled, and itself held unconstitutional and void. The present case, Mr. Bristow argued, was covered in principle by the decisions cited, and those decisions had been applied in instance by several State courts to the case of an enlisted soldier in the army of the United States.2