The full sentence is, "No person held to service or labor in one state, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due." The "party to whom such service or labor may be due" is in a different state from where apprehended.
Any other interpretation is in conflict with the verbiage.
But in accordance with the meaning.
State law cannot override constitutional law. The Constitutional law requires that the person "shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due."
Your reading comprehension problems are duly noted.
That is an assumption. The law says nothing about where the "Party" shall be. If it implies anything about the whereabouts of "the party", it implies that he is in the "free state" claiming his slave.
You would make the condition that the slave owner be back in the state under the laws of which his slave is held, but the law does not specify this as a requirement. Therefore it isn't a requirement.
But in accordance with the meaning.
If you are liberally "creative" with the meaning. If you go along with the plain text and in context of 1787 meaning, it doesn't mean at all what you claim.
Your reading comprehension problems are duly noted.
Your desire to deliberately make up interpretations that you prefer is duly noted. Neither the plain words, nor the manner in which the law was applied in 1787 agree with your claims. Furthermore, the slave states would not have agreed to your "interpretation" when the constitution was ratified.