Imágenes de páginas
[ocr errors]


It was pointed out by Chief Justice Hughes in Silas Mason & Company V. Tax Commission,6 “Our system of Government is a practical adjustment by which the national authority may be maintained in its full scope without unnecessary loss of local efficiency. In acquiring property, the Federal function in view may be performed without disturbing the local administration in matters which may still appropriately pertain to State authority * * *. The possible importance of reserving to the State jurisdiction for local purposes which involve no interference with the performance of governmental functions is becoming more and more clear as the activities of the Government expand and large areas within the States are acquired.”

With growing frequency the Federal Government leaves largely unimpaired the civil and criminal authority of the State over national reservations or properties. Numerous Federal statutes have been enacted which leave undisturbed the jurisdiction of the State over lands acquired for national uses.8

19. Where consent to purchase given, cession of jurisdiction not required. It is not unusual for State statutes consenting to the purchase of land by the United States in terms of the Constitution, to go further and expressly cede jurisdiction to the United States. However, such additional provision is considered unnecessary and superfluous. With respect to lands acquired prior to February 1, 1940, jurisdiction vested ipso facto when the consent was unconditionally given and the land was purchased by the Government pursuant thereto.9 As will be seen in the next succeeding chapter, there must be a formal acceptance of jurisdiction with respect to all lands acquired since February 1, 1940.

20. Consent to purchase may be implied: may be retroactive.No precise or technical language is necessary for a State to surrender all or a part of its jurisdiction to the United States. It is sufficient if the language used clearly indicates the intention of the State to relinquish jurisdiction. In a case involving a Nevada statute, the Attorney General of the United States held that consent may be implied from the language used. In that case, the State had authorized the City of Reno to convey land to the Federal Government for a nominal consideration and “empowered,

6 302 U. S. 186, 58 S. Ct. 233.
7 Steu art & Co. v. Sadrakula, 309 U. S. 94, 101, 60 S. Ct. 431.

8 26 Stat. 842 (1891) (receding to State of Arkansas jurisdiction to tax as personal property all structures and other property in private ownership on the Hot Springs Reservation); 30 Stat. 668 (1898) (jurisdiction receded to States over places purchased for branches of soldiers' homes) ; 49 Stat. 668, 16 U. S. C. Sec. 465 (1935) (waiver of Federal jurisdiction for historic sites) ; 49 Stat. 2025, 40 U. S. C. Sec. 421 (1936) (same for slum-clearance and low-cost housing projects; 49 Stat. 2035 (1936) (same for resettlernent and rural rehabili. tation) ; 50 Stat. 888, Sec. 13 (b), 42 U. S. C., Sec. 1413 (b) (1937) same for acquisitions of U. S. Housing Authority ; 54 Stat. 1125, Lanham (Housing) Act approved Oct. 14, 1940.

Fort Leavenworth Railroad Co. v. Lowe, 114 U. S. 525, 5 S. Ct. 995; United States v. Tucker, 122 Fed. 518; In re Kelly, 71 Fed. 545, United States v. Wurtzbarger, 276 Fed. 753 ; 6 Atty. Gen. 577; 7 Atty. Gen. 571 ; 7 Atty. Gen. 628.

[ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

م . م م هه مه به سر کر

د است که ما می

[ocr errors]


Lars I IITDm 1E Sase. Adik En Gerees at actually

44. BEI ITILTE resa trom amba SA, 1,62"*"34, A2 Over the land concerned. Fift, U. 1, LE 27 February 1, 1940 (64

1 Wibe A, El Pite Hain 355, Devised Statutes, and w1.11.11lkreiliai 236, there was no provision of Federal Tua w kruining 16mal slik plance of jurisdiction by the United

Albreh W, 4k bi uruta san francisco lly. Co. v. Satterfield, 27

ihal Duet **** i kaki ide politieal juriadiction over territory within its borders hii

ka Laisai linta #li Jinplikation, but must find its basis in express enactment. tn btuvenwurth V. Luwe, 114 U. A 626; In re Kelly. 71 Fed. 545.

ALIX. Gen, 411 16.UET (

Cu Co United States, 260 U. 8, 77, 87, 48 S. Ct. 60: United States v. Utah, 25.4 U. S. 64, 76, bls. 438, Buru* ('unsolidated v, Los Angeles. 296 U, S. 10. 22. 56 S. Ct. 23:

244 ('ont in natunt, 803 U, S. 186, 197, 68 S. Ct. 233 : Yellore Cab Transit Co. y. dusch 4

da E Sup. 091 76, Mudelile v. tum (uuhintaisiun, 80% U, S. 18. 206, 207, 38 S. Ct. 933.


(2) 586,


[ocr errors][merged small][merged small]

IL 624, 3

[ocr errors]


lands, the court observing that “the power of the United States to thus protect its land and property does not admit of doubt

the game laws or any other statute of the State to the contrary notwithstanding." 9

In Utah the Government sought to restrain a utility company from using lands of the public domain for certain public utility purposes authorized by State law. It was contended by the company that it had the right to use the lands for such purpose so long as they were not devoted to public uses, that when not so used by the Government they were subject to the jurisdiction of the State. The Supreme Court of the United States disagreed, stating that the inclusion within a State of lands of the United States does not take from Congress the power to control their occupancy and use, to protect them from trespass and injury, and to prescribe the conditions upon which others may maintain rights in them, even though this may involve in some manner the exercise of what is commonly known as the police power.10

The United States owned land in the State of Ohio on which was located a national soldiers' home. Jurisdiction over this land was ceded to the United States but was later receded to the State by Congress. The governor of the home was arrested and tried for serving oleomargarine to the inmates in violation of the State law requiring the posting of certain notices where oleomargarine is used. The Supreme Court of the United States held that since Congress had approved the use of oleomargarine by appropriating money pursuant to detailed requisitions for rations of inmates of the home “whatever jurisdiction the State may have over the place or ground where the institution is located, it can have none to interfere with the provision made by Congress for furnishing food to the inmates of the home, nor has it power to prohibit or regulate the furnishing of any article of food which is approved by the officers of the home, by the board of managers and by Congress". 11

The United States Circuit Court of Appeals sustained the right of the Secretary of the Interior to prescribe rules regulating the use of public highways transversing lands of the United States within the Rocky Mountain National Park. Although noting that the United States had jurisdiction over these highways by virtue of the resolution of the State Highway Commission executed by authority of State law, the court predicated its opinion upon the broader ground that the United States has the sovereign right

Hunt v. United States, 278 U. S. 96, 100, 49 S. Ct. 38; see also Camfield v. United States, 167 U. S. 518, 525, 17 S. Ct. 864; McKelvey v. United States, 260 U. S. 353, 359, 43 S. Ct. 132; United States v. Alford, 274 U. S. 264, 47 S. Ct. 597.

10 Utah Light & Power Co. v. United States, 243 U. S. 389, 404, 37 S. Ct. 387; see also Surplus Trading Co. v. Cook, 281 U. S. 647, 50 S. Ct. 455, 647; Camfield v. United States, 167 U. S. 518, 17 S. Ct. 864.

11 Ohio v. Thomas, 173 U. S. 276, 283, 19 S. Ct. 453; Ferris v. Wilbur, 27 Fed. (2) 262.

[ocr errors]

senting to the purchase by the United States of land as contemplated by Art. I, Sec. 8, Cl. 17 of the Constitution of the United States, which provides that "The Congress shall have the power

* to exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, Dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings." The other method is by legislation expressly ceding jurisdiction to the United States. Enactments of the former class are usually referred to as "consent-to-purchase statutes," and those of the latter class as "cession statutes." However, the term “cession statutes" is often used to refer to enactments of either class.

14. Similarity in two methods by which State relinquishes jurisdiction.—While cases have emphasized a procedural distinction in the two methods by which a State may relinquish jurisdiction to the Federal Government, the difference in their practical effect is more apparent than real. By either method a State may grant either exclusive or partial jurisdiction, the same conditions and reservations may be applied to each, and, in the main, the same rules of construction are applicable to each. Each is in effect a cession of jurisdiction. The distinction once recognized in the effect of the two methods was an outgrowth of the progressive history of the subject and did not spring from any specific rule or principle of law.

15. Reciprocal status of State and Federal Governments.-For some time following the adoption of the Constitution the belief existed that the United States could not acquire lands within the States except in the manner expressly provided by Art. I, Sec. 8, Cl. 17, of the Constitution. It was also believed that the general government should be able to exercise complete legislative and political dominion over all lands so acquired. This seems to have been the understanding of Congress when it adopted the Joint Resolution of September 11, 1841, which provides that no public money shall be expended upon any site or land thereafter to be purchased by the United States for the erection of public buildings of any character until the legislature of the State in which the land may be has consented to its purchase. In course of time, however, the sovereign right of the Government to acquire lands within a State needed for its constitutional uses without regard to the consent of the State was recognized. This authority,


1 Kohl et al. v. United States, 91 U. S. 367. 25 Stat. 468.

« AnteriorContinuar »